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.

British pirates? Lol. Argentinians are really dumb.

Orlanth wrote:Less worrisome, Sean Penn is a Boston plastic paddy. More Irish than the Irish and twice as Irish republican too. Thus in all scenarios the formula applies: UK = evil, therefore anti-UK = good. While I don't fault Kirchner for using him Penn is making a laughing stock of himself in the press, unsuprisingly in the UK but also abroad. The Canadian press did a rather unflattering piece on him echoed in several web papers. I am yet to find any press article that favourably reports his position, though I dont read Spanish or Gaelic language press so he will undoubtably have an audience somewhere.

Thats not correct and cut the Irish crap.

Sean Penn has a long history of loving Latin and Central America (dictators) against the Evil Oppressor, if the Evil Oppressor is the US, or evidently, the UK.

Mr Hyena wrote:British pirates? Lol. Argentinians are really dumb.

Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.

I am NOT laughing this off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats not correct and cut the Irish crap.

'Plastic paddies' are a real problem not an illusory one. Its not quite synonymous with 'Irish American'. Also Penn is only partly Irish, many plastic paddies are.

Frazzled wrote:
Sean Penn has a long history of loving Latin and Central America (dictators) against the Evil Oppressor, if the Evil Oppressor is the US, or evidently, the UK.

Castro and Chavez though you might not like them do have some points. The US has tried to remove both by underhand means and lefties in the States are embarassed by that. The CIA bankrolled at least one coup against Chavez, left or right thats not good and thus Chavez has reason to not like the US government very much.

The UK has not been trying to topple South American countries or interfere in their development. Sean Penn doesn't like us very much for other reasons.

Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.

I am NOT laughing this off.

They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.

Clearly Irish Americans having sympathies against the UK is a real phenomena; I mean, the IRA got their money and guns from somewhere, amirite?

Mr Hyena wrote:

Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.

I am NOT laughing this off.

They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.

Its only heading in one direction, against us. So it wont worry the US or anyone else. It wont even worry the French and they have a full country sized 'colony' in South America that is now part of France itself. There is a message for us there.. Its a Latin force, so giving it one purpose is enough, redirecting it is going to be difficult if not impossible. If Argentina gets what it wants it doesn't mean support will then flow north on other issues. After all no support will be given to Argentina beyond acclamation, despite Chavez crowing. That however is what Argentina needs.

What Argentina is doing makes sense in realpolitik terms, they are not being unrealistic in the goals to grab the islands, or in the methodology to do so. Whether it is right or not is for the UK to claim against, and that requires being a lot more vocal than we have been up until now. The addage that the Argentinians have made comments like this before so it will just blow over don't wash frankly. That was then, this is now. Argentina is on a roll, they have no logical reason to stop, not if we are not defending against the diplomatic punches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:Clearly Irish Americans having sympathies against the UK is a real phenomena; I mean, the IRA got their money and guns from somewhere, amirite?

And guess which US actor, amongst others was backing Sinn Fein? (4,4)

I'll just leave this here.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100137521/sean-penn-should-return-his-malibu-estate-to-the-mexicans/

Mr Hyena wrote:

Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.

I am NOT laughing this off.

They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.

There's no such thing as a united crusading Latin force in South America, any more than there is a united crusading Caucasian force in Europe. First of all because none of them are Italian. You might all pretend to get on fine since that silly little war 70 some odd years ago, but under the surface there is plenty of motivation for European nations to jockey for power and go to war once all the proxies get tired of being used. Chile won't help Argentina for the same reason France won't help the UK, under the polite veneer of foreign relations they hate each other. Argentina may have developed close ties with Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay but they certainly don't have many friends in Columbia, Bolivia, or Mexico. South America is a pot under pressure. The economic benefits of remaining at peace have outweighed the seething tensions between the nations, some of them aren't equipped to fight (Bolivia), and some of them would rather not (Brazil), but Argentina's neighbors and erstwhile political allies are unlikely to join her in a crusade against the English speaking world that can only end in burning everything those nations have achieved in the last 30 years to the ground. Because if the Falklands were to blow up into more than a face off between the Argies and the Brits it would very likely develop into a war between the British cousins(UK and US) and whatever group of South American nations from which sanity has escaped being crushed to the wailing tune of the UN General Assembly.

Frazzled wrote:............
Thats not correct and cut the Irish crap.

