BBC Falklands article
Discussion
Falklands War remains 'an open wound' in Argentina, says ambassador https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61294958
I normally consider BC fairly balanced but in this article, does anyone consider it biased to not give more detail on the UK’s historical claim the the Falklands, or even mention that they had a sovereignty referendum in 2013 in which only 3 people voted to not remain an overseas territory of the U.K.
I normally consider BC fairly balanced but in this article, does anyone consider it biased to not give more detail on the UK’s historical claim the the Falklands, or even mention that they had a sovereignty referendum in 2013 in which only 3 people voted to not remain an overseas territory of the U.K.
I think the 2013 referendum pretty conclusively settled the issue of what the residents of the Falklands actually wanted. 98 point something voted to remain a BOP.
Argentina could have fostered better relations with the people of the Falklands and the UK by not invading and then spending the ensuing decades threatening to invade, invoking sanctions or refusing to recognise any democratic process that doesn’t go their way.
As to colonialism, I would describe the Argentinian population as largely post colonial Hispanic these days, there is relatively little trace culturally or genetically of the pre colonial population still in existence.
Argentina could have fostered better relations with the people of the Falklands and the UK by not invading and then spending the ensuing decades threatening to invade, invoking sanctions or refusing to recognise any democratic process that doesn’t go their way.
As to colonialism, I would describe the Argentinian population as largely post colonial Hispanic these days, there is relatively little trace culturally or genetically of the pre colonial population still in existence.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 2nd May 12:44
Newarch said:
As to colonialism, I would describe the Argentinian population as largely post colonial Hispanic these days, they is relatively little trace culturally or genetically of the pre colonial population still in existence.
Yep80% of the population are of Italian or Spanish descent. So quite why their views about the ownership of the Falkland isles should take precedence over the inhabitants on "anti-colonialism" grounds isn't really clear.
In reality they have never had much of a claim to the Falklands Islands by any rational measure of the term. Even claims on grounds of distance are rather dubious as they are close to a thousand miles apart.
What in reality seems to have happened is that nationalist politicians have often used the Falklands to stir up the population and distract from other issues.
StescoG66 said:
What is the historical link between Italy and Argentina?
Argentina received mass immigration throughout the 19th century and was a comparatively wealthy country back then so rivalled the USA as a destination for emigrants from the Latin countries. Hence why they have so many people of Italian descent. Edited by JagLover on Monday 2nd May 08:29
Considering the fact that Argentina didn't even exist as a political entity or country when GB took over the uninhabited islands, how the heck can Argentinians even think they have a "claim"...
AND it's true that Argie politicos use this argument to cover up their massive failings on the mainland.....
We might just as well try and "claim" Iceland, as our "forebears" (of some of us) went there (Vikings)!?!?!?
And to the OPs question... yes the BBC are doing their typical leftie skewed reporting.... so what if todays social media mentally deficient juniors haven't/can't/don't want to read about the FW... it still happened and we still defended our/their Falklanders territory against aggression......
AND it's true that Argie politicos use this argument to cover up their massive failings on the mainland.....
We might just as well try and "claim" Iceland, as our "forebears" (of some of us) went there (Vikings)!?!?!?
And to the OPs question... yes the BBC are doing their typical leftie skewed reporting.... so what if todays social media mentally deficient juniors haven't/can't/don't want to read about the FW... it still happened and we still defended our/their Falklanders territory against aggression......
Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 2nd May 08:28
JMGS4 said:
try and "claim" Iceland, as our "forebears" (of some of us) went there (Vikings)!?!?!?
That’s rather a silly example to pick given the ancestry of 90% off Icelands population.JMGS4 said:
And to the OPs question... yes the BBC are doing their typical leftie skewed reporting.... so what if todays social media mentally deficient juniors haven't/can't/don't want to read about the FW... it still happened and we still defended our/their Falklanders territory against aggression......
Because they are reporting the facts rather than editorialising? FFS, there is plenty of links on that story to more details.If the Argentinians had not invaded in 82 and as someone previously posted they had fostered good relations with the people on the Falklands, helped them out supplied amenities built community centres etc the Falklands May bell we’ll have belonged to Argentina by now.
However because of their actions in 82 it will not even be discussed by the U.K. whilst in living memory of the service men who fought to liberate the islands.
However because of their actions in 82 it will not even be discussed by the U.K. whilst in living memory of the service men who fought to liberate the islands.
Electro1980 said:
Because they are reporting the facts rather than editorialising? FFS, there is plenty of links on that story to more details.
Yout think siting a poll of U.K. youth who weren’t alive at the time of the conflict, is more relevant to this issue, than an actual sovereignty referendum that took place less than 10 years ago in which the actual inhabitants were involved? Cherry picking survey results to suit a narrative isn’t bias?
In the 1970s I was a marine geology student, and my research supervisor got himself invited on a research cruise down around the Falkland Islands. While they were running geophysics lines an Argentinian warship turned up and started firing shots across the bows of the research vessel, trying to make it stop or turn round - neither a particularly good idea when you are towing a kilometre of sonar line behind you. This was RRS Discovery, by the way, the predecessor to Boaty McBoatface, or whatever it is called now.
I give you a map showing the continental shelves of South America.
