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.
AndrewC wrote:It';s nice to see a politician getting lambasted for actually keeping his election promise for once.
To be clear, that's not what I'm doing. I as responding to a Scottish poster who seemed to be complaining that Cambo: First Blood was stopping our fun-loving Scottish pals from having the right to self determination, (which incidentally they already have, as they are represented in government) when in fact it's Salmond that's actually making them wait for the anniversary of some battle the Scottish won (or lost, who cares?) against the English.
AndrewC wrote:
Dogma, I just do not know what to say to you at this point in time. If you really believe in what you say, I will have to leave you in your own, for want of a better word, ignorance.
So you don't think the argument could be made? Or are you just offended by the possibility that someone might be able to make the argument?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:Sure, but the principle is similar. When something becomes too costly, or even just too annoying, to defend the governing body simply lets it go.
Granted, oil changes the equation greatly, but I don't see a resolution to the problem that isn't "Argentina has authority over the Falkland Islands."
The principle may be the same, but in practice the cost so different that it just doesn't matter.
It's like arguing that bread could become so expensive that people will give it up entirely. Sure, in principle bread could get so pricey that we give it up, but right now it's about $2 a loaf, and even if you doubled that people will still eat it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:Not really, the US remained neutral in the conflict and was at the centermof attempsts to broker a peaceful settlement (remember those!).
But Ronny Raygun ever the nice chap allowed the supply of intelligence (naval disposition) and the ever so handy sidewinder missiles that did such a sterling job on the Argie airforce.
And this was when the US had a significant stake in the dictatorship controlling Argentina. Nowadays there's no such relationship, and the US will be considerably more free to aid the UK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/24 02:39:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
The principle may be the same, but in practice the cost so different that it just doesn't matter.
It's like arguing that bread could become so expensive that people will give it up entirely. Sure, in principle bread could get so pricey that we give it up, but right now it's about $2 a loaf, and even if you doubled that people will still eat it.
I suspect that many British citizens like bread a whole lot more than they like the Falklands. Particularly the generation that wasn't alive when the last war happened (ie. my generation).
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote:
The principle may be the same, but in practice the cost so different that it just doesn't matter.
It's like arguing that bread could become so expensive that people will give it up entirely. Sure, in principle bread could get so pricey that we give it up, but right now it's about $2 a loaf, and even if you doubled that people will still eat it.
I suspect that many British citizens like bread a whole lot more than they like the Falklands. Particularly the generation that wasn't alive when the last war happened (ie. my generation).
Mate the only people more aggressively patriotic and xenophobic than you guys is us. I don't know many people who wouldnt be up for a war with the Argies.
gak.. id give up bread for life if i could machine.gun a boat full of Argies!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/24 06:12:19
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote:
Mate the only people more aggressively patriotic and xenophobic than you guys is us. I don't know many people who wouldnt be up for a war with the Argies.
gak.. id give up bread for life if i could machine.gun a boat full of Argies!
Yeah, but you're an old man. I was born in 1986.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
mattyrm wrote:
Mate the only people more aggressively patriotic and xenophobic than you guys is us. I don't know many people who wouldnt be up for a war with the Argies.
gak.. id give up bread for life if i could machine.gun a boat full of Argies!
Yeah, but you're an old man. I was born in 1986.
Yeah I'll be dead soon.
Seriously though.. I know you struggle to understand nationalism because your a smart bloke, but i hugely disagree with you here. Most people are dumb.. and we need little reason to hate!
The British haven't oppressed the Irish for a long time but still they hate. The English haven't oppressed the Scottish for hundreds but still they hate.. and you think 1982 counts as a while?
People have long memories, and people love to hate.
England fighting for the falklands would be hugely supported!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Yeah that's my point. I think im above average intelligence and yet i have an entirely irrational hatred of Islam.
It takes very little to get people happy about a war.. and the falklands was so recent.. i think it would like get a 90% approval.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though.. I know you struggle to understand nationalism because your a smart bloke, but i hugely disagree with you here. Most people are dumb.. and we need little reason to hate!
I don't think its so much that I'm smart (I know plenty of intelligent, irrational people.) as I've been trained for a field based on taking the self out of the process as much as possible.
Basically, I'm a Mentat.
And I understand that many UK citizens will support intervention in the Falklands, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Unless the oil exploration pans out, then the money will always be there barring some financial catastrophe.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
See, told you so. He's making it about something boring - himself.
dogma wrote: Basically, I'm a Mentat.
okay that's interesting he thinks he's a sweet?
But to think that British interest in th Falklands starts and ends with money is ignorant in the extreme. If that were so why would so many English happily dump Scotland into the sea given the choice.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
If a conflict did start again, would the commenwealth nations come in and help automatically? like Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand for example?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:i was wronged by a french canadian when I was 8, i still hate both the french and canadians, especially when the two combine.
Well I'm Canadian, and I hate anything east of Ontario (mainly the Qeubecas!)... well I hate most things that come from Ontario as well, cept old number 99. But when you get wronged by a French "Canadian" their not really Canadian, just a bit a crap that the French didn't want... I dont see why you have to hate the rest of Canada, which is *cough* better in every way *cough* then the states ;P
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/24 08:56:41
Lots
Dwarfs: Lots
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
Check out my blog at: averydwarfishblog.blogspot.com
dogma wrote:I suspect that many British citizens like bread a whole lot more than they like the Falklands. Particularly the generation that wasn't alive when the last war happened (ie. my generation).
I can't think of a war that got cancelled because an accountant ran the numbers and said it'd be really expensive, collapsing public support. I just don't think people's brains work that way.
