# Falkland Islands to Argentina?



## mike_cos (Mar 12, 2012)

According Roger Waters (Pink Floyd founder) Falkand should return to Argentina.... Is the beginning of a new Star System's War?....

"Brezhnev took afghanistan
begin took Beirut
galtieri took the union jack
and maggie over lunch one day
took a cruiser with all hands
apparently to make him give it back" (1983)​http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nces-self-from-Falkland-Islands-comments.html


----------



## Rapid (Mar 12, 2012)

Everyone knows this is the beginning of... nothing. The Argie government is just using this to distract their citizens from more important issues at home. They don't have the means or the will to go to war with Britain again, especially since they're still using decades old technology/equipment. There's a lot more to it than that, but it would be a waste of time to go further into it since nothing's going to happen. You can read more about it here though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

Regardless, the Argies can fuck off because the people of the Falkland Islands have consistently voted that they want to stay under British rule.


----------



## pardus (Mar 12, 2012)

I'm a huge Pink Floyd and Roger Waters fan, however he is an uber liberal hippie fuck. He tried to slam Israel during a concert of his I went to, the crowd booed him quite a lot and he shut up and played his music after that.

He has NO say in fucking politics. 
The British were the first land on the Falklands, first to claim it and they established the first settlement.
The Falklands are populated by British people who want to remain British.

The British kicked Argentina's ass in 1982 for their illegal invasion of the Falklands.

There is no case for Argentina.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

Argentina is just stirring up shit because they want the rights to the resources around the Falklands.  There's some big resource projects on the go there and in the future will provide a good revenue stream.


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2012)

Paying attention to an artist's political views is a lot like asking Helen Keller to describe the color red.

Kony2012!


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

Maybe if Britain gives Kony the Falklands?


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 12, 2012)

Free Quebec!


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Free Quebec!



Only if we get perpetual rights to all cheese curd sales for poutine.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 12, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> Only if we get perpetual rights to all cheese curd sales for poutine.


:sick:


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

Don't knock it til you try it witch! ;)  If it'll coax you to try it, you can probably find a place that makes a "Philly" cheesesteak version.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 12, 2012)

Philly is on the other side of the state!  Er I mean Commonwealth!


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Philly is on the other side of the state! Er I mean Commonwealth!


 
I don't care, it's the only thing I could think of that has cheese on it that would be "close" to you.  Plus what kind of witch says no to cheese?


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 12, 2012)

This witch.  Im not a fan of cheese of any kind. :sick:


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 12, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> This witch. Im not a fan of cheese of any kind. :sick:


 
You should see this awesome "artisanal" blue cheese I just got then. ;) It looks and smells like a pair old wooly socks that lost the battle to foot fungus but it tastes like pure heaven.

Oh and sorry for the hijack.  Back to our regular scheduled programming.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 12, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> Only if we get perpetual rights to all cheese curd sales for poutine.


 
No idea what you just said. At all. It's like Irish wrote it how he would say it!


----------



## QC (Mar 12, 2012)

Don't cry for me I've got Tinia.


----------



## Seajack (Mar 12, 2012)

I wonder if musicians, comedian, and actors will ever begin to understand that no one gives a hoot about what they think just because they're famous? 

Whatever gets your name on the news or on the internet though, right? Sell outs :-"...


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 12, 2012)

Argentina claiming the Falklands would be like the US trying to claim the Bahamas just because Miami is >200 nautical miles from Nassau. The islands were uninhabited when the Europeans landed there. Even though the French surrendered their settlement to Spain, that doesn't really change the fact that the British got there first. Vernet didn't give two shits about the land, all he wanted was to make money clubbing seals about the head (and he did a rather miserable job at that). As far as I'm concerned, the British are completely in the right in asserting their presence in the Falklands. The inhabitants want to remain subjects of the crown, so let them. Argentina can go piss up a rope.

ETA, and so can Roger Waters.


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2012)

Wait...did RK just bust out with some seemingly obscure history to illustrate her point? And her post contained only one slightly vulgar comment?

