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.

Joey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Joey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

In that case, we can all have Ethiopia.

And the Neanderthals can have the...well...I don't think there are any of those left....

Sure there are

Same reason that mitochondria live within us.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If they can have the Faklands, does that mean us Swedes can have Finland and S:t Petersburg back

does that THEN mean the danes can have sweden, norway and finland back then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

Joey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

In that case, we can all have Ethiopia.

And the Neanderthals can have the...well...I don't think there are any of those left....

you've clearly never met a Glasgow rangers fan then....

Orlanth wrote:Spain would have a legal challenge to the islands, however Spain has not tried o do so, or has Spain ever tried to colonise.

Hehe.

Oh wait you're serious.

WarOne wrote:

Joey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

In that case, we can all have Ethiopia.

And the Neanderthals can have the...well...I don't think there are any of those left....

According to recent gene studies europeans are part neanderthal

Wee_Tam wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If they can have the Faklands, does that mean us Swedes can have Finland and S:t Petersburg back

does that THEN mean the danes can have sweden, norway and finland back then?

And Al Gore can have the internet back as well....slightly used of course.

I keep reading the Agentine line as "That's not fair the IK has a totally OP force and we want to stand a chance of winning" and the UK as "lalala We're not listening"

I also see this in my 1 and 2 year old kids when they fight over a toy. They both claim the toy and never give the toy the deciding vote which I think would be an overwhelming "FETH OFF BOTH OF YOU".

Give the Falklanders sovereign rights and they can invite whoever they want into their waters and onto their land.

It would then belong to neither of the complaing nations.
Pretty much what I do with my kids.

Sonophos wrote:I keep reading the Agentine line as "That's not fair the IK has a totally OP force and we want to stand a chance of winning" and the UK as "lalala We're not listening"

I also see this in my 1 and 2 year old kids when they fight over a toy. They both claim the toy and never give the toy the deciding vote which I think would be an overwhelming "FETH OFF BOTH OF YOU".

Give the Falklanders sovereign rights and they can invite whoever they want into their waters and onto their land.

It would then belong to neither of the complaing nations.
Pretty much what I do with my kids.

And again we bring up the point; the Falklanders have stated a desire to be British.
Not so much "Feth off the both of you" as "No, we're with these guys."

WarOne wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If they can have the Faklands, does that mean us Swedes can have Finland and S:t Petersburg back

Only if America can have Canada.

America has Canada already as it is on the North American Continental shelf and proved to be rather hard to shift back to Europe when we Brits claimed it.

The USA is not allowed to have Canada because they never had it. So there.

Sonophos wrote:

WarOne wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If they can have the Faklands, does that mean us Swedes can have Finland and S:t Petersburg back

Only if America can have Canada.

America has Canada already as it is on the North American Continental shelf and proved to be rather hard to shift back to Europe when we Brits claimed it.

The USA is not allowed to have Canada because they never had it. So there.

The Americans didn't have much of America, didn't stop them.
Hell the Mexicans could lay claim to most of the Western United States, including California.
Unlike the Falklands, there are actual Mexican people there too. Got to wonder how they'd vote if it came to it...self determination, don't ya know.
The irony of course is that Texas was originally Mexican, then the Americans sent loads of European farmers to live there and they all wanted to join their brothers in America...the Mexicans could do the same to get it back.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Sonophos wrote:I keep reading the Agentine line as "That's not fair the IK has a totally OP force and we want to stand a chance of winning" and the UK as "lalala We're not listening"

I also see this in my 1 and 2 year old kids when they fight over a toy. They both claim the toy and never give the toy the deciding vote which I think would be an overwhelming "FETH OFF BOTH OF YOU".

Give the Falklanders sovereign rights and they can invite whoever they want into their waters and onto their land.

It would then belong to neither of the complaing nations.
Pretty much what I do with my kids.

And again we bring up the point; the Falklanders have stated a desire to be British.
Not so much "Feth off the both of you" as "No, we're with these guys."

Hence the last bit of what I said. If there is as much oil there as is thought the Falklanders could be rolling in money if they had Sovereign rights and they would get to choose who they share with.

It's all irrelevant, Argentina won't fire a shot because they know we'll kick their arse again and we won't do anything beyond a bit of macho posturing with our superior navy, which is part of the reason we are bankrupt, so we may as well get some use out of it.

