Falklands War part 2?

[dmcowen674]

Falklands War part 2?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ould-fight-with-Argentina-over-Falklands.html

Looks like some nations in South America are getting a bit heated about it. Could be bad timing for the UK as I think they don't have any Carriers at the moment. THey're currently making two new ones but they aren't due to be operational for 5 years or so.

Last I checked the U.S. is an ally for the U.K.

I'm sure we would lend them a couple of Carriers and a whole lot more.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Engage in a war? Give me a break, we could send a little league team and a crop duster down to the Falklands and Argentina would stay at home. It's Argentina dude.

Do you think that Obama has the political capital to do anything even remotely similar to that? Just look at all of the opposition he got with regard to Libya. That involved the removal of a crazy tyrant. I seriously doubt that a war to maintain British colonial possessions would be anything that the US public or Obama's political opposition (or even Obama himself) would even want. The UK would almost definitely have to do this alone. I think that the US would maintain its neutrality should a conflict break out between the UK and Argentina.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm quite interested in CanOmongoose and RabidWorms disregard for democracy and outright paternalism in this thread.

The fact that they know what is best for the inhabitants of the Falklands regardless of what those inhabitants want.
The fact that they are willing to trample over peoples civil rights just because of their hatred.
The fact that they think its fine to invade lands just because its possible.

Who would have thought that their liberal disguises would crumble so utterly to reveal what has been shown in this thread.

The warmongering, elitist hatemongers.

Hmmm, who would have guessed.

 

[epidemis]

US should give up Guam. That atleast have an indigenous population

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm quite interested in CanOmongoose and RabidWorms disregard for democracy and outright paternalism in this thread.

I'm shocked at the disregard to international peace mechanisms in this thread.

The fact that they know what is best for the inhabitants of the Falklands regardless of what those inhabitants want.
The fact that they are willing to trample over peoples civil rights just because of their hatred.
The fact that they think its fine to invade lands just because its possible.

I'm not sure what is best for not only the Malvinas, but Argentina and South America. That's why I support Argentina's position (also Obama's position) on bilateral talks. There is a legitimate need for discussion, particularly given the colonialist nature of the Malvinas-UK relationship, Argentina's claims, and the war the two sides fought in 1982.

I'm wondering why people have so much hatred towards the Argentinians in this thread, and why they're condoning the British Empire's colonialist actions.

Who would have thought that their liberal disguises would crumble so utterly to reveal what has been shown in this thread.

The warmongering, elitist hatemongers.

Hmmm, who would have guessed.

I'm advocating for peace talks, but others here seem to be gunning for war, and want the US to aid in the preservation of an evil, crumbling, and archaic empire.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm shocked at the disregard to international peace mechanisms in this thread.

There's already peace. You are advocating war.

I'm not sure what is best for not only the Malvinas, but Argentina and South America. That's why I support Argentina's position (also Obama's position) on bilateral talks. There is a legitimate need for discussion, particularly given the colonialist nature of the Malvinas-UK relationship, Argentina's claims, and the war the two sides fought in 1982.

Its interesting that you would put the interests of a piece of land (the malvinas) over the people who live there.

I would agree that there needs to be discussion about Argentinas colonialist
attitude to the island.

I'm wondering why people have so much hatred towards the Argentinians in this thread, and why they're condoning the British Empire's colonialist actions.

Mostly because most people support peoples self determination, unlike you and you're colleague who apparently favour totalitarianism.

I'm advocating for peace talks, but others here seem to be gunning for war, and want the US to aid in the preservation of an evil, crumbling, and archaic empire.

No you are advocating war just to sate your hatred.

 

[monkeh624]

Just by looking at the thread title I knew that CanOWorms and RabidMongoose would be slobbery their own particular brand of crazy all over the place.

WelshBloke summed it up nicely.

Not sure what disregard for international peace mechanisms CanOWorms is talking about. There is already a state of peace between the Falklands and Argentina, and that's not likely to change.
Argentina just like to shout and thump their chest about this, they're not going to do anything about it.

Even if they did, the Falklands are not undefended like they were in 1982.

Any claim made based on proximity is foolish. If proximity based claims are the be all and end all, does this mean that the UK can claim the Faroe islands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_islands

The crux of the issue is that the Falkland islanders wish to remain British. That's the bottom line.

/thread

 

[CanOWorms]

There's already peace. You are advocating war.

There's a quasi-peace. The Argentinians want a peace process to consider the future of the Malvinas. The UK's belligerent attitude is certainly not helping.

Its interesting that you would put the interests of a piece of land (the malvinas) over the people who live there.

What about the interests of the ancestors of the people who were expelled? Why did the Empire even allow a few thousand people to occupy an island in such a manner?

If I go to the UK, can I claim an uninhabited sidewalk? Do I get to have my say rule all despite the international order and interests of peace?

One solution I proposed in this thread is to have the residents of the Malvinas secure both British and Argentinian citizenships, or select the one they wish. There are many solutions that can be thought of, particularly if the UK submits to mere bilateral talks.

I would agree that there needs to be discussion about Argentinas colonialist attitude to the island.

So you agree that the Empire should be open to bilateral talks?