What just happened?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 12, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Wait...did RK just bust out with some seemingly obscure history to illustrate her point? And her post contained only one slightly vulgar comment?
> 
> What just happened?


 
It's 2012, man.  The world's about to end.


----------



## QC (Mar 13, 2012)

Don't cry for me Marge and Tina.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 14, 2012)

The fact remains that if Argentina invaded the Falkland again, with the current economic crisis and lack of UK's naval capability, probably overturn the outcome of 1982...Harry's visit is very significant ... hey guys .. we are friends...;)

I like this dude... really


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 14, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> Argentina claiming the Falklands would be like the US trying to claim the Bahamas just because Miami is >200 nautical miles from Nassau. The islands were uninhabited when the Europeans landed there. Even though the French surrendered their settlement to Spain, that doesn't really change the fact that the British got there first. Vernet didn't give two shits about the land, all he wanted was to make money clubbing seals about the head (and he did a rather miserable job at that). As far as I'm concerned, the British are completely in the right in asserting their presence in the Falklands. The inhabitants want to remain subjects of the crown, so let them. Argentina can go piss up a rope.
> 
> ETA, and so can Roger Waters.


IIRC The US had claimed (and abandoned said claim) before the British.

What isn't being mentioned is the Right to Self Determination (?).  i.e. shouldn't the people living on the island get a choice?  They have chosen to be British and should be allowed to vote on membership in the UK, Argentina, or Independence as a Protectorate.


----------



## Rapid (Mar 14, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> The fact remains that if Argentina invaded the Falkland again, with the current economic crisis and lack of UK's naval capability, probably overturn the outcome of 1982...


 
The UK is in a much better economic position than many other countries right now (not exactly a "crisis" like in some European countries), so that's not really an issue. Naval capability isn't everything either. There's only one fact, and that's that Argentina doesn't have the balls to attack the islands again. Especially since they are much more heavily defended than they were the first time. On top of that, the Argies are still mostly stuck using the same equipment that they had in the 80s, so they're not exactly in a great position to overtake anything. Only some of their SOF units are worth a damn, and yet they're still no match for ours.



SOWT said:


> What isn't being mentioned is the Right to Self Determination (?). i.e. shouldn't the people living on the island get a choice? They have chosen to be British and should be allowed to vote on membership in the UK, Argentina, or Independence as a Protectorate.


 
They have consistently voted in favour of us actually. They damn sure don't want to have anything to do with Argentina! All those fuckers care about are the profits to be had from around the island.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 14, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Naval capability isn't everything either.


 
I agree with you about Argies's SOF or equipments... but... How will you deploy a landing force with aerial cover without a strong naval capability? Punta Arenas Airbase is not always available... Has UK an available Battle Group? Airwing Carriers? SAS ans SBS are now deployed in A'stan... Do you think UK is able to combat on 2 fronts? It's not a criticism.. but real question.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 14, 2012)

Argentina could probably storm the Falkland's in the short term. The long term consequences would be great. If it took the British several weeks to respond they would have time to recruit other support from Europe and the US. Plans could be developed and would probably have direct consequences to Argentina itself. The ensuing campaign to free the Falkland's would probably cost Argentina most of there air and navel assets and probably a serious chunk of there other military capabilities. They could run a bombing campaign against Argentina until they screamed no more and never have to put a boot on the ground.

I can't see a scenario, if the Argentinian took over the Falkland, that we wouldn't send at least one battle group to support the British.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 14, 2012)

I doubt they could take the islands again. The UK was caught having tea last time and they only had a small garrison. Now there are oodles of troops there and doubtless they'll have a well defined plan, unlike last time.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 14, 2012)

..oodles of troops?... really?...


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 14, 2012)

In comparison to what used to be there before the invasion, yes.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Mar 14, 2012)

The UK also has this little thing called the commonwealth.   There would be a bit of protesting from the hippy elements but if asked Argentina would find itself facing professional forces from the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ and we might possibly be able to get the Fijians in there as well.

I predict Argentina would last 2 weeks before being beaten, invaded and find thmselves being used as slave labour.

Wait wrong century but you get the idea.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh we already do that with their working holiday kids.


