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  
•       •       •

20623 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report