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.

...As well as American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island...

But who's counting, right?

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
From either perspective of justice or diplomacy Obamas actions are not defendable. Obama could have said, we will remain neutral and the South Americans countries would have respected that, its not a 'pro-British' stance.

Justice is irrelevant except as it applies to diplomacy, and this is essentially a neutral action as regards the actual territorial claim to the islands.

Saying that we will remain neutral can easily be, and has often been, interpreted as a pro-British stance; particularly by people that make arguments akin to the ones you're making right now. Which is to say, reactionary, emotional ones.

Justice is relevant, look at the Hague. While its doesnt apply to everyone it applies in enough cases that international law and (when considering eliminating the islanders) crimes against humanity etc hold strength. In fact the UK offered to take the case of the Falklands islands to the Hague three times, Argentina refused.

Its also necessary to absorb that truth of human realpolitik in order to understand why the Argentines wont back down, their position is based on wounded pride. This is magnified by emotive arguments at the core of Latin Americas agreement with the fellow Latine claim, and I suspect Anglophobia has something to do with Obamas position with the UK. Spain backs Argentina for no greater reason than a common language despite EU treaty ratification of the Uk claim, and yes the Gilbraltar question is equally emotive.
We need not be robots, but we do need to be aware of what is behind the political choices.

Most political opinions are emotive at their core, so there is no excuse to wave your hands and dismiss these ones. Or are you getting personal again dogma, your I am rational - you are not fallacy, if so please grow up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:...As well as American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island...

But who's counting, right?

UN committee on decolonisation.

Orlanth wrote:
Justice is relevant, look at the Hague. While its doesnt apply to everyone it applies in enough cases that international law and (when considering eliminating the islanders) crimes against humanity etc hold strength. In fact the UK offered to take the case of the Falklands islands to the Hague three times, Argentina refused.

International rulings on justice are not the same thing as actual claims to justice, if they are then whatever I say about justice is exactly as legitimate as whatever you have to say about justice; which means that if I can impose my will and your claim to justice can be negated by force. That's either nonsense, or whatever the US has to say is correct because it can kill everyone in the UK via an absent button press. Once you accept that such claims are truly nonsense, it becomes easy to realize that the real issue is national preference; which means that "justice" is just deflection. That's alright, I guess, as a lot of international dialect is political, but based on past exchanges with you I would guess that you at least want to try to pretend to truth. Well, if I were being honest I would add the word "seem", but then I am biased against anything you have to say.

Anyway, I have no idea which "Hague" you mean. There are two pertinent ways to use that word here, one is membership exclusive, the other is not. One, the ICC (which I do not believe you are referencing) or the ICJ (which is probably what you are referencing).

Orlanth wrote:
Its also necessary to absorb that truth of human realpolitik in order to understand why the Argentines wont back down, their position is based on wounded pride.

No, nonsense. Their position may also be base on material interest.

Either way, your position may also be based on wounded pride, which means the exchange is even at worst.

Orlanth wrote:
This is magnified by emotive arguments at the core of Latin Americas agreement with the fellow Latine claim, and I suspect Anglophobia has something to do with Obamas position with the UK. Spain backs Argentina for no greater reason than a common language despite EU treaty ratification of the Uk claim, and yes the Gilbraltar question is equally emotive.

You have made clear that you are an anglophile, which means that any claim that you make towards any emotion regarding international politics is compromised. When you claim that a policy of desiring British-Argentine negotiations is anti-Britain, it is incredibly difficult to listen to anything you have to say regarding that. To top it off you continually choose to "analyze" politics in terms of your own emotions rather than any possible interest, emotive or material (as if there is a real difference) of the relevant parties.

It is both deeply irritating and disappointing, though perhaps not surprising given your age.

Orlanth wrote:
Most political opinions are emotive at their core, so there is no excuse to wave your hands and dismiss these ones.

