Falklands Islands

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Yes, and in that same quote it specifically says

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice, and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

I guess because you come from the point of "everything is fair in love and war" and I come from an opposite idea, I think I'm just wasting both our time...I'm done with this thread.

Saludos,

Caro

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to add much but what I think Caro should have driven at more would be in the realm of "rules of engagement."

Indeed the claims over the islands, inhabited or not, set in history are indeed a very sticky situation.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Yes, and in that same quote it specifically says

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice, and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

I guess because you come from the point of "everything is fair in love and war" and I come from an opposite idea, I think I'm just wasting both our time...I'm done with this thread.

Saludos,

Caro

what one can consider to be a direct threat is nebulous at best, given how quickly ships can move.

[DairyFarmer 1]

Okay Okay, so everyone decided this thread was actually a discussion about the name and thereby a discussion of the war.

But how about the original question???

John was wanting to know about the place. Has anyone actually been there? With an obvious interest in farming, he was looking to find out more about the islands themselves rather than just anecdotes from the internet.

thanks

Melannie

PS Would appreciated not being flamed it at all possible.

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

There really isn't anything there. I do not know about the farming.

But as you can see, this is a VERY hot topic with Argentinos. As soon as I read the topic, I knew what was going to happen. The year I spent in Argentina, I got to see how strongly they feel about the island. And the war, and the people that died.

Becasuse there is nothing there, it is not about what is there, it's about the island and the vacinity to Argentina. It would be the same as if another country tried to say that they had posession of Rhode Island.

I know the answers here aren't what you were looking for, but it is a very touchy subject.

[DairyFarmer 1]

There really isn't anything there. I do not know about the farming.

But as you can see, this is a VERY hot topic with Argentinos. As soon as I read the topic, I knew what was going to happen. The year I spent in Argentina, I got to see how strongly they feel about the island. And the war, and the people that died.

Becasuse there is nothing there, it is not about what is there, it's about the island and the vacinity to Argentina. It would be the same as if another country tried to say that they had posession of Rhode Island.

I know the answers here aren't what you were looking for, but it is a very touchy subject.

Just information about a place that looks wild, interesting and beautiful despite its terrible history.

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

There really isn't anything there. I do not know about the farming.

But as you can see, this is a VERY hot topic with Argentinos. As soon as I read the topic, I knew what was going to happen. The year I spent in Argentina, I got to see how strongly they feel about the island. And the war, and the people that died.

Becasuse there is nothing there, it is not about what is there, it's about the island and the vacinity to Argentina. It would be the same as if another country tried to say that they had posession of Rhode Island.

I know the answers here aren't what you were looking for, but it is a very touchy subject.

Just information about a place that looks wild, interesting and beautiful despite its terrible history.

I understand what you are looking for and why. But when this subject is brought up, it is going to bring up bad feelings. I have seen fights in bars in Buenos Aires because of this subject.

But, try this website.

http://www.visitorfalklands.com/

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

There really isn't anything there. I do not know about the farming.

But as you can see, this is a VERY hot topic with Argentinos. As soon as I read the topic, I knew what was going to happen. The year I spent in Argentina, I got to see how strongly they feel about the island. And the war, and the people that died.

Becasuse there is nothing there, it is not about what is there, it's about the island and the vacinity to Argentina. It would be the same as if another country tried to say that they had posession of Rhode Island.

I know the answers here aren't what you were looking for, but it is a very touchy subject.

hardly a similarity to the falklands.

it's not an island either.

Edited August 3, 2008 by charles!

[Pooky 3,781]

Okay Okay, so everyone decided this thread was actually a discussion about the name and thereby a discussion of the war.

But how about the original question???

John was wanting to know about the place. Has anyone actually been there? With an obvious interest in farming, he was looking to find out more about the islands themselves rather than just anecdotes from the internet.

thanks

Melannie

PS Would appreciated not being flamed it at all possible.

From a reputable source, the Falkland Islands are a pretty boring place for a city dweller. There is hardly any nightlife. The weather sucks. The sheep outnumber the humans and vie for supremacy with the penguins.

