The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU
AManFromEarth
Let's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
Let's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
The land of rocks, sheep, and penguins has once again found itself in the hungry gaze of Argentina.
A long time ago, in an age of myth and legend, Europe sent ships full of people with guns to travel around the world and take things from brown people who didn't have any guns. This is how all of the countries in what we call "America" were created. From Canada down to Argentina, each country has tried to reintegrate its indigenous population with varying levels of success.
At the bottom of the continent were a couple empty rocks that were first seen by Magellan in 1520 and first landed on by the British a hundred and seventy years later in 1690, where they were named after the patron of the ship's captain, Viscount Falkland.
The first settlement was by the French in 1764 and named Port Louis. Spain objected to this and was ceded the islands, which they called the Malvinas, in 1767. In 1765 the British had set up an outpost on the islands which was later expelled by Spain. The Spanish let them return to resettle later, but at this point in time Spain controlled the islands, and pretty much everything in South America except for Brazil and some other stuff near the Caribbean.
And for a long time nothing happened and no one lived on the islands. In 1833 the British set up the current society in the Falklands. The Falklanders, their sheep, and their chummy penguin neighbors lived on in peace until the 1980s when the military dictator of Argentina invaded the islands, triggering the Falkland Islands war in 1982. The British won this war quite handily, securing their claim on the islands.
Now, with the recent discovery of oil in the British Exclusion Zone, the old chestnut of "take back the Malvinas" has been taken out of the Argentinian political chalk board. The president of Argentina, Sean Penn, various liberals, the head of the UN, and apparently President Obama, have urged for talks on the issue.
In actuality, the Falklanders, who have lived on the islands for almost two hundred years, have shown no desire to become Argentinian, and indeed repeatedly state their wish to remain British. To me, this is the clinching argument. Especially since Argentina's counter argument is "why should we care what they think?"
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
AManFromEarth on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I don't see why the UK should give a toss about either point, honestly.
Edit: if my quick internetsings are correct, Argentina only has eight fourth generation fighters and the rest are from the 1970s, I don't see why they'd want to provoke a war with the UK, especially when the US might help with air cover
Well its never really been taken off the political chalkboard, just shouted about less. The claim on the islands is a much an accepted part of Argentine consensus mindset as George Washington's cherry tree/shooting freedom lasers from his eyes is to Americans. Its an emotional issue, not a rational one.
That's what the Brits should think of Argentina.
Oh to be sure, but that doesn't mean that they should get what they want.
The US firmly believed that we should own Canada and that got put paid to.
I mean their chances aren't good, but the British fleet is undergoing a transition and they only have one operation aircraft carrier before the first Queen Elizabeth class carrier comes online in 2016, at which point they'll have force projection nearly that of a Nimitz combined with the F-35C
Although they could always ask the US navy, as they have an extreme hardon for defeating less advanced air forces.
Eh, Britain has a history of pulling shit like this. Ulster was districted so that there would be a reliable bare majority to keep the area in is clutches.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I believe Argentina has successfully lobbied to have ships flying the Falkland flag barred from docking in Mercosur ports, which is why this is in the news again.
I'm no expert on the Falklands but from what I understand there just really isn't an appreciable chunk of the population on them that wants to be Argentinian. I'm pretty sure that if you can get X% of the population to want to join you, you don't have a valid claim as far as most other countries are concerned. I'd argue that most countries would side with Britain because legitimizing Argentina's claim would open a can of worms best left closed.
Ulster =/= Falklands
Ireland had a thriving indigenous population, the Falklands had some penguins.
Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.
Hmm...
Yeah, Britain wouldn't even need to do anything special to ensure a referendum to stay with Britain ended in their favor because it would be pointless. I'm sure the Falklands had some immigration that brought in some Argentinians that wouldn't mind if their new home was part of Argentina but I'm also pretty sure that their are other immigrants or decedents of immigrants that wouldn't mind if the Falklands were part of their country of origin. It's just so small that it doesn't really matter and letting anyone make a land grab on such circumstances would create so many issues elsewhere in the world that it wouldn't be funny.
And wasn't the the war started because Thatcher wanted a distraction from the economic crises in England at the time and wanted to score some points to get elected?
And guess what's happening today in England...
hmmm....
The war was started by Argentina because England was having economic problems? So that English politicians could score political points? Buh?
I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:
What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?
The UK didn't start this, at all.
In this time and age, self-identification and self-determination are important issues, based on that alone the decision should be left up to the current inhabitants of the Falklands, but as they have already made their decision, tough cookies to Argentina.
The Falklands - The place all conquering nations choose to distract their populace from their internal screw-up's
Hey, hey, some of us use the middle east.
Sounds like it's time to dust off the ol' Monroe Doctrine, and protect the resources people of the Western Hemisphere from the predations of dastardly European colonialists.
But that interferes with the Bomb Brown People Doctrine.
Doctrinal Crisis! Which to choose? Which to choose?
COMPROMISE!
The US will take the Islands, cut out all the oil, and then the UK and Argentina shall receive the left overs.
Win-Win-Win
We'll then build a pipeline from the Falklands up to the gulf coast, through the seismic zones, countries that we are on good terms with and we'll man this thing with less than a 100 people. What could possible go wrong with this plan?
No-one suspects the penguins are the Falklands secret weapon.
Yes, that's exactly what happened.
They dressed up a load of penguins to look like Argentine conscripts and told the world that Argentina had invaded the Falklands and now we needed to blow some shit up in retaliation.
In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.
You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?
Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.
You can certainly say that Thatcher took a much harder line in her presentation of and response to the invasion than she might have done if it wasn't an election year. While the Argentinians were absolutely the agressors and had no legitimate claim to the territory the British would likely have moved through the UN and an allied force to free the islands if it had not been for the economic and political situation at home. For example, she turned down US offers of aircraft carrier support to maintain a wholly British response to the invasion.
The event was not brought on by the British, but the response was, and there could indeed be a similar attitude of 'keep it british' to a response this time for the same reason.
Look at China and Hong Kong after that, after the massive political success that the Falklands was for the Conservatives they considered re-negotiating their treaty with China to let them keep Hong Kong forever. Lack of US and international support tabled the issue, but there were certainly thoughts along those lines.
If you can come up with a reason why those analogies are relevant, great. Cameron (and Thatcher before him) didn't suddenly bring up the Falklands as a distraction, though he might be glad of the opportunity to make a couple of stern speeches. Do you seriously think he just casually mentioned in a speech that those Falklands sure are British apropos of nothing and then Argentina suddenly remembered oh yeah we think those are ours dammit? This is a regular drum that Argentinian governments/dictatorships bring up for a popularity boost and for the chance to get their hands on some oil rights. Britain tells them to fuck off, and Argentina whines to it's neighbours and anyone else who'll listen about how unfair this all is wah wah wah.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.
But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?
Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain was well within its rights to defend itself. Are we really supposed to be surprised that the politician used the event politically?
I guess Obama shouldn't mention that he killed OBL or saved Detroit during the campaign or it negates the actions he took in the first place.
It's fairly ignorant to claim that the UK has blame in this instance in the same way that Israel or the US are culpable in middle east politics.
I would fully accept politicL calculations as to the popularity of the war as part of her motivation, but since it coincided with pretty much the right thing to do I don't really give a shit. The Falklands was invaded by a fascist dictatorship intent on bolstering support at home. It would have been pretty unconscionable to do nothing, and worse than useless to pursue an response short of a full military one.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3