Most political opinions of those people who are unimformed are emotive at their core. You have no excuse if you know otherwise, and behave in the same way. No flattering excuse, anyway.

Wolfstan wrote:Now I've only done a quick scan on the subject via Wiki, so I'm not looking to cause any offense, due to me missing something. However why is it ok for Obama to make these suggestions, when the US lays claim to Hawaii, Alaska and Guantanamo Bay?

because we did it fair and square.

*We stole Hawaii. Like England stole Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the American colonies, possessions in the Caribbean, India, Egypt, etc. etc.
*We bought Alaska.
*We have a lease on Gitmo because we made the mistake of giving back Cuba and not turning into five states ike we should have after the Spanish American War.

Discussion should happen to be honest. It'll be short anyway. Argentina will sit down; we'll say "Nope." and then thats that.

Argentina has never tried to pursue negotiations on the islands, because legally they have no case and are very aware of it. The right of people trump Imperialism in the modern world. Argentine politicians roll out the Falklands bus when ever they need to drum up a bit of easy support, and they like to rant about it at this time of year because.......

......today is Liberation day in the Falklands, 29 years to the day of the Argentine surrender

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Its also necessary to absorb that truth of human realpolitik in order to understand why the Argentines wont back down, their position is based on wounded pride.

No, nonsense. Their position may also be base on material interest.

Either way, your position may also be based on wounded pride, which means the exchange is even at worst.

Where do you get that ide? If the islands were swarming with victorious Argies my 'wounded pride' would likely apply.

dogma wrote:
You have made clear that you are an anglophile, which means that any claim that you make towards any emotion regarding international politics is compromised. When you claim that a policy of desiring British-Argentine negotiations is anti-Britain, it is incredibly difficult to listen to anything you have to say regarding that. To top it off you continually choose to "analyze" politics in terms of your own emotions rather than any possible interest, emotive or material (as if there is a real difference) of the relevant parties.

It is both deeply irritating and disappointing, though perhaps not surprising given your age.

Well as a Uk citizen being an anglophile is both not suprising (in that I am patriotic) an incorrect in terms that an anglophile refers to a pro-British foreigner.
However patriotism is no guarantee of being unable to view a point objectively. Yes I am a patriotic Englishman, that is not to say I agree with all the actions of the Empire, or the nation in general.

A policy of desiring Bristish-Argentine negotiations is anti-british as the principle of rendering some concerns non-negotiatable holds solid historical precedence. A good example are the talks Germany wanted with Poland over the future of Silesia shortly after german reunification. Poland said there was nothing to negotiate, Silesia was now and would 'forever' remain Polish the former allied powers agreed, the German government then shut up.

Also talks between UK and Argentina occured for 17 years ending in 1981, no solution was found and Argentina invaded one year later. also keep in kind that in 1994 a referendum in the Falklands resulted in 87% of the islanders were against negotiations under any circumstances.

Finally the word negotiation itself is loaded. The agreement referred to in the OP, and quoted my myself is clear as to the intent:

DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.

Argentina will settle for one outcome alone, the UK for another. hence 17 years of failed negotiations, negotiations through to a 'definative settlement' has only two ends. Either adherence to the self determination of the islanders or adherence to the concensus of political will in South America. The former is defendable on democratic principles, the latter practical on realpolitik, but only if the UK can be forced to back down diplomatically, economically or militarily.
You see we could have negotiations as many times as you like, until the Uk pulls out there will be no 'definitive settlement'. It is understood that negotiations on the terms of the OAS declaration is a de facto surrender, that is how it is seen in Whitehall.

dogma wrote:
Most political opinions of those people who are unimformed are emotive at their core. You have no excuse if you know otherwise, and behave in the same way. No flattering excuse, anyway.

One can be informed and emotive, issues can be emotive. That is not to eliminate any economic or political argument but can of course influence them. The Argentine government and president would clearly fall into that category, as would the OAS members, as would the islanders, as would the UK government and the Royal Navy and the... and the....
You see, there is nothing to pick on.