Flashman wrote:It's all irrelevant, Argentina won't fire a shot because they know we'll kick their arse again and we won't do anything beyond a bit of macho posturing with our superior navy, which is part of the reason we are bankrupt, so we may as well get some use out of it.

a)we aren't bankrupt
b)the navy isn't that expensive.
Britain is currently deviating from hundreds of years of experience in having a large, advanced land army. We are an island nation, if we devoted all our defence spending to air defence and the navy, we'd be pretty badass. But we insist on invading foreign countries so that won't do.

Joey wrote:
No.

First response summed it up really.

Basically a case of she shouldn't be making promises she can't keep, all this moaning means little really, and shows a lack of desire for an actual conflict. She was hoping we'd roll over and hand them to her, and now thats not happening, its a moan fest.

Tough basically, if the Islanders turn around at some point in the future and say, actually we'll like to join up, cool, they can rename the islands, until then, nothing is going to change and I'd fully back any actions our goverment has to take to defend the rights of our citizens.

Why do they want the Falklands anyway? Proximity? Oil? Pride?

Joey wrote:

Flashman wrote:It's all irrelevant, Argentina won't fire a shot because they know we'll kick their arse again and we won't do anything beyond a bit of macho posturing with our superior navy, which is part of the reason we are bankrupt, so we may as well get some use out of it.

a)we aren't bankrupt
b)the navy isn't that expensive.
Britain is currently deviating from hundreds of years of experience in having a large, advanced land army. We are an island nation, if we devoted all our defence spending to air defence and the navy, we'd be pretty badass. But we insist on invading foreign countries so that won't do.

Just to point out the bleedin obvious:

It wasn't government spending that put the UK in the stinky river it was a bunch of bankers full of hubris making dodgy PRIVATE investments without carrying out due dilligence checks.

Up until that point the spend on the Navy was seen as essential by both main parties.

Why is the Argentinian Prime Minster worried?

I think its higly unlikey that the UK would declare war on Argentina for no reason.

Melissia wrote:Why do they want the Falklands anyway? Proximity? Oil? Pride?

There are about ~60 billion barrels of oil off the Falklands, though according to wikipedia Argentina withdrew from mutual exploration treaty in 2007, basically leaving it to the British.
The original invasion was populism by an unpopular dictatorship trying to distract people.

Yak9UT wrote:Why is the Argentinian Prime Minster worried?

I think its higly unlikey that the UK would declare war on Argentina for no reason.

She's attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by claiming that Britain is acting in an overtly aggressive manner.

Forget all this "Do they have a right to claim it?" The fact of the matter is that they do claim it. As such, they have a casus belli against the UK.

The country that has a "right" to the Falklands is the one that is willing to back it up with military power.

Sonophos wrote:

Joey wrote:

Flashman wrote:It's all irrelevant, Argentina won't fire a shot because they know we'll kick their arse again and we won't do anything beyond a bit of macho posturing with our superior navy, which is part of the reason we are bankrupt, so we may as well get some use out of it.

a)we aren't bankrupt
b)the navy isn't that expensive.
Britain is currently deviating from hundreds of years of experience in having a large, advanced land army. We are an island nation, if we devoted all our defence spending to air defence and the navy, we'd be pretty badass. But we insist on invading foreign countries so that won't do.

Just to point out the bleedin obvious:

It wasn't government spending that put the UK in the stinky river it was a bunch of bankers full of hubris making dodgy PRIVATE investments without carrying out due dilligence checks.

Up until that point the spend on the Navy was seen as essential by both main parties.

I am aware of this. The idea that the deficit is the Labour Party's fault for excess spending just because they ran a small deficit is completely untrue, see graph:

Of course it was actually the Labour Party's fault for brown-nosing the banking industry, but if the current government said that people might start wondering why they're still doing it...

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:Why is the Argentinian Prime Minster worried?

I think its higly unlikey that the UK would declare war on Argentina for no reason.

She's attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by claiming that Britain is acting in an overtly aggressive manner.

I can sort of see that knowing shes a politician

But it seems silly. She will never be able to do any sort of resolution with UN to stop the Uk from patroling its waters.

After all the Falklands are controled by the UK.

Proximity provides the excuse.

Oil provides a rational reason.

Pride and the Argentine government's desire to occupy their population's attention with circuses provides a motivator.

Yak9UT wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:Why is the Argentinian Prime Minster worried?

I think its higly unlikey that the UK would declare war on Argentina for no reason.

She's attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by claiming that Britain is acting in an overtly aggressive manner.

