Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Colonol Dekker on February 19, 2010, 11:30:19 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8523894.stm
What can I say except it's ours. I though we made it clear in 82.
-
What's really funny is that if you read the history of the islands pretty much everyone involved has a pretty tenuous claim to ownership of the islands so the only sensible course is to say it belongs to whoever is there now.
-
I just cite my original post. :)
-
Here's hoping the possibility of another Falklands War will be the kick in the balls the government needs to bring the Royal Navy back up to scratch.
-
It is in the works. The admiralty are recieving new d-type destroyers intermittently and a new carrier type is under construction too. Not to mention F35 compliments for 2015. We've sent the York, it's there already keeping overwatch.
I'm confident that and the thousand strong infantry force already stationed will be deterrent enough. But. . . .some grudges are more stubborn than gravy stains.
Nice to see ya in GD Darius.
-
I just cite my original post. :)
I'm not a particular fan of might makes right.
A much better point is that the British settled the island long before Argentina, never relinquished their claim to it, and that there hasn't been an Argentine presence on the island (except by invasion) since 1831 when the islands were left completely unpopulated until the British resettled them. Furthermore AFAIK the Argentinians have never had any permanent presence on South Georgia at all.
Pretty hard to make the claim that they own any of the islands.
Add to that the fact that the entire population seem to consider themselves British and reject Argentinian nationality (even though they have it by default due to Argentina's claim that they own the islands) and I really can't see how Argentinian sovereignty would be in the interest of the islanders.
To be honest the whole thing (like the original war) smacks of politicians talking crap in order to distract attention away from problems at home.
-
Oh I agree on that last point completely. When referring to my original post I hoped it implied the fact that we still populate it, therefore it's ours still.
Still, politics aside, if it comes down to the wire. . . I'm hoping it is resolved quickly and decisively.
-
Things have changed since '82; Argentina will get a rather big surprise if they try military stupidity and discover the military strength of Britain and the economic strength of virtually the entire G20 come crashing down on them.
Trying armed conflict over territory with an important NATO country would be a really stupid move on their part.
-
Q: How do you get 50 Argentinians into a phone box ?
A: Tell them they own it
-
Things have changed since '82; Argentina will get a rather big surprise if they try military stupidity and discover the military strength of Britain
Yes, they're in for a rather large shock these days. An RAF so hacked to the bone with budget cuts, the seams in its pants come apart when it tries to tie its shoes, a Navy which is heading in the same direction, with the Army being the only service that seems capable of doing anything. Brown seems to be as informed as this wanker. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7014097.ece) I wouldn't be surprised if Brown decided to 'Do a Canada', and try combining all three forces.
-
That's possibly one of the dumbest things I've seen in a long while.
"leave the big stuff to America" :rolleyes: Americans aren't going to die for our wars while we sit comfortably to one side. Hell, it took the US ****ing ages to decide that they were on our side in the Falklands despite the supposed "special relationship" between the UK and US (and Thatcher/Reagan) and that was just in terms of diplomacy. Ask them to send their planes in and we'd probably have been told to **** off.
While at the moment it is quite clear that we don't face any major state sized political threats it's hugely naive to assume we won't ever again or that we can build the armed forces back up to the level where they could face such a threat in any sensible period of time. You cut out aircraft carriers you don't just lose the carrier, you quickly lose people who know how to fight on an aircraft carrier.
-
Furthermore, with the loss of strategic bombing assets in comparison to the first conflict in the Falklands (the Vulcan), a complete lack of a carrier group would render overseas engagements in hostile territory... mostly suicidal. Argentina may not have the most advanced air force/navy in the world, but if you have no air arm to counter that at all, you're in for a world of hurt...
-
Furthermore, with the loss of strategic bombing assets in comparison to the first conflict in the Falklands (the Vulcan), a complete lack of a carrier group would render overseas engagements in hostile territory... mostly suicidal. Argentina may not have the most advanced air force/navy in the world, but if you have no air arm to counter that at all, you're in for a world of hurt...
The latest class of destroyers you all have put in the water are quite likely all the air-defense you'd actually need to fight Argentina.
-
What can I say except it's ours. I though we made it clear in 82.
What can I say except I disagree.
I'm not a particular fan of might makes right.
Exactly. We can sort this out diplomatically. And if that fails, I guess we can take this dispute to the corresponding international body.
