Its something some of us want to discuss and was well behaved. Its a sickening travesty what has happened, and it might not matter wherever Janthkin comes from, but it matters to us, so a measure of respect for the topic is required, to give it a good chance to be aired.
<moderation comment inserted>
dogma wrote:Obama rant, and probable reports.
<acknowledged; keep it civil, and you can talk about what you want --Janthkin>
I may have missed something in the thread but it did appear to be slightly unneccessary to close it. Some posts seemed to be takingit a bit to far but I didn't see anything too extreme posted, certainly no worse than any other political threads.
If Argentina has been patient we might have given them the islands. But they tried to help themselves to them and we had to fight simply to save face if nothing else.
Anyway, the people on the Falklands are British citizens, they want to remain on British soil. There's no way the British Government will give them back, particularly a conservative government. It's just a nonsense. Politically impossible, the British public wouldn't stand for it even though many don't even understand the situation.
It was a flamebait based on a highly partisan article with no actual substance.
Obama's administration saying 'you should talk with Argentina' absolutely and in no way supported Argentina's claim. It's just international diplomacy.
As a Brit with an absolute belief in the Falklands remaining under our sovereignty I find nothing wrong with what I've read, it's just smoothing egos and remaining removed from what is a fairly non-issue.
If they invaded, the Obama administration would be no more tolerant of it than any other US administration would be or was.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:It was a flamebait based on a highly partisan article with no actual substance.
You mentioned this and it's not a fair comment.
Take a look at the document linked to by the artcile, part of which is copy pasted onto the article itself. There are hints there that all is not well.
1. The document refers to the Islands as the Malvinas, they do not refer to them as the Falklands/Malvinas which would have been more fair. This is important as the right to name the islands, especuially in a document written in English is important. It has clear implications.
2. Quoted 'DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.' What definative settlement is this, the UK governments position is unchanging and from their perspective it is closed. A 'definitive settlement' can therefore only mean an outcome other than the one currently in place. As it is not usual for a nation to negotiate sovereignty of its own de facto sovereign territory then agreeing to this statement is a de facto support of changing the current politcal situation.
3. The statement was exactly copied from a similar proposal issued in the previous conference on June 10th 2010, which resulted in diplomatic protests in washington. Obviosusly by the repeat of the agreement by the US its is clear that Obama is directly snubbing the Uk government on this issue.
4. As the islanders are very clear on their preference, any US president wishing to be seen as a support of 'democracy' and 'freedom' has no real option but to account for the concept of self determination. So far no caveats regarding self determination have been forthcoming from Washington.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they invaded, the Obama administration would be no more tolerant of it than any other US administration would be or was.
underr the circumstances that is hopelessly optimistic.
dogma wrote:
The phrase "close allies" means "doing whatever it is you want me to do?"
It does mean quid pro quo.
dogma wrote:
You guys are close allies of the US, but Brazil is much more important than you are, and Argentina is a way to make inroads to Brazil.
Brazil is a big country, but much smaller economy smaller infrastructure, not part of G8 and has no UN veto. Pissing on the Uk (or France) is not exactly smart.
dogma wrote:
As I said in the last thread, we aren't giving anyone territory, we simply said "negotiation is a good thing."
Just as well we would say no anyway. Negotiation is not always a good thing, it sounds like you would give Poland 'back' to the Germans. Some thijngs are not up for negotiation. The islands are ours, the people on them agree and furthermore the Argentinians recently tried to take them by force, and failed. In all honesty there isn't anything to discuss.
Yeah, roughly equal, just like the relationship is.
Orlanth wrote:
Brazil is a big country, but much smaller economy smaller infrastructure, not part of G8 and has no UN veto. Pissing on the Uk (or France) is not exactly smart.
Much smaller economy? What? Do you not look at GDP statistics? Plus, Brazil is growing. BRIC is an acronym for a reason.
G8 membership is not necessarily important. Italy is a G8 member, and Brazil produces more.
And since when have UN vetoes been critical to national significance? Israel isn't an important country? Germany? Indonesia? India?
Orlanth wrote:
Just as well we would say no anyway. Negotiation is not always a good thing, it sounds like you would give Poland 'back' to the Germans.
Not always, but in this instance it is, because you're just going to say "No." and that will be the end of it. Well, not exactly, you're going to whine a lot, and then say "No."
Orlanth wrote:
Some thijngs are not up for negotiation.
That's nonsense and you know it. There are things that you don't want to discuss, but anything can be discussed. Even saying "This is not up for negotiation." is negotiation. Well, and whining.
As Howard A Treesong said. In our own time we may have given it to them if they had asked nicely... Ever since they tried to take it it is a matter of pride.
purplefood wrote:As Howard A Treesong said.
In our own time we may have given it to them if they had asked nicely...
Ever since they tried to take it it is a matter of pride.
And the wishes of the population of those islands.
Kilkrazy wrote:If the Falklands Islanders were offered £1,000,000 each to relocate they might be willing to move to the UK.
That, coupled with a reasonable financial consideration for the British, taking into account the potential oil and other natural resources, might well be an acceptable alternative.
If the Argentinians cleared up our debts, refinanced our army, nhs and so on, then returned the falklanders to us as millionaires... well, it might go better for them than a conflict.
SilverMK2 wrote:It would be interesting if they decided to invade the FI's to see if we went on from kicking them out again and actually invaded them back
If they invade again they will do it right. So long as there is a garrison there they will not do so, as they can no longer take over the islands in a bloodless takeover as happened in 1982. If the garrison is pulled out, then in all likelihood an invasion will happen, the UK will not get adwquate support, Argentina may well do so from other South american countrie. Chile is no longer as supportive as it was. The RN doesnt have the stength anymore, and missile technology is much improved.
Any task force sent to recover the islands would be sunk by shore based cruise missiles quietly provided by Argentine allies, which include China by the way. China is only supporting argentina because it wants the oil contracts, Argentibna would pay a heavy price for Chinese help, but that price will be poltically worthwhile. The 'Malvinas' is a ticket to electoral victory, winning them could buy as much as twenty years in power.
SilverMK2 wrote:It would be interesting if they decided to invade the FI's to see if we went on from kicking them out again and actually invaded them back
Not if you're sane. You simply don't have enough men. Argentina is very big, and no one wants to see neo-colonialism (which is how an invasion would be sold) in SA.
Mr Hyena wrote:Theres no way Argentina will get the Falklands.
Well, no, there are plenty of ways for them to get them, and its almost certain that eventually they will if they maintain an interest. Its just not very likely to happen soon, and you guys aren't very likely to be happy about it.
The Falkland Islands are British territory under international law. They have no strategic value to the UK any more. Their main value is in the assertion of rights to mineral exploitation in the surrounding area, essentially oil and gas, for which drilling is taking place at the moment.
Under such circumstances it is largely commercial interests that will influence the determination of nationality of the islands.
