Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

17810121324

Posts

  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Maybe, maybe not. Their support may go as far as simply staying quiet on the whole the whole thing but I doubt even that. If anything I expect any more word on the subject to be what they've already said, that the UK should go to the negotiating table, which I find hard to take in any other way than them tacitly supporting Argentina.

    Still it's already been said, the US government can get fucked. If we have to give away the Falklands then they have to give back their entire fucking country.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    The US, as a member of the Organization of American States, does technically support Argentina. I'm pretty sure that the actual policy is somewhere between "we don't really care" and "this will get sorted out without any interference from us".

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The US, as a member of the Organization of American States, does technically support Argentina. I'm pretty sure that the actual policy is somewhere between "we don't really care" and "this will get sorted out without any interference from us".

    Basically. Saying "the UK should go to the negotiating table" is the polite way of saying nothing cause they know the UK is just gonna tell the Argentinians to get stuffed in so many words.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The US, as a member of the Organization of American States, does technically support Argentina. I'm pretty sure that the actual policy is somewhere between "we don't really care" and "this will get sorted out without any interference from us".

    Basically. Saying "the UK should go to the negotiating table" is the polite way of saying nothing cause they know the UK is just gonna tell the Argentinians to get stuffed in so many words.

    It's a polite way of not alienating the South American states, and essentially hinting to everyone that U.S. sorta kinda supports Argentina here a little bit. It is essentially one of the more neutral responses the U.S. government could've made, but when the issue is between Argentina holding no rights, or holding rights, even acknowledging that negotiations should happen tips the U.S. response towards supporting Argentina through the indirect acknowledgment that Argentina has any claim whatsoever worth negotiating over.

    So really, while they might think they're saying nothing, they're actually supporting Argentina, no matter how miniscule that support is, it still acknowledges the claim instead of dismissing it.

    steam_sig.png
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    And since the US is not actually involved in this at all, what difference does it make?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Indeed.

    I think that if things keep heating up, the President should just make a statement about the "rights of the people" and then never touch it again.

    It's probably best for everyone if we keep our noses out of it, unless the UK asks for assistance (which we should gladly give).

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    U.S. shouldn't have even made that much of a statement. It is unlikely to endear the Brits to them if the government is perceived(regardless of the reality) siding with Argentina on this issue. It's hardly a massive issue at the moment though.

    It is annoying that Argentina is receiving next to no condemnation for their actions though.

    Rhan9 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Haha the US has been happy dicking over their allies since the revolutionary war, and has pretty much laughed off any British protests or requests on military actions or trade policy since WW2. Heck we can't even get the US embassy to pay the congestion charge whilst our embassy pays all the tolls they get.

  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    And since the US is not actually involved in this at all, what difference does it make?

    The US is involved in everything. You really think that having even the smallest amount of support from the US won't strengthen the Argentine position?

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The US, as a member of the Organization of American States, does technically support Argentina. I'm pretty sure that the actual policy is somewhere between "we don't really care" and "this will get sorted out without any interference from us".

    Basically. Saying "the UK should go to the negotiating table" is the polite way of saying nothing cause they know the UK is just gonna tell the Argentinians to get stuffed in so many words.

    It's a polite way of not alienating the South American states, and essentially hinting to everyone that U.S. sorta kinda supports Argentina here a little bit. It is essentially one of the more neutral responses the U.S. government could've made, but when the issue is between Argentina holding no rights, or holding rights, even acknowledging that negotiations should happen tips the U.S. response towards supporting Argentina through the indirect acknowledgment that Argentina has any claim whatsoever worth negotiating over.

    So really, while they might think they're saying nothing, they're actually supporting Argentina, no matter how miniscule that support is, it still acknowledges the claim instead of dismissing it.

    Exactly, all of this.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered 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.

    Right. I just don't think this is a particular moment to blame Obama that is all. For all his anti colonialist thought, it is pretty normal behaviour for the US

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Kalkino wrote: »
    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.

    Right. I just don't think this is a particular moment to blame Obama that is all. For all his anti colonialist thought, it is pretty normal behaviour for the US

    I agree, he just gets the stick cause he's the butt in the seat you know?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    America was lukewarm to Britain in the original conflict. Saint Reagan and his adviser where very happy with the argentinian junta's anti-communist stance and didn't want to mess up the US relationship with the rest of south america over a remote british outpost.

    Took major effort to get them to see that supporting Britain was more important for US national security then a few south american dictatorships. Even then it was a major diplomatic operation to get them to agree to give the british forces access to the AIM-9L missiles for their aircraft.

    By contrast the french where supportive from day one and gave the british secret specs on the Exocet missiles.

    America tends to see alliances as "what can you do for us".

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    I don't blame Obama at all. I know any president would be doing the exact same thing. I don't even expect any US support. The only reason I mentioned it at all is because some people felt that the US would naturally support the UK just because we're objectively in the right here, I was merely pointing out how incredibly unlikely that was and that US foreign policy does not work that way.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    America tends to see alliances as "what can you do for us".
    "Nations do not have allies, they have interests."