----------



## Rapid (Mar 14, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> I agree with you about Argies's SOF or equipments... but... How will you deploy a landing force with aerial cover without a strong naval capability? Punta Arenas Airbase is not always available... Has UK an available Battle Group? Airwing Carriers? SAS ans SBS are now deployed in A'stan... Do you think UK is able to combat on 2 fronts? It's not a criticism.. but real question.


 
Did you read the article I posted earlier? It pretty much answers all your questions. There's no doubt we'd be able to fight on both fronts (UKSF), and as the other guys have mentioned, we probably wouldn't be completely alone either. There might be limitations to particular naval capabilities, but there are ways around that issue.

It's all practically irrelevant anyway, because Argentina knows they'd risk getting butt-fucked if they moved on the islands. They are just stirring the pot and trying to distract their citizens from the real problems in their own country (part of the reason why they invaded in the past as well).


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 15, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Did you read the article I posted earlier?.
> 
> There might be limitations to particular naval capabilities, but there are ways around that issue.
> 
> They are just stirring the pot and trying to distract their citizens from the real problems in their own country (part of the reason why they invaded in the past as well).


 
Yes I did.....

Might be?.. LOL ... other ways around?.. Uncle Sam? 2012 is not 1982

I agree completely with you about last your sentence...


----------



## Rapid (Mar 15, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Might be?.. LOL ... other ways around?.. Uncle Sam? 2012 is not 1982


 
No, not Uncle Sam. I'm tired of referring to the article, so I'll just quote it here:



> Much has changed in strategic terms. Nowadays, it could be won back through long-range air power, says Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute. The lack of carrier aircraft is an impediment. Many, including former head of the military General Sir Mike Jackson, have said it would now be impossible to recapture the islands. *Clarke disagrees.* Bombers from Ascension - backed by refuelling planes - could destroy Mt Pleasant air base if it fell into Argentine hands. Once Argentine defences had been nullified, special forces could be dropped onto the islands. So it is possible - but politically, there is probably no heart for such a campaign, Clarke says.


 
Not only is it possible, but I also disagree with Clarke about there being "no heart for such a campaign". Like others have said, in the beginning there might be some hippies who would oppose any conflict, but I think everyone would be surprised by how many more people wouldn't want to give up the islands just like that. Again, that's all assuming those Argies would have already defeated the garrison of +1200 troops on the island, plus the nuclear-powered submarine, frigates and jets which are already there as well... which I really doubt they could with their limited capabilities.

Even in the unlikeliest event that they did take the island's forces completely by surprise and defeated them, I think a lot of 'strategists' are forgetting that it would be very hard to let any of those deaths go unavenged. That's the factor which would push the UK into the conflict.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Mar 17, 2012)

Rapid said:


> No, not Uncle Sam. I'm tired of referring to the article, so I'll just quote it here:


 
As my wife's Argentinian and lived through Malvinas '82, I'll bump this thread while preparing a response for the *wiki* gurus who read and believe more than what they've lived through.



> For Mike_COS
> Como argentino de mi esposa y vivido a través de las Malvinas 82, voy a topar este tema mientras se prepara una respuesta para los gurús de wiki que leen y creen más de lo que he vivido.


 
Before you say "Fuck Argentina", know your SA and *exactly* who the audience is.

Argentina has a voice, a conscience, and a good argument.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 17, 2012)

RB said:


> Before you say "Fuck Argentina", know your SA and *exactly* who the audience is.


 
Hermano, io non ho mai detto "vaffanculo Argentina"... non vedo perchè dovrei... che cazzo è il mio SA esattamente?

Hermano, yo nunca dije "mierda la Argentina" ... No veo por qué debo hacerlo ... ¿Qué mierda es mi SA exactamente?

Hermano, I never said "fuck Argentina" ... I do not see why I should ... What the fuck is my SA exactly?



Rapid said:


> I'm tired of referring to the article, so I'll just quote it here


 
If you are tired... rest.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 18, 2012)

They have no argument, RB, I will debate that until the cows come home.

None at all.


