Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

[saxitoxin]

The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.


If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

It would be no gamble for Argentina. They've just had 20% of their population wiped out. Argentina wouldn't be able to protect themselves against Uruguay at that point. Russia would be the one on the offensive. They would have a fast window of opportunity to eliminate a regional competitor (UK) with no political or military blow-back.

Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

I just edited my post. It's on page 75 of The Samson Option.

[BigBallinStalin]

The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.


If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

It would be no gamble for Argentina. They've just had 20% of their population wiped out. Argentina wouldn't be able to protect themselves against Uruguay at that point. Russia would be the one on the offensive. They would have a fast window of opportunity to eliminate a regional competitor (UK) with no political or military blow-back.

Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

I just edited my post. It's on page 75 of The Samson Option.

In sudden change of heart, I just decided that I DISAGREE. And NO, I will not back down. Damn your page 75!

[saxitoxin]

Argentina has announced it will allow non-citizens to begin voting in elections.

I wonder why occupational authorities in Malvinas don't follow suit and allow non-citizens to vote in their so-called "democracy"?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... -olds-vote

[Symmetry]

Argentina has announced it will allow non-citizens to begin voting in elections.

I'm not a citizen of a lot of countries. I demand my vote.

[saxitoxin]

Argentina has announced it will allow non-citizens to begin voting in elections.

I'm not a citizen of a lot of countries. I demand my vote.

You can have it in Argentina. Now will the "Falklands" let Argentines vote?

[Symmetry]

Now will the "Falklands" let Argentines vote?

I'm not sure how the Falklands have ever stopped Argentinians from voting.

[saxitoxin]

New documents from South Atlantic War declassified - Reagan demanded Britain submit Isles Malvinas to UN control on the eve of British sneak attack on Puerto Soledad.

The papers detail how Thatcher urgently sought U.S. President Ronald Reagan's support when Argentina's intentions became clear, and reveal Thatcher's exasperation with Reagan when he suggested that Britain negotiate rather than demand Argentinian withdrawal.

The documents describe an unusual late night phone call from Reagan to Thatcher on May 31, 1982 — while British forces were beginning the battle for control of the Falklands capital — in which the president pressed the prime minister to put the islands in the hands of international peacekeepers rather than press for an Argentinian surrender.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... ml?cmp=rss

[BigBallinStalin]

New documents from South Atlantic War declassified - Reagan demanded Britain submit Isles Malvinas to UN control on the eve of British sneak attack on Puerto Soledad.

The papers detail how Thatcher urgently sought U.S. President Ronald Reagan's support when Argentina's intentions became clear, and reveal Thatcher's exasperation with Reagan when he suggested that Britain negotiate rather than demand Argentinian withdrawal.

The documents describe an unusual late night phone call from Reagan to Thatcher on May 31, 1982 — while British forces were beginning the battle for control of the Falklands capital — in which the president pressed the prime minister to put the islands in the hands of international peacekeepers rather than press for an Argentinian surrender.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... ml?cmp=rss

Insert speculation on Thatcher's ideal man, and how the Argentinians fall below her standard; therefore, war.

[Chariot of Fire]

Reagan 'demanded'. Really?

I do like one reader's reply though:

Thatcher's response to the Falklands crisis was entirely legitimate, in fact she had no other option. Roughly 2,000 islanders had fallen into the hands of an aggressive fascist dictatorship which had murdered 70,000 of its own people in extra-judicial killings. What NATO-backed western liberal democracy could ever allow that to happen without reaching for the military solution, if the opponent refused to accept only a complete withdrawal? She was lucky in so many regards though. She had the best-trained military in the world at her disposal and, more importantly, the British aircraft carriers that were due to be removed from service some months after the invasion were still serviceable at that point. The really shocking thing to emerge in these newly declassified documents is the position of the US. It seemed ready to place its utterly misguided and paranoid policy of backing any regime in South America as long as it wasn't 'communist' ahead of supporting its oldest and closest ally. As if the British government was ever going to send 250 military personel to die in the South Atlantic before handing the islands over to a joint US/Brazilian peace force just to appease a fascist junta (the US attempt at a late diplomatic solution).

[saxitoxin]

Reagan 'demanded'. Really?

I do like one reader's reply though:

Thatcher's response to the Falklands crisis was entirely legitimate, in fact she had no other option. Roughly 2,000 islanders had fallen into the hands of an aggressive fascist dictatorship which had murdered 70,000 of its own people in extra-judicial killings. What NATO-backed western liberal democracy could ever allow that to happen without reaching for the military solution, if the opponent refused to accept only a complete withdrawal? She was lucky in so many regards though. She had the best-trained military in the world at her disposal and, more importantly, the British aircraft carriers that were due to be removed from service some months after the invasion were still serviceable at that point. The really shocking thing to emerge in these newly declassified documents is the position of the US. It seemed ready to place its utterly misguided and paranoid policy of backing any regime in South America as long as it wasn't 'communist' ahead of supporting its oldest and closest ally. As if the British government was ever going to send 250 military personel to die in the South Atlantic before handing the islands over to a joint US/Brazilian peace force just to appease a fascist junta (the US attempt at a late diplomatic solution).

the accepted figure is 13,000 persons killed during the National Reorganization Initiative, which is as unfortunate as the 3,500 British citizens murdered and disappeared in the UK - as a result of conflict with British government troops and pro-government death squads (i.e. UDF) - during the same period

next, I should like to play -



inflating the figure by 600% must be racially motivated to maximize the perception of Latin society as less civilized than Anglo-European; therefore, the reader's opinion is racist and can be ignored

the UK must hand over Isles Malvinas immediately and it should also enter negotiations regarding the peaceful transfer of Cornwall to Argentina, as compensation for losses Argentina incurred during the '82 conflict

[nietzsche]

if you want to make argentinians cum tell them how european they are during sex

[BigBallinStalin]

Not sure what you just said, nietz, but it just made me cum.

[nietzsche]

An Argentine asks a Spaniard, 'Friend, do you know which country is closest to heaven?
- 'Argentina, I suppose,' retorts the angry Spaniard. 'No, friend', says the Argentine. 'It's Uruguay!'

[saxitoxin]

Foreign Minister Timerman today -

- "It is not a matter for negotiation. Not one single country in the world recognises the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in the Malvinas."

- "I don't think it will take another 20 years. I think that the world is going through a process of understanding more and more that this is a colonial issue, an issue of colonialism, and that the people living there were transferred to the islands."

- "The F&@$lands islanders do not exist."

http://news.sky.com/story/1048482/argen ... dont-exist
http://news.sky.com/story/1047909/argen ... n-20-years

[BigBallinStalin]

Imperialistic Argentina needs to pay its debts; otherwise, their thieving ways deny them the high moral ground in this issue.