Well, no, there are plenty of ways for them to get them, and its almost certain that eventually they will if they maintain an interest. Its just not very likely to happen soon, and you guys aren't very likely to be happy about it.
The government isn't going to give them over. So...short of an invasion; nothing can be done.
dogma wrote:Not if you're sane. You simply don't have enough men. Argentina is very big, and no one wants to see neo-colonialism (which is how an invasion would be sold) in SA.
I said it would be interesting, rather than sensible
Pulling out our forces from the Middle East to take on the Argentines would provide us with more than enough soldiers to give things a good go.
Mr Hyena wrote:
The government isn't going to give them over. So...short of an invasion; nothing can be done.
They aren't going to give them over now, but South America is becoming powerful, and the UK is in significant debt.
Until 2015. Is there any reason to assume that Argentina won't rack up massive debts (again) and have to default on them (again), wrecking their economy (again)? Or are we just assuming that the graph just goes up forever?
Argentina will only get the Falkland islands when the people there suddenly decide that they want to be Argentine. Yes, it's that likely. It would be like the Republic of Ireland asking us to give up Northern Ireland. The people there don't want to live in the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic is not in a position to be able to take the territory by force in any case.
Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands, and will never be in a position to take them back by force. In addition, the idea that any other South American country would risk war with the UK over the islands is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.
Regarding the OP - Meh. Storm in a teacup. Diplomacy rarely looks pretty when it's not directed at you. They can try to negotiate all they want, doesn't mean the answer they receive from us won't be a firm 'no'.
Albatross wrote:
Until 2015. Is there any reason to assume that Argentina won't rack up massive debts (again) and have to default on them (again), wrecking their economy (again)? Or are we just assuming that the graph just goes up forever?
No, we're assuming your public debt is higher than Spain's as a percent of GDP, and that you got out of default concerns by reason of commercial opinion.
Albatross wrote:
Argentina will only get the Falkland islands when the people there suddenly decide that they want to be Argentine. Yes, it's that likely. It would be like the Republic of Ireland asking us to give up Northern Ireland. The people there don't want to live in the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic is not in a position to be able to take the territory by force in any case.
Again, not yet. There are plenty of scenarios involving the Falklands trading hands, and most of them have nothing at all to do with the people living there. They're irrelevant There's less than 3500 of them, they can easily be killed if necessary.
Albatross wrote:
Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands...
Besides we have guns and want the islands?
Albatross wrote:
...and will never be in a position to take them back by force.
Nonsense. They have money, and will eventually have allies willing to back them up, and the UK will eventually care more about spending money on the NHS than the military.
Albatross wrote:
In addition, the idea that any other South American country would risk war with the UK over the islands is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.
If you went to war with Brazil over this you would lose, badly, because no one would help you and lots of people would help them.
Brazil wouldnt, however they would very likely close their ports (lengthening our supply lines considerably), make it difficult to keep South Africa on our side and worst of all can happily ping RN assets and feed the data to Argentina.
Orlanth wrote:Janthkin, sorry to see you arent starting well.
Its something some of us want to discuss and was well behaved. Its a sickening travesty what has happened, and it might not matter wherever Janthkin comes from, but it matters to us, so a measure of respect for the topic is required, to give it a good chance to be aired.
Using the words "sickening travesty" should be used to describe the OT and its members, not a particular thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:Negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution???? The current situation is peaceful. The Falklands want to remain British, sit down Argentina.
As for Obama?
What a two faced fether. Over here giving it all 'special relationship' this and 'close allies' that.
This is following on from his comment of Israel going back to pre 6 day war boundries.
He sure knows how to keep the USA's allies sweet.
Maybe there was a misinterpretation. The sensor kicked "Faklkands" thinking it was discussing "Guy Fawkes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:I'd move to the Falklands so I could get £1m to move back to the UK
Now thats capital thinking!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Why would Brazil attack the Falkland Islands?
Its like deja vu all over again. Didn't we have this discussion, it always ends with samba dance. What am I saying? bring on the samba!
Using the words "sickening travesty" should be used to describe the OT and its members, not a particular thread.
Actually its my definition of the backstabbing we are getting from Obama. Are there Argentine soldiers in Ganners? No. On a realpolitik level there is a reason to just stay out of this issue. On a level of justice to support the Argentine claims is to disregard the concepts of democracy and self determination.
From either perspective of justice or diplomacy Obamas actions are not defendable. Obama could have said, we will remain neutral and the South Americans countries would have respected that, its not a 'pro-British' stance.
It would have been nice and simple to either:
1) say nothing. Wow how hard is that? Evidently really hard for people who don't know when the shut the hell up.
or
2) say "we look forward to helping any regional discussions designed to lessen tensions in the region."
Now personally I would have liked this:
"Back off Argentina the Ring er, the Oil is MINE! Let loose the Nazgul!"
As I said in light of Obama's success internationally, sleep soundly Britain, sleep soundly indeed.
Albatross wrote:
Until 2015. Is there any reason to assume that Argentina won't rack up massive debts (again) and have to default on them (again), wrecking their economy (again)? Or are we just assuming that the graph just goes up forever?
No, we're assuming your public debt is higher than Spain's as a percent of GDP, and that you got out of default concerns by reason of commercial opinion.
...in addition to a plan to reduce our deficit by the end of parliament, a plan which has the endorsement of the IMF.
There are plenty of scenarios involving the Falklands trading hands, and most of them have nothing at all to do with the people living there. They're irrelevant There's less than 3500 of them, they can easily be killed if necessary.
Ah, I see. We're playing 'Fantasy Wars' again. This thread suddenly became unworthy of my time. And term is over.
Albatross wrote:
Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands...
Besides we have guns and want the islands?
...which can be countered with 'we have more guns and you can't HAVE the islands'. Aside from that, there isn't a cat in hell's chance that they would receive any sort of any sort of UN mandate to invade UK sovereign territory. Think about it for a second. Actually, given the precedent the US has set, we'd probably be within our rights to pre-emptively attack Argentina. They've shown clear intent, as far as acquiring the territory is concerned. THAT is about as likely as Argentina (and a coalition of the willing) attacking UK territory again.
They have money, and will eventually have allies willing to back them up, and the UK will eventually care more about spending money on the NHS than the military.
...or the reverse will happen. It's just conjecture on your part, and posturing on theirs.
Albatross wrote:
In addition, the idea that any other South American country would risk war with the UK over the islands is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.
If you went to war with Brazil over this you would lose, badly, because no one would help you and lots of people would help them.
So Brazil is attacking nuclear-armed NATO members with impunity now? You're high, admit it. Either way, I'm not interested in playing Fantasy Wars like some nerdy WWII fanboy. Not my bag. I prefer the real world.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, you people really are freaked out about Brazil, aren't you?
