FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: DiscoBerry on February 01, 2012, 07:35:50 pm

Title: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: DiscoBerry on February 01, 2012, 07:35:50 pm
Quote
Today, as the 30th anniversary of the two nations’ war over the South Atlantic's Falklands approaches, tensions have risen, with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

On Jan. 30, Britain announced it was deploying the destroyer HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic, replacing a less powerful warship that is there now. Today Prince William, second-in-line to the British throne, began his Royal Air Force posting to the Falklands – arriving, as many Argentineans saw it, in “the uniform of the conqueror," even though he is flying a search-and-rescue helicopter.

The Royal Navy denies either move is significant, saying it has long had a presence in the South Atlantic and the replacement of one warship with another is “routine.”

Quote
n June 2011, Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez described Britain as a “crass colonial power in decline” after it refused to hold talks over the islands. Britain has said it will only agree to talks if Falkland residents – who are British citizens and wish to remain British, the government argues – request them.

Yesterday, Britain’s National Security Council discussed the Falkland’s defenses. Today Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament that Britain was committed to protecting the islands and that it was up to the Falklanders to determine their nationality.

"What the Argentineans have been saying recently, I would argue, is actually far more like colonialism because these people want to remain British and the Argentineans want them to do something else."

Argentina's interior minister, Florencio Randazzo, hit back, describing Mr. Cameron’s words as “totally offensive.” Foreign Minister Hector Timerman described Britain as "a synonym for colonialism."

For the 3,000 Falklanders – who opinion polls suggest, have no strong feeling either way about their nationality – the squabbling has disrupted their lives, bringing higher food prices. The Islands’ economy, driven by raising sheep and fishing the in the rich waters of the area, generates about $170 million a year.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0201/Why-Britain-and-Argentina-are-tussling-again-over-the-Falklands (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0201/Why-Britain-and-Argentina-are-tussling-again-over-the-Falklands)
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 01, 2012, 08:11:00 pm
I'm with the Falkland's citizens on this:  They want to remain British, but the Argentine government has yet to show that they take that into account.

One thing I've heard a few times is that there is an idea in Argentina that the lands are actually Argentine, but when Argentine citizens go there, they get a shock by seeing just how British the place is and the islanders have no interest in becoming part of Argentina.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Meshakhad on February 01, 2012, 09:44:12 pm
I have yet to see a reason why the wishes of the Falklanders should not be taken into account; indeed, why they should not be the determining factor.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 01, 2012, 09:55:35 pm
Yeah, why don't they just resolve this shit once and for all with an election among the Falklanders?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 01, 2012, 10:03:25 pm
Yeah, why don't they just resolve this shit once and for all with an election among the Falklanders?

Because the president of Argentina doesn't actually want that as she suspects (rightly) that the Islanders will want to stay British.  This would make her rhetoric look very hollow and she uses the Falklands to garner popular support.

It's interesting to note that many on the left in South America have a similar viewpoint (not all, there is a growing minority in Argentina who think the Falklands should remain British), namely Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez.  It's interesting to note that they say that they rule by the will of the people don't take the will of the Islanders into account when shouting down Britain for Colonialism.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: kefkaownsall on February 01, 2012, 10:12:56 pm
Yeah, why don't they just resolve this shit once and for all with an election among the Falklanders?

Because the president of Argentina doesn't actually want that as she suspects (rightly) that the Islanders will want to stay British.  This would make her rhetoric look very hollow and she uses the Falklands to garner popular support.

It's interesting to note that many on the left in South America have a similar viewpoint (not all, there is a growing minority in Argentina who think the Falklands should remain British), namely Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez.  It's interesting to note that they say that they rule by the will of the people don't take the will of the Islanders into account when shouting down Britain for Colonialism.
Maybe the prince can help try to negotiate a vote.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Sigmaleph on February 01, 2012, 10:21:57 pm
Fuck blind nationalism. Fuck it in the ungoddamned ass with a flagpole.

