# Was it a stupid decision of Argentina to try to get back the Falkland Isles in 1982?



## juliet1982

Hi everybody! I was pondering about this issue a few days ago, when I heard that Margaret Thatcher's daughter would be in the islands, to shoot a short film called " My mum's war", which will be on in England next year. First of all, I don't like the title at all , because I think she's underestimating that war by calling the film like that. It just sounds a stupid title to my ears. I was talking about the war with a friend and I told her that I think it was a stupid decision to start a war, just to get back a couple of islands, taking into account that English people were there from a very long time and my friend told me :" What?? That does't matter, let's suppose that a person starts living in my house while I'm away, and 50 years later I try to recover it; I'll be in the right on that!!!" I said: yes, but this is different!!! Thousands of people were killed just because of a piece of land I remember when I was at primary school. Every April 2nd we remember the war, and teachers made us to wear silly pins with a little card attached which said :" Las Malvinas son argentinas", and I felt so stupid, 'cos I knew they weren't ours, not at all.
What's your view about this war? I'm REALLY interested about what  all of you think. Thanks in advance. Julieta 

PS As you may have already noticed, I'm not a native English speaker, so corrections will be appreciated!


----------



## sound shift

Irrespective of the arguments either way, the question makes no sense: Argentina could not have got *back *the islands because it never possessed them.


----------



## MarcB

Firstly the name Malvinas comes from the French name _Malouines. The islands were originally uninhabited. France, England and Spain have all made claims for the islands._
_Argentia only became involved after independence. For most of its history the population has been British people of Scottish descent There was no significant presence of Argentines there in 1982 and the islands would not be of significant value to Argentina at the time. Yes the local economy has improved since then due to tourism and fishing but I do not think it was worth the war and deaths. During that time I traveled to BA and London quite a bit. Most of the people I talked with in both places felt it was a  foolish war. Some people on both sides felt it was important of course. My view which appeared to be shared by many people was that Galtieri and his junta in Argentina were suffering economic problems and social unrest with many Argentines against them. That was a way to distract people from their failure to run Argentina properly. In the end it was a disaster for Galtieri and Argentina. I remember many Anglo-Argentines feeling the need to leave the country with their British born spouses. What was gained for Argentina?_


----------



## danielfranco

Actor Eddie Izzard says the Falkland Islands were very important to the UK for "strategic sheep purposes".
I don't know exactly what was that war about and I deplore all the lives that were lost. All I remember from when I was a kid back then is that it was the proving ground for the brand-new Harrier jets.
So I voted that it depends how you look at it. Is all.


----------



## clipper

I have certainly heard more than one Argentinian crticise their own country's decisions over the war, particularly the deployment policy of the troops, but I'm sure that in general, both the populations of UK and Argentina think that the war was useless.

And to comment on the original post, you may not be right in your assumptions on rights to reclaim your house after 50 years. In the UK at least, 12 years continuous occupancy would be sufficient for the squatters to assume property rights..........


----------



## djchak

It was an idiotic war in the first place...

Argentina could have made a claim (on the Falklands), then tried diplomacy to get some money or trade out of it, and no one would have had to fight at all.


----------



## Talant

MarcB said:


> _.... My view which appeared to be shared by many people was that Galtieri and his junta in Argentina were suffering economic problems and social unrest with many Argentines against them. That was a way to distract people from their failure to run Argentina properly. In the end it was a disaster for Galtieri and Argentina...._



I concur. 

Regarding the "50 years issue" the loss of property rights is called "usucapión" in Spanish. It's considered that if you have neglected your property for more than X years you don't want it and whoever is using it (who certainly does want it) can have it.

Bye


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think it was mainly due to Thatcher's political agenda, to make her seem strong and someone to be behind, to be re-elected again etc etc.


----------



## don maico

djchak said:


> It was an idiotic war in the first place...
> 
> Argentina could have made a claim (on the Falklands), then tried diplomacy to get some money or trade out of it, and no one would have had to fight at all.


