Author Topic: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble  (Read 20797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2012, 12:28:01 am »
Scotsgit: I mean the British being willing to use force defending the Falklands rather than letting the Argentinians have it.

Ah, apologies for that.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2012, 06:57:34 am »
Godwin.
Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.

All I'm seeing is a quote by the 20th century's most famous proponent of appeasement. The fact that a war broke out because of that policy is the point, who that war was with is not.

So rather than throw the word Godwin around why don't you demonstrate how appeasement is a good idea.

If we don't maintain British rule and the population on the Falklands, the Argentinians will somehow invade England! Wheeeeee!
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline starseeker

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2012, 08:53:31 am »
Godwin.
Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.

All I'm seeing is a quote by the 20th century's most famous proponent of appeasement. The fact that a war broke out because of that policy is the point, who that war was with is not.

So rather than throw the word Godwin around why don't you demonstrate how appeasement is a good idea.

If we don't maintain British rule and the population on the Falklands, the Argentinians will somehow invade England! Wheeeeee!

If we let the Argentines have the Falklands, the Spanish will start whining about Gibraltar again. I don't think Argentinia has ever actually owned the Falklands.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2012, 09:50:02 am »
A general policy of "If you want it bad enough, we'll give it to you" has major costs, actually. In the short term, yes, you're avoiding the loss of lives. Long term, though, everyone knows that you'll give in if they threaten you hard enough, so you incur on many costs or loss of potential benefits.

You think Argentina is going to come and try to occupy Cornwall?
No, not Argentina. Key word is "everyone", as in, y'know, everyone who might want to demand something from the British government. It doesn't even have to be land, could be policy reform or money or whatever. If you have the general policy of avoiding any confrontation when the threat of violence is high enough, then anyone who can create a large enough threat of violence wins by default, even if actually doing what they threaten to do would be even worse for them.
Σא

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2012, 01:04:36 pm »
Godwin.
Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.

All I'm seeing is a quote by the 20th century's most famous proponent of appeasement. The fact that a war broke out because of that policy is the point, who that war was with is not.

So rather than throw the word Godwin around why don't you demonstrate how appeasement is a good idea.

If we don't maintain British rule and the population on the Falklands, the Argentinians will somehow invade England! Wheeeeee!
On second thought, stick with the Godwin accusations, you were doing better.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2012, 01:28:29 pm »
Hey guys, what's going on in this topic--

*turns around and walks out*
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2012, 04:47:09 pm »
A general policy of "If you want it bad enough, we'll give it to you" has major costs, actually. In the short term, yes, you're avoiding the loss of lives. Long term, though, everyone knows that you'll give in if they threaten you hard enough, so you incur on many costs or loss of potential benefits.

You think Argentina is going to come and try to occupy Cornwall?
No, not Argentina. Key word is "everyone", as in, y'know, everyone who might want to demand something from the British government. It doesn't even have to be land, could be policy reform or money or whatever. If you have the general policy of avoiding any confrontation when the threat of violence is high enough, then anyone who can create a large enough threat of violence wins by default, even if actually doing what they threaten to do would be even worse for them.

Somebody once made fun of Nixon for insisting on fighting the Vietnamese, despite the fact that nothing was at stake. They said Nixon was essentially saying that America had to fight in Vietnam, even though it didn't matter, so that when there was something important to fight for everyone would know that the US would.

But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Yla

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
  • Gender: Male
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2012, 05:08:17 pm »
But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.
I agree with you on 'Countries should only fight when they have to'. And I think someone annexing their territory against the wishes of the inhabitants is where the line should be drawn at the least.

Consider the following hypothetical: The Falkland islands are a independent state. Argentina annexes them, the Falklands, having no military to speak of, can do nothing but lodge protests.
- Would you support the annexation?
- If not, why?
That said, I've stopped trying to anticipate what people around here want a while ago, I've found it makes things smoother.
For I was an hungred, and ye told me to pull myself up by my bootstraps: I was thirsty, and ye demanded payment for the privilege of thine urine: I was a stranger, and ye deported me: naked, and ye arrested me for indecency.

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2012, 05:26:21 pm »
Given how quick you are to piss and moan about how spineless the Democrats are in the face of Republican attacks and that the left needs to organize and fight back, I would think that you would understand the value of standing your ground rather than continually trying to appease someone.


Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2012, 06:15:29 pm »
But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.
I agree with you on 'Countries should only fight when they have to'. And I think someone annexing their territory against the wishes of the inhabitants is where the line should be drawn at the least.

A few thousand people and some sheep. Who don't even need to be there. There would be no harm at all in simply moving them somewhere nicer, at the cost of the state, or allowing them to become Argentinians. I see no need for perhaps hundreds of lives to .

If they had some long-term cultural connection to the place, or if the place had some strategic importance (like Gibralter) or economic value or geographic significance that might be a different story. But they don't. They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2012, 06:25:51 pm »
Fred...can I just inform you of something.

YOU'RE AUSTRALIAN!  THIS DOES NOT EFFECT YOU AT ALL!

Ironbite-jesus christ man.

Offline Meshakhad

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Gender: Male
  • The Night Is Dark And Full Of Terrors... Like Me
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2012, 06:29:32 pm »
But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.
I agree with you on 'Countries should only fight when they have to'. And I think someone annexing their territory against the wishes of the inhabitants is where the line should be drawn at the least.

A few thousand people and some sheep. Who don't even need to be there. There would be no harm at all in simply moving them somewhere nicer, at the cost of the state, or allowing them to become Argentinians. I see no need for perhaps hundreds of lives to .

If they had some long-term cultural connection to the place, or if the place had some strategic importance (like Gibralter) or economic value or geographic significance that might be a different story. But they don't. They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.

What about, say, BEING BORN THERE!
G-d's Kingdom Is A Hate-Free Zone

Quote from: Reploid Productions
Pardon the interruption, good sir/lady; there are aspects of your behavior that I find quite unbecoming, and I must insist most strenuously that I be permitted to assist in resolving these behaviors through the repeated high-velocity cranial introduction of particularly firm building materials.

Quote from: Meshakhad
GIVE ME KNOWLEDGE OR I WILL PUT A CAP IN YO ASS!

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2012, 08:16:11 pm »
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Meshakhad

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Gender: Male
  • The Night Is Dark And Full Of Terrors... Like Me
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2012, 08:16:51 pm »
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.
G-d's Kingdom Is A Hate-Free Zone

Quote from: Reploid Productions
Pardon the interruption, good sir/lady; there are aspects of your behavior that I find quite unbecoming, and I must insist most strenuously that I be permitted to assist in resolving these behaviors through the repeated high-velocity cranial introduction of particularly firm building materials.

Quote from: Meshakhad
GIVE ME KNOWLEDGE OR I WILL PUT A CAP IN YO ASS!

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2012, 09:27:49 pm »
If they had some long-term cultural connection to the place, or if the place had some strategic importance (like Gibralter) or economic value or geographic significance that might be a different story. But they don't. They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.

So continuous British administration since 1833 (and a history of occupation that predates that) isn't long-term and the potential of 60 billion barrels of oil isn't strategic enough?