Albatross wrote:
Until 2015. Is there any reason to assume that Argentina won't rack up massive debts (again) and have to default on them (again), wrecking their economy (again)? Or are we just assuming that the graph just goes up forever?
No, we're assuming your public debt is higher than Spain's as a percent of GDP, and that you got out of default concerns by reason of commercial opinion.
...in addition to a plan to reduce our deficit by the end of parliament, a plan which has the endorsement of the IMF.
There are plenty of scenarios involving the Falklands trading hands, and most of them have nothing at all to do with the people living there. They're irrelevant There's less than 3500 of them, they can easily be killed if necessary.
Ah, I see. We're playing 'Fantasy Wars' again. This thread suddenly became unworthy of my time. And term is over.
Yeah I lost interest at that point as well. We can sit here and postulate all kinds of stuff, its the OT after all. But I prefer to keep with what's at least something like likely.
And the mass genocide of all the Falkland Islanders is.. well... yeah.
And the mass genocide of all the Falkland Islanders is.. well... yeah.
...and the point that they/we are 'irrelevant' apparently.
Dont worry, its actually an attempt to goad British forum members and not a serious attempt to post anything contributory. Not worth responding to Matty.
If we're playing the Fantasy Wars game, whereby Argentina is suddenly prepared to expend the amount of resources necessary to capture the islands (considering the fact any invasion would have it nowhere near as easy as the last one, with the substantial beefing up of defence forces there), we can also imagine the UK saying something along the lines of 'Give them back or we nuke your capital', or fitting out the merchant fleet and navy over the period of a year or so, and taking them back by force.
Fantasy Wars is great fun to argue and defend, as theoretically anything is possible, feasible, and defensible, as you can change your imaginary circumstances to fit anything.
Ketara wrote:If we're playing the Fantasy Wars game, whereby Argentina is suddenly prepared to expend the amount of resources necessary to capture the islands (considering the fact any invasion would have it nowhere near as easy as the last one, with the substantial beefing up of defence forces there), we can also imagine the UK saying something along the lines of 'Give them back or we nuke your capital', or fitting out the merchant fleet and navy over the period of a year or so, and taking them back by force.
Fantasy Wars is great fun to argue and defend, as theoretically anything is possible, feasible, and defensible, as you can change your imaginary circumstances to fit anything.
I agree about Fantasy Wars/Fantasy Politics being fun to ague, so long as its not heated or intentionally derisory. So for example I will not write off the courage of Argentine soldiers, it might be fun to do so, and comparatively accurate when compared to who they would face but nevertheless neither fair nor true.
Some comments then.
1. Nukes are not an option, if we launch some we will lose indirectly.
2. The best defence will be an early defence. Argentina got some credence between the intial invasion in 1982 was bloodless. The local miilita mobilised to fight but the governor ordered them to stand down lest a massacre occured. While that was respionsible had some islanders died all these claims would have been silenced internationally long ago. Argentina to get anywhere must be able to repeat the bloodless invasion, taking the islands is possible. Taking the islands without being seen as a bloody agressor is not, and Argentina would likely either have to bomb very heavily or take high casualties. both are unfavourable.
3. Argentina can wait and use persistent 'dripping tap' diplomacy. This can work right up until the point when the garrison militia is upgraded. The UK can afford to keep the islands even if it cannot afford to garrison them. Hand over enough hardware to the islanders and argentina will be forced to invade against armed resistance from the islanders - a bloody invasion again.
4. Race politics is likely to be a decider. The Argentine position is weak, but they are akin to other Spanish speaking countiries in the Americas, wheras the Uk is not. Thus the justice of the position is not relevant to them. The US with a rising Hispanic pooulation of their own and diplomatic ties with central and south America to consider will not support the UK. It is not unreasonable for the US to continue to remain neutral, but Obama doesnt think that way. For a start he is personally Anglophobic, I am pretty sure than despite the meetings with the Queen etc the current British government considers Obama hostile.
Both sides can win politically but the full hands have not been played. Many poltical tools the Uk can be using are silent, held in reserve. Argentina is showing a fuller hand, but their policy is different and is based on continued persistence.
Albatross wrote:
Until 2015. Is there any reason to assume that Argentina won't rack up massive debts (again) and have to default on them (again), wrecking their economy (again)? Or are we just assuming that the graph just goes up forever?
No, we're assuming your public debt is higher than Spain's as a percent of GDP, and that you got out of default concerns by reason of commercial opinion.
...in addition to a plan to reduce our deficit by the end of parliament, a plan which has the endorsement of the IMF.
There are plenty of scenarios involving the Falklands trading hands, and most of them have nothing at all to do with the people living there. They're irrelevant There's less than 3500 of them, they can easily be killed if necessary.
Ah, I see. We're playing 'Fantasy Wars' again. This thread suddenly became unworthy of my time. And term is over.
Yeah I lost interest at that point as well. We can sit here and postulate all kinds of stuff, its the OT after all. But I prefer to keep with what's at least something like likely.
And the mass genocide of all the Falkland Islanders is.. well... yeah.
Well, as the Falklans seems to be this side the surface of the moon in terms of natural plants, how about we just give them some palm trees? Palm trees are like wiener dogs, you just can't but help smile.
But yea everything you said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:If we're playing the Fantasy Wars game, whereby Argentina is suddenly prepared to expend the amount of resources necessary to capture the islands (considering the fact any invasion would have it nowhere near as easy as the last one, with the substantial beefing up of defence forces there), we can also imagine the UK saying something along the lines of 'Give them back or we nuke your capital', or fitting out the merchant fleet and navy over the period of a year or so, and taking them back by force.
Fantasy Wars is great fun to argue and defend, as theoretically anything is possible, feasible, and defensible, as you can change your imaginary circumstances to fit anything.
Ok, if we must play fantasy war and anything is valid, I will squeeze back into my uniform, strech my green beret back over my fatter head and row over to the Falklands in my mates canoe.
At which point the Argies will shriek "Its that nails bloke that the Taliban were all correctly scared of!" and I will kill their leader with a headbutt of such ferocity his grandad will feel it back in Buenos Ares.
Then I will be lauded by the Argies as a living God, be made the supreme overlord of Argentina and I will bang the reigning Miss Argentina so hard, every woman within a 200 mile radius of her orgasm will become instantly pregnant.
After that ill go home for tea and stickies with the Queen, and she will degree that everyone has to call their children King Matty for the next 12 months. Even if they are girls.
Ok, if we must play fantasy war and anything is valid, I will squeeze back into my uniform, strech my green beret back over my fatter head and row over to the Falklands in my mates canoe.
***No one wants to see that giant beer belly torturing shirt buttons!
At which point the Argies will shriek "Its that nails bloke that the Taliban were all correctly scared of!" and I will kill their leader with a headbutt of such ferocity his grandad will feel it back in Buenos Ares.
*** There’s a comedian named Arj something. I now have images of you in an unbuttoned shirt head butting a stoned comedian.
