Crazed Lunatic Prez of Argentina Writes Crank Letter to The Newspapers

[Mikemcc]

The Argentine military are in no position to repeat the show of strength from 1982. Their navy barely puts to sea and has had two ships impounded (though later released) for lack of funds in port. Their airforce is effectively still flying the same kit as 30 years ago. The UK has ground based air defense, 4 Typhoons equipped with AMRAAM, and a couple of companies of infantry (as opposed to a a half platoon of marines in 1982). Not to mention a substantially stronger anti-air / anti-ship naval presence and a superior submarine capability.

It's entirely political posturing because CdKs government is unpopular and the economy has gone to pot.

[mrgrouch]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Solution: Argentina vs England in a football match. Winner gets the Falklands.

It's been suggested before. In fact the match between Argentina and England during the 1986 world cup was called by many "the game for the Falklands". England lost and was eliminated to the disappointment of a large group of British hooligans attending the game who came out of the stadium looking for some Argentine butt to kick, but unable to tell between Argentines and Mexicans they picked a fight with a much larger group of Mexican teenagers... ahhhh good times... the best only foot ball brawl I have ever taken part of. seen from a distance. heard of.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Sorry, i wasn't talking about the UK motive for not wanting to give up the Falklands. I meant that Argentina is bringing this to the forefront at this time when an oil find was confirmed last year. (Actually 2011)

Sorry; yes that and the problems of Argentina's economy are the cause of this latest round of footstamping.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by mrgrouch

It's been suggested before. In fact the match between Argentina and England during the 1986 world cup was called by many "the game for the Falklands". England lost

because some coke-sniffing fatboy stretched out his hand instead of reaching for the ball with his head, and the referee didn't notice that.

Let's put things in the right perspective.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by GlennB

It would be amusing to draw a line in history and send any territory conquered/annexed/otherwise gained since then back to some so-called 'natural' owner.

There are Greek islands that are almost within jumping distance of the Turkish mainland, but they'll remain Greek, short of major war.

I wonder then when you draw that line. Those islands - as well as Turkey's west coast - have been colonized by Greeks since at least Homer's times. That's 800 BC. The Turks only show up in nowadays Turkey around 1200 AD. Those Greeks on the Turkish mainland were kicked out in the 1920s.

Originally Posted by GlennB

The Channel Islands are 'naturally' French.

They're part of the Duchy of Normandy. Actually, the only part of the Duchy that is still in control by the Duke (hm, Duchess).

Anyway, that all seems not germane to the Falklands discussion. AFAIK, they had no indigenous population. There is no "natural" owner, and any timeline you draw is as arbitrary as the next. The current inhabitants want to be British, end of story.

[Hlafordlaes]

It would be all fun and games, except for those of us of "anglo-saxon" identity living in Spanish-speaking countries. Went thru the first war while in Madrid and had some nasty times, with just about everyone wishing to get some verbal dig in or worse.

Nowadays, instead of arguing the case, I point out that several Latin American countries, including Argentina, have been welshing on their agreements and nationalizing Spain's investments. That shuts 'em up for about a quarter hour.

[geni]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Apparently their opinion does matter, see the history of the place.

Not really. No one went to war over their opinion. The british goverment had a dirrect domestic political interest in going to war and round 2 would be eqaualy handy right now.

Quote:

These aren't foreigners, they're British.

As and when they pay british rates of tax it might be possible to take that claim seriously.

[geni]

Originally Posted by marksman

The opinion of the 3,000 people living on the island that Argentina and the UK are arguing about isn't relevant? So whose opinions are relevant to determining whether Argentina or the UK govern the Falklands?

Britian, Argentina and US.

Quote:

I had not realized that principles of Wilsonian self-determination had been chucked in the wastebin.

Err thats pretty much what happened with the end of WW2. The current rules are that boarders aren't allowed to move unless enough major powers find it convient (or in the case of czechoslovakia no one cares).

Otherwise we'd have to recognise somaliland and support Russia in the South Ossetia war among other political inconveniences. Recognising Azawad is also not cosidered to be in anyone's political interests at the present time.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

That's still almost 100% of them.

Isn't significant compared to what?

The opinions of the actual players

Quote:

It seems to be most politically useful to Argentine politicians as far as I can see. If it hadn't been for the invasion, the Falklands would probably have been signed away to Argentina during the 1980s, but now that's politically impossible for any British government. They're effectively handcuffed to the islands for the foreseeable future. A significant oil find might make that seem less onerous.

