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
 
2013-01-04 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.
 
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