Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:18 pm**

David Cameron has accused Argentina of "colonialism" for continuing to claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has demanded renewed talks about the future of the islands - which Argentina calls Las Malvinas.

But Mr Cameron told MPs they would stay British for as long as the islanders wanted, and Argentina's demands for that to change were "like colonialism".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16617666

Posted: **Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:34 pm**

It's not too surprising Argentina would try to assert its claim now that Obama is backing them.

Posted: **Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:52 pm**

inb4 "LOLWUT Britain complaining about colonialism?"

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:13 am**

Will the UN step up and stop this international menace before it's too late?

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:18 am**

Buy your fireworks and party hats early, as Argentina looks set to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War with another astonishing military defeat.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:28 am**

I always envisioned Argentina more as a hooved animal rather than on with talons.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:10 pm**

The Argentinian pig? Might be fun to see whose side Iran took in that scenario.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:27 pm**

barackattack wrote:Argentina looks set to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War with another astonishing military defeat.

By whom? The Royal Navy of today is basically a coast guard / harbour police force.

RN Light Aircraft Carriers

RN Attack Submarines

RN Cruisers

RN Frigates & Destroyers

* currently can only operate in the summer due to preparations for scrapping / all fixed-wing aircraft have been removed due to skyjump being in disrepair - now only operating helicopters

- Raj

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:45 pm**

As much as it pleases me to see just how devoted you are to following UK affairs, saxi, I'm not entirely sure that your four hand-picked figures are of much relevance.

Particularly as we are talking about a potential conflict with Argentina.

http://www.globalasia.org/V5N4_Winter_2 ... ihara.html

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:50 pm**

Based on public statements and the new OAS pledge for Pan-American cooperation it's also unclear Obama would grant resupply rights at Ascension Island like Reagan did. Unless the Royal Navy plans on getting out the oars and paddling the second leg of the trip to South America, it seems like the plan to have Detective Cadbury and Officer Basil issue citations for illegal parking to Argentina's mechanized battalions is the best plan.

The NSC agreed that the Falklands police – rather than the Armed Forces – would be used to combat a flag-planting by the Argentines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1k7Un1AYX

- Raj

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:54 pm**

But Mr Cameron went public with details of the meeting yesterday to deliver a ‘strong message’ to Buenos Aires that the UK will respond militarily if Argentina tries to reclaim the islands.

Do learn to read more than one sentence at a time.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:01 pm**

barackattack wrote:
But Mr Cameron went public with details of the meeting yesterday to deliver a ‘strong message’ to Buenos Aires that the UK will respond militarily if Argentina tries to reclaim the islands.

Again ... with what?

With due deference to the strategic acumen and brilliant military insight of Dave Cameron, this is just sabre-rattling - but without an actual sabre - by a Prime Minister trying to save face.

In 1982 the RN sent 42 combat vessels to the Falklands. The entire UK Navy barely has half that number today. The RN could pull back from every mission in the world - including the defence of Britain itself - and only be able to muster 50% of what it did in 1982.
The UK deployed 3 aircraft carriers to fight out a hard-fought victory during the last engagement. There are no more aircraft carriers left (at least any with aircraft aboard). Who's providing air cover? Or is that not needed for the first time in the history of modern combat?

this is Britain's best hope

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:09 pm**

I'm not sure what makes you think unrelenting cynicism equates to critical thinking, but okay.

Has your obsession with the UK led you to a chance encounter with some statistics on the Argentine navy?

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:10 pm**

Actual, forget that. It's not like your record on factual accuracy is particularly white and snowy.

saxitoxin wrote:Finland has twice as many police, per capita, as the U.S. but three times the crime.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:11 pm**

barackattack wrote:I'm not sure what makes you think unrelenting cynicism equates to critical thinking, but okay.

Has your obsession with the UK led you to a chance encounter with some statistics on the Argentine navy?

Addressing posited questions (who is providing air cover? where will the RN refuel?) rather than screaming that you're being persecuted will likely be more convincing to the unengaged readers of this thread.

barackattack wrote:Actual, forget that. It's not like your record on factual accuracy is particularly white and snowy.

How about Admiral Woodward speaking 2 years ago? Is he in on the grand conspiracy with me to persecute you and slight Britain?

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:12 pm**

Other fun questions are: how much military strength does Argentina have? Who would take their side in the event of an illegal invasion of the Falklands, and who would take the UK's?

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:16 pm**

barackattack wrote:Who would take their side in the event of an illegal invasion of the Falklands,

The bulk of the rest of the Organization of American States, most likely.

So far, at least in public statements on the crisis, that's Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay and Cuba.

barackattack wrote:and who would take the UK's?

Luxembourg. Belgium maybe, but definitely Luxembourg.