Its politicaly convients for british goverments as well. Cameron gets to look tough without starting another war.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

we can cut through the whole thorny mess and jsut say we declare the falkland Ilsands to be an independent sovereign state and let them got on with it.

Who can do that? If the Falkland Islanders want it then okay, but who are you to say who can be stripped of their nationality?

Originally Posted by MikeG

We've no more right to the Falklands than we have to Gibraltar.......but boy, woe betide anybody who tries to take them away from us, or force us into a corner over them.

This is another of those classic "well, I wouldn't start from here" -type conundrums. If we all had the last 300 years all over again, things would be very different if managed from a 21st century perspective. But that isn't going to happen, and so Argentina has got to accept this anachronism in much the same way that Nigeria has to accept it's ridiculous borders, also imposed by Britain.

Mike

Nigeria can determine by itself what borders it wants within Nigeria. The Falkland Islanders can also determine by themselves what nationality they want to be.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Haven't the islands been claimed by Great Britain since before Argentina even existed as a country?

So the Sun says. And indeed, it may well be correct.

Originally Posted by MikeG

Yes.

There is a referendum on this issue in a couple of months time on the islands. I don't expect much comfort for Ms Kirchner's point of view to emerge from the results.

Mike

Exactly. And that is what should determine these matters.

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Is it a coincidence that they found oil in Falkland waters?

Could be. I have no idea. I have heard that oil deposits had been suspected of being there for a long time, but that probably means little. Either way, both the UK and Argentina have claimed these islands for far longer than any oil incentive would explain.

Originally Posted by geni

Its an entirely rational political strategy. Both Cameron and Kirchner have domestic issues that they want people to forget about so trying to stir up a slanging match over the falklands is a rational strategy.



The UK is an imperialist power. Historicaly it was one of the things we were rather good at.

It's rational in a reckless gamble sort-of-way. Or, possibly in a let's-make-all-the-bleeding-hands-wring-their-hearts-and-work-out-a-fifty-fifty-compromise sort of way. China are doing the same thing with islands it claims from Japan and the Philippines. The idea is to make a big enough stink for long enough that some "well-meaning" busybodies will assume that they must have some kind of legitimate claim to have declared their grievances for this long and noisily and therefore they should get something out of it.

By the way, my OP was slightly hyperbolic for comic effect. I know, I know, I know that the UK was an imperialist power. I don't think it is one now.

Originally Posted by geni

Both situations are entirely solveably by making them pay british rates of tax. Their supposed inclination to be british would fade rather quickly I suspect.

Do the Falkland Islands have a parliamentary seat?

Originally Posted by geni

Fewer than 3000 of them. In the final analysis their opinion isn't significant. It is however politicaly useful to certian people.

Anyway as the Chagossians found out britian regards the opinion of small populations of islanders as quite quite irrelivant.

It doesn't matter that there are "fewer than 3000" of them. And as for Diego Garcia, I would have no trouble in declaring that state of affairs shameful on the UK's part. But that has nothing to do with the Falklands.

Originally Posted by ddt

I wonder then when you draw that line. Those islands - as well as Turkey's west coast - have been colonized by Greeks since at least Homer's times. That's 800 BC. The Turks only show up in nowadays Turkey around 1200 AD. Those Greeks on the Turkish mainland were kicked out in the 1920s.


They're part of the Duchy of Normandy. Actually, the only part of the Duchy that is still in control by the Duke (hm, Duchess).

Anyway, that all seems not germane to the Falklands discussion. AFAIK, they had no indigenous population. There is no "natural" owner, and any timeline you draw is as arbitrary as the next. The current inhabitants want to be British, end of story.

I agree.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

..........Nigeria can determine by itself what borders it wants within Nigeria. .......

Which isn't the point.

Nigeria's borders cross ancient tribal borders, splitting communities, and forcing the co-existence of peoples who have never properly co-existed. It was a ridiculous imposition by Britain, and is now set-in-stone by the African Union and the UN, and real-politique. The Nigerians can do nothing to right those wrongs.

Mike

[Captain_Swoop]

I was on a Frigate in the war, I was bombed by, and shot down Argentinian Aircraft and shelled their forces on the ground.

To be honest I don't care who has the islands as long as the population get to decide.