You are putting to an unfairly high standard on my responses here in an effort to find excuse get personal in critiquing them. Please grow up, in the past you could get away with that because you would be so vehement in your flat denials it would appear that you must have had a point. However you are doing this too often, and with other people too and its no longer seen as sagacious, just trolling. I am asking nicely now, please grow up. You could have said all you said there without getting personal, or attempting to denegrate another forum member. When you point out that I am not worth being polite to, or cannot reason etc etc you are making someone out to be a fool, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that someone is me.
Its a pity as I have certainly tried to learn from you and your personal insights when I could, and you do have interesting things to say, you just make that rather difficult with your hang-ups.

oh god, I wish Dakka had a like button

cpt_fishcakes wrote:Argentina has never tried to pursue negotiations on the islands, because legally they have no case and are very aware of it. The right of people trump Imperialism in the modern world. Argentine politicians roll out the Falklands bus when ever they need to drum up a bit of easy support, and they like to rant about it at this time of year because.......

......today is Liberation day in the Falklands, 29 years to the day of the Argentine surrender

Argentina has a case, though admittedly a much weaker one, that added to British de facto presence and a contemporary failed invasion pushes the case firmly in the favour of the UK. They were 'negotiations' from 1964 to 1981, which solved some issues such as fishing rights but made no progress on the future of the islands. These negotiations started after Argentina refused three invitations to bring the sovereignty case to the Hague in 1947, 1948 and 1955.

The negotiations started after UN Resolution 2065 which called for negotiations. Both Uk and Argentina complied and opened negotiations as requested. The difference between these negotiations and those the OAS requests is that UN Resolution 2065 included allowed negiotiations to be open ended, not until a settlement is reached, and included the caveat "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

The most important point highlighted in bold. As the islanders are very clear as to their position the Uk could comply with the UN Resolution and consequently give no credence to calls for Argentine claim as they would breach the resolutions caveat protecting the interests of the population.

What OAS (and thus Obama) is calling for is negotiation until a resolution is found without the caveats of Resolution 2065. This means only one thing. In fact Argentina has flatly refused to allow self determination to be considered a factor, relying instead on anti-Imperial propoganda to overcome the affrond to democracy this move plainly is. It is odd as South America contains no Brtiish colonies to have bad blood, and the OAS position could be possibly described as a racially motivated. Because it is the UK on the Falklands the continued presence is sold as Imperialism. The fact that the islanders want UK rule and clearly dont want Argentine rule and, would become a literal colony of Argentina if any hand over occurs is ignored by governments in Latin America.

There are two 'new' ways forward, either invite the Islanders under a referendum to join the UK and elect an MP to serve them in 'Westminster', elect a county council to replace their island council, become an island 'shire' of the UK. This is going furrther than the Isle of Man and Channel islands but it would silence legal critique of the islands and remove them from the UN list of non self governing territories. This might not stop an Argentine invasion, but it would be categorically an invasion of the Uk if it happens, thus the Uk could all on the NATO treaty for direct intervention.

The second would be to get the UN to endorse principles of self determination as paramount in soveriegnty claims. China would likely veto that as it would make things difficult for them in various theatres.

Otherwise its business as usual.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:oh god, I wish Dakka had a like button

ditto


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh oh, looks like this might be more of a problem then thought. On the positive Argentina's military can almost take on Latvia, so you're still probably ok.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/wl_afp/britainmilitaryfalklandsargentina

If we are to imagine fantasy Falkland War II, how do you imagine the conflict going?

The way I see it, assuming hostilities broke out within the year, the Royal Navy would be hard pressed to mount the sort of combined arms amphibious landings in support of airborne operations as they did in 1982. Instead, I see them relying on their substantially superior nuclear-powered attack submarines to cripple the small Argentinian blue-water navy while also offering long range strike packages against surface based anti-shipping defenses employed by the Argentinians.