In case you can't tell, I find it endlessly frustrating that Falklands is still a thing in modern Argentinian politics.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 02, 2012, 03:32:57 am
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 02, 2012, 06:56:52 am
So are things going poorly enough in Argentina that the government needs something to distract the masses and ramp up national pride again?


It really didn't go so well for the Argentinian government the last time they tried it.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: largeham on February 02, 2012, 07:04:01 am
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

IIRC there was talk about drilling for oil which kinda ups the ante.

If the Islanders want to stay part of Britian, then so be it.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 02, 2012, 07:38:12 am
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

Better yet, if both the Fauklands general population and the British government want the Fauklands to remain British, then they can bloody well remain British. It certainly trumps the fact that the islands are closer to Argentina.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Sixth Monarchist on February 02, 2012, 08:02:28 am
So, to summarise:

Two Bald Men and a Comb II: Electric Boogaloo Exocet

This time it's commercial

Starring

United Kingdom
Argentina


With special guest stars

The French Arms Industry
and
300,000,000 bemused Americans

Coming soon to an Atlantic Ocean near you...
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 02, 2012, 10:17:58 am
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

Eh?  You're saying they should leave?  Why?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: ironbite on February 02, 2012, 04:16:58 pm
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

Eh?  You're saying they should leave?  Why?

Because apparently geographical location trumps the will of the people.

Ironbite-Fred, please think before you post.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 02, 2012, 10:05:20 pm
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

Eh?  You're saying they should leave?  Why?

Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 02, 2012, 10:19:36 pm
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

Eh?  You're saying they should leave?  Why?

Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?

So?  I REALLY, REALLY want £10 Million, doesn't mean I'm going to have it.  Just because a country wants something doesn't mean they should have it.  George W wanted to have Iraq's oil supply, does that mean (by your logic) he should have had it?

The benefit of Argentina not getting the Falklands was not negligible:  Losing the war was what toppled the military Junta, an horrific organisation that costs thousands (probably a lot more as no-one knows the final tally) of Argentine lives, mostly young people who had done no wrong.  Please tell Las Madres De La Playa de Mayo that the end of the Junta was negligible.

Yes there are only a few hundred people living on the Falklands - so what?  If there was only one person and he or she wanted the lands to remain British, then so be it.  What the people who actually live there want should surely be the driving force over the future of the Islands, not what others want, particularly not an Argentine president who's trying desperately to cling to power and is using this as a smoke screen to disguise how badly things are going for her at home.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 02, 2012, 10:34:52 pm
Quote
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism” for pursuing its claim.

Funny.

The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.

The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.

Eh?  You're saying they should leave?  Why?

Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
Yes there are only a few hundred people living on the Falklands - so what?  If there was only one person and he or she wanted the lands to remain British, then so be it.

Let's say one Brit lived on the island. How many British and Argentinian sailors, soldiers and airmen (airpeople?) would you be willing to sacrifice so that he or she were able to live there instead of in a nice flat in London? Two? Fifty? A million? Where's the limit?

Let's make a cost-benefit analysis. How many lives is the convenience of the Falklanders worth? Personally, I'd say zero.

Quote
The benefit of Argentina not getting the Falklands was not negligible:  Losing the war was what toppled the military Junta, an horrific organisation that costs thousands (probably a lot more as no-one knows the final tally) of Argentine lives, mostly young people who had done no wrong.  Please tell Las Madres De La Playa de Mayo that the end of the Junta was negligible.

Perhaps- perhaps- that might have been a reasonable justification for the conflict, if it had been a predictable consequence of it. As I see it, the Brits got lucky. A war is just as likely to end civil unrest as everyone rallies around symbols of nation unity and patriotism as it is to aid a long-term non-violent movement.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: ironbite on February 02, 2012, 11:00:50 pm
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 02, 2012, 11:23:33 pm
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.

I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 02, 2012, 11:35:29 pm
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.

I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.

