Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Argentina: "Give us the precious". England: "No". Argentina: "But we WANTSSS IT"   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 340
    More: Dumbass, Argentine Republic, UK Prime Minister, Cristina Fernandez, territorial integrity, President of Argentina, Falklands War, presents, UN resolution  
•       •       •

20638 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 02:04:42 PM  
The English have their faults, but even I'd prefer being under British rule of law as opposed to the squirrelly Argentinian government.

/Beer's better too.
 
2013-01-03 02:13:28 PM  
Dammit, subby! Your headline made me laugh so hard that I started coughing.

stoopid bronchitis
 
2013-01-03 02:19:10 PM  
Sneaky little Englishes. Wicked! Tricksy! False!
 
2013-01-03 02:19:54 PM  
Hey Argentina, if you want the islands back, just go take them.  As you've pointed out, London is 14000 km away.  What are they possibly gonna do?
 
2013-01-03 02:26:23 PM  
as long as they choose to stay with the United Kingdom they have my 100% backing."


Otherwise... Fark 'em
 
2013-01-03 03:01:38 PM  
Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?
 
2013-01-03 03:29:33 PM  
It's all about the oil, of course.
 
2013-01-03 03:48:04 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?


Malvinas?
 
2013-01-03 03:56:00 PM  
Anything of value on these islands?
 
2013-01-03 04:01:09 PM  

simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?


Sheep?
 
2013-01-03 04:04:28 PM  

simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?


Yes.  British citizenship.
 
2013-01-03 04:04:50 PM  

Walker: simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?

Sheep?


Hey, its not Texas A&M. Sheep are not worth fighting over (unless Aggies are involved).
 
2013-01-03 04:11:24 PM  

Walker: simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?

Sheep?


Penguins? Kelp? Or is London only ironically loud on its lands of immense loquaciousness?

/let the Kelpers decide
//not the Argies for them
 
2013-01-03 04:21:22 PM  
and Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser, with all hands...apparently to make them give it back....
 
2013-01-03 04:22:21 PM  
They should set up some missile bases on the Fawklands.
 
2013-01-03 04:55:43 PM  

AirForceVet: The English have their faults, but even I'd prefer being under British rule of law as opposed to the squirrelly Argentinian government.

/Beer's better too.


Why can't they get along so we can have both great steaks and great beer?
 
2013-01-03 04:56:20 PM  
They need it for strategic sheep purposes.
 
2013-01-03 04:56:27 PM  

jackiepaper: and Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser, with all hands...apparently to make them give it back....


mmm hmmm hmm hmm hmmmm...

/and now, adding color, a group of anonymous Latin American meatpacking glitterati...
 
2013-01-03 04:56:34 PM  
Meanwhile, on the Farkland Islands, not much was happening...

*thumping disco beat*
 
2013-01-03 04:57:26 PM  
Da f#ck, mods on crack today?
I guess Drew drank up all the profits.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:47 PM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-03 04:58:14 PM  

AirForceVet: The English have their faults, but even I'd prefer being under British rule of law as opposed to the squirrelly Argentinian government.



4.bp.blogspot.com \
"Muerte a Inglaterra!"

 
2013-01-03 04:58:58 PM  
I'm trying not to be alarmed about this

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-03 04:59:27 PM  
Is this some sort of Argentinian "right of passage"? Once a generation, they try and usurp the Falklands from the hands of the British?

South America is WEIRD. :/
 
2013-01-03 05:00:14 PM  
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-03 05:01:14 PM  

unyon: Hey Argentina, if you want the islands back, just go take them.  As you've pointed out, London is 14000 km away.  What are they possibly gonna do?


Yeah, it's not like the Prime Minister would threaten to nuke Buenos Aires right?
 
2013-01-03 05:02:54 PM  
So... we can safely assume there's something going wrong in Argentina that the government really doesn't want its populace worrying about?
 
2013-01-03 05:03:12 PM  
The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.
 
2013-01-03 05:03:18 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.


I did not know there was oil. I thought this was about fishing rights.
 
2013-01-03 05:04:39 PM  

LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.


They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.
 
2013-01-03 05:05:17 PM  

savage_world: So... we can safely assume there's something going wrong in Argentina that the government really doesn't want its populace worrying about?


Inflation is over 20% and sporadic food riots have occurred.
 
2013-01-03 05:05:52 PM  

unyon: Hey Argentina, if you want the islands back, just go take them.  As you've pointed out, London is 14000 km away.  What are they possibly gonna do?


Well.. they could go to war over it....

Eh... it's been done.
 
2013-01-03 05:06:32 PM  

Saiga410: BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.

I did not know there was oil. I thought this was about fishing rights.


A little from Column A, a little from Column B
 
2013-01-03 05:07:35 PM  
[Oh-good-this-shiat-again.jpg]
 
2013-01-03 05:07:41 PM  

Saiga410: BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.

I did not know there was oil. I thought this was about fishing rights.


Oil. Fishing rights. Distractions from domestic issues.

'course they'll never get them back so in practice this is just about distracting their population.
 
2013-01-03 05:10:28 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: What's the Spanish word for "irony"?


Hierro.

/just kidding, it's "plancha"

Saiga410: I did not know there was oil. I thought this was about fishing rights.


Very oily fish.
 
2013-01-03 05:10:35 PM  
Argentina has great wine, great food, and great women.

The UK has beer, I guess?
 
2013-01-03 05:11:06 PM  
Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

Would they accept a settlement whereby these grievously wronged settlers are allowed to return to the island and receive dual citizenship, including the right to vote on the island's ownership?

Oh, all dead. Yes, I see. OK.
 
2013-01-03 05:11:28 PM  

unyon: Hey Argentina, if you want the islands back, just go take them.  As you've pointed out, London is 14000 km away.  What are they possibly gonna do?


Hey, El Guapo; why don't you just take her?

/ also, you have a plethora of piñata
 
2013-01-03 05:11:41 PM  
Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html
 
2013-01-03 05:11:50 PM  

TheNewJesus: Argentina has great wine, great food, and great women.

The UK has beer, I guess?


And an actual useful currency. With which they can easily buy cheap Malbec....
 
2013-01-03 05:13:29 PM  
I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.
 
2013-01-03 05:14:18 PM  

AirForceVet: The English have their faults, but even I'd prefer being under British rule of law as opposed to the squirrelly Argentinian government.

/Beer's better too.


Argentina has hotter chicks.
 
2013-01-03 05:15:15 PM  

WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.


Don't say that too loud. Harper will do it, and then where will you be?
 
2013-01-03 05:15:40 PM  

savage_world: So... we can safely assume there's something going wrong in Argentina that the government really doesn't want its populace worrying about?


Their economy tanking again?
 
2013-01-03 05:15:46 PM  

doyner: simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?

Yes.  British citizenship.


100% A British passport is worth fighting over. The Argentinian one isn't worth the rfid chip embedded in it in comparison.
 
2013-01-03 05:16:47 PM  

WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.


Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.
 
2013-01-03 05:16:58 PM  

Paris1127: Walker: simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?

Sheep?

Penguins? Kelp? Or is London only ironically loud on its lands of immense loquaciousness?

/let the Kelpers decide
//not the Argies for them


OIL you say? OIL?!!
but they have been fighting over them LONG before there was oil. or inhabitants
 
2013-01-03 05:20:55 PM  
Define Irony: The Argentinians claiming they need to take over land from a neighboring island against the will of the people that live there so that they can exploit the natural resources there. Why?... to STOP colonialism, that's why!

LOL - you can't explain that!

1) The Falklands have been British for longer than Argentina has existed.
2) The residents of the Falklands choose to stay British. Argentina subjugating them against their will ... THAT would be colonialism.
3) Argentina is only asking to negotiate NOW because they took a cheap shot and invaded the Falklands and then got beat down - kind of convenient that they don't want ownership decided by force ... after the fact.

Summary: Argentina has no earthly right to poses the Falklands and are complete hypocrites for even asking. Moreover their leaders are only doing so to distract their people from how miserably pathetic they have been running the country.
 
2013-01-03 05:21:19 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?


These people were white.
 
2013-01-03 05:22:00 PM  

Rwa2play: unyon: Hey Argentina, if you want the islands back, just go take them.  As you've pointed out, London is 14000 km away.  What are they possibly gonna do?

Yeah, it's not like the Prime Minister would threaten to nuke Buenos Aires right?


Sure they can. Just blame it on the bugs.

www.wrighton.com.ar
 
2013-01-03 05:23:04 PM  
Las Islas Malvinas son Argentinas.


Argentina should really start a infiltration terrorist campaign against these pitiful little islands and the larger ones . Suicide bombing for the Argentine motherland will buy their rights back with british blood. DEATH TO ENGLAND!
 
2013-01-03 05:23:34 PM  

Captain Steroid: Is this some sort of Argentinian "right of passage"? Once a generation, they try and usurp the Falklands from the hands of the British?

South America is WEIRD. :/


I think that the word is "rite"...

And yes... we are WEIRD...
 
2013-01-03 05:23:38 PM  
FTFA:"They're holding a referendum this year and I hope the president of Argentina will listen to that referendum and recognise it is for the Falkland Islanders to choose their future, and as long as they choose to stay with the United Kingdom they have my 100% backing."

Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."
 
2013-01-03 05:23:45 PM  
Next up: Argentina floods the islands with Argentinian citizens.
 
2013-01-03 05:26:00 PM  
It is wag the dog time again. Kirchner is doing this to raise support fro her failing and corrupt government. If she goes to war she'll end up like the Junta did in the 1980's.
 
2013-01-03 05:26:08 PM  

BigNumber12: Next up: Argentina floods the islands with Argentinian citizens.


The Mariel boatlift didn't exactly turn Miami into loyal Castro territory.
 
2013-01-03 05:26:42 PM  
If Argentina is really complaining about colonialism, then fine. Move the Falkland Islanders to the UK.

Then move *all* Argentines to the Malvinas, and give the mainland to the Indians.
 
2013-01-03 05:28:20 PM  
Let's turn Buenos Aires into the world's largest glass parking lot and maybe these dagos will shut up about those stupid islands for once.
 
2013-01-03 05:30:35 PM  

YixilTesiphon: BigNumber12: Next up: Argentina floods the islands with Argentinian citizens.

The Mariel boatlift didn't exactly turn Miami into loyal Castro territory.


Miami, pop: 400,000
Falklands, pop: 3,140
 
2013-01-03 05:31:43 PM  
Fark Rye For Many Whores: Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?

These people were white.


As are most Argentinians.
 
2013-01-03 05:31:59 PM  
Good luck, Britain. Not that you'll need it.
 
2013-01-03 05:32:47 PM  
They should settle it like men, on the football pitch.
 
2013-01-03 05:33:14 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.
 
2013-01-03 05:34:56 PM  

electronicmaji: Argentina should really start a infiltration terrorist campaign against these pitiful little islands


They already tried that and met an Iron Lady.
 
2013-01-03 05:35:41 PM  
What islands?

WTF, never heard of 'em, Guess there was a brouhaha over them back in the 1940's or some thing I guess. Whatever.

You guys care if you want. Fight, fight fight!

/Seriously, anybody else heard of the "British Isles" before this?
 
2013-01-03 05:37:25 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.


So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.
 
2013-01-03 05:38:00 PM  
spiderpaz: Define Irony: The Argentinians claiming they need to take over land from a neighboring island against the will of the people that live there so that they can exploit the natural resources there. Why?... to STOP colonialism, that's why!

LOL - you can't explain that!

1) The Falklands have been British for longer than Argentina has existed.
2) The residents of the Falklands choose to stay British. Argentina subjugating them against their will ... THAT would be colonialism.
3) Argentina is only asking to negotiate NOW because they took a cheap shot and invaded the Falklands and then got beat down - kind of convenient that they don't want ownership decided by force ... after the fact.

Summary: Argentina has no earthly right to poses the Falklands and are complete hypocrites for even asking. Moreover their leaders are only doing so to distract their people from how miserably pathetic they have been running the country.


Argentina got it's independence in 1810, however the islands were not a part of that back then.
 
Heb
2013-01-03 05:38:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

Though they are closest of all to the Falkland Islands, which aren't part of either Argentina or Great Britain. Argentina wants to pretend there are two parties in this debate, but there are three. The Falklands are self-governing, and it's really up to them to choose their own destiny.
 
2013-01-03 05:38:52 PM  
Hmm... for some reason I got this song caught in my head while reading this... was thinking of the Falklands singing it...

Don't cry for me Argentina
The truth is I never left you
All through my wild days
My mad existence
I kept my promise
Don't keep your distance
 
2013-01-03 05:38:56 PM  
So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?
 
2013-01-03 05:39:15 PM  
How come no one says "Argentine" anymore? WTF is an "Argentinian"?

Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!
 
2013-01-03 05:40:06 PM  

BigNumber12: Next up: Argentina floods the islands with Argentinian citizens.



The movie F*ckland had a slightly different take:

The film takes place decades after the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom for the control of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean.

The film tells of Fabián Stratas, a magician and stand-up comedian from Buenos Aires, who saves his money from weddings, birthdays, and bar mitzvahs, and uses a hidden camera to document a week-long trip to the Falkland Islands, (or "farkland", as he calls them), where he has an ingenious Argentine patriotic plan: to impregnate a Falklander woman.

Stratas has a theory: if only 500 Argentines did the same each year, the islands would soon be overrun with half-Argentines, and he would be the head of a "sexual invasion." Brilliant idea, he thinks.

He spends his first couple of days on the island doing reconnaissance, and soon sets his eyes on Camila Heaney, whom he first saw in church.

He chats her up at an Internet café and then they go out for drinks, which is followed by dinner. They also take a field trip to see the King penguins and the 1982 battlefield.

Fabian has initial success, getting to have sex with Camila twice, first in his hotel room and then on the beach. He succeeds and manages to impregnate her before leaving for Buenos Aires, cocky and happy for having achieved his goal and duped his lover. However, Heaney gets the last word, making a videotape on Fabian's camera where she denounces him as the shallow, condescending and self-centered Argentine he is. After this, the camera shows Stratas, unfazed by Camila's anger, taking a shower while singing the Charly García cover of the Argentine National Anthem.
 
2013-01-03 05:40:47 PM  
They should put in a claim for Diaoyu/Senkaku while they're at it.
 
2013-01-03 05:40:56 PM  
I still think it was a pretty big loss for Argentina and the world at large when it turned out that Kirchener didn't have cancer. She's just going to keep bringing this shiat up over and over to maintain her support while the value of the Argentine peso continues to plummet and the economy goes to hell.
 
2013-01-03 05:42:01 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: If Argentina is really complaining about colonialism, then fine. Move the Falkland Islanders to the UK.

Then move *all* Argentines to the Malvinas, and give the mainland to the Indians.


They sorta massacred them all.
 
2013-01-03 05:44:29 PM  

Scythed: I still think it was a pretty big loss for Argentina and the world at large when it turned out that Kirchener didn't have cancer. She's just going to keep bringing this shiat up over and over to maintain her support while the value of the Argentine peso continues to plummet and the economy goes to hell.


The single best indicator of the Argentine economy is the amount of biatching the government does about the Falklands---it's a perfect inverse relationship.
 
2013-01-03 05:44:34 PM  

Latinwolf: Fark Rye For Many Whores: Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?

These people were white.

As are most Argentinians.


i407.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 05:46:58 PM  

Rwa2play: Yeah, it's not like the Prime Minister would threaten to nuke Buenos Aires right?


Nuke?  No, no no.  But if I lived there, I'd be thinking about catastrophic asteroid insurance right about now.
 
2013-01-03 05:47:30 PM  
So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.
 
2013-01-03 05:48:17 PM  
Britain still has atomic-powered attack submarines, Argentina:

rna-10-area.co.uk
 
2013-01-03 05:48:30 PM  

MOGGEE: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 244x207][encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 281x180][encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 226x223]

Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.



]

i478.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 05:49:54 PM  

MOGGEE: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 244x207][encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 281x180][encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 226x223]

Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.


She's old and wrinkled. Eww.
 
2013-01-03 05:50:49 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.


Ah. I was wondering why the Argentinians would want a rock with some sheep on it so bad.
 
2013-01-03 05:52:01 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


Wikipedia is your friend.
 
2013-01-03 05:52:44 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How come no one says "Argentine" anymore? WTF is an "Argentinian"?

Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


The esteemed Mr. George Carlin would like a word with you.
 
2013-01-03 05:53:06 PM  

jamspoon: Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html


Bravo!
 
2013-01-03 05:56:13 PM  

Captain Steroid: Is this some sort of Argentinian "right of passage"? Once a generation, they try and usurp the Falklands from the hands of the British?