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2012)

I served with quite a few Brits who were either there or served with guys who were there. I remember when it happened very well.
I for one would like to hear the good argument.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

Uhm... this thread probably does not lead to anything good... I may have touched a sensitive nerve... Mods.. what do you think about?


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Uhm... this thread probably does not lead to anything good... I may have touched a sensitive nerve... Mods.. what do you think about?


 
Not much ;)

We don't stop discussion just because of differing opinion. 
We all have a chance to learn something here.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

My opinion remain the same... Actually for UK it will be a big problem to sustein a new war in these islands... 
No Aircraft Carriers (Hely Carriers only)
4 (probably 3) old Trident Class SM to replace 
Dunno about new Naval Aircraft... F35? Or they have to carry old Harriers?
ALBA Organization is against UK... (Ugo said "we'll fight with Argies") so no friendly Naval Base near Islands
I'm not a senior strategist of STRATFOR.... but these are facts...


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 18, 2012)

Mike, in this modern day of war fighting you have to take into account the UK's allies and their assets.  I'm sure there could be a full naval fleet with ground forces on board, floating off the coast in short order.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

Of course... Allies are Allies....but do you really think that US or Kiwi will fight for Falklands? (maybe assets... but wich?)


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Of course... Allies are Allies....but do you really think that US or Kiwi will fight for Falklands? (maybe assets... but wich?)


 
I don't know about conventional combat troops on the ground but I have no doubt the Commonwealth would have naval and air assets there if they were needed.
New Zealand sent a frigate to replace a British one in 1982 so that it could fight in the Falklands.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Mar 18, 2012)

Naw, this thread is OK.

As the First World reports in English, the wiki articles and all the hoopla has a demonstrably English / British slant, "We found it, we made a map of it, we landed there first...blah blah".

I invite you to take a few minutes and read the history of "Las Malvinas" from a different side of the world: *[this link you will not find on a basic search for info]*

*http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/*

[Look at this as from a Democratic POV and a Republican POV]




> History
> 
> The Malvinas Islands became part of an area under Spanish jurisdiction with the entry into force of the first international instruments to delimit the “New World” soon after the discovery of the Americas in 1492. The Papal Bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 were the first instruments that conferred titles on Spain in accordance with the international law of the time.
> 
> ...


 
*[Don't just read the quote, search a bit more]*


In present day, I look at it this way, with regards to American History.

IMHO, If the Argentinians put up a fight for Las Malvinas, the Argentines might certainly lose in the initial stages, but not in the long run. Let's go back to the American Revolution. Britain could not sustain a war from across the ocean, so they finally abdicated the "Americas" to the BRITISH colonists who left England . British troops couldn't land, much less walk the streets of a large populated area.

I see more or less the same situation in Argentina. If England did in fact go to war with Argentina, they would have to sustain the war from VERY long distances, as all of the South American countries surrounding Argentina are on the Argentine side of the argument for Malvinas. No landings, no flights. British are disliked in the surrounding countries as it is, much much less so if a "war" were on.

Just as many troops from foreign countries supported the US in the initial stages of war with Britain in 1775, so it would be in Argentina. Look at the weaponry used in 1775, peasants with muskets, axes, hatchets, very little to no military training VS. a vastly superior British military force. The Brits got there collective asses handed to them and went scurrying home in defeat.

I understand the economic POV from Britain, but in my estimation the Argentines aren't so much interested in the economy as they are the integrity of a sovereign nation laying claim to islands within their globally recognized territorial waters.

2c.


----------



## Rapid (Mar 18, 2012)

I, for one, am quite happy with the way content is reported in the first world. The values we typically stand for mean that a lot of said content is very good (along with some very bad, but it's fairly easy to tell apart).

On the other hand, there's a hell of a lot of brainwashing going on in _certain_ South American countries. Through media, through education, through the whole lot.

So, yeah, I guess I can't complain about how things work in our parts, even if it's not always perfect.

As a polar opposite to this, I almost always need a few grains of salt to believe any information disseminated by governments which are pals with Hugo Chavez et al. I think we all know how they tend to operate. It's nothing like Democrats vs Republicans.