Then I will be lauded by the Argies as a living God, be made the supreme overlord of Argentina and I will bang the reigning Miss Argentina so hard, every woman within a 200 mile radius of her orgasm will become instantly pregnant.
***I think your better half vetoes this portion of the fantasy.
After that ill go home for tea and stickies with the Queen, and she will degree that everyone has to call their children King Matty for the next 12 months. Even if they are girls.
Did I do it right?
**Yea pretty much. Don’t forget to stop over on your way back to play fetch with TBone. Do it in the den though, he can’t really see well and goes by the sound of it on the tile.
Albatross wrote:Since we're playing Fantasy Wars, how about we nuke Argentina, then nuke all adjacent countries on a D6 roll of 4+?
no no, we've moved on to a much more important issue. Exactly how many Mattyrm/Ghurkha clones would it in fact take to conquer Latin America, or mayhaps Coruscant?
Who would win-Mattrym/Ghurkha or Sauron?
Is it true that James T. Kirk is in fact a Mattrym/Ghurkha clone? Or is he the klingons?
Albatross wrote:
...in addition to a plan to reduce our deficit by the end of parliament, a plan which has the endorsement of the IMF.
Which are irrelevant outside of commercial opinion.
I'm distinguishing between opinion of debt and actual debt.
Albatross wrote:
Ah, I see. We're playing 'Fantasy Wars' again. This thread suddenly became unworthy of my time. And term is over.
This whole thread was about fantasy the moment support for negotiations became the same thing as support for the Argentinian claim to the Falkands.
Albatross wrote:
...which can be countered with 'we have more guns and you can't HAVE the islands'.
But your guns are more than 6000 miles away. If Argentina was willing to pay any cost in a war for the Falklands, you would lose.
Albatross wrote:
...or the reverse will happen. It's just conjecture on your part, and posturing on theirs.
Do you really think that, given the choice between universal healthcare and the military your average UK citizen is going to choose the military? Its not like you're under imminent threat, and while I am conjecturing, the point is that you aren't. You're saying the Falklands will always be British (to paraphrase), and you have no basis for that claim.
Albatross wrote:
So Brazil is attacking nuclear-armed NATO members with impunity now?
Who said anything about attacking Britain? Going to war doesn't mean attacking Britain, it means attacking certain British forces that might be of particular importance because of location, intent, and deeds.
Albatross wrote:
You're high, admit it. Either way, I'm not interested in playing Fantasy Wars like some nerdy WWII fanboy. Not my bag. I prefer the real world.
The real world where nothing has been done accept engage the idea that Argentina and Britain should negotiate?
Albatross wrote:
Incidentally, you people really are freaked out about Brazil, aren't you?
No, we simply appreciate that they produce a lot of stuff, have a large population, and happen to be in the Americas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Yeah I lost interest at that point as well. We can sit here and postulate all kinds of stuff, its the OT after all. But I prefer to keep with what's at least something like likely.
And the mass genocide of all the Falkland Islanders is.. well... yeah.
The point isn't that genocide is likely, the point is that there aren't many people living there, and no one in power is really all that concerned with what they want. The UK only uses the opinion of people in the Falklands to strengthen its claim to the islands because they want the resources (and the domestic public opinion boost that comes with holding the islands), and know that influencing international public opinion helps in them maintain it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
From either perspective of justice or diplomacy Obamas actions are not defendable. Obama could have said, we will remain neutral and the South Americans countries would have respected that, its not a 'pro-British' stance.
Justice is irrelevant except as it applies to diplomacy, and this is essentially a neutral action as regards the actual territorial claim to the islands.
Saying that we will remain neutral can easily be, and has often been, interpreted as a pro-British stance; particularly by people that make arguments akin to the ones you're making right now. Which is to say, reactionary, emotional ones.
@dogma - You saw the part where I said this whole thing was a storm in a teacup, right? I don't actually think we are going to war with Argentina over the Falklands, and I'm not that upset that the Americans aren't sending in the bombers over an Argentine request for dialogue.
As far as I can recall, I was responding to issues raised by other posters.
Albatross wrote:@dogma - You saw the part where I said this whole thing was a storm in a teacup, right? I don't actually think we are going to war with Argentina over the Falklands, and I'm not that upset that the Americans aren't sending in the bombers over an Argentine request for dialogue.
I did not, but that does explain why your opinions were seemingly uncharacteristic.
Now I've only done a quick scan on the subject via Wiki, so I'm not looking to cause any offense, due to me missing something. However why is it ok for Obama to make these suggestions, when the US lays claim to Hawaii, Alaska and Guantanamo Bay?
...As well as American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island...
Orlanth wrote:
From either perspective of justice or diplomacy Obamas actions are not defendable. Obama could have said, we will remain neutral and the South Americans countries would have respected that, its not a 'pro-British' stance.
Justice is irrelevant except as it applies to diplomacy, and this is essentially a neutral action as regards the actual territorial claim to the islands.
Saying that we will remain neutral can easily be, and has often been, interpreted as a pro-British stance; particularly by people that make arguments akin to the ones you're making right now. Which is to say, reactionary, emotional ones.
Justice is relevant, look at the Hague. While its doesnt apply to everyone it applies in enough cases that international law and (when considering eliminating the islanders) crimes against humanity etc hold strength. In fact the UK offered to take the case of the Falklands islands to the Hague three times, Argentina refused.
Its also necessary to absorb that truth of human realpolitik in order to understand why the Argentines wont back down, their position is based on wounded pride. This is magnified by emotive arguments at the core of Latin Americas agreement with the fellow Latine claim, and I suspect Anglophobia has something to do with Obamas position with the UK. Spain backs Argentina for no greater reason than a common language despite EU treaty ratification of the Uk claim, and yes the Gilbraltar question is equally emotive.
We need not be robots, but we do need to be aware of what is behind the political choices.
Most political opinions are emotive at their core, so there is no excuse to wave your hands and dismiss these ones. Or are you getting personal again dogma, your I am rational - you are not fallacy, if so please grow up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:...As well as American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island...
Orlanth wrote:
Justice is relevant, look at the Hague. While its doesnt apply to everyone it applies in enough cases that international law and (when considering eliminating the islanders) crimes against humanity etc hold strength. In fact the UK offered to take the case of the Falklands islands to the Hague three times, Argentina refused.
International rulings on justice are not the same thing as actual claims to justice, if they are then whatever I say about justice is exactly as legitimate as whatever you have to say about justice; which means that if I can impose my will and your claim to justice can be negated by force. That's either nonsense, or whatever the US has to say is correct because it can kill everyone in the UK via an absent button press. Once you accept that such claims are truly nonsense, it becomes easy to realize that the real issue is national preference; which means that "justice" is just deflection. That's alright, I guess, as a lot of international dialect is political, but based on past exchanges with you I would guess that you at least want to try to pretend to truth. Well, if I were being honest I would add the word "seem", but then I am biased against anything you have to say.