South America is WEIRD. :/


It's a socialist thing. Every new generation is fed a pack of propaganda about how great their dirt-poor country is, now that the shackles of oppression imposed by the evil corporations have been thrown off. The new generation quickly figures out that it's all bunk (otherwise why are they stuck tilling mud and working in sweatshops?) and decides that the last generation's heroes are really this generation's evil corporate overlords. Like all good socialists, eventually they form a political movement that siezes power, nationalizes all the industries for the greater good, crashes the economy as a direct result, and needs someone to blame for it other than themselves so they can cling to power long enough to make everything better (an effort doomed by the fact that the only actions their socialist moral code will let them take are the ones that keep making everything worse).

Argentina is lucky in this regard, as they have the Falklands as an excuse for why soaking the rich doesn't work, one that's actually within striking distance of their military. As long as the British value the Falklands, the Argentinans can continue to ignore the flaws inherent to socialism forever, at the cost of a humiliating military defeat every 20 to 30 years.
 
2013-01-03 05:56:49 PM  

jso2897: BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.

Ah. I was wondering why the Argentinians would want a rock with some sheep on it so bad.


Now anyway.

The first invasion was because South Americans believe losing face might as well be chopping your dick off. Colonizing might as well equal sleeping with your girlfriend.
 
2013-01-03 05:56:54 PM  

uttertosh: doyner: simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?

Yes.  British citizenship.

100% A British passport is worth fighting over. The Argentinian one isn't worth the rfid chip embedded in it in comparison.


This. :-) GSTQ
 
2013-01-03 05:57:53 PM  
It's so cute that some of the Brits think they should actually keep the Falklands. Cute like British Dentistry.
 
2013-01-03 05:57:56 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


And there's Point Roberts too, but that one sorta makes a bit more sense than the Northwest Angle...
 
2013-01-03 05:58:33 PM  

Latinwolf: Argentina got it's independence in 1810, however the islands were not a part of that back then.



The UK first laid claim to them in 1690, when they were entirely uninhabited.
Like many other places the UK did this with, the Dutch had actually found and mapped them first (1600), said 'meh' and just sailed on.

Either way, there's no real history to support there ever having been much of an Argentine claim to the islands, and if they try to take them again they'll get another smackdown.
 
2013-01-03 05:59:12 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?


Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.
 
2013-01-03 05:59:17 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.

Wikipedia is your friend.


Ah so politicos and geographers drawing maps before we ever knew what was there.
 
2013-01-03 06:00:39 PM  
It also bases its claim on the islands' proximity to the South American mainland. The islands' capital, Port Stanley, lies about 1,180 miles (1,898km) from the Argentine capital Buenos Aires.

Well, shiat, you could almost jump to it!
 
2013-01-03 06:01:10 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


A better question is, why does Canada get to have a Canada attached to our America? [glares menacingly to the north]

/hee hee! flame on, hosers!
//honh honh! commencez la flamme, opérateurs de tuyaux!
 
2013-01-03 06:01:31 PM  

Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.


That's because last time we had the Soviets to knock us down if the thing escalated. I don't think we'll have the same problem if it happened again.
 
2013-01-03 06:01:48 PM  

Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.


Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"
 
2013-01-03 06:01:49 PM  
www.jamesaltucher.com
 
2013-01-03 06:02:25 PM  
www.lindaslineage.com
 
2013-01-03 06:02:41 PM  

hawcian: Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."


He meant "as long as" in the sense of "while" and not in the sense of "provided that".
 
2013-01-03 06:03:48 PM  

LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.


[Netherlands] sights the islands. This is widely accredited as the first sighting of the islands.

Tada, given them back to the dutch. end of story.
right?
finders keepers is the rule if no one was there first, which would also be finders keepers
bwhahahahahahaahahahaa
 
2013-01-03 06:04:23 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


Hej! it's not my language, you Americanians inventimfied it. You cant explain couple things.
 
2013-01-03 06:05:54 PM  
I remember the Falklands Island war.

Next to Granada, it was the oddest war in the 80's.

The British sadly got to learn that French missiles worked really well, sadly.

The Harriers performance was pretty frickin cool as well.
 
2013-01-03 06:06:37 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"


I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.
 
2013-01-03 06:07:00 PM  

spiderpaz: Summary: Argentina has no earthly right to poses the Falklands and are complete hypocrites for even asking. Moreover their leaders are only doing so to distract their people from how miserably pathetic they have been running the country.


The new world was divided between portugal and spain by the pope. so, NOT argentina ...
 
2013-01-03 06:07:58 PM  

jamspoon: Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html


Informative and fun read.  Thanks for posting it.
 
2013-01-03 06:08:40 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How come no one says "Argentine" anymore? WTF is an "Argentinian"?

Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


Argentine is a noun, Argentinian is an adjective. "She is an Argentine." "The islands were under Argentinian control." If TFA uses Argentinian where it should use Argentine, the author must be mocked and then whipped through the streets.
 
2013-01-03 06:09:31 PM  

moops: WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.

Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.


Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?
 
2013-01-03 06:11:07 PM  

Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"

I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.


If you completely ignore the Teller Amendment which predicated our entire presence there on the fact that we would not annex.

Tell me, what is the morally superior claim for Britain's original annexation? Was it based entirely on a democratic process free of military involvement?
 
2013-01-03 06:12:09 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


Treaty of Paris.
 
2013-01-03 06:14:05 PM  

fusillade762: moops: WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.

Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.

Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?


Don't tell that to Quebec. They'll get all pissy.

/and fart in your general direction
 
2013-01-03 06:14:23 PM  
Not that this is anything different from the last time Argentina pulled this stunt, and got it's ass kicked, but the people who actually live on that island like things just as they are.
"It is disappointing that today the Government of Argentina is once again ignoring the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islands people. The open letter sent by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to David Cameron is not only historically inaccurate, but fails to mention the most significant aspect of our recent history - the attempt by the Argentine Government to take away our home by military force when they invaded thirty years ago. The people of the Falkland Islands, who for nine generations have lived and worked these lands, would like to take the opportunity to clarify some points raised by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors - the Islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego - an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. It is this fundamental right that is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.

As a modern, self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, we enjoy a relationship based on the shared ideals of democracy, freedom and self-reliance. We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British Overseas Territory by choice [emphasis added], which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain: we are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. We democratically elect our Legislative Assembly Members; they are chosen by the people of the Falkland Islands to represent them and to determine and administer our own policies and legislation. In March we will be holding a referendum on our political status, so that as a people we can make our views heard in a clear, democratic and incontestable way."

The Honourable Dick Sawle

Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands
 
2013-01-03 06:15:33 PM  

orbister: hawcian: Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."

He meant "as long as" in the sense of "while" and not in the sense of "provided that".


It was a humorous "spin" on his statement. Like I said, I understand that he means he won't abandon the Falklands to Argentina as long as they want to be part of the UK.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:23 PM  

Tatterdemalian: It's a socialist thing


Nice theory, except that General Galtieri was about as right wing as its possible to get.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:30 PM  
Sounds like the Argentinians need a reminder of how that whole invasion and war thing turned out last time?

i.imgur.com

Tip: it won't be such an even fight this time around. Not to mention that last time, once the Brits unleashed their nuclear attack subs upon the Argentinian fleet, they pretty much cried uncle.

ARA General Belgrano

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-03 06:17:16 PM  
Saiga410: I did not know there was oil. I thought this was about fishing rights.

semiotix: Very oily fish.

I don't normally laugh out loud while I read Fark, but you, sir ... to what address should I send the bill for the new keyboard?

 
2013-01-03 06:17:27 PM  

antron: [i47.tinypic.com image 449x600]


That does not appear to be a steam powered vessel.
 
2013-01-03 06:17:44 PM  
And return Israel/Palestine to the Turks FFS!
 
2013-01-03 06:18:35 PM  

Medic Zero: Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.


Not least because Galtieri, like every other murderous right-wing dictator in South America, was seen as a useful ally by Reagan and his cronies.
 
2013-01-03 06:19:35 PM  

unyon: jamspoon: Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html

Informative and fun read.  Thanks for posting it.


ditto +1
 
2013-01-03 06:21:43 PM  

MorePeasPlease: /Seriously, anybody else heard of the "British Isles" before this?


Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid
 
2013-01-03 06:22:48 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How come no one says "Argentine" anymore? WTF is an "Argentinian"?

Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


According to Wikiedpia, "Argentine," "Argentinian," "Argentinean" are all acceptable.  So rock on with "Argentine" if your funky heart so desires.
 
2013-01-03 06:25:19 PM  

brukmann: And return Israel/Palestine to the Turks FFS!


And Yoko back to the Japs.
 
2013-01-03 06:27:28 PM  
Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti
 
2013-01-03 06:28:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"

I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.

If you completely ignore the Teller Amendment which predicated our entire presence there on the fact that we would not annex.

Tell me, what is the morally superior claim for Britain's original annexation? Was it based entirely on a democratic process free of military involvement?


Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?
 
2013-01-03 06:28:37 PM  

hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti


So you'e ready to swear your rightful allegiance to the crown then?
 
2013-01-03 06:30:42 PM  

Lunchlady: Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?


Ask Spain. They're still all pissy about Gibraltar, but ask them about Ceuta and Melilla (on Morocco's coast) and they'll tell you that's TOTALLY different.
 
2013-01-03 06:32:48 PM  

FatherDale: brukmann: And return Israel/Palestine to the Turks FFS!

And Yoko back to the Japs.


 First the Beatles now the Japanese?  Haven't they suffered enough?
 
2013-01-03 06:33:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

So you'e ready to swear your rightful allegiance to the crown then?


You're trying to catch people in the same hypocrisy you are putting on fine display. You argue that past political affiliations don't matter. Ok, if that's the case then what is the basis for the Argentine claim on the islands? The three month prison colony in 1833? A century after an even EARLIER British colony? Surely you can find something better than proximity?

I suppose you could argue for self-determination. Except, oh wait, the population of the Falklands has voted to remain associated with the UK.
 
2013-01-03 06:33:38 PM  
At least the first Falklands War inspired a decent Elvis Costello tune. Maybe One Direction will have some trenchant commentary for this one.
 
2013-01-03 06:34:12 PM  

Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?


Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?
 
2013-01-03 06:35:27 PM  
THE UK needs these small but intense wars eveny ten years or so to give the SAS some non-turban related battle experience.
 
2013-01-03 06:36:44 PM  
I saw America just democracies that biatch away from both the Argentinians and the Brits.
 
2013-01-03 06:36:50 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Lunchlady: Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Ask Spain. They're still all pissy about Gibraltar, but ask them about Ceuta and Melilla (on Morocco's coast) and they'll tell you that's TOTALLY different.


It's dick-waving. It has nothing to do with principals of governance.
 
2013-01-03 06:38:30 PM  

GranoblasticMan: Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid



Things I learned from that video:

Ireland is technically two confederacies under British rule, each with its own Pope.
Scotland/Wales are actually different names for the same thing.
The Isle of Man is known as the EU outside of the English Isles.
 
2013-01-03 06:38:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?


Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.
 
2013-01-03 06:47:06 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I saw America just democracies that biatch away from both the Argentinians and the Brits.


Are you having a stroke?
 
2013-01-03 06:47:08 PM  
There's nothing to give back, neither the land nor the people are historically Argentinian. Give it up!
 
2013-01-03 06:47:15 PM  
Soccer match for the win.
 
2013-01-03 06:48:03 PM  
1980 - Argentina said "it's ours" (nothing to do with oil recently been found or the fact they've ignored the islands for a hundred or so years)

We asked the islanders.

they said "we wanna be british"

Argentina invaded and we destroyed them.

Argentina keep saying "give us back our land".

We said "no, they wanna be british"

Argentina cry to the UN and the US, who pat them on the head

we give the islanders a referendum due in march 2013

As soon as the year 2013 starts "it's ours.. give us back our land"

Lesson: Argentina will use the falklands to take away any crap they have back home and we should just nuke them. Be done with it. Maybe have "don't cry for me Argentina" on the missile.

They don't really give the world anything.... and i've lost family and friends to the ***'s
 
2013-01-03 06:48:34 PM  

semiotix: Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.

A better question is, why does Canada get to have a Canada attached to our America? [glares menacingly to the north]

/hee hee! flame on, hosers!
//honh honh! commencez la flamme, opérateurs de tuyaux!


Don't make us take Alaska back.
/Actually, we don't want it
//Too many Americans.
 
2013-01-03 06:52:33 PM  

sefert: semiotix: Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.

A better question is, why does Canada get to have a Canada attached to our America? [glares menacingly to the north]

/hee hee! flame on, hosers!
//honh honh! commencez la flamme, opérateurs de tuyaux!

Don't make us take Alaska back.
/Actually, we don't want it
//Too many Americans.


Y'all never had it. We bought it from Russia. And I'm sure the National Archives has the receipt somewhere if you ask nicely.
 
2013-01-03 06:52:54 PM  
The war itself was seen by the pundits of the day as this/
img255.imageshack.us
But, that was before they realized there was oil there.

Of course, in the early 1980s Maggie Thatcher was blamed for making life miserable by the average Brit (poll tax for example), and the prospect of what the Government thought would be a nice, tidy little war had great appeal.to them to rally the populace.

Unfortunately for the "Iron Lady" it didn't translate into long-term support for her policies.
 
2013-01-03 06:55:35 PM  

MOGGEE: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 244x207][encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 281x180][encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 226x223]

Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.


Dude, you need your eyes checked. She is old and nasty.
 
2013-01-03 06:56:09 PM  

MorePeasPlease: GranoblasticMan: Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid


Things I learned from that video:

Ireland is technically two confederacies under British rule, each with its own Pope.
Scotland/Wales are actually different names for the same thing.
The Isle of Man is known as the EU outside of the English Isles.


www.google.ca
 
2013-01-03 06:59:43 PM  
Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.

She's old and wrinkled. Eww.

Pres. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has a Mary Steenbergen thing going on
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-03 07:00:53 PM  

spiderpaz: Define Irony: The Argentinians claiming they need to take over land from a neighboring island against the will of the people that live there so that they can exploit the natural resources there. Why?... to STOP colonialism, that's why!

LOL - you can't explain that!

1) The Falklands have been British for longer than Argentina has existed.
2) The residents of the Falklands choose to stay British. Argentina subjugating them against their will ... THAT would be colonialism.
3) Argentina is only asking to negotiate NOW because they took a cheap shot and invaded the Falklands and then got beat down - kind of convenient that they don't want ownership decided by force ... after the fact.

Summary: Argentina has no earthly right to poses the Falklands and are complete hypocrites for even asking. Moreover their leaders are only doing so to distract their people from how miserably pathetic they have been running the country.


I would say once a government tries force against another government, the idea that negotiations should result in the same thing that force was used unsuccessfully for is out of line.

They could negotiate an apology to the UK. They could negotiate supplying the Falklands with consumer products.
 
2013-01-03 07:02:11 PM  

MorePeasPlease: GranoblasticMan: Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid


Things I learned from that video:

Ireland is technically two confederacies under British rule, each with its own Pope.
Scotland/Wales are actually different names for the same thing.
The Isle of Man is known as the EU outside of the English Isles.


It's simple. Ireland is a geographical term for the 2nd biggest island in the British Isles. Within Ireland are two countries called the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which is a country made up of four countries. Both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are part of the European Union.

/if you thinks that's hard just you wait
 
2013-01-03 07:02:17 PM  
The Monroe Doctrine specifically stated no new European colonies. As of 1823, the UK had asserted dominion over the Falklands. Also, the US never contested the settlement of the islands by the UK in 1833. So there is zero ability to apply the Monroe Doctrine here, as the islands are not a new colony, and the US has not contested this colony in 150+ years.
 
2013-01-03 07:06:13 PM  

MOGGEE: Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.

She's old and wrinkled. Eww.

Pres. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has a Mary Steenbergen thing going on
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 201x251] [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 252x200]


I've always had a thing for Mary Steenbergen only because I bet she squeaks when she gets "excited".
 
2013-01-03 07:08:05 PM  
'The Argentine president says the islands were forcibly stripped from Argentina in "a blatant exercise of 19th Century colonialism".'

and

'Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, '

Those would be the people who used to be spaniards but now call themselves argentinians having taken over argentina by colonial expansion, who claim even though they never inherited in fact an island (that spain took by colonial expansion if it ever took it at all) discovered by the dutch, landed by the british, settled by the french and british, sold under dispute by the french to the spanish who tried to throw the british off, then after the british left voluntarily held for a very brief and disputed period of time by spain who also abandoned it, then it was settled by a german with permission from both spain and britain who was thrown off by the americans who declared it empty.. then settled as a prison by argentina for a few days, then occupied by the british till today.

Spain lost the colonial expansion game with regard to that island to another colonial power which has possessed the islands for far longer than spain ever did. Argentina has never held them at all in any sense worth mentioning.

There is a problem there but I cant put my finger on it.
 
