Robert1966: This is not a repeat from 1982?

No, it's not. This time around, the Brits don't have the military might to back up their claim.

phalamir: cgraves67: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: It's about oil. It's always about oil.

This, sadly. And Argentina has never had a claim to the islands. The first colonists were Brits. Argentina is full of shiat.

You realize that by that logic, Italy owns England, since the Romans predated the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans

And Mexico owns a good portion of the US since they predate the US colonists.

andersoncouncil42: The Falklands thing was a fight between two bald men over a comb.

- Jorge Luis Borges

Truly he was one of the greatest authors and poets of the 20th century, and pretty high up in history.

I wish I could read Spanish; I'd like to read his work without translation.

Dinobot: phalamir: cgraves67: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: It's about oil. It's always about oil.

This, sadly. And Argentina has never had a claim to the islands. The first colonists were Brits. Argentina is full of shiat.

You realize that by that logic, Italy owns England, since the Romans predated the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans

And Mexico owns a good portion of the US since they predate the US colonists.

But the anti-Israel folks don't say we should give the Falklands to Argentina or Texas to the Mexicans, do they?

(Stirring the pot.)

cgraves67: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: It's about oil. It's always about oil.

This, sadly. And Argentina has never had a claim to the islands. The first colonists were Brits. Argentina is full of shiat.

Not really... Spain had colonist in one of the islands around the same time as England. But they abandoned the colony as it sometimes happens. The English also at some point also abandoned theirs. Upon each side abandoning the islands, they basically left a "plaque" saying they'd be back to maintain their claims. Now, I don't know if this plaque thing is legal or not... but given that both England and Spain did it, I assume both nations recognize the use of plaques to hold a land claim.

Argentina's reasoning is that they inherited the Spanish claim after their war of independence. If Argentina does have a legal claim it is to part of the islands, not the whole though. But since they've been kept out since the 19th century and there's people living there now who should not be forced to submit to Argentine rule against their will, maybe they should just sue for financial compensation.

LoneDoggie: toraque: Robert1966: This is not a repeat from 1982?

No, it's not. This time around, the Brits don't have the military might to back up their claim.

Granted the Brits aren't at their Cold War levels, but has there been any massive build up in Argentina that one British sub full of cruise missiles couldn't take care of in about half an hour?

The question is, would the UK be willing to use weapons of mass destruction to keep their claim to the Falklands? I mean, yeah, if the UK really wanted to, they could nuke Buenos Aires and solve the problem pretty quick, but I really hope they're not that crazy. Do they have the conventional forces necessary to defend the Falklands? Probably, but it's not a foregone conclusion; Argentina's military isn't something to just ignore.

Of course, this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Neither Argentina nor the UK are going to fire a single round; this is just saber-rattling.

A more interesting question is one of Gibraltar. I've never understood how Spain and the UK can be on such good terms (especially being members together in the EU), when they refuse to acknowledge each other's full territory. It would be like Turkey joining the EU while refusing to acknowledge Cyprus's claim to the northern half of their country.

amishkarl: As a Canadian I can support Argentina in this and welcome the return of Canada's newest territories. The Northeast Territory (current Greenland), The Westerner Northwest Territory (current state of Alaska), the new additions to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador which will henceforth be known as the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Also, in order to appease our southern neighbours, we'll accept the state of Michigan. You wanted rid of it anyways

I've always wanted to go to St. Pierre et Miquelon, for no reason other than I can say I've been.

It's crazy expensive to get to though, which is silly. It costs more to fly there than it does to Paris or Tokyo.

Spade: toraque: Robert1966: This is not a repeat from 1982?

No, it's not. This time around, the Brits don't have the military might to back up their claim.

Sure they do.

There's four Eurofighter Typhoons stationed at the Falklands. That's enough to wipe out the Argentinian Air Force in the morning and still be home in time for tea.

And the sub that's usually there helps.

Also, what problem is Argentina trying to distract their people from this time?


"Britain can do 'nothing' to prevent Argentina retaking Falkland Islands" according to the guy who led the task force which retook the island in 1982.
Link (new window)

Britain no longer has aircraft carriers or harriers to support any force. Four planes on the island isn't a whole lot, if shooting starts.

Mishno: Lord Dimwit: LoneDoggie: toraque: Robert1966: This is not a repeat from 1982?

No, it's not. This time around, the Brits don't have the military might to back up their claim.

Granted the Brits aren't at their Cold War levels, but has there been any massive build up in Argentina that one British sub full of cruise missiles couldn't take care of in about half an hour?

The question is, would the UK be willing to use weapons of mass destruction to keep their claim to the Falklands? I mean, yeah, if the UK really wanted to, they could nuke Buenos Aires and solve the problem pretty quick, but I really hope they're not that crazy. Do they have the conventional forces necessary to defend the Falklands? Probably, but it's not a foregone conclusion; Argentina's military isn't something to just ignore.

Of course, this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Neither Argentina nor the UK are going to fire a single round; this is just saber-rattling.

A more interesting question is one of Gibraltar. I've never understood how Spain and the UK can be on such good terms (especially being members together in the EU), when they refuse to acknowledge each other's full territory. It would be like Turkey joining the EU while refusing to acknowledge Cyprus's claim to the northern half of their country.

The Brits have about two companies of infantry and four Typhoons on the Falklands. And zero aircraft carriers any more. If the Argies can knock a few holes in the one runway capable of launching Typhoons, there's not much the Brits can do to stop a determined invasion.

Right, the Argentinians could certainly take the Falklands, but keeping them is another matter. The Royal Navy could send a carrier or two (I think they have two or three currently) and retake the islands.

Of course, once the carriers left, Argentina could just take the islands again, ad infinitum. It would really boil down to who had the political will to spend the lives and resources to really hold onto the islands, and whether or not the UK decided to go nuclear (which I can't imagine they would). In the end, I think if the Argentinians really wanted the islands more than the British, the Falklands would be Las Malvinas, but that's just my armchair analysis.

amishkarl: Lord Dimwit: I've always wanted to go to St. Pierre et Miquelon, for no reason other than I can say I've been.

It's crazy expensive to get to though, which is silly. It costs more to fly there than it does to Paris or Tokyo.

Really? I guess that'd be because there are so many more flights to major cities. Maybe look at flying to St. John's and then driving to Fortune and taking the ferry over to St Pierre. Don't know if it'd be any cheaper but you'd see the lovely Newf as well

Yeah, I looked into that too. Flying into St. Johns is reasonably expensive (as in, with clever scheduling I could get to Paris for the same amount), and it's a bit of a drive to get to Fortune.

I would totally do it, but my wife has told me, in no uncertain terms, that if we're going to take the time, we're going somewhere like Paris or Tokyo (her two favorite cities), and I can't really argue with her.

Funk Brothers: I would highly suggest Argentina acquire nuclear weapons or start a nuclear weapons program.

They had one... it was pretty far along too. I understand it wasn't as close as Brazil's though. Argentina can even build its own nuclear plants. But they abandoned the weapons program and joined the non-proliferation treaty. I think Brazilian scientist still visit and observe Argentine nuclear facilities and Argentine ones visit Brazil's as part of a deal to make sure neither side develops the bomb.