Well, she is. She's seeking to impose her political will on territory where her government is not wanted and has never held sway (except briefly by force). It's colonialism.

From TFA: "The Penguin News, which is printed weekly and online updated daily, usually has a tiny readership"

Let's see. A country that once invaded a British territory is upset that the British improved the defenses on that territory.

What a surprise.

JohnAnnArbor: Well, she is. She's seeking to impose her political will on territory where her government is not wanted and has never held sway (except briefly by force). It's colonialism.

Eh. Most analysts say this is more about distracting the populace for her failed domestic policies then any real desire to get the islands "back."

Love the hypocritical rhetoric coming from her, though. Whining that England is "militarizing" the islands? Really? Didn't your country f'ing try to INVADE the islands?

/fist of god and all that jazz...

Real issue(s):
1. Argentina has problems and they need a distraction.
2. Oil has been discovered near the Falklands.

/No wonder the British are "militarizing" the islands.

An unforgivable error on The Penguin's part. Kirchner's picture should of course been labelled ourbiatch .jpg

Yeah, I'd still hit that. Hard.

There's a "newspaper" for only 3,000 residents?

Argentines even drew arrows on the road, trying to force islanders to drive on the right. The arrows were ignored.

Argentina - 30 years ago the UK was just getting Stinger missles and the SAS and SBS were the only elite UK units and the US only provided logistical support. They still kicked your ass.

This time they will have a full arsenal of precision military weapons (many of which they can fire from subs that you'll never find), regular British infantry often have supurb training and veteran experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US will have ZERO sympathy for you. Are you really sure that you want to do this again?

/so much for women leaders not provoking wars

beta_plus: /so much for women leaders not provoking wars

this

Clemkadidlefark: There's a "newspaper" for only 3,000 residents?

You've never spent a lot of time in a small town, have you?

A former girlfriend grew up in rural Colorado, and the town gossippaper would print whose cars were parked in front of whose houses overnight.

/yet she pined to move back there...

DavidVincent: beta_plus: /so much for women leaders not provoking wars

this

Don't worry, she'll simmer down in a couple of days.

BTW, Argentina, if you choose to go down the path of war, a new generaion of American children will learn to hate you as their Saturday morning cartoons are interupted by stupid updates about the 2nd Falkland's War.



/you can call me fat lazy gringo all you want
//but you were interrupt my quality time with The Smurfs, it's time to unleash a can of whoop-ass and send in the Rangers to cover the flanks of the Royal Marines
///still remember to this day how much those updates pissed me off
////do Sat morning cartoons still exist?

Silly headline. Here's the correction:

Falkland Islands newspaper editor calls Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner a biatch Steven Tyler.

You're welcome.

Satanic_Hamster: JohnAnnArbor: Well, she is. She's seeking to impose her political will on territory where her government is not wanted and has never held sway (except briefly by force). It's colonialism.

Eh. Most analysts say this is more about distracting the populace for her failed domestic policies then any real desire to get the islands "back."

Love the hypocritical rhetoric coming from her, though. Whining that England is "militarizing" the islands? Really? Didn't your country f'ing try to INVADE the islands?

They didn't try, they DID invade the islands but lacked the stones to hold them.

beta_plus: This time they will have a full arsenal of precision military weapons (many of which they can fire from subs that you'll never find), regular British infantry often have supurb training and veteran experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US will have ZERO sympathy for you. Are you really sure that you want to do this again?

This. In 1982 the SAS, SBS and guys in Northern Ireland were the only British military with any combat experience in the last 20 odd years. Today most of the British military units have been to war zones over the last 20 years. I don't care if the Royal Navy doesn't have carriers anymore, Tornados and Typhoons can do some long haul Black Buck raids and PGM the crap out of whatever they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

beta_plus: Argentina - 30 years ago the UK was just getting Stinger missles and the SAS and SBS were the only elite UK units and the US only provided logistical support. They still kicked your ass.

This time they will have a full arsenal of precision military weapons (many of which they can fire from subs that you'll never find), regular British infantry often have supurb training and veteran experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US will have ZERO sympathy for you. Are you really sure that you want to do this again?

/so much for women leaders not provoking wars

The US hasn't been very helpful, unfortunately. Ms. Clinton suggested negotiations, when the UK has pointed out there's nothing to negotiate: the Argentine claim is bogus.

Is she pissed because this will make it harder to illegally invade the islands? Somebody show her to the cemetery where they buried the last group that tried to invade the Falklands.

Argentina is going to the UN over this. The UN will listen to Argentina because according to the UN, the Falklands are a vestige of imperialism and should be under local rule. The UN Fourth Committee, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee, lists oversees possessions of major countries to be freed from current rulership and returned to local control.