2013-01-03 07:08:39 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Of course, in the early 1980s Maggie Thatcher was blamed for making life miserable by the average Brit (poll tax for example)


Is that the Poll Tax which was introduced in 1989, or was there another one which I missed in the early 1980s?
 
2013-01-03 07:09:49 PM  
Let me play you the song of my people...

NSFW

/NSFW
 
2013-01-03 07:11:38 PM  

jackiepaper: and Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser, with all hands...apparently to make them give it back....


Stupid song: The Belgrano didn't go down with all hands, something like 70% of the crew survived the sinking.
 
2013-01-03 07:12:25 PM  

TheOther: Let me play you the song of my people...

NSFW

/NSFW


Eeewwww!!

/I lol'ed
 
2013-01-03 07:12:39 PM  

Norfolking Chance: Within Ireland are two countries called the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which is a country made up of four countries.


Nothern Ireland isn't a country. It's a province. Scotland isn't a country. It's a nation. Wales isn't a country. It's a nation too. Other than that, fine. Oh, and the Republic of Ireland is actually get called Eire, but the left get really upset about that in much the same way that one presumes they get upset when the Germans have the temerity to call their country Deutschland.
 
2013-01-03 07:20:26 PM  

Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?

Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.


European colonialism is a piss poor excuse for a foriegn policy as well.The British Empire hasn't mattered in quite some time either. The continuation of it's moldy relics is hardly in our interest.
 
2013-01-03 07:20:48 PM  
Dudes.
 
2013-01-03 07:20:49 PM  
I can only assume the Argentines will be emigrating back to Spain and leaving the country to the indigenous peoples they colonised?
 
2013-01-03 07:22:26 PM  

MOGGEE: Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.

She's old and wrinkled. Eww.

Pres. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has a Mary Steenbergen thing going on
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 201x251] [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 252x200]


I actually saw her more as thisnyoobserver.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 07:23:53 PM  

shocker66s: Soccer match for the win.


Oh, you.
 
2013-01-03 07:24:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?

Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.

European colonialism is a piss poor excuse for a foriegn policy as well.The British Empire hasn't mattered in quite some time either. The continuation of it's moldy relics is hardly in our interest.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 07:25:54 PM  
This thread needs more pics of the Agrentinian prez.
 
2013-01-03 07:26:48 PM  
It never ceases to amaze me how many people trip over themselves to side with Argentina.

There is some knee jerk reaction where south Americans claim "colonialism" against the UK it must be true regardless of fact.

Their historic claim is weaker than the UK's.
The people there still want to be with the UK.

Even people that know this like to throw in non sequiturs that "Seem" to help Argentina.
 
2013-01-03 07:27:28 PM  

hawcian: FTFA:"They're holding a referendum this year and I hope the president of Argentina will listen to that referendum and recognise it is for the Falkland Islanders to choose their future, and as long as they choose to stay with the United Kingdom they have my 100% backing."

Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."


This will sound odd to Americans, but even though he's a Conservative, David Cameron believes in democracy and self determination, over not only uttering and gay rights but this too. Quote from earlier today "the future of the Falkland Islands will be decided by the islanders themselves in a referendum." There will be 3 choices (UK dependency status quo, independence, join Argentina) ... there is no doubt about the outcome, but it will be something to show the UN before telling them politely to Fark off.

Argies have been harassing Falklands shipping, fishermen and oil exploration for a while. That biatch needs a history book if she doesn't know what's coming next.
 
2013-01-03 07:29:26 PM  
Already been immortalized in song:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 07:29:31 PM  
It's ridiculous that Britain should have those islands. Just because they discovered them and claimed them legally and settled them and developed them and a peaceful, democratic society has thrived there for 200 years. They should be given to the descendants of Spanish colonists instead, people who thought fascist dictatorships were just peachy up until about last week.
 
2013-01-03 07:30:39 PM  

liam76: It never ceases to amaze me how many people trip over themselves to side with Argentina.

There is some knee jerk reaction where south Americans claim "colonialism" against the UK it must be true regardless of fact.

Their historic claim is weaker than the UK's.
The people there still want to be with the UK.

Even people that know this like to throw in non sequiturs that "Seem" to help Argentina.


I don't get how people do that either.  Proximity really shouldn't be a determining factor here - doesn't Canada get Alaska (and that bit o' Minnesota) then?  What about all those random Gulf of Mexico/Carribean islands?

The people who live and own land on the damn island want to remain English.  Argentina doesn't have a historical claim to it anyway.  If one of those two things were true it might be a little more debatable IMHO but since they simply aren't... It's just so blatantly a distraction from issues at home, just, AGH.

/bleeding heart liberal who is usually sympathetic to forcibly colonized land stories etc.
//um, I'm still pretty damn sure this ain't one
 
2013-01-03 07:35:04 PM  

Zoophagous: This thread needs more pics of the Agrentinian prez.


Here you go!
blogs.telegraph.co.uk
 
2013-01-03 07:35:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?

Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.

European colonialism is a piss poor excuse for a foriegn policy as well.The British Empire hasn't mattered in quite some time either. The continuation of it's moldy relics is hardly in our interest.


You're being willfully obtuse. The people of the Falklands have voted and later this year will almost certainly vote again to remain British. Your fixation on it being "European colonialism" betrays your prejudices. Remove that from the equation. It's about self-determination of the population. That's it. Do you think we should be forced to give up Guam to Micronesia?
 
2013-01-03 07:37:48 PM  
celebswhotwitter.com

"Oh but we need the Falkland Islands! For... uh... strategic sheep purposes."
 
2013-01-03 07:38:13 PM  

Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.


Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?
 
2013-01-03 07:43:48 PM  

GranoblasticMan: MorePeasPlease: /Seriously, anybody else heard of the "British Isles" before this?

Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid


Subby doesn't even understand the concept of the UK, though to be fair it's fairly recent in our history, only predates the USA by about 100 years :)
 
2013-01-03 07:45:52 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?


When you rebel against your colonial masters, the odds of getting other chunks of their colonies are pretty low.

Also, fark 'em until they stop defaulting on their sovereign debt, the skiving farktards.
 
2013-01-03 07:45:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"

I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.

If you completely ignore the Teller Amendment which predicated our entire presence there on the fact that we would not annex.

Tell me, what is the morally superior claim for Britain's original annexation? Was it based entirely on a democratic process free of military involvement?


The democratic will of the people of the Falkland Islands, which as Member Swale points out has a self governing assmebly which predates the government in Buenos Aires.
 
2013-01-03 07:48:11 PM  

Suede head: It's ridiculous that Britain should have those islands. Just because they discovered them and claimed them legally and settled them and developed them and a peaceful, democratic society has thrived there for 200 years. They should be given to the descendants of Spanish colonists instead, people who thought fascist dictatorships were just peachy up until about last week.



Justice will not be served until the people have lived there for 10 generations, on a previously uninhabited island, are forcibly evicted.
 
2013-01-03 07:50:28 PM  

ParaHandy: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"

I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.

If you completely ignore the Teller Amendment which predicated our entire presence there on the fact that we would not annex.

Tell me, what is the morally superior claim for Britain's original annexation? Was it based entirely on a democratic process free of military involvement?

The democratic will of the people of the Falkland Islands, which as Member Swale points out has a self governing assmebly which predates the government in Buenos Aires.


Wait....so technically, Argentina should hand itself over to Falklands rule. .

WHAT A TWIST! It's better than season 2 of Battlestar Galactica!
 
2013-01-03 07:56:08 PM  

ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?


First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.
 
2013-01-03 07:57:49 PM  

hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti


Errrr.... the British rule of Zimbabwe was a large part of why it went to hell after they left.
 
2013-01-03 07:58:59 PM  

ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?


Harriers are retired.

They do have 4 Eurofighter Typhoons there now. They also have the refueling assets to up that to a dozen or more in a day or two. Considering the ship and planes there now stand a pretty good chance of wasting all of Argentina's remaining air assets, attack by Argentina would be a bad idea.

/Did I mention that the Brits do have sub-launched Tomahawks?
 
2013-01-03 08:00:36 PM  

Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.


I see you've totally ninja'd me, my work here is done.
 
2013-01-03 08:00:56 PM  

Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.


You forget that since 1982, Menwith Hill in Yorkshire has become the lynchpin of US surveillance of Europe, eastern Russia and the northern chunk of the Middle East, not just a random satellite base. There's not a chance in hell that the US wouldn't provide full-bloddied support to the British if the Falklands were invaded again.
 
2013-01-03 08:05:09 PM  

Paul Baumer: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

Errrr.... the British rule of Zimbabwe was a large part of why it went to hell after they left.



That really isn't true. In Pakistan and Iraq (originally) yes, but Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe was left as the bread basket of Africa, with a fully established democratic legislature. and was not created from badly demarcated ethic tensions. The crisis in Zimbabwe is soley on the shoulders of Mugabe.
 
2013-01-03 08:07:55 PM  

TommyDeuce: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

Harriers are retired.

They do have 4 Eurofighter Typhoons there now. They also have the refueling assets to up that to a dozen or more in a day or two. Considering the ship and planes there now stand a pretty good chance of wasting all of Argentina's remaining air assets, attack by Argentina would be a bad idea.

/Did I mention that the Brits do have sub-launched Tomahawks?


Did I mention that I used to work for the MoD's submarine platform design group? Did some work on the Vangaurd class.
 
2013-01-03 08:09:22 PM  

codergirl42: That does not appear to be a steam powered vessel.


Gas-turbine, I believe. Note also the VLS (Vertical Launch System) bays fore and aft and the low-radar-observable assembly around the forward mast.

It looks like the UK's equivalent of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. One of those ships pretty much outguns the entire Argentine military. Then there are the British subs- not to metion troops and missile batteries on the islands themselves.

If Argentina tries force again (unlikely, but I'm not putting it past them), they'll get their fundaments served to them on silver tea-trays with cucumber sandwiches. Perhaps the Argentine government could try some novel approach to dealing with its unpopularity at home in lieu of refusing to learn from history.
 
2013-01-03 08:13:21 PM  

hawcian: orbister: hawcian: Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."

He meant "as long as" in the sense of "while" and not in the sense of "provided that".

It was a humorous "spin" on his statement. Like I said, I understand that he means he won't abandon the Falklands to Argentina as long as they want to be part of the UK.



You might well say that, but I could not possibly comment.
 
2013-01-03 08:14:56 PM  
Argentines all think they are Europeans anyway.  And while Argentina has some of the best food in South America, their latinas while pretty if you look at it from a US stand point, are about 4th on the list of hotties in South America.

1. Colombia(most per capita)
2. Brazil, lack of clothing and pretty.
3. Venezuela, hot in a ragged sort of way.
4. Argentina - some hot women, but plenty of chain smoking frog voiced gals.

Argentina was also the country that had government backed loans for plastic surgery so they could be the most beautiful people in the word.

I worked all over Latin America and the only reason I was treated well there is because my Spanish last name is the same as of a very famous tango singer(who is a far off relative) however, they treated the rest of my corporate companions like domestic servants.

Then there was old Hand of God Maradonna.

The country also has an attorney who routinely sues google and other search outlets to keep any negative search results way down at the bottom, or removed completely when searching from inside of Argentina.  I had to set up a proxy to our US office for our web team in BO.
 
2013-01-03 08:15:51 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.


How many penguins to the barrel? I always screw up that conversion.
 
2013-01-03 08:16:06 PM  

Bungles: Paul Baumer: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

Errrr.... the British rule of Zimbabwe was a large part of why it went to hell after they left.


That really isn't true. In Pakistan and Iraq (originally) yes, but Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe was left as the bread basket of Africa, with a fully established democratic legislature. and was not created from badly demarcated ethic tensions. The crisis in Zimbabwe is soley on the shoulders of Mugabe.


Correct sir.  The British rule of Zimbabwe was why it flourished.
 
2013-01-03 08:17:26 PM  

Bungles: Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.

You forget that since 1982, Menwith Hill in Yorkshire has become the lynchpin of US surveillance of Europe, eastern Russia and the northern chunk of the Middle East, not just a random satellite base. There's not a chance in hell that the US wouldn't provide full-bloddied support to the British if the Falklands were invaded again.


The US Navy is no longer in Bermuda, but in 1982 there was a strategic presence there ... 50 year lease at the end of WW2 allowing the US a strategic forward listening post, and the UK to wind down HMS Malabar. Used to track launches from Cape Canaveral - Bermuda has awesome natural radio reception due to its alignment with the earth's magnetic field. The advance Harrier group went out there quickly, and could not refuel in the Azores as Portugal wanted to stay neutral. They were going to use the Bermuda civilian airport, which uses the same airfield, but it was not tooled up to do maintence on military jets so the US Navy base commander said "don't be daft, bugger the Americas Accord, come over this side and we'll fuel you up and give you a decent meal"

I have no doubt the Pentagon knew, but it was kept below the radar, pun intended.
 
2013-01-03 08:18:29 PM  

bwesb: Not that this is anything different from the last time Argentina pulled this stunt, and got it's ass kicked, but the people who actually live on that island like things just as they are.
"It is disappointing that today the Government of Argentina is once again ignoring the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islands people. The open letter sent by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to David Cameron is not only historically inaccurate, but fails to mention the most significant aspect of our recent history - the attempt by the Argentine Government to take away our home by military force when they invaded thirty years ago. The people of the Falkland Islands, who for nine generations have lived and worked these lands, would like to take the opportunity to clarify some points raised by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors - the Islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego - an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. It is this fundamental right that is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.

As a modern, self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, we enjoy a relationship based on the shared ideals of democracy, freedom and self-reliance. We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British Overseas Territory by choice [emphasis added], which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain: we are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. We democratically elect our Legislative Assembly Members; they are chosen by the people of the Falkland Islands to represent them and to determine and administer our own policies and legislation. In March we will be holding a referendum on our political status, so that as a people we can make our views heard in a clear, democratic and incontestable way."

The Honourable Dick Sawle

Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands


Pshaw. The UN has made it clear that no European country is permitted overseas posessions. By definition that is colonialism, and the Falklands must be returned to Argentina as it is a non-European country.

There's about 18 other places (including an African country which was released but is still on the list because the UN doesn't think they have a functioning government, which is the responsibility of the colonizing power to help them establish) that the UN's special committee on decolonization insists are illegal posessions of colonizing powers.

And no, the current inhabitants have zero say in the matter. The special committee only cares that it is an overseas posession and that the country controlling it is either European or the US.

Normally I link it in Argentina/Falkland threads but I'm on mobile and it's a huge pain. However, Argentina's claim has always been supported by the UN and I expect it always will be. The will of the people means nothing. Far better for meaningless ideology to triumph than for people to live as they see fit.

And that is why we will have another Falklands War. Because brainless, ideologically driven idiots enable Argentina's otherwise laughable power play.
 
2013-01-03 08:20:06 PM  

rohar: I've always had a thing for Mary Steenbergen only because I bet she squeaks when she gets "excited".



The squeaky wheel gets the grease?

/am I doin it rite?
 
2013-01-03 08:20:20 PM  

theflatline: Bungles: Paul Baumer: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

Errrr.... the British rule of Zimbabwe was a large part of why it went to hell after they left.


That really isn't true. In Pakistan and Iraq (originally) yes, but Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe was left as the bread basket of Africa, with a fully established democratic legislature. and was not created from badly demarcated ethic tensions. The crisis in Zimbabwe is soley on the shoulders of Mugabe.

Correct sir.  The British rule of Zimbabwe was why it flourished.


Mugabe seized all the farms and ranches from white owners (and not a few blacks) and gave them to his corrupt conies who mismanaged them, causing a food crisis and farming the economy. Also mines.
 
2013-01-03 08:22:28 PM  

BolloxReader: bwesb: Not that this is anything different from the last time Argentina pulled this stunt, and got it's ass kicked, but the people who actually live on that island like things just as they are.
"It is disappointing that today the Government of Argentina is once again ignoring the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islands people. The open letter sent by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to David Cameron is not only historically inaccurate, but fails to mention the most significant aspect of our recent history - the attempt by the Argentine Government to take away our home by military force when they invaded thirty years ago. The people of the Falkland Islands, who for nine generations have lived and worked these lands, would like to take the opportunity to clarify some points raised by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors - the Islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego - an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. It is this fundamental right that is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.

As a modern, self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, we enjoy a relationship based on the shared ideals of democracy, freedom and self-reliance. We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British Overseas Territory by choice [emphasis added], which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain: we are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. We democratically elect our Legislative Assembly Members; they are chosen by the people of the Falkland Islands to represent them and to determine and administer our own policies and legislation. In March we will be holding a referendum on our political status, so that as a people we can make our views heard in a clear, democratic and incontestable way."

The Honourable Dick Sawle

Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands

Pshaw. The UN has made it clear that no European country is permitted overseas posessions. By definition that is colonialism, and the Falklands must be returned to Argentina as it is a non-European country.

