Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:An interesting question. I would say that it must begin with recognition of the Islands' people and their rights.

#Malvinas #Kelpers nobody denied your British nationality, just we claim that the sovereignty of the islands is from Argentina.
https://twitter.com/EmilianoKemero/stat ... 4610334720

Fair solution. Argentina recognizes the islanders nationality as British. Britain recognizes the island territory as Argentine.

All rights are respected.

No one has a right to determine what nation their property is inside. When Hong Kong was reintegrated into China, European residents had the opportunity to keep their British nationality and their property, unmolested. And Argentina has extended the same offer to the kelpers upon the reintegration of Malvinas.

I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.

Symmetry wrote:I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.

So would I.

Malvinas have a population of about 3,000. The world's smallest country has a population of 10,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... population) and is at least in close proximity to friendly nations with whom it cooperates.

So, after independence, when a fishing shipping is in distress 20 miles off coast, where is the rescue helicopter coming from? When an islander needs more than a general check-up or basic first aid, what hospital do they go to? When an outlaw whaling ship crewed by 30 armed men docks in Stanley, where are the police to keep them from tearing up the town? When a resident gets arrested in Italy, where is the embassy to provide him consular aid?

Independence would end almost as soon as it began, with accession to Argentina. But, unlike the status quo, it's at least not a delaying tactic.

saxitoxin wrote:Malvinas have a population of about 3,000. The world's smallest country has a population of 10,000

Vatican is rocking in at 836. Or 793 by your own source

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How far should that recognition of those people and their rights be extended? To answer this, let's use a simplistic IR theory to analyze the nation-states which are directly involved:

(1a) Should the UK grant the Falklands full sovereignty? (i.e. 100% recognition),
(1b) or should the UK grant them something less than full sovereignty (e.g. status quo).

(2) Depending on the answer to #1, ARG's response will vary. If the Falklands don't have full sovereignty (if 1b), then ARG must go to the group which retains ultimate discretion, i.e. the UK.

I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.

Same here, but since that is not the case--and since the UK does not seem intent on letting that happen, what do?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How far should that recognition of those people and their rights be extended? To answer this, let's use a simplistic IR theory to analyze the nation-states which are directly involved:

(1a) Should the UK grant the Falklands full sovereignty? (i.e. 100% recognition),
(1b) or should the UK grant them something less than full sovereignty (e.g. status quo).

(2) Depending on the answer to #1, ARG's response will vary. If the Falklands don't have full sovereignty (if 1b), then ARG must go to the group which retains ultimate discretion, i.e. the UK.

I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.

Same here, but since that is not the case--and since the UK does not seem intent on letting that happen, what do?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

You keep saying that.

Argentina doesn't want to govern those people. They want the territory and will take it with or without people on it. The people can stay or go at their leisure and keep or dispose of their private property as they see fit. Argentina is a nation of laws that respects private property. It's not some banana republic.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

Haha, Sym, you'd be good for philosophy/theology, but not politics/political science.

We both want an ideal outcome, but given the constraints, our means are curbed from the ideal.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

You keep saying that.

Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

You keep saying that.

Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.

There are not three sides, there are two sides: the British side and the Argentine side. The "Falklanders" confirmed this fact by their vote when they declared themselves part of the UK. Argentina has issued no demands that the provincial government of Tierra del Fuego be involved, even though Malvinas is legally part of that province.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

You keep saying that.

Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.

There are not three sides, there are two sides: the British side and the Argentine side. The "Falklanders" confirmed this fact by their vote when they declared themselves part of the UK. Argentina has issued no demands that the provincial government of Tierra del Fuego be involved, even though Malvinas is legally part of that province.

If Argentina wishes to govern the islands, they have to do so via dictatorship (never acknowledge them) or ethnic cleansing of anyone who wants to remain free.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.

So, now what?

Talk to the people you wish to govern.

You keep saying that.

Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.

There are not three sides, there are two sides: the British side and the Argentine side. The "Falklanders" confirmed this fact by their vote when they declared themselves part of the UK. Argentina has issued no demands that the provincial government of Tierra del Fuego be involved, even though Malvinas is legally part of that province.

If Argentina wishes to govern the islands, they have to do so via dictatorship (never acknowledge them) or ethnic cleansing of anyone who wants to remain free.

Now you just went crazy.

Malvinas is a municipality of the Province of Tierra del Fuego. Once reintegrated into Argentina, those residents who choose to take Argentina citizenship will be entitled to elect a 7-member municipal council, half-elected every year to a two-year term. Policing would be provided by the Tierra del Fuego police, which is apparently a group of stern, big-breasted women with Uzis ...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/50810109@N02/

... versus crotchety, middle-aged men with big, bushy beards who get caught-up in various hijinx.



Those who choose to maintain British citizenship would receive, as Argentina has said, permanent legal residency. Private property rights of both citizens and permanent residents are guaranteed by the Argentine constitution.

Really, on a day to day basis, residents would notice essentially no change. The only possibly noticeable change is that I think Argentina has a federal law against sheep-fucking.

Another difference: the oil rigs in the nearby seas would bear different company logos... maybe.

Nobody seems to be addressing the basic underlying point: the Argentine claim to the Falklands is entirely inherited from the Spanish claim, which is completely bogus. It is based on the Spaniards' FAILED colony there. If they had established a successful colony, this would be a horse of a different colour.

The Spanish Habsburgs were a degenerate insult to that ancient and noble name. They took HALF THE WORLD's WEALTH and squandered it. In under a century they went from being the world's greatest power to being a bankrupt pauper state begging for Papal alms. Somewhere along the way, they marooned some unfortunates in the Falklands, and the entire Argentine "legal claim" traces back to this fact.

It would be a non-issue if not for the fact that the welfare states of the EEC love to punish success and reward failure, and so they have recognised this Spanish non-colony as having some legal merit and are prepared to tear down the stable and prosperous British community that has endure for centuries. No sane person can think that the BLOATED NABLOBS of BRUSSELS have anything of value to say.

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...

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...

Gen. Sir Michael Jackson disagrees with you:

British military forces would be unable to retake the Falkland Islands Malvinas were Argentina to invade, according to the former head of the British Army.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01 ... 39939.html

Adm. Sir Sandy Woodward disagrees with you:

The truth is we couldn't defend anything further than the other side of the Channel at this point.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... annel.html

The "Royal" Navy in 1982 had 100 ships and sent 43 to threaten the people of Argentina. It has 17 ships total today. Last summer a bunch of drunk teenagers captured the city of Birmingham from the UK government. This is why it's so important the UK negotiate a transfer instead of proceeding on its current trajectory that will lead to a war so lopsided the Queen will be serving empanadas at garden parties by the time it's over.

The U.K "retaking" the Falklands is a moot point. Argentina is in no position to launch a force to "Take" them.
The FAA no longer possess any operable air superiority fighter, and currently have no strike capability, apart from 20 odd A-4's - which 4 RAF Euro-Typhoons are easily more than a match for. Their navy too is in as much disrepair as their airforce, and is really only just managing (barely) to stay afloat. 1 R.N Sub & 1 RN Destroyer sufficient to deal with whatever the ARA could send.

MrPanzerGeneral wrote:The U.K "retaking" the Falklands is a moot point. Argentina is in no position to launch a force to "Take" them.
The FAA no longer possess any operable air superiority fighter, and currently have no strike capability, apart from 20 odd A-4's - which 4 RAF Euro-Typhoons are easily more than a match for. Their navy too is in as much disrepair as their airforce, and is really only just managing (barely) to stay afloat. 1 R.N Sub & 1 RN Destroyer sufficient to deal with whatever the ARA could send.

There's no need for any of that. The UK no longer has aircraft carriers. It barely has a Navy. Islas Malvinas is defended by 4 planes. As Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward noted, Britain was only able to get 4 of its 135 aircraft into the air for Libya because of the decrepit state of everything.

Step 1 - send a PCX missile from the Gallegos base to the middle of the landing strip of Mt. Pleasant, grounding the Eurofighters
Step 2 - The End

The British government have been hilarious working with the Daily Mail to inflate their one modern DDG to the point it's now like a Borg Cube and can fight an entire war by itself. As utterly ludicrous as that sounds, people seem to be eating it up. I'd hate to be the PM when everyone realizes a Type 45 still takes 10 days to make it to the South Atlantic like mortal ships and doesn't have some Star Trek style temporal displacement that allows it to be in multiple places at once.

You're delusional.

And so are Gen. Sir Michael Jackson and Adm. Sir Sandy Woodward?

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)



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

This is why you're not a politican saxi

You're delusional.

+1

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?