The issue becomes actually removing the Argentinians from the islands, assuming that a successful invasion and occupation had taken place. Although the Argentinians wouldn't be able to waltz in as they did in '82, I think a determined push would probably dislodge the British garrison. This is why I believe the submarines would be largely on their own at first. No British admiral would risk a surface fleet in the face of the exocet anti-shipping missiles after so many british ships were damaged or sunk in '82.

Only after extensive attacks against sea ports, air bases, and C&C assets could I see the British bringing their littoral capabilities to bear against the Falklands/Maldines.

The problem for the Argentinians would be actually accomplishing a sea-borne invasion in the face of a stiffer British garrison and a hostile populace. The British have 4 Eurofighters, C and C aircraft, refueling capabilities, and approximately 10 times more men under arms on the island than they did in '82. They also have 2-3 naval vessels permanently in the area as well as a suspected attack submarine.

The wild-card factors is the participation or neutrality of other South American nations, US support or neutrality, and the time of year that the invasion would take place...

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:If we are to imagine fantasy Falkland War II, how do you imagine the conflict going?

The way I see it, assuming hostilities broke out within the year, the Royal Navy would be hard pressed to mount the sort of combined arms amphibious landings in support of airborne operations as they did in 1982. Instead, I see them relying on their substantially superior nuclear-powered attack submarines to cripple the small Argentinian blue-water navy while also offering long range strike packages against surface based anti-shipping defenses employed by the Argentinians.

The issue becomes actually removing the Argentinians from the islands, assuming that a successful invasion and occupation had taken place. Although the Argentinians wouldn't be able to waltz in as they did in '82, I think a determined push would probably dislodge the British garrison. This is why I believe the submarines would be largely on their own at first. No British admiral would risk a surface fleet in the face of the exocet anti-shipping missiles after so many british ships were damaged or sunk in '82.

Only after extensive attacks against sea ports, air bases, and C&C assets could I see the British bringing their littoral capabilities to bear against the Falklands/Maldines.

The problem for the Argentinians would be actually accomplishing a sea-borne invasion in the face of a stiffer British garrison and a hostile populace. The British have 4 Eurofighters, C and C aircraft, refueling capabilities, and approximately 10 times more men under arms on the island than they did in '82. They also have 2-3 naval vessels permanently in the area as well as a suspected attack submarine.

The wild-card factors is the participation or neutrality of other South American nations, US support or neutrality, and the time of year that the invasion would take place...

It will depend on the Argentinean wiliness to kill civilians and if they want a bloodless takeover. If they don't mind civilian or military casualties then the islands will fall.

Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Orlanth wrote:
Where do you get that ide? If the islands were swarming with victorious Argies my 'wounded pride' would likely apply.

I used the phrase "wounded pride" because you used it, and in this context it is a matter of potential.

Orlanth wrote:
Well as a Uk citizen being an anglophile is both not suprising (in that I am patriotic) an incorrect in terms that an anglophile refers to a pro-British foreigner.

No, anglophile merely means "someone who likes British or English culture" or "someone who like Britain or England", nationality of the anglophile is not relevant.

Orlanth wrote:
However patriotism is no guarantee of being unable to view a point objectively. Yes I am a patriotic Englishman, that is not to say I agree with all the actions of the Empire, or the nation in general.

Which is why I didn't simply call you a patriot.

Orlanth wrote:
A policy of desiring Bristish-Argentine negotiations is anti-british as the principle of rendering some concerns non-negotiatable holds solid historical precedence. A good example are the talks Germany wanted with Poland over the future of Silesia shortly after german reunification. Poland said there was nothing to negotiate, Silesia was now and would 'forever' remain Polish the former allied powers agreed, the German government then shut up.