There's about 18 other places (including an African country which was released but is still on the list because the UN doesn't think they have a functioning government, which is the responsibility of the colonizing power to help them establish) that the UN's special committee on decolonization insists are illegal posessions of colonizing powers.

And no, the current inhabitants have zero say in the matter. The special committee only cares that it is an overseas posession and that the country controlling it is either European or the US.

Normally I link it in Argentina/Falkland threads but I'm on mobile and it's a huge pain. However, Argentina's claim has always been supported by the UN and I expect it always will be. The will of the people means nothing. Far better for meaningless ideology to triumph than for people to live as they see fit.

And that is why we will have another Falklands War. Because brainless, ideologically driven idiots enable Argentina's otherwise laughable power play.


Brainless and ideological ... sounds like the GOP
 
2013-01-03 08:23:29 PM  

ParaHandy: theflatline: Bungles: Paul Baumer: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

Errrr.... the British rule of Zimbabwe was a large part of why it went to hell after they left.


That really isn't true. In Pakistan and Iraq (originally) yes, but Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe was left as the bread basket of Africa, with a fully established democratic legislature. and was not created from badly demarcated ethic tensions. The crisis in Zimbabwe is soley on the shoulders of Mugabe.

Correct sir.  The British rule of Zimbabwe was why it flourished.

Mugabe seized all the farms and ranches from white owners (and not a few blacks) and gave them to his corrupt conies who mismanaged them, causing a food crisis and farming the economy. Also mines.


He incited mobs to "retake" the farms from the "colonial oppressors" but all they did was sell off all the useful equipment for scrap.

Zimbabwe is miserable mess.
 
2013-01-03 08:24:10 PM  

BolloxReader: Normally I link it in Argentina/Falkland threads but I'm on mobile and it's a huge pain. However, Argentina's claim has always been supported by the UN and I expect it always will be. The will of the people means nothing. Far better for meaningless ideology to triumph than for people to live as they see fit.


The reason you are not providing links is because your typing utter nonsense that you've made up.
 
2013-01-03 08:24:11 PM  

Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.


It takes less than a day to fly from Argentina to the Falklands. Hell, even their turboprop Pucaras take less than an hour, and they could trash the infrastructure at Mount Pleasant and Port Stanley and be landing troops within 6 hours of the initial attack if they planned it right. Hell, they could probably pre-position small units of troops days ahead of time in remote areas where they wouldn't be noticed. Insert them via sub or by other means (kayak from "fishing trawlers" offshore, perhaps?). A few troops with MANPADS in the right places could make it extremely uncomfortable for Limey pilots.

It would be expensive for the Argentines, to be sure, but they could pretty much make sure that the Typhoons wouldn't have a place to safely land by the time they could possibly reach the islands, especially if they kept it under wraps and then threw every offensive air asset they had at the islands at once, overwhelming the defenses there. They'd lose a lot of planes, but they could make that up before the Brits could do anything about it. Hell, they upgraded their A-4 Skyhawks a while back with F-16 avionics and upgraded engines, making them pretty capable attack aircraft.

The problem with relying on Mount Pleasant is that it's a fixed target that has limited aircraft, and as such it's vulnerable. Since the UK doesn't have a carrier with fixed wing aircraft anymore, they're screwed as far as air superiority fighters go: If they lose Mount Pleasant and Stanley, they're out of the game.
 
2013-01-03 08:29:46 PM  

Wenchmaster: codergirl42: That does not appear to be a steam powered vessel.

Gas-turbine, I believe. Note also the VLS (Vertical Launch System) bays fore and aft and the low-radar-observable assembly around the forward mast.

It looks like the UK's equivalent of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. One of those ships pretty much outguns the entire Argentine military. Then there are the British subs- not to metion troops and missile batteries on the islands themselves.

If Argentina tries force again (unlikely, but I'm not putting it past them), they'll get their fundaments served to them on silver tea-trays with cucumber sandwiches. Perhaps the Argentine government could try some novel approach to dealing with its unpopularity at home in lieu of refusing to learn from history.


It looks like a type 42, albeit I worked mostly on subs ... the fun toys are in the square squat structure between the main gun and the bridge. The over horizon steered beam radar is a wicked bit of kit. As are the Sea Wolf's at the back.
 
2013-01-03 08:33:20 PM  

Bungles: Paul Baumer: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

Errrr.... the British rule of Zimbabwe was a large part of why it went to hell after they left.


That really isn't true. In Pakistan and Iraq (originally) yes, but Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe was left as the bread basket of Africa, with a fully established democratic legislature. and was not created from badly demarcated ethic tensions. The crisis in Zimbabwe is soley on the shoulders of Mugabe.


I'd say the installation of a white dominated government, a fifteen year war to prevent independence, and it's attendant effect on things did a great deal to help Mugabe and his ilk ascend to power. Saner treatment, and allowing self determination instead of propping up a minority government by force would have helped things out quite a bit.
 
2013-01-03 08:34:17 PM  

dittybopper: Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.

It takes less than a day to fly from Argentina to the Falklands. Hell, even their turboprop Pucaras take less than an hour, and they could trash the infrastructure at Mount Pleasant and Port Stanley and be landing troops within 6 hours of the initial attack if they planned it right. Hell, they could probably pre-position small units of troops days ahead of time in remote areas where they wouldn't be noticed. Insert them via sub or by other means (kayak from "fishing trawlers" offshore, perhaps?). A few troops with MANPADS in the right places could make it extremely uncomfortable for Limey pilots.

It would be expensive for the Argentines, to be sure, but they could pretty much make sure that the Typhoons wouldn't have a place to safely land by the time they could possibly reach the islands, especially if they kept it under wraps and then threw every offensive air asset they had at the islands at once, overwhelming the defenses there. They'd lose a lot of planes, but they could make that up before the Brits could do anything about it. Hell, they upgraded their A-4 Skyhawks a while back with F-16 avionics and upgraded engines, making them pretty capable attack aircraft.

The problem with relying on Mount Pleasant is that it's a fixed target that has limited aircraft, and as such it's vulnerable. Since the UK doesn't have a carrier with fixed wing aircraft anymore, they're screwed as far as air superiority fighters go: If they lose Mount Pleasant and Stanley, they're out of the game.


From where I'm sitting, that doesn't favour Argentina ... they really don't want to force us to conquer the mainland. If I was them I'd plan to lose. Half of their navy is still old beater British ships anyway, we used to use them for full scale explosive tests (Leander class and type 21)
 
2013-01-03 08:34:20 PM  

fusillade762: Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?


Not since 1865 with the passage of the British North America Act, which gave Canada sovereignty in most matters, but it's foreign policy was still dictated by the UK until 1931 with the Statues of Westminster. Canada gained full control of its foreign policy in 1949.

Canada fully broke away from UK in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which patriated the entirety of the BNA to Canada, and became the basis of the Canadian Constitution (which they then added a Bill of Rights to called Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

/took a Canadian History course in College
 
2013-01-03 08:39:09 PM  
England: "Go Falk yourself".
 
2013-01-03 08:42:34 PM  

saintstryfe: fusillade762: Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?

Not since 1865 with the passage of the British North America Act, which gave Canada sovereignty in most matters, but it's foreign policy was still dictated by the UK until 1931 with the Statues of Westminster. Canada gained full control of its foreign policy in 1949.

Canada fully broke away from UK in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which patriated the entirety of the BNA to Canada, and became the basis of the Canadian Constitution (which they then added a Bill of Rights to called Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

/took a Canadian History course in College


It's a member of the Commonwealth, like every former British colony except the USA. It's a Dominion (of itself) rather than a Republic because the Queen is still ceremonial head of state. Before that it was part of the empire; we used to say British Dependency, now Overseas Territory is more PC. No idea why the UN has a beef about it, it's not as if the S America group is an easy in to the World Cup or something.

Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please
 
2013-01-03 08:43:55 PM  

MOGGEE: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 244x207][encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 281x180][encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 226x223]

Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.


Are you 80?
 
2013-01-03 08:46:15 PM  

ParaHandy: saintstryfe: fusillade762: Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?

Not since 1865 with the passage of the British North America Act, which gave Canada sovereignty in most matters, but it's foreign policy was still dictated by the UK until 1931 with the Statues of Westminster. Canada gained full control of its foreign policy in 1949.

Canada fully broke away from UK in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which patriated the entirety of the BNA to Canada, and became the basis of the Canadian Constitution (which they then added a Bill of Rights to called Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

/took a Canadian History course in College

It's a member of the Commonwealth, like every former British colony except the USA. It's a Dominion (of itself) rather than a Republic because the Queen is still ceremonial head of state. Before that it was part of the empire; we used to say British Dependency, now Overseas Territory is more PC. No idea why the UN has a beef about it, it's not as if the S America group is an easy in to the World Cup or something.

Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please


Orlando 4 months out of the year?

Seriously, without googling or Wiki I'm going to guess probably Wales.
 
2013-01-03 08:49:08 PM  
We could always use the Reagan plan. Hand over the Falklands to the US in trust and let them manage the oil contracts.
 
2013-01-03 08:49:39 PM  
Getting popcorn ready for Operation Black Buck II, Electric Boogaloo.
 
2013-01-03 08:55:35 PM  
I'd like to see if those Type 45s are as good as they look on paper.
 
2013-01-03 08:57:02 PM  

ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?


Iceland isn't a british territory.
 
2013-01-03 09:00:55 PM  

ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please


If I had to guess it would be something like the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands or something - one of those territories that were the tutorial level in the great game of empire building.
 
2013-01-03 09:01:39 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?


Has anyone mentioned yet that Spain had a flag.
 
2013-01-03 09:01:55 PM  

Suede head: First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island


According to the Encyclopaedia of a Thousand Lies, the Eurofighter has a maximum range of 1,800 miles. The UK to Ascension is 4,000 miles and Ascension to the Falklands is 3,800 miles.
 
2013-01-03 09:04:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?

Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.

European colonialism is a piss poor excuse for a foriegn policy as well.The British Empire hasn't mattered in quite some time either. The continuation of it's moldy relics is hardly in our interest.


The people of the Falklands have voted and overwhelmingly wanted to remain under UK rule. We stayed pretty hands off last time, but if it comes to blows again, I'd be fine with us handing over some munitions to the Brits if they needed them again like last time. No more than that though.
 
2013-01-03 09:07:21 PM  

thisispete: ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please

If I had to guess it would be something like the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands or something - one of those territories that were the tutorial level in the great game of empire building.


Isle of Man, and it's the House of Keys. 13th century iirc, while Iceland was still a Hiking colony.
 
2013-01-03 09:08:31 PM  
Hmm. I wonder what the updated version would be of the joke that made the rounds during the first Falklands war:

Q: Why did Argentina invade the Falklands?

A: To impress Jodie Foster!
 
2013-01-03 09:09:04 PM  

CthulhuCalling: Already been immortalized in song:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x320]


You know they're on tour right? Going to see them soon!
 
2013-01-03 09:10:25 PM  

ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?


Second oldest. There is another older one, with which it shares a name root, to the north, although unlike the one you are referring to it hasn't operated continuously.
 
2013-01-03 09:20:26 PM  

liam76: ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

Iceland isn't a british territory.


Niether is Maine. :)
 
2013-01-03 09:23:52 PM  

ParaHandy: saintstryfe: fusillade762: Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?

Not since 1865 with the passage of the British North America Act, which gave Canada sovereignty in most matters, but it's foreign policy was still dictated by the UK until 1931 with the Statues of Westminster. Canada gained full control of its foreign policy in 1949.

Canada fully broke away from UK in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which patriated the entirety of the BNA to Canada, and became the basis of the Canadian Constitution (which they then added a Bill of Rights to called Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

/took a Canadian History course in College

It's a member of the Commonwealth, like every former British colony except the USA. It's a Dominion (of itself) rather than a Republic because the Queen is still ceremonial head of state. Before that it was part of the empire; we used to say British Dependency, now Overseas Territory is more PC. No idea why the UN has a beef about it, it's not as if the S America group is an easy in to the World Cup or something.

Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please


Well, the Commonwealth is a generic term for non-US British Colonies. As far as I know the Commonwealth is basically a get-together for unimportant bureaucrats and the reason to have a run-up-to-the-Olympics athletic competition, but I could just be an ignorant half-Canadian/half-American twit. It could be called a Dominion until 1982 when it simply became a Nation, regardless of the head of state.

As for your trivia question, Isle of Mann's Tynwald is what I think you're thinking of. But I don't buy the claim. The one that can best be described is Iceland - the Althing is documented over 900 years old. Also possible is the Iroquois Six Nations - some records (equally as valid as the Manx ones) go back over 800 years. If you want to be REAL strict, universal suffrage of both sexes being the definition of Democracy, New Zealand gets a nod since 1893. And strictly speaking, it answers your question being New Zealand is a Commonwealth member.
 
2013-01-03 09:28:55 PM  

orbister: ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

Second oldest. There is another older one, with which it shares a name root, to the north, although unlike the one you are referring to it hasn't operated continuously.


Well if that's not a qualification then we'll have to hand it to Athens I think
 
2013-01-03 09:47:19 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


It was a surveyors mistake. For some reason it was codified anyways.

Can only get there through Canada or over the lake. It's also on an Indian Reservation which further complicates things.

The biggest reason would be that no one thinks its worth the bother.
 
2013-01-03 09:53:30 PM  

orbister: Suede head: First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island

According to the Encyclopaedia of a Thousand Lies, the Eurofighter has a maximum range of 1,800 miles. The UK to Ascension is 4,000 miles and Ascension to the Falklands is 3,800 miles.


How they fixed for tankers and air refueling?
 
2013-01-03 10:08:08 PM  

fusillade762: moops: WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.

Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.

Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?


No.
 
2013-01-03 10:20:54 PM  

CujoQuarrel: orbister: Suede head: First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island

According to the Encyclopaedia of a Thousand Lies, the Eurofighter has a maximum range of 1,800 miles. The UK to Ascension is 4,000 miles and Ascension to the Falklands is 3,800 miles.

How they fixed for tankers and air refueling?


Pretty good
 
2013-01-03 10:26:02 PM  

uttertosh: unyon: jamspoon: Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html

Informative and fun read.  Thanks for posting it.

ditto +1


Same here. I hadn't ever bothered checking on it. I always figured there was some kind of indigenous crowd there. I guess that's not the case.
 
2013-01-03 10:31:56 PM  

dittybopper: Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.

It takes less than a day to fly from Argentina to the Falklands. Hell, even their turboprop Pucaras take less than an hour, and they could trash the infrastructure at Mount Pleasant and Port Stanley and be landing troops within 6 hours of the initial attack if they planned it right. Hell, they could probably pre-position small units of troops days ahead of time in remote areas where they wouldn't be noticed. Insert them via sub or by other means (kayak from "fishing trawlers" offshore, perhaps?). A few troops with MANPADS in the right places could make it extremely uncomfortable for Limey pilots.

It would be expensive for the Argentines, to be sure, but they could pretty much make sure that the Typhoons wouldn't have a place to ...


Looking at the info on Wikipedia (I know, but it's good enough for armchair work) they have about 8 interceptors and 40 or so ground-attack jets, with another 35 or so turbo-prop attack planes. Jets will be at the far end of their range near the islands and can't stick around to fight for long. Unlike the UK, Argentina lacks air-to-air refueling capability. More telling, as far as I know, they lack any kind of good stand-off weapons capability. To bomb that base, they're pretty much going to have to fly right over it. You can be the Brits have AAA, SAMs (small, but good quality) and manpads. The bigger question for Argentina, is if it's worth burning 50 to 75% of your air force just to eliminate the airbase there. You still have a Type 45 there that is equal or superior to a Burke, and if Astute is in the neighborhood, the base you planned to return to is probably going to be a "blowed-up mess".
Not a great way to start a war - and that's assuming tactical surprise. If the Brits move a couple of the AEW Sea Kings down that way, you can kiss that surprise goodbye.
 
2013-01-03 10:42:54 PM  
Argentina is probably ready to start some shiat now because they know that Wee Hughie killed Billy Butcher.
 
2013-01-03 11:34:16 PM  
Not fair, the war hasn't even started yet, and the Brits have executed a preemptive attack using their Ugly Stick.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk

or they've embargoed all Makeup going to Argentina.
 
2013-01-03 11:44:45 PM  

deplorable: 1980 - Argentina said "it's ours" (nothing to do with oil recently been found or the fact they've ignored the islands for a hundred or so years)

We asked the islanders.

they said "we wanna be british"

Argentina invaded and we destroyed them.

Argentina keep saying "give us back our land".

We said "no, they wanna be british"

Argentina cry to the UN and the US, who pat them on the head

we give the islanders a referendum due in march 2013

As soon as the year 2013 starts "it's ours.. give us back our land"

Lesson: Argentina will use the falklands to take away any crap they have back home and we should just nuke them. Be done with it. Maybe have "don't cry for me Argentina" on the missile.