The list is here (new window). As you can see, the Falklands are considered a colony and therefore the UN will be forced to side with Argentina in any dispute with the UK by its own policy. Most of the "offenders" on this list are the US and UK.

From what I can gather, the desires of the local people aren't considered in this whole thing.

I GET IT, IT'S A SMALL DICK JOKE

chuckufarlie: Is she pissed because this will make it harder to illegally invade the islands? Somebody show her to the cemetery where they buried the last group that tried to invade the Falklands.

I read once that the British offered to move the cemetery to Argentina, but the Argentines refused because they're already buried on "Argentine" soil.

They don't let go of delusions easily.

I read that as Farkland Islands.

BolloxReader: Argentina is going to the UN over this. The UN will listen to Argentina because according to the UN, the Falklands are a vestige of imperialism and should be under local rule. The UN Fourth Committee, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee, lists oversees possessions of major countries to be freed from current rulership and returned to local control.

The list is here (new window). As you can see, the Falklands are considered a colony and therefore the UN will be forced to side with Argentina in any dispute with the UK by its own policy. Most of the "offenders" on this list are the US and UK.

From what I can gather, the desires of the local people aren't considered in this whole thing.

Thats a good post. I think most of my fellow countrymen/women would be more than happy to tell the UN to fark off. But then, at the same time we are trying to woo the UN regarding the situation in Syria. We can't come out of this situation looking well. But I'm pretty sure theres absolutely no way we would not fight over the Falklands if it came to that. Public opinion has always ran high on this issue over here.

/meh
//maybe a quick beej
///just cuza the lips

BolloxReader: Argentina is going to the UN over this. The UN will listen to Argentina because according to the UN, the Falklands are a vestige of imperialism and should be under local rule. The UN Fourth Committee, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee, lists oversees possessions of major countries to be freed from current rulership and returned to local control.

The list is here (new window). As you can see, the Falklands are considered a colony and therefore the UN will be forced to side with Argentina in any dispute with the UK by its own policy. Most of the "offenders" on this list are the US and UK.

From what I can gather, the desires of the local people aren't considered in this whole thing.

Of course, it's the UN. It's much more important there to be politically correct.

What are the odds of Chavez throwing his new Russian equipment into the melee ?

Why not just have a referendum by the citizens of the islands? Or is that precisely what the Argentinians do not want?

beta_plus: Why not just have a referendum by the citizens of the islands? Or is that precisely what the Argentinians do not want?

That would go only one way. The Islanders see themselves as British.

beta_plus: Why not just have a referendum by the citizens of the islands? Or is that precisely what the Argentinians do not want?

It's precisely what they don't want.

Keep Mexicans Argentinians away from sharpies!

So much for women politicians being less inclined to warmonger.

I love Falklands threads. It gives me an excuse to post the best Newsweek cover ever...

She is pandering to Argentina on this because it gets people's blood roiling, and she needs a lot more fervent popular support to reach her real goal... she is in her second term, and wants to meddle with the Argentinian constitution so she can get a third term. She wants nothing to do with the falklands, it is just a flag to wave to help her attract more sheep.

They have no interest in FI anyway, they are just playing the standard "ignore the economy" card, everything said is purely for their own domestic political audience. The talk of UN taking action is fun though, please keep the Armchair Generals fed & watered.

I might be missing something, but I genuinely don't see how anyone but the English could have a claim to them. They discovered the islands, they settled the islands and the current inhabitants are all pro-british rule. From what I understand, the Argentinians only controlled the islands for three or four years back in the 1820's.

Seriously, I'd be very interested in hearing an argument for why the islands should belong to the Argentinians.

beta_plus: Argentina - 30 years ago the UK was just getting Stinger missles and the SAS and SBS were the only elite UK units and the US only provided logistical support. They still kicked your ass.

This time they will have a full arsenal of precision military weapons (many of which they can fire from subs that you'll never find), regular British infantry often have supurb training and veteran experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US will have ZERO sympathy for you. Are you really sure that you want to do this again?

/so much for women leaders not provoking wars

the UK is much weaker militarily today than it was 30 yrs ago from a relative standpoint. The number of ships in active duty is also significantly less. Sure they are more modern and sophisticated but so are the missiles being deployed by the enemy.

The UK will also be without aircraft carriers for the first time in over 70 years.