Anyway, I have no idea which "Hague" you mean. There are two pertinent ways to use that word here, one is membership exclusive, the other is not. One, the ICC (which I do not believe you are referencing) or the ICJ (which is probably what you are referencing).
Orlanth wrote:
Its also necessary to absorb that truth of human realpolitik in order to understand why the Argentines wont back down, their position is based on wounded pride.
No, nonsense. Their position may also be base on material interest.
Either way, your position may also be based on wounded pride, which means the exchange is even at worst.
Orlanth wrote:
This is magnified by emotive arguments at the core of Latin Americas agreement with the fellow Latine claim, and I suspect Anglophobia has something to do with Obamas position with the UK. Spain backs Argentina for no greater reason than a common language despite EU treaty ratification of the Uk claim, and yes the Gilbraltar question is equally emotive.
You have made clear that you are an anglophile, which means that any claim that you make towards any emotion regarding international politics is compromised. When you claim that a policy of desiring British-Argentine negotiations is anti-Britain, it is incredibly difficult to listen to anything you have to say regarding that. To top it off you continually choose to "analyze" politics in terms of your own emotions rather than any possible interest, emotive or material (as if there is a real difference) of the relevant parties.
It is both deeply irritating and disappointing, though perhaps not surprising given your age.
Orlanth wrote:
Most political opinions are emotive at their core, so there is no excuse to wave your hands and dismiss these ones.
Most political opinions of those people who are unimformed are emotive at their core. You have no excuse if you know otherwise, and behave in the same way. No flattering excuse, anyway.
Wolfstan wrote:Now I've only done a quick scan on the subject via Wiki, so I'm not looking to cause any offense, due to me missing something. However why is it ok for Obama to make these suggestions, when the US lays claim to Hawaii, Alaska and Guantanamo Bay?
because we did it fair and square.
*We stole Hawaii. Like England stole Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the American colonies, possessions in the Caribbean, India, Egypt, etc. etc.
*We bought Alaska.
*We have a lease on Gitmo because we made the mistake of giving back Cuba and not turning into five states ike we should have after the Spanish American War.
Argentina has never tried to pursue negotiations on the islands, because legally they have no case and are very aware of it. The right of people trump Imperialism in the modern world. Argentine politicians roll out the Falklands bus when ever they need to drum up a bit of easy support, and they like to rant about it at this time of year because.......
......today is Liberation day in the Falklands, 29 years to the day of the Argentine surrender
Orlanth wrote:
Its also necessary to absorb that truth of human realpolitik in order to understand why the Argentines wont back down, their position is based on wounded pride.
No, nonsense. Their position may also be base on material interest.
Either way, your position may also be based on wounded pride, which means the exchange is even at worst.
Where do you get that ide? If the islands were swarming with victorious Argies my 'wounded pride' would likely apply.
dogma wrote:
You have made clear that you are an anglophile, which means that any claim that you make towards any emotion regarding international politics is compromised. When you claim that a policy of desiring British-Argentine negotiations is anti-Britain, it is incredibly difficult to listen to anything you have to say regarding that. To top it off you continually choose to "analyze" politics in terms of your own emotions rather than any possible interest, emotive or material (as if there is a real difference) of the relevant parties.
It is both deeply irritating and disappointing, though perhaps not surprising given your age.
Well as a Uk citizen being an anglophile is both not suprising (in that I am patriotic) an incorrect in terms that an anglophile refers to a pro-British foreigner.
However patriotism is no guarantee of being unable to view a point objectively. Yes I am a patriotic Englishman, that is not to say I agree with all the actions of the Empire, or the nation in general.
A policy of desiring Bristish-Argentine negotiations is anti-british as the principle of rendering some concerns non-negotiatable holds solid historical precedence. A good example are the talks Germany wanted with Poland over the future of Silesia shortly after german reunification. Poland said there was nothing to negotiate, Silesia was now and would 'forever' remain Polish the former allied powers agreed, the German government then shut up.
Also talks between UK and Argentina occured for 17 years ending in 1981, no solution was found and Argentina invaded one year later. also keep in kind that in 1994 a referendum in the Falklands resulted in 87% of the islanders were against negotiations under any circumstances.
Finally the word negotiation itself is loaded. The agreement referred to in the OP, and quoted my myself is clear as to the intent:
DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.
Argentina will settle for one outcome alone, the UK for another. hence 17 years of failed negotiations, negotiations through to a 'definative settlement' has only two ends. Either adherence to the self determination of the islanders or adherence to the concensus of political will in South America. The former is defendable on democratic principles, the latter practical on realpolitik, but only if the UK can be forced to back down diplomatically, economically or militarily.
You see we could have negotiations as many times as you like, until the Uk pulls out there will be no 'definitive settlement'. It is understood that negotiations on the terms of the OAS declaration is a de facto surrender, that is how it is seen in Whitehall.
dogma wrote:
Most political opinions of those people who are unimformed are emotive at their core. You have no excuse if you know otherwise, and behave in the same way. No flattering excuse, anyway.
One can be informed and emotive, issues can be emotive. That is not to eliminate any economic or political argument but can of course influence them. The Argentine government and president would clearly fall into that category, as would the OAS members, as would the islanders, as would the UK government and the Royal Navy and the... and the....
You see, there is nothing to pick on.
You are putting to an unfairly high standard on my responses here in an effort to find excuse get personal in critiquing them. Please grow up, in the past you could get away with that because you would be so vehement in your flat denials it would appear that you must have had a point. However you are doing this too often, and with other people too and its no longer seen as sagacious, just trolling. I am asking nicely now, please grow up. You could have said all you said there without getting personal, or attempting to denegrate another forum member. When you point out that I am not worth being polite to, or cannot reason etc etc you are making someone out to be a fool, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that someone is me.
Its a pity as I have certainly tried to learn from you and your personal insights when I could, and you do have interesting things to say, you just make that rather difficult with your hang-ups.
cpt_fishcakes wrote:Argentina has never tried to pursue negotiations on the islands, because legally they have no case and are very aware of it. The right of people trump Imperialism in the modern world. Argentine politicians roll out the Falklands bus when ever they need to drum up a bit of easy support, and they like to rant about it at this time of year because.......
......today is Liberation day in the Falklands, 29 years to the day of the Argentine surrender
Argentina has a case, though admittedly a much weaker one, that added to British de facto presence and a contemporary failed invasion pushes the case firmly in the favour of the UK. They were 'negotiations' from 1964 to 1981, which solved some issues such as fishing rights but made no progress on the future of the islands. These negotiations started after Argentina refused three invitations to bring the sovereignty case to the Hague in 1947, 1948 and 1955.