-----
You know, so far we only took legal measures to protest what we consider a violation of sovereignty. Let me stress this: There is not going to be a war unless you fire first. We are no longer governed by an inept, warmonger military junta. No one here in Argentina is talking about a war. You are the ones preparing for a war. In fact, the Kirchners (the presidential couple) disdain the military as much as the military disdains the Kirchners. And both lack support from the population. Moreover, the military has been practically disarmed, reducing it to a R&D organization and humanitarian aid agency. Currently, real technology and (relative) firepower is held by the naval prefecture and the gendarmerie, which are legally NOT authorised to do anything but patrol duties and policing actions.
C'mon, ten minutes browsing the wikipedia will tell you this if you care to investigate before jumping to conclusions about those violent, impulsive argentineans.
Sorry to disappoint you Colonel Dekker, Darius.
-
You are the ones preparing for a war.
Can you really blame the UK government and the islanders? Inept military junta or no, the last time Argentina started making serious waves about the Falklands it erupted into a shooting war. You can hardly blame them for taking defensive measures and preparing for the worst-case scenario.
And let's face it - if this goes to international adjudication, Argentina really doesn't have a leg to stand on based on historical precedent.
-
Exactly. Argentina are making a big noise about owning the Falklands AND South Georgia.
@el_magnifico : When it comes to the Falklands at least you can claim to have had a colony there once (The British colony pre-dates it but at least you can make the claim). I'd like you to give me ONE good reason why you think you own South Georgia. Seriously, just one.
-
You are the ones preparing for a war.
Can you really blame the UK government and the islanders? Inept military junta or no, the last time Argentina started making serious waves about the Falklands it erupted into a shooting war. You can hardly blame them for taking defensive measures and preparing for the worst-case scenario.
I'm not blaming anyone. I just wanted to make it clear we are not trying to begin another war. You can obviously take all the defensive measures you want. They will just be pointless, but if you want to, go ahead.
And let's face it - if this goes to international adjudication, Argentina really doesn't have a leg to stand on based on historical precedent.
We happen to believe we do. And that's something neither you nor me are going to decide.
-
I found this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8524001.stm) to be a good read regarding the Argentinian point of view, and confirms what el_magnifico was talking about. Of course a war is the single worst outcome (my comment was mostly in jest) and probably the last thing the Argentinians want at the moment.
-
@el_magnifico : When it comes to the Falklands at least you can claim to have had a colony there once (The British colony pre-dates it but at least you can make the claim). I'd like you to give me ONE good reason why you think you own South Georgia. Seriously, just one.
I can't tell you one right now, out of the top of my head. And I don't need to. I studied a lot of reasons in the past, all of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's been years since I last worried about it. Now it's all in proper documentation we presented in the international bodies.
But, do you want an honest answer? I don't care about the Malvinas. I care even less about the South Georgias and all those other small islands. I sincerely believe they are rightfully ours. Hundreds of brave Argentinean soldiers and pilots died for them. But we already got something from it. We obtained our democracy. And if you (and the inhabitants) want those islands so badly, as far as I am concerned, you can have them. Hell, I could go as far as giving you those maritime zones you currently claim. Then, we could cooperate. You will need help from the continent to develop that zone. We could really use your technology. And really, we have so many resources already it would take centuries to exhaust them.
What I'm worried about is giving you a precedent to exercise further claims into other territories. We already repelled two attempts to invade us while we were a Spanish colony, and a blockade at the Buenos Aires port. And you are always making further claims to expand your territory (like a claim over Antarctica that overlaps with our own). That's the only reason why I support claims over the Malvinas. It's necessary to keep you on check.
-
I can't tell you one right now, out of the top of my head. And I don't need to. I studied a lot of reasons in the past, all of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's been years since I last worried about it. Now it's all in proper documentation we presented in the international bodies.
Feel free to do some research and present your reasons then. Cause your argument at the moment is pretty threadbare.
I on the other hand have looked into it and Argentina seems to want South Georgia because they want South Georgia. There isn't a single legal justification for it that I've ever heard. The argument seems to be "it's ours cause the UK is far away."
Even if you have a point about the Antarctic claim (and I've not checked if you do) trying your own land grab is not an effective defence. If anything it weakens your case for the Antarctic because you've already proved that your country is trying to gain sovereignty over an island like South Georgia you have no claim to whatsoever. Which makes it hard to claim that your argument over the Antarctic isn't simply more of the same.
