AndrewC wrote:It';s nice to see a politician getting lambasted for actually keeping his election promise for once.
To be clear, that's not what I'm doing. I as responding to a Scottish poster who seemed to be complaining that Cambo: First Blood was stopping our fun-loving Scottish pals from having the right to self determination, (which incidentally they already have, as they are represented in government) when in fact it's Salmond that's actually making them wait for the anniversary of some battle the Scottish won (or lost, who cares?) against the English.
AndrewC wrote:
Dogma, I just do not know what to say to you at this point in time. If you really believe in what you say, I will have to leave you in your own, for want of a better word, ignorance.
So you don't think the argument could be made? Or are you just offended by the possibility that someone might be able to make the argument?
dogma wrote:Sure, but the principle is similar. When something becomes too costly, or even just too annoying, to defend the governing body simply lets it go.
Granted, oil changes the equation greatly, but I don't see a resolution to the problem that isn't "Argentina has authority over the Falkland Islands."
The principle may be the same, but in practice the cost so different that it just doesn't matter.
It's like arguing that bread could become so expensive that people will give it up entirely. Sure, in principle bread could get so pricey that we give it up, but right now it's about $2 a loaf, and even if you doubled that people will still eat it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:Not really, the US remained neutral in the conflict and was at the centermof attempsts to broker a peaceful settlement (remember those!).
But Ronny Raygun ever the nice chap allowed the supply of intelligence (naval disposition) and the ever so handy sidewinder missiles that did such a sterling job on the Argie airforce.
And this was when the US had a significant stake in the dictatorship controlling Argentina. Nowadays there's no such relationship, and the US will be considerably more free to aid the UK.
sebster wrote:
The principle may be the same, but in practice the cost so different that it just doesn't matter.
It's like arguing that bread could become so expensive that people will give it up entirely. Sure, in principle bread could get so pricey that we give it up, but right now it's about $2 a loaf, and even if you doubled that people will still eat it.
I suspect that many British citizens like bread a whole lot more than they like the Falklands. Particularly the generation that wasn't alive when the last war happened (ie. my generation).
sebster wrote:
The principle may be the same, but in practice the cost so different that it just doesn't matter.
It's like arguing that bread could become so expensive that people will give it up entirely. Sure, in principle bread could get so pricey that we give it up, but right now it's about $2 a loaf, and even if you doubled that people will still eat it.
I suspect that many British citizens like bread a whole lot more than they like the Falklands. Particularly the generation that wasn't alive when the last war happened (ie. my generation).
Mate the only people more aggressively patriotic and xenophobic than you guys is us. I don't know many people who wouldnt be up for a war with the Argies.
gak.. id give up bread for life if i could machine.gun a boat full of Argies!
mattyrm wrote:
Mate the only people more aggressively patriotic and xenophobic than you guys is us. I don't know many people who wouldnt be up for a war with the Argies.
gak.. id give up bread for life if i could machine.gun a boat full of Argies!
mattyrm wrote:
Mate the only people more aggressively patriotic and xenophobic than you guys is us. I don't know many people who wouldnt be up for a war with the Argies.
gak.. id give up bread for life if i could machine.gun a boat full of Argies!
Yeah, but you're an old man. I was born in 1986.
Yeah I'll be dead soon.
Seriously though.. I know you struggle to understand nationalism because your a smart bloke, but i hugely disagree with you here. Most people are dumb.. and we need little reason to hate!
The British haven't oppressed the Irish for a long time but still they hate. The English haven't oppressed the Scottish for hundreds but still they hate.. and you think 1982 counts as a while?
People have long memories, and people love to hate.
England fighting for the falklands would be hugely supported!
mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though.. I know you struggle to understand nationalism because your a smart bloke, but i hugely disagree with you here. Most people are dumb.. and we need little reason to hate!
I don't think its so much that I'm smart (I know plenty of intelligent, irrational people.) as I've been trained for a field based on taking the self out of the process as much as possible.
Basically, I'm a Mentat.
And I understand that many UK citizens will support intervention in the Falklands, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Unless the oil exploration pans out, then the money will always be there barring some financial catastrophe.
See, told you so. He's making it about something boring - himself.
dogma wrote: Basically, I'm a Mentat.
okay that's interesting he thinks he's a sweet?
But to think that British interest in th Falklands starts and ends with money is ignorant in the extreme. If that were so why would so many English happily dump Scotland into the sea given the choice.
If a conflict did start again, would the commenwealth nations come in and help automatically? like Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand for example?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:i was wronged by a french canadian when I was 8, i still hate both the french and canadians, especially when the two combine.
Well I'm Canadian, and I hate anything east of Ontario (mainly the Qeubecas!)... well I hate most things that come from Ontario as well, cept old number 99. But when you get wronged by a French "Canadian" their not really Canadian, just a bit a crap that the French didn't want... I dont see why you have to hate the rest of Canada, which is *cough* better in every way *cough* then the states ;P
dogma wrote:I suspect that many British citizens like bread a whole lot more than they like the Falklands. Particularly the generation that wasn't alive when the last war happened (ie. my generation).
I can't think of a war that got cancelled because an accountant ran the numbers and said it'd be really expensive, collapsing public support. I just don't think people's brains work that way.
Now, maybe sustained budget cuts might leave the UK in a place where it simply lacks the capability to defend the Falklands, but I can't see that happening any time soon, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:And I understand that many UK citizens will support intervention in the Falklands, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Even without the oil, the money is always there. It's a government with a fiat currency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ParatrooperSimon wrote:If a conflict did start again, would the commenwealth nations come in and help automatically? like Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand for example?
Not automatically. There's no defence component to the Commonwealth, that requires seperate treaties of mutual defence. There is a mutual defence arrangement in place between the UK, Australia and New Zealand, but I have no idea if Canada has a treaty of its own with the UK.
Neither Australia nor New Zealand assisted the UK last time, because the UK never called on our aid (nor, I think, would the invasion of a non-sovereign soil like the Falklands trigger the treaty). Not that that really matters, because if Australian history has shown anything in the 20th century, it's that if someone has a war we'll show up. We don't even care who's fighting, all you have to do is ask.
The bigger point is that there's really nothing for us to do to help. We've got some first rate infantry, but the UK's already got more of those guys than they could ever possibly fit onto the Falklands. So then it's a question of whether they want our rather limited naval capacity to come and float around, probably doing more harm than good. They didn't want it last time, I doubt that's changed.
sebster wrote:
I can't think of a war that got cancelled because an accountant ran the numbers and said it'd be really expensive, collapsing public support.
We're not talking about a war, though. We're talking about a possible war. The distinction is important.
And it doesn't have to collapse public support, just support. The public is important, but money is more important and there are ways to make money even if you're not reelected.
I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.
The queen?
The Scots are nothing if not stubborn.
*Shrugs* Blame Thatcher (why won't she die?) and Labour for causing it to re-surge. Using our country as a testing ground for laws (smoking ban, poll tax etc) is not right. You want to bring the law in? test it in your own country first.
The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.
Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?
Not a shame at all. I and the majority of Englismen can't wait for our bigoted racist, endlessly whinging n eighbours to feth off frankly. I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.
But that's another thread of it's own.
By similar reckoning the 7.8 Million Virginians and who cares how many other former confederate states should petition the UN eh?
No thanks. The court prcedent of Grant v. Lee still holds. I'd rather not go through that again.
mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though.. I know you struggle to understand nationalism because your a smart bloke, but i hugely disagree with you here. Most people are dumb.. and we need little reason to hate!