The negotiations started after UN Resolution 2065 which called for negotiations. Both Uk and Argentina complied and opened negotiations as requested. The difference between these negotiations and those the OAS requests is that UN Resolution 2065 included allowed negiotiations to be open ended, not until a settlement is reached, and included the caveat "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."
The most important point highlighted in bold. As the islanders are very clear as to their position the Uk could comply with the UN Resolution and consequently give no credence to calls for Argentine claim as they would breach the resolutions caveat protecting the interests of the population.
What OAS (and thus Obama) is calling for is negotiation until a resolution is found without the caveats of Resolution 2065. This means only one thing. In fact Argentina has flatly refused to allow self determination to be considered a factor, relying instead on anti-Imperial propoganda to overcome the affrond to democracy this move plainly is. It is odd as South America contains no Brtiish colonies to have bad blood, and the OAS position could be possibly described as a racially motivated. Because it is the UK on the Falklands the continued presence is sold as Imperialism. The fact that the islanders want UK rule and clearly dont want Argentine rule and, would become a literal colony of Argentina if any hand over occurs is ignored by governments in Latin America.
There are two 'new' ways forward, either invite the Islanders under a referendum to join the UK and elect an MP to serve them in 'Westminster', elect a county council to replace their island council, become an island 'shire' of the UK. This is going furrther than the Isle of Man and Channel islands but it would silence legal critique of the islands and remove them from the UN list of non self governing territories. This might not stop an Argentine invasion, but it would be categorically an invasion of the Uk if it happens, thus the Uk could all on the NATO treaty for direct intervention.
The second would be to get the UN to endorse principles of self determination as paramount in soveriegnty claims. China would likely veto that as it would make things difficult for them in various theatres.
If we are to imagine fantasy Falkland War II, how do you imagine the conflict going?
The way I see it, assuming hostilities broke out within the year, the Royal Navy would be hard pressed to mount the sort of combined arms amphibious landings in support of airborne operations as they did in 1982. Instead, I see them relying on their substantially superior nuclear-powered attack submarines to cripple the small Argentinian blue-water navy while also offering long range strike packages against surface based anti-shipping defenses employed by the Argentinians.
The issue becomes actually removing the Argentinians from the islands, assuming that a successful invasion and occupation had taken place. Although the Argentinians wouldn't be able to waltz in as they did in '82, I think a determined push would probably dislodge the British garrison. This is why I believe the submarines would be largely on their own at first. No British admiral would risk a surface fleet in the face of the exocet anti-shipping missiles after so many british ships were damaged or sunk in '82.
Only after extensive attacks against sea ports, air bases, and C&C assets could I see the British bringing their littoral capabilities to bear against the Falklands/Maldines.
The problem for the Argentinians would be actually accomplishing a sea-borne invasion in the face of a stiffer British garrison and a hostile populace. The British have 4 Eurofighters, C and C aircraft, refueling capabilities, and approximately 10 times more men under arms on the island than they did in '82. They also have 2-3 naval vessels permanently in the area as well as a suspected attack submarine.
The wild-card factors is the participation or neutrality of other South American nations, US support or neutrality, and the time of year that the invasion would take place...
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:If we are to imagine fantasy Falkland War II, how do you imagine the conflict going?
The way I see it, assuming hostilities broke out within the year, the Royal Navy would be hard pressed to mount the sort of combined arms amphibious landings in support of airborne operations as they did in 1982. Instead, I see them relying on their substantially superior nuclear-powered attack submarines to cripple the small Argentinian blue-water navy while also offering long range strike packages against surface based anti-shipping defenses employed by the Argentinians.
The issue becomes actually removing the Argentinians from the islands, assuming that a successful invasion and occupation had taken place. Although the Argentinians wouldn't be able to waltz in as they did in '82, I think a determined push would probably dislodge the British garrison. This is why I believe the submarines would be largely on their own at first. No British admiral would risk a surface fleet in the face of the exocet anti-shipping missiles after so many british ships were damaged or sunk in '82.
Only after extensive attacks against sea ports, air bases, and C&C assets could I see the British bringing their littoral capabilities to bear against the Falklands/Maldines.
The problem for the Argentinians would be actually accomplishing a sea-borne invasion in the face of a stiffer British garrison and a hostile populace. The British have 4 Eurofighters, C and C aircraft, refueling capabilities, and approximately 10 times more men under arms on the island than they did in '82. They also have 2-3 naval vessels permanently in the area as well as a suspected attack submarine.
The wild-card factors is the participation or neutrality of other South American nations, US support or neutrality, and the time of year that the invasion would take place...
It will depend on the Argentinean wiliness to kill civilians and if they want a bloodless takeover. If they don't mind civilian or military casualties then the islands will fall.
Orlanth wrote:
Where do you get that ide? If the islands were swarming with victorious Argies my 'wounded pride' would likely apply.
I used the phrase "wounded pride" because you used it, and in this context it is a matter of potential.
Orlanth wrote:
Well as a Uk citizen being an anglophile is both not suprising (in that I am patriotic) an incorrect in terms that an anglophile refers to a pro-British foreigner.
No, anglophile merely means "someone who likes British or English culture" or "someone who like Britain or England", nationality of the anglophile is not relevant.
Orlanth wrote:
However patriotism is no guarantee of being unable to view a point objectively. Yes I am a patriotic Englishman, that is not to say I agree with all the actions of the Empire, or the nation in general.
Which is why I didn't simply call you a patriot.
Orlanth wrote:
A policy of desiring Bristish-Argentine negotiations is anti-british as the principle of rendering some concerns non-negotiatable holds solid historical precedence. A good example are the talks Germany wanted with Poland over the future of Silesia shortly after german reunification. Poland said there was nothing to negotiate, Silesia was now and would 'forever' remain Polish the former allied powers agreed, the German government then shut up.
The German government stopped talking about it because the German government was in no position to dispute the claim, as the Allies explicitly supported Poland during reunification. That situation is not analogous to this one in any way, as support for the UK claim is minimal outside of the EU, not even the entirety of the Commonwealth supports the UK claim. Most nations are neutral, and supporting a series of negotiations is indicative of that.
Again, stating that two states should negotiate is not to state which state should be favored during those negotiations. Non-negotiability has almost nothing to do with what one particular state wants, unless that state is in a position to impose its will unilaterally, which no state, bar the US (and even then with great difficulty), is capable of doing.
Orlanth wrote:
Also talks between UK and Argentina occured for 17 years ending in 1981, no solution was found and Argentina invaded one year later. also keep in kind that in 1994 a referendum in the Falklands resulted in 87% of the islanders were against negotiations under any circumstances.
As I've already said, what the people want is not relevant. There's only 3500 of them, they are not important.
Orlanth wrote:
Finally the word negotiation itself is loaded. The agreement referred to in the OP, and quoted my myself is clear as to the intent:
DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.