If I was going to invade the islands I would fly in a civil airliner broadcasting a Pan or Mayday full of special forces then secure the airfield and fly in my main force as quick as I could.
I don't think Cameron has the stomach for a fight, it would cost too much and we couldn't take them back this time. No Carriers and no aircraft to fly off one even if we had it.

[ohms]

Originally Posted by geni

As and when they pay british rates of tax it might be possible to take that claim seriously.

Or you could just look at the British Overseas Territory Act 2002

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/8/section/3

Quote:

3 Conferral on British overseas territories citizens

(1)Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, is a British overseas territories citizen shall, on the commencement of this section, become a British citizen.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I don't think Cameron has the stomach for a fight, it would cost too much and we couldn't take them back this time. No Carriers and no aircraft to fly off one even if we had it.

I always thought it was ridiculous that Cameron's buffoon government decided that the best way to cut defence was to get rid of the carriers and Harriers.

If Britain needed any kind of force projection it was to defend places like the Falklands. Far more necessary than dropping bombs on Libya or elsewhere and even when Cameron decided he needed to do that they had to take out the mothballs on a load of aircraft due to be scrapped.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by geni

Err thats pretty much what happened with the end of WW2.

Yep, WW2 is the anomaly, but mainly with respect to the borders of the Soviet Union, and consequently, the Polish-German border. Hungary was simply restored to its 1937 borders, before the two Vienna "arbitrations" where Hitler gave them large parts of Slovakia and Romania. There were plebiscites, IIRC, in Istria on the Yugoslav-Italian border.

Originally Posted by geni

The current rules are that boarders aren't allowed to move unless enough major powers find it convient (or in the case of czechoslovakia no one cares).

Bad example. The country simply split up along historic lines. The Slovaks said "we want to be independent" and the Czechs responded "be my guest". Yugoslavia likewise split up along the lines of the constituent republics. Kosovo would be the best case were borders were allowed to move, as it wasn't a constituent republic but only an autonomous region.

Originally Posted by geni

Otherwise we'd have to recognise somaliland and support Russia in the South Ossetia war among other political inconveniences. Recognising Azawad is also not cosidered to be in anyone's political interests at the present time.

South Ossetia brings in another kettle of fish. It would not be just the split of a country in two or more parts, as the other examples are, but the change of border between two sovereign countries, as undoubtedly South Ossetia would not become an independent country in its own right, but part of Russia. Or what about Nagorno-Karabakh?

[Captain_Swoop]

No, what he had to do was rent an airfield from the Italians at a cost greater than the supposed savings from retiring the Harriers and Carriers early. It showed the 'strategic' defense review as being no more than a cost cutting exercise. When the Falklands War kicked off the carriers in service then were already up for sale. If it had been six months later then there is no way we would have got the Falklands back. Tories always try to fly the defence flag and push their support for the military while trying to cut their funding and sell everything off.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/0...argentina.html

A fine response to the Argentine President's rant.

Something a little less snarky.

Enjoy.

[mrgrouch]

Originally Posted by ddt

because some coke-sniffing fatboy stretched out his hand instead of reaching for the ball with his head, and the referee didn't notice that.

Let's put things in the right perspective.

Seems like someone didn't like the final score.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

..........Tories always try to fly the defence flag and push their support for the military while trying to cut their funding and sell everything off.

On account of always having to clean up the mess left by Labour, who ALWAYS hand over empty coffers and increased and/or unsustainable debt.

However, I take the broader point. Putting together a task-force now is pretty difficult to envisage. I think we'd have to position a nuclear submarine nearby and threaten the destruction of Buenos Aires.

Mike

[Captain_Swoop]

Saving money is all very well but you don't just cut random things and cripple your forces then expect them to do things that need the items you have cut. They would be better off scrapping the Tridents and no replacing hem. That way they would save more money than they will ever get through random defense cuts and they will be able to fund a balanced force.

[geni]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It's rational in a reckless gamble sort-of-way. Or, possibly in a let's-make-all-the-bleeding-hands-wring-their-hearts-and-work-out-a-fifty-fifty-compromise sort of way.

Not so. Neither side has any interest in there being an outcome. On both sides its for domestic political consumption. Worryingly you appear to be buying it.

Quote:

China are doing the same thing with islands it claims from Japan and the Philippines.

China is making a statement about its position as a regional power. Not really comparible.

Quote:

Do the Falkland Islands have a parliamentary seat?

3000 doesn't get you a seat. If we were to levy taxes it would be fairly trivial to fit them into an existing constituency in the unlikely event that they stayed long enough for an election to take place.

Quote:

It doesn't matter that there are "fewer than 3000" of them.

Of course it does. 3000 people being on the ah wrong side of the boarder isn't the kind of detail that sensible countries worry very much about. Heh by the standards of the UK boarder agency thats statistical noise.

Quote:

And as for Diego Garcia, I would have no trouble in declaring that state of affairs shameful on the UK's part.

Why? It was in the UK's interests to act as it and it did.

Quote:

But that has nothing to do with the Falklands.

In both cases we have small groups of people living on islands. In both cases in terms of political significance their opinions rank slightly below the next daily mail headline.

[geni]

Originally Posted by ddt

Yep, WW2 is the anomaly, but mainly with respect to the borders of the Soviet Union, and consequently, the Polish-German border. Hungary was simply restored to its 1937 borders, before the two Vienna "arbitrations" where Hitler gave them large parts of Slovakia and Romania. There were plebiscites, IIRC, in Istria on the Yugoslav-Italian border.

Not the duration but the aftermath. The new general pricinciple is that boarders shouldn't move.

Quote:

Bad example. The country simply split up along historic lines. The Slovaks said "we want to be independent" and the Czechs responded "be my guest". Yugoslavia likewise split up along the lines of the constituent republics. Kosovo would be the best case were borders were allowed to move, as it wasn't a constituent republic but only an autonomous region.

Quote:

South Ossetia brings in another kettle of fish. It would not be just the split of a country in two or more parts, as the other examples are, but the change of border between two sovereign countries, as undoubtedly South Ossetia would not become an independent country in its own right, but part of Russia.

If Kosovo is indepdendent then so is South Ossetia. Both are countries with limited international recognition. And Kosovo would left to itself probably merge with Albania. But this is politicaly inconvient so we pretend it hasn't happened.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

we can cut through the whole thorny mess and jsut say we declare the falkland Ilsands to be an independent sovereign state and let them got on with it.

The Falklands have declared in several referenda that they want to remain part of the UK.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by geni

Not so. Neither side has any interest in there being an outcome. On both sides its for domestic political consumption. Worryingly you appear to be buying it.

Well, the invasion of the Falklands was also for domestic political consumption so it needn't be an either/or.

But what is this silliness about "both sides"? Did the Argentine and British governments come to some agreement whereby they can prop up their flagging public images by pretending to have a spat over the Falklands?

I began this thread with a semi-serious post that worryingly you appear to have taken at face-value.

I even tried to throw in a few obvious winks such as "crazed lunatic Prez" which most people don't tend to write in all seriousness and "the totally unhinged Mad Woman President". Did I not lay it on thick enough?

Originally Posted by geni

China is making a statement about its position as a regional power. Not really comparible.

I think it is perfectly comparable. When you want something that isn't yours, kick up a big enough stink about it for long enough and wait for an opportune moment to sucker the "international community". This type of thing happens all the time.

Originally Posted by geni

3000 doesn't get you a seat. If we were to levy taxes it would be fairly trivial to fit them into an existing constituency in the unlikely event that they stayed long enough for an election to take place.

Then there's no real reason to expect people on the Falklands to pay the same rates of tax.

Originally Posted by geni

Of course it does. 3000 people being on the ah wrong side of the boarder isn't the kind of detail that sensible countries worry very much about. Heh by the standards of the UK boarder agency thats statistical noise.

Originally Posted by geni

Why? It was in the UK's interests to act as it and it did.

I get the impression you're being disingenuous here. It seems that when you mention the Chagossians you are saying that their expulsion from Diego Garcia was perfectly acceptable and therefore, by logical extension, the Falklands Island population's opinions also shouldn't matter. Well, if that's the way you genuinely feel about the Chagossians and the Falkland Islanders then there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. Of course, the converse also applies as you telling me that the Chagossians and the Falkland Islanders don't matter to "sensible" chaps like you is not persuasive at all.

Originally Posted by geni

In both cases we have small groups of people living on islands. In both cases in terms of political significance their opinions rank slightly below the next daily mail headline.

Aha! Daily Mail! I suppose you chalked yourself up a point there. However, it sounds to me like a Godwin in sheep's clothing, as in you know who gets interested in the fate of the Falkland Islands? Daily Mail readers, that's who! Haw haw haw, sneer sneer sneer!

[Dcdrac]

That is why I was talking about the penquins there being asked too.

Those two ads/letters are seriously stupid.

Let the Falkland islanders decide for themselves and respect it.

End of

Offer independence or stay as is.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Let the Falkland islanders decide for themselves and respect it.

End of

Unfortunately one side believes that the Islanders have no right to decide for themselves.

Fortunately the other side is committed to letting them.

[Agatha]

geni, just for info:
Boarders - people who live in your house and pay rent in exchange for a room and meals.
Borders - the outside edge of a country, particularly where it joins on to another.

I cannot see that it will ever be politically possible either for the UK to cede sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, nor for the Argentinians to stop demanding them 'back'. Either we go to war over them again, or we continue with this war of words which occasionally leads to adverts in newspapers. Adverts are cheaper than wars in many ways, so I hope we don't have to go to war again.

The Falkland Islanders will determine what they want in March, and as they are expected to vote to stay British, nothing will change.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Agatha

The Falkland Islanders will determine what they want in March, and as they are expected to vote to stay British, nothing will change.

That's why I think it looks like a reckless gamble of Kirchner's. If people in Argentina are having their direction turned towards the Falklands then it's going to be a bit of slap in the face for her when the referendum results come in.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Unfortunately one side believes that the Islanders have no right to decide for themselves.

Fortunately the other side is committed to letting them.

Yes, which makes one side colonial and the other democratic.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by mrgrouch

England lost and was eliminated to the disappointment of a large group of British hooligans

Isn't it more likely the hooligans were English?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by mrgrouch

Seems like someone didn't like the final score.

I have no personal dog in this fight, but I don't get how someone who has so obviously cheated and still hasn't owned up to it, can be called one of the greatest soccer players of all times. And yeah, it seriously puts into question what the outcome would have been without the cheating. But let's end this derail.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by geni

Not the duration but the aftermath.

I am talking about the aftermath of WW2. The border between Italy and Yugoslavia did change as a result of that. The borders of Hungary were changed back to what they were before the First Vienna Award, which took place before the outbreak of WW2.

Originally Posted by geni

The new general pricinciple is that boarders shouldn't move.

I agree that is the case, and it's unfortunate for a lot of borders that were drawn quite arbitrarily by colonial powers.

Originally Posted by geni

If Kosovo is indepdendent then so is South Ossetia. Both are countries with limited international recognition. And Kosovo would left to itself probably merge with Albania. But this is politicaly inconvient so we pretend it hasn't happened.

They are in the same general category of "non-UN members recognized by at least one UN member". The quantitative difference is that Kosovo has been recognized by 98 UN members and South Ossetia by only 5. The qualitative difference is that those 98 UN members that recognize Kosovo include 22 EU members and 24 NATO members. That includes the USA, and your and my country, so I'm at a loss what you mean by "we pretend...".

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Yes.

There is a referendum on this issue in a couple of months time on the islands. I don't expect much comfort for Ms Kirchner's point of view to emerge from the results.

Mike

Pretty ironic the mutterings from the UK Govt on the UN charter on self determination to counter this Argentinian idiot, considering it's earlier approach to the Scottish Referendum proposals.

Could they be any more shameful?

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by ddt

because some coke-sniffing fatboy stretched out his hand instead of reaching for the ball with his head, and the referee didn't notice that.

Let's put things in the right perspective.

The same one that scored a wonder goal in the same game?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Yes, which makes one side colonial and the other democratic.

Indeed. Thankfully the colonial ambitions of the Argies are unlikely to amount to anything.

[Dcdrac]

controversial proposal declare it a Unted Nations internatonal space

[marksman]

Sure, why have winners and losers when you can just have lots of losers. We can't simply declare all disputed territories UN International space. The UN isn't really set up to govern territory. Moreover, if Argentina isn't going to recognize the UK's claim to the islands and vice versa, why would either ever recognize the UN's?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

controversial proposal declare it a Unted Nations internatonal space

Again, the people who live there have no say?

Maybe they don't want to try to form a country with just 3,000 people in the midle of the ocean?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

controversial proposal declare it a Unted Nations internatonal space

Why not take away your passport?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

controversial proposal declare it a Unted Nations internatonal space

The last time the UN tried to rule on countries' borders and tried to declare a UN international zone didn't work out quite well. They're still having nearly-daily discussion about it and dozens of resolutions.

And no, let's not get into another I/P discussion. I think everyone can agree on the above. Just mentioned it to shoot down Dcdrac's idea.