I don't think its so much that I'm smart (I know plenty of intelligent, irrational people.) as I've been trained for a field based on taking the self out of the process as much as possible.
Basically, I'm a Mentat.
And I understand that many UK citizens will support intervention in the Falklands, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Unless the oil exploration pans out, then the money will always be there barring some financial catastrophe.
Mentats, aren't they supposed to be stupid literalists until the fourth stage of their training.
See, you aren;t so different than everyone else. Those are the same reasons people will go to war in the Falklands. Even if the money isn;t there, there is always the LULZ.
See, you aren;t so different than everyone else. Those are the same reasons people will go to war in the Falklands. Even if the money isn;t there, there is always the LULZ.
Never a truer word spoken. Watching an A-10 rake some Afghans with gunfire filled me with lulz. Replacing them with Argies would be comic genius of an epic proportion.
I was taliking about the situation today with a couple of the Argentinians at work and I got surprised a bit at what they said.
One of them hadn't heard anything about what was happening, and the other one took off on a rant against Chile.
To begin the one that was ranting was the one that looked Anglo. In the 82 war, he was accused of being an FBI agent, CIA, ect. He basically got the Japanese in the U.S. During WW2 treatment.
He was all for nuking the Falklands to keep the oil from being stolen from the Argentina shelf.(his words)
He went on to say it made as much sense for Britain to claim the Falklands as it would be for Mexico to be claiming land in the U.S.
Then he went off on the Chileans, calling them "Oral specialists", for their role in the 1982 war. He basically said they stabbed Argentina in the back for helping Britain, and was actually railing on them more than anyone else.
This could get awkward at work, if anything happens, because we have quite a few Chileans here.
It was an interesting study in how someone can still care about their country, even after being crapped on when things are tight and they get singled out because of their appearance.
Relapse wrote:I was taliking about the situation today with a couple of the Argentinians at work and I got surprised a bit at what they said.
One of them hadn't heard anything about what was happening, and the other one took off on a rant against Chile.
To begin the one that was ranting was the one that looked Anglo. In the 82 war, he was accused of being an FBI agent, CIA, ect. He basically got the Japanese in the U.S. During WW2 treatment.
He was all for nuking the Falklands to keep the oil from being stolen from the Argentina shelf.(his words)
He went on to say it made as much sense for Britain to claim the Falklands as it would be for Mexico to be claiming land in the U.S.
Then he went off on the Chileans, calling them "Oral specialists", for their role in the 1982 war. He basically said they stabbed Argentina in the back for helping Britain, and was actually railing on them more than anyone else.
This could get awkward at work, if anything happens, because we have quite a few Chileans here.
It was an interesting study in how someone can still care about their country, even after being crapped on when things are tight and they get singled out because of their appearance.
Wait Chile stabbed Argentina in the back whilst Argentina prepared it's Navy and Army to invade Chilean islands after what was supposed to be a quick easy war against the defenseless Falklands? This following the rather short 4 year interval between the LAST time the Argies threatened war against Chile. Your Argie friend I'm guessing is a product of indoctrination if he thinks the Chileans betrayed the Argies.
There's more than a couple of South American countries that have a hot nut for Chile.
It's interesting to see everyone from the different SA countries working here, getting along like family, then hear these comments.
The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them where the only career is farming sheep.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.
At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.
At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.
And doing the same would result in the same thing.
Like i said. If they hadn't invaded they probably could have just baught/inherited the islands. Because they invaded they aren't gonna get them for a while...
Britain is weird when it comes to patriotism.
The Falklands aren't just about oi8l or people.
Much like Argentina believes (according to some) they are also about pride.
Unless they get incredibly persuasive or veyr patient i can't see a way for them to get them without bloodshed.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.
purplefood wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.
And doing the same would result in the same thing.
Like i said. If they hadn't invaded they probably could have just baught/inherited the islands. Because they invaded they aren't gonna get them for a while...
Britain is weird when it comes to patriotism.
The Falklands aren't just about oi8l or people.
Much like Argentina believes (according to some) they are also about pride.
Unless they get incredibly persuasive or veyr patient i can't see a way for them to get them without bloodshed.
I agree but I still think we should have handed them over years ago and avoided the war and the war which may be to come.
Just a shame that politicians care more about winning elections than doing what is right for the country or the little islands thousands of miles away, I guess. Instead we get soldiers losing their lives for "patriotism" which is about as wrong as you can get, in my opinion. People are important, land is meaningless.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands.
That is demonstrably untrue. It's also an insult to the brave men who laid down their lives to rescue their fellow Britons, not to mention those living who still bear the scars of that conflict. Perhaps you don't give a damn about them, but that speaks volumes about your character, to be frank.
All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
The same could be said of Northern Ireland, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority people there wish to remain British. We can't in good conscience abandon them.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
That is not a valid casus belli. It's a trade dispute.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them where the only career is farming sheep.
Well, that's probably going to change if it does turn out that there's oil there. Incidentally, the Falklands are an semi-autonomous region. The British don't directly 'rule' them. They're a self-governing protectorate.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
That's literally the most polite response that I can muster at this point.
Relapse wrote:There's more than a couple of South American countries that have a hot nut for Chile.
It's interesting to see everyone from the different SA countries working here, getting along like family, then hear these comments.
Oh, well they are living in the land of the great enemy.... errr... I mean the great uniter....
Wouldn't it be possible to set up some sort of deal by which the islands could be transferred to nominal Argentine control but they would be self-governed/an autonomous state within Argentina? Argentina gets what it wants, the Falklanders get the same standard of self-determination they have now, and the Brits dont have to worry about protecting a far-flung colony of 3000 people that the average person doesn't seem to really care too much about.
dogma wrote:We're not talking about a war, though. We're talking about a possible war. The distinction is important.
If Argentina threatens to occupy the islands by force, the options are to fight, or the back down, apparently citing monetary concerns. The latter is something no government could possibly get past the public.
And it doesn't have to collapse public support, just support. The public is important, but money is more important and there are ways to make money even if you're not reelected.
The public is the primary determinant of who's in power. We call it elections and make a big deal of it every time we have one.
To conceive of a politician in power actually using something as notional as immediate funding to act directly agaisnt the public's wishes is most fanciful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.
So you concede that there's overwhelming popular support among the general population to keep the Falklands?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:Just a shame that politicians care more about winning elections than doing what is right for the country or the little islands thousands of miles away, I guess. Instead we get soldiers losing their lives for "patriotism" which is about as wrong as you can get, in my opinion. People are important, land is meaningless.
Following policy that is popular among the people is what democracy is.
Whereas doing 'what is right' is just being expected to do whatever the speaker happens to think is important.
The former is exactly what politicians ought to do. The latter is not.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.
Malus should be threatened to have his home repossessed without compensation, along with that of his family and shipped abroad to Argentina or another country he doesnt speak the lanugage of or belong to. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for other citizens. 'I'm alright Jack' is not an acceptible attitude.
"Orlanth should be threatened to be sent to a rock in the south atlantic to fight and die to protect a small group of people that aren't his fellow countrymen while the majority of the British population sits at home sipping tea and going about their business as usual. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for his nations servicemen and women. "Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.
There is the perspective of those who would have to do the fighting that must be considered too...
chaos0xomega wrote:"Orlanth should be threatened to be sent to a rock in the south atlantic to fight and die to protect a small group of people that aren't his fellow countrymen while the majority of the British population sits at home sipping tea and going about their business as usual. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for his nations servicemen and women. "Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.