Argentina will settle for one outcome alone, the UK for another. hence 17 years of failed negotiations, negotiations through to a 'definative settlement' has only two ends. Either adherence to the self determination of the islanders or adherence to the concensus of political will in South America. The former is defendable on democratic principles, the latter practical on realpolitik, but only if the UK can be forced to back down diplomatically, economically or militarily.
You see we could have negotiations as many times as you like, until the Uk pulls out there will be no 'definitive settlement'. It is understood that negotiations on the terms of the OAS declaration is a de facto surrender, that is how it is seen in Whitehall.
Yes, the word negotiation is loaded by the meaning that the word negotiation carries, if it were not it would be gibberish.
That dealt with, the point is, and has always been, that claiming that negotiations should take place is not the same thing as claiming that the Falklands should be handed over to Argentina. Believing that sitting at a table and discussing the OAS declaration is a surrender of the islands is simply wrong, because it is in no way the same thing as actually surrendering the islands.
Orlanth wrote:
One can be informed and emotive, issues can be emotive.
I didn't say otherwise. There is, however, no reason to be emotive if you truly are informed and interested in debate according to logic.
Orlanth wrote:
You are putting to an unfairly high standard on my responses here in an effort to find excuse get personal in critiquing them.
My standard is fair, I hold myself to the same one.
Orlanth wrote:
Please grow up, in the past you could get away with that because you would be so vehement in your flat denials it would appear that you must have had a point. However you are doing this too often, and with other people too and its no longer seen as sagacious, just trolling. I am asking nicely now, please grow up. You could have said all you said there without getting personal, or attempting to denegrate another forum member. When you point out that I am not worth being polite to, or cannot reason etc etc you are making someone out to be a fool, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that someone is me.
Its a pity as I have certainly tried to learn from you and your personal insights when I could, and you do have interesting things to say, you just make that rather difficult with your hang-ups.
Well, no, I said several things which are relevant to your argument, and your person, this is ad hominem, but its the legitimate form of ad hominem. One can comment on personal qualities that are directly relevant to the argument. Anglophilia, for example, suggests a distinct reason for making a particular claim which extends beyond the actual rightness of that claim; in this case the anti-British nature of a particular decision by the United States. I could as easily have claimed that you have an unfair assessment of President Obama given that past Presidents have also endorsed controversial OAS resolutions, only to subsequently ignore them. I mean, we ignored the OAS charter when we explicitly supported Britain '82, so a non-binding GA resolution is not particularly important.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Yes and no, there is a difference between slaughter and casualties caused by bombing or collateral damage. Like I said if the Argentinians don't mind using force then the islands will fall.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine
Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.
Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.
I still think America sides with Britain. There's a difference between calling for negotiations and standing aside when your longest standing ally is attacked. Direct military intervention - perhaps not, but certainly the sort of support that was seen in '82. Britain can certainly call in debts over Iraq and Afghanistan - even simply summarily pull out of Afghanistan should America refuse aid. It would also be a political field-day for the GOP if the current administration pulled that. At the end of the day, all Britain has to do is point to the well-documented desire of the Islander's desire to remain British. It should be an open and shut case in both the courts of public opinion (at least among NATO members) and at the UN.
EDIT: The Monroe Doctrine was designed to keep the Europeans from taking Latin America in the wake of their independence from Spain. The language actually states the western hemisphere which, BTW, includes the British Isles, Spain, and almost all of Western Africa above the equator. It's an out-dated doctrine that has lost legitimacy - especially in light of America's reduced geo-political clout as a result of our War on Terrorism.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine
Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.
Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.
It won't come to that, though.
What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan. You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.
I still think America sides with Britain. There's a difference between calling for negotiations and standing aside when your longest standing ally is attacked. Direct military intervention - perhaps not, but certainly the sort of support that was seen in '82. Britain can certainly call in debts over Iraq and Afghanistan - even simply summarily pull out of Afghanistan should America refuse aid. It would also be a political field-day for the GOP if the current administration pulled that. At the end of the day, all Britain has to do is point to the well-documented desire of the Islander's desire to remain British. It should be an open and shut case in both the courts of public opinion (at least among NATO members) and at the UN.
I'm not saying we'd side with Argentina. I'm not saying we wouldn't politically side with Britain either. I'm saying don't be so sure we go into a fifth war over anything but vital national interests.
What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan. You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.
Seriously, Frazz? The people are British. They want to be British. An Argentinian invasion would be no different then Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in '91. It would be no different than Germany's invasion of Poland. Land Claims going back almost 200 years does not a justification for war make. I'm sorry, but our British friends are right on this one. There is nothing to negotiate and if they need our help we should help.
The US will fall into line just like 82, were worth a lot more money at the end of the day than Argentina.
You got the whole NATO thing as well, which has long since left its cold war limitations behind. The Monroe Doctrine came to sod all in 82 and so it will be in the future. I just cant see the US not manning up to help a trusted ally and NATO partner if asked, when the UK gave the US such support when its own people were attacked.
The USA has always had balls, would be a shame if it loses them
If the unlikely does happen; and Argentina invades again; if America does nothing to assist its ally; then it would be spitting in the face of the immense contribution the UK made when the US invaded the middle east.
Talks would be pointless anyway; as Argentina would be told it is not having them; as the Islanders say they want to be British. But...Argentina will just ask later anyway.
What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan. You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.
Seriously, Frazz? The people are British. They want to be British. An Argentinian invasion would be no different then Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in '91. It would be no different than Germany's invasion of Poland. Land Claims going back almost 200 years does not a justification for war make. I'm sorry, but our British friends are right on this one. There is nothing to negotiate and if they need our help we should help.
I didn't say we wouldn't. I am saying don't count your horses until they're in the barn with this administration. Reagan's not in the WH, not even the awesomeness of ZombieReagan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cpt_fishcakes wrote:The US will fall into line just like 82, were worth a lot more money at the end of the day than Argentina.
You got the whole NATO thing as well, which has long since left its cold war limitations behind. The Monroe Doctrine came to sod all in 82 and so it will be in the future. I just cant see the US not manning up to help a trusted ally and NATO partner if asked, when the UK gave the US such support when its own people were attacked.
The USA has always had balls, would be a shame if it loses them
True, true. NATO is weaksauce right now. However, the two countries that matter militarily (as far as willingness to use force goes) are certainly not weak.
But seriously folks. I am fascinated by the Falklands War from the historical perspective in that it is a fairly unique war in terms of the problems faced by both sides and the manner in which those problems were addressed.
Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?
I roll D6 for political clout.
Failing my initiative test in Libya, I roll for dexterity and try to dodge the political fallout.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?
I roll D6 for political clout.
Failing my initiative test in Libya, I roll for dexterity and try to dodge the political fallout.
You succeed and take half damage, your allies are annoyed and threatening to drop from NATO but still stand by you.
Frazzled wrote:
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.