The German government stopped talking about it because the German government was in no position to dispute the claim, as the Allies explicitly supported Poland during reunification. That situation is not analogous to this one in any way, as support for the UK claim is minimal outside of the EU, not even the entirety of the Commonwealth supports the UK claim. Most nations are neutral, and supporting a series of negotiations is indicative of that.

Again, stating that two states should negotiate is not to state which state should be favored during those negotiations. Non-negotiability has almost nothing to do with what one particular state wants, unless that state is in a position to impose its will unilaterally, which no state, bar the US (and even then with great difficulty), is capable of doing.

Orlanth wrote:
Also talks between UK and Argentina occured for 17 years ending in 1981, no solution was found and Argentina invaded one year later. also keep in kind that in 1994 a referendum in the Falklands resulted in 87% of the islanders were against negotiations under any circumstances.

As I've already said, what the people want is not relevant. There's only 3500 of them, they are not important.

Orlanth wrote:
Finally the word negotiation itself is loaded. The agreement referred to in the OP, and quoted my myself is clear as to the intent:

DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.

Argentina will settle for one outcome alone, the UK for another. hence 17 years of failed negotiations, negotiations through to a 'definative settlement' has only two ends. Either adherence to the self determination of the islanders or adherence to the concensus of political will in South America. The former is defendable on democratic principles, the latter practical on realpolitik, but only if the UK can be forced to back down diplomatically, economically or militarily.
You see we could have negotiations as many times as you like, until the Uk pulls out there will be no 'definitive settlement'. It is understood that negotiations on the terms of the OAS declaration is a de facto surrender, that is how it is seen in Whitehall.

Yes, the word negotiation is loaded by the meaning that the word negotiation carries, if it were not it would be gibberish.

That dealt with, the point is, and has always been, that claiming that negotiations should take place is not the same thing as claiming that the Falklands should be handed over to Argentina. Believing that sitting at a table and discussing the OAS declaration is a surrender of the islands is simply wrong, because it is in no way the same thing as actually surrendering the islands.

Orlanth wrote:
One can be informed and emotive, issues can be emotive.

I didn't say otherwise. There is, however, no reason to be emotive if you truly are informed and interested in debate according to logic.

Orlanth wrote:
You are putting to an unfairly high standard on my responses here in an effort to find excuse get personal in critiquing them.

My standard is fair, I hold myself to the same one.

Orlanth wrote:
Please grow up, in the past you could get away with that because you would be so vehement in your flat denials it would appear that you must have had a point. However you are doing this too often, and with other people too and its no longer seen as sagacious, just trolling. I am asking nicely now, please grow up. You could have said all you said there without getting personal, or attempting to denegrate another forum member. When you point out that I am not worth being polite to, or cannot reason etc etc you are making someone out to be a fool, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that someone is me.
Its a pity as I have certainly tried to learn from you and your personal insights when I could, and you do have interesting things to say, you just make that rather difficult with your hang-ups.

Well, no, I said several things which are relevant to your argument, and your person, this is ad hominem, but its the legitimate form of ad hominem. One can comment on personal qualities that are directly relevant to the argument. Anglophilia, for example, suggests a distinct reason for making a particular claim which extends beyond the actual rightness of that claim; in this case the anti-British nature of a particular decision by the United States. I could as easily have claimed that you have an unfair assessment of President Obama given that past Presidents have also endorsed controversial OAS resolutions, only to subsequently ignore them. I mean, we ignored the OAS charter when we explicitly supported Britain '82, so a non-binding GA resolution is not particularly important.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Yes and no, there is a difference between slaughter and casualties caused by bombing or collateral damage. Like I said if the Argentinians don't mind using force then the islands will fall.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.

Frazzled wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine

Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.

Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.

It won't come to that, though.

Frazzled wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.

