Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:
From the amalgamated thread:

chaos0xomega wrote:Personally, I don't see why y'all can't just split the Falklands, East Falkland to the UK, West Falkland to Argentina. Thats basically the way the original split between Spain/UK was way back when (and was also the split at the time the UPRP settled the islands in the early 19th century), as I understand it, and from what I understand West Falkland Island is barely inhabited, if at all, correct?

Argentina doesn't want to share, they even edited their constitutional to demand total sovereignty over the Falklands. If they had half the islands they would be ten miles away rather than 300 and would have right to place troops there. War would be a certainty.

Also the people on both West and East Falklands dont want them.
Also they invaded before and have vowed to have the islands within 20 years, so they can sit and sulk in Buenos Aires.

There is nothing to discuss, and nothing that ought to be shared. It might should like common sense to give a wolf your hand, but it wont stop the wolf, only now you only have one hand.

Yea, well if they did share the islands and argentina did attack the brits, the British counterattack to seize East Falkland would settle the matter once and for all, wouldnt it? To.the victor goes the spoils and we know that Britain of all countries takes no qualms with redrawing maps after wars.

 Albatross wrote:
It's worse in Argentina, clearly.


As for the Pope? Meh. How many divisions does he have?

One infantry company give or take oh and two or three rifle companies worth of police

And the Swiss Guard who are special forces

That's the one infantry company.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Well seeing as President Fernandez has trainwrecked her own economy, scarred away foreign investment by nationalising foreign owned energy industries from within her borders; and vows to seize the Falklands in 20 years from a population that doesnt want her or her country yet claims to want to do so peacefully.
I am spot on with my assessment.

That sounds more like nationalist posturing than objective commentary.
Not very fair-minded of you.

I need not be British to come to that conclusion on President Fernandez.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

The 1983 UN resolution and those since quietly removed this stipulation, the Foreign Office, useless morons that they are, were caught napping and let the amended wording pass.

It was a GA resolution, there was nothing your foreign office could do.

Wording on resolutions are up for negotiation.

 Albatross wrote:
As for the Pope? Meh. How many divisions does he have?

Nice

 Orlanth wrote:

I need not be British to come to that conclusion on President Fernandez.

No, but I suspect the fact that you are British played a key role in your apparent decision to refer to Kirchner as an idiot bitch.

 Orlanth wrote:

Wording on resolutions are up for negotiation.

Yes, the specific wording of a given resolution is up for negotiation, but who in the GA were you going to sway from the 87 voting in favor or the 54 abstentions?

 Albatross wrote:
It's worse in Argentina, clearly.


As for the Pope? Meh. How many divisions does he have?

The Catholic church has numerous divisions - mostly relating to sexuality and moral issues.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I need not be British to come to that conclusion on President Fernandez.

No, but I suspect the fact that you are British played a key role in your apparent decision to refer to Kirchner as an idiot bitch.

It made her more relevant for commentary, it did not sway opinion. I have similar comments about Robert Mugabe, though I would use the word bitch and he has nothing to do with the Falklands.

 dogma wrote:

Yes, the specific wording of a given resolution is up for negotiation, but who in the GA were you going to sway from the 87 voting in favor or the 54 abstentions?

First you amend the bill, then you have the vote. This would have been reasonable to achieve as previous UN resolutions on the topic accounted for the islanders welfare in the wording of the resolution.

 Orlanth wrote:

It made her more relevant for commentary, it did not sway opinion.

It plainly did. No one refers to world leaders by way of epithet for analytic reasons.

 Orlanth wrote:

First you amend the bill, then you have the vote. This would have been reasonable to achieve as previous UN resolutions on the topic accounted for the islanders welfare in the wording of the resolution.

There is no formal amendment process in the GA, at least aside from amendments to their procedural rules. Representatives of nations sponsor resolutions, and they are put to vote; there are no changes made in the course of debate. The best your Foreign Office could have done is attempt to sway assenting or abstaining parties to their side, which is probably what they did. The problem is that the Falklands Issue had been framed, within the GA, as one of decolonization since the 60's*; so there was little progress to be made.



*There's also the issue that, for the majority of your allies, this "issue" is a curiosity at best.

 sebster wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
As for the Pope? Meh. How many divisions does he have?

Nice

Right? I was inordinately proud of that!

 Albatross wrote:
Right? I was inordinately proud of that!

I was properly annoyed I didn't think to say it first.

My only recourse now is to one up you by quoting it in the original Russian....

 dogma wrote:


First, thanks for the detailed response.

Second, it sound like you're discussing the goals of the British military, but I was referring to the British political situation. Would you say that your response reflects the beliefs of the average British voter?

The British have a long history of pride in the capabilities of their forces, and especially the Royal Navy. Whilst this figures less prominently in their cultural makeup today then it did say, fifty years ago, one only has to scrape beneath the surface to find it again. For all their left wing liberal affectations, the British as a people still tend to be rather imperial in their outlook on the world. That is to say, they still consider themselves as one of the world's foremost powers, and believe they should have the right to meddle around the globe as they see fit, provided they can square and justify it with themselves.


A play on the British Dreadnought race with Germany

Ultimately, if you take away Britain's relative military technological superiority, and the ability to best any third world, and a good chunk of the second world nations on their own home turf, then Britain becomes incapable of 'going it alone'. It loses what independence it currently retains from the EU and the US, loses its ability to interfere directly on a global scale to protect its own interests, and becomes a tiny island of no real global importance or significance.


The British have always been touchy about the minute size of their island, leading to much cartographic propaganda

The average voter does not wish such a thing. As far as s/he is concerned, Britain should be able to defend her interests, should take pride in her forces, and should be independent enough to be able to give a middle finger to any other power or nation in the world. A visible failure to do these things can do a large amount of political damage to any ruling party or coalition.

These goals require global power projection capacity. As such, the average politician will usually maintain that capacity, so as to not be badly damaged in the public eye. They may try and squeeze funding out of the forces where the public cannot see it, they may subordinate their own foreign policy to a more powerful nations to win brownie points, and many other such things. But they must be ever mindful of the need, in public at least, of being able to defend Britain's interests with force, should push come to shove.

The Falklands, fortunately, fall within that remit of 'interests' these days. Hence why the British built a vastly overpriced airfield there, and currently station a garrison of a thousand men and women at a staggering cost to their nation.


Mount Pleasant airfield

So yes. The goals of the Royal Navy and their resulting budget allocation do rather strongly reflect the priorities of the British domestic voter, if within a military context.