Notice the sparse continental shelf around almost the entire continent. Nothing at all on the western side, and only one fully developed shelf on the east away from the major river mouths - around the Falklands. And a jolly good prospect for oil discoveries it is too. If Argentina laid claim to the Falklands, all this shelf, and not just a portion of it, would be theirs.
Neither side in the conflict ever cared to bring up the potential millions of barrels of oil on this shelf, instead we heard all the tosh about history, cultural ties, referenda and so on. Why should Argentina be concerned with these windswept islands, when they cant even populate the remoter parts of their own country in Patagonia, despite tax incentives and so on? 92% of the population lives in cities, mostly around Buenos Aires. Come to that, why should The UK be so concerned with a handful of sheep farmers down there? We’ve given away more than that without an argument since the 1950s.
What the BBC article doesn’t mention, along with most articles on the subject, is that it is all about oil and the rest is just a smokescreen.
I give you a map showing the continental shelves of South America.
Notice the sparse continental shelf around almost the entire continent. Nothing at all on the western side, and only one fully developed shelf on the east away from the major river mouths - around the Falklands. And a jolly good prospect for oil discoveries it is too. If Argentina laid claim to the Falklands, all this shelf, and not just a portion of it, would be theirs.
Neither side in the conflict ever cared to bring up the potential millions of barrels of oil on this shelf, instead we heard all the tosh about history, cultural ties, referenda and so on. Why should Argentina be concerned with these windswept islands, when they cant even populate the remoter parts of their own country in Patagonia, despite tax incentives and so on? 92% of the population lives in cities, mostly around Buenos Aires. Come to that, why should The UK be so concerned with a handful of sheep farmers down there? We’ve given away more than that without an argument since the 1950s.
What the BBC article doesn’t mention, along with most articles on the subject, is that it is all about oil and the rest is just a smokescreen.
Roofless Toothless said:
Neither side in the conflict ever cared to bring up the potential millions of barrels of oil on this shelf, instead we heard all the tosh about history, cultural ties, referenda and so on. Why should Argentina be concerned with these windswept islands, when they cant even populate the remoter parts of their own country in Patagonia, despite tax incentives and so on? 92% of the population lives in cities, mostly around Buenos Aires. Come to that, why should The UK be so concerned with a handful of sheep farmers down there? We’ve given away more than that without an argument since the 1950s.
What the BBC article doesn’t mention, along with most articles on the subject, is that it is all about oil and the rest is just a smokescreen.
Argentina have been making claims to the Falkland islands, and rousing up their populace about it, long before offshore oil drilling became widespread. So it is not just about oil. What the BBC article doesn’t mention, along with most articles on the subject, is that it is all about oil and the rest is just a smokescreen.
Maximus Decimus Meridius said:
To be fair, other than sabre rattling and trying to deflect from what was going on in Argentina at the time, I do wonder why Argentina wanted The Falklands so badly.
They're rocks. What was the importance of Argentina claiming them ?
Because the military Junta at the time was on its arse and needed a deflection of high unemployment and some small issue of people disappering. The Falklands was always a bone of contention so this was a good excuse to invade. What the Argentinians forgot was there was a Prime Minister who was also having issues and needed to, you could say, deflect from them. So the Falklands saga suited both parties. They're rocks. What was the importance of Argentina claiming them ?
Ive spent a fair bit of time in the Falklands both as mil and civilian and the islanders as they did back in 82 dont want any part of the Argentine influence. Even today the Argentine government restrict flights to Chile from the Falklands just because they can.
jakesmith said:
Electro1980 said:
Because they are reporting the facts rather than editorialising? FFS, there is plenty of links on that story to more details.
Yout think siting a poll of U.K. youth who weren’t alive at the time of the conflict, is more relevant to this issue, than an actual sovereignty referendum that took place less than 10 years ago in which the actual inhabitants were involved? Cherry picking survey results to suit a narrative isn’t bias?
“This is despite Falkland islanders voting to remain a UK Overseas Territory by a margin of 99.8% in 2013.”
I find the throwing around of 'empire' and 'colonialism' a tad weird in this context.
Argentina is a bunch of European immigrants who slaughtered the natives. And then they whine about other European immigrants parking themselves on a lifeless rock before their own country existed.
Any claims they do believe they have date to their own empire and colonial times.
Perhaps the Falklands should become Chilean. That's an economy with a brighter future and relations have moved beyond adolescent too. Plus it would infuriate the mutual neighbour.
Argentina is a bunch of European immigrants who slaughtered the natives. And then they whine about other European immigrants parking themselves on a lifeless rock before their own country existed.
Any claims they do believe they have date to their own empire and colonial times.
Perhaps the Falklands should become Chilean. That's an economy with a brighter future and relations have moved beyond adolescent too. Plus it would infuriate the mutual neighbour.
Exploiting any resources will be a bit tricky . It would make sense to work with Argentina on this. Are oil tankers really going to travel on a 20000 mile round trip? Or would a pipeline to argentina work better?
The war was a highpoint in difficult british military exploits though and should be honoured more. Why not seems probably due to all the mistakes,but WW2 was full of them.
We will get the usual. One day when only one soldier is left they will shower him in attention and glory even if he was only making the tea.
The war was a highpoint in difficult british military exploits though and should be honoured more. Why not seems probably due to all the mistakes,but WW2 was full of them.
We will get the usual. One day when only one soldier is left they will shower him in attention and glory even if he was only making the tea.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff