Conquer Club

Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Should Argentina talk/listen to the Falkland Islanders?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby MrPanzerGeneral on Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:11 pm

You're delusional.
Private MrPanzerGeneral
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:56 pm
Location: NEW ZEALAND

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:37 pm

And so are Gen. Sir Michael Jackson and Adm. Sir Sandy Woodward?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:12 pm

So SRSLY, this is how I'd take Islas Malvinas ...

STEP 1: fire a volley of Argentina's new PCX missiles from the mainland toward the runway at Mount Pleasant, destroying the runway and confining the Eurofighters to the ground (unless they're already airborne, in which case the FAA will just have to wait a few hours for them to run out of fuel and fall out of the sky)

Image

STEP 2: with air defenses neutered, drop a company of paratroopers on Port Howard (pop. 20) in the western islands where there are no British troops, secure the boat dock

Image

STEP 3: calmly dock a Ro-Ro in Port Howard and unload three batteries of 155mm howitzers ... break for 2 hours to celebrate Carnival

Image

STEP 4: send a cruise ship chartered by the Brazilian Red Cross to moor off the coast of Stanley ... telephone the British Governor and inform him the entire population of Stanley has 4 hours to get aboard it

Image

STEP 5: after 4 hours, start popping off 100 high-explosive shells per hour at Stanley ... within 10 hours, 1000 shells will have hit the town, 2 for every building

Image

STEP 6: land a company of sappers on the eastern and western islands, start randomly laying mines everywhere, with no rhyme or reason

Image

STEP 7: send a press release to the Guardian ... let them know the islanders have all left by cruise ship and, if they return, the islands are now totally uninhabitable - every building has been destroyed and you can't walk 10 feet without stepping on a land mine

Image

STEP 8: the islanders are now removed from the equation - the UK government has to mobilize their population for war only for oil rights, not with the excuse of defense of the kelpers since they're gone and will never be able to return ... the Argentine embassy in London can then start handing out fifty-quid notes to local chavs to have them wander around the streets for a few hours carrying "No Blood for Oil!" signs - Julian Assange can make a speech from the balcony of the Peruvian embassy

STEP 9: + 10 days later maybe a British fleet of 12 ships shows up with no aircraft/aircraft carriers ... chugs around the islands shaking their fists at the Argentine troops from the decks of the UK's two Type 45 destroyers ... Argentine Navy stays safe and snugly moored in Buenos Aires ... New York Mercantile Exchange sets a date for opening bids in the auction of petroleum franchises in Argentine-controlled Islas Malvinas
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 11995
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby crispybits on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:35 pm

This is why you're not a politican saxi

You're delusional.


+1
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:37 pm

I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.

What do you think, sax?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:45 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.

What do you think, sax?


There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British plans (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... orgia.html). In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.

That was Ronald Reagan.

Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.

Image

Also, under Article 6 of the NATO Treaty, the US is only obligated to assist other NATO states if their territory located north of the Tropic of Cancer is attacked. The U.S. has no mutual defense obligations for attacks occurring south of the Tropic of Cancer. The U.S. specifically requested this limit in the NATO treaty so it's more than theoretical.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm

Image
Last edited by saxitoxin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 11995
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby Fruitcake on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:53 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.

What do you think, sax?


There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British naval movements. In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.

That was Ronald Reagan.

Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.


yep, we sure know who we can rely on as a friend....oh wait, we don't have any, so no change there then.
Image

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
User avatar
Colonel Fruitcake
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am

Postby 2dimes on Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:15 pm

Wait, why'd you dimes that post about Ed Harris there?
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12622
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:25 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.

What do you think, sax?


There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British plans (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... orgia.html). In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.

That was Ronald Reagan.

Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.

Image

Also, under Article 6 of the NATO Treaty, the US is only obligated to assist other NATO states if their territory located north of the Tropic of Cancer is attacked. The U.S. has no mutual defense obligations for attacks occurring south of the Tropic of Cancer. The U.S. specifically requested this limit in the NATO treaty so it's more than theoretical.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm

Image



So, if the risk of US involvement seems so low, then why doesn't ARG invade? Is it fear of international boo'ing? Are they actually capable of launching a successful attack? What constrains ARG?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:49 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.

What do you think, sax?


There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British plans (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... orgia.html). In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.

That was Ronald Reagan.

Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.

Image

Also, under Article 6 of the NATO Treaty, the US is only obligated to assist other NATO states if their territory located north of the Tropic of Cancer is attacked. The U.S. has no mutual defense obligations for attacks occurring south of the Tropic of Cancer. The U.S. specifically requested this limit in the NATO treaty so it's more than theoretical.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm

Image



So, if the risk of US involvement seems so low, then why doesn't ARG invade? Is it fear of international boo'ing? Are they actually capable of launching a successful attack? What constrains ARG?


I imagine - since the UK is undoubtedly aware of their precarious military position - a backchannel agreement has already been reached with the UK government to continue the sabre-rattling in the foreground, for the benefit of their respective populations, while hammering out the details of a gradually introduced transfer arrangement behind the scenes.

UK governments are famous for loudly parading about waving the Union flag and declaring they'll never give up on their countrymen, while brokering surrender deals behind the scenes. Tony Blair tried to sell Gibraltar to Spain at the same time he was yelling no compromise to the press, etc. A Tory government risks losing half their votes to the BNP & UKIP if they lose Malvinas on their watch; Labour has less to risk. Cameron will probably make the arrangements, Argentina will tread water, and then whenever the next election occurs the Tories lose, everything will be set to begin gradually introducing the concept of join sovereignty, and, eventually, full transfer, to the British public. (I'm sure the Queen has already been briefed on the plans; why they were in such a hurry to get Will down there for a few heroic photos. The future King needs those pics on file while he can get them; there's less opportunities for gallantry defending the Outer Hebrides from the Iceland tuna fleet.)
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 11995
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:03 pm

MrPanzerGeneral wrote:Brits are in a position of power.....The RN & the RAF could wipe the present day Argentinian Air Force & Navy offa the map, anytime, if they ever wanted to, offensively OR defensively ( with one hand tied behind their backs even.... I hazard....)... and the B.A is then always on the ground :) Argentina can't protect, nor project, it's own landward boundaries at present, let alone do it across some water.... all bluff... but come what may...we'll be willing to teach them a lesson again :)
Brazil likewise...

Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Britain has spent the last century building condominiums for winos instead of renewing the Fleet.

The RAF is still formidable on its home turf, but it can't project overseas. There aren't any overseas bases left. Nowadays, when the RAF goes abroad, it has to couch-surf on American bases. Sad, but true. The Americans sure as hell aren't going to help with a new Falklands conflict. They have more to gain with Pan-American posturing than with helping out an old ally.

The Fleet whose pennants so proudly flew over so many harbours and so many battles has gone to the great drydock in the sky. Nelson and Beatty and Somerville are rolling over in their graves. Apparently there's plenty of coin in the Exchequer's Office to provide sex changes to Johnny Rotten look-alikes, but nothing to build a few new capital ships. The Fleet that once ruled the planet would be hard-pressed to put together a destroyer screen for a Channel crossing today.

Trust me, I wish it wasn't true, but an honest assessment of the facts is that the RN would be in no shape to deliver a significant fighting force to the Falklands today. Even in 1982 it was embarrassingly difficult to get things under way, and that was before the last carriers were put to pasture.

The only hope is to appeal to public opinion. And don't discount the public opinion of Argentinians -- it is a democracy, and if the people could be educated about how bogus their claims are, I think they could be shamed into dropping them.

For instance, take that American pirate that was shipwrecked on the islands in 1820 and claimed them for Argentina -- Jarrett or Jabba or some shitty name like that. Okay, this loser crashes his ship, begs the British for help, and then has the ingratitude to inform them that he is taking over their colony. Just put this is perspective. A drunken lout crashes his car into the telephone pole on your front yard, crawls out, vomits on your lawn, and begs for assistance. You come outside, full of humanitarian concern, wrap a blanket over him to keep him from shock, at which point he hands you a letter informing you that he is seizing ownership of your house. What a subhuman piece of fecal matter!

Once you make people understand how morally untenable are the underpinnings of the Argentine claim, you're halfway to winning. It's always dicey. You have to balance Bulwer-Lytton's "the pen is mightier than the sword" against Sir Roger Fenwick's "but at any given moment the sword speaks louder and clearer." Still, this is the Internet Age, and although shooting wars continue to rage, I'm cautiously optimistic that the pen is gaining ground.
Image
User avatar
Major Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26925
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

Postby Symmetry on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:03 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.


Largely the US has stayed un-involved ever since Thatcher asked Reagan what he would do if American sovereign territory got invaded by a foreign dictatorial power.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Previous

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users