They don't really give the world anything.... and i've lost family and friends to the ***'s


Bread and circuses man, bread and circuses. That's what Argentina's aiming for here.
 
2013-01-03 11:46:03 PM  

skinbubble: TheOther: Let me play you the song of my people...

NSFW

/NSFW

Eeewwww!!

/I lol'ed


I was like "WTF?!" and then loled hard.
 
2013-01-04 12:23:33 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Argentina is probably ready to start some shiat now because they know that Wee Hughie killed Billy Butcher.


A "The Boys" reference? In MY Argentina thread?
 
2013-01-04 12:28:15 AM  

Rangeley Tourist Hunter: Getting popcorn ready for Operation Black Buck II, Electric Boogaloo.


There's only one flying Vulcan, and it's civilian-operated and on its last legs.
 
2013-01-04 12:40:49 AM  
Argentina, debt mounts as they try to find ways to pay billions back to creditors. It's a basic cluster fark where the witch of the south looks on Falkland's vast oil and natural gas fields as future income.

s8.postimage.org
 
2013-01-04 01:23:10 AM  
i.imm.io
 
2013-01-04 01:31:32 AM  

onyxruby: Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.

It was a surveyors mistake. For some reason it was codified anyways.

Can only get there through Canada or over the lake. It's also on an Indian Reservation which further complicates things.

The biggest reason would be that no one thinks its worth the bother.


Are you familiar with Point Roberts? It's a tiny tip of the peninsula due south of Vancouver, inaccessible by land except through Canada, but part of the state of Washington.

www.worldofbeekeeping.com
 
2013-01-04 01:47:46 AM  

doyner: simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?

Yes.  British citizenship.


Is there anyone on the islands to care?
 
2013-01-04 02:42:03 AM  

CujoQuarrel: savage_world: So... we can safely assume there's something going wrong in Argentina that the government really doesn't want its populace worrying about?

Their economy tanking again?


When a government prohibits citizens from acquiring foreign currency, you know things are bad.
 
2013-01-04 02:45:42 AM  

AlHarris31: Zoophagous: This thread needs more pics of the Agrentinian prez.

Here you go!
[blogs.telegraph.co.uk image 460x288]


Oh what THE fark!?!?!?!?!?
 
2013-01-04 02:57:03 AM  
If Argentina was famous for giving good concerts instead of for silver (Argentum), would it be named "Concertina"

/I'm just asking questions that others are afraid to ask.
 
2013-01-04 03:16:38 AM  

moops: WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.

Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 1949 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.


FTFY

fusillade762:
Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?


Nope.
 
2013-01-04 03:34:07 AM  

ParaHandy: saintstryfe: fusillade762: Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?

Not since 1865 with the passage of the British North America Act, which gave Canada sovereignty in most matters, but it's foreign policy was still dictated by the UK until 1931 with the Statues of Westminster. Canada gained full control of its foreign policy in 1949.

Canada fully broke away from UK in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which patriated the entirety of the BNA to Canada, and became the basis of the Canadian Constitution (which they then added a Bill of Rights to called Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

/took a Canadian History course in College

It's a member of the Commonwealth, like every former British colony except the USA. It's a Dominion (of itself) rather than a Republic because the Queen is still ceremonial head of state. Before that it was part of the empire; we used to say British Dependency, now Overseas Territory is more PC. No idea why the UN has a beef about it, it's not as if the S America group is an easy in to the World Cup or something.


Not exactly. Canada is still a Dominion, and it is a Dominion of itself, but in 1982 we had a monarchial regime change. Previously to 1982 we were beholden to the Queen of England, of the House of Windsor, QE2 in personage. With the passage of the 1982 Constitution, we are now beholden to the Queen of Canada, of the House of Windsor, coincidentally also QE2 in person.

I keep thinking that we Canucks should use a different rule of primogeniture, just to playfully screw with things down the line, though that would also eventually mean that the monarch of Canada would have no more reason to live at Buckingham and would probably take residence here, more definitively separating out the monarchies. There are some legislative rumblings in this direction - the British crown is currently male-preference cognatic primogeniture, and they're leaning to absolute cognatic instead of male-preference. We could amend the Canadian crown to be female-preference cognatic, maybe. You know, just to stir the pot a bit.
Matrilineal would be interesting too, and Princess Anne would make a good monarch. Her daughter, Zara, would be third in line, and she's shaping up to be fine aristrocrat, dedicating her time to charities like her mother.
 
2013-01-04 03:51:29 AM  

Enigmamf: When a government prohibits citizens from acquiring foreign currency, you know things are bad.


But it's good for tourists because it drives the currency black market. When I was in Buenos Aires last month I was getting seven pesos to the dollar, which was much better than the four point something official rate. People were really happy to get greenbacks and not at all shy about it.
 
2013-01-04 03:57:46 AM  

starsrift: I keep thinking that we Canucks should use a different rule of primogeniture, just to playfully screw with things down the line, though that would also eventually mean that the monarch of Canada would have no more reason to live at Buckingham and would probably take residence here, more definitively separating out the monarchies. There are some legislative rumblings in this direction - the British crown is currently male-preference cognatic primogeniture, and they're leaning to absolute cognatic instead of male-preference. We could amend the Canadian crown to be female-preference cognatic, maybe. You know, just to stir the pot a bit.


Probably easiest to go with the religion angle if you want the crowns to diverge. They may be changing the male preference rules but I doubt they'll ever let a Catholic (or Jew or anything else that isn't Anglican) sit on the throne of the UK. In Canada though, prohibiting someone from being head of state because of their religion would seem to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

/Suspects half the Commonwealth will become republics soon after Liz kicks the bucket.
 
2013-01-04 04:58:14 AM  

EngineerAU: Probably easiest to go with the religion angle if you want the crowns to diverge. They may be changing the male preference rules but I doubt they'll ever let a Catholic (or Jew or anything else that isn't Anglican) sit on the throne of the UK. In Canada though, prohibiting someone from being head of state because of their religion would seem to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


If the situation somehow arose that the heir by current primogeniture rules was non-Anglican, that's the only time the Charter could possibly come into play. That's a fairly weak argument for such a constitutional amendment - the easiest way would be to retain male-preference while Britain goes absolute.

I doubt the Commonwealth countries will do away with their Constitutional monarchies when Liz goes. I'd be very surprised. While Charles is unpopular abroad for his personal affairs - true - there's nothing to suggest he would fail to perform the duties required of him in the fashion that his mother and her subjects have reinvented the monarchy. Adultery's great for the tabloids and bad for PR, but the Prince of Wales has continued to demonstrate a strong will and interest to serve his presumptive subjects. On that line, though, he might be advised to travel more.
 
2013-01-04 05:23:16 AM  

0Icky0: If Argentina was famous for giving good concerts instead of for silver (Argentum), would it be named "Concertina"

/I'm just asking questions that others are afraid to ask.


Go to your room.
 
2013-01-04 05:28:11 AM  
Seriously, Argentina, stick to dancing, sex, and hiding senile Nazis. Fighting the Brits is not your forte.
 
2013-01-04 05:56:43 AM  

TheNewJesus: Argentina has great wine, great food, and great women.

The UK has beer, I guess?


newzstreet.com
 
2013-01-04 06:13:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Is there anyone on the islands to care?


3000+ citizens. I know that's, like totally, 0 in Americanian money, (hells, they can't even get a proper gov petition started - LOL) but the exchange rates to the euro are picking up rather nicely.
 
2013-01-04 06:17:45 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.


That's what the tinfoil brigade said in 1982. 30 years on, I have somehow missed the tanker convoys out of Stanley. Seen any?
 
2013-01-04 06:34:02 AM  

8tReAsUrEz: BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.

That's what the tinfoil brigade said in 1982. 30 years on, I have somehow missed the tanker convoys out of Stanley. Seen any?



There's a whole load of exploration rigs circling it, although they're not having the luck that the geology suggests that they should be having.

This isn't about oil though, this is about Argentina trying to distract their people from the clusterfark imploding economy with a bit of jingoistic patriotism. It's pretty helpful for the UK too, because they also love a bit of jingoistic patriotism. They'll do nothing about it though, because Britain would happily go to war over it if they invaded. And 95% of the population would support the war, because the Falkland Islanders have made it perfectly clear where they stand.
 
2013-01-04 06:40:16 AM  

Bungles: Wait....so technically, Argentina should hand itself over to Falklands rule. .WHAT A TWIST! It's better than season 2 of Battlestar Galactica!


Argentina becoming a dependency of the Falkland Islands would probably improve its economy and financial situation (it couldn't really make it any worse anyway).
 
2013-01-04 06:41:44 AM  

8tReAsUrEz: BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.

That's what the tinfoil brigade said in 1982. 30 years on, I have somehow missed the tanker convoys out of Stanley. Seen any?


The vast majority of oil reserves are unrecoverable with current technical capabilities.... You think a Government won't dibs massive reserves even though they can't get it out of the ground right now?.. Bless your cotton socks
 
2013-01-04 07:18:44 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's all about the oil, of course.


The answer to the question I came in here to ask.
 
2013-01-04 07:21:40 AM  

cynicalbastard: Seriously, Argentina, stick to dancing, sex, and hiding senile Nazis. Fighting the Brits is not your forte.


Well, on the other hand, sea power is no longer the Brits forte either. The odds would be considerably more even this time, at least once the Argentines took the islands, which would be costly, but they could do it.

That's the British strategy, btw: The force they have there isn't necessarily overwhelming enough to prevent a successful invasion. It's job, however, is to make such an attempt too expensive from the point of view of Argentina. Or as I like to say, "You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make is so expensive the other guy won't try".
 
2013-01-04 07:48:12 AM  

ParaHandy: Bungles: Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.

You forget that since 1982, Menwith Hill in Yorkshire has become the lynchpin of US surveillance of Europe, eastern Russia and the northern chunk of the Middle East, not just a random satellite base. There's not a chance in hell that the US wouldn't provide full-bloddied support to the British if the Falklands were invaded again.

The US Navy is no longer in Bermuda, but in 1982 there was a strategic presence there ... 50 year lease at the end of WW2 allowing the US a strategic forward listening post, and the UK to wind down HMS Malabar. Used to track launches from Cape Canaveral - Bermuda has awesome natural radio reception due to its alignment with the earth's magnetic field. The advance Harrier group went out there quick ...


The Americas Accord clearly states that it only applies if a signatory is attacked. Argentina was the aggressor here, so no Americas Accord for them.
 
2013-01-04 07:50:57 AM  

dittybopper: cynicalbastard: Seriously, Argentina, stick to dancing, sex, and hiding senile Nazis. Fighting the Brits is not your forte.

Well, on the other hand, sea power is no longer the Brits forte either. The odds would be considerably more even this time, at least once the Argentines took the islands, which would be costly, but they could do it.

That's the British strategy, btw: The force they have there isn't necessarily overwhelming enough to prevent a successful invasion. It's job, however, is to make such an attempt too expensive from the point of view of Argentina. Or as I like to say, "You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make is so expensive the other guy won't try".


I suspect that a few minutes of footage of elderly Falkland Islanders filming a military invasion force invading their homes on the evening news, and global opinion would rather quickly side with them.

There isn't really a way to make "grandma being manhandled by soldiers" look good for the soldiers, regardless of any other argument.
 
2013-01-04 08:00:47 AM  
I suspect the sight of a single squad of Ghurkas jumping up and down, waving their knives in the air and going "Booga Booga!" would be enough to cause most of the Argentinian forces to shiat themselves and start swimming for home.
 
2013-01-04 08:52:58 AM  
The first thing I don't understand is why Argentinians keep falling for this. It's as if when the economy is really bad and the country is tanking all a President has to do is rattle swords over the Falklands. They were never Argentinian, they have no legitimate claim to them, but their blind nationalism tells them otherwise.

The second thing I don't understand is blind nationalism, especially over a mediocre country that has never come close to living up to its potential and has no prospect for doing so now.
 
2013-01-04 09:17:13 AM  
So, the Argies are trying to steal back the Falklands again?

What's next?  The return of knit ties?

/Was there for the 1980s the first time around, don't need to live through them again.
 
2013-01-04 09:59:45 AM  

cynicalbastard: I suspect the sight of a single squad of Ghurkas jumping up and down, waving their knives in the air and going "Booga Booga!" would be enough to cause most of the Argentinian forces to shiat themselves and start swimming for home.


That's racist. You wouldn't be saying that if they were white.
 
2013-01-04 10:03:31 AM  

Latinwolf: Fark Rye For Many Whores: Gecko Gingrich: Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

What's the Spanish word for "irony"?

These people were white.

As are most Argentinians.


Yeah, but they're not WHITE white.
 
2013-01-04 10:20:53 AM  

capt.hollister: The first thing I don't understand is why Argentinians keep falling for this.


I was in Argentina last month. No one really cared about the Falklands even when I brought up the subject. They were upset about inflation and that international bankers were able to seize their naval training ship in Ghana but the Falklands... no one cared. Most people in Buenos Aires seemed to not be huge fans of the president but they were even more resentful about outside financial interests mucking around in their economy (even if it was their own government that enabled this through borrowing). Though they may have been trying to be polite by not getting upset when a foreigner brought up the subject of the Falklands, since they were willing to discuss just about anything and weren't shy about making their opinions known, I doubt politeness was the reason.

Unrelated: There are not many overweight people in Argentina. Thought that might be a South American thing but the BF% skyrocketed after crossing into Brazil.
 
2013-01-04 10:29:10 AM  

TheOther: Let me play you the song of my people...

NSFW

/NSFW


I'll never look at Ricky Ricardo the same way anymore because of that.
 
2013-01-04 10:31:53 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Captain Steroid: Is this some sort of Argentinian "right of passage"? Once a generation, they try and usurp the Falklands from the hands of the British?

South America is WEIRD. :/

It's a socialist thing. Every new generation is fed a pack of propaganda about how great their dirt-poor country is, now that the shackles of oppression imposed by the evil corporations have been thrown off. The new generation quickly figures out that it's all bunk (otherwise why are they stuck tilling mud and working in sweatshops?) and decides that the last generation's heroes are really this generation's evil corporate overlords. Like all good socialists, eventually they form a political movement that siezes power, nationalizes all the industries for the greater good, crashes the economy as a direct result, and needs someone to blame for it other than themselves so they can cling to power long enough to make everything better (an effort doomed by the fact that the only actions their socialist moral code will let them take are the ones that keep making everything worse).

Argentina is lucky in this regard, as they have the Falklands as an excuse for why soaking the rich doesn't work, one that's actually within striking distance of their military. As long as the British value the Falklands, the Argentinans can continue to ignore the flaws inherent to socialism forever, at the cost of a humiliating military defeat every 20 to 30 years.


You know how I know you don't know anything about the Argentine economy and government? Despite some serious setbacks in the past decade, Argentina is still the 11th richest country in the world on a per-capita basis.
 
2013-01-04 10:38:01 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?

Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.

European colonialism is a piss poor excuse for a foriegn policy as well.The British Empire hasn't mattered in quite some time either. The continuation of it's moldy relics is hardly in our interest.


So, what's your rationale for assigning sovereignty of one former European colony (The Falklands) to another former European colony (Argentina), against the will of the people who make up the former? Please note that the Monroe Doctrine does not apply.
 
2013-01-04 10:42:59 AM  

mbillips: You know how I know you don't know anything about the Argentine economy and government? Despite some serious setbacks in the past decade, Argentina is still the 11th richest country in the world on a per-capita basis.


Their per-capita GDP is about 17,660 which puts them someone near 50.  What the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-01-04 10:48:08 AM  

mbillips: You know how I know you don't know anything about the Argentine economy and government? Despite some serious setbacks in the past decade, Argentina is still the 11th richest country in the world on a per-capita basis.


Many USAians tend to not be very well traveled and thus are very prone to really odd ways of thinking about the world. Most Fark threads about Africa or South America are filled with comments that show a belief that social and economic systems are uniform across entire continents.
 
2013-01-04 10:59:30 AM  
subby is a prick. England and Britain are 2 completely different entities.

/Scottish
 
2013-01-04 11:02:15 AM  

stellarossa: /Scottish


Oh man, I'm sorry.
 
2013-01-04 11:39:03 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: TheOther: Let me play you the song of my people...

NSFW

/NSFW

I'll never look at Ricky Ricardo the same way anymore because of that.


Lucy finally gets her wish to be in the show.
 
2013-01-04 11:44:57 AM  

dittybopper: Suede head: ParaHandy: Medic Zero: DoBeDoBeDo: So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?

Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.

Fuel on the other hand .... how does a Harrier flight group get from the UK to the S Atlantic without an aircraft carrier?

/ US Navy air base, Cooper's Is. Bermuda for a quick pit stop
// family comes before the Americas Accord
/// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?

