To think that we should give the Faulklands back to Argentina?

[toptramp]

Ok I don't know much about the Falklands war but from what I can gather we stole them from Argentina. I think we should give them back but of course it's complicated.
Can anyone fill me in on why Britain took them in the first place? Thanks.

Didn't know that Abra1d :)

Actually, Scotland should be returned to the Picts.
And yes, what are the Beaker people.
Wasn't Beaker in Sesame Street?

Beaker people are who lived across Europe who straddled the neolithic and bronze age. They used bronze utensils but it seems didn't make them but traded (so weren't technically bronze age)they had reddish decorated beakers - hence "beaker" people.

But the descendants of the Beaker people are most likely to be in the westernmost fringes of Britain such as Wales. And what about that teacher in Cheddar was found to have the same mytochondial DNA as some of the bones in Gough's Cave? I reckon he's the nearest we're going to get.

OOh who is he Orm? Is he single? Handsome? He may be rightful lord of all he surveys and I am available...

suite101.com/article/the-beaker-people-in-britain-a169216

sorry beaker people

and they introduced alcohol to britain... "They also introduced the first known alcoholic drink into Britain, a form of honey-based mead."

I don't know how close a family resemblance there is.....

Still looks a better bet than some I've put up with...

When I said Panama, I of course meant Paraguay

Either way, you get the point - they don't have much ammo!

Cogito, check the sequence of events. Thatcher cut the defence budget. She was warned that withdrawing the garrison from the Falklands would be seen as a signal by Argentina that the UK wouldn't mind them taking the 'Malvinas'. Still went ahead with the cut. As she had been warned the Argentinian dictator ordered his forces - conscripts living under dicatorship - to invade. Thatcher decided to look brave by going to war. Cue an awful lot of dead British servicemen and dead Argentinian conscripts. And Thatcher's fortunes turning round dramatically so she won an election that she had been likely to lose. On the dead bodies of all those soldiers.

@Edam, Thatcher is/was blamed for many things but ultimately it was Argentina who invaded. Using your logic if I leave my door open then I'm telling the local burglars that I wouldn't mind them lifting my goods. Correct?

As for staying pally with the American's. At first they put pressure on Thatcher to negotiate rather than send our forces. Leading to her infamous retort asking the American ambassador what the US would do if someone invaded Hawaii. It was only after it all kicked off that the US were forced to take sides and thankfully it was with us. My point is that whilst they can always count on our support, I wouldn't automatically count on their support.

In fact I think the French were probably a stauncher ally as much as we love to hate them. Not sure if that support this time round would stretch to lending us their aircraft carrier. Not that I think we have the right planes to take off from them anyway.

If I were DC, I'd send more troops down there and more Typhoons.

Agreed, niceguy2.

I wouldn't rely on the U.S. at all - they only want to know the British if it suits them (ie in Iraq & Afghanistan). They were quite happy to leave Britain to get invaded by Germany until Pearl Harbour...

Pull the troops out of Afghanistan asap; better to have them defending actual British people (which the Falkland Islanders are & have chosen to be) than to be involved in a dubious illegal conflict in Afghanistan (& seriously upsetting a lot of formerly pro-British Northern Pakistanis - who we are not even at war with - by causing civilian casualties in drone attacks).

BUT if we do send troops to the Falklands - or anywhere else, ever - then the MOD & govt should make sure that they actually get the most modern protective gear for once; & not make them have to literally fight for disability-related benefits should they get injured.

(Sorry - those things are annoying me a bit right now to be honest!)

Yes, the French and the Falklands. And 'support'. Do we know which country supplied the Exocet missiles and fighter jets which killed so many Brit servicepeople, non? At a time when Argentina had no other conflict to use them in. The French were then 'pressed' to train the Brits in how to deal with them. To have not done so would have been very provocative. Mitterand couldn't stand Thatcher.

Jose Luis Borges had it right at the time when he described the Falklands War being like two bald men fighting over a comb.

So I guess if we can't 'defend' them, and they can't attack them, the two bald men analogy works even better 30 years later.

Pan - therefore the French will love it when we restore Britain to being the rightful rulers of Normandy. I just know it! Oui! :)

The only problem is that Normandy weather is probably not amazingly better than English weather (is that true? I've never been to France).
In which case i will have to swap Normandy for the South of France - much hotter down there.

It's a bit better than English weather, but I'm surprised no-one has staked a claim to Brittany! A rose by any other name. Having said that, Brettons are as mad as dogs. (apols to any Bretton readers.) Their idea of dancing is to 'pogo' a la punks in the 1970s. Been doing it for centuries tho'.

Ps. if the bald men have combovers then they will definitely be fighting over that comb - & hair gel etc. Lovelly. I think i'm confused by what an analogy is though.

Hmm. Brittany sounds like Britain-y. Therefore British. Excellent. Pogo-ing Bretons can be British if they like.

analogy? Using one story or circumstance to draw out telling lessons from a different circumstance. Googling would prob. describe it much better.

Thanks.

All this planning world invasions may have to wait while i educate myself a bit more... France, you're safe - for now.....

& President Cristina - keep your hands OFF The Falklands missy.