It's certainly true that information tends to be different in other parts of the world... I could read all I want on Iranian websites (whether government or civilian) about how their country only wants nuclear power for civilian energy. That's certainly a different slant to what's being reported in the first world, isn't it? We know whose side of the story is more factually based and grounded in reality, though.



RB said:


> in my estimation the Argentines aren't so much interested in the economy as they are the integrity of a sovereign nation laying claim to islands within their globally recognized territorial waters.


 
Argentinians who follow a skewed version of the facts, in a curriculum imposed by the government, may genuinely believe in this 'cause', but the government doesn't. They only use this issue to distract their citizens from more important issues at home (the very reason the government at the time started the first conflict), and, more recently, because they found out there were resources in those waters. That's why they've only stepped up their pressure on this issue again since this was discovered.

Anyway, the islanders don't want anything to do with Argentina, so what would Argentina to do if they got the islands back? Force the people out? Oppress them?

Argentina has about as much of a claim to the Falkland Islands as Britain has to America. In other words, they need to drop their ridiculous colonialist attitude.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Mar 18, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Argentina has about as much of a claim to the Falkland Islands as Britain has to America. *In other words, they need to drop their ridiculous colonialist attitude*.


 
Pot, here me roar, LOL.



> la paja en el caldero negro


 
What I find most interesting about this thread is the reach of the Queens blue blood thumb. The majority of posters against Argentina are those who *are* / *were* under her infamous thumb and must still claim her allegiance.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Argentina has about as much of a claim to the Falkland Islands as Britain has to America..


Uhm.. wait.. uh... Cristoforo Colombo discovered America...ROFL!


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Of course... Allies are Allies....but do you really think that US or Kiwi will fight for Falklands? (maybe assets... but wich?)


 
I could almost guarantee that there would be at least Canadian frigate there to assist, even if it is just for security of the fleet or blockade maneuvers and if a suitable air base within the region was found; I'm sure we'd provide air assets.  Don't rule out the Aussies, Kiwi's, etc. from providing support.  As for the US, it's in their best interest to keep the region "stable". ;)


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> I could almost guarantee that there would be at least Canadian frigate there to assist, even if it is just for security of the fleet or blockade maneuvers and if a suitable air base within the region was found; I'm sure we'd provide air assets. Don't rule out the Aussies, Kiwi's, etc. from providing support. As for the US, it's in their best interest to keep the region "stable". ;)


 
Wow... WWIII for Falkland Islands...


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Wow... WWIII for Falkland Islands...


 
It already happened for Lybia, Afghanistan, etc...


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> It already happened for Lybia, Afghanistan, etc...


oh... Rack... please.... dont compare the Arab spring or the fight against AQ with the Falklands.. LOL


----------



## Rapid (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Uhm.. wait.. uh... Cristoforo Colombo discovered America...ROFL!


 
I think you'll find it's not as simple as "finders keepers". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







mike_cos said:


> oh... Rack... please.... dont compare the Arab spring or the fight against AQ with the Falklands.. LOL


 
Don't compare WW3 with a conflict over the Falkland Islands then.

I think you have a different concept of what a "World War" is, because Russia and China wouldn't want anything to do with this. This would be a very localised conflict, just like it was last time.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 18, 2012)

Nobody is doing nothing until the UN says its ok to go to war.  Geesh.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

Rapid said:


> I think you'll find it's not as simple as "finders keepers".


LOL



Rapid said:


> I think you have a different concept of what a "World War" is.


 
Oh wow... you know what is my concept of "World War"...interesting... but especially you know the Real Concept... Please let me know mine...I'm so stupid and young... especially illiterate... I never been to 760 United Nations Plaza NY, I never been to Boulevard Leopold III in Brussels... I never studied models of war, International relations, International Law... you too? Please tell me what is a "World War"


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> the Commonwealth would have naval and air assets there if they were needed.


Also Pakistan (or Fuckistan if you want) is part of the Commonwealth....


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 18, 2012)

Mike,

I'm sure you'll be invited to the "party" as well but I'm not sure if your leaders would accept the invitation.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

RackMaster said:


> Mike,
> 
> I'm sure you'll be invited to the "party" as well but I'm not sure if your leaders would accept the invitation.