P

[Pooky 3,781]

Yes, and in that same quote it specifically says

After the apparent repulsion of what they thought was a British landing attempt on May 1 (which included the failed air strike by the ARA 25 de Mayo), the Argentine Junta decided to wait for the decision of the Peruvian peace proposal before continuing hostilities. All Argentine Navy task groups were ordered to withdraw from the area until further notice, and the Argentine Air Force did not attempt any major air strikes during the following days. The Belgrano was approximately 35 miles out of the British-declared exclusion zone, heading toward the mainland when the attack occurred...

The Belgrano was detected 48 hours earlier, but when it was sunk it no longer represented a direct threat to the British Task Force. The Argentine point of view is that Thatcher's government (ill-positioned for coming elections) and the Royal Navy (in the midst of a serious budget cut period) took this war as the perfect chance to solve their problems, and with sinking Belgrano they successfully undermined any possible peaceful solution.

I guess because you come from the point of "everything is fair in love and war" and I come from an opposite idea, I think I'm just wasting both our time...I'm done with this thread.

Saludos,

Caro

what one can consider to be a direct threat is nebulous at best, given how quickly ships can move.

Politics aside, what the General Belgrano was doing at the time had little bearing on whether it was a threat to the British Task Force. It was at sea and therefore posed a potential threat, even if the British knew that the "threat" posed by a WWII era cruiser was purely hypothetical.

What is undeniable is this - sinking the Belgrano kept the Argentine navy in port and therefore saved lives on the Argentine side. If the Argentine aircraft carrier had put to sea and approached the Task Force, the British navy would have sent her to the bottom even faster than the Belgrano, with potentially a much heavier loss of life.

It also saved lives on the British side. If indeed the Argentine carrier had put to sea and been able to conduct air operations, the loss of ships on the British side would likely have been much greater. The Argentine air forces showed commendable bravery and skill carrying out offensive operations at such range, and their effect if they had not been restricted by carrying sufficient fuel to get all the way from the mainland to the target and back would have been much greater.

War is a harsh mistress. The government of Argentina knew the risks when it invaded the Falkland Islands. The ultimate responsibility for the deaths on both sides resides with them. The British understood that the only way to fight a war is to fight to win. Conducting a war under a political set of rules of engagement is a recipe for disaster, as the USA found in Vietnam. Prime Minister Thatcher understood this, listened to her military advisors and let them run operations.

That is why the Falkland Islands remain a British Territory. The Falkland Islanders are the reason it will stay that way.

P

[DairyFarmer 1]

Okay Okay, so everyone decided this thread was actually a discussion about the name and thereby a discussion of the war.

But how about the original question???

John was wanting to know about the place. Has anyone actually been there? With an obvious interest in farming, he was looking to find out more about the islands themselves rather than just anecdotes from the internet.

thanks

Melannie

PS Would appreciated not being flamed it at all possible.

From a reputable source, the Falkland Islands are a pretty boring place for a city dweller. There is hardly any nightlife. The weather sucks. The sheep outnumber the humans and vie for supremacy with the penguins.

P

Thanks, ironically sounds just the place for John and I.

[Big Papa Zone 93]

Politics aside, what the General Belgrano was doing at the time had little bearing on whether it was a threat to the British Task Force. It was at sea and therefore posed a potential threat, even if the British knew that the "threat" posed by a WWII era cruiser was purely hypothetical.

What is undeniable is this - sinking the Belgrano kept the Argentine navy in port and therefore saved lives on the Argentine side. If the Argentine aircraft carrier had put to sea and approached the Task Force, the British navy would have sent her to the bottom even faster than the Belgrano, with potentially a much heavier loss of life.

It also saved lives on the British side. If indeed the Argentine carrier had put to sea and been able to conduct air operations, the loss of ships on the British side would likely have been much greater. The Argentine air forces showed commendable bravery and skill carrying out offensive operations at such range, and their effect if they had not been restricted by carrying sufficient fuel to get all the way from the mainland to the target and back would have been much greater.

War is a harsh mistress. The government of Argentina knew the risks when it invaded the Falkland Islands. The ultimate responsibility for the deaths on both sides resides with them. The British understood that the only way to fight a war is to fight to win. Conducting a war under a political set of rules of engagement is a recipe for disaster, as the USA found in Vietnam. Prime Minister Thatcher understood this, listened to her military advisors and let them run operations.

That is why the Falkland Islands remain a British Territory. The Falkland Islanders are the reason it will stay that way.

P