Sean Penn has a long history of loving Latin and Central America (dictators) against the Evil Oppressor, if the Evil Oppressor is the US, or evidently, the UK.

But oppressing the Irish is like...our thing. It's what we do to repress the urge to take over the world again.

I do agree with the need for Malibu to be handed back to the Mexicans though.

All the advatages of the US but with all the advatanges of a second teir currency. Seems ideal.

AustonT wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Not quite. It doesnt have top be true for people to sniff oil and/or join in a Latin crusade against the British. The Argentine arguments are rabble rousing and thus very effective. Most race hate progaganda, which is what Argentina is using, can go very far on very little factual content.

I am NOT laughing this off.

They aren't going to get away with it. I don't think many countries will like a united, crusading latin force.

There's no such thing as a united crusading Latin force in South America, any more than there is a united crusading Caucasian force in Europe. First of all because none of them are Italian. You might all pretend to get on fine since that silly little war 70 some odd years ago, but under the surface there is plenty of motivation for European nations to jockey for power and go to war once all the proxies get tired of being used. Chile won't help Argentina for the same reason France won't help the UK, under the polite veneer of foreign relations they hate each other. Argentina may have developed close ties with Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay but they certainly don't have many friends in Columbia, Bolivia, or Mexico. South America is a pot under pressure. The economic benefits of remaining at peace have outweighed the seething tensions between the nations, some of them aren't equipped to fight (Bolivia), and some of them would rather not (Brazil), but Argentina's neighbors and erstwhile political allies are unlikely to join her in a crusade against the English speaking world that can only end in burning everything those nations have achieved in the last 30 years to the ground. Because if the Falklands were to blow up into more than a face off between the Argies and the Brits it would very likely develop into a war between the British cousins(UK and US) and whatever group of South American nations from which sanity has escaped being crushed to the wailing tune of the UN General Assembly.

We would not be involved. We would not permit that level of combat either. The Americas are our playground. Everyone else push off. *
*Monroe Doctrine. Don't mess with dead Presidents.

Frazzled wrote:

We would not be involved. We would not permit that level of combat either. The Americas are our playground. Everyone else push off. *
*Monroe Doctrine. Don't mess with dead Presidents.

Monroe doctrine has no weight in international law, its useful for forming new policy. The US might have tried it when the colony was established and decided not to. Now its well too late.

Self determination and indiginous legitimacy vs the 'inherited' Spanish claim are the legal issues.

So Frazzled does have "a dog in this fight" afterall. He wants the Falklands for himself.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

We would not be involved. We would not permit that level of combat either. The Americas are our playground. Everyone else push off. *
*Monroe Doctrine. Don't mess with dead Presidents.

Monroe doctrine has no weight in international law, its useful for forming new policy. The US might have tried it when the colony was established and decided not to. Now its well too late.

Self determination and indiginous legitimacy vs the 'inherited' Spanish claim are the legal issues.

It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.

Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polkite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:So Frazzled does have "a dog in this fight" afterall. He wants the Falklands for himself.

Looks like a good summer home.

America will not get involved in the Falklands. They didn't in '82 and won't now. Currently, the US is completely busy not getting involved in Syria.

If Argentina's claim stems from Spain's colonial 'ownership' of the Malvinas, then does that contravene the Monroe Doctrine?

Frazzled wrote:
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.

Really, thats a ten year olds argument. I expect better from you Frazzie.

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.

We already have responses from Hilary Clinton and Obama, and don't like them.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:America will not get involved in the Falklands. They didn't in '82 and won't now. Currently, the US is completely busy not getting involved in Syria.

Diplomatically we would. I don't see a united "Latin League" for many reasons (Chile has already declined joining the union embargo) and don't see any sort of greater "Euro" league being involved either. Would be an interesting board game... WWIII Europe vs. South America.

As noted this was referred to the UN, which means absolutely nothing will happen. The Falklands are safe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.

Really, thats a ten year olds argument. I expect better from you Frazzie.

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.

We already have responses from Hilary Clinton and Obama, and don't like them.

Why do you think France bailed on Maximillian in Mexico? Something about 'Sheridan marching south,' to the French Ambassador.

"Keep my legions intact. It makes the law legal."
-Julius Caesar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:If Argentina's claim stems from Spain's colonial 'ownership' of the Malvinas, then does that contravene the Monroe Doctrine?