I know this may seem like a crazy idea to you, but it seems to me that the fault there lies not with the Brits for not putting up with Argentina's bullshit, but Argentina for trying to grab territory that they have no claim to.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 12:03:34 am
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.

I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.

I know this may seem like a crazy idea to you, but it seems to me that the fault there lies not with the Brits for not putting up with Argentina's bullshit, but Argentina for trying to grab territory that they have no claim to.

I identify more with the British than the Argentinians.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 02:26:09 am
Let's say one Brit lived on the island. How many British and Argentinian sailors, soldiers and airmen (airpeople?) would you be willing to sacrifice so that he or she were able to live there instead of in a nice flat in London? Two? Fifty? A million? Where's the limit?

Let's make a cost-benefit analysis. How many lives is the convenience of the Falklanders worth? Personally, I'd say zero.

But these people don't want to live in London, they want to live where they've lived all their lives:  To ensure their safety, what would you do?

To put this another way, if the another country invaded Australia, wouldn't you want someone to stop them, or are you saying that it's not worth it?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 02:28:30 am
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.

I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.

Well if their claim is bullshit, how can a British Prime Minister who wants to contest it be wrong?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 02:40:07 am
Let's say one Brit lived on the island. How many British and Argentinian sailors, soldiers and airmen (airpeople?) would you be willing to sacrifice so that he or she were able to live there instead of in a nice flat in London? Two? Fifty? A million? Where's the limit?

Let's make a cost-benefit analysis. How many lives is the convenience of the Falklanders worth? Personally, I'd say zero.

But these people don't want to live in London, they want to live where they've lived all their lives:  To ensure their safety, what would you do?

To put this another way, if the another country invaded Australia, wouldn't you want someone to stop them, or are you saying that it's not worth it?

If you've got some alternative country where all 20 million of us could all live, I'd be perfectly happy to fly there free of charge. So long as I got paid for my property, of course.

In practice, there is no feasible way of moving a major country's population in case of invasion, and they would have to stick around and endure tyranny or whatever. But that is not an impossibility in this case. The alternatives are not tyranny or freedom, they're 2000 flights to London or thousands dead in a war (and Thatcher's re election, of course).
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 02:41:00 am
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.

I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.

Well if their claim is bullshit, how can a British Prime Minister who wants to contest it be wrong?

The British claim is equally bullshit, and the cost of contesting the Argentinian claim is not worth the probable benefit.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Yla on February 03, 2012, 06:12:03 am
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
So they should just give in to a bully's demands?

Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 06:30:36 am
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
So they should just give in to a bully's demands?

Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.

It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 03, 2012, 06:53:23 am
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
As longs as the Brits and Falkland Islanders are willing (and Argentina isn't going to back down), then there's no reason not to. Besides, if the previous war is anything to go by (and it most likely is, considering that the British military is still leaps and bounds ahead of its Argentine counterpart in terms of quality), the lion's share of the losses will be on the Argentine side.

Regarding your claims on the supposed worthlessness of the islands, you're no doubt aware of the recent discovery of substantial offshore oil reserves in South America, right? Considering a large source of disagreement between Argentina and Britain over the issue is territorial rights on the surrounding waters and the seabed in particular, there's a pretty good chance that there could be oil in the area.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: m52nickerson on February 03, 2012, 07:41:07 am
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.

I bet those handful would think differently.  I would also bet the soildiers on the Brittish side would disagree with you also.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Yla on February 03, 2012, 07:54:15 am
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
So they should just give in to a bully's demands?

Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.

It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
You have a curious definition of forced. It's "Move or become an Argentinian".

Let's put it this way. There are a few millions of people living on Taiwan. The PRC really, really wants to have that island. Why don't we just move the inhabitants to <some other place>, and let the continental Chinese have it?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 07:58:37 am
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London.  they want to live in the Falkland's.  So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.

Ironbite-really stupid.

I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.

Well if their claim is bullshit, how can a British Prime Minister who wants to contest it be wrong?