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    I don't blame Obama at all. I know any president would be doing the exact same thing. I don't even expect any US support. The only reason I mentioned it at all is because some people felt that the US would naturally support the UK just because we're objectively in the right here, I was merely pointing out how incredibly unlikely that was and that US foreign policy does not work that way.

    Which is, in my view sadly, quite true.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Ignoring all the other claims(which are overwhelmingly on the British side), the Falklanders themselves want nothing to do with becoming Argentinians. That alone should decide the issue, and anyone who is supporting the Argentinian claims is essentially supporting a foreign takeover of an unwilling populace contrary to democratic decision making.

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Ignoring all the other claims(which are overwhelmingly on the British side), the Falklanders themselves want nothing to do with becoming Argentinians. That alone should decide the issue, and anyone who is supporting the Argentinian claims is essentially supporting a foreign takeover of an unwilling populace contrary to democratic decision making.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Can't we just solve this the easy way. Britain should cut a deal with the US for a % of the oil instead of Argentina. For a few % points of an asset thats mostly in the ground anyways, you buy a $800b a year military. It's like pre-payed legal. Except your lawyers a giant coke head, you are paying him in rocks, and he's more than willing to destroy an entire region to keep the supply coming.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    America was lukewarm to Britain in the original conflict. Saint Reagan and his adviser where very happy with the argentinian junta's anti-communist stance and didn't want to mess up the US relationship with the rest of south america over a remote british outpost.

    Took major effort to get them to see that supporting Britain was more important for US national security then a few south american dictatorships. Even then it was a major diplomatic operation to get them to agree to give the british forces access to the AIM-9L missiles for their aircraft.

    By contrast the french where supportive from day one and gave the british secret specs on the Exocet missiles.

    America tends to see alliances as "what can you do for us".

    What the UK can do for the US is continue to die in Afghanistan along with the rest of us.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    America was lukewarm to Britain in the original conflict. Saint Reagan and his adviser where very happy with the argentinian junta's anti-communist stance and didn't want to mess up the US relationship with the rest of south america over a remote british outpost.

    Took major effort to get them to see that supporting Britain was more important for US national security then a few south american dictatorships. Even then it was a major diplomatic operation to get them to agree to give the british forces access to the AIM-9L missiles for their aircraft.

    By contrast the french where supportive from day one and gave the british secret specs on the Exocet missiles.

    America tends to see alliances as "what can you do for us".

    What the UK can do for the US is continue to die in Afghanistan along with the rest of us.

    Indeed so. It's not impossible that UK support for US-led operations might have to make some... difficult choices. Followed by the usual US "Y JOO HATE?" when it turns out their allies have their own interests. (Freedom fries with that?)

    But really, why are we discussing this when we've already been through it? The possibiliy that there might be a shooting war in the Falklands is very remote, and the Islands are hugely better defended now than they were in the early 80s. This is going to be a "soft" war.

  • Venkman90Venkman90 Registered User regular
    I don't think there will be a war of any kind. There will be some under the table talks that may amount to the US privately slapping down Argentina while publicly maintaining their "we don't care" attitude. Thing is the US as a world power are on the decline, they really shouldn't be too cocky with their "allies" at this stage, this isn't 1950 any-more and Britain has very strong ties with India and China, we would with Russia too if not for the Cold War.

    On top of that, Argentina's Govt. now are not a crazy Junta with nothing to lose.

  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    I completely agree that the chances of an armed conflict are slim to none. I was bringing it up as an interesting hypothetical discussion which is very relevant to the topic at hand. And mostly because I was hoping some military hardware enthusiasts would share their views on how the UK's modern navy (without any friendly air cover at all) and island defences would fare against an obsolete Argentinian air force.

    We could just sum up this thread right now by saying "there isn't going to be a war and the UK is extremely unlikely to concede to Argentinian diplomatic pressure to hand over the islands", but that wouldn't make for particularly interesting debate & discourse.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • Venkman90Venkman90 Registered User regular
    Oh that wasn't intended at a dig at you or anyone else, I have been as vocal as anyone as to how I think it might play out. I was actually stating it for the few people who seem to think it might actually happen.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »

    Basically. Saying "the UK should go to the negotiating table" is the polite way of saying nothing cause they know the UK is just gonna tell the Argentinians to get stuffed in so many words.

    It's a polite way of not alienating the South American states, and essentially hinting to everyone that U.S. sorta kinda supports Argentina here a little bit. It is essentially one of the more neutral responses the U.S. government could've made, but when the issue is between Argentina holding no rights, or holding rights, even acknowledging that negotiations should happen tips the U.S. response towards supporting Argentina through the indirect acknowledgment that Argentina has any claim whatsoever worth negotiating over.

    So really, while they might think they're saying nothing, they're actually supporting Argentina, no matter how miniscule that support is, it still acknowledges the claim instead of dismissing it.
    Not really, telling Britain to go to the negotiating table has the same weight as telling Argentina to go to the negotiating table. Argentina is trying to enforce a trade embargo, and the only way to lift that is through military force or through diplomacy at the negotiating table. If talks fail at the table, Britain can always take it to the UN as well (which if memory servers, will also side with Britain).

