Did Anyone Follow the Falklands War?

[Knight Templar]

Back in 82 IIRC. I was just a young lad but I remember waiting eagerly by the radio for the world news update that came every half hour and trying to find out more about the fighting.

This was before CNN and round the clock news of course. I remember mourning the losses of HMS Sheffield, Ardent, Antelope, and IIRC Coventry and Atlantic Conveyor.

I remember my enthusiasm when I heard the old Vulcan bomber had bombed the airport in the Falklands. First time the Vulcans saw combat. And cheering when HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano (the first and only known time a nuclear submarine has sank another ship).

Anyone else remember following that war? How about our British friends?

 

[Squiggy]

CNN existed.

 

[Knight Templar]

CNN existed.

Bad memory on my part I guess. Or perhaps we didn't get it out in the boondocks.

 

[gturner]

I followed the Falklands closely. It's been back in the news lately because the Argentinians are talking smack again.

 

[EmoBorg]

Every major female leader i admire, have fought a war

Margaret Thatcher : The Falklands War

Golda Meir : Yom Kippur War

Indira Gandhi : 1971 Indo Pak War

Elizabeth I : Anglo-Spanish War

and they all won their respective wars.

 

[FPAlpha]

I was 6-7 that year so i had little interest in these things much less understood them.

Have read up on it if course when i was older and it was a but close for the British.. if they had lost some of the support ships (which was a real possibility) they would have to cancel the campaign and retreat, essentially losing the war.

 

[Deckerd]

This is what Brits remember. Brian Hanrahan, reporting genius. A great loss.

 

[tomalak301]

I haven't followed it, but I did see The Iron Lady a few weeks ago and got some information on it. All I know (Again, from a movie) is that that war kind of turned the tables from bad to good for Margaret Thatchers regime as Prime Minister for a few years until she made some unpopular decisions.

 

[PopBoy]

I wasnt around when the war happened. However at school I learnt a few bits and bobs about it. I know the war distracted many in the country from Thatchers deeply unpopular political policies - but wars have the tendency to do this. When i look at it now i do feel its was a little bit ridiculous. Some tiny islands a million miles away. It doesnt seem worth it somehow. I however come from the same opinion (or rather school of thought) that doesnt quite understood why the British powers control Northern Ireland.

 

[Avon]

the thing is all the residents of the falklands want to remain british. its their island. which is why it makes a bit more sense than northern ireland. but thats a whole other arguement.

 

[PopBoy]

I wouldnt say more sense. I would say it just makes the British claim a lot more easier to make. From an ethical stand point. What if, in 50 years time, some on the island start to declare a completely different identity that sadly clashes with those that postulate a British one. In such a schism self-determination is an interesting subject and fraught with problems. It also makes the British colonial claim incredibly difficult. It also makes the Argentinian claim impossible.

 

[Deckerd]

If the Falklanders voted to be Argentinian, the UK wouldn't stand in their way. Different century, different philosophy.

 

[PopBoy]

One would seriously hope so. But then again Westminster is being awkward over Scotland stretching its muscles.

 

[gturner]

I wouldnt say more sense. I would say it just makes the British claim a lot more easier to make. From an ethical stand point. What if, in 50 years time, some on the island start to declare a completely different identity that sadly clashes with those that postulate a British one. In such a schism self-determination is an interesting subject and fraught with problems. It also makes the British colonial claim incredibly difficult. It also makes the Argentinian claim impossible.

If the Falklands dissolves into civil war, I predict several casualties, it not dozens.

The issue is that the Falklands have never had any Spaniards or Argentinians living there. A few showed up for a couple days at some point a century or two ago, but that was it. If that is the standard of ownership the world will be bathed in blood, because just about every single place has been visited and claimed by sailors from a dozen countries who barely knew where they were on a map.

In any event, the Falklands War wasn't the high point of Thatcher's Government, it was the low point. Only the inherited weakness of Britain allowed the Argentinians, as moronic as they were, to even contemplate going up against Britain, and that they would came as quite a shock. 20 or 30 years earlier, it would've been like having Jamaica declare war on the US and invade the Florida Keys.

 

[Deckerd]

One would seriously hope so. But then again Westminster is being awkward over Scotland stretching its muscles.

No it isn't.

 

[Knight Templar]

I was 6-7 that year so i had little interest in these things much less understood them.

Have read up on it if course when i was older and it was a but close for the British.. if they had lost some of the support ships (which was a real possibility) they would have to cancel the campaign and retreat, essentially losing the war.

I've heard that the Reagan admin. was making plans to "loan" the British an amphibious warfare carrier (suitable for the Harrier jumpjets) if the Brits had gotten into real trouble.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I was 13 at the time - remember it well! "I counted them all out and I counted them all back" etc.

Somewhere I've got a poster of the Vulcan that bombed Port Stanley airport, signed by the aircrew and groundcrew...

 

[Kemaiku]

I was born a year and a half after the ceasefire of the war, but several members of my family served in the armed forces and would talk about it when I was young.

I still have a small collection of books about it that came out in 1985 or so that they bought for me.

 

[TheGodBen]

I however come from the same opinion (or rather school of thought) that doesnt quite understood why the British powers control Northern Ireland.

Because Northern Ireland was settled by English and Scottish protestants to try and spread British culture to the region and stop the native Irish from rebelling against English rule. As a result, the majority of people in Northern Ireland today are of British descent and remain loyal to the British crown. They have the right to self-determination, even if the situation is a hangover of imperialism.

The issue of the Falklands is a bit more delicate because only 3,000 people live there, and there's debate as to whether the principle of self-determination applies to such a small population. If Scotland did vote to become an independent state but the town of Langholm near the English border (population 2,300) voted overwhelmingly to stay, should they have the right to do so? Most people would say no, so why does the principle apply to the Falkland islanders? It's a tricky issue, and I have no idea which side I support.

 

[MacLeod]

^But for example could Langholm hold it's own referrendum on whether or not to remain part of Scotland or become part of England?

Which everway the Falkalnders vote there wishes should be respected, by all parties.