Even the link Darius posted doesn't go into why the Argentinians consider the land to be theirs. And quite frankly it is ****ing worrying that so many people in Argentina can say that South Georgia is definitely theirs but can't even raise a token defence as to why.
-
I'm heavily biased in this debate. I'm likely to lapse in judgement. So i'm going to hold back and lurk.
-
i'm NOT biased, but i don't know **** about it either. from my overly-simplistic view, i would say this is up to the people who live there.
-
I can't tell you one right now, out of the top of my head. And I don't need to. I studied a lot of reasons in the past, all of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's been years since I last worried about it. Now it's all in proper documentation we presented in the international bodies.
Feel free to do some research and present your reasons then. Cause your argument at the moment is pretty threadbare.
I on the other hand have looked into it and Argentina seems to want South Georgia because they want South Georgia. There isn't a single legal justification for it that I've ever heard. The argument seems to be "it's ours cause the UK is far away."
Even if you have a point about the Antarctic claim (and I've not checked if you do) trying your own land grab is not an effective defence. If anything it weakens your case for the Antarctic because you've already proved that your country is trying to gain sovereignty over an island like South Georgia you have no claim to whatsoever. Which makes it hard to claim that your argument over the Antarctic isn't simply more of the same.
Even the link Darius posted doesn't go into why the Argentinians consider the land to be theirs. And quite frankly it is ****ing worrying that so many people in Argentina can say that South Georgia is definitely theirs but can't even raise a token defence as to why.
The short answer has a few components.
1) Making new national borders is always a sticky process. Nobody will EVER agree on just where the line should be drawn, and there's ALWAYS grovelling as some border-dwellers feel a stronger cultural connection to the nation on the far side of their borders.
2) Other reasons are geographic; considering that the Falkland Islands and South Georgia are both located in close proximity to Argentina, there is the assumption that it's an island off of the Argentinian mainland and thus should belong to Argentina. Yes, the UK is a long distance off, but like France retains control over some colonial land (France's prime example is French Guiana). Since the UK hasn't seceded control over the Falklands, Argentina feels it's their birthright to claim or reclaim "their" islands.
3) The Falklands have some pretty valuable resources if this geological survey is correct. Combine the possible profits with their own "Manifest Destiny", and you have a new war brewing as the government has reason to try and annex the islands.
4) The islands fall within Argentina's claimed waters and thus should be Argentinian. Were internationally-regonized borders declared, it's likely that Argentina would ignore the line in the ocean as they'd lose significant amounts of land.
5) If they don't have to build the oil rig (or rigs) going to these islands, they can make a scandal out of it now and later claim the "spoils" in a short war.
-
Feel free to do some research and present your reasons then. Cause your argument at the moment is pretty threadbare.
That's because I'm not even trying to argue. I told you before, as far as I care you can have South Georgia. If you are really curious as to why we claim ownership, there's plenty of material on the internet that explains it (though I have to admit, most of it is in Spanish).
3) The Falklands have some pretty valuable resources if this geological survey is correct. Combine the possible profits with their own "Manifest Destiny", and you have a new war brewing as the government has reason to try and annex the islands.
4) The islands fall within Argentina's claimed waters and thus should be Argentinian. Were internationally-regonized borders declared, it's likely that Argentina would ignore the line in the ocean as they'd lose significant amounts of land.
5) If they don't have to build the oil rig (or rigs) going to these islands, they can make a scandal out of it now and later claim the "spoils" in a short war.
IF the geological survey is correct. It's also possible there is nothing down there. If I remember correctly, Shell conducted a series of short explorations back in 1998 and found nothing. But it's also possible we have those valuable resources closer to continental Argentina. Why haven't we explored then? Because we don't need to. There's already enough in Patagonia to keep us going for many decades. And it's easier to extract.
And again, there are no wars in the plan concerning Malvinas. Short, long, broad or whatever. There's not going to be a war. Period. If you lived here, you would understand what I mean. It's one of the few consistent public policies the Argentine state follows.
-
I ask about South Georgia because I'm sure that the claim is bollocks. It basically says a lot about the argument that you can tell me "We definitely own it! I'm certain of it!" but when I ask why, even roughly I get told to look it up. If you can't tell me even vaguely why Argentina has a legitimate claim to South Georgia then maybe you should start questioning your rock solid conviction that it does.
All you've managed to do so far is claim that there is a reason and that international bodies have been told them. The same international bodies who presumably have ignored the claim almost entirely. If they aren't interested in the claim how can you be so certain that they are valid? How do you know that the claim isn't simply propaganda being taught to you?
Yeah I'm British, so yeah I'm biased but I've also looked at the evidence and I'm pretty sure that anyone taking an objective view of the matter can see you don't have a leg to stand on legally to claim South Georgia. Which makes the claim you have a leg to stand on over the Falkland Islands pretty dubious too.
Hell you've pretty much admitted you only claim them so you can make another contested claim in the Antarctic.
4) The islands fall within Argentina's claimed waters and thus should be Argentinian. Were internationally-regonized borders declared, it's likely that Argentina would ignore the line in the ocean as they'd lose significant amounts of land.
You are kidding me right?
South Georgia is over 1000km off the coast of South America!
While it's obvious why the Argentinians want the Falklands and South Georgia. I want an answer for why they think they have a right to them. Pretty much every other conflict in the world of land can have someone give a justification for why they own the land. Occasionally you get one like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait where the justification is obviously we want their land and money.
And that's exactly what is happening here. There is no historical basis for Argentinian ownership of South Georgia. Argentina can't give a legitimate reason for why they should own it cause they don't have one. They simply figured that they could invade and get away with it cause it was too far away for the British to care about.
-
I ask about South Georgia because I'm sure that the claim is bollocks. It basically says a lot about the argument that you can tell me "We definitely own it! I'm certain of it!" but when I ask why, even roughly I get told to look it up. If you can't tell me even vaguely why Argentina has a legitimate claim to South Georgia then maybe you should start questioning your rock solid conviction that it does.
All you've managed to do so far is claim that there is a reason and that international bodies have been told them. The same international bodies who presumably have ignored the claim almost entirely. If they aren't interested in the claim how can you be so certain that they are valid? How do you know that the claim isn't simply propaganda being taught to you?
Yeah I'm British, so yeah I'm biased but I've also looked at the evidence and I'm pretty sure that anyone taking an objective view of the matter can see you don't have a leg to stand on legally to claim South Georgia. Which makes the claim you have a leg to stand on over the Falkland Islands pretty dubious too.
Hell you've pretty much admitted you only claim them so you can make another contested claim in the Antarctic.
Look, I don't want to sound harsh, but I don't like to repeat myself. If I remember correctly (and I probably don't, since I studied it when I was a child), the claim was based on the fact that back then they were administered as a dependency of the Malvinas/Falklands.
If as you say the claim is bollocks, then it will be dismissed, and you have nothing to worry about.
However, even without considering South Georgia, our claims over Antarctica still overlap (remember, we have continental land in the northern Misiones province to extend from).
-
Antarctic claims are a much dodgier ground because it's pretty hard to prove that any of them are legitimate since they are only recognised by the other countries making a claim (or as in this case, not even then!).
As for the rest, you have affirmed a concrete belief that the Falklands and South Georgia are rightfully Argentinian property but you're unable to give any indication as to why you believe this.
Now I believe that a sensible person should question his convictions. Especially whenever they can't actually explain why they hold them. If you don't wish to do that, it is your choice.
-
Antarctic claims are a much dodgier ground because it's pretty hard to prove that any of them are legitimate since they are only recognised by the other countries making a claim (or as in this case, not even then!).
And they are unimportant now, since we are discussing the Malvinas.
As for the rest, you have affirmed a concrete belief that the Falklands and South Georgia are rightfully Argentinian property but you're unable to give any indication as to why you believe this.
Now I believe that a sensible person should question his convictions. Especially whenever they can't actually explain why they hold them. If you don't wish to do that, it is your choice.
In fact, you have induced some doubts into me regarding the status of South Georgia and the Sandwich islands.
It is nonetheless unimportant, since I still don't care about who owns them at the end.
You see, Karajorma, everyone in this world can be wrong. You can be wrong, I can be wrong. That's the reason courts exist, to settle disputes between parties who honestly believe their rights have been violated (the fact they are usually used for other purposes is irrelevant in this case).
I know you don't hold any bad intentions. You indeed seem to be a very reasonable person.
To me, it's been an honour to discuss with you.
-
In fact, you have induced some doubts into me regarding the status of South Georgia and the Sandwich islands.
That's pretty much all I could ask for. :)
You see, Karajorma, everyone in this world can be wrong. You can be wrong, I can be wrong. That's the reason courts exist, to settle disputes between parties who honestly believe their rights have been violated (the fact they are usually used for other purposes is irrelevant in this case).
Yes but why does this need to go to court? Only because people in Argentina (and the UK for that matter) never challenge their beliefs over who owns them. You made the point that Argentina is now a democracy and not a dictatorship. So if it is then swaying popular opinion is important. That's not going to happen just cause of my posts on this forum but the simple fact is that the more Argentinians who actually look up the reasons, the more who'll say "I never realised we had such a poor claim on it"
While I'm at it, what really annoys me is the image of UK as a colonial power who doesn't want to give anything back. I think the fact that Hong Kong was returned as well as the sheer amounts of talks over Northern Ireland speaks volumes about that.
I know you don't hold any bad intentions. You indeed seem to be a very reasonable person.
To me, it's been an honour to discuss with you.
It's always nice to meet someone willing to challenge their assumptions during a debate. Unfortunately far to many people here on HLP go into a discussion certain they are correct and unwilling to hear any arguments to the contrary.
-
Fair balls to the Argentinians.
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Just seems like hanging on the old image of Empire from the 19th and early 20th century.
Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.
-
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
'cuz no Argentinians have lived there in a very long time, and just as icing on the cake the people who do live there don't want to be from Argentina. They want to be Brits.
Just seems like hanging on the old image of Empire from the 19th and early 20th century.
Self-determination says this argument is a load of bollocks, to use a more culturally appropriate term.
-
Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.
You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation.
I'd like to see them try.
-
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.
-
Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.
You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation.
I'd like to see them try.
if they did try, what do you reckon your odds would be for getting shipped out...?
and how would you feel?
just curious.
-
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.
-
Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.
You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation.
I'd like to see them try.
if they did try, what do you reckon your odds would be for getting shipped out...?
and how would you feel?
just curious.
Fair chance. But to be honest, i'd more than likely be in Afghan.
And my POV is summed up. I've been burned, blown up and shot at in my career and i'd redo it every single time.
-
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.
Or was lost due to a war or liberated by Britain. Remember; you may lay claim to land, but the claim needs to be proven.
-
Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.
Like Texas? Or Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement)?
Cause you can make arguments for both of them breaking away from the US. Doesn't mean that they're valid.
-
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.
Im very up to-date on my history actually. And I do believe that Britain justs want to keep its claim to the island because of the possibility of oil. It suited Maggie Thatcher to fight for them in the war to help her popularity and take the focus off problems in her home country.
Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.
You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation.
I'd like to see them try.
news channels like Sky and BBC are making it very clear that there is a cronic shortage of funding in the navy and defence cuts. Your Royal Navy needs more than the current 2.2% GDP for its current commitments, and thats without the Trident or RN carriers being replaced. (think they are safe at the moment though?)
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.
Im sure the locals had a problem with that. While not all countrie had a problem with the Empire, many did, such are Ireland, American Colonists, India, parts of Africa, etc. Wasnt exactly one happy empire now. (Unless you were running the show)
-
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.
Im very up to-date on my history actually. And I do believe that Britain justs want to keep its claim to the island because of the possibility of oil. It suited Maggie Thatcher to fight for them in the war to help her popularity and take the focus off problems in her home country.
And the fact that almost the entire population of the islands consider themselves British escaped your notice?
-
He HAS to be trolling.
Also, if British rule was that unpopular everywhere the Commonwealth wouldn't be what it is today.
Don't get me wrong, I don't imagine it was all roses, but the Brits helped shape / improve quite a lot of countries while plundering all their valuables/workable age men. >.>
-
He HAS to be trolling.
Also, if British rule was that unpopular everywhere the Commonwealth wouldn't be what it is today.
Don't get me wrong, I don't imagine it was all roses, but the Brits helped shape / improve quite a lot of countries while plundering all their valuables/workable age men. >.>
Not trolling, just responding to comments all in one go instead of multiple responses. catching up one missed posts. And the commonwealth is not exactly that united today, losts of disharmony in places like Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention suspended members like zimbabwe.
Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.
Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.
Im very up to-date on my history actually. And I do believe that Britain justs want to keep its claim to the island because of the possibility of oil. It suited Maggie Thatcher to fight for them in the war to help her popularity and take the focus off problems in her home country.
And the fact that almost the entire population of the islands consider themselves British escaped your notice?
its just another plantation. The time that has past does not matter.
and can someone please tell me why does internet explorer keep jumping the box i am typing in everything i am trying to reply to a comment, have to use firefox (which i dont mind) but tis very annoying!!
-
I believe the only thing that's going on in this south american bloc is some whining and whinging. The international status quo as well as the inhabitants agree that goose green, sort stanley and everything else in the falklands territory is ours. You guys have every right to flounce and sulk by denying safe harbour to craft en route. But it's very childish. . . . Like snatching a toy. Why wait til you see us moving in for oil before forming a pronounced opinion that the isles are yours this time around?
And I don't know what window jumping is. Apart from that stock market crash debacle decades ago. .
-
Wait, you do acknowledge we have the right to do what we did so far? Then why are you so eager to come here and shoot us?
You know, now I feel offended. A prepotent idiot isn't even worth the typing. But now I see you're actually not an idiot, you're willfully promoting hate and launching threats everywhere even when you are totally aware no rights have been violated. And worse, you're doing it while you're a moderator. This I consider to be serious.
-
Please highlight the threat.
I appear to have missed myself presenting one.
-
Please highlight the threat.
I appear to have missed myself presenting one.
I'm hoping it is resolved quickly and decisively.
I'd like to see them try.
-
That's not a threat. The very wording of it proves it isn't.
-
yada yada yada let the ICJ settle the dispute, that's what it's for.
I am very amused to see how easily politicians can divert their nation's attention from really important things, like internal economy and international debt.
-
I'm not forgetting, it's just a welcome conversational topic.
-
yada yada yada let the ICJ settle the dispute, that's what it's for.
I am very amused to see how easily politicians can divert their nation's attention from really important things, like internal economy and international debt.
seconded.
Nothing like an international drama to focus attention away from home problems
-
I'm not forgetting, it's just a welcome conversational topic.
Is that an answer to my post? If so, please rephrase it, since I find it ambiguous (yes, not a native speaker, sincerely sorry about it).
-
I meant i'm not forgetting how screwed up my countrys economy is :)
-
I meant i'm not forgetting how screwed up my countrys economy is :)
Your country's economy?
Here, take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economy#Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economy#Criticism)
Now, I know I'm being a bit pessimistic, but considering past experiences...
EDIT: Actually, I haven't read the entire article, but just looking through it, it may be just what you need to feel better...
-
I pointed this out earlier. The 1982 war is pretty much agreed upon as being the junta's way of distracting attention away from the situation back home. They expected that following the invasion they'd be able to force the UK into talks and thereby give themselves a huge patriotic victory at very little cost.
Unfortunately they completely miscalculated what the British response would be and didn't expect a declaration of war followed by a British task fleet to almost immediately start sailing south. Ironically their attempt to hold onto power actually made their fall from it much more likely.
So now Argentina is in a economic crisis and what happens? Well it's not a military response this time but I really suspect that the real reason behind this being brought up again isn't actually that different.
-
I pointed this out earlier. The 1982 war is pretty much agreed upon as being the junta's way of distracting attention away from the situation back home. They expected that following the invasion they'd be able to force the UK into talks and thereby give themselves a huge patriotic victory at very little cost.
Unfortunately they completely miscalculated what the British response would be and didn't expect a declaration of war followed by a British task fleet to almost immediately start sailing south. Ironically their attempt to hold onto power actually made their fall from it much more likely.
So now Argentina is in a economic crisis and what happens? Well it's not a military response this time but I really suspect that the real reason behind this being brought up again isn't actually that different.
Well, calling it a crisis is going too far. The main problem with our economy is inflation. The rest is doing fine (it could do better, but it's fine). Inflation is still under control, but we have bad memories about it. That's why I said I'm being a bit pessimistic.
The main objection about the Kirchners is political. People dislike their methods. Peronist behaviour, adapted of course to the 21st century.
They are, however, political geniuses. They are not going to begin a war, especially when everyone opposes to one and know it's lost before the first shot. But a small diplomatic conflict can distract the population and prove beneficial to regain the votes of those old school hypernationalists. If, along the way, they reaffirm the claims, well, that won't hurt them either.
Your politicians surely know this. The fact they are giving this such undeserved importance is indicative they don't mind to use this political smokescreen too.
-
I wouldn't deny that at all.
And I wouldn't deny that at some point Thatcher realised that a strong response to the Falklands would look good for her in 1982. In fact it's widely credited with winning her the next election. I doubt it was the only reason (For all I dislike Thatcher she was a woman of convictions and would probably have gone to war even if she'd known it would lose the election for her).
The point is that both countries should see through the smokescreen.