Now, maybe sustained budget cuts might leave the UK in a place where it simply lacks the capability to defend the Falklands, but I can't see that happening any time soon, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:And I understand that many UK citizens will support intervention in the Falklands, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Even without the oil, the money is always there. It's a government with a fiat currency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ParatrooperSimon wrote:If a conflict did start again, would the commenwealth nations come in and help automatically? like Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand for example?
Not automatically. There's no defence component to the Commonwealth, that requires seperate treaties of mutual defence. There is a mutual defence arrangement in place between the UK, Australia and New Zealand, but I have no idea if Canada has a treaty of its own with the UK.
Neither Australia nor New Zealand assisted the UK last time, because the UK never called on our aid (nor, I think, would the invasion of a non-sovereign soil like the Falklands trigger the treaty). Not that that really matters, because if Australian history has shown anything in the 20th century, it's that if someone has a war we'll show up. We don't even care who's fighting, all you have to do is ask.
The bigger point is that there's really nothing for us to do to help. We've got some first rate infantry, but the UK's already got more of those guys than they could ever possibly fit onto the Falklands. So then it's a question of whether they want our rather limited naval capacity to come and float around, probably doing more harm than good. They didn't want it last time, I doubt that's changed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/24 09:15:49
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
I can't think of a war that got cancelled because an accountant ran the numbers and said it'd be really expensive, collapsing public support.
We're not talking about a war, though. We're talking about a possible war. The distinction is important.
And it doesn't have to collapse public support, just support. The public is important, but money is more important and there are ways to make money even if you're not reelected.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.
The queen?
The Scots are nothing if not stubborn.
*Shrugs* Blame Thatcher (why won't she die?) and Labour for causing it to re-surge. Using our country as a testing ground for laws (smoking ban, poll tax etc) is not right. You want to bring the law in? test it in your own country first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/24 12:20:29
The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.
Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?
Not a shame at all. I and the majority of Englismen can't wait for our bigoted racist, endlessly whinging n eighbours to feth off frankly. I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.
But that's another thread of it's own.
By similar reckoning the 7.8 Million Virginians and who cares how many other former confederate states should petition the UN eh?
No thanks. The court prcedent of Grant v. Lee still holds. I'd rather not go through that again.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though.. I know you struggle to understand nationalism because your a smart bloke, but i hugely disagree with you here. Most people are dumb.. and we need little reason to hate!
I don't think its so much that I'm smart (I know plenty of intelligent, irrational people.) as I've been trained for a field based on taking the self out of the process as much as possible.
Basically, I'm a Mentat.
And I understand that many UK citizens will support intervention in the Falklands, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.
Unless the oil exploration pans out, then the money will always be there barring some financial catastrophe.
Mentats, aren't they supposed to be stupid literalists until the fourth stage of their training.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
See, you aren;t so different than everyone else. Those are the same reasons people will go to war in the Falklands. Even if the money isn;t there, there is always the LULZ.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
See, you aren;t so different than everyone else. Those are the same reasons people will go to war in the Falklands. Even if the money isn;t there, there is always the LULZ.
Never a truer word spoken. Watching an A-10 rake some Afghans with gunfire filled me with lulz. Replacing them with Argies would be comic genius of an epic proportion.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
I was taliking about the situation today with a couple of the Argentinians at work and I got surprised a bit at what they said.
One of them hadn't heard anything about what was happening, and the other one took off on a rant against Chile.
To begin the one that was ranting was the one that looked Anglo. In the 82 war, he was accused of being an FBI agent, CIA, ect. He basically got the Japanese in the U.S. During WW2 treatment.
He was all for nuking the Falklands to keep the oil from being stolen from the Argentina shelf.(his words)
He went on to say it made as much sense for Britain to claim the Falklands as it would be for Mexico to be claiming land in the U.S.
Then he went off on the Chileans, calling them "Oral specialists", for their role in the 1982 war. He basically said they stabbed Argentina in the back for helping Britain, and was actually railing on them more than anyone else.
This could get awkward at work, if anything happens, because we have quite a few Chileans here.
It was an interesting study in how someone can still care about their country, even after being crapped on when things are tight and they get singled out because of their appearance.
Relapse wrote:I was taliking about the situation today with a couple of the Argentinians at work and I got surprised a bit at what they said.
One of them hadn't heard anything about what was happening, and the other one took off on a rant against Chile.
To begin the one that was ranting was the one that looked Anglo. In the 82 war, he was accused of being an FBI agent, CIA, ect. He basically got the Japanese in the U.S. During WW2 treatment.
He was all for nuking the Falklands to keep the oil from being stolen from the Argentina shelf.(his words)
He went on to say it made as much sense for Britain to claim the Falklands as it would be for Mexico to be claiming land in the U.S.
Then he went off on the Chileans, calling them "Oral specialists", for their role in the 1982 war. He basically said they stabbed Argentina in the back for helping Britain, and was actually railing on them more than anyone else.
This could get awkward at work, if anything happens, because we have quite a few Chileans here.
It was an interesting study in how someone can still care about their country, even after being crapped on when things are tight and they get singled out because of their appearance.
Wait Chile stabbed Argentina in the back whilst Argentina prepared it's Navy and Army to invade Chilean islands after what was supposed to be a quick easy war against the defenseless Falklands? This following the rather short 4 year interval between the LAST time the Argies threatened war against Chile. Your Argie friend I'm guessing is a product of indoctrination if he thinks the Chileans betrayed the Argies.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
There's more than a couple of South American countries that have a hot nut for Chile.
It's interesting to see everyone from the different SA countries working here, getting along like family, then hear these comments.
The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.
Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.
Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them where the only career is farming sheep.
In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/25 00:44:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Lots