Your 'logic' is missing a few pointers.
1. If I was called up I would fight.
Some people think of the welfare of others. I tried to sign up for the Armed forces back in my youth, the will to serve is there.
2. Soldiers dont fight to die, death is a risk not a goal.
3. Falkland Islanders are my fellow countrymen, I say so, the UK government says so, public opinion says so, our laws say so, and above all the Islanders say so.
4. 'Go fight the war on my behalf' is acceptable, its what a professional army is there to do. Every soldier knows this when they join. If you have ever voted for a party that sends US soldiers into combat then you also have in effect made the same statement.
5. You are assuming this will end in war, I think this is a significant probability, but not necessarily so. Argentina will be a permanent problem, there are no illusions over that, but like the Spanish 'claim' on Gibraltar, it may end up a background noise that is filtered out . However handing the Falklands over to Argentina will be abandoning the populace, so my comments stand.
6. You are assuming by my commentary I am calling for war. That holds no logical weight whatsoever. There are no plans to invade Argentina, and if by some madness there were I have no part in them or others who share my sympathies. Any threat of war comes from Argentina, if the decision to not abandon the Islanders or their home to Argentina ever results in war it will not be anything we are culpable of. Capitulation is destruction not peace, and steadfast vigilance is peace not aggression.
chaos0xomega wrote:"Orlanth should be threatened to be sent to a rock in the south atlantic to fight and die to protect a small group of people that aren't his fellow countrymen while the majority of the British population sits at home sipping tea and going about their business as usual. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for his nations servicemen and women. "Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.
There is the perspective of those who would have to do the fighting that must be considered too...
Having fought, and I long ago assumed you had too, for a nation of people I not only don't identify as countrymen but I openly hold in contempt and regard as enemies one and all. It seems to me that the historically British population deserves protecting more than overtly hostile brown people who share no common history, culture, or language. Much in the same way Argentina doesn't share a common culture, history, or language with the Falklands.
For the British fighting man (and woman) to be called to defend the Falklands makes infinitely more sense than their service in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Unlike those countries every citizen of the Falkland Islands is a full British Citizen ( a fact I was heretofore unawares...somehow.), and therefor not only worthy of, but entitled to defense by the armed forces of the United Kingdom.
chaos0xomega wrote:"Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.
What do you think soldiers sign up for, if not to be sent off to fight wars that the government of the country deems necessary?
Don't you know, the man forces them to sign up for the free college tuition, it's the only way out of the ghetto. How dare anyone send volunteer soldiers to war! Especially to defend their own country men.
sebster wrote:
If Argentina threatens to occupy the islands by force, the options are to fight, or the back down, apparently citing monetary concerns. The latter is something no government could possibly get past the public.
Sure it could, with the right spin and enough material incentive.
sebster wrote:
To conceive of a politician in power actually using something as notional as immediate funding to act directly agaisnt the public's wishes is most fanciful.
That's exactly the sort of thing that politicians are most likely to contravene public opinion over, as it is confined to administration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:"Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.
When I say "Go fight the war on my behalf", I mean that in the sense that we shouldn't be so quick to send our boys to fight on a whim (a pattern of thought that is seemingly becoming increasingly common in some circles), the armed forces exist to go to war, but only as a last resort once diplomatic action has been exhausted. That is the point I was making.
Auston - The war in afghanistan is (was), in my belief, a war to protect the American people that quagmired into nation building. Ditto Iraq (except that it turned out to be a lie). Today, in my belief, those conflicts are justified by "We made a mess of things, its our responsibility to try to set things right." As for being a full citizen of the UK, I thought that was a case to, but some pages ago a poster claimed that this was not the case, that they had british citizenship but were not subject to certain benefits or somesuch.
Orlanth:
3 - If they are your countrymen then why do you call the islands a protectorate and not a part of the United Kingdom? Traditionally, the term protectorate denotes a separate national entity that is a client state to another national entity in exchange for protection. During the victorian era this term became skewed somewhat and came to refer to an entity that lacked sovereignty and was under the military leadership of another national entity. If they are your fellow countrymen then why are they referred to as "Falkland Islanders" and not "Britons" or whatever the term is these days.
5 - Spain will rise again! In seriousness, its a small population... is a generous resettlement program to the british countryside not an option or something? There must be a diplomatic solution that will make pretty much everyone happy and keep the Argies quiet.
6 - The way your post read (to me) implied that you were describing the end result of what would occur if the UK didn't respond to Argentine hostilities, etc. I will admit that had I bothered to read the quoted text and thus realize the context, I would not have posted what I posted.
It seems to me that there's a lot of sympathy for the British on this matter, so, despite my own opinion being 'feth international law, the inhabitants want to stay British' (which makes me feel quite the hypocrite considering the fact that I'm opposed to Israeli settlements in Gaza), I thought I'd share some notes I took from an article for a politics presentation I am doing this term from an article, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982: International Law and Just War Theory' by Cristoph Bluth:
The stuff in italics are my comments to make my notes a bit more understandable and where I use > instead of - is a point related to what's above it.
-J.D. Myhre regarding restoration of Port Egmont to British by Spain (Port Egmont being all that was restored, Spanish claim still intact): “The contents of those agreements are quite legally binding. By those declarations, Spain did return Port Egmont to Britain, but its reservation regarding sovereignty meant that with Port Egmont it was returning British sovereignty presuming that it was ever under British sovereignty. The port would be a British base in Spanish territory. The British declaration did not dispute Spanish reservation and must be interpreted as recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands (Myhre 1983, p. 32).
-Port Egmont was a settlement on West Falkland that was made by the British despite the Spanish having purchased a French settlement (the first settlement on the Falklands) on East Falkland, which transferred to them 'legal' ownership of the islands. The Spanish nearly go to war with the British when they evict the inhabitants of Port Egmont, but they back down and essentially confirm British sovereignty *over Port Egmont*.
p7
-Britain abandons Port Egmont and beyond a plaque left behind, does nothing to actively assert her authority. Spain 'exercised sovereignty' until 1810.
Earlier in the article it is established that a state can be recognised as having authority over a territory only if it makes an effort to administer it and assert sovereignty: from 1774 to 1833, the British do *nothing* to uphold their claim on the territory and the Spanish administer it from Buenos Aires until 1810.
-'Argentina claims that it succeeded to Spanish rights according to the principle of uti possidetis'.
Argentina believes it inherits Spain's claim because the islands were administered from Buenos Aires, the Spanish do not protest after the Argentinians settle the islands in 1816. >'There are generally great difficulties with the application of this principle because the internal boundaries of the Spanish empire were often ill-defined, but in this case there is no doubt. The Malvinas were administered by a governor who reported to Buenos Aires.'
-British kick Argies out in 1833.
They are effectively asserting a claim they haven't exercised for thirty years, after having made no complaint at the Argentinian settlement; it's out of the blue. We seemingly (from the perspective of modern international law) evicted a settlement on the basis of a claim that had become null and void, totally out of the blue.
-'the official case for British sovereignty is now generally made on the basis of post-1833 criteria.
>'Two principles are invoked to support Britsih sovereignty over the Falklands: (a) Prescription, (b) the right to self determination.'
-Prescription: Britain has occupied islands for 150 years.
>Legally 'tenuous'.
