The Falkland Islands

LegionSteve · Feb 9, 2012

Imperialman your link won't work, because one of the words in it is autocensored

But if anyone wants to read the story you can find it on the Grauniad website, under News -> World -> Americas

Short version, the FI newspaper used a picture of the Argentine president on their website where the filename of the picture was the offending word.

Disgustipated · Feb 9, 2012

does the word start with a b?

Dachs · Feb 9, 2012

Disgustipated said:
does the word start with a b?

Yes. Apparently they were too wussy to use one of the variants on the one that starts with a c.

Winner · Feb 10, 2012

imperialman said:
Looks like the row has notched itself up a bit.

Falkland Islands newspaper calls Cristina Fernández de Kirchner a *insert naughty word*

Thousands of complaints after insult that followed Fernández accusing Britain of militarising south Atlantic islands

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/09/cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner--penguin-news

And now the Argentinians will go to war because... because... uhm, because they're hot-blooded southerners who must protect the honour of their lady president or die in the attempt, right? :mischief:

Benefactor · Feb 10, 2012

Winner said:
And now the Argentinians will go to war because... because... uhm, because they're hot-blooded southerners who must protect the honour of their lady president or die in the attempt, right?

Exactly, to WAAAAAAAR! pip pip tally ho and all that

.

imperialman · Feb 10, 2012

Winner said:
And now the Argentinians will go to war because... because... uhm, because they're hot-blooded southerners who must protect the honour of their lady president or die in the attempt, right?

You sir are going to the big sarcasm jail.

imperialman · Feb 10, 2012

UK sent nuclear sub near Falklands, says Argentina

The UK says the HMS Dauntless is being sent to the South Atlantic as part of routine operations

Argentina's foreign minister has accused the UK of sending a nuclear-armed submarine to the South Atlantic, after making an official complaint to the UN over the Falklands dispute.

Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region.

But UK officials said the accusations of militarisation were "absurd".

UN chief Ban Ki-moon earlier called on both sides to avoid an "escalation" in tensions over the Falkland Islands.

The two countries went to war in 1982 over the British overseas territory.

Mr Timerman told a news conference at the UN in New York that the UK was "militarising the region", repeating accusations made by Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner earlier this week.

"Argentina has information that, within the framework of the recent British deployment in the Falklands, they sent a nuclear submarine with the capacity to transport nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic," Mr Timerman said. (this seems very odd to me as it would most likely be a conventionally armed SSN)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391

Argentine statement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993417

British statement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16992848

I have no idea why the Argentines believe Britain would send a boomer rather than SSN. Very odd.

bhsup · Feb 10, 2012

So what if the UK did, though? The South Atlantic is not Argentina's personal lake, after all.

Also, I must again repeat that it is not escalation to defend your territory or let anyone else know that you would defend your territory. It IS escalation for one sovereign nation to suggest to another sovereign nation that they should consider abandoning their territory.

imperialman · Feb 10, 2012

Agreed, they also claimed the UK increased its naval forces in the region "four fold". This is absurd as HMS Dauntless is being sent to replace HMS Montrose. I assume HMS Turbulent is being sent too but there was never any confirmation, only tabloid speculation. The naval forces certainly in the region are 1 OPV, 1 Antarctic patrol/ice breaker and 1 frigate plus tanker. That's been the norm for 30 years.

dosed150 · Feb 11, 2012

the domestic situation in argentina must be bad, because they are coming across as whiny- what that article called their president es

cant believe that guy expects us to tell where our submarines are, we won't even tell some countries we actually like, never mind argentina

rollo1066 · Feb 11, 2012

Don't really think very well of either Argentine or British actions here although neither country has done anything they don't have the right to do here. In my opinion, if Argentina really wants the Islands they should make more of an offer for them.

My opinion is about $1,000,000 US per Islander to be exempt from both Argentine and UK taxes would be about right. The Islanders could then either move to the UK or stay and have dual citizenship UK/Argentine.

On the other hand the UK's military response to a diplomatic campaign (combined with very mild economic presure) doesn't seem right either. Maintaining a large military presence will hurt UK relations not just with Argentina but with most if not all of South America including Brazil (which strongly dislikes foreign bases in or near South America).

Obama's policy of neutrality by USA seems about right. I don't think either Argentina or Britain are really doing the smartest thing here but neither is doing anything which hurts US interest so we don't need to do anything.

aronnax · Feb 11, 2012

rollo1066 said:
Don't really think very well of either Argentine or British actions here although neither country has done anything they don't have the right to do here. In my opinion, if Argentina really wants the Islands they should make more of an offer for them.

My opinion is about $1,000,000 US per Islander to be exempt from both Argentine and UK taxes would be about right. The Islanders could then either move to the UK or stay and have dual citizenship UK/Argentine.