I still think America sides with Britain. There's a difference between calling for negotiations and standing aside when your longest standing ally is attacked. Direct military intervention - perhaps not, but certainly the sort of support that was seen in '82. Britain can certainly call in debts over Iraq and Afghanistan - even simply summarily pull out of Afghanistan should America refuse aid. It would also be a political field-day for the GOP if the current administration pulled that. At the end of the day, all Britain has to do is point to the well-documented desire of the Islander's desire to remain British. It should be an open and shut case in both the courts of public opinion (at least among NATO members) and at the UN.

EDIT: The Monroe Doctrine was designed to keep the Europeans from taking Latin America in the wake of their independence from Spain. The language actually states the western hemisphere which, BTW, includes the British Isles, Spain, and almost all of Western Africa above the equator. It's an out-dated doctrine that has lost legitimacy - especially in light of America's reduced geo-political clout as a result of our War on Terrorism.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine

Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.

Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.

It won't come to that, though.

What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan. You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.

I still think America sides with Britain. There's a difference between calling for negotiations and standing aside when your longest standing ally is attacked. Direct military intervention - perhaps not, but certainly the sort of support that was seen in '82. Britain can certainly call in debts over Iraq and Afghanistan - even simply summarily pull out of Afghanistan should America refuse aid. It would also be a political field-day for the GOP if the current administration pulled that. At the end of the day, all Britain has to do is point to the well-documented desire of the Islander's desire to remain British. It should be an open and shut case in both the courts of public opinion (at least among NATO members) and at the UN.

I'm not saying we'd side with Argentina. I'm not saying we wouldn't politically side with Britain either. I'm saying don't be so sure we go into a fifth war over anything but vital national interests.

What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan. You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.

Seriously, Frazz? The people are British. They want to be British. An Argentinian invasion would be no different then Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in '91. It would be no different than Germany's invasion of Poland. Land Claims going back almost 200 years does not a justification for war make. I'm sorry, but our British friends are right on this one. There is nothing to negotiate and if they need our help we should help.

The US will fall into line just like 82, were worth a lot more money at the end of the day than Argentina.

You got the whole NATO thing as well, which has long since left its cold war limitations behind. The Monroe Doctrine came to sod all in 82 and so it will be in the future. I just cant see the US not manning up to help a trusted ally and NATO partner if asked, when the UK gave the US such support when its own people were attacked.

The USA has always had balls, would be a shame if it loses them

If the unlikely does happen; and Argentina invades again; if America does nothing to assist its ally; then it would be spitting in the face of the immense contribution the UK made when the US invaded the middle east.

Talks would be pointless anyway; as Argentina would be told it is not having them; as the Islanders say they want to be British. But...Argentina will just ask later anyway.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.
FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan. You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.

Seriously, Frazz? The people are British. They want to be British. An Argentinian invasion would be no different then Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in '91. It would be no different than Germany's invasion of Poland. Land Claims going back almost 200 years does not a justification for war make. I'm sorry, but our British friends are right on this one. There is nothing to negotiate and if they need our help we should help.

I didn't say we wouldn't. I am saying don't count your horses until they're in the barn with this administration. Reagan's not in the WH, not even the awesomeness of ZombieReagan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cpt_fishcakes wrote:The US will fall into line just like 82, were worth a lot more money at the end of the day than Argentina.

You got the whole NATO thing as well, which has long since left its cold war limitations behind. The Monroe Doctrine came to sod all in 82 and so it will be in the future. I just cant see the US not manning up to help a trusted ally and NATO partner if asked, when the UK gave the US such support when its own people were attacked.

The USA has always had balls, would be a shame if it loses them

I wouldn't push the NATO argument right now...

True, true. NATO is weaksauce right now. However, the two countries that matter militarily (as far as willingness to use force goes) are certainly not weak.

But seriously folks. I am fascinated by the Falklands War from the historical perspective in that it is a fairly unique war in terms of the problems faced by both sides and the manner in which those problems were addressed.

Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?

I roll D6 for political clout.



Failing my initiative test in Libya, I roll for dexterity and try to dodge the political fallout.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Does anyone else want to take a stab at some theoretical war gaming (either operationally or strategically)? You know... since this is a war games site?