Argentina consistently protested from 1833 to the 1860s, where it stopped a while, then continued again to the present day. Although it's never been ruled on officially, convention *apparently* is that prescription only wins over a territory if the state it was taken from is silent for 50 years.
p8
-(self-determination of inhabitants) 'the fact that they are of British “kith and kin” goes to show that they are not indingenous, that they were sent to the Falklands after the forceful removal of the previous inhabitants in order to colonize them for Britain, and that hence the principle of self-determination does not apply; this at least is the Argentine response to the British claim (Bologna 1983, p. 39f.).'
Speaks for itself; I don't agree with this point since I think that they've been there long enough that their wishes should be taken into account. The Argentines themselves were not natives.
Either way, I think this complicates things for me. I guess I am still pro-British on the issue but it's hard to be so with the same resolve; are the Argentines really being a neo-colonial power? Or are they simply exerting their legal right? It's not just a matter of geography to them; 'oh the islands are closer to us than Britain' but a legal one.
Ultimately, I would say the issue of self-determination is the one that swings it. As Albatross said, the islanders want to be British. It would be dishonest at best to ignore their wishes, and I'd like to think we were a little better than that.
I'm probably wrong there, but eh.
Henners91 wrote:It seems to me that there's a lot of sympathy for the British on this matter, so, despite my own opinion being 'feth international law, the inhabitants want to stay British'
International law is also on the side of the British. Self-determination trumps "well it looks pretty on a map".
See, you aren;t so different than everyone else. Those are the same reasons people will go to war in the Falklands. Even if the money isn;t there, there is always the LULZ.
Never a truer word spoken. Watching an A-10 rake some Afghans with gunfire filled me with lulz. Replacing them with Argies would be comic genius of an epic proportion.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the RAF doesn't have any A10s
Albatross wrote:No, but the Yanks do, and the British military is able to call on US air support, and vice-versa.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Uh, in Afghanistan, I might add.
I will personally authorize our government to bring 6 A-10s out of storage in Tucson and sell them to you for...8 million pounds each. But only if you promise to fly them off of a carrier and occupy Argentina.
Albatross wrote:No, but the Yanks do, and the British military is able to call on US air support, and vice-versa.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Uh, in Afghanistan, I might add.
I will personally authorize our government to bring 6 A-10s out of storage in Tucson and sell them to you for...8 million pounds each. But only if you promise to fly them off of a carrier and occupy Argentina.
Umm... A10s aren't maritime aircraft and aren't designed for carrier deployment are they? I know the USMC have a number but I thought they use them from airfields not carriers.
Besides the UK doesn't have anything close to a Nimitz class carrier.
I'll give you $6million so long as you throw in 3 years servicing and a full tank of gas. No Promises on the Argentina thing though.
A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue
Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue
Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue
...the UK has no carriers.
Yes I know this. It was kind of a running joke.
Aren't you currently building some for that wonderful F-35? You might be better off with the A-10's actually
Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue
...the UK has no carriers.
We have the HMS Ocean, the HMS Albion and the HMS Bulwark.
Though the Ocean is a helicopter carrier and the Albion and the Bulwark are amphibious assault carriers...
Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue
...the UK has no carriers.
Yes we do. HMS Illustrious is still operational, and we could reactivate the Ark Royal within a week (it's sitting in a drydock).
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.
Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...
Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it and no pilots rated for them if you did. Look, I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind
You guys have a good and capable navy, you don't need carriers for the Falklands you have airstrips on the Islands you just need mid air refueling.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.
Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...
Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind
I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.
Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...
Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind
I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...
You know they call the old Harriers widowmaker for a good reason, good luck getting pilots trained on those in a rush.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.
Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...
Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind
I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...
You know they call the old Harriers widowmaker for a good reason, good luck getting pilots trained on those in a rush.
He's probably referring to the GR7s being sold to the US Navy.
To fly an A-10 off a carrier would require an almost total redesign it a totally unworkable concept; its just funny to say.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah but you have no operational full size carriers is what I think he was saying.
Not right now but if we needed to we could just unpack the Ark Royal as Ketara said...
Yeah but you would have nothing to fly off of it. I wasn't seriously saying you guys should buy a-10's and fly them off carriers. It was ......oh never mind
I dunno...
Add a few rockets-boostery type things onto it and maybe some pointing the opposite way to stop it...
It could work... though it would probably just explode.
Though we do have the harriers packed away somewhere so we could just get those...
Though we don't have anyone to fly them...
You know they call the old Harriers widowmaker for a good reason, good luck getting pilots trained on those in a rush.
He's probably referring to the GR7s being sold to the US Navy.
To fly an A-10 off a carrier would require an almost total redesign it a totally unworkable concept; its just funny to say.
Umm... A10s aren't maritime aircraft and aren't designed for carrier deployment are they? I know the USMC have a number but I thought they use them from airfields not carriers.
Then what you know is wrong. The entire fleet of A-10s are, have been, and always will be US Air Force assets.
Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue
...the UK has no carriers.
We have the HMS Ocean, the HMS Albion and the HMS Bulwark.
Though the Ocean is a helicopter carrier and the Albion and the Bulwark are amphibious assault carriers...
and last time i served on her, Ocean was also an Amphibious assault ship and LPH (landing platform helicopter) (although that might have been re-tasked now bulwark and albion (also amphibious assault ships) are now in service) due to fearless and invincible being retired.
However, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Of Wales (both carriers) are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018 respectively, although, i guess we will be relying on the AAS till then if there is a major crisis....
This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.
With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!
Henners91 wrote:This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.
With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!
The Royal navy is pretty fierce and is more then capable of handling Argentina on it's own. The fact that the Royal navy has no legitimate carriers (and or carrier based aircraft)and will not have them for some time, is rather meaningless in this case as you have airfields on the islands.
BBC Article wrote:Our reporter says there is a fair bit of sympathy at the UN headquarters for Argentina's position that the Falklands are a British colonial holdover.
Whilst it's only the rumors of a reporter, I wouldn't be surprised. What is supposed to be a bastion of democracy is sympathising with a nation looking to force themselves onto people who do not wish to be ruled by them. Last time I checked, that was near enough to opposite of Democracy.
I fail to see how the UN can even contemplate urging talks between Argentina and the UK on a veritable non-issue, nevermind backing Argentina.
Let's try and sum this up:
Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.
Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.
Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.
Henners91 wrote:This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.
With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!
The Royal navy is pretty fierce and is more then capable of handling Argentina on it's own. The fact that the Royal navy has no legitimate carriers (and or carrier based aircraft)and will not have them for some time, is rather meaningless in this case as you have airfields on the islands.
Well the guy who was First Sea Lord at the time has said that if we lose the islands, we're not getting them back.
Henners91 wrote:This has gone off-topic onto one of the most inane of topics... why do smart alecks (spelling?) have to leap on someone for suggesting we get lent some A10s? Does anyone *really* care that they can't launch off of carriers? It's humour, y'all... don't let it kill an interesting thread.
With regards to the carriers, I dunno about our planes or our capabilities to relaunch the things, but I think we can at least agree that the Royal Navy is in a laughable state. *Initiate The Sun Mode* NELSON WOULD BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE. GOTCHA, ARGIES!
The Royal navy is pretty fierce and is more then capable of handling Argentina on it's own. The fact that the Royal navy has no legitimate carriers (and or carrier based aircraft)and will not have them for some time, is rather meaningless in this case as you have airfields on the islands.
Well the guy who was First Sea Lord at the time has said that if we lose the islands, we're not getting them back.