British existence violates the Monroe Doctrine, as large parts of that nation exist in the Western Hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine is irrelevant, because its text has never been obeyed. Only people who have never read the relevant documents actually consider it important to current affairs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
I wouldn't push the NATO argument right now...
If I were a Democrat I would, and I would call it a security issue, an laugh as Republicans became angry, and laugh harder as Libertarians pretended they were relevant.
Frazzled wrote:
I didn't say we wouldn't. I am saying don't count your horses until they're in the barn with this administration. Reagan's not in the WH, not even the awesomeness of ZombieReagan.
This.
Kirscher is moving now because Obama is in the White House. She sees a propaganda coup to make which will last even if/?when? the next US administration returns tio a neutral position.
For Obama to support the OAS petition not only once but twice is as much copy as Argentina needs, they will hang on to that long term. Evidence for this is the Argentina continued calls for the UK to obey the UM resolutions calling for talks. Those resolutions are decades old, were complied with and the issue became listed as non-negotaiable only since the Argentine invasion, however only part of that information is highlighted by Argentina. Now forever and a day they will claim US backing 'from previous administrations' when thery want to bet this drum.
Future US presidents will have a wobbly rope to walk if they want to practice actual neutrality on this issue. Obama has done you or us no favours, he has appeased people like Chavez who will be swift to forget US support, we however will remember this, and the French will be watching too, because France has broadly similar worries over New Caledonia and possible even French Guiana and was uncharacteristically quick to support the UK claim in the EU.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine
Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.
Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.
It won't come to that, though.
What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
Actually it isn't. It's 'no further European colonisation of American territories'. As the British claim on the Falklands predates this, the Monroe Doctrine doesn't apply. In any case, the people of the islands have the right to self-determination, and they choose to be British. What you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan.
So is the US, remember. Plus, Britain was under no obligation to support the Afghan war under NATO, as the USA was not attacked by Afghanistan
.
You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.
It's not our 'war', it's the UN's 'war'. And it's not a war. Plus, the UK is doing far more than it's fair share in Libya, as per usual.
It's also worth remembering that Britain's forces are spread thin due to our involvements in your wars, and as much as you people don't like to admit it, you need us. You can't go on these adventures on your own, as your forces are spread pretty thin also, and the UK is the USAs only reliable ally with decent capabilities. I mean, why else would Bush have asked for more allied troops? It certainly wasn't for the appearance of multilateralism, because he didn't give a gak about it. You might want to think on that, and all the dead Brits who laid down their lives to help keep you and your family safe, the next time you feel like making a snide remark about my country - a frequent occurrence.
I have a quite strange picture of Cameron giving the Reagan salute using the Churchill finger option the next time the US/President is stupid in its dealings with UK affairs
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine
Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.
Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.
It won't come to that, though.
What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
Actually it isn't. It's 'no further European colonisation of American territories'. As the British claim on the Falklands predates this, the Monroe Doctrine doesn't apply. In any case, the people of the islands have the right to self-determination, and they choose to be British. What you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan.
So is the US, remember. Plus, Britain was under no obligation to support the Afghan war under NATO, as the USA was not attacked by Afghanistan
.
You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.
It's not our 'war', it's the UN's 'war'. And it's not a war. Plus, the UK is doing far more than it's fair share in Libya, as per usual.
It's also worth remembering that Britain's forces are spread thin due to our involvements in your wars, and as much as you people don't like to admit it, you need us. You can't go on these adventures on your own, as your forces are spread pretty thin also, and the UK is the USAs only reliable ally with decent capabilities. I mean, why else would Bush have asked for more allied troops? It certainly wasn't for the appearance of multilateralism, because he didn't give a gak about it. You might want to think on that, and all the dead Brits who laid down their lives to help keep you and your family safe, the next time you feel like making a snide remark about my country - a frequent occurrence.
horsegak. You had obligations as part of NATO and you complied. That awesomely more than most of the NATO members which is stark example as to why NATO is an absolute joke and US supported welfare for WEstern Europe.
Libya-the UK and France wanted to go there because BP and Total had very strong financial interests, not the US. Now you're running out of bombs and can't support your minimal naval forces. Without US C&C you couldn't launch air stirkes in the first place.
We actually have a reason to defend the falklands, because they are ours. If we think it's ok to give up the falklands because they are a waste of money we may aswell shut down the army because defending the country is really just a waste of money. Being ours we have a responsability to protect them.
We have no reponsability to anyone in Libya. It isn't our buisness and we should never have bothered going in.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?
I roll D6 for political clout.
Failing my initiative test in Libya, I roll for dexterity and try to dodge the political fallout.
You succeed and take half damage, your allies are annoyed and threatening to drop from NATO but still stand by you.
You had obligations as part of NATO and you complied.
UK obligations to NATO do not include simply attacking anyone that the US commands, however much you might wish that to be the case. That the treaty was interpreted in such a way as to consider the 9/11 attacks as an attack on NATO by Afghanistan was a masterstroke in propaganda. Once again, the US was not attacked by Afghanistan, it was attacked by Al Qaeda (or Mossad. Just kidding. ) - that's not to say that I don't think ISAF should be there, mind you. The Taliban were sheltering the people responsible, and those people had to be got.
Libya-the UK and France wanted to go there because BP and Total had very strong financial interests, not the US.
Right, so are we to assume that these interests would be simply evaporate once Gaddaffi had crushed the rebels? Surely a change of regime involving military intervention is more hazardous to British financial interests than simply maintaining the status quo would be, no? We seemed to be dealing with the Libyans fairly cordially (in business terms) before this all kicked off, so why jeopardize that?
Wait... I'm assuming you thought your post through, aren't I? Damn.
Now you're running out of bombs and can't support your minimal naval forces. Without US C&C you couldn't launch air stirkes in the first place.
Again, the First Sea Lord is briefing against the government in order to put pressure on them to rethink cuts to the Navy. This is like, kids stuff, man.
Afghanistan would not go after or let us go after Al Qaeda which attacked a NATO member. Stop your legal bs parsnipping. Iraq you're right about, but not Afghanistan.
And the UK did indeed do yeoman's work, far out of proportion to the rest of the joke that is NATO.
Frazzled wrote:Afghanistan would not go after or let us go after Al Qaeda which attacked a NATO member.
I agree that Al Qaeda attacked a NATO member (and has continued to attack NATO members), I do not agree that Afghanistan attacked a NATO member, because it didn't. The allies weren't defending themselves against an aggressor nation, the pretext required for collective defence by NATO members - they were defending themselves against non-state actors. Which is a different situation altogether. That the Taliban were uncooperative is neither here nor there - the important factor was that Afghanistan was the world's poorest nation and massively incapable of defending itself. If Al Qaeda had been found to have based in Pakistan, 'Enduring Freedom' ( ) would never have happened.
) - that's not to say that I don't think ISAF should be there, mind you. The Taliban were sheltering the people responsible, and those people had to be got.
