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.

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.

<moderation comment inserted>

dogma wrote:Obama rant, and probable reports.

<acknowledged; keep it civil, and you can talk about what you want --Janthkin>

Obama rant, and probable reports.

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.

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.

Hold on its not against forum rules to vocally dislike Obama.

Thicker skins are required methinks.

The obama argument always ends the same way, I agree with that thread being closed to be honest.

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.

corpsesarefun wrote:The obama argument always ends the same way, I agree with that thread being closed to be honest.

Does it? There are plenty of unlocked threads that criticise Obama.

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.

Medium of Death wrote:
What a two faced fether. Over here giving it all 'special relationship' this and 'close allies' that.

The phrase "close allies" means "doing whatever it is you want me to do?"

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.

As I said in the last thread, we aren't giving anyone territory, we simply said "negotiation is a good thing."

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.

Orlanth wrote:
It does mean quid pro quo.

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.

If the Falklands Islanders were offered £1,000,000 each to relocate they might be willing to move to the UK.

I'd move to the Falklands so I could get £1m to move back to the UK

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.

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

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.

Theres no way Argentina will get the Falklands.

Mr Hyena wrote:Theres no way Argentina will get the Falklands.

But will they get the Malvinas?

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.

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.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Why would Brazil attack the Falkland Islands?