First hint of trouble or Argentine mobilisation and there'd be a squadron of Typhoon fifth gen fighters flying in to Mount Pleasant airbase via Ascension Island quickly followed by Globemasters carrying the Spearhead battalion which the British Army keeps on a few hours standby to deploy anywhere in the world. Meanwhile at least one nuclear sub would be warming up the land attack Tomahawks to trash Punta Arenas airfield and probably put one through the front door of the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires for good measure. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the islands again and they know it.

It takes less than a day to fly from Argentina to the Falklands. Hell, even their turboprop Pucaras take less than an hour, and they could trash the infrastructure at Mount Pleasant and Port Stanley and be landing troops within 6 hours of the initial attack if they planned it right. Hell, they could probably pre-position small units of troops days ahead of time in remote areas where they wouldn't be noticed. Insert them via sub or by other means (kayak from "fishing trawlers" offshore, perhaps?). A few troops with MANPADS in the right places could make it extremely uncomfortable for Limey pilots.

It would be expensive for the Argentines, to be sure, but they could pretty much make sure that the Typhoons wouldn't have a place to safe ...


Nice plan except for the fact that mount pleasent is so heavily defended That even if Argentina accepted 100% loses in its airforce it is unlikely to knock anything out or even cause that much disruption. Add to that the naval assets in the area which would ensure any invasion fleet will almost certainly be wiped out. Then you have a battalion of the British army who have strong local knowledge and decades to prepare concealed defensive positions. It would be a horrible slaughter of the argentine forces.
Additional eurofigthers and a carrier force would not be needed but the UK has a few deals in place that they can loan or even buy some aircraft carriers and there air complement from a couple of nations.
 
2013-01-04 12:01:45 PM  

EngineerAU: mbillips: You know how I know you don't know anything about the Argentine economy and government? Despite some serious setbacks in the past decade, Argentina is still the 11th richest country in the world on a per-capita basis.

Many USAians tend to not be very well traveled and thus are very prone to really odd ways of thinking about the world. Most Fark threads about Africa or South America are filled with comments that show a belief that social and economic systems are uniform across entire continents.


I would say the odd way of thinking being displayed here is assuming the American is wrong because he is American.

Can you back up his claim about Argentinas rank with anything other than assumptions about the knowledge of people from the USA?
 
2013-01-04 12:18:26 PM  

spiderpaz: mbillips: You know how I know you don't know anything about the Argentine economy and government? Despite some serious setbacks in the past decade, Argentina is still the 11th richest country in the world on a per-capita basis.

Their per-capita GDP is about 17,660 which puts them someone near 50.  What the hell are you talking about?


According to the CIA factbook, they're 68th in GDP (by PPP) but have an inflation-adjusted (i.e. real) growth rate of 8%, ranking them 11th in GDP growth. You're more right than mbillips, but (s)he's not pulling numbers out of nowhere, just slightly misinterpreting them.
 
2013-01-04 12:53:49 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: The return of knit ties?


Dude, you can't call them "Knit ties" anymore. They are "wool cravats".
 
2013-01-04 01:11:19 PM  

dittybopper: DjangoStonereaver: The return of knit ties?

Dude, you can't call them "Knit ties" anymore. They are "wool cravats".


Meh.  I always preferred the skinny satin ties with keyboards on them, anyway.
 
2013-01-04 01:14:30 PM  
The amount of derp coming out of Argentina regarding the Falkland islands is mind-blowing.
 
2013-01-04 01:15:15 PM  

AirForceVet: The English have their faults, but even I'd prefer being under British rule of law as opposed to the squirrelly Argentinian government.

/Beer's better too.


and this
 
2013-01-04 01:20:25 PM  
Because the British can fight, while the Argentines are whiny punk-ass biatches true to their greaseball hand-raising Italian roots?
 
2013-01-04 01:23:23 PM  

ParaHandy: /// On Sept 12 2001, the Queen ordered the changing of the guard ceremony be set to something other than the UK national anthem for the first time in living memory. Guess what it was?


"Whoomp There It Is"?
 
2013-01-04 01:33:22 PM  

ParaHandy: Quote from earlier today "the future of the Falkland Islands will be decided by the islanders themselves in a referendum." There will be 3 choices (UK dependency status quo, independence, join Argentina)


Wait, they can vote for independence? All 2,800 of them?

Shoot, with a few hundred modest bribes, you could REALLY fark up international relations.

/for added difficulty, have the newly independent nation of the Falkland Islands declare war on both Argentina and the UK
 
2013-01-04 01:38:52 PM  

cynicalbastard: waving their knives in the air


aren't they the ones that if the knife is out it must draw blood?
 
2013-01-04 01:46:27 PM  

goatan: Nice plan except for the fact that mount pleasent is so heavily defended That even if Argentina accepted 100% loses in its airforce it is unlikely to knock anything out or even cause that much disruption. Add to that the naval assets in the area which would ensure any invasion fleet will almost certainly be wiped out. Then you have a battalion of the British army who have strong local knowledge and decades to prepare concealed defensive positions. It would be a horrible slaughter of the argentine forces.
Additional eurofigthers and a carrier force would not be needed but the UK has a few deals in place that they can loan or even buy some aircraft carriers and there air complement from a couple of nations.


You don't have to completely destroy Mount Pleasant, and, if you look at it on Google Earth, it's not all that well defended in the first place.

Here is how I would do it:

1. Infiltrate very small squads of special operations soldiers with MANPADS close enough to Mount Pleasant that they can effectively target aircraft landing or taking off. You could insert them via submarine, or by kayak from a "fishing vessel" (something the Brits pioneered back in WWII).

2. Have an initial strike force that is relatively modest in size, and heavy on the fighters. The AA squads would get radio notification of "weapons free" by some pre-arranged signal, and so when the fighters at Mount Pleasant scramble to meet the incoming strike, they have to deal with that before anything. They won't be expecting it, and the first warning they'll get is a missile up their arse.

3. The follow-up strike force is almost all ground attack aircraft targeting places like Mount Pleasant and Stanley airport, with special emphasis on the AA assets. This would be followed immediately by troops coming in by air.

4. The single Type 45 destroyer usually in the area would be targeted either by the strike aircraft if it's in dock, using terrain to mask the radar so that by the time they can be targeted they are already shooting at it, or by one of the Type 1700 submarines that Argentina owns: Those are very capable, modern diesel electric boats.

5. The British SSN likely lurking in the area would be a problem, but only for the Argentine navy, not for the ground troops or air force. This danger can be mitigated by spreading your sea-born force among a large number of smaller vessels that aren't near each other, sort of a reverse, spread out Dunkirk: At best, the submarine could only sink one or two at a time, and it would have to go fast to intercept more. This means it would have to make noise, which would allow it to be targeted by Argentine ASW assets, or alternatively accept that they can only destroy 2 to 5% of the assets sailing to the Falklands by sea. Not to mention that wasting an expensive torpedo on an inexpensive fishing trawler with mere platoon of troops on it isn't very efficient, and will result in depletion of ammo very quickly to little effect.

The only real fly in this ointment is that it has to be done with very little warning for the British, otherwise they will have time to reinforce, flying in more troops and aircraft. *THAT* is the hard part, but if you can pull that off, you can occupy the islands, and prevent the British from resupplying any troops still resisting, and you can then mop them up.

Obviously, the Argentines would take greater initial losses than they did in 1982. Balancing that, however, is that the British have less capability to retake the islands than they had in 1982. No fixed wing carrier aircraft, and the RAF's main strike aircraft have less than half the unrefueled combat range as the Vulcans used in the Blind Buck raids, and can carry something like a bit over half the armament. The UK currently only has 14 refueling aircraft, and they'd have to bring them perilously close to the engagement area in order to refuel the Tornadoes and Typhoons used for ground attack missions, which would have to be staged out of Ascension Island, 3,400 nautical miles away. Panavia Tornado has a combat radius (which I assume means full up with ammo, and no drop tanks) of about 750 miles. Double that for straight line distance, and you get 1,500 miles. Just to get from Ascension to the Falklands, you'd have to aerial refuel each Tornado a minimum of 3 times, and you'd likely need at least 2 more for the return trip. Doable, but a lot of work, very expensive, and it puts your tanker assets at risk.
 
2013-01-04 01:52:25 PM  

dittybopper: 5. The British SSN likely lurking in the area would be a problem, but only for the Argentine navy, not for the ground troops or air force. This danger can be mitigated by spreading your sea-born force among a large number of smaller vessels that aren't near each other, sort of a reverse, spread out Dunkirk: At best, the submarine could only sink one or two at a time, and it would have to go fast to intercept more.


A second benefit of this is that you could pre-position them and have them pretty close to the islands before the Brits knew what they were: They'd look like normal fishing vessels, which is what they are, just with a platoon of soldiers on board.

When they receive a signal over the radio, they head for their designated landing areas, which would be dispersed, and upon landing, they would go to predetermined rally points to link up with other units and then proceed to their objectives, or alternatively, proceed there independently.
 
2013-01-04 01:53:01 PM  

zedster: cynicalbastard: waving their knives in the air

aren't they the ones that if the knife is out it must draw blood?


No, those are mohels.
 
2013-01-04 02:00:47 PM  

stellarossa: subby is a prick. England and Britain are 2 completely different entities.

/Scottish


Never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity. Subby is just butt fark ignorant like most Americans.

80% of British people travel internationally. 43% of Americans never leave their home STATE in their lives.
 
2013-01-04 02:02:53 PM  

semiotix: ParaHandy: Quote from earlier today "the future of the Falkland Islands will be decided by the islanders themselves in a referendum." There will be 3 choices (UK dependency status quo, independence, join Argentina)

Wait, they can vote for independence? All 2,800 of them?

Shoot, with a few hundred modest bribes, you could REALLY fark up international relations.

/for added difficulty, have the newly independent nation of the Falkland Islands declare war on both Argentina and the UK


This is not an American election for Dog Catcher of Buttfark County, AL. I don't think you grok the Falkland Islander mind set.
 
2013-01-04 02:25:05 PM  

ParaHandy: stellarossa: subby is a prick. England and Britain are 2 completely different entities.

/Scottish

Never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity. Subby is just butt fark ignorant like most Americans.

80% of British people travel internationally. 43% of Americans never leave their home STATE in their lives.


Somewhat misleading, since you would be hard pressed to travel 700 miles in the UK without crossing borders (that considers Scotland as part of the contiguous UK) London to Paris is hardly more than 300 miles. That would take me from New Orleans into Texas but not reaching Houston. Sorry, but your little half grown nations often compare in size to our states. The fact that most of us speak English here is also the reason why few are bilingual. Its just not useful, since we can drive a thousand miles and still be in the US.
 
2013-01-04 02:36:36 PM  

Medic Zero: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?

Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.

European colonialism is a piss poor excuse for a foriegn policy as well.The British Empire hasn't mattered in quite some time either. The continuation of it's moldy relics is hardly in our interest.

The people of the Falklands have voted and overwhelmingly wanted to remain under UK rule. We stayed pretty hands off last time, but if it comes to blows again, I'd be fine with us handing over some munitions to the Brits if they needed them again like last time. No more than that though.


screw that. They had our backs in iraq and afghanistan. We should lend them an entire carrier battle group if they request it.
 
2013-01-04 02:41:32 PM  

ParaHandy: stellarossa: subby is a prick. England and Britain are 2 completely different entities.

/Scottish

Never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity. Subby is just butt fark ignorant like most Americans.

80% of British people travel internationally. 43% of Americans never leave their home STATE in their lives.



# of U.S. states larger than the entirety of the United Kingdom: 11

We also have to go a farking long way to end up somewhere other than Canada, Mexico, or a tiny island.
Also, in contrast to the U.K., the U.S. makes up a large part of an entire continent, and features arguably the greatest combination of terrain/climate/culture diversity of any nation on earth.
 
2013-01-04 02:52:50 PM  

Medic Zero: The people of the Falklands have voted and overwhelmingly wanted to remain under UK rule. We stayed pretty hands off last time, but if it comes to blows again, I'd be fine with us handing over some munitions to the Brits if they needed them again like last time. No more than that though.



Yes, snubbing our best friends on the planet after they've been invaded would be fantastic Smart Diplomacy.

I'm very glad that you're not in charge of anything. Are you hoping for us to take the "We can go everything alone" attitude of the Bush Doctrine to its fullest?
 
2013-01-04 03:15:54 PM  

Maul555: screw that. They had our backs in iraq and afghanistan. We should lend them an entire carrier battle group if they request it.


I'd approve. One Aegis cruiser would make short work of the Argentine A-4s.
 
2013-01-04 03:17:03 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: ParaHandy: stellarossa: subby is a prick. England and Britain are 2 completely different entities.

/Scottish

Never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity. Subby is just butt fark ignorant like most Americans.

80% of British people travel internationally. 43% of Americans never leave their home STATE in their lives.

Somewhat misleading, since you would be hard pressed to travel 700 miles in the UK without crossing borders (that considers Scotland as part of the contiguous UK) London to Paris is hardly more than 300 miles. That would take me from New Orleans into Texas but not reaching Houston. Sorry, but your little half grown nations often compare in size to our states. The fact that most of us speak English here is also the reason why few are bilingual. Its just not useful, since we can drive a thousand miles and still be in the US.


Hell, you can drive (well, maybe walk at some points) from Point Barrow, Alaska to Terra del Fuego and only have to speak two languages - English & Spanish.

(you'd avoid virtually all the indigenous pockets, E. Canada, St. P & M, Brasil, Suriname, and the various Dutch & French islands)
 
2013-01-04 03:50:18 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Maul555: screw that. They had our backs in iraq and afghanistan. We should lend them an entire carrier battle group if they request it.

I'd approve. One Aegis cruiser would make short work of the Argentine A-4s.


They're still using A-4's?

(Checks Wikipedia).

Well whaddaya know?

I always liked the A-4 as a plane:  decent workhorse air-to-ground fighter.
 
2013-01-04 03:50:35 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


It is a victim of the Treaty of Paris and the poor state of surveying at the time.

Basically, the Mississippi wasn't where people thought it was. The Ohio-Michigan war arose from a similar problem.
 
2013-01-04 03:52:49 PM  

thisispete: ParaHandy: Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please

If I had to guess it would be something like the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands or something - one of those territories that were the tutorial level in the great game of empire building.


The Isle of Man democracy hasn't been continuous, though. It was German territory from 1940-1945.
 
2013-01-04 04:03:07 PM  

ParaHandy: It's a member of the Commonwealth, like every former British colony except the USA.


Vanuatu and Hong Kong are also no longer a Commonwealth member.
 
2013-01-04 04:08:28 PM  

EngineerAU: Many USAians tend to not be very well traveled and thus are very prone to really odd ways of thinking about the world.


Americans travel great distances, but to few countries. Europeans often misunderstand how large the North American nations are. When the US beat the CSA in the Civil War, they conquered a nation larger than the greatest extent of Napolean's empire.
 
2013-01-04 04:11:53 PM  

dittybopper: Obviously, the Argentines would take greater initial losses than they did in 1982. Balancing that, however, is that the British have less capability to retake the islands than they had in 1982.


I doubt the US would take too kindly to the Argentinians invading and massacring British civilians on their own island and toppling their democratic government.

They'd come down on that like the hand of god.
 
2013-01-04 04:24:22 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: Its just not useful, since we can drive a thousand miles and still be in the US.


You can drive from Fairbanks, Alaska to Key West, Florida, and never need a language other than English.
That's roughly the same driving distance as Aberdeen, Scotland to Kabul, Afghanistan.
 
2013-01-04 04:27:00 PM  

FLMountainMan: Hell, you can drive (well, maybe walk at some points) from Point Barrow, Alaska to Terra del Fuego and only have to speak two languages - English & Spanish.

(you'd avoid virtually all the indigenous pockets, E. Canada, St. P & M, Brasil, Suriname, and the various Dutch & French islands)


If you used some boats, you could get from pole to pole on that same longitude and and still never need something besides English and Spanish.
 
2013-01-04 04:48:09 PM  

This text is now purple: EngineerAU: Many USAians tend to not be very well traveled and thus are very prone to really odd ways of thinking about the world.

Americans travel great distances, but to few countries. Europeans often misunderstand how large the North American nations are. When the US beat the CSA in the Civil War, they conquered a nation larger than the greatest extent of Napolean's empire.


Which doesn't change the fact that a very large percentage of people living in the United States never experience other countries directly. It's not a question of distance, it's a question of diversity. Having a Chinatown in a couple of large cities isn't the same as going to China.
 
2013-01-04 04:50:37 PM  

BigNumber12: Medic Zero: The people of the Falklands have voted and overwhelmingly wanted to remain under UK rule. We stayed pretty hands off last time, but if it comes to blows again, I'd be fine with us handing over some munitions to the Brits if they needed them again like last time. No more than that though.


Yes, snubbing our best friends on the planet after they've been invaded would be fantastic Smart Diplomacy.