Henners91 wrote:
Well the guy who was First Sea Lord at the time has said that if we lose the islands, we're not getting them back.
The Americans thought that after the Argies occupied back in the 80s, they were wrong. And most top defence people are agreed that the UK has the means to defend and/or retake the Falklands.
Andrew1975 wrote:
That may be true but how would you lose them?
Depends if that Type 45 becomes a perminant fixture. The Falklands could fall to a surprise attack given how far away the fleet is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391 Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.
Joey wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.
Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.
But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".
"Argentina's defence minister has heated up the rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by warning that if British armed forces land "in our territory we will defend ourselves".
Arturo Puricelli accused Britain of trying to provoke Argentina into turning a diplomatic conflict into an armed conflict.
He said that Argentina will "put up with" British armed forces in the Falklands.
"But if they reach our continental territory we will exercise our legitimate right of defence and we have the resources and the skills to do so," he warned.
This goes right back to Argentina really just trying to escalate the situation. Between accusing the UK of having a sub there (you should) and saying they will defend themselves against a UK invasion of mainland Argentina the Argies are really coming off like complete asses.
Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.
Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.
I think that was probably a little un-called for.
RE: The submarine thing - We've had a permanent submarine presence there for years haven't we? That's not new.
Joey wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.
Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.
But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".
"Argentina's defence minister has heated up the rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by warning that if British armed forces land "in our territory we will defend ourselves".
Arturo Puricelli accused Britain of trying to provoke Argentina into turning a diplomatic conflict into an armed conflict.
He said that Argentina will "put up with" British armed forces in the Falklands.
"But if they reach our continental territory we will exercise our legitimate right of defence and we have the resources and the skills to do so," he warned.
This goes right back to Argentina really just trying to escalate the situation. Between accusing the UK of having a sub there (you should) and saying they will defend themselves against a UK invasion of mainland Argentina the Argies are really coming off like complete asses.
Demanding that the UK reveal the location of their nuclear subs...this is very strange. And what the hell makes them think we'd launch a land invasion of Argentina? We don't have to.
Anyway with all this saber rattling I'd bet my possessions that the military has stepped up in preparations. Any surprise they thought they'd have has gone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Argentina wants the Falklands>Falklands says no>UK says no>Argentina whines and wants to hold talks>Falkands ignored>UK refusing talks since there is nothing to talk about>Argentina runs to the UN with its eyes streaming and its lower lip trembling and complains about the nasty British people>UN urges talks>The Falklands continues to be ignored by Argentina and the UN, despite being the ones at the centre of the issue.
Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.
I think that was probably a little un-called for.
The UN has power but is run by people we know nothing about. That in itself makes them worthy of scorn unless they are useful to us.
Kudos to the UN on Libya, though. Well, the British and French ambassadors, anyway.
Joey wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
Argentina are saying the UK has sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands...though a nuclear strike is obviously very unlikely, these subs are capable of launching conventional weapons and are more than a match for Argentine warships.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a sub stationed there perminantly, though. Of course we are perfectly entitled to station it there, seeing as it is our land.
Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.
But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".
"Argentina's defence minister has heated up the rhetoric over the Falkland Islands by warning that if British armed forces land "in our territory we will defend ourselves".
/Potentially hostile nation DEMANDS to know the location of your stealthy naval assest
/You send a polite note from the Queen with two simple words: "feth You; HRM"
The Argentinian navy isn't particularly large, and is mostly corvettes and smaller ships, with their flagship being a relatively modern frigate, and the largest things in their fleet is a pair of type 42 British made destroyers, which they have had for 30 years. Britain has 11 submarines currently in service, along with 19 frigates and destroyers. Argentina currently has 10 destroyers and frigates in active service, with a British type 42 destroyer in reserve, along with 3 submarines, 2 of them German made TR-1700's.
Its the UN. The biggest waste of space in the world. An institution that makes even the American government look like highly-Enlightened individuals.
I think that was probably a little un-called for.
The UN has power but is run by people we know nothing about. That in itself makes them worthy of scorn unless they are useful to us.
Kudos to the UN on Libya, though. Well, the British and French ambassadors, anyway.
Nah, I meant the anti-Americanism. It's a needless insult to our friends.
AFAIK there has been a British submarine there since the invasion...
I'm fairly sure i read that on Wikipedia though so either Argentina's military intelligance is shockingly incompetant or someone made something up on Wikipedia and it happened to be true...
purplefood wrote:AFAIK there has been a British submarine there since the invasion...
I'm fairly sure i read that on Wikipedia though so either Argentina's military intelligance is shockingly incompetant or someone made something up on Wikipedia and it happened to be true...
No I'm being a bit cheeky. That's exactly what happened. The HMS conqueror killed an Argetine warship (the first nuclear sub to kill people I beleive). The argentines knew they had nothing that could combat that and kept their navy in port for the duration of the war. Instead relying on land to sea missles (which were shocking effective from a British standpoint). Don't underetimate the power of a nuclear submarine: not everyone's got those.
purplefood wrote:AFAIK there has been a British submarine there since the invasion...
I'm fairly sure i read that on Wikipedia though so either Argentina's military intelligance is shockingly incompetant or someone made something up on Wikipedia and it happened to be true...
No I'm being a bit cheeky. That's exactly what happened. The HMS conqueror killed an Argetine warship (the first nuclear sub to kill people I beleive). The argentines knew they had nothing that could combat that and kept their navy in port for the duration of the war. Instead relying on land to sea missles (which were shocking effective from a British standpoint). Don't underetimate the power of a nuclear submarine: not everyone's got those.
I believe another war would pretty much go the same way as the last one and that is what's preventing another one. Argentina lost and they know they'd lose again.
BBC Article wrote:But you can't get eggs and you can't get vegetables. South America once traded happily with the islanders, supplying all their needs. But Buenos Aires has been working hard to cut the islands off.
Recently, Argentina persuaded other South American countries to turn Falklands-flagged vessels away from their ports. Ships rounding Cape Horn heading for the Falklands are routinely stopped, searched and delayed, so much so that merchant vessels have largely given up trying.
Argentina has also restricted air traffic. There is one flight a week from Chile. Argentina won't allow more than this to pass through its airspace. Now Argentina is threatening to close even this last link with mainland South America.
So they're effectively starving people and cutting them off from an entire continent because the UK won't give them the Falklands... Surely somewhere, in the convoluted mess of rules and regulations that is the UN, there is something that makes this illegal?
They're disrupting trade, cutting off transportation between South America and the Falklands, and actvely encouraging other countries to do the same for no reason other than they want that island; how can they say with any sort of seriousness that they care about the Falklands? How can they say that they have a claim to the Falklands when they have shown what they're willing to do to people who resist their rule?
BBC Article wrote:But you can't get eggs and you can't get vegetables. South America once traded happily with the islanders, supplying all their needs. But Buenos Aires has been working hard to cut the islands off.
Recently, Argentina persuaded other South American countries to turn Falklands-flagged vessels away from their ports. Ships rounding Cape Horn heading for the Falklands are routinely stopped, searched and delayed, so much so that merchant vessels have largely given up trying.
Argentina has also restricted air traffic. There is one flight a week from Chile. Argentina won't allow more than this to pass through its airspace. Now Argentina is threatening to close even this last link with mainland South America.
So they're effectively starving people and cutting them off from an entire continent because the UK won't give them the Falklands... Surely somewhere, in the convoluted mess of rules and regulations that is the UN, there is something that makes this illegal?