LMAO!... our what? Leaders?.. bwahahaah since 8 sep '43 we have not a leader... and we have no money to spend.... our battle is inside Italy... thanks for the invitation anyway...


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Also Pakistan (or Fuckistan if you want) is part of the Commonwealth....


 
There are two distinct parts of the Commonwealth, Pakistan is in the "other" part.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> There are two distinct parts of the Commonwealth, Pakistan is in the "other" part.


Of course mate.. of course...


----------



## Mac_NZ (Mar 18, 2012)

RB, sorry mate I can't agree with you on that one.  The islanders identify as British subjects, they are not oppressed or yearning to be free of the British yoke.

Argentinas claim that they are inside their territorial waters is as sound as the US claiming they should take over Canada because they are right next door.

As to being a lackey of the crown  it does have some advantages mate and I'm very proud of the Royal that was at the start of my former units name.  The Queen is even the Colonel in Chief of my regiment.

Mike, what your bringing up is technical difficulties.  Do not discount the will to win despite this.  The UK forces are battle hardened troops.


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2012)

mike_cos said:


> Oh wow... you know what is my concept of "World War"...interesting... but especially you know the Real Concept... Please let me know mine...I'm so stupid and young... especially illiterate... I never been to 760 United Nations Plaza NY, I never been to Boulevard Leopold III in Brussels... I never studied models of war, International relations, International Law... you too? Please tell me what is a "World War"


 
Mike it could never be a world war, you know that. at most there might be a dozen countries involved with maybe half of them actively engaged in conflict.
Besides we couldn't fit everyone onto the Falklands for a world war lol

"Germany, can you move over a bit, France doesn't have enough room".

"NEIN!"


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> Mike it could never be a world war, you know that. at most there might be a dozen countries involved with maybe half of them actively engaged in conflict.
> Besides we couldn't fit everyone onto the Falklands for a world war lol
> 
> "Germany, can you move over a bit, France doesn't have enough room".
> ...


LMAO!!... you won!


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 18, 2012)

Seajack said:


> I wonder if musicians, comedian, and actors will ever begin to understand that no one gives a hoot about what they think just because they're famous?
> 
> Whatever gets your name on the news or on the internet though, right? Sell outs :-"...


 
I fail more and more to see the difference between them and politicians.
If someone agrees with their stance on a given point, they get one vote or make a movie ticket/DVD sale. If someone disagrees, no vote, no sale.
This is über-boring, and you can't test Cadillacs or race Formula 1 on this shit.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 18, 2012)

RB said:


> Naw, this thread is OK.
> 
> As the First World reports in English, the wiki articles and all the hoopla has a demonstrably English / British slant, "We found it, we made a map of it, we landed there first...blah blah".
> 
> ...


 
I don't need to read it as I'm well aware the AR argument rests almost solely on "it was Spain's, ergo it is now ours because we used to be a Spanish colony." Which is a rediculous argument when you look at it- perhaps they should claim the South Eastern US too, since that was Spain's too at one point. Would you support that?

They could probably claim the rest of Spanish speaking South America come to think of it. But they don't. Why not?

Furthermore I find your "under the thumb" comment offensive and frivilous- though I suspect you put it there for lack of a good argument.


----------



## QC (Mar 18, 2012)

FFS, quit that farking crying!


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 18, 2012)

Me?


----------



## Rabid Badger (Mar 18, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Furthermore I find your "under the thumb" comment offensive and *frivilous*- though I suspect you put it there for lack of a good argument.


 
Spit, Let's agree to disagree, as we do on many occasions here.

LOL. I can say "under the thumb" because I don't kiss the queens blue blooded colonialist arse.... ..and in Queens English, it's *"frivolous"*.

Your lack of research or will to *"left click"* the link doesn't diminish the Argentinian argument....FYI....so here it is again:

http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/

FWIW, I'm not knocking the British military service in any way, shape, form. I respect military service for country at the utmost of my being.