I can sort of see that knowing shes a politician

But it seems silly. She will never be able to do any sort of resolution with UN to stop the Uk from patroling its waters.

After all the Falklands are controled by the UK.

Didn't stop them doing it the first time.
They are welcome to try again, however.

Yak9UT wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:Why is the Argentinian Prime Minster worried?

I think its higly unlikey that the UK would declare war on Argentina for no reason.

She's attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by claiming that Britain is acting in an overtly aggressive manner.

I can sort of see that knowing shes a politician

But it seems silly. She will never be able to do any sort of resolution with UN to stop the Uk from patroling its waters.

After all the Falklands are controled by the UK.

I Love politicians! Sending out a viable defence is seen as "overtly aggressive". lol

I think they need to look up the ACTUAL meanings of the words Agression and Defence.

Melissia wrote:Why do they want the Falklands anyway? Proximity? Oil? Pride?

If they you mean the Argies then all three. Though proximity means little, Canada is right next to the US and far closer than Hawaii but you wouldn't expect them to be part of the US.

Not only are their large oil supplies under the South Atlantic and access to those waters for fishing/whaling but they also offer territorial claims to the Antarctic. Although by treaty nobody owns it and theres no proof of oil beneath the ice from a geological perspective its more than likely that a massive amount of the stuff is there. Think about the recent disputes between Canada, Russia, Norway and the US over Arctic sea oil. Britain, by right of having gained the Falkland islands 170 years ago in theory has a claim to 1/5th of the Anarctic ice shelf. There is of course an Argentinain, Chilean and plenty of others who have several claims 'just in case' it becomes an issue in the future.

Pride, Argentina, like many South American countries believes itself to have been the victim of European colonialism. Both Spanish and British. Its not well known but during the Napoleonic Wars whilst Spain was allied to France the British actually attempted to conquer Buenos Aeres but were defeated. There are of course plenty of arguments why that arguement doesn't stand. Argetina's ethninicty and its history of driving Indians off their land during the 19th is far closer to US history than it is to Indian or African examples. To the popular imagination it is thus seen as a Western power bullying them into accepting occupation of their land. The obvious national mission then is for the state to grow powerful enough to eventually regain the Falklands, either economically or militarily. Plenty of former colonial nations have made similar claims. Mao in China. Sadam Hussein during the Gulf War to justify occupying Kuwait which he saw as an artificial Western state, Gaddafi in Libya to justify his regimes existence to prevent Western neo-colonialists taking over, North Korea etc etc etc. Any leader that can do such a thing gets a huge amount of publicity support since nothing brings a people together like hatred of an 'other' that threatens them.

I'm a Filipino

Our lands our under current occupation by the Malay government they have taken over the lands of Sabah which belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu which was absorbed into the Philippine Nation by the Philippine territory under the Americans.

As a Filipino I demand that Sabah must be given back if the Falklands are returned to Maradona land.

Well so the world can be fair that is.

I am aware of this. The idea that the deficit is the Labour Party's fault for excess spending just because they ran a small deficit is completely untrue, see graph:

Of course it was actually the Labour Party's fault for brown-nosing the banking industry, but if the current government said that people might start wondering why they're still doing it...

Sonophos wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:Why is the Argentinian Prime Minster worried?

I think its higly unlikey that the UK would declare war on Argentina for no reason.

She's attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by claiming that Britain is acting in an overtly aggressive manner.

I can sort of see that knowing shes a politician

But it seems silly. She will never be able to do any sort of resolution with UN to stop the Uk from patroling its waters.

After all the Falklands are controled by the UK.

I Love politicians! Sending out a viable defence is seen as "overtly aggressive". lol

I think they need to look up the ACTUAL meanings of the words Agression and Defence.

You and I both know that if politicians can twist the meanings of words, they will take every opportunity to do so.

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

I always laugh about that statement when it comes up. The American Indians were fighting over and taking land from each other long before white people came over here.
As far as the term Native American goes, I was born in this country, not China, so I'm a native American.
I don't mean this near as harsh as it reads.

Relapse wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

I always laugh about that statement when it comes up. The American Indians were fighting over and taking land from each other long before white people came over here.
As far as the term Native American goes, I was born in this country, not China, so I'm a native American.
I don't mean this near as harsh as it reads.

I'm sure they were. But still they were there before the pilgrims, same with the colonists in Oz. In the end everywhere will belong to Africa right?

Although in the case of the Falklands we were there before Argentina bysome considerable time.

France was there first and should be the ones to get the Falklands over Argentina.