They're disrupting trade, cutting off transportation between South America and the Falklands, and actvely encouraging other countries to do the same for no reason other than they want that island; how can they say with any sort of seriousness that they care about the Falklands? How can they say that they have a claim to the Falklands when they have shown what they're willing to do to people who resist their rule?
There are some who would claim that is sufficient cause for a declaration of war...
Also fairly sure there are laws against it...
BBC Article wrote:But you can't get eggs and you can't get vegetables. South America once traded happily with the islanders, supplying all their needs. But Buenos Aires has been working hard to cut the islands off.
Recently, Argentina persuaded other South American countries to turn Falklands-flagged vessels away from their ports. Ships rounding Cape Horn heading for the Falklands are routinely stopped, searched and delayed, so much so that merchant vessels have largely given up trying.
Argentina has also restricted air traffic. There is one flight a week from Chile. Argentina won't allow more than this to pass through its airspace. Now Argentina is threatening to close even this last link with mainland South America.
So they're effectively starving people and cutting them off from an entire continent because the UK won't give them the Falklands... Surely somewhere, in the convoluted mess of rules and regulations that is the UN, there is something that makes this illegal?
They're disrupting trade, cutting off transportation between South America and the Falklands, and actvely encouraging other countries to do the same for no reason other than they want that island; how can they say with any sort of seriousness that they care about the Falklands? How can they say that they have a claim to the Falklands when they have shown what they're willing to do to people who resist their rule?
It's no worse than what the US did/is doing to Cuba. Let them embargo the Falklands, it's not like those people are actually starving.
I hear the Islanders have been importanting lots of Nuclear fuel from the UK recently, anyway.
Zakiriel wrote:I think the R.N. has record for only nuclear submarine to engage an enemy ship with torpedos to date, H.M.S. Conqueror sinking ARA General Belgrano.
They wanted them before they knew there was oil there.
Correct.
Argentina is trying to make the world believe we want to 'steal' the islands for oil. To some extent its working as the thirst for oil is logical. However the Uk has a commitment to defend because the government that loses the islands will not be reelected and the Argies are committed to claiming them because the government that does so will guarantee re-election.
All in all a nasty combo, naturally the UK wants peace and quiet, because it has the islands so any genuine escalation is on the Argentine part. However an unopposed (why? Foreign Office why?) propaganda campaign is turning that issue into the reverse of what it is.
BBC Article wrote:But you can't get eggs and you can't get vegetables. South America once traded happily with the islanders, supplying all their needs. But Buenos Aires has been working hard to cut the islands off.
Recently, Argentina persuaded other South American countries to turn Falklands-flagged vessels away from their ports. Ships rounding Cape Horn heading for the Falklands are routinely stopped, searched and delayed, so much so that merchant vessels have largely given up trying.
Argentina has also restricted air traffic. There is one flight a week from Chile. Argentina won't allow more than this to pass through its airspace. Now Argentina is threatening to close even this last link with mainland South America.
So they're effectively starving people and cutting them off from an entire continent because the UK won't give them the Falklands... Surely somewhere, in the convoluted mess of rules and regulations that is the UN, there is something that makes this illegal?
They're disrupting trade, cutting off transportation between South America and the Falklands, and actvely encouraging other countries to do the same for no reason other than they want that island; how can they say with any sort of seriousness that they care about the Falklands? How can they say that they have a claim to the Falklands when they have shown what they're willing to do to people who resist their rule?
Indeed. Apparently Argentina are going crying to the UN to complain about us. Well that's the right venue to make them explain themselves trying to put the islanders under some sort of siege.
Well starving the islands out wont work.
To actually starve the islands out you need to hit a survival resource, so long as they have milk and meat and fish all they need to import are cereals for basic food survival and cereals are storable.
Shortages of non food supplies will likely hit much harder but are at the moment not being noticed as much.
In any case the islanders will undergo hardship, but that will only piss them off and harden their resolve.
The economic blockade has three main results:
1. Make the Argentinian populace feel good that something is being done.
2. Legitimise further action (boiled frog effect) because of lacklustre opposition to current methods. i.e if the UK dont complain, the UN cant complain and if the UN doesnt complain it's legitimate.
3. Bring in more flags quietly onto the Argentinian side because blockading the Falklands is something others 'can do at home' simply and effortlessly.
Dogma, good insight on the 'freedom' thing. The Jefferson quote is often misquoted with 'peace' rather than 'freedom'.
A lot of the problem is that for Argentina it really is a big deal. They lost a lot of face post-Falklands War 1 and a lot of the population had thought they were winning right up until the end of the war thanks to the massive amount of propaganda. And then they wrote their claim to the Falklands into their constitution...
But yeah, given the whole self-determination thing built into the UN charter, it is a bit ridiculous. Also, pretty sure if Argentina has a claim, France and Spain have better ones.
As for carriers, Illustrious is taking over from Ocean while Ocean is refitted, and Ark Royal is being auctioned until 6th July. But as has been mentioned, we sold the Harriers to the US for spares, so we have nothing to chuck off either one, if the pilots even still had their ratings.
The one good thing the RN has managed to maintain though is a decent submarine force, so at least we have that... And yeah... The US didn't really get involved in the last one and beyond maybe (only maybe) giving us some intelligence wouldn't in this.
They wont attack, Arg knows that the UK has the force to beat them, plus where there is oil there is an American task force.
A wee bit cyincal there Chances are not much will happen about it, this flears up every 5 to 10 years. The Argis want the islands back, we say they wasn't theirs to begin with. The pull the Clames of the Spanish Empire bit, we say the islanders don't care. It goes back and forth like this every time.
I'm just wondering if they would try to pull the same trick with the Gurnsy isllands or the isle of Wight
They wont attack, Arg knows that the UK has the force to beat them, plus where there is oil there is an American task force.
A wee bit cyincal there Chances are not much will happen about it, this flears up every 5 to 10 years. The Argis want the islands back, we say they wasn't theirs to begin with. The pull the Clames of the Spanish Empire bit, we say the islanders don't care. It goes back and forth like this every time.
I'm just wondering if they would try to pull the same trick with the Gurnsy isllands or the isle of Wight
Sorry for coming across like that, I was based down on the Islands for a period of time, I can't go into it but the British learnt a lot from the previous conflict.
The latiest news from the BBC. "14 February 2012 Last updated at 02:24 Falklands dispute: Argentine union to boycott UK ships Argentina's transport workers' union says it will boycott ships flying the British flag because of the dispute over the Falkland Islands."
...And really Mr Penn? Sean Penn: "The world today is not going to tolerate any kind of ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology."
The latiest news from the BBC...Again "15 February 2012 Last updated at 10:15 MPs to visit Falklands amid UK tensions with Argentina MPs from the Commons defence committee are set to visit the Falklands at a time of rising tensions with Argentina over the islands' future."
"The idea that a bunch of middle-age parliamentarians is an escalation of Britain's military presence flatters us beyond belief” Thomas Docherty Labour MP, defence select committee
Ribon Fox wrote:The latiest news from the BBC.
"14 February 2012 Last updated at 02:24
Falklands dispute: Argentine union to boycott UK ships
Argentina's transport workers' union says it will boycott ships flying the British flag because of the dispute over the Falkland Islands."
This is worrisome. By letting a union do it Argentina can de facto blockade trade without crossing international law. We often get the same love from the French.
Ribon Fox wrote:
...And really Mr Penn?
Sean Penn: "The world today is not going to tolerate any kind of ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology."