The British claim is equally bullshit, and the cost of contesting the Argentinian claim is not worth the probable benefit.

What's your point?  You say the British claim is bullshit and the Argentine claim is bullshit.

And just for your info:  The last war was 649 Argentine dead to 255 British.  Yes it's a lot, but it's not the thousands you're claiming.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 08:00:51 am
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
As longs as the Brits and Falkland Islanders are willing (and Argentina isn't going to back down), then there's no reason not to. Besides, if the previous war is anything to go by (and it most likely is, considering that the British military is still leaps and bounds ahead of its Argentine counterpart in terms of quality), the lion's share of the losses will be on the Argentine side.

Regarding your claims on the supposed worthlessness of the islands, you're no doubt aware of the recent discovery of substantial offshore oil reserves in South America, right? Considering a large source of disagreement between Argentina and Britain over the issue is territorial rights on the surrounding waters and the seabed in particular, there's a pretty good chance that there could be oil in the area.

Art, it should be noted that there's also oil in mainland Argentina:  There's a long and tortuous story involved in it, if you want I can PM you it?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Yla on February 03, 2012, 08:23:25 am
And just for your info:  The last war was 649 Argentine dead to 255 British.  Yes it's a lot, but it's not the thousands you're claiming.
Still 904 too many. I think we were discussing about the principle of the matter, not how many dead a war would entail.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Sigmaleph on February 03, 2012, 10:21:50 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.

As a side comment, and I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the Argentinian government has the balls to actually start a war this time. The military is in an even worse state than in '82, and they really can't afford, PR-wise, the comparison with the dictatorship that started the last one. So the cost of refusing to part with the Falklands is limited to economic attacks (like the whole "banning Falklands-flagged ships from entering Mercosur ports" thing). In effect, you're weighing convenience against convenience. Probably.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 03, 2012, 03:09:29 pm
What's the point of having an army if you're not willing to use it to defend your territory and citizens?


Belgium will be annexing the channel islands next (yes, right out from under the Frenches noses, they're sneaky like that).
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 04:01:11 pm
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
So they should just give in to a bully's demands?

Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.

It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
You have a curious definition of forced. It's "Move or become an Argentinian".

Let's put it this way. There are a few millions of people living on Taiwan. The PRC really, really wants to have that island. Why don't we just move the inhabitants to <some other place>, and let the continental Chinese have it?

The Chinese government does rule Taiwan- the descendents of Chiang's murderous lackeys have no claim to independence. They are certainly not indigenous to the island. In fact, they shot all the locals, in one of the few successful genocides since 1945.

That said, if you've got somewhere to put them, I'm sure they can be made happy to bugger off. At the moment they're a living provocation. Frankly their convenience is not worth potential nuclear war.

These ridiculous islands cost more than they're worth. Famously, there were more casualties in the Falklands War than people who lived on the island. Their right not to live in London was not worth more than the right of an equivalent number of people to live without serious injury. Though, apparently, Margaret Thatcher's tory right to run whatever she wanted outweighed both.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 04:02:31 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?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 03, 2012, 07:23:06 pm
Quote
My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds.

-N. Chamberlain
Sept. 30, 1938
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 03, 2012, 10:48:04 pm
Godwin.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 11:46:38 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.

As a side comment, and I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the Argentinian government has the balls to actually start a war this time. The military is in an even worse state than in '82, and they really can't afford, PR-wise, the comparison with the dictatorship that started the last one. So the cost of refusing to part with the Falklands is limited to economic attacks (like the whole "banning Falklands-flagged ships from entering Mercosur ports" thing). In effect, you're weighing convenience against convenience. Probably.

I think what Kirchener is doing is a lot of flag-waving, but no real promise to back it up.  Not only, as you say, is the Argentine army in dreadful state, I think Kirchener realises that starting a war could take Argentina back to the Pariah status it had in the 80's, which in world-wide recession is the last thing she wants.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 11:49:43 pm
What's the point of having an army if you're not willing to use it to defend your territory and citizens?