I t was a dumb move by the Argies because until then the islanders were almost entirely dependant on Argentina for their needs including flights back to the Uk.
It also saved Thatchers political career which was ,until then, nosediving. Ironic because uptill then she had ignored all the warning given to her by the secret services that Argentina intended to invade.She had to save face and she did . The victory handed her an election landslide and she was subsequently dubbed the "Iron Lady"
Was the War stupid and unnecessary ? Yes of course! Several hundred lives lost over a couple of rocks with sheep on it. Until then the UK had enjoyed very good trading conditions with Argentina much of which had been previously built with UK investment. Ultimately the Junta were to blame and Argentines as a whole ought to stop making spurious claims for islands that would do little for their economy.Their claims are based entirely on nationalistic sentiment. It needs to be borne in mind that it not only claims The Falklands but South Gertgia and a huge sector of the Antartica it cassl Antartica Argentina( as far as I am aware no one owns any part of that region) 
Argentina is  a huge country with massive economic potential if only it could learn to run itself.I hope it does so and in the meantime increases trade with the UK.
 This is a dufficult subject for me because I was born and spent my childhood in Argentina and have a lot of affection for it and would dearly love both countries to rediscover the relationship they once had. Every time I see a piece of Argentina beef - I buy it. I do so because its excellent!I also try to encourage my fellow Brits to visit that country which is astonishing in its beauty. Indeed a friend of mine, who until recently had been anti Argentina, is coming with me this February to vist that country.


----------



## Fernando

I endorse Argentinian claim on the Malvinas/Falklands. We know very well in Spain the English "squatter policy" (they never cared very much whether or not there was a previous occupant).

Anyway, I voted Yes, because:

- A war is not the right way to recover your property.

- Even if so, why to enter in a war, without allies (namely, US and Chile), against a country which has more trained soldiers, ships and weapons?

UK has only returned land when it has been obligued to by higher force or it has been in its interest. The only way Argentina can recover Malvinas is by economic growth.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Well, what I think is that we are only taking into account one side of the "stupidity" in that war.

All wars are stupid, no matter who starts it up, who threatens the other side with an invassion, who offends who's pride, or any other excuse that a country chooses in order to prove its "supremacy".

Maybe I am being absolute, but I believe there are no reasons on earth to get yourself engaged in such meaningless human and economical losses.

So yes, Argentina's move took it to defeat. But, are we saying that the UK was smart for fighting? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree.

Call me an idealist if you may, but even if a country wins a war, I cannot consider starting a war as a good choice.


----------



## cuchuflete

We have had a very lengthy discussion of this war, with both rational thought, and blatant nationalism from more than one side, which proves that we have trouble learning from history.

I offer again, what I said here.



> "la de dos calvos peleándose por un peine" —J.L. Borges



The entire thread is available: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=19140


----------



## Lucia Adamoli

don maico said:


> I t was a dumb move by the Argies


 
Here comes one "Argie". The people did not decide to go to war, the Junta did, they were the dumbs (I would call them worse things than that, though  murderers being the lightest of them)

I was 9 when the war started. It was as stupid as all wars are. And Thatcher sent butchers to kill teenagers. And La Junta Militar sent teenagers to fight for them while they were comfortably sitting on their sofa drinking some good whiskey. They shared the same tastes, selfish and "drinkish".

I don't like the nationalist/religious/etc statements like "all Argentinians (Chileans, Englishmen, Bolivian, Chinese...) are (this or that)"

I do believe in individuals, in cultures, but all generalisation is a racial or social or religion or cultural or national segregation. Ridiculous, all of them.

And just to change the mood of this post, a joke (humor will save the world, or what is left of it):
Scale of Intelligence a.k.a. "Tar": 
10 - max. = GygaTar, 
05 - med. = KiloTar,
00 - min. = MiliTar

 me río por no llorar. 

Todas las guerras son innecesarias, pero así funciona este mundo, así se maneja la humanidad.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Yes, because you lost. Would it have been stupid had you won? Probably not.


----------



## juliet1982

Thanks to all of you. Julieta


----------



## cuchuflete

Please reread post #1.  If you wish to discuss Ceuta, Hong Kong, or other matters, you are welcome to open other threads.


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator Note: This thread is now open for posts that specifically address the thread topic.  Post about the British in India, Spain's African holdings, and automobile repair in cold climates belong elsewhere, and will be promptly deleted if they appear here.
Thanks for your collaboration.


----------



## Mate

Yeah, well... I think that the answer to the title is: Yes, but as already stated by Lucía A. it was not a decision taken by Argentina. By that time the/my/our country was ruled by a band of nazi-lover chauvinists. These bloody murderers took command of the country by the use of brutal military force and state terrorism, not by constitutional elections.

One -and maybe the only positive- outcome of this mess: Argentina recovered democracy soon after the end of this stupid war.

Saludos - Mate


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> This message has been deleted by cuchuflete. Reason: Vastly off topic. Is post #25 so unclear?



Yes!
My prescience is acting up at the moment.


----------



## roxcyn

Hola, creo que Argentina puede tener las islas porque son una parte del país, pero hay maneras que uno debe hacer en vez de luchar por ellas.


