<Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A FlashbackThe Oil DrumThe Wild 'n' Out Energy of the Burning Man>
<DrumBeat: September 23, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: September 25, 2007>

161 comments on DrumBeat: September 24, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SacredCowTipper on September 24, 2007 - 5:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I was not politically aware when the war was on ... I recall the U.S./U.K. "misalignment" from an article I read within the last year - probably something in the CFR's Foreign Affairs.

Bummer about that, as we got on rather famously on a shared problem back in the 1940s ...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GLT149 on September 24, 2007 - 8:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The US should have helped the Argentines! In fact, the US did provide logistical support for the British, I think in or near Bermuda, as their ships proceeded South.

I am of the opinion that the Argentinians have a legitimate claim on the Falklands (Malvinas) and that the British shoiuld relinquish control of the Islands. The French were the first to settle on East Falkland in 1764. The British settled an outpost on West Falkland in 1765. Spain bought the French outpost and rights to the Island in 1767. The British withdrew in 1774 due to economic reasons while the Spanish remained until 1811. Argentina became independent in 1816 and declared sovereignty over the islands and established settlements in 1828. The British took the islands by force in 1833 and forced the Argentinians to leave. Argentina has maintained its claim ever since.

Although I believe that Argentina has a legitimate claim to the Malvinas, I disagreed with the invasion in 1982. Again, the Malvinas is Argenine territory and should have the rights to all resources around the islands.

See: http://yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
el zorro on September 24, 2007 - 8:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Amen.
I was in the UK during the Falklands War in 1982 and as a Canadian it was embarrassing to see the blatant jingoism on the street and in the tabloids ("gonna get me an Argie!").
This was a 'war we can win' just like the US invasion of Grenada around the same time; a war to increase support of the government in power.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
hightrekker on September 24, 2007 - 9:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Grenada- Wasn't that the last war the US won?
Oh- I forgot about Panama-
It was a distraction for the press, to get the Marine Corp Barracks Bombing in Lebanon off the front page--
And the sheeple went along.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
andyh on September 24, 2007 - 9:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You seem to have forgotten that the Argentines actually invaded the Falklands. Forcibly. Armed with weapons. You also seem to have forgotten that the Argentines at the time were in thrall to a military dictatorship (which had 'disappeared' 10-20,000 of its own people). The Falkland locals did not ask them to invade. At the time (and now) 99% of the population wanted to remain linked to the UK.
As for it being a 'war we can win' - I suggest you study the campaign in detail; the UK forces were operating at the end of a 5000 mile seaborne supply link which was extremely tenuous (with aircover provided by less than 30 Harrier jump jets), and the Argentine military (particularly its aviation) were no Grenadian militia (I wonder if you have heard of the word Exocet?). The loss of one aircraft carrier would have doomed the enterprise. Considering the difficulties with logistics (at one point the Argentines knocked out 90% of the UK forces heavy lifting helicopter force) it was really an immense gamble to even undertake the mission.
Still, hell why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your political bias.......

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ResponsibleAccountable on September 25, 2007 - 1:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

absolutely right

the entire argument seems to be that Argentina is close by therefore they have the right to invade

and as to easy - this was an incredible achievement that few militaries in the world could have matched at the time and the Argentine army was a serious foe
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SacredCowTipper on September 24, 2007 - 9:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Has anyone thought to ask the folks who live there what ought to be done?

Seems like its similar to Gibraltar - an issue between the U.K. and Spain, but the Gibraltarians have their own ideas on what is good for them.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ResponsibleAccountable on September 24, 2007 - 9:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

they did

the islanders didn't want to be Argentinian

just cos a country is close to a small nation doesn't mean it has the right to invade
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
new account on September 25, 2007 - 7:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

just cos a big country is far away from a small nation doesn't mean it has the right to invade

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.