Less worrisome, Sean Penn is a Boston plastic paddy. More Irish than the Irish and twice as Irish republican too. Thus in all scenarios the formula applies: UK = evil, therefore anti-UK = good. While I don't fault Kirchner for using him Penn is making a laughing stock of himself in the press, unsuprisingly in the UK but also abroad. The Canadian press did a rather unflattering piece on him echoed in several web papers. I am yet to find any press article that favourably reports his position, though I dont read Spanish or Gaelic language press so he will undoubtably have an audience somewhere.
Orlanth wrote:Less worrisome, Sean Penn is a Boston plastic paddy. More Irish than the Irish and twice as Irish republican too. Thus in all scenarios the formula applies: UK = evil, therefore anti-UK = good. While I don't fault Kirchner for using him Penn is making a laughing stock of himself in the press, unsuprisingly in the UK but also abroad. The Canadian press did a rather unflattering piece on him echoed in several web papers. I am yet to find any press article that favourably reports his position, though I dont read Spanish or Gaelic language press so he will undoubtably have an audience somewhere.
Thats not correct and cut the Irish crap.
Sean Penn has a long history of loving Latin and Central America (dictators) against the Evil Oppressor, if the Evil Oppressor is the US, or evidently, the UK.
Mr Hyena wrote:British pirates? Lol. Argentinians are really dumb.
Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.
I am NOT laughing this off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats not correct and cut the Irish crap.
'Plastic paddies' are a real problem not an illusory one. Its not quite synonymous with 'Irish American'. Also Penn is only partly Irish, many plastic paddies are.
Frazzled wrote:
Sean Penn has a long history of loving Latin and Central America (dictators) against the Evil Oppressor, if the Evil Oppressor is the US, or evidently, the UK.
Castro and Chavez though you might not like them do have some points. The US has tried to remove both by underhand means and lefties in the States are embarassed by that. The CIA bankrolled at least one coup against Chavez, left or right thats not good and thus Chavez has reason to not like the US government very much.
The UK has not been trying to topple South American countries or interfere in their development. Sean Penn doesn't like us very much for other reasons.
Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.
I am NOT laughing this off.
They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.
Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.
I am NOT laughing this off.
They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.
Its only heading in one direction, against us. So it wont worry the US or anyone else. It wont even worry the French and they have a full country sized 'colony' in South America that is now part of France itself. There is a message for us there.. Its a Latin force, so giving it one purpose is enough, redirecting it is going to be difficult if not impossible. If Argentina gets what it wants it doesn't mean support will then flow north on other issues. After all no support will be given to Argentina beyond acclamation, despite Chavez crowing. That however is what Argentina needs.
What Argentina is doing makes sense in realpolitik terms, they are not being unrealistic in the goals to grab the islands, or in the methodology to do so. Whether it is right or not is for the UK to claim against, and that requires being a lot more vocal than we have been up until now. The addage that the Argentinians have made comments like this before so it will just blow over don't wash frankly. That was then, this is now. Argentina is on a roll, they have no logical reason to stop, not if we are not defending against the diplomatic punches.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henners91 wrote:Clearly Irish Americans having sympathies against the UK is a real phenomena; I mean, the IRA got their money and guns from somewhere, amirite?
And guess which US actor, amongst others was backing Sinn Fein? (4,4)
Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.
I am NOT laughing this off.
They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.
There's no such thing as a united crusading Latin force in South America, any more than there is a united crusading Caucasian force in Europe. First of all because none of them are Italian. You might all pretend to get on fine since that silly little war 70 some odd years ago, but under the surface there is plenty of motivation for European nations to jockey for power and go to war once all the proxies get tired of being used. Chile won't help Argentina for the same reason France won't help the UK, under the polite veneer of foreign relations they hate each other. Argentina may have developed close ties with Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay but they certainly don't have many friends in Columbia, Bolivia, or Mexico. South America is a pot under pressure. The economic benefits of remaining at peace have outweighed the seething tensions between the nations, some of them aren't equipped to fight (Bolivia), and some of them would rather not (Brazil), but Argentina's neighbors and erstwhile political allies are unlikely to join her in a crusade against the English speaking world that can only end in burning everything those nations have achieved in the last 30 years to the ground. Because if the Falklands were to blow up into more than a face off between the Argies and the Brits it would very likely develop into a war between the British cousins(UK and US) and whatever group of South American nations from which sanity has escaped being crushed to the wailing tune of the UN General Assembly.
Frazzled wrote:............ Thats not correct and cut the Irish crap.
Sean Penn has a long history of loving Latin and Central America (dictators) against the Evil Oppressor, if the Evil Oppressor is the US, or evidently, the UK.
But oppressing the Irish is like...our thing. It's what we do to repress the urge to take over the world again.
I do agree with the need for Malibu to be handed back to the Mexicans though.
All the advatages of the US but with all the advatanges of a second teir currency. Seems ideal.
Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.
I am NOT laughing this off.
They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.
There's no such thing as a united crusading Latin force in South America, any more than there is a united crusading Caucasian force in Europe. First of all because none of them are Italian. You might all pretend to get on fine since that silly little war 70 some odd years ago, but under the surface there is plenty of motivation for European nations to jockey for power and go to war once all the proxies get tired of being used. Chile won't help Argentina for the same reason France won't help the UK, under the polite veneer of foreign relations they hate each other. Argentina may have developed close ties with Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay but they certainly don't have many friends in Columbia, Bolivia, or Mexico. South America is a pot under pressure. The economic benefits of remaining at peace have outweighed the seething tensions between the nations, some of them aren't equipped to fight (Bolivia), and some of them would rather not (Brazil), but Argentina's neighbors and erstwhile political allies are unlikely to join her in a crusade against the English speaking world that can only end in burning everything those nations have achieved in the last 30 years to the ground. Because if the Falklands were to blow up into more than a face off between the Argies and the Brits it would very likely develop into a war between the British cousins(UK and US) and whatever group of South American nations from which sanity has escaped being crushed to the wailing tune of the UN General Assembly.
We would not be involved. We would not permit that level of combat either. The Americas are our playground. Everyone else push off. *
*Monroe Doctrine. Don't mess with dead Presidents.
We would not be involved. We would not permit that level of combat either. The Americas are our playground. Everyone else push off. *
*Monroe Doctrine. Don't mess with dead Presidents.
Monroe doctrine has no weight in international law, its useful for forming new policy. The US might have tried it when the colony was established and decided not to. Now its well too late.
Self determination and indiginous legitimacy vs the 'inherited' Spanish claim are the legal issues.
We would not be involved. We would not permit that level of combat either. The Americas are our playground. Everyone else push off. * *Monroe Doctrine. Don't mess with dead Presidents.
Monroe doctrine has no weight in international law, its useful for forming new policy. The US might have tried it when the colony was established and decided not to. Now its well too late.
Self determination and indiginous legitimacy vs the 'inherited' Spanish claim are the legal issues.
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polkite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:So Frazzled does have "a dog in this fight" afterall. He wants the Falklands for himself.
Frazzled wrote:
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.
Really, thats a ten year olds argument. I expect better from you Frazzie.
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.
We already have responses from Hilary Clinton and Obama, and don't like them.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:America will not get involved in the Falklands. They didn't in '82 and won't now. Currently, the US is completely busy not getting involved in Syria.
Diplomatically we would. I don't see a united "Latin League" for many reasons (Chile has already declined joining the union embargo) and don't see any sort of greater "Euro" league being involved either. Would be an interesting board game... WWIII Europe vs. South America.