I'm very glad that you're not in charge of anything. Are you hoping for us to take the "We can go everything alone" attitude of the Bush Doctrine to its fullest?


Who said anything about snubbing them? They won't need any help spanking the Argies, all I'm saying is let's not get too involved so that we don't yet another war on our hands. In case you haven't noticed we are stretched a little thin at the moment. I'm all for the US supporting the UK, just because I didn't advocate us nuking BA for them doesn't mean I'm not.

lightenupfrancis.jpg
 
2013-01-04 04:57:28 PM  
Considering recent US policy, if Argentina attacks the Falklands, the US will invade Venezuela.
 
2013-01-04 05:12:08 PM  

electronicmaji: Las Islas Malvinas son Argentinas.


Argentina should really start a infiltration terrorist campaign against these pitiful little islands and the larger ones . Suicide bombing for the Argentine motherland will buy their rights back with british blood. DEATH TO ENGLAND!


Los Trollas!!!
Uno/Diez
 
2013-01-04 05:38:47 PM  

This text is now purple: The Isle of Man democracy hasn't been continuous, though. It was German territory from 1940-1945.


Nope. You're thinking of the Channel Islands. Isle of Man is between Ireland and Britain.
 
2013-01-04 05:41:44 PM  

Medic Zero: Who said anything about snubbing them? They won't need any help spanking the Argies, all I'm saying is let's not get too involved so that we don't yet another war on our hands. In case you haven't noticed we are stretched a little thin at the moment. I'm all for the US supporting the UK, just because I didn't advocate us nuking BA for them doesn't mean I'm not.

lightenupfrancis.jpg


We're pretty much compelled to jump into the fray if they're attacked, and they would almost certainly ask for our support. They simply cannot project power at such distance the way we can.

I was mostly responding to your tone. Your "no more than that" came across as pretty "fark those guys, we don't owe them shiat."
 
2013-01-04 07:21:55 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: ParaHandy: stellarossa: subby is a prick. England and Britain are 2 completely different entities.

/Scottish

Never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity. Subby is just butt fark ignorant like most Americans.

80% of British people travel internationally. 43% of Americans never leave their home STATE in their lives.

Somewhat misleading, since you would be hard pressed to travel 700 miles in the UK without crossing borders (that considers Scotland as part of the contiguous UK) London to Paris is hardly more than 300 miles. That would take me from New Orleans into Texas but not reaching Houston. Sorry, but your little half grown nations often compare in size to our states. The fact that most of us speak English here is also the reason why few are bilingual. Its just not useful, since we can drive a thousand miles and still be in the US.


I've lived in the US 13 years and been to about 25 states.
 
2013-01-04 07:45:02 PM  

BigNumber12: # of U.S. states larger than the entirety of the United Kingdom: 11

We also have to go a farking long way to end up somewhere other than Canada, Mexico, or a tiny island.



Ok, put it another way then, dropping the whole 'country' angle. 20% of all Britons never leaving their home State (y'know... the Nanny one), compared to 43% of all Americans never leaving their home State.

Better? Not really, I know.

When you consider the majority of the population of the US lives on the coasts, or in major cities with tons of airports, I'd say it's still a fair insight into whatever the hell the point of bringing up noththisshyteagain.jpg

/am I allowed to facepalm myself?
 
2013-01-04 07:47:18 PM  

BigNumber12: Medic Zero: Who said anything about snubbing them? They won't need any help spanking the Argies, all I'm saying is let's not get too involved so that we don't yet another war on our hands. In case you haven't noticed we are stretched a little thin at the moment. I'm all for the US supporting the UK, just because I didn't advocate us nuking BA for them doesn't mean I'm not.

lightenupfrancis.jpg

We're pretty much compelled to jump into the fray if they're attacked, and they would almost certainly ask for our support. They simply cannot project power at such distance the way we can.

I was mostly responding to your tone. Your "no more than that" came across as pretty "fark those guys, we don't owe them shiat."


Naw. I'm more than happy to give whatever support we can to the Brits, Canucks, and Aussies. They've always been staunch allies. Should the Argies be stupid enough to make a physical conflict out of it though, I'd prefer to see us in a support role, because it seems like it could turn into a real mess for us politically if we were the ones actually making strikes on mainland Argentina.
 
2013-01-04 07:58:21 PM  

Medic Zero: BigNumber12: Medic Zero: Who said anything about snubbing them? They won't need any help spanking the Argies, all I'm saying is let's not get too involved so that we don't yet another war on our hands. In case you haven't noticed we are stretched a little thin at the moment. I'm all for the US supporting the UK, just because I didn't advocate us nuking BA for them doesn't mean I'm not.

lightenupfrancis.jpg

We're pretty much compelled to jump into the fray if they're attacked, and they would almost certainly ask for our support. They simply cannot project power at such distance the way we can.

I was mostly responding to your tone. Your "no more than that" came across as pretty "fark those guys, we don't owe them shiat."

Naw. I'm more than happy to give whatever support we can to the Brits, Canucks, and Aussies. They've always been staunch allies. Should the Argies be stupid enough to make a physical conflict out of it though, I'd prefer to see us in a support role, because it seems like it could turn into a real mess for us politically if we were the ones actually making strikes on mainland Argentina.


The Argentinians would need to be pretty frigin bold for strikes against mainland Argentina part of the equation. I think short of slaughtering the British residents of the islands it would stay offshore and military based.
 
2013-01-04 08:28:50 PM  

This text is now purple: I doubt the US would take too kindly to the Argentinians invading and massacring British civilians on their own island and toppling their democratic government.


You are underestimating how much Obama dislikes the United Kingdom. He has routinely gone out of his way to offend the UK. Besides, most academic lefties have the reflexive assumption that Argentina's right and the UK is wrong because a) imperialism and b) shut up. Since he comes out of that background, he'd probably step aside and let the Argies proceed unimpeded.
 
2013-01-04 08:38:17 PM  
Gee, do you suppose this is about untapped resources?
 
2013-01-04 08:43:51 PM  

DanInKansas: This text is now purple: I doubt the US would take too kindly to the Argentinians invading and massacring British civilians on their own island and toppling their democratic government.

You are underestimating how much Obama dislikes the United Kingdom. He has routinely gone out of his way to offend the UK. Besides, most academic lefties have the reflexive assumption that Argentina's right and the UK is wrong because a) imperialism and b) shut up. Since he comes out of that background, he'd probably step aside and let the Argies proceed unimpeded.


4/10
Lame
 
2013-01-04 09:25:15 PM  

DanInKansas: This text is now purple: I doubt the US would take too kindly to the Argentinians invading and massacring British civilians on their own island and toppling their democratic government.

You are underestimating how much Obama dislikes the United Kingdom. He has routinely gone out of his way to offend the UK. Besides, most academic lefties have the reflexive assumption that Argentina's right and the UK is wrong because a) imperialism and b) shut up. Since he comes out of that background, he'd probably step aside and let the Argies proceed unimpeded.



This is total and utter bollocks. I'm British, and was in the UK when he visited. He was charming, the UK loves him, and Michele is the only person the Queen was totally ok with touching her in public.

I know it's some weird US rightwing meme that Obama despises the UK, and the UK is somehow offended by him. It's totally untrue. He has never offended the people of the UK. He has like 90%+ approval ratings here.

(Romney.... now that's another matter...)
 
2013-01-04 10:51:59 PM  

dittybopper: . . plan that would make Clancy or Bond proud snipped


I just don't see Argentina pulling off something that sophisticated - and it would require a fair bit of luck. Any one of the advance teams gets busted and you're boned. "Heavy on fighters" - you mean all 8 of them? "ASW assets" - unless an SSN surfaces, Argentina has none that will do any good against them. Above and beyond all that, The Type 45's and the subs can hit targets in mainland Argentina with high accuracy from over 1000 miles away. One side in this conflict can project power - and it isn't the one that speaks Spanish.
 
2013-01-04 11:11:17 PM  

Medic Zero: BigNumber12: Medic Zero: Who said anything about snubbing them? They won't need any help spanking the Argies, all I'm saying is let's not get too involved so that we don't yet another war on our hands. In case you haven't noticed we are stretched a little thin at the moment. I'm all for the US supporting the UK, just because I didn't advocate us nuking BA for them doesn't mean I'm not.

lightenupfrancis.jpg

We're pretty much compelled to jump into the fray if they're attacked, and they would almost certainly ask for our support. They simply cannot project power at such distance the way we can.

I was mostly responding to your tone. Your "no more than that" came across as pretty "fark those guys, we don't owe them shiat."

Naw. I'm more than happy to give whatever support we can to the Brits, Canucks, and Aussies. They've always been staunch allies. Should the Argies be stupid enough to make a physical conflict out of it though, I'd prefer to see us in a support role, because it seems like it could turn into a real mess for us politically if we were the ones actually making strikes on mainland Argentina.


How about we make the strikes with tomahawks painted with the union jack?
 
2013-01-04 11:30:50 PM  

Medic Zero: BigNumber12: Medic Zero: Who said anything about snubbing them? They won't need any help spanking the Argies, all I'm saying is let's not get too involved so that we don't yet another war on our hands. In case you haven't noticed we are stretched a little thin at the moment. I'm all for the US supporting the UK, just because I didn't advocate us nuking BA for them doesn't mean I'm not.

lightenupfrancis.jpg

We're pretty much compelled to jump into the fray if they're attacked, and they would almost certainly ask for our support. They simply cannot project power at such distance the way we can.

I was mostly responding to your tone. Your "no more than that" came across as pretty "fark those guys, we don't owe them shiat."

Naw. I'm more than happy to give whatever support we can to the Brits, Canucks, and Aussies. They've always been staunch allies. Should the Argies be stupid enough to make a physical conflict out of it though, I'd prefer to see us in a support role, because it seems like it could turn into a real mess for us politically if we were the ones actually making strikes on mainland Argentina.



Ah. Well good.

And yes - I think our role would be floating some expensive assets down there and supporting the shiat out of things.
 
2013-01-04 11:39:24 PM  

Frederick: Gee, do you suppose this is about untapped resources?


If there were any, do you think the Brits would be tapping them now?
 
2013-01-05 12:13:31 AM  

ParaHandy: saintstryfe: fusillade762: Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?

Not since 1865 with the passage of the British North America Act, which gave Canada sovereignty in most matters, but it's foreign policy was still dictated by the UK until 1931 with the Statues of Westminster. Canada gained full control of its foreign policy in 1949.

Canada fully broke away from UK in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which patriated the entirety of the BNA to Canada, and became the basis of the Canadian Constitution (which they then added a Bill of Rights to called Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

/took a Canadian History course in College

It's a member of the Commonwealth, like every former British colony except the USA. It's a Dominion (of itself) rather than a Republic because the Queen is still ceremonial head of state. Before that it was part of the empire; we used to say British Dependency, now Overseas Territory is more PC. No idea why the UN has a beef about it, it's not as if the S America group is an easy in to the World Cup or something.

Fun quiz for the Americans ... which current British territory has the world's oldest democracy, predating Westminster by at least 200 years? What is the name of its legislative body?

/ Brits no spoilers please


Is it the Manx assembly? I forget what it was called- a Thing, like the Icelandic?

//Ex-GF part Manx; visited the Isle of Man back in '94//
 
2013-01-05 12:20:57 AM  
I think as a measure of good faith, Argentina should return all Paraguayan territory it took by force of arms during the 19th century. You know, to show how much they think such actions were illegitimate and shouldn't impact current territorial boundaries.
 
2013-01-05 12:49:52 AM  

This text is now purple: EngineerAU: Many USAians tend to not be very well traveled and thus are very prone to really odd ways of thinking about the world.

Americans travel great distances, but to few countries. Europeans often misunderstand how large the North American nations are. When the US beat the CSA in the Civil War, they conquered a nation larger than the greatest extent of Napolean's empire.


Yet Canadians who live in a country even larger than the US have often travelled to the outside world...

You're right about Europeans not understanding the size of our countries, though. Anecdotes abound of Euro tourists asking if they can drive to Toronto (600km) or Vancouver (5000km) from Montreal and be back for dinner. I was witness to a slightly less spectacular, but still telling, fail a couple of summers ago: I was waiting for a light in downtown Montreal when some French tourists in the next car asked us for the best route to Québec City and how far it was. The look on the wife's face when the friend I was with told them it was a "short" 250km drive was priceless. Of course, French tourists just don't realize that the province of Québec has a landmass that is 7 times that of France which Europeans consider a large country...
 
2013-01-05 09:17:02 AM  

TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . . plan that would make Clancy or Bond proud snipped

I just don't see Argentina pulling off something that sophisticated - and it would require a fair bit of luck. Any one of the advance teams gets busted and you're boned. "Heavy on fighters" - you mean all 8 of them?


I would point out that that is twice the number that the UK has in the Falklands.

Actually, if you combine the Air Force and Naval Aviation assets, and assign some of the ground attack aircraft like the Super Etendards and the upgraded A-4s to an air-to-air role, Argentina could field at least 20 planes against the 4 the British have. That's 5 to 1 odds: Even Colonel Tanner couldn't handle that.

"ASW assets" - unless an SSN surfaces, Argentina has none that will do any good against them.


Argentina has 3 turboprop-converted S-3 trackers and 5 P-3 Orions for ASW work, 2 reasonably modern Diesel/Electric submarines and one that is a bit older, but it has been upgraded, and they have a number of surface vessels that can do ASW.

Remember, in my scenario the surface ships are spread out so that any submarine that is attempting to sink them will have to travel at high speed to get a significant number of targets, and that means it will be loud enough to be heard by even relatively primitive sonars. Alternatively, if it stays "stealthy", then it can't make a significant dent in the invasion force. It's lose-lose for even the very capable British*

Above and beyond all that, The Type 45's and the subs can hit targets in mainland Argentina with high accuracy from over 1000 miles away.

That doesn't necessarily help you: There are a limited number of Tomahawks available on the SSN, and according to Wikipedia, the Type 45s are "fitted for, but not equipped with" Tomahawks. So we are talking, what, 10 missiles maybe? Argentina is a *BIG* country.

Also, both the SSN and the Type 45 would be "High Priority Targets" for the Argentines.

One side in this conflict can project power - and it isn't the one that speaks Spanish.


It would be more accurate to say that one side in this conflict can project power, albiet poorly, and they other side doesn't have to because it's target is only a couple hundred miles off the coast.

At any rate, Argentina *EVENTUALLY* loses, and even with a plan like mine that worked perfectly, they'd suffer much more initial losses than they did in the 1982 invasion. My thinking, though, is that if they *ARE* successful, it will take much longer for the Brits to dislodge them than it took in 1982. The UK doesn't have the assets it had in 1982. For example, any surface fleet would be vulnerable to air attack due to the lack of fixed-wing carrier aircraft. Anti-aircraft missiles just aren't going to cut it. They also don't have long-range bombers anymore, so raids like Blind Buck aren't possible anymore.


*I know this not from direct experience, but by reputation, that British sub commanders are among the best in the World. Their training program ("Perisher course") has a high drop-out rate.
 
2013-01-05 09:29:22 AM  

TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . . plan that would make Clancy or Bond proud snipped


I'd like to point out that I was thinking about UK strengths, and trying to find ways to minimize or counter them using available Argentine assets, or by using tactics that would largely nullify those UK strengths.
 
2013-01-05 10:21:23 AM  

TommyDeuce: Any one of the advance teams gets busted and you're boned.


This *IS* a problem, but one that you can likely mitigate by the simple expedient of using British Army uniforms and kit, and camoing them up like they are on an exercise. That wouldn't necessarily seem out of place to an Islander, especially if tensions are running high, and generally civilians tend to keep away from soldiers who are actively on exercise. You'd put them in places that aren't near roads or traveled places, and they'd only have to be there undetected for a few days anyway, so the chances that someone would stumble on them at close enough range to recognize that they weren't actually British is pretty minimal.

They wouldn't be transmitting on the radio, just listening for their "weapons free" signal, so they wouldn't be detectable by EW/SIGINT assets.

You'd insert them only a few days before the actual invasion kick-off, certainly no more than a week before the expected date.

There would be a relatively small number of them, and the teams would be no more than 3 or 4 men, just enough to keep a constant 24 hour watch.

On receipt of the "GO" signal, they'd switch their uniforms to Argentine ones.
 
2013-01-05 10:31:29 AM  

dittybopper: TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . . plan that would make Clancy or Bond proud snipped

I just don't see Argentina pulling off something that sophisticated - and it would require a fair bit of luck. Any one of the advance teams gets busted and you're boned. "Heavy on fighters" - you mean all 8 of them?

I would point out that that is twice the number that the UK has in the Falklands.

Actually, if you combine the Air Force and Naval Aviation assets, and assign some of the ground attack aircraft like the Super Etendards and the upgraded A-4s to an air-to-air role, Argentina could field at least 20 planes against the 4 the British have. That's 5 to 1 odds: Even Colonel Tanner couldn't handle that.