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17205918

    Argentina pursuing policy of confrontation, says No 10
    Downing Street has accused Argentina of pursuing a "policy of confrontation" over the Falkland Islands.

    It comes amid reports that top Argentine companies are being told by their government to stop importing goods from the UK.

    PM David Cameron's spokesman said the move was "counterproductive" and was a misreading of British resolve over the disputed islands

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Ah, the time honored "throw all your toys out of the pram" approach to diplomacy. Who do Argentina think they're kidding with this hissy fit? Clearly they do not have a meaningful proportion of the UK economy dependent on their purchases. The only way they're getting those Islands away from the UK is with force, they simply do not have enough economic or diplomatic pull in the world to do it any other way.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The only problem is that Argentina has got the rest of the South American trade bloc to go along with them. If you fly a Falklands flag your'e not allowed to trade with Mercosur countries.

    Why the rest of the world thinks this is ok is beyond me.

    But it's clearly the UK being imperialist here.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    We'll see how firm their commitment to the glorious liberation of the Maldivas is when it starts hurting their bottom line. The thing about the UK is we don't make things that you can get anywhere, the small number of things we actually produce and sell are usually highly specialized. I predict a token show of solidarity before a surreptitious return to business as usual.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    This proposed blockade sounds incredibly toothless if the Falklands just hire ships belonging to other nations to ship the oil to wherever they please.

    Spoiler:
  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    This can all be easily solved by sending Phil Stant back over there.

  • BobCescaBobCesca Registered User regular
    I was hearing on the news this morning something about Argentina demanding that flights to the Falklands go from Argentina rather than Chille, and to use the state-owned company.

    No idea what she's doing, but I'm guessing it looks good in the Argentine press.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17227792

  • tumblr_lyq6qsCX3b1ro561so1_500.png

    The land of rocks, sheep, and penguins has once again found itself in the hungry gaze of Argentina.

    [...]

    If anyone is being imperialist in this case, it is Argentina, who is using their station as an economic power in Latin America to curry the opinion of South America into their view by raising restrictions on the people of the Falklands in an attempt to--almost literally--starve them out.

    Thoughts?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

    OP, with that attitude, we could also say that Tibet belongs to the Chinese. More than half the population is now Han, thanks to outbreeding efforts sponsored by the government. Same goes for these islands, the Argentinians were replaced through colonization. So I have to shake my head when I hear anglo-saxons trying to take the moral high ground as in this case.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    tumblr_lyq6qsCX3b1ro561so1_500.png

    The land of rocks, sheep, and penguins has once again found itself in the hungry gaze of Argentina.

    [...]

    If anyone is being imperialist in this case, it is Argentina, who is using their station as an economic power in Latin America to curry the opinion of South America into their view by raising restrictions on the people of the Falklands in an attempt to--almost literally--starve them out.

    Thoughts?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

    OP, with that attitude, we could also say that Tibet belongs to the Chinese. More than half the population is now Han, thanks to outbreeding efforts sponsored by the government. Same goes for these islands, the Argentinians were replaced through colonization. So I have to shake my head when I hear anglo-saxons trying to take the moral high ground as in this case.

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • BogartBogart Mr. Lady Anime Registered User regular
    Wait, what? It's completely different from Tibet. Britain is not engaged in a policy of breeding out any Argentinians islanders, because the islands have been held by Britain for almost two hundred years. We're not trying to take the moral high ground. We just occupy it.

  • poshniallo wrote: »

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    The inhabitants before the british claim

    (and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • Venkman90Venkman90 Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    The inhabitants before the british claim

    (and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)

    You are an uneducated idiot, no need for me to dress that up, you need telling just how dense you are.

    Argentina was not a country when Britain claimed the UNINHABITED islands, the Spanish had some folks there at some point but they had gone.

  • Bogart wrote: »
    Wait, what? It's completely different from Tibet. Britain is not engaged in a policy of breeding out any Argentinians islanders, because the islands have been held by Britain for almost two hundred years. We're not trying to take the moral high ground. We just occupy it.

    But it's the same situation. The only reason the inhabitants are now british is because the islands were captured and british settlers were sent there. Same thing with Tibet, it was captured and Han Chinese were sent there. They did not even need to have a specific policy, settlers flooding in was just a consequence of the invasion. Tibet is just one example out of many of people getting booted out. So when OP said that argentina was being imperialistic because the local population wants to remain british is a fallacious argument, since the british aren't supposed to be there in the first place. Centuries of colonization don't erase the fact that there was an occupation.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    The inhabitants before the british claim

    (and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)

    What Argentine inhabitants? And using ethnicity rather than nationality does sound racist, yes.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    The inhabitants before the british claim

    (and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)

    The islands were devoid of human habitation prior to the british colony. Granted, there was a spanish jail at one point, but it apparently was abandoned 3 months after it was built.

    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.