Only if SPain gets uppity. Spain is not getting uppity.

Actually that might be the only thing that did in fact unite South America.

Frazzled wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:America will not get involved in the Falklands. They didn't in '82 and won't now. Currently, the US is completely busy not getting involved in Syria.

Diplomatically we would. I don't see a united "Latin League" for many reasons (Chile has already declined joining the union embargo) and don't see any sort of greater "Euro" league being involved either. Would be an interesting board game... WWIII Europe vs. South America.

As noted this was referred to the UN, which means absolutely nothing will happen. The Falklands are safe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
It has weight as its backed by the full faith and credit of fiteen carriers and more nukes than god.

Really, thats a ten year olds argument. I expect better from you Frazzie.

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously. Getting involved in the Americas WILL draw a US response. WE may be polite, we may be diplomatic, but at the end of the day there will be a response.

We already have responses from Hilary Clinton and Obama, and don't like them.

Why do you think France bailed on Maximillian in Mexico? Something about 'Sheridan marching south,' to the French Ambassador.

"Keep my legions intact. It makes the law legal."
-Julius Caesar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:If Argentina's claim stems from Spain's colonial 'ownership' of the Malvinas, then does that contravene the Monroe Doctrine?

Only if SPain gets uppity. Spain is not getting uppity.

Actually that might be the only thing that did in fact unite South America.

I don't think Spain'd 'get uppity'; they didn't contest the Argies when (I forget which year, I think I mentioned it earlier in this post) declared that the claim had transferred since the islands were administered from Buenos Aires. The Spanish kept silent and that is taken as approval of sorts. Spain has no real right to get involved barrings its 'paternal' links to South America(?).

What I meant to ask is that, if Argentina's claim stems from European colonialism, is it valid?

I have to say there are certainly arguments to describe either Britain or Argentina as acting in a colonial manner (Oooh that island happens to be geographically closer to us than its owner. For the sake of geographical convenience we must claim it!)

Okay maybe that parody of the Argentinian view is inaccurate/unfair, but I know that's how it appears to many...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And hell, it's the argument many Argies seem to use on YouTube

No the Monroe doctrine was to keep the evil Euros out. Its not related to land claims.

Does it invalidate European claims to land(?) was my point

Henners91 wrote:Does it invalidate European claims to land(?) was my point

Well its not a legal doctrine, more of a "Euros push off!" doctrine. Its interesting that the Argentinians would use that claim as generally they don't recognize Spanish claims.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Monroe Doctrine is not a law, it's a foreign policey. America changes it's foreign policey like Frazzled changes his ammo clips. The Monroe Doctrine? Might as well be discussing the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in open plains combat. Can we at least upgrade this to America's most recent policey: The Bush Doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but the Monroe Doctrine is not a law, it's a foreign policey. America changes it's foreign policey like Frazzled changes his ammo clips. The Monroe Doctrine? Might as well be discussing the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in open plains combat. Can we at least upgrade this to America's most recent policey: The Bush Doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd.

Actually its really changed. US policy has always been to try to keep other big boys out.
After all, WWIII almost occurred over it.

Makes sense as a policy, I wouldn't attack the logic of it.

Frazzled wrote:
Actually its really changed. US policy has always been to try to keep other big boys out.
After all, WWIII almost occurred over it.

Actually WW3 nearly occured because Kennedy didnt want to lose face and it was he not Kruschev who was threatening to press the button. Kruschev agreed to lose face in return for material gains (US nukes out of Turkey and a no invasion pledge for Cuba). Effectively the Soviets got the better deal by far, with Cuba safe there was no need for nukes there; while Kennedy walked away with the 'win'.

Kennedy insisted on looking good first and getting the job done a distant second, he got all pissy and threatened the existance of the human race because nukes were 100 miles from US soil at a time when the Soviets already had hemispheric launch capability. Best thing that happened to that self important idiot was a couple of bullets from a book depository.

It wasn't about losing face. It was about nukes just a few minutes launch time away. It was a first strike position.

The Argentinian nazis would use any excuse to persecute the Falkland Islanders.

The lack of assistance by the US is disappointing however, considering the UK supported the US heavily in their conflicts. Not completely unexpected though.

Hey don't blame me. I didn't vote for Obama.

I don't think the UK has asked for US assistance. Not militarily anyway.

Yeah. But there was a feeling of betrayal over Obama's comments.