----------



## cuchuflete

We have Exocets available to address your prescience. --Galtieri


----------



## cuchuflete

roxcyn said:


> Hola, creo que Argentina puede tener las islas porque son una parte del país, pero hay maneras que uno debe hacer en vez de luchar por ellas.


What a brilliant example of circular logic!  That's precisely why wars are started.  If you read all the many dozens of posts in the prior thread about that war, together with a few in this thread, you will find ample evidence to prove that:

The islands belong to Argentina.
and
The islands belong to the U.K.

A simple declaration, free of even a minimal attempt to adduce any kind of proof, invites a contrary statement of ineluctable "fact", and before you can blink, both sides are
mobilizing their armed forces.

Sigue siendo un ejemplo de dos viejos calvos peleando por el peine.


----------



## maxiogee

roxcyn said:


> Hola, creo que Argentina puede tener las islas porque son una parte del país, pero hay maneras que uno debe hacer en vez de luchar por ellas.



The Falklands lie over 600 kilometers from Argentina.
By your logic, the French could claim 'ownership' of Ireland!
Sacre Bleu!


----------



## roxcyn

Each country has their own agenda, the UK has many islands in the Caribbean, does it matter if they give up one island?


----------



## cuchuflete

roxcyn said:


> Each country has their own agenda, the UK has many islands in the Caribbean, does it matter if they give up one island?



What does that have to do with the thread topic, which is about a decision made by a fascist military dictatorship in 1982?


----------



## aleCcowaN

Was it a stupid decision? My vote is "yes". Was it for a bad cause? Not at all, but it remains stupid anyway. Would had been it less stupid with a different outcome? I doubt it.

I remember those times. A local company was hired to break up some old vessels in South Georgia and some employees decided to hoist our flag, and some British autorities decided to haul it down in a fashion that it could seem it was being dishonored -a political message they decided to send-. One or two day later, on March 30, 1982, a huge union protest in downtown Buenos Aires ended up with at least one worker dead. This was and act of social rebelion never seen in six years since the coup d'etat. 

Then Galtieri, his private secretary, Mr. Jhonny Walker, and some other self exalted morons generated a logical raise and vicious circle in their brains -much acustomed to work with ethanol as source of energy than glucose-. In this vicious reasoning, they thought about actions to repair the insult on our national symbol, judging this will align public opinion immeadiately and make the recent protests to be forgotten.

They did their plans and, like a bad chess player, they only think about the next move of the oponent. A warm militar action, with only Argentine casualties -as it exactly was on April 2, 1982-, and an following retreat, would probably get the militarization of the islands by the UK and international criticism, besides the return of local protest and the erosion of government powers. They decided to raise the bet, and each movement thought and probable response led them to what we all know now.

They disregarded Tatcher's political needs and thought the Foreign Office were baby boys and girls in the diplomatic field. Each possible alternatives -UN intervention, Hong Kong like treaties, etc.- were discarded, as all required a quick retreat, or better, no prior militar action.

The preexistent situation, Argentines being about 5% of islands' population, Spanish being taught in all schools, air services provided by our country, a local quite poor sheep-dependent second-class-citizen population, no British claims over the seas that sorround the islands, and much more, had brought Argentina nearer the satisfaction of its centennial claim.

Now, there are only four Argentines in the islands. Local population don't forgive their four dead and suffering. Autonomous government enjoys a great deal of money gathered by the explotation of the sorrounding seas by other nations, all under militar surveillance provided and paid by UK citizens, almost all the locals became public employees, they have a Kuwait level of per capita incomes, and the former "kelpers" had become rich white first-class citizens and "imported" hundreds of darker skin people coming mainly from other British colonies to sweep their streets and clean their toillet bowls.

This is the appeareance of the chess board after 40 moves, something a drunkard dictator didn't foresee when he thought P4K.


----------



## afcg

jaja. El único crimen por el que pueden culparte y condenarte en una guerra es.... PERDER. Las únicas guerras "justas" son las que se ganan. La historia así lo muestra


----------



## mirx

I've been interested in this topic for a while, when I first learned that they UK had a piece of Argentina as a colony in the 20th century (and now 21at) I was shocked. Since then I have found out that there are still many colonies in América under the name of "Free and Autonomous territory of X allied to X", "Free state of X part of the Commonwealth of X".

I felt very sorry for the Argentinians, I voted no, but now that I have read this thread and the views of some Argentina nationals I'd have to chanage my vote. I did not know the hidden motives of the Junta to declare war.

Poor Argentina, I hope someday they get them back.


----------