As noted this was referred to the UN, which means absolutely nothing will happen. The Falklands are safe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.
Really, thats a ten year olds argument. I expect better from you Frazzie.
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.
We already have responses from Hilary Clinton and Obama, and don't like them.
Why do you think France bailed on Maximillian in Mexico? Something about 'Sheridan marching south,' to the French Ambassador.
"Keep my legions intact. It makes the law legal."
-Julius Caesar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henners91 wrote:If Argentina's claim stems from Spain's colonial 'ownership' of the Malvinas, then does that contravene the Monroe Doctrine?
Only if SPain gets uppity. Spain is not getting uppity.
Actually that might be the only thing that did in fact unite South America.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:America will not get involved in the Falklands. They didn't in '82 and won't now. Currently, the US is completely busy not getting involved in Syria.
Diplomatically we would. I don't see a united "Latin League" for many reasons (Chile has already declined joining the union embargo) and don't see any sort of greater "Euro" league being involved either. Would be an interesting board game... WWIII Europe vs. South America.
As noted this was referred to the UN, which means absolutely nothing will happen. The Falklands are safe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.
Really, thats a ten year olds argument. I expect better from you Frazzie.
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.
We already have responses from Hilary Clinton and Obama, and don't like them.
Why do you think France bailed on Maximillian in Mexico? Something about 'Sheridan marching south,' to the French Ambassador.
"Keep my legions intact. It makes the law legal."
-Julius Caesar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henners91 wrote:If Argentina's claim stems from Spain's colonial 'ownership' of the Malvinas, then does that contravene the Monroe Doctrine?
Only if SPain gets uppity. Spain is not getting uppity.
Actually that might be the only thing that did in fact unite South America.
I don't think Spain'd 'get uppity'; they didn't contest the Argies when (I forget which year, I think I mentioned it earlier in this post) declared that the claim had transferred since the islands were administered from Buenos Aires. The Spanish kept silent and that is taken as approval of sorts. Spain has no real right to get involved barrings its 'paternal' links to South America(?).
What I meant to ask is that, if Argentina's claim stems from European colonialism, is it valid?
I have to say there are certainly arguments to describe either Britain or Argentina as acting in a colonial manner (Oooh that island happens to be geographically closer to us than its owner. For the sake of geographical convenience we must claim it!)
Okay maybe that parody of the Argentinian view is inaccurate/unfair, but I know that's how it appears to many...
Automatically Appended Next Post: And hell, it's the argument many Argies seem to use on YouTube
Henners91 wrote:Does it invalidate European claims to land(?) was my point
Well its not a legal doctrine, more of a "Euros push off!" doctrine. Its interesting that the Argentinians would use that claim as generally they don't recognize Spanish claims.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Monroe Doctrine is not a law, it's a foreign policey. America changes it's foreign policey like Frazzled changes his ammo clips. The Monroe Doctrine? Might as well be discussing the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in open plains combat. Can we at least upgrade this to America's most recent policey: The Bush Doctrine.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but the Monroe Doctrine is not a law, it's a foreign policey. America changes it's foreign policey like Frazzled changes his ammo clips. The Monroe Doctrine? Might as well be discussing the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in open plains combat. Can we at least upgrade this to America's most recent policey: The Bush Doctrine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ninja'd.
Actually its really changed. US policy has always been to try to keep other big boys out.
After all, WWIII almost occurred over it.
Frazzled wrote:
Actually its really changed. US policy has always been to try to keep other big boys out.
After all, WWIII almost occurred over it.
Actually WW3 nearly occured because Kennedy didnt want to lose face and it was he not Kruschev who was threatening to press the button. Kruschev agreed to lose face in return for material gains (US nukes out of Turkey and a no invasion pledge for Cuba). Effectively the Soviets got the better deal by far, with Cuba safe there was no need for nukes there; while Kennedy walked away with the 'win'.
Kennedy insisted on looking good first and getting the job done a distant second, he got all pissy and threatened the existance of the human race because nukes were 100 miles from US soil at a time when the Soviets already had hemispheric launch capability. Best thing that happened to that self important idiot was a couple of bullets from a book depository.
The Argentinian nazis would use any excuse to persecute the Falkland Islanders.
The lack of assistance by the US is disappointing however, considering the UK supported the US heavily in their conflicts. Not completely unexpected though.
Frazzled wrote:It wasn't about losing face. It was about nukes just a few minutes launch time away. It was a first strike position.
Which was what the US missiles in Turkey were seen as. The Soviets thought, so what, we are both fethed anyway even with first strike because of M.A.D.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:Yeah. But there was a feeling of betrayal over Obama's comments.
Very much so.
Plenty of Uk troops doing the US favours. Rumour has it that the 'Seal Team 6' attacks on Bin Laden and the Somalia rescue were both actually part US Navy SEALs and part British special forces.
The US are there when they need us.
Bush for all his many many faults would have told Kirchner where to get off.
Orlanth wrote:. Rumour has it that the 'Seal Team 6' attacks on Bin Laden and the Somalia rescue were both actually part US Navy SEALs and part British special forces.
Orlanth wrote:. Rumour has it that the 'Seal Team 6' attacks on Bin Laden and the Somalia rescue were both actually part US Navy SEALs and part British special forces.
What's your source on this?
Probably the same place as this well reasoned opinion.
Orlanth wrote: Best thing that happened to that self important idiot was a couple of bullets from a book depository.
I expect that the 'Munroe Policy' will be neatly sidestepped in the same way it was last time. By not attacking any military assets in/on Argentinian soil. Anything else will be fair game I expect.
Fraz, Dachshunds? Here? aerodynamic I admit, but the wind? There's no trees, seriously outside of a few specially planted/nurtured groves that poor dog has nowhere to 'go'.
AndrewC wrote:I expect that the 'Munroe Policy' will be neatly sidestepped in the same way it was last time. By not attacking any military assets in/on Argentinian soil. Anything else will be fair game I expect.
Fraz, Dachshunds? Here? aerodynamic I admit, but the wind? There's no trees, seriously outside of a few specially planted/nurtured groves that poor dog has nowhere to 'go'.
Cheers
Andrew
To the wiener legions a mere crop of grass will do-when you're 6-9 inches tall thats a jungle. Do you have squirrels there? Without trees their day of reckoning will be at hand. Calm Tbone, calm!
AndrewC wrote:I expect that the 'Munroe Policy' will be neatly sidestepped in the same way it was last time. By not attacking any military assets in/on Argentinian soil. Anything else will be fair game I expect.
Fraz, Dachshunds? Here? aerodynamic I admit, but the wind? There's no trees, seriously outside of a few specially planted/nurtured groves that poor dog has nowhere to 'go'.
Cheers
Andrew
To the wiener legions a mere crop of grass will do-when you're 6-9 inches tall thats a jungle. Do you have squirrels there? Without trees their day of reckoning will be at hand. Calm Tbone, calm!
It'll be like that scene in Lost World with the raptors in the long grass, but with less scales and Jeff Goldblum.
Watching them discuss it on 10 O'clock live. It's sickening.
The Argentinians have no claims whatsoever to the Falklands. The inhabitants are British. They are British lands.
Of course if the Argentinians want to give their land back to Patagonian Indians, I'm sure we'd be happy to give the Falklands to the Argentinian people to live on, since it has no original human inhabitants anyway.
the Argies are really coming off like complete asses.
