Author Topic: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble  (Read 13037 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 #30 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.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

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 #31 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?
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline Yla

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
  • Gender: Male
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #32 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.
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 Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3572
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #33 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.
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 #34 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).

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 #35 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.
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 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 #36 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?
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 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 #37 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

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 #38 on: February 03, 2012, 10:48:04 pm »
Godwin.
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 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 #39 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.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

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 #40 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.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Britain Vs. Argentina: Is on the verge of an actual Royal Rumble
« Reply #41 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.

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 #42 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.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

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 #43 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.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

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 #44 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.