Falklands

  • Thread starter DeletedUser3312
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Guest
On the topic at hand, I heard a bunch of Argentinians, dunno exactly what sort of group it comprised (other than a sensible one), apparently parts of the intellectual community including a former senior minister, wrote a letter of complaint or something to Pres. de Kirchner telling her to 'let the Falklanders to choose whether to be Argentinian', and that it was preposterous or something along those lines to try and force a country into a sovereign state it doesn't want to be part of.

I might go try and find the article I read it in if you'll give a mo.

EDIT: Well I just find a lil interesting article, contains a naughty word though, you can look at the Guardian's second Feb 09 article in the World News > Argentina section if you wanna see for yourself, made me chuckle a lil.

EDIT EDIT: Found the source I was on about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/22/argentinian-intellectuals-question-falklands
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
BovineGecko said:
So you can't actually make an argument to counter my points so instead resort to merely reporting everything I say in a poor attempt to dodge my reasoning. Bravo on such an underhanded tactic.
Click to expand...



Theres a difference between my ability to provide a counter argument and my prediction that you would be unable to digest a counter argument on this issue. Anything I say will be fed into your circular and flawed logic.

Hence my response to you is the same as mine to Britain. Pot meet kettle.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Before Britain colonised the Falklands, there were..........penguins. Britain colonised the Falklands..........before Argentinia existed as a nation.

As an ex serviceman, who fought to free the Falklanders in '82, all I can say is, enough blood, and lives have been shed over those rocks. The only reason this has come up again, is theres a possibility of oil being there.

And if Argentinia are foolish enough to attempt to invade again, they wont be met by a company of Marines, but a fully armed garrison, with the latest weapons systems.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pervie said:
Theres a difference between my ability to provide a counter argument and my prediction that you would be unable to digest a counter argument on this issue. Anything I say will be fed into your circular and flawed logic.

Hence my response to you is the same as mine to Britain. Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...

Is it it just me or are you ignoring the point I'm making.

This isn't pot meet kettle. This is pot (UK) thats grown up and ditched its colonial habits facing kettle (Arg) that thinks putting on a smile will totally conceal the big hungry maw that wants to gobble up pot's potential oilfield and democratically held islands, using flawed logic to call pot kettle and it kettle pot when it is the other way around.

Do you actually know the situation here or do you just read Sean Penn's twitter and think the UK is being a big old colonial bully when it's actually on the defence?
 

DeletedUser3312

Guest
  • Argentina refuse civilian British cruises to stop at their ports over dispute at Falklands.
  • Argentinian Defence minister warns Britain that Argentina can and will defend itself if necessary.

Though I must say, I don't think the Argentinians will try and retake the Falklands again simply because they don't have the military power. I also think if Britain did actually attack Argentina, well they wouldn't stand much of a chance. Ofcourse such an action would probably cause a whole new global conflict, therefore such a hostile action from Britain would never occur.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Argentina accused Britain of "Militarising" the falklands when the HMS Dauntless was sent on a routine deployment.
1. If it was militarisation would we really send one frigate? Either that or we are very confident that Argentina has next to no military power.
2. So what even if we are taking precautions to protect our civilians who chose to be a part of our nation.

So can argentina take the falklands? No. They aren't stupid enough to try using military means, hence the debates.
 

DeletedUser6960

Guest
Now this tool from pink floyd is spouting off on chilean tv that argentina should have them, what a prat!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Drunky Monkey said:
I don't see how Britain can see an ownership towards Malvinas islands. But yet again, oil is a major reason.
Click to expand...

Were they ever even called the Malvinas? Or is that just another attempt at making the Argentinians start 'huzz-ah'ing over 'their' lost islands. They're only making a noise because oil has been found, bet they feel like fools for ripping up that agreement now, eh?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The Falklands were claimed by Britain, long before Argentinia even existed as a nation, and before they had any idea the islands existed.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah, knew that. So I'll take that as a 'no', and it's just a just a way to get people all worked up. Just like trying to rename your domestic football league 'Belgrano'.

Bless 'em.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pervie said:
Calling Argentina a second rate nation - extremely offensive and reported
Click to expand...

It's also a fact. The UK is economically superior and has more political clout. The Argentinians need to sort out their own economic failures before attempting to make a land grab. The Falklands people don't want to join an inferior nation. Britain has full right to look down on them for daring to question the sovereignty of the Falklands, against the wishes of the people living there.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pushty said:
Vast majority of the western world says hai. :3
Click to expand...

Does that change the fact that Argentina are inferior in almost every possible way to England and many other European nations? It's notl ike they'd be able to go through with their pursuit of the Falklands anyway when you consider what's left of their 'military'...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No, but I'm pointing out that we don't really have the capabilities, either.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lets be realistic this ain't the 1980's.

the Falklands has a few more soldiers than it did last time around. Even if they did take the island, and the airport it wouldn't be the end of the saga. Our navy might not be what it was but we now have the C17. Every para in the British army (with required supplies) could be air dropped on their heads within days.

C130 gunships could make it look like shooting fish in a barrel before the first boot landed.

At lest we forget, Bosnia, Kosovo, Ireland, Afghan, Iraq. . . . We are quite well practiced and extremely good at what we do.

Oh and then there's the international condemnation. That never really goes down well.

And like Lord dan win said, if they claim it purely due to proximity then we could claim France (god forbid) and while we are digging up old bones lets not forget the part they played in that war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top