The Falkland Islands

Disgustipated · Feb 7, 2012

Ayn Rand said:
Yep, that's what article 5 covers. It was activated for the first time in response to September 11 so it can be used for any situation where the country comes under attack in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Assist

NATO was around in 1982 as well, so why didn't we come to defend the UK back then?

bhsup · Feb 7, 2012

We should have. It was a no-brainer that NATO should have mobilized against Argentina. It's a stain on the honor of our country that we didn't immediately pledge our full support to the UK.

Ayn Rand · Feb 7, 2012

Disgustipated said:
NATO was around in 1982 as well, so why didn't we come to defend the UK back then?

Help was offered, but Margaret Thatcher turned it down. The Americans even offered us a supercarrier, but we wanted to take it back with British forces.

That said, covert assistance from Chile and perhaps from a US spy satellite were given to us.

VRWCAgent said:
We should have. It was a no-brainer that NATO should have mobilized against Argentina. It's a stain on the honor of our country that we didn't immediately pledge our full support to the UK.

The Country attacked has to request assistance, which we didn't

But you guys helped us out plenty behind the scenes, I'm sure.

kramerfan86 · Feb 7, 2012

Yea I think the country being attacked has to request the aid. If the UK didnt ask for NATO's help the first time then that is why NATO didnt act. I imagine the UK thought it would be a little embarrassing if they called in NATO to handle Argentina in a one on one fight.

say1988 · Feb 7, 2012

Except Article 5 specifically states "Europe or North America" and the Falklands are in South America. And Article 6 extends it to include territories North of the Tropic of Cancer.

Ayn Rand · Feb 7, 2012

say1988 said:
Except Article 5 specifically states "Europe or North America" and the Falklands are in South America.

Hmm.. Indeed it does

NATO Article 5 said:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Source and other articles

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

Dachs · Feb 7, 2012

The fact that both of those terms, especially "Europe", are undefined gives everybody a great deal of latitude. On this forum alone we've seen loons argue that places like Vladivostok and French Guiana were part of Europe. Why not the Falklands?

CELTICEMPIRE · Feb 7, 2012

The British are still Imperialists, they are denying the Argentinians their former land!

say1988 · Feb 7, 2012

The Argentinians are still imperialists, they are trying to take land from its inhabitants.

Traitorfish · Feb 7, 2012

The humans are still imperialists, trying to maintain their iron-fisted rule over the penguins.

Ayn Rand · Feb 7, 2012

Dachs said:
The fact that both of those terms, especially "Europe", are undefined gives everybody a great deal of latitude. On this forum alone we've seen loons argue that places like Vladivostok and French Guiana were part of Europe. Why not the Falklands?

Article 6 goes on to clarify the definition:

NATO Article 6 said:
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Dachs · Feb 7, 2012

Hmm. Fair enough. It's awfully hard to misconstrue that as applying to the Falklands.

Disgustipated · Feb 7, 2012

Ayn Rand said:
Help was offered, but Margaret Thatcher turned it down. The Americans even offered us a supercarrier, but we wanted to take it back with British forces.

That said, covert assistance from Chile and perhaps from a US spy satellite were given to us.

The Country attacked has to request assistance, which we didn't But you guys helped us out plenty behind the scenes, I'm sure.

The U.S. never requested assistance after 9/11, so I'm not sure I believe that.

edit: just read the part about the clause about Europe, so I understand that part. So that makes sense.

CaptainF · Feb 7, 2012

VRWCAgent said:
We should have. It was a no-brainer that NATO should have mobilized against Argentina. It's a stain on the honor of our country that we didn't immediately pledge our full support to the UK.

No, the bigger stain on our honor is that we supported murdering bastards like Pinochet (Chile) and Videla (Argentina) simply because they were "anti-communist".

Maybe that's why we didn't throw our support behind Britain. We were too busy killing the commies (and the students, intellectuals, youth, women, children, etc)! Surely you can agree that such things were more important, no?

Chibiabos · Feb 7, 2012

Eran of Arcadia said:
Too often, "the people who were there first" is taken to be synonymous with "the people who were there when Europeans first showed up".

It doesn't matter if some Argentines were living there before the British showed up, it's who's there now that matters.

That validates the tactic of "We want that land, but someone else is living there, so we'll dump a lot of our people there, then call it ours."

I really don't find that a just tactic. Most of the United States has been "acquired" this way.

imperialman · Feb 7, 2012

Chibiabos said:
That validates the tactic of "We want that land, but someone else is living there, so we'll dump a lot of our people there, then call it ours."

I really don't find that a just tactic. Most of the United States has been "acquired" this way.

Except that Britain has had a claim since January 1765 and Argentina since August 1829.

imperialman · Feb 7, 2012

Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands.

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner made the announcement at a meeting of MPs, senior officials, and veterans of the 1982 war Argentina fought with Britain over the islands.

Tensions between the two countries have been increasing in recent weeks.

Last month, the UK said it was sending a destroyer to the region.

The status of the islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas, is still a highly sensitive issue for Buenos Aires.

In December, Mercosur, a South American trading bloc, closed its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Then, last month, the UK said it was sending one of its newest destroyers, HMS Dauntless, to the South Atlantic, off the Falklands.

President Fernandez said British actions posed a threat to international security

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043

Eh, I don't see it...

Silurian · Feb 7, 2012

Dachs said:
I guess you must have been on hallucinogens during the eighties.

All so Clint Eastwood could make one of his worst films.

kramerfan86 · Feb 7, 2012

CELTICEMPIRE said:
The British are still Imperialists, they are denying the Argentinians their former land!

Argentina never had that land. Spain did, Argentina did not exist as a country when Britain took control.

Takhisis · Feb 7, 2012

WHAT? Argentina declared independence in 1816 and had its first Constitution in 1819. Unless you mean the 'taking control' which the British eventually abandoned and ceded to Spain, and Argentina as successor state to the Spanish Empire would inherit it anyway, right?

The Falkland Islands

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

Zulu Conqueror

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

Deity

The Professional Poster

Prince

Admiral

Admiral

Deity

Deity

¡Patria y vida!

Similar threads