I roll D6 for political clout.



Failing my initiative test in Libya, I roll for dexterity and try to dodge the political fallout.

You succeed and take half damage, your allies are annoyed and threatening to drop from NATO but still stand by you.

Frazzled wrote:
Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine, and as noted the current administration's view of the UK is more clouded than previously.

British existence violates the Monroe Doctrine, as large parts of that nation exist in the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine is irrelevant, because its text has never been obeyed. Only people who have never read the relevant documents actually consider it important to current affairs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
I wouldn't push the NATO argument right now...

If I were a Democrat I would, and I would call it a security issue, an laugh as Republicans became angry, and laugh harder as Libertarians pretended they were relevant.

Frazzled wrote:
I didn't say we wouldn't. I am saying don't count your horses until they're in the barn with this administration. Reagan's not in the WH, not even the awesomeness of ZombieReagan.

This.

Kirscher is moving now because Obama is in the White House. She sees a propaganda coup to make which will last even if/?when? the next US administration returns tio a neutral position.

For Obama to support the OAS petition not only once but twice is as much copy as Argentina needs, they will hang on to that long term. Evidence for this is the Argentina continued calls for the UK to obey the UM resolutions calling for talks. Those resolutions are decades old, were complied with and the issue became listed as non-negotaiable only since the Argentine invasion, however only part of that information is highlighted by Argentina. Now forever and a day they will claim US backing 'from previous administrations' when thery want to bet this drum.

Future US presidents will have a wobbly rope to walk if they want to practice actual neutrality on this issue. Obama has done you or us no favours, he has appeased people like Chavez who will be swift to forget US support, we however will remember this, and the French will be watching too, because France has broadly similar worries over New Caledonia and possible even French Guiana and was uncharacteristically quick to support the UK claim in the EU.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Slaughter of civilians instantly turns world opinion against them and almost guarantees USA's involvement on Britain's side.

Don't be so sure. British interference in the Falklands on their face violate the Monroe Doctrine

Woah, woah, woah....WHAT!? Seriously, do you have anything at all to back that up? That's crazy talk.

Also, the article you posted represents a fairly transparent attempt by the British naval establishment to make the case for increased funding (or a reversal of the cuts), nothing more. If we had to defend the islands, we could, no question. We'd just pull our troops out of your revenge war. Simple.

It won't come to that, though.

What part of NO FOREIGN DOG INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE do you not get? (translation " the Americas are ours, push off!"). Thats the Monroe Doctrine in a nutshell.

Actually it isn't. It's 'no further European colonisation of American territories'. As the British claim on the Falklands predates this, the Monroe Doctrine doesn't apply. In any case, the people of the islands have the right to self-determination, and they choose to be British. What you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant.

FYI you're already pulling your troops out of there and your obligations under NATO in Afghanistan.

So is the US, remember. Plus, Britain was under no obligation to support the Afghan war under NATO, as the USA was not attacked by Afghanistan
.

You can't even support your own war in Libya. So again, push off.

It's not our 'war', it's the UN's 'war'. And it's not a war. Plus, the UK is doing far more than it's fair share in Libya, as per usual.

It's also worth remembering that Britain's forces are spread thin due to our involvements in your wars, and as much as you people don't like to admit it, you need us. You can't go on these adventures on your own, as your forces are spread pretty thin also, and the UK is the USAs only reliable ally with decent capabilities. I mean, why else would Bush have asked for more allied troops? It certainly wasn't for the appearance of multilateralism, because he didn't give a gak about it. You might want to think on that, and all the dead Brits who laid down their lives to help keep you and your family safe, the next time you feel like making a snide remark about my country - a frequent occurrence.

I have a quite strange picture of Cameron giving the Reagan salute using the Churchill finger option the next time the US/President is stupid in its dealings with UK affairs

If only...