It isn't just about numbers; Remember that the RAF has operational experience far and above that of the Argies, and that the fighters on the Falklands are just a little bit more advanced than the F-4.
The Eurofighter can and has defeated the F-22 in friendlies (which amusingly lead to the Americans taking their ball and going home), whereas the F-4 is, well, dated, despite the overhauled and updated version the US sold the FAA.

Plus, the RAF doesn't need to completely clear the sky - just establish air superiority, and that gets easier once reinforcements arrive, which would happen within a day or two. Less, if the US decides to give us a hand and send a couple of wings down to help out.

Just having 4 Typhoons on station makes it harder, but - 8x hardpoints on the wings gives you 32 missiles, and they are BVR capable. Not all of those are going to hit, but there's also the Dauntless and she's designed specifically for air defence. Additionally, it's doubtful that the FAA attack force would have an airfield to return to - If the Sceptre and a Trafalgar are in the area as is speculated, well...Sceptre is supposed to be fully fitted with Tomahawks. Additionally, nobody has a clue where the Astute or the Ambush are right now. As to the landing craft, well, that's what the Clyde is for, plus there's the Falklands forces, the Army garrison and, shortly joining them, the Joint Rapid Reaction Force.
Basically, yeah, the Argies might have a shot, but it's a slim one, that would rely on a lot going wrong for the British forces, and they wouldn't be able to hold onto the island for long. Plus, if they do manage to occupy it, then they're going to have to start worrying about the sneaky weasels in the SAS/SBS, as well as the Gurkhas. And nobody wants that kind of hassle.
 
2013-01-05 01:14:24 PM  

Humorous-Name: dittybopper: TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . . plan that would make Clancy or Bond proud snipped

I just don't see Argentina pulling off something that sophisticated - and it would require a fair bit of luck. Any one of the advance teams gets busted and you're boned. "Heavy on fighters" - you mean all 8 of them?

I would point out that that is twice the number that the UK has in the Falklands.

Actually, if you combine the Air Force and Naval Aviation assets, and assign some of the ground attack aircraft like the Super Etendards and the upgraded A-4s to an air-to-air role, Argentina could field at least 20 planes against the 4 the British have. That's 5 to 1 odds: Even Colonel Tanner couldn't handle that.

It isn't just about numbers; Remember that the RAF has operational experience far and above that of the Argies, and that the fighters on the Falklands are just a little bit more advanced than the F-4.
The Eurofighter can and has defeated the F-22 in friendlies (which amusingly lead to the Americans taking their ball and going home), whereas the F-4 is, well, dated, despite the overhauled and updated version the US sold the FAA.

Plus, the RAF doesn't need to completely clear the sky - just establish air superiority, and that gets easier once reinforcements arrive, which would happen within a day or two. Less, if the US decides to give us a hand and send a couple of wings down to help out.

Just having 4 Typhoons on station makes it harder, but - 8x hardpoints on the wings gives you 32 missiles, and they are BVR capable. Not all of those are going to hit, but there's also the Dauntless and she's designed specifically for air defence. Additionally, it's doubtful that the FAA attack force would have an airfield to return to - If the Sceptre and a Trafalgar are in the area as is speculated, well...Sceptre is supposed to be fully fitted with Tomahawks. Additionally, nobody has a clue where the Astute or the Ambush are right now. As to the landing craft, well, that's ...


You can't establish air superiority with 4 aircraft. I don't care how capable they are, it's not enough.

First, operational tempos dictate that in order to have complete, around-the-clock coverage, you can only have 1 or at most 2 planes in the air at a time. If you surge all 4 aircraft to deal with the initial wave of the attack, they will then have to land and refuel/rearm, and that's when they'd be vulnerable to the second wave, which would be mostly ground attack aircraft.

If you launch only 2 Typhoons to deal with the initial attack of 20 aircraft, saving 2 "at the ready", the odds are now 10 to 1. *VERY* long odds, even for very capable aircraft. This is especially true if you have to deal with 5 groups of 4 aircraft coming in from different directions. You simply *CAN'T* cover all the airspace.

Second, you are forgetting that in my plan, there are also teams of Argentines with MANPADS who will take potshots at the Typhoons as they take-off and/or land. They don't actually have to *DESTROY* the aircraft, just damage them so they aren't combat capable. A "mission kill" is good enough, because you can follow it up later with attacks on the aircraft while it's grounded for repairs.

I figure the Argentines would lose probably half their first wave, and maybe a third of the ground attack waves, but they would have probably destroyed or damaged at least half the Typhoon force. With only 1 or 2 undamaged aircraft, well, they're screwed.

You seem to be under the impression that the British have overwhelming force in the area.

They don't.

What they have is a force calculated to make it very expensive for the Argentines to successfully invade, but really there isn't all that much the UK can do initially if Argentina decides the cost is worth it. They would, of course, eventually get the islands back.

As for the Dauntless (or whichever Type 45 has the duty), that's also a single ship. It can't be everywhere at once, and as perhaps the main AA asset in the Falklands, it's going to have a major target on it's back. Every single plane capable of carrying an Exocet is going to be gunning for it, and because it *HAS* to radiate in order to fulfill it's mission, it won't be all that hard for the Argentine forces to locate it. They then assemble a force armed with anti-ship missiles, fly in at wave-top height so that they can launch before the destroyer has time to target and fire at them. And again: You don't have to completely *SINK* that ship, you just have to put it out of commission, and you can sink it later.

If it's at the dock at Mare Harbor, you can just drop bombs on it. It's not like it would see you coming, either, because you could use the terrain to mask you until you were right on top of it.
 
2013-01-05 01:36:59 PM  
Achieving surprise is the biggest fly in the ointment of my evil plans, but I think I figured that one out.

What assets that the Argentines have that the United Kingdom is going to watch like a hawk for signs of an invasion?

The only amphibious assault ships Argentina has: The ARA Bahía San Blas, and the ARA Hércules. Lay them up in dry dock and act like they are being maintained, but secretly provision and man them at night. In fact, with months of preparation, you could gradually pre-provision them with the equipment necessary, then when you lay them up in drydock all they would need is the actual soldiers to board.

When you are ready, float them out and send them on the way, probably again at night. By the time the UK figures out they aren't there any more, they'll be in Falkland waters already.
 
2013-01-05 01:43:31 PM  

dittybopper: Humorous-Name: dittybopper: TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . . plan that would make Clancy or Bond proud snipped

I just don't see Argentina pulling off something that sophisticated - and it would require a fair bit of luck. Any one of the advance teams gets busted and you're boned. "Heavy on fighters" - you mean all 8 of them?

I would point out that that is twice the number that the UK has in the Falklands.

Actually, if you combine the Air Force and Naval Aviation assets, and assign some of the ground attack aircraft like the Super Etendards and the upgraded A-4s to an air-to-air role, Argentina could field at least 20 planes against the 4 the British have. That's 5 to 1 odds: Even Colonel Tanner couldn't handle that.

It isn't just about numbers; Remember that the RAF has operational experience far and above that of the Argies, and that the fighters on the Falklands are just a little bit more advanced than the F-4.
The Eurofighter can and has defeated the F-22 in friendlies (which amusingly lead to the Americans taking their ball and going home), whereas the F-4 is, well, dated, despite the overhauled and updated version the US sold the FAA.

Plus, the RAF doesn't need to completely clear the sky - just establish air superiority, and that gets easier once reinforcements arrive, which would happen within a day or two. Less, if the US decides to give us a hand and send a couple of wings down to help out.

Just having 4 Typhoons on station makes it harder, but - 8x hardpoints on the wings gives you 32 missiles, and they are BVR capable. Not all of those are going to hit, but there's also the Dauntless and she's designed specifically for air defence. Additionally, it's doubtful that the FAA attack force would have an airfield to return to - If the Sceptre and a Trafalgar are in the area as is speculated, well...Sceptre is supposed to be fully fitted with Tomahawks. Additionally, nobody has a clue where the Astute or the Ambush are right now. As to the landing craft ...


The problem I see with you scenario comes with the landings. You postulate that they will use fishing vessels and by the time it's too late to stop them they will have landed men and material. You also suggest they maintain radio silence. The problem with that and using nondescript vessels is that your estimated time of landing can only be an estimate. You're either going to have the planes arrive too early which will warn the Brits something's up and they will take up defensive positions (which you know for sure they've scouted and ranged). Or the men will arrive before the planes and the Brits will probably move to hit mainland Argentine planes and resources. Hell the seas might get choppy way out there (the Falklands are over 450 miles off the coast from the nearest point in Argentina) and some or all of the boats won't even make it. And not to sound too western and superior, Argentine troops have far less operational experience than the British.
 
2013-01-05 01:50:05 PM  

dittybopper: Achieving surprise is the biggest fly in the ointment of my evil plans, but I think I figured that one out.

What assets that the Argentines have that the United Kingdom is going to watch like a hawk for signs of an invasion?

The only amphibious assault ships Argentina has: The ARA Bahía San Blas, and the ARA Hércules. Lay them up in dry dock and act like they are being maintained, but secretly provision and man them at night. In fact, with months of preparation, you could gradually pre-provision them with the equipment necessary, then when you lay them up in drydock all they would need is the actual soldiers to board.

When you are ready, float them out and send them on the way, probably again at night. By the time the UK figures out they aren't there any more, they'll be in Falkland waters already.


There are limited sites on the Falklands that you could successfully land troops on and even if the Brits couldn't stop the boats you can bet your ass they have contingencies for every single landing site. The Brits have roughly 1,200 troops on the island, the two ships you mentioned are a destroyer and a glorified cargo ship. Even IF the submarine on site doesn't get there in time to sink both there's no way they can carry or discharge men fast enough to conduct an effective landing.
 
2013-01-05 01:52:06 PM  

dittybopper: Humorous-Name: dittybopper: TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . .


You assume that the FAA has any Exocets left; You also assume that we don't have the ability to shut any remaining missiles down.

Fun fact; Thatcher threatened Mitterrand that she would nuke the Argentines if France didn't hand over the codes. We have those codes, therefore we have the ability to make them deaf and blind and thus, useless.

So, without effective ASMs, taking out the Dauntless is a lot harder - and if she's at sea, it's quite difficult to approach her without being shot at. Granted, if she's at dock, she's screwed.

Technological superiority can make up for lack of numbers in part, but not in entirety - MANPADS would make things extremely uncomfortable. If we assume that the FAA has no Exocets left, then things get easier - it makes it easier to cover all the avenues of approach, and let's not forget the Rapier sites and our own MANPADS - there are a lot of missiles on those islands, pointed in that general direction.

And again - it's all well and good the FAA taking out the RAF forces on the islands, but they're going to want to go and land at some point, which is made harder by the fact the airfields are highly likely to be long strips of craters by the time they return, due to the fact there are believed to be at least two subs in the area with Tomahawks, and we don't know where the Astute and Ambush are - for all we know, they're sitting in the area now.

We don't have overwhelming force, but - it would be uncomfortable and very expensive for any attacking force from the Argies. Plus, ultimately futile, since the UK has quite a few mutual defence treaties, and France has already said that we can borrow a carrier from them if we need to. Your plan depends 100% on surprise - The UK has the JRRF ready to go within hours of definite intelligence of an impending attack, and if they embark before the Argies get to the Falkies, then...they lose. Takes less than a day to get more Typhoons on station, and in the meantime there are the land based SAMs to contend with, plus over a thousand from PWRR.

This still disregards what happens if the US honour their treaties and pacts - if they do so, then, well...It's not even a contest anymore. Argentina loses.
 
2013-01-05 02:58:25 PM  

Humorous-Name: Fun fact; Thatcher threatened Mitterrand that she would nuke the Argentines if France didn't hand over the codes.


Mitterrand was an idiot. You use nukes, you automatically lose the war. It's a disproportionate response of about a dozen orders of magnitude that would have almost the entire planet against the UK and cause civil unrest in all cities back home. The UK would likely lose at least Scotland, and could fall apart completely. Even if Argentina slaughtered every living being on the islands, nukes would be out of the question. Of course I doubt Thatcher could have actually gotten away with it and no way Cameron would even threaten it but none of that changes the fact that Mitterrand was a tool to believe it. Maggie bluffed and won.

I have wonder though if the Exocets can be modified to no longer respond to the French codes. It's been decades since the original conflict and I'm sure the Argentine military has put the reliability of the missiles high on their to do list.
 
2013-01-05 03:01:21 PM  

Humorous-Name: dittybopper: Humorous-Name: dittybopper: TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . .

You assume that the FAA has any Exocets left; You also assume that we don't have the ability to shut any remaining missiles down.

Fun fact; Thatcher threatened Mitterrand that she would nuke the Argentines if France didn't hand over the codes. We have those codes, therefore we have the ability to make them deaf and blind and thus, useless.


If you and I know that, don't you think the Argentines know? And don't you think, in the intervening 30 years, that they may have taken some steps to figure out a way around that? Certainly, if I were the Argentines, I would change those codes if possible, or if not, figure out a way to disable that function.

I mean, you're really assuming that the Argentines are stupid and would fall for the exact same tricks.

I would also point out that the despite the best efforts of the Royal Navy, the Argentines still sank two of their ships with Exocets, so they weren't completely effective in shutting down the threat.
 
2013-01-05 03:42:29 PM  

dittybopper: Humorous-Name: dittybopper: Humorous-Name: dittybopper: TommyDeuce: dittybopper: . .

You assume that the FAA has any Exocets left; You also assume that we don't have the ability to shut any remaining missiles down.

Fun fact; Thatcher threatened Mitterrand that she would nuke the Argentines if France didn't hand over the codes. We have those codes, therefore we have the ability to make them deaf and blind and thus, useless.

If you and I know that, don't you think the Argentines know? And don't you think, in the intervening 30 years, that they may have taken some steps to figure out a way around that? Certainly, if I were the Argentines, I would change those codes if possible, or if not, figure out a way to disable that function.

I mean, you're really assuming that the Argentines are stupid and would fall for the exact same tricks.

I would also point out that the despite the best efforts of the Royal Navy, the Argentines still sank two of their ships with Exocets, so they weren't completely effective in shutting down the threat.


I don't actually believe they have any Exocets left; Not sure where I read that, but I'm pretty sure I have.

I do believe the Argentines are stupid and will fall for the exact same tricks, because, well, they are falling for the exact same tricks.

The French gave us the codes after we lost ships to the Exocets; After that point, we simply turned them off - that's why we didn't lose any ships after that point. Correct me if I am wrong on that point.

EngineerAU: Mitterrand was an idiot. You use nukes, you automatically lose the war. It's a disproportionate response of about a dozen orders of magnitude that would have almost the entire planet against the UK and cause civil unrest in all cities back home.


Abso-bloody-lutely. Nukes would have been an obscene overreaction, even on a tactical scale, that would have run the risk of MAD kicking in. Which makes it all the more amazing the bluff worked, really. I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I have to give credit to her brass balls and backbone of steel.
 
2013-01-05 04:27:27 PM  

dittybopper: This *IS* a problem, but one that you can likely mitigate by the simple expedient of using British Army uniforms and kit, and camoing them up like they are on an exercise.


A huge violation of the rules of war. Britain would be legally allowed to execute any Argentines captured in British uniform.
 
2013-01-05 07:19:21 PM  

LargeCanine: Frederick: Gee, do you suppose this is about untapped resources?

If there were any, do you think the Brits would be tapping them now?


New techniques have made resources available where they were not before.  Logistics are still an issue; more so for the UK than the Argentinians.
 
2013-01-06 03:06:40 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: dittybopper: This *IS* a problem, but one that you can likely mitigate by the simple expedient of using British Army uniforms and kit, and camoing them up like they are on an exercise.

A huge violation of the rules of war. Britain would be legally allowed to execute any Argentines captured in British uniform.


It's only a violation if you *FIGHT* in an enemy's uniform. That's why I point out that on the "GO" signal, they take them off and use their normal uniforms.

Dressing up as the enemy to achieve surprise is a time-honored ruse-de-guerre.
 
2013-01-06 03:13:03 PM  
All this military wanking is missing the main point.

Argentina invades, then a 6th generation Falklands granny does her Queen Amidala bit at the UN, and the world roars at Argentina in anger. It wouldn't be a battle of missiles, it would be a very short battle of PR.
 
2013-01-06 05:00:25 PM  

dittybopper: It's only a violation if you *FIGHT* in an enemy's uniform.


It used to be a violation if you used enemy uniforms for any military purpose. Thank you Jimmy Carter for changing that!

/naturally the ICRC got a special exemption for their own uniforms
//and then did an end run around the US's refusal to ratify the Protocols by declaring them to be "customary international law" anyway
 
Displayed 340 of 340 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report