Belgium will be annexing the channel islands next (yes, right out from under the Frenches noses, they're sneaky like that).

Well, it's not their territory.

The Argentine army has, for quite a lot of its history, been used against its own people:  The Dirty War shows how it was used as a tool of repression against the Argentine people, to the extent that even today people are unsure just how high the casualty figures for it are.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 03, 2012, 11:52:46 pm
Art, it should be noted that there's also oil in mainland Argentina:  There's a long and tortuous story involved in it, if you want I can PM you it?
Nah, it's cool. I was just pointing out that potential offshore oil near the Falklands kind of kills Fred's claim that the islands are economically useless to both sides.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 11:53:03 pm
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
So they should just give in to a bully's demands?

Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.

It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
You have a curious definition of forced. It's "Move or become an Argentinian".

Let's put it this way. There are a few millions of people living on Taiwan. The PRC really, really wants to have that island. Why don't we just move the inhabitants to <some other place>, and let the continental Chinese have it?

The Chinese government does rule Taiwan- the descendents of Chiang's murderous lackeys have no claim to independence. They are certainly not indigenous to the island. In fact, they shot all the locals, in one of the few successful genocides since 1945.

That said, if you've got somewhere to put them, I'm sure they can be made happy to bugger off. At the moment they're a living provocation. Frankly their convenience is not worth potential nuclear war.

These ridiculous islands cost more than they're worth. Famously, there were more casualties in the Falklands War than people who lived on the island. Their right not to live in London was not worth more than the right of an equivalent number of people to live without serious injury. Though, apparently, Margaret Thatcher's tory right to run whatever she wanted outweighed both.

Let me get this absolutely right:  You're saying the Falkland Islanders should be made to live elsewhere?  And then you call Godwin on someone else's post?

Fuck me, your hypocrisy is staggering.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 03, 2012, 11:54:11 pm
Art, it should be noted that there's also oil in mainland Argentina:  There's a long and tortuous story involved in it, if you want I can PM you it?
Nah, it's cool. I was just pointing out that potential offshore oil near the Falklands kind of kills Fred's claim that the islands are economically useless to both sides.

Long story short:  It's the only time a country has found onshore oil reserves and then gone bankrupt.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 03, 2012, 11:58:40 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.



Scotsgit: I mean the British being willing to use force defending the Falklands rather than letting the Argentinians have it.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred 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!
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: starseeker 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Sigmaleph 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 04, 2012, 01:28:29 pm
Hey guys, what's going on in this topic--

*turns around and walks out*
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Yla 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?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo 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.

Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: ironbite 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.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Meshakhad 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!
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 04, 2012, 08:16:11 pm
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Meshakhad on February 04, 2012, 08:16:51 pm
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo 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?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 04, 2012, 11:04:16 pm
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 04, 2012, 11:55:54 pm
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.
Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 05, 2012, 01:24:50 am
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.
Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?

Yeah, I just mentioned something about there may be
60 billion barrels of oil beneath the territorial waters of the Falkland islands


Do you think if we keep subtly mentioning it he will eventually notice and comment on it?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 05, 2012, 01:56:59 am
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.
Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?

Yeah, I just mentioned something about there may be
60 billion barrels of oil beneath the territorial waters of the Falkland islands


Do you think if we keep subtly mentioning it he will eventually notice and comment on it?
Well we can live in hope, though considering his argument is apparently that the Falkland people don't deserve the military protection of their government to whom they pay taxes (unless they have an arbitrary "cultural connection" to the place), I'm not sure it's particularly likely.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 05, 2012, 02:12:15 am
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.
Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?

When did they discover this oil? Was it after Thatcher's war?

That might provide a reasonable justification for the conflict from a realist's perspective. Assuming Britain knew about it.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 05, 2012, 02:22:09 am
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.
Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?

When did they discover this oil? Was it after Thatcher's war?