Now my turn: who will provide air cover? Where will the RN refuel? How is it Admiral Woodward was wrong in 2010 when he said the UK could do "precisely nothing" to arrest an Argentine attack?

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:22 pm**

In the event of an illegal invasion the UK could use whatever island it is the America has nearby, just like they did last time. You're forgetting/omitting that the US were also unwilling to get involved last time as well... until the Argentines refused to engage in talks.

If the Argentines stick with diplomacy, the Falklands will say they wish to stay British and they will.

If the Argentines declare war this will be illegal and immoral, and the only countries that will stick with them (same as last time) are the other tin-pot jungle republics in S. America.

And anyway:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:30 pm**

barackattack wrote:You're forgetting/omitting that the US were also unwilling to get involved last time as well... until the Argentines refused to engage in talks.

Argentina was under a military junta in 1982, it's a democracy now. The U.S. has, since, also pledged to the Santiago protocol on the Principles of Pan-Americanism. There's no political capital to assist a European power attack another American nation.

barackattack wrote:Argentine navy

This isn't a naval fight for Argentina. Once the Falklands are captured it becomes the job of the UK to dislodge an entrenched ground force. That can only be accomplished through projection capabilities the UK had in 1982 but doesn't in 2012. It's an all-arms fight for the UK and a relatively simple holding action for Argentina. It's not a question of how brave or proud or well-trained UK soldiers are --- they just don't have a way to get to the Falkland Islands short of buying an EasyJet ticket to Buenos Aires.

This is a political, not military question. No one will blame the GHQ for the fact the military is now nothing more than a territorial defence force and police auxiliary. No sitting Prime Minister is going to publicly state what Admiral Woodward said: "Britain can do precisely nothing." The fact you think a politician would be that frank is amusing, at least.

barackattack wrote:In the event of an illegal invasion the UK could use whatever island it is the America has nearby,

LOL, okay, it sounds like you have it all figured out then!

(I want to think he's been joking around in his posts in this thread to-date but I'm beginning to believe BA really is a time traveler from the year 1925 and thinks the Argentine capture of the Falklands can be thwarted by an enterprising viscount from Chessington galloping into battle at the head of a detachment of the Natal Mounted Rifles after taking afternoon tea on the veranda of his hunting lodge.)

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:27 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:Argentina was under a military junta in 1982, it's a democracy now. The U.S. has, since, also pledged to the Santiago protocol on the Principles of Pan-Americanism. There's no political capital to assist a European power attack another American nation.

Democracy? Oh that's okay, then. That makes a really big difference. If Hitler had been Prime Minister, and not Fuhrer, there probably would have been no WW2.

It wouldn't exactly be an attack, now, would it? If would be self-defence.

And all things taken into account: Argentina is total shit and in no way has the capability to do anything serious. And either way is unlikely to anyway, as yet another invasion of a set of islands that have no wish to fall under Argentine rule would be, like, a total PR nightmare.

Posted: **Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:35 pm**

barackattack wrote:Argentina is total shit

You have me bested with your superior argumentation and command of facts; the thread is yours, sir.

Posted: **Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:48 am**

The U.S. CATO Institute has proposed a libertarian solution to resolution of the Malvinas Islands (AKA "Falklands") dispute.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14035

Argentina will deposit $1.6 billion in an escrow account with a Swiss bank. A binding plebiscite will be held in the Malvinas Islands with two options: (1) remain under British occupation, (2) integrate with Argentina. If option 1 is selected, Argentina will forfeit all claims. If option 2 is selected, the escrow account will be paid directly to all residents (approximately $500,000 to every man, woman and child) and the Malvinas will be ceded to Argentina.
With up-to $6 trillion worth of oil estimated to be under the Malvinas, $1.6 billion would be nothing for the Argentine government. $2 million for every Malvinas family of four would be far in excess of anything they would realize in a lifetime of working for some future oil concession or drilling operation. And, Britain would realize their "only" goal in the conflict ( :lol:

): the self-determination of the people of Malvinas. It's a win-win-win for everyone.

Posted: **Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:20 am**

They wouldn't do it. Any sensible human being would rather be a British citizen than have half a million dollars (which is, what, £200?) and be a foreign national.

Posted: **Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:24 am**

If each islander received $500,000, couldn't they just leave the Falklands if things went worse than expected?

Posted: **Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:00 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:If each islander received $500,000, couldn't they just leave the Falklands if things went worse than expected?

That would seem to be so; $2 million for every family of four goes a long way. Plus, on the eve of a referendum, B.A. would probably be polling the islanders. Should voting be at a crossroads one would imagine Argentina could just double the amount on deposit in escrow. It seems hard to suggest someone would choose to be a deckhand on an ocean fishing trawler in the Malvinas for the rest of their life rather than take a million dollar cheque to move to England.

Conquer Club

Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Forcible British Decolonization of the Malvinas Islands

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal

Re: Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled tal