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 104
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-03 04:04:28 PM
9 votes:

simplicimus: Anything of value on these islands?


Yes.  British citizenship.
2013-01-03 03:01:38 PM
9 votes:
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 06:14:23 PM
6 votes:
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 05:20:55 PM
6 votes:
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 05:02:54 PM
6 votes:
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 05:26:42 PM
5 votes:
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 05:11:41 PM
5 votes:
Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html
2013-01-03 05:58:33 PM
4 votes:

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 07:29:31 PM
3 votes:
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 06:02:41 PM
3 votes:

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 05:57:53 PM
3 votes:
It's so cute that some of the Brits think they should actually keep the Falklands. Cute like British Dentistry.
2013-01-03 05:39:15 PM
3 votes:
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 05:37:25 PM
3 votes:

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 05:26:00 PM
3 votes:
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 05:07:41 PM
3 votes:

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 03:48:04 PM
3 votes:

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 08:09:22 PM
2 votes:

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 08:05:09 PM
2 votes:

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 07:58:59 PM
2 votes:

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 07:30:39 PM
2 votes:

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 06:55:35 PM
2 votes:

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 06:05:54 PM
2 votes:
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 06:02:25 PM
2 votes:
www.lindaslineage.com
2013-01-03 06:01:49 PM
2 votes:
www.jamesaltucher.com
2013-01-03 06:01:31 PM
2 votes:

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 05:56:13 PM
2 votes:

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 05:52:01 PM
2 votes:

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 05:48:30 PM
2 votes:

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 05:44:29 PM
2 votes:

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 05:40:47 PM
2 votes:
They should put in a claim for Diaoyu/Senkaku while they're at it.
2013-01-03 05:38:56 PM
2 votes:
So does the Monroe Doctrine or NATO membership take precedence here? Or do they cancel each other out?
Heb
2013-01-03 05:38:32 PM
2 votes:

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 05:34:56 PM
2 votes:

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 05:23:34 PM
2 votes:

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 05:15:46 PM
2 votes:

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 05:11:50 PM
2 votes:

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 05:03:12 PM
2 votes:
The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.
2013-01-03 05:00:14 PM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
2013-01-03 04:59:27 PM
2 votes:
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 04:21:22 PM
2 votes:
and Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser, with all hands...apparently to make them give it back....
2013-01-03 02:19:10 PM
2 votes:
Sneaky little Englishes. Wicked! Tricksy! False!
2013-01-05 12:20:57 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-04 11:11:17 PM
1 votes:

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 08:28:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:28 PM
1 votes:
Considering recent US policy, if Argentina attacks the Falklands, the US will invade Venezuela.
2013-01-04 04:08:28 PM
1 votes:

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 02:41:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:05 PM
1 votes:

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 08:00:47 AM
1 votes:
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 07:48:12 AM
1 votes:

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 06:40:16 AM
1 votes:

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 06:34:02 AM
1 votes:

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 06:17:45 AM
1 votes:

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 03:57:46 AM
1 votes:

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 03:51:29 AM
1 votes:

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 03:34:07 AM
1 votes:

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 02:45:42 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Oh what THE fark!?!?!?!?!?
2013-01-03 10:31:56 PM
1 votes:

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 08:42:34 PM
1 votes:

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 08:34:20 PM
1 votes:

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 08:24:11 PM
1 votes:

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 08:18:29 PM
1 votes:

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 08:17:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:14:56 PM
1 votes:
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 07:57:49 PM
1 votes:

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 07:56:08 PM
1 votes:

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 07:29:26 PM
1 votes:
Already been immortalized in song:

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-03 07:27:28 PM
1 votes:

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 07:26:48 PM
1 votes:
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 07:20:26 PM
1 votes:

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 07:02:17 PM
1 votes:
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 07:00:53 PM
1 votes:

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 06:52:33 PM
1 votes:

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 06:48:03 PM
1 votes:
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 06:47:06 PM
1 votes:

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


Are you having a stroke?
2013-01-03 06:34:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:28:21 PM
1 votes:

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 06:22:48 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:43 PM
1 votes:

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


Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid
2013-01-03 06:17:16 PM
1 votes:
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 06:15:33 PM
1 votes:

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 06:12:09 PM
1 votes:

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 06:11:07 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:31 PM
1 votes:

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 06:01:48 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:47:30 PM
1 votes:
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 05:40:56 PM
1 votes:
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 05:40:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:59 PM
1 votes:
Good luck, Britain. Not that you'll need it.
2013-01-03 05:22:00 PM
1 votes:

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 05:14:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:13:29 PM
1 votes:
I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.
2013-01-03 05:06:32 PM
1 votes:

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 05:04:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:26 PM
1 votes:
Da f#ck, mods on crack today?
I guess Drew drank up all the profits.
2013-01-03 04:56:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:20 PM
1 votes:
They need it for strategic sheep purposes.
2013-01-03 04:11:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:33 PM
1 votes:
It's all about the oil, of course.
2013-01-03 02:19:54 PM
1 votes:
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 02:13:28 PM
1 votes:
Dammit, subby! Your headline made me laugh so hard that I started coughing.

stoopid bronchitis
2013-01-03 02:04:42 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 104 of 104 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report