On the other hand the UK's military response to a diplomatic campaign (combined with very mild economic presure) doesn't seem right either. Maintaining a large military presence will hurt UK relations not just with Argentina but with most if not all of South America including Brazil (which strongly dislikes foreign bases in or near South America).

Obama's policy of neutrality by USA seems about right. I don't think either Argentina or Britain are really doing the smartest thing here but neither is doing anything which hurts US interest so we don't need to do anything.

The only reason why the UK has a large military presence in the region is because 30 years ago, Argentina decided to invade it and after being beaten back, still continue to claim it in a pointless ideal. And prior to this whole incident of UK-Argentinian bickering, the UK was already maintaining a large military presence to which nobody was really complaining about until the Argentinians decided to drag this dead issue out of the water.

And why should the UK give up the Falkland Islands anyway to whatever offer Argentina gives?

imperialman · Feb 11, 2012

rollo1066 said:
My opinion is about $1,000,000 US per Islander to be exempt from both Argentine and UK taxes would be about right. The Islanders could then either move to the UK or stay and have dual citizenship UK/Argentine.

I don't really see the islanders going for that really.

rollo1066 said:
On the other hand the UK's military response to a diplomatic campaign.

What response are you referring to exactly?

Ayn Rand · Feb 11, 2012

rollo1066 said:
My opinion is about $1,000,000 US per Islander to be exempt from both Argentine and UK taxes would be about right. The Islanders could then either move to the UK or stay and have dual citizenship UK/Argentine.

About ten years ago Argentina made the exact same offer - £1 million per resident. It was flatly rejected of course.

And even if this offer were accepted, Britain could double it. Or perhaps Argentina could move a few hundred settlers to the Island, then we could re-purchase the Islands for £1 million per citizen.

So it just doesn't work as a way of deciding sovereignty.

Tarquelne · Feb 11, 2012

VRWCAgent said:
Also, I must again repeat that it is not escalation to defend your territory or let anyone else know that you would defend your territory.

That's exactly what people say when mustering their troops at the border just before invading.

The UK is (allegedly) increasing the military presence in a (politically) disputed area. That's escalation.

OTOH, so long as the British military presence doesn't significantly increase its offensive capabilities it's an escalation Argentina shouldn't care about. Not as long as they're peace lovin' folk, at least. And if they're *not* peace lovin' folk then the escalation could be considered preventative.

It IS escalation for one sovereign nation to suggest to another sovereign nation that they should consider abandoning their territory.

I believe the term you're looking for is "cheeky".

Ok, no, could be part of a diplomatic escalation, but while related to military escalations there's a pretty clear distinction.

The key difference being that it's a lot easier to justify a military response to a significant military escalation.

And without a realistic threat behind it I'd say Argentina's suggestion - on the escalation scale - is hardly more significant than the British troop movements.

The best way to describe what's going on is probably "posturing."

wilycoyote · Feb 11, 2012

Would the UK really send a royal if they were actually preparing for a war? Personally, in Civ, I never sent my GA (I don't know what his equivalent is but it isn't a GG) to the front lines to defend a city.

Virote_Considon · Feb 11, 2012

wilycoyote said:
Would the UK really send a royal if they were actually preparing for a war? Personally, in Civ, I never sent my GA (I don't know what his equivalent is but it isn't a GG) to the front lines to defend a city.

Yep. They sent Prince Andrew (at least I think it was him) to fight in Falklands War #1.

I also think both William and Harry have fought in Afghanistan. There was a huge furor in the media when it was leaked that Harry was gonna fight there so they had to wait for that to die down before they sent him.

Racsoviale · Feb 11, 2012

wilycoyote said:
Would the UK really send a royal if they were actually preparing for a war? Personally, in Civ, I never sent my GA (I don't know what his equivalent is but it isn't a GG) to the front lines to defend a city.

Its actually really handy to use a GA in a newly conquered city if you intend to keep it.

bhsup · Feb 11, 2012

wilycoyote said:
Would the UK really send a royal if they were actually preparing for a war? Personally, in Civ, I never sent my GA (I don't know what his equivalent is but it isn't a GG) to the front lines to defend a city.

To flesh out Virote's answer of them sending Prince Andrew, you should know that is assigned duty wasn't a rear area thing either. He was a helicopter pilot aboard their aircraft carrier and one of his duties was to be a decoy for any anti-ship missile that the fired at the carrier. Considering they did sink a cruiser with a French Exocet missile, that was a real risk.

Traitorfish · Feb 11, 2012

The British aristocracy are surprisingly willing to throw themselves in battle- just look at how many of them died in the First World War in proportion to the rest of the population. It can be a real point of honour for them, for whatever reason.

The Falkland Islands

Motörhead

Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

Diverse in Unity

Beneficial

Admiral

Admiral

Deity

Admiral

Emperor

Warlord

Let your spirit be free

Admiral

Deity

Follower of Tytalus

King

The Great Dictator

Smoke me a kipper!

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Similar threads