Your *"lack of a good argument"* quote is *your excuse* for not researching more *as you admitted* and seem to know it all and you have your heartfelt view.  Cool. I have mine.

I support Argentina in their quest for a unified Malvinas.



Mac_NZ said:


> RB, sorry mate I can't agree with you on that one. The islanders identify as British subjects, they are not oppressed or yearning to be free of the British yoke.


 
.......and they would not be oppressed under Argentina, either.

Even though they qualify as British subjects, they've always received autonomy and support from Argentina. That wouldn't change.

The indigenous population of Malvinas has always been Argentinian, and the relationship between the Brits and the Patagonian Indians has always been good. No reason for that to change.

Here's a funny little item, the "Kelper's" that inhabit Las Malvinas are viewed by the Royals as *sub-human citizens of the Crown*. How is that a good life for a British "subject"? What the "Kelper's" don't know and have never experienced is that their independence from British rule may just be better for them in the long run. It is for us Americans..

On the Island you have Kelpers and you have British soldiers.



> *The Islanders are British, albeit with a distinct identity of their own:*
> ​ British cultural, economic, social, political and educational values create a unique British-like, Falkland Islands. *Yet Islanders feel distinctly different from their fellow citizens who reside in the United Kingdom.* This might have something to do with geographical isolation or with living on a smaller island – perhaps akin to those British people not feeling European. (Lewis Clifton, Speaker of the Falklands Legislative Council)[4]


2c


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm not going to reply because I'll say something I'll regret later but suffice it to say you know *nothing* about the Queen or how it works so I might ask you to please refrain from commenting on it.


----------



## Rapid (Mar 19, 2012)

RB said:


> Here's a funny little item, the "Kelper's" that inhabit Las Malvinas are viewed by the Royals as sub-human citizens of the Crown. How is that a good life for a British "subject"? What the "Kelper's" don't know and have never experienced is that their independence from British rule may just be better for them in the long run. It is for us Americans..


 
I'm not really sure how to respond to such incredible ignorance and misinformation in a respectful way. It seems that you've been influenced far too much by Argentinian propaganda, yet you claim that we're the ignorant ones.

Your comparison is poor as well. America wanted its independence from the British. It wasn't forced onto them.



RB said:


> .......and they would not be oppressed under Argentina, either.


 
Equally ridiculous. How is it not oppressing people when you force them to be under your rule when they don't want to be?

Hey, let's go annex some neighbouring regions! Even though they don't want us there, it's totally okay because we'll, like, respect their autonomy and stuff!



RB said:


> The indigenous population of Malvinas has always been Argentinian


 
It takes incredible ignorance to believe that the islanders identify themselves in any way, shape or form as "Argentinian", when it is in fact the exact opposite. Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it an orange, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, proclaiming that people in some neighbouring region are 'part of your nation' (even though they don't think they are), in order to justify taking over that region with no regards to what they actually want sounds eerily familiar... in a bad way.



RB said:


> On the Island you have Kelpers and you have British soldiers.


 
You couldn't be more wrong and more misinformed about what's actually going on in the Falkland Islands. What you believe in, that the islanders are actually Argentinian and don't associate themselves with the British, is pure fantasy.

Your cherry-picked quote from Wikipedia isn't much better either, and you've complete misinterpreted its meaning. The fact that the Islanders have a distinct identity of their own doesn't make them any less British (and certainly no more Argentinian). The Welsh have a 'distinct identity of their own', even their own language, and yet they're still 100% damn British.

Your attempt to separate the islanders from the British to justify your position is quite poor and completely ignorant of reality on the islands. Finally, the reasoning that sees the islanders as 'Argentinians' (when they sure as hell aren't, and don't want to be) is something similar to lines used by expansionist warmongerers throughout history.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Mar 19, 2012)

I guess any view different from yours in viewed as *"ridiculous"* , *"ignorant"*, *"misinformed*", and *"misinterpreted"*.

Nice. Done here.


----------



## pardus (Mar 19, 2012)

WOW, this took a turn for the surreal.

Closed unless another mod/admin wants to take it on.


----------



## pardus (Oct 6, 2013)

A glimpse into the Falklands post war...


----------