That might provide a reasonable justification for the conflict from a realist's perspective. Assuming Britain knew about it.

Oh, they know about it.

Quote from: Wikipedia
In February 2010, exploratory drilling for oil was begun by Desire Petroleum,[107] but the results from the first test well were disappointing.[108] Two months later, on 6 May 2010, Rockhopper Exploration announced that "it may have struck oil".[109] Subsequent tests showed it to be a commercially viable find,[110] an appraisal project was launched [111] and on 14 September 2011 Rockhopper Exploration announced plans are under way for oil production to commence in 2016, through the use of Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) technology.[112]
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Yla on February 05, 2012, 06:12:31 am
Is the right to self-determination even when some neighbour wants the land you live on worth nothing anymore?
Both countries' claims go back to before the current settlement of the islands, and it has been a British colony since 1833. There are 3100 people supporting that claim living on the island. As far as I know, nobody seriously claims to be a descendant of the Argentinian settlers of 1829 which may or may not have been expelled when the British took over. A legal claim is not worthless, but after more than a century of it being contrary to the facts, and having no other support to it, I don't think it relevant anymore. Not if the other side can bring up so much more.

Fun Fact: The British government discussed ceding the islands in the Sixties with Argentina, but the islanders got wind of the talks and protested.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Meshakhad on February 05, 2012, 10:11:26 am
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.

Exactly.

So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 06, 2012, 11:11:30 am
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.

Exactly.

So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?

So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 06, 2012, 01:07:26 pm
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.

Exactly.

So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?

So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?
Not according to a previous thread; it wold be terribly inconvenient and the Aborigines don't really want the non-natives to leave. This thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama/) if you are morbidly curious (starts around page 3).
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Scotsgit on February 07, 2012, 11:19:32 am
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.

Exactly.

So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?

So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?
Not according to a previous thread; it wold be terribly inconvenient and the Aborigines don't really want the non-natives to leave. This thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama/) if you are morbidly curious (starts around page 3).

Thanks, I tried following the logic and felt myself losing the will to live.
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 07, 2012, 01:54:46 pm
Thanks, I tried following the logic and felt myself losing the will to live.

There was a reason I used the word 'morbidly'  :D
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Atheissimo on February 07, 2012, 11:03:16 pm
I think this will just turn out to be another round of sabre-rattling. I'd be very, very surprised if this escalated into actual conflict.

For starters the Argentinians can't risk being the subject of embargos from Europe and the US as a result of an illegal annexation, especially in a recession like this. They certainly don't want the memories of the Galtieri regime to be re-awakened in South America and the rest of the world.

Secondly, with Prince William on the islands it would be extremely risky to attack. It's one thing to attack a disputed territory miles from the home nation, it's another thing to kill the future head of state of a G8 nation. I wouldn't say the international condemnation is worth it.

Thirdly, I'm not convinced that Argentina even have the resources to mount a successful invasion. Figures vary on the size of the airforce's fighter and bomber squadrons, but I've seen anything from the mid thirties to the mid sixties quoted. Bearing in mind that many of these aircraft are actually veterans of the first Falklands conflict and were twenty years old even then. This story repeats itself throughout the rest of the military too. When you compare that with what Britain currently has in the area; four brand new Typhoons (one of the world's most advanced fighter/bombers), a Type 45 destroyer (the world's most advanced air defence ship) and potentially a nuclear submarine. It's too much of a military risk for Argentina, who would have to throw everything at the task to succeed.


This is a particularly damning report on that very subject:

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11294&pageid=44&pagename=Slices (http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11294&pageid=44&pagename=Slices)
Title: Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 08, 2012, 01:36:44 am
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?

Or native-born Israelis.

Exactly.

So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?

So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?
Not according to a previous thread; it wold be terribly inconvenient and the Aborigines don't really want the non-natives to leave. This thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama/) if you are morbidly curious (starts around page 3).

Wow... That's just special.