For many hundreds of years the British empire ruled most of the known world. Now they are barely a blue water navy. One of these days they will also retire the boomers and probably no replacement will be planned. When that time comes the RN will not have any credible power projection over their territories thousands of miles away w/o help from the USN or other navies.

not saying Argentina won't lose in another Falklands war because they will but the UK military is a small shadow of it's former self. With that being said the 4 Typhoon's armed with Meteors they have based there is enough to deter any Argentine Air Force adventures.

So I did some quick history reading and it said that the islands were uninhabited when the Europeans began fighting over them in the 16th century. During the 18th century there's a flurry of change of ownership with Britain getting hold of them in 1770. They leave in 1774, saying they still own them, but the can't afford to support them. Then Spain arrives, declares they own them, and then leaves. Then various pirates hide out there, each declaring them their own island. Finally Argentina attempts to colonize the islands in 1832, and then the British kick them out in 1833. Then the Brits hold it to this day.

That's like 180 years. I'm really confused why the average, everyday Argentina gets riled up thinking that those islands are part of their country. Is it just because they're close? It doesn't seem like anyone claims it's their ancestral homeland or has family over there. The fracking islanders self identify as English and want to remain English. This is so confusing for me.

JohnAnnArbor: beta_plus: Why not just have a referendum by the citizens of the islands? Or is that precisely what the Argentinians do not want?

It's precisely what they don't want.

Argentinians have one of the most inflated sense of national self-worth you'll ever encounter. They take it as a personal insult that some sheep farmers do not dream of becoming Argentinian.

Esc7: So I did some quick history reading and it said that the islands were uninhabited when the Europeans began fighting over them in the 16th century. During the 18th century there's a flurry of change of ownership with Britain getting hold of them in 1770. They leave in 1774, saying they still own them, but the can't afford to support them. Then Spain arrives, declares they own them, and then leaves. Then various pirates hide out there, each declaring them their own island. Finally Argentina attempts to colonize the islands in 1832, and then the British kick them out in 1833. Then the Brits hold it to this day.

That's like 180 years. I'm really confused why the average, everyday Argentina gets riled up thinking that those islands are part of their country. Is it just because they're close? It doesn't seem like anyone claims it's their ancestral homeland or has family over there. The fracking islanders self identify as English and want to remain English. This is so confusing for me.

From what I understand, it's taught to every schoolchild that they own the islands as propaganda. And I've also heard that their maps in classrooms distort the size of the islands, showing them larger than scale.

I'm British and my attitude is the same as it was last time: if the Argentinians want the islands, let them have them.

Yes, yes, I know: the residents don't want to be ruled by Argentina. fark them. If they are so keen to live on an isolated, windswept spit of scrub and raise sheep, let's relocate them to Shetland or the Orkneys. It would be a lot cheaper than fighting another bloody stupid war.

As for the argument that Britain has a "claim" to the these islands almost halfway around the world that the Argentinians do not: all that is saying is that Britain got there first. Big fat hairy deal. That's an argument that hasn't held water since the 19th century, at best. There's no "principle" at stake here, no profound question of human rights, not even some idiotic "dominoes" theory that we have to defend the Falklands or, god forbid, the Pitcairn Islands might be next, and who knows where it will end?

In all the years I've been arguing with knee-jerk nationalists about those islands, I have yet to hear anybody explain why keeping them was worth the loss of a single life on either side. And no, "because they are British at the moment" is not good enough.

/Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
//Colonialism is even worse.

czetie: I'm British and my attitude is the same as it was last time: if the Argentinians want the islands, let them have them.

Yes, yes, I know: the residents don't want to be ruled by Argentina. fark them. If they are so keen to live on an isolated, windswept spit of scrub and raise sheep, let's relocate them to Shetland or the Orkneys. It would be a lot cheaper than fighting another bloody stupid war.

As for the argument that Britain has a "claim" to the these islands almost halfway around the world that the Argentinians do not: all that is saying is that Britain got there first. Big fat hairy deal. That's an argument that hasn't held water since the 19th century, at best. There's no "principle" at stake here, no profound question of human rights, not even some idiotic "dominoes" theory that we have to defend the Falklands or, god forbid, the Pitcairn Islands might be next, and who knows where it will end?

In all the years I've been arguing with knee-jerk nationalists about those islands, I have yet to hear anybody explain why keeping them was worth the loss of a single life on either side. And no, "because they are British at the moment" is not good enough.

/Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
//Colonialism is even worse.

Wrongo. The islanders have the right of self-determination.

Private_Citizen: Real issue(s):
1. Argentina has problems and they need a distraction.
2. Oil has been discovered near the Falklands.

There is little economic value on the Falklands (mainly a sheep economy), however

3. There are rich squid fishing grounds in their territorial waters and millions go into their economy from squid fishing licenses (the major part of the economy)