MALVINAS (Falklands) was it worth it?

bob kerr

The only reason for the Falklands war was that Galtieri became impatient with the secret talks between the UK and Argentina seeking a solution that would probably have seen them given to Argentina. When the invasion began the UK had to react. The problem now is that under international law the islanders themselves have a say regarding self determination and as they behave more British than your average mainland citizen it's unlikely they would vote to become part of Argentina. The other problem is there are vast, as yet untapped oil and mineral resources in their international waters which both countries could benefit from. I would envisage a compromise from both sides allowing the Falklands a certain amount of autonomy and some kind of joint exploration programme to the benefit of all.

13caesars

Its not as if the population of the Falklands are crying out to join Argentina. They have the right to self-determination.

By writing "eventually return them to their real owners" you have already chosen which side of the debate you are on. Can you name the Argentinians who really do own these islands?

At one point in recent history the Argentine government may have gained the islands through negotiation. Not now because of this war. Sure it was stupid, unnecessary but unfortunately at the time the Junta picked a fight with a British Prime Minister who enjoyed fighting.

I know that the British took the islands by force in the 19th Century, but the question I have for you is why does the Argentine people feel so strongly about wanting to have them back? Nobody of Spanish descent lives there, nobody who is there wants to be Argentinian. Isn't it just wounded national pride on your part?

michael k

The Malvinas War was a deliberate set-up by Thatcher.Britain was in turmoil because of Thatcher's policies,What better way to unite a country than getting into a war?Britain & Argentina had an understanding that as long as Britain kept a cruiser patrolling the waters around the Malvinas,then Britain would be prepared to defend it.What did Thatcher do?She withdrew the cruiser,there-by leading the Argentinians to think they could move in.The result was war,& Thatcher was re-elected.

Big Blair

Here in Korea, people don't care much about the conflict, but it seems to me that since only the British have ever lived there, and that the people there wish to remain British, that the Faulklands belong to them. Alaska is certainly closer to Quebec than Washington D.C., but what is US soil is US soil. I believe the British, who are the real owners, were probably right to defend their territory. Not a stupid thing at all.

Rattler M

It proved that the RAF were 'utterly useless'. The Navy and Army were there but the crab-fats were unable to bomb targets because it was out of their range.

It also heralded a lot of improvement to RN ships and will probably be the last war between surface combatants. All we need now is to get rid of the RAF and give the planes to the Navy and Army and use the money on buying super carriers.

tonyinspain

WHAT YOU SHOULD ASK IS DO THE ISLANDERS WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY A DICTATOR SHIP I THINK NOT.
AND WHY DID ARGENTINA BITE OFF MORE THAN THEY COULD CHEW.
AND REALLY THE ISLANDS ARE BRITISH THERES NOT A ARGIE LIVING THERE. SO UNLESS YOUR GOVERNMENT CAN GO TO THE ISLANDERS AND ASK WHAT THEY WANT.
I WOULD SAY GET OVER IT THERE IS MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES WITH YOUR OWN COUNTRY THAN A LITTLE ISLAND..
IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BRITAIN ONE THINGS FOR SURE WE DONT LET BIG BULLY COUNTRIES ATTACK LITTLE COUNTRIES AS YOU FOUND OUT AND SO DID SADDAM WHEN HE DECIDED TO INVADE KUWAIT.

Simon D

The Falklands was a stupid war.
Stupid because Argentina invaded it.
After that, it was inevitable.

Whether or not they originally belonged to Argentina is open to question. They were a disputed whaling station for both Britain and Spain in the 1500's. Through both politics and violence from both countries, Britain eventually seized control.
The country of Argentina has never owned them legally, they took possession when Britain abandoned them for a short time. Britain reclaimed.
(The first Argentinian possession was almost identical to the 1982 war)

Today however us Brits don't want the residents to become Argentinian against their will. The British government wants territorial rights to the Antarctic. So Argentina is unlucky both ways. They will probably not get them back until Britain has an indisputable claim over the areas of the Antarctic they currently own.

It is pointless for Argentina to fight for territories that are not only worthless, isolated and tiny, but have never held a single Argentinian family. It is Nationalism, perpetrated by the Argentinian government to distract it's people from bigger problems.

mk_matson

All wars involve stupidity and the ultimate failure of man. But Argentina invaded British territory and Britain could not allow that to stand. What is this return them to their rightful owners crap? You sound like a whiney Palestian he cries for Israel to return land Israel conquered after they were invaded.

hottotrot

The answer to this question surly depends on who you are. If you were a Falklands islander at the time the answer could be yes or no. If you were an Argentine at the time, the answer could be yes or no. If you were part of the task force, again yes or no.

War has a varied affect on all those that are involved. The Falklands (Malvinas) war is still written about today. Many of the books look solely upon the British perspective but there are some that look at the Argentine perspective. I would suggest you read these and get a feel for what those that fought in the war felt at the time and feel now then try to make your own decision.

Ultimately though, in my opinion, the war was needless and should never have happened in the first place. However, it did and that was due to failings and gain from politicians on both sides as is the case in all wars. Even today those in the military who served on both sides are still suffering from the effects of the war (PTSD) and it is said that more have committed suicide than died in the event, whether this is true I don't know.

wei_bei_li

the people there are british apart fromthe penguins so if they say yes we dont mind being ruled by a miliry dictatorship of corrupt johhny gauchos they fine let them but the Argentine just decided one day we'll have those thinking it's a long way from England they wont come to take them back, well wrong weren't they? we don't like people to try to bully us around... they only said it was a stupid war to make ytou feel better as you lost it... cant you see that? whereas I dont care, if you want to be an aggressor then fine but dont do it in our back yard or we'll get our big brother to come and beat up your big brother...ok? and Chile was the owner of the FALKLAND Islands before us they are not the Malvinas.. thanks

Logic is Limited to thought

No war is worth it - costs too many lives and just creates more problems than it solves.

Boscombe

It is strategically impoertant to UK and the West.

Besides the people of Falklands want to remain British and that is democratic.

Anchor Cranker

Yes we should return them to Chile

badshotcop

Of course it wasn't a pointless war, a foreign power invaded OUR territory so we retaliated and won.
As for wether we keep them or return them to their original owners, i think we should keep them. For 2 reasons, firstly it's always handy to have a deterrent in that part of the world, and secondly the Argentinians only want them back because we bloodied their noses the first time around (so they want revenge) and because they think there are huge oil reserves underneath.
Argentina only began to claim the islands anyway after they seceeded from Spanish rule in 1817 as a way to flex their muscle.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: