As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU

1679111224

Posts

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Err. Which dictatorship?

    You're right that it's not a dictatorship, but Argentinean politics have been corrupt as fuck for a long, long time. I haven't been back for too long to really know what's happening politically these days, but I'm sure you'll have to hunt around a bit to find anyone who thinks the current or recent governments were elected fairly.

    That doesn't really say much about the topic at hand, but yes, there's a huge damn difference between the military dictatorships of a generation ago and the current governments. For starters, the former was actively disappearing people. To say that corruption makes one as bad as the other is basically just a defense of the dictatorships themselves (this is literally the argument used by apologist of the dictatorships). That's not somewhere you want to go, obviously.

    It doesn't help the Argentinean claims on the topic, of course, but that still stands.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    In all fairness, showing direct involvement if you have a high profile can motivate others to volunteer and help. It's a bit like Carter building Habitat houses.

  • lu tzelu tze Sweeping the monestary steps.Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    That's a valid point.

    When celebrities do things like that, you can't help but wonder about their motivations though. I think on the whole I'd rather they just put their money where their mouth is.

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I was a lot more impressed by Sandra Bullock stumping up a million dollars for Haiti than I was by Penn doing the most personally aggrandising but practically useless thing he could do by personally rowing to New Orleans. I believe he did a lot more good in Haiti, which was great.

  • garroad_rangarroad_ran Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Err. Which dictatorship?

    You're right that it's not a dictatorship, but Argentinean politics have been corrupt as fuck for a long, long time. I haven't been back for too long to really know what's happening politically these days, but I'm sure you'll have to hunt around a bit to find anyone who thinks the current or recent governments were elected fairly.

    That doesn't really say much about the topic at hand, but yes, there's a huge damn difference between the military dictatorships of a generation ago and the current governments. For starters, the former was actively disappearing people. To say that corruption makes one as bad as the other is basically just a defense of the dictatorships themselves (this is literally the argument used by apologist of the dictatorships). That's not somewhere you want to go, obviously.

    It doesn't help the Argentinean claims on the topic, of course, but that still stands.

    I definitely wasn't trying to imply that one isn't worse than the other. Just that in all my (albeit anecdotal) evidence, there isn't exactly a sense of it being government "by the people for the people," you know?

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    I've found a good article about the military status of the Islands. It sums up what we already knew mostly. I'm not sure about just how impregnable the Islands really are but it raises some interesting points. Like in the event the Islands were to fall without an aircraft carrier it would be impossible to re-take them. Link below.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    I've found a good article about the military status of the Islands. It sums up what we already knew mostly. I'm not sure about just how impregnable the Islands really are but it raises some interesting points. Like in the event the Islands were to fall without an aircraft carrier it would be impossible to re-take them. Link below.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373
    Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered.

    This is ridiculous.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Yeah I raised an eyebrow at that. Why should we give Argentinas ridiculous claim any legitimacy by giving them a share of the oil?

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    I've found a good article about the military status of the Islands. It sums up what we already knew mostly. I'm not sure about just how impregnable the Islands really are but it raises some interesting points. Like in the event the Islands were to fall without an aircraft carrier it would be impossible to re-take them. Link below.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373
    Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered.

    This is ridiculous.

    I think any sort of compromise on this front would be an example of abject cowardice by the UK. They can legitimately tell Argentina to fuck right off, and they ought to do so in basically those exact terms.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The thing I hate the most about our collective Western culture is this false equivalency bullshit where we have to give equal time to everything.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    The thing I hate the most about our collective Western culture is this false equivalency bullshit where we have to give equal time to everything.

    Eh, this is international diplomacy. Even saying "fuck off" takes time. Besides it isn't as simple as being brave or cowardly, like it or not Argentinas strategy of trying to starve the Islanders out by denying them access to every south American port could have repercussions that complicate the decision somewhat. If giving them a slice of the oil revenue makes this go away then maybe it should be on the table. I still think giving them half of whatever we find is way too much though.

    Casual on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    The thing I hate the most about our collective Western culture is this false equivalency bullshit where we have to give equal time to everything.

    Eh, this is international diplomacy. Even saying "fuck off" takes time. Besides it isn't as simple as being brave or cowardly, like it or not Argentinas strategy of trying to starve the Islanders out by denying them access to every south American port could have repercussions that complicate the decision somewhat. If giving them a slice of the oil revenue makes this go away then maybe it should be on the table. I still think giving them half of whatever we find is way too much though.

    All true, all true.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    This is a complete non-issues. Argentina has nothing. Malvinas do not exist. Falkland Islands do. Argentina has no claim on them, and never has. Claiming the islands through geographical proximity is completely unsupported, and cannot be upheld as it carries massive problems with other nations. Argentina can fuck off, and any leniency on the issue only serves to legitimize their ridiculous fantasies.

    If the people of the islands want to remain with U.K., Argentina has no say in the matter. It's the people who live there who should decide, not some schmuck from a foreign country with delusions of grandeur and fabricated claims. Falklands have been a part of Britain longer than Argentina has existed. The people don't wish to become Argentinian. End of story.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    This is a complete non-issues. Argentina has nothing. Malvinas do not exist. Falkland Islands do. Argentina has no claim on them, and never has. Claiming the islands through geographical proximity is completely unsupported, and cannot be upheld as it carries massive problems with other nations. Argentina can fuck off, and any leniency on the issue only serves to legitimize their ridiculous fantasies.

    If the people of the islands want to remain with U.K., Argentina has no say in the matter. It's the people who live there who should decide, not some schmuck from a foreign country with delusions of grandeur and fabricated claims. Falklands have been a part of Britain longer than Argentina has existed. The people don't wish to become Argentinian. End of story.

    I agree with this completely, but I also know that Argentina is basically trying to starve out the Falklands.

    Why does the international community think that it's perfectly acceptable for Argentina to cock about but completely ignores the shit they're pulling and shifting all the blame onto the UK?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    I do not know. It might be some sort of stupid extension of political correctness and post-colonial regrets, where the former colonial powers are automatically in the wrong, even if they are right. It's giving Argentina a carte blanche to act like a raging dick. Personally I wish Britain won't try to compromise, and if they do I hope people there will throw a fit at the spinelessness of their government in that eventuality. It'd be legitimizing the bullying of smaller countries(or in the case of Falklands, an overseas territory) by the old adage of "might makes right", instead of actual grievances not based on greed. It'd be against the wishes of the people it would affect, and overall a shit deal to everyone except the bully(Argentina).

    Britain shouldn't budge, and Argentina should be ridiculed for this. If they get uppity militarily, I would be wholeheartedly on the side of Britain. For whatever force is necessary to stop the conflict, while not giving Argentina what they want.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Casual wrote: »
    The thing I hate the most about our collective Western culture is this false equivalency bullshit where we have to give equal time to everything.

    Eh, this is international diplomacy. Even saying "fuck off" takes time. Besides it isn't as simple as being brave or cowardly, like it or not Argentinas strategy of trying to starve the Islanders out by denying them access to every south American port could have repercussions that complicate the decision somewhat. If giving them a slice of the oil revenue makes this go away then maybe it should be on the table. I still think giving them half of whatever we find is way too much though.

    That seems like capitulation though. They shouldn't receive any oil. Instead, Britain should respond with whatever underhanded political bullshit they could possibly pull to hurt Argentina. I know this doesn't seem nearly as reasonable, but one of the parties is completely in the wrong on this issue, and should be treated as such. I'm sure Britain still has some pull that could hurt Argentina more than Argentina can hurt Britain. The way I see it, Argentina is already playing dirty, so Britain should be given free hands to play the game as well. I'm sure this would be turned around in the media though, without a mention of Argentina starting this shit and having done it for a long time already.

    Rhan9 on
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Fun fact,

    Argentinian statisticians and economists can't publish the countries actual inflation figure (at least twice the "official" figure) due to it being made illegal by the government.

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    I do not know. It might be some sort of stupid extension of political correctness and post-colonial regrets, where the former colonial powers are automatically in the wrong, even if they are right. It's giving Argentina a carte blanche to act like a raging dick. Personally I wish Britain won't try to compromise, and if they do I hope people there will throw a fit at the spinelessness of their government in that eventuality. It'd be legitimizing the bullying of smaller countries(or in the case of Falklands, an overseas territory) by the old adage of "might makes right", instead of actual grievances not based on greed. It'd be against the wishes of the people it would affect, and overall a shit deal to everyone except the bully(Argentina).

    Britain shouldn't budge, and Argentina should be ridiculed for this. If they get uppity militarily, I would be wholeheartedly on the side of Britain. For whatever force is necessary to stop the conflict, while not giving Argentina what they want.

    Agreed on that point.

    I am completely against conceding to imperialism, which is what letting Argentina have anything is. I'm worried that, as Casual pointed out, Britain won't have a choice. Which is a bad precedent to set.

    How is the Mercosur embargo effecting the Falklanders?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    How feasible is it for oil tankers to not dock at Argentinean ports? Like, I understand that Argentina holds sway over a chunk of the south, but couldn't ships dock in Brazil and then do a hard sail south? Or alternately come down the Chilean coast?

  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    Argentina has pressured the other MERCOSUR countries into boycotting as well. So no Brazil. I don't think Chile has gotten involved.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    How feasible is it for oil tankers to not dock at Argentinean ports? Like, I understand that Argentina holds sway over a chunk of the south, but couldn't ships dock in Brazil and then do a hard sail south? Or alternately come down the Chilean coast?

    IIRC, Brazil is on side with Argentina. The trade bloc Mercosur is basically backing Argentina as one of the main powers of the area. I could be wrong about Brazil's involvement though.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    The thing I hate the most about our collective Western culture is this false equivalency bullshit where we have to give equal time to everything.

    Eh, this is international diplomacy. Even saying "fuck off" takes time. Besides it isn't as simple as being brave or cowardly, like it or not Argentinas strategy of trying to starve the Islanders out by denying them access to every south American port could have repercussions that complicate the decision somewhat. If giving them a slice of the oil revenue makes this go away then maybe it should be on the table. I still think giving them half of whatever we find is way too much though.

    That seems like capitulation though. They shouldn't receive any oil. Instead, Britain should respond with whatever underhanded political bullshit they could possibly pull to hurt Argentina. I know this doesn't seem nearly as reasonable, but one of the parties is completely in the wrong on this issue, and should be treated as such. I'm sure Britain still has some pull that could hurt Argentina more than Argentina can hurt Britain. The way I see it, Argentina is already playing dirty, so Britain should be given free hands to play the game as well. I'm sure this would be turned around in the media though, without a mention of Argentina starting this shit and having done it for a long time already.

    Britain's major ally is the USA, though, and Obama has signaled a dozen times that he has no love for the British in general, and isn't interested in sticking his neck out in this specific case either.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Eh if it comes to blows Obama will have Britain's back

    He's nothing else if not a shrewd politician, and that will play well with voters

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Eh if it comes to blows Obama will have Britain's back

    He's nothing else if not a shrewd politician, and that will play well with voters

    I agree completely, but the less than enthusiastic initial response shapes the issue somewhat in Argentina's favor. It just looks bad for us not to support such a staunch ally wholeheartedly.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Well, it's complicated. Brazil has agreed to not let ships flying the Falklands flag dock at their ports, it said nothing about ships flying the Union Flag. They're clearly willing to support Argentina up to a point, but not at the expense of all business with the UK. Still it takes a single supply ship two weeks to get from the UK to the Falklands, that's a long fucking time. For me it's a matter of economics, if it's cheaper and easier to give Argentina a slice of the oil money to shut them up, that seems preferable to war or a 4000 mile supply chain to run.


    One thing that I'm interested in is the idea it would be impossible for the UK to send a naval task force down there without a carrier. The type 45 destroyer is bleeding edge AA tech, the Argentinians are still using the same aircraft they were in the 80's, possibly even worse than that. They only had about 15 Exocet missiles in the 80's and I doubt they've been sold more in the mean time. Is it seriously beyond all hope that a type 45 could handle a few Argentine jets without a carrier full of sea harriers backing it up?

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Eh if it comes to blows Obama will have Britain's back

    He's nothing else if not a shrewd politician, and that will play well with voters

    I agree completely, but the less than enthusiastic initial response shapes the issue somewhat in Argentina's favor. It just looks bad for us not to support such a staunch ally wholeheartedly.

    I'm not so sure. Obama is very anti war. And frankly the USAs reasons for staying out the last war haven't changed.

  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    Actually, the US is part of the OAS which has (unsurprisingly) sided with Argentina's claims.

    Annoying, but true.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    adytum wrote: »
    Actually, the US is part of the OAS which has (unsurprisingly) sided with Argentina's claims.

    Annoying, but true.

    Yeah, we're members of the UN which sided with Iraq on the "We shouldn't get invaded" claim too. Didn't stop anything.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    adytum wrote: »
    Actually, the US is part of the OAS which has (unsurprisingly) sided with Argentina's claims.

    Annoying, but true.

    Yeah, we're members of the UN which sided with Iraq on the "We shouldn't get invaded" claim too. Didn't stop anything.

    Well, the president has come out and said that Britain needs to talk to Argentina. This came up last year when the saber rattling started anew.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Well then he can piss off. Not to put too fine a point on it.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Well then he can piss off. Not to put too fine a point on it.

    I don't think anyone can blame you.

    He hasn't said anything about it for a long, long time (I say last year, but I think it was in 2010) because it caused a minor shitstorm.

    But I wouldn't hold my breath that we'd be sending in troops to help out the UK, we didn't do it when Ronnie and Maggie were about. Though on balance, the Falklands is the war I'd rather go into than Iran.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Well, I wouldn't expect him to send troops, and I would frankly be amazed if Argentina went down the military route again - they're a democratically elected government and however much they want the Falklands they're not crazy.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Well, I wouldn't expect him to send troops, and I would frankly be amazed if Argentina went down the military route again - they're a democratically elected government and however much they want the Falklands they're not crazy.

    Indeed. The trade war they're starting worries me though. I get the feeling that they're going to try and force concessions out of Westminster and I am not okay with the world just sitting back and letting it happen.

    I mean, the president doesn't want to piss of Latin America and lose an emerging market to China, but if it were me I'd direct Secretary Clinton or the US ambassador to the UK to make a show of support because the personal sovereignty of the Falklanders is paramount.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Well, it's complicated. Brazil has agreed to not let ships flying the Falklands flag dock at their ports, it said nothing about ships flying the Union Flag. They're clearly willing to support Argentina up to a point, but not at the expense of all business with the UK. Still it takes a single supply ship two weeks to get from the UK to the Falklands, that's a long fucking time. For me it's a matter of economics, if it's cheaper and easier to give Argentina a slice of the oil money to shut them up, that seems preferable to war or a 4000 mile supply chain to run.


    One thing that I'm interested in is the idea it would be impossible for the UK to send a naval task force down there without a carrier. The type 45 destroyer is bleeding edge AA tech, the Argentinians are still using the same aircraft they were in the 80's, possibly even worse than that. They only had about 15 Exocet missiles in the 80's and I doubt they've been sold more in the mean time. Is it seriously beyond all hope that a type 45 could handle a few Argentine jets without a carrier full of sea harriers backing it up?

    I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that if the AAF was ballsy enough they could get into launch range under the radar. Look at it from last time. Even with harriers pushing the engagement window out hundred of miles they still got missiles in and sunk ships. Or hell, they could be ship launched. It'd be messy, but it could work as a means to interdict a relief force.

    Also last time there was a good amount of bombing of the Argentinian ground forces by harriers. Surface ships are probably fine for a hold the islands scenario, but trying to retake them would be dicey. The real ace in the hole is the SSNs. The navy isn't that big only 4 destroyers and 9 corvettes, and 3 diesel subs. That's not a lot of ships to cover a lot of ocean, and ships alone are easy targets.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Hasn't the US generally supported proposals to negotiate or discuss for several decades now, since well before the invasion as per the OAS? I don't think this an Obama thing specifically

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Hasn't the US generally supported proposals to negotiate or discuss for several decades now, since well before the invasion as per the OAS? I don't think this an Obama thing specifically

    Probably. We don't want to piss of Latin America.

    I remember the first article I read about it was on Fox News, so I was skeptical till the same story broke on the BBC a month or so later.

    I still think our relationship with the UK and the right of self determination of the Falklanders is more important, but I'm not working for the State Department.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I imagine the US is trying to walk a thin line here between maintaining their sphere of influence in the Americas and keeping the UK happy.

    But really, they probably figure Britain can bust it's own heads on this matter.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I imagine the US is trying to walk a thin line here between maintaining their sphere of influence in the Americas and keeping the UK happy.

    But really, they probably figure Britain can bust it's own heads on this matter.

    I imagine the keeping the UK happy is as low on the USAs priority list as it's always been. Don't take this as a snarky Brit hating all Americans because I'm not like that but traditionally the US government looks after number one. Obviously there are plenty of American people who are sympathetic to the British side here but the US government will not make an enemy out of a place they regard as their back yard to support the UK.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I imagine the US is trying to walk a thin line here between maintaining their sphere of influence in the Americas and keeping the UK happy.

    But really, they probably figure Britain can bust it's own heads on this matter.

    I imagine the keeping the UK happy is as low on the USAs priority list as it's always been. Don't take this as a snarky Brit hating all Americans because I'm not like that but traditionally the US government looks after number one. Obviously there are plenty of American people who are sympathetic to the British side here but the US government will not make an enemy out of a place they regard as their back yard to support the UK.

    Right, but they won't piss off the Brits either since they are a valuable ally.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    If it came to an armed confrontation, I have little doubt about Britain being able to beat Argentina. The problem is the trade/political pressuring that Argentina is allowed to exert on Britain through the Falklands without any real consequences or fallout.

    The issue is stupid though. Negotiations and compromises are for muddy issues where both sides have different, but valid views on things. Here there is only two views, the correct view and the Argentinian view(which is BS). It's a black and white issue, and any compromise on it is rewarding Argentina for being a bully while being 100% in the wrong. The practical solution is to negotiate a deal, but that seems especially cowardly in the face of the obviously fallacious and unjust claim that Argentina asserts on Falklands.

    In a way, I'd love to see Russia demand Alaska back, just to see the U.S. stance on an issue such as this do a 180 on the spot.

This discussion has been closed.