Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Britain's invasion of the Falkland islands

Chloe8
Posts: 2,856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Jovian
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 8:01:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

I've heard Thatcher did it because of the oil resources on the islands, but I don't know, detesting her seems to be mandatory in UK, so I have to read for myself instead.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 8,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 9:13:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Let me answer this in vi_spex fashion:

i have no intention of joining a religion

uk citizens + uk territory =/= argentina

argentina + take uk stuff = bad = true = 1

uk takes back lost citizens and territory from bad (1) = good = true = 1(!)

It was justified.
Donald invictus, deliver and be tart and huge by narrow.

"Especially so, but considering the nature of nuclear warheads, it's probably more like atomic annihilation than triple homicide." -Yours Truly

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2016 8:01:53 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

I've heard Thatcher did it because of the oil resources on the islands, but I don't know, detesting her seems to be mandatory in UK, so I have to read for myself instead.

I'm sure the potential fossil fuel resources were a factor in the decision. The UK claims many other nearby uninhabited islands as well as a large chunk of Antarctica. These areas and the surrounding ocean are widely thought to contain fossil fuels that could be valuable when resources are exhausted in the future and drilling and mining in the Antarctic region becomes both legal and economically viable. this is the reason Argentina is so keen to control the islands to lay claim to the potential fossil fuel reserves.

Thatcher is not universally hated. It's only the left who hate her. Conservatives like me consider her one of Britain's greatest ever prime minister's.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 10:30:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2016 9:13:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Let me answer this in vi_spex fashion:

i have no intention of joining a religion

uk citizens + uk territory =/= argentina

argentina + take uk stuff = bad = true = 1

uk takes back lost citizens and territory from bad (1) = good = true = 1(!)

It was justified.

Im guessing vi_spex is another ddo member? Does he/she really answer like that?

It sort of makes sense I guess!
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 8,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:44:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2016 10:30:00 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 2/26/2016 9:13:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Let me answer this in vi_spex fashion:

i have no intention of joining a religion

uk citizens + uk territory =/= argentina

argentina + take uk stuff = bad = true = 1

uk takes back lost citizens and territory from bad (1) = good = true = 1(!)

It was justified.

Im guessing vi_spex is another ddo member? Does he/she really answer like that?

Yeah. He is rather popular amongst older members, and he is still present on this site. And yes, he really answers like that, although I have talked with him in a PM, and he is really smart and writes legibly.

Yeah. Here is the man himself: http://www.debate.org...

Here is a vi_spex impersonation debate I did a while back: http://www.debate.org...

It sort of makes sense I guess!

In a way, it always does.
Donald invictus, deliver and be tart and huge by narrow.

"Especially so, but considering the nature of nuclear warheads, it's probably more like atomic annihilation than triple homicide." -Yours Truly

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity.