Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Feb '12 07:18
    In a direct toss-up; who would you trust more?
    In the left corner: A third world, ex-dictatorate turned semi-commie land full of nazi refugees with the diplomatic skills of a US embassador to Iran?
    In the right corner: England.

    As anyone knows, you can trust the British government about as much as you can trust the French one... don't. At least the Americans are naieve when it comes to world politics (and so adorable in a Disney-esque sort of way when they bloob on the international front). The English and French are just plain nasty. I can only presume that when America loses its (economic) empire it will go all sour like the French and English.

    Anyhoo. Argentina claims the English have sent a nuclear submarine to the Falklands and England, naturally, claims it hasn't.
    "A submarine? To South America, even the suggestion makes my Cambridge-educated knees tremble with disgust, don't you know we're in the middle of a recession and can't afford the petrol! Those dastardly South Americans. Lying and conniving to make us look like the ex-imperialistic bastards we don't want you to remember we actually are."

    "Aye Caramba." That's about how much I reckon the Argentinian response will be worth. Or perhaps an official complaint to the BBC once Jeremy Clarkson gets himself involved: "Those Argentinian, nazi commie, bean selling, beef transporting grease balls. They couldn't build a proper British car even if the Germans invaded them again and started producing Minis there. And on that bomb shell..."

    Truth be told, I wonder what all this English posturing is all about? Do they really reckon Argentina is going to invade the Falklands (hardly bloody likely, me thinks)? Or is there something we haven't quite spotted yet and the English need a flag-wavin', beans on toast & slap on the thigh, patriotic diversion to keep us all enthrolled.
    Mr. Bean be damned... we've got to stick together, 'cause if we don't.... then... then... Johnny foreigner is going to do to us what America has done to the Middle East! Do you want that?

    DO YOU WANT THAT?
    Here. Have a pint of ale, watch some six nations rugby (and just watch us paste those child-raping, financial-despot bunga bunga papist Italians) and enjoy being British! We'll take care of you. All of us. Together.

    Yup.
    No matter how I flip this little coin of diplomatic crap, I can't but help see it as a very subtle intervention on Scottish independance.

    Or maybe I do really need some sleep.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Civilian @ breakfast
    11 Feb '12 08:03
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    In a direct toss-up; who would you trust more?
    In the left corner: A third world, ex-dictatorate turned semi-commie land full of nazi refugees with the diplomatic skills of a US embassador to Iran?
    In the right corner: England.

    As anyone knows, you can trust the British government about as much as you can trust the French one... don't. At least the Am ...[text shortened]... rvention on Scottish independance.

    Or maybe I do really need some sleep.
    Nuclear subs don't use petrol.

    Last time it was HMS Conqueror. There is a precedent for British nuclear subs being used to defend the Falklands.
  3. Subscriber shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Feb '12 08:34
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Nuclear subs don't use petrol.
    Really now...
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Civilian @ breakfast
    11 Feb '12 09:45
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine
  5. 11 Feb '12 11:16
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    In a direct toss-up; who would you trust more?
    In the left corner: A third world, ex-dictatorate turned semi-commie land full of nazi refugees with the diplomatic skills of a US embassador to Iran?
    In the right corner: England.

    As anyone knows, you can trust the British government about as much as you can trust the French one... don't. At least the Am ...[text shortened]... rvention on Scottish independance.

    Or maybe I do really need some sleep.
    All of your assumptions may be right, but I can't help but feel that even the suspicion of the presence of a hunter-killer sub in the area reduces the chances of another invasion to zero.
  6. 11 Feb '12 11:33
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    In a direct toss-up; who would you trust more?
    In the left corner: A third world, ex-dictatorate turned semi-commie land full of nazi refugees with the diplomatic skills of a US embassador to Iran?
    In the right corner: England.

    As anyone knows, you can trust the British government about as much as you can trust the French one... don't. At least the Am ...[text shortened]... rvention on Scottish independance.

    Or maybe I do really need some sleep.
    Any country that burns other countries flags tend not to win wars !
    England ,i see you use this "England "instead of Britain spiel ,you are becoming to transparent .
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    11 Feb '12 12:14
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Nuclear subs don't use petrol.

    Last time it was HMS Conqueror. There is a precedent for British nuclear subs being used to defend the Falklands.
    Ah, yes, the infamous sinking of the General Belgrano.
  8. Standard member skipper2666
    Why so serious ????
    11 Feb '12 13:19
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    In a direct toss-up; who would you trust more?
    In the left corner: A third world, ex-dictatorate turned semi-commie land full of nazi refugees with the diplomatic skills of a US embassador to Iran?
    In the right corner: England.

    As anyone knows, you can trust the British government about as much as you can trust the French one... don't. At least the Am ...[text shortened]... rvention on Scottish independance.

    Or maybe I do really need some sleep.
    You have your finger on the pulse and see through the posturing.

    There is still more to come....... and more nonsense to be spoken.

    Ask why the Falklands are so important in the first place and it's not just the obvious Oil answer.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Civilian @ breakfast
    11 Feb '12 20:28 / 2 edits
    Besides the oil they are a naval and air base. F-35s operating out of the Falklands would be a nightmare for Argentinian national security people.

    My favorite map for this topic that illustrates very well why Argentina wants the islands despite not having any people on them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falklands,_Campaign,_(Distances_to_bases)_1982.jpg

    Interestingly (though not relevant to this situation) the French aircraft carrier also uses no petrol. The du Gaulle could go anywhere without fuelling.
  10. 11 Feb '12 23:26
    Well, I personally am siding with Argentina on this one, at least in principle, as the occupation of the Falklands is indeed a lingering vestige of imperialism. I highly doubt Argentina can in fact do anything to alter the status quo, but she is on the side of the angels nevertheless.

    And before any charges of continental bias are levelled against me, I'd like to say that my opinion on this matter is in no way influenced or shaped by the fact that my native country is a neighbor to Argentina.
  11. Subscriber shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Feb '12 06:59
    Originally posted by phil3000
    England ,i see you use this "England "instead of Britain spiel ,you are becoming to transparent .
    Yes... I do tend to distance myself from conservative governments and their actions; especially in the foreign arena.

    It's called: Keeping my conscience clear.
  12. 12 Feb '12 11:55 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Well, I personally am siding with Argentina on this one, at least in principle, as the occupation of the Falklands is indeed a lingering vestige of imperialism. I highly doubt Argentina can in fact do anything to alter the status quo, but she is on the side of the angels nevertheless.
    So if Argentina had succeeded in holding on to the Falklands, I suppose that would be "a lingering vestige" of South American imperialism... The islands are in the middle of the ocean, and thus they don't obviously belong to anyone, in geographical terms.

    The people who live on the Falklands want to remain British. No amount of principled commentary about the theoretical rights and wrongs of the matter can override this simple fact.
  13. Standard member no1marauder
    Caustic/Disagreeable
    12 Feb '12 12:31
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    So if Argentina had succeeded in holding on to the Falklands, I suppose that would be "a lingering vestige" of South American imperialism... The islands are in the middle of the ocean, and thus they don't obviously belong to anyone, in geographical terms.

    The people who live on the Falklands want to remain British. No amount of principled commentary about the theoretical rights and wrongs of the matter can override this simple fact.
    Such a "simple fact" is hardly a compelling one. The Argentine claim is the better one; at the time of Argentinian independence, the islands had been ruled from Buenos Aires for almost 40 years and the settlement on the island was Spanish, not English. It was British imperialism and colonialism that led to the military seizure of the islands in 1833 and the expulsion of the Argentines living there. The "simple fact" that the inhabitants in 1833 wanted to remain part of Argentina was pretty blithely overridden. http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac51

    The people on the island can remain British if they want to; there's plenty of room in the UK. But why the wishes of a population created by ethnic cleansing should be controlling is frankly puzzling to me. The people of Hong Kong clearly did not want that enclave to return to China but their wishes were not considered as decisive; the need to correct the moral wrong of conquest and imperialism were (rightly) regarded as more important. Of course, Argentina is not as militarily strong as China so the UK is able to use force to maintain the colonial status quo (as they do in Northern Ireland) but that hardly equates to a morally just argument.
  14. 12 Feb '12 13:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Such a "simple fact" is hardly a compelling one. The Argentine claim is the better one; at the time of Argentinian independence, the islands had been ruled from Buenos Aires for almost 40 years and the settlement on the island was Spanish, not English. It was British imperialism and colonialism that led to the military seizure of the islands in 1833 and ...[text shortened]... us quo (as they do in Northern Ireland) but that hardly equates to a morally just argument.
    I dont think morallity comes into it; the people who declared independence for Argentina were colonial imperialists themselves of conquistadore descent, even now the people who I see on the tv shouting for the return of the malvinas look decidedly spanish rather than indigenous south american. The bottom line is there are all kinds of mineral/military reasons for keeping a viable base in the south atlantic and yes unlike the chinese the argentinians are not scary enough to get their way, also the hong kong islands were returned to china as per agreement.
  15. 12 Feb '12 13:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Such a "simple fact" is hardly a compelling one. The Argentine claim is the better one; at the time of Argentinian independence, the islands had been ruled from Buenos Aires for almost 40 years and the settlement on the island was Spanish, not English. It was British imperialism and colonialism that led to the military seizure of the islands in 1833 and us quo (as they do in Northern Ireland) but that hardly equates to a morally just argument.
    I could respond by arguing that the British claim dates back to 1690, has never been renounced, and predates all other claims, but I think that would be a secondary issue.

    More to the point, I find it "frankly puzzling" that the wishes of the current inhabitants of the islands should be considered less pressing a moral concern than an act of injustice committed a hundred and eighty years ago. None of the current inhabitants of the Falklands, nor anyone alive, can be considered responsible for this act of ethnic cleansing, and to seek to redress it at this late stage would simply be to commit a act of injustice against the islanders.

    In any case, if we're going to go down the road of correcting the past injustices of conquest and imperialism, then the presence of a Spanish-speaking state at the southern tip of South America is itself the result of those phenomena.

    I've argued in previous threads that I think it should be easier to redraw borders (within the constraints of practicality) than it is now, and that consequently, questions like Northern Ireland and Hong Kong should be settled over time through the consensus of the citizens of the disputed territory. But in the case of Northern Ireland, there are at least real grounds for dispute, since the island as a whole has an evident geographical integrity and a long-standing cultural identity, and since even within Northern Ireland itself, there is presently a large, mixed population with numerous people of either side of the argument. This is not the case in the Falklands, where the overwhelming majority of residents consider themselves to be British and wish to remain so.