Mostly because most people support peoples self determination, unlike you and you're colleague who apparently favour totalitarianism.

Nope, it's much more complicated than that. The British Empire left a mess everywhere it went, and this is one of those situations. This is also about South American self determination.

No you are advocating war just to sate your hatred.

There's not going to be a real war. The UK is too weak and feeble to do anything about it. They can really save a lot of face by submitting to an international framework.

 

[pcgeek11]

US should give up Guam. That atleast have an indigenous population

Nope. Not going to happen.

 

[pcgeek11]

There's not going to be a real war. The UK is too weak and feeble to do anything about it. They can really save a lot of face by submitting to an international framework.

At last some comedy in this thread! The British established their rule of the Falkand Islands in 1833. The UK supports the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens.

Fuck Argentina and Venezuela, esp Chavez.

 

[dawheat]

Do you think that Obama has the political capital to do anything even remotely similar to that? Just look at all of the opposition he got with regard to Libya. That involved the removal of a crazy tyrant. I seriously doubt that a war to maintain British colonial possessions would be anything that the US public or Obama's political opposition (or even Obama himself) would even want. The UK would almost definitely have to do this alone. I think that the US would maintain its neutrality should a conflict break out between the UK and Argentina.

I completely disagree. Most Americans due to historical, cultural, and economic ties are highly favorable toward the UK.

While the administration is playing a "don't bother me with this piddling crap" game, if Argentina attempts to take the Falklands by force or kills a single UK solider in anger, the political pressure (I can see the Republicans literally foaming at the mouth) would be massive in the US. It has everything needed - a noble cause (democracy and self-government), a long time ally (UK), very little military risk (Argentina? lol) to make the US feel good about itself.

I'd hope the Obama administration would do the right thing regardless of political pressure, but make no mistake, Obama will have to defend the UK interests or he will absolutely be a one term president.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I completely disagree. Most Americans due to historical, cultural, and economic ties are highly favorable toward the UK.

While the administration is playing a "don't bother me with this piddling crap" game, if Argentina attempts to take the Falklands by force or kills a single UK solider in anger, the political pressure (I can see the Republicans literally foaming at the mouth) would be massive in the US. It has everything needed - a noble cause (democracy and self-government), a long time ally (UK), very little military risk (Argentina? lol) to make the US feel good about itself.

I'd hope the Obama administration would do the right thing regardless of political pressure, but make no mistake, Obama will have to defend the UK interests or he will absolutely be a one term president.

Absolutely, if Obama refused to back the UK it could seriously hurt him in the upcoming election. He would essentially be handing the Republicans the perfect subject for attack ads.

It looks like the Argentina has ~22 fighter aircraft, all of which are rather old designs. Assuming the US did intervene on the UK's behalf it would be a very shot conflict since a single carrier air wing should easily outclass their entire air force.

If Argentina ever wants to take the islands by force they would have to do it before the UK's new carriers go into service since they will be substantially larger than the ones used in the last Falklands war and will operate F-35's instead of Harriers.

 

[monkeh624]

Absolutely, if Obama refused to back the UK it could seriously hurt him in the upcoming election. He would essentially be handing the Republicans the perfect subject for attack ads.

It looks like the Argentina has ~22 fighter aircraft, all of which are rather old designs. Assuming the US did intervene on the UK's behalf it would be a very shot conflict since a single carrier air wing should easily outclass their entire air force.

If Argentina ever wants to take the islands by force they would have to do it before the UK's new carriers go into service since they will be substantially larger than the ones used in the last Falklands war and will operate F-35's instead of Harriers.

I wont pretend that I know anything about fighter aircraft, but there are 4 Typhoons stationed on the Falklands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

Presumably, this is enough to give the UK forces aerial superiority.

 

[CanOWorms]

I completely disagree. Most Americans due to historical, cultural, and economic ties are highly favorable toward the UK.

While the administration is playing a "don't bother me with this piddling crap" game, if Argentina attempts to take the Falklands by force or kills a single UK solider in anger, the political pressure (I can see the Republicans literally foaming at the mouth) would be massive in the US. It has everything needed - a noble cause (democracy and self-government), a long time ally (UK), very little military risk (Argentina? lol) to make the US feel good about itself.

I'd hope the Obama administration would do the right thing regardless of political pressure, but make no mistake, Obama will have to defend the UK interests or he will absolutely be a one term president.

I believe many to be favorable to the UK due to racial/ethnic reasons, and most of these types would not support Obama anyways. However, I'm not sure if most are favorable enough to sacrifice American lives and money for the cause of a crumbling Empire. This is not a strike at the heart of the UK, but its colonialist possessions.

I'd hope the Obama administration would do the right thing and not engage in a needless war. The cause is hardly noble - it's colonialism and trying to preserve the honor of an evil Empire. Even in 1982 Argentina managed to inflict heavy losses upon the British. Americans should fly over to the UK and sign up for their military if they're so attracted to fighting for an Empire in a war that serves absolutely no US interests.

 

[MotF Bane]

COW, there's already peace, you're the one calling for a change. You are the warmonger.

 

[CanOWorms]

COW, there's already peace, you're the one calling for a change. You are the warmonger.

Supporting bilateral talks furthers peace. Change does not require war.

 

[dawheat]

I believe many to be favorable to the UK due to racial/ethnic reasons, and most of these types would not support Obama anyways. However, I'm not sure if most are favorable enough to sacrifice American lives and money for the cause of a crumbling Empire. This is not a strike at the heart of the UK, but its colonialist possessions.

I'd hope the Obama administration would do the right thing and not engage in a needless war. The cause is hardly noble - it's colonialism and trying to preserve the honor of an evil Empire. Even in 1982 Argentina managed to inflict heavy losses upon the British. Americans should fly over to the UK and sign up for their military if they're so attracted to fighting for an Empire in a war that serves absolutely no US interests.

Like I previously wrote - Obama won't have a choice.

And frankly there is no risk of American lives. Sadly a lot of Americans wouldn't mind an easy ass-kicking of Argentina (Go Team America!). The 1982 British Fleet was in no way a match for a US Carrier Battle Group. No aircraft from Argentina could point it's nose toward the CBG and come within 250 miles of it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Like I previously wrote - Obama won't have a choice.

And frankly there is no risk of American lives. Sadly a lot of Americans wouldn't mind an easy ass-kicking of Argentina (Go Team America!). The 1982 British Fleet was in no way a match for a US Carrier Battle Group. No aircraft from Argentina could point it's nose toward the CBG and come within 250 miles of it.

Of course he has a choice. Different groups will be alienated by whatever action he chooses. However, I suspect that those who would be angry would not vote for Obama anyways, and he would further his support among other politically important groups.

Additionally, his current actions against the UK, including supporting Argentina's position on bilateral talks, certainly haven't provoked much backlash among Americans.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I wont pretend that I know anything about fighter aircraft, but there are 4 Typhoons stationed on the Falklands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

Presumably, this is enough to give the UK forces aerial superiority.

The Typhoon is supposed to be an exceptional fighter, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say how effective they would be outnumbered 5.5 :1 but taking into account the superior training of the British pilots I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they would at minimum inflict substantial losses and that's assuming Argentina committed the bulk of their air force to taking the islands.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I completely disagree. Most Americans due to historical, cultural, and economic ties are highly favorable toward the UK.

I don't think that is going to be enough to support the UK in its colonialist endeavors.

While the administration is playing a "don't bother me with this piddling crap" game, if Argentina attempts to take the Falklands by force or kills a single UK solider in anger, the political pressure (I can see the Republicans literally foaming at the mouth) would be massive in the US. It has everything needed - a noble cause (democracy and self-government), a long time ally (UK), very little military risk (Argentina? lol) to make the US feel good about itself.

I'd hope the Obama administration would do the right thing regardless of political pressure, but make no mistake, Obama will have to defend the UK interests or he will absolutely be a one term president.

I doubt it. I could see Republicans saying that this is a UK issue and they would want to see the UK handle it. It could be used as a way for getting the UK to build up its military in light of its poor capabilities with regard to Libya.

Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the UK makes the first lethal strike. In that case, the US would almost certainly condemn the UK, IMO.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Supporting bilateral talks furthers peace. Change does not require war.

UK is allowing the locals to decide if they wish to change.
Argentina wants to ignore the voice of the locals

At present, the locals are saying NO!

 

[RabidMongoose]

UK is allowing the locals to decide if they wish to change.
Argentina wants to ignore the voice of the locals

At present, the locals are saying NO!

How about we let Argentina control the Malvinas for 100 years, kick out the locals, replace them with other Argentinians, and then have a referendum with the locals remaining on the Malvinas?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

How about we let Argentina control the Malvinas for 100 years, kick out the locals, replace them with other Argentinians, and then have a referendum with the locals remaining on the Malvinas?

So you want Argentina to invade and forcibly remove the Falklands current population, then take the land as their own?

That scenario would guarantee US military support for the UK, if I am not mistaken Argentina would very clearly be in the wrong in the eyes of the UN and Obama is far to smart to side with Argentina against our closest ally under those circumstances.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So you want Argentina to invade and forcibly remove the Falklands current population, then take the land as their own?

That scenario would guarantee US military support for the UK, if I am not mistaken Argentina would very clearly be in the wrong in the eyes of the UN and Obama is far to smart to side with Argentina against our closest ally under those circumstances.

No, what I'm saying is that we can have an peaceful transition period where Argentina gets to control the Malvinas for 100 years, expel a lot of the locals back to the UK, and then resettle the Malvinas with other people. Then we can have a peaceful referendum where the people who are currently on the Malvinas can vote. That's basically what people want, but for the UK.

I don't think that Argentina is going to make a first lethal strike with regard to the Malvinas.

 

[shiner]

No, what I'm saying is that we can have an peaceful transition period where Argentina gets to control the Malvinas for 100 years, expel a lot of the locals back to the UK, and then resettle the Malvinas with other people. Then we can have a peaceful referendum where the people who are currently on the Malvinas can vote. That's basically what people want, but for the UK.

I don't think that Argentina is going to make a first lethal strike with regard to the Malvinas.

Something about those two phrases don't seem to mesh :hmm: