The Falklands thread

Dis86 · 14 Mar 2013 at 21:31

estebanrey said:
Talk about military hardware all you like, the Argentines now have God on their side....

Super Smashing Great Pope Francis I, played here by Jim Bowen

A billion Catholics believe that Mary didn't die but just 'ascended' to heaven because one of his predecessors woke up one day and decided that must be the case, so what happens when Pope Frank comes out and says "God came to last night and revealed that the Malvinas, as the Lord called it, should be given to Argentina"?

that first bit is more believable

Stolly · 14 Mar 2013 at 21:49

estebanrey said:
Talk about military hardware all you like, the Argentines now have God on their side....

Super Smashing Great Pope Francis I, played here by Jim Bowen

A billion Catholics believe that Mary didn't die but just 'ascended' to heaven because one of his predecessors woke up one day and decided that must be the case, so what happens when Pope Frank comes out and says "God came to me last night and revealed that the Malvinas, as the Lord called it, should be given to Argentina"?

I guess if that happened we'd have to found our own branch of Christianity as a form of protest....oh.....wait...

Amp34 · 14 Mar 2013 at 23:01

Firestar_3x said:
No one on this forum will know he answer to that, every bit of equipment which has the potential to transmit noise or vibration to the hull is insulated against this using a series of design measures.

To which level it does or doesn't transmit noise and to what degree it can or can't be located is classified.

I think they are pretty damn silent. Remember that incident a while ago where a British and French attack sub bumped into each other because one strayed out of its patrol area and neither could hear each other...

Angilion · 15 Mar 2013 at 00:05

estebanrey said:
Argentina didn't exist until 1856 so how could they have had an Administration on the Falklands in 1833?

It's a shame when a columnist in a British paper can get away with so blatantly lying for the purpose of propaganda for another country. I wonder if they are being paid for their work by the Argentine government. They should be.

Not only did Argentina not have a time-travelling administration on the Falklands in 1833...nobody had anything there.

estebanrey · 15 Mar 2013 at 00:11

Angilion said:
It's a shame when a columnist in a British paper can get away with so blatantly lying for the purpose of propaganda for another country. I wonder if they are being paid for their work by the Argentine government. They should be.

Not only did Argentina not have a time-travelling administration on the Falklands in 1833...nobody had anything there.

A lot of Guardian writers simply hate their own country, so much so they let it cloud their judgement on history and consistency. Listening to some of them you'd think colonialism was unique to Britain and every other country on earth was pure, innocent and victims of the evil British Empire, who are also responsible for every single problem in the world today. AIDS in Africa? Colonialist Britain's fault. Poverty in the Middle East? Colonialist Britain's fault. The decision to make more Only Fools and Horses episodes after the Trotters became millionaires thus ruining a brilliant ending to the series? Colonialist Britain's fault.

Add in the fact South America is a haven for socialism and communism and it's an easy choice to make for them. Just read their mourning articles over Chavez, you'd have thought the bloke was Mother Teresa who never put a foot wrong reading their sob stories over his death.

Blackjack Davy · 15 Mar 2013 at 00:40

Its the Grauniad, what do you expect from a bunch of ultra wet, leftie liberals? Drown the lot of 'em I say.

Biohazard · 15 Mar 2013 at 00:50

If only it was this simple.

estebanrey · 15 Mar 2013 at 00:58

Biohazard said:
If only it was this simple.

Thing is it is pretty simple.

* Falklands claimed by Britain before Argentina existed
* Falklands are not off the coast of Argentina, they aren't off the coast of anywhere it just so happens Argentina is the closest nation as the crow flies but even so you couldn't swim from one to the other.
* Falkland inhabitants voted overwhelmingly to remain British.

It's pretty much case closed after that. Britain have history and democracy on their side. Argentina's only accurate argument is that it's closer to them than it is to Britain which given numerous other examples (Alaska, St Helena, Channel islands etc etc etc) is a ridiculous argument.

Biohazard · 15 Mar 2013 at 01:50

If it's that simple why has the UN held a similar position of neutrality through out, continually urging talks? The claims are dependent on points of view, but I think most acknowledge it to be a relic of colonialism not least of which the UN itself. That brings out the firebrand element. The truth is there are numerous nations out there who for various reasons dispute the concept of popular sovereignty. There is history for British ownership of the islands, but I don't think branding the democracy card is as potent as some would have us believe.

If there was a simple solution to this headache it wouldn't have been grumbling since the end of WWII. Has the referendum reduced the political stance? It doesn't matter who thinks who is wrong or being intransigent, the difficulty is the dispute isn't going away and there wouldn't appear to be a vocal let alone consistent international approach either.

Relations need to improve, and it's difficult to see how while this issue remains semi-popular in Argentina.

[TW]Fox · 15 Mar 2013 at 08:14

Biohazard said:
I think most acknowledge it to be a relic of colonialism not least of which the UN itself.

Like Hawaii?

ubersonic · 15 Mar 2013 at 09:09

[TW]Fox;23940959 said:
Like Hawaii?

Or Puerto Rico

Biohazard · 15 Mar 2013 at 09:24

[TW]Fox;23940959 said:
Like Hawaii?

The point being is that you can't entirely blame people for crying colonialism when even the UN consider it the same.

Yes there are a lot of cases of historical colonialism in the world, but they aren't our problem at present.

GAC · 15 Mar 2013 at 09:31

come on guys you should know the rule's its only cool to attack the uk over colonialism, hence you have tools like sean penn sticking his oar in.

as for the un its just a talking shop for ex politicians who needed a new job.

Woden · 15 Mar 2013 at 10:40

Biohazard said:
The point being is that you can't entirely blame people for crying colonialism when even the UN consider it the same.

Yes there are a lot of cases of historical colonialism in the world, but they aren't our problem at present.

Idealogically, the UN would be pushing for the Falklands to be independent.
But that simply isn't possible right now. The Argentine constitution would need to change, and even if it did it would still be breaking the first article of the UN charter.

elmarko · 15 Mar 2013 at 11:08

Angilion said:
It's a shame when a columnist in a British paper can get away with so blatantly lying for the purpose of propaganda for another country. I wonder if they are being paid for their work by the Argentine government. They should be.

Not only did Argentina not have a time-travelling administration on the Falklands in 1833...nobody had anything there.

To be honest pretty much all the main media is the UK is terrible, the left has been hijacked by hippies & the right by bigots.

estebanrey said:
Thing is it is pretty simple.

* Falklands claimed by Britain before Argentina existed
* Falklands are not off the coast of Argentina, they aren't off the coast of anywhere it just so happens Argentina is the closest nation as the crow flies but even so you couldn't swim from one to the other.
* Falkland inhabitants voted overwhelmingly to remain British.

It's pretty much case closed after that. Britain have history and democracy on their side. Argentina's only accurate argument is that it's closer to them than it is to Britain which given numerous other examples (Alaska, St Helena, Channel islands etc etc etc) is a ridiculous argument.

To be honest, they should get the Argentinian public to play Empire Total War - if they had they would already know all of the above.

Simply being closer isn't a reason to claim an island with a population who have no wish to live under them.

The stagger hypocrisy of a nation build entirely on colonialism, with the natives side-lined across most of the area to have the nerve to make a claim over an island with no indigenous population & no history of ever being Argentinian.

While I have no love for the Tory's they happened to have the facts on their side in this, it's convenient as in total honest the only reason people care so much is oil - but it just happens we have a significantly better claim & a population already living there who want to remain British.

grumpysculler · 15 Mar 2013 at 11:21

Von Smallhausen said:
Navalised Typhoons would incur further huge cost as airframes, undercarriage etc has to be strengthened and folding wings brought in.

When the US was getting all snooty over the ITAR waiver, BAE was asked to do a study costing up exactly that work. I forget the actual figure, but it turned out to be a lot less than you might think. The overall Typhoon solution (including redesign and purchase of extra aircraft) was less than the JSF programme cost to the UK. Funnily enough, as soon as that study was complete the USA granted the ITAR waiver.

estebanrey · 15 Mar 2013 at 11:36

elmarko said:
in total honest the only reason people care so much is oil.

According to a woman on the news the other day the oil thing is being exaggerated anyway, it's supposedly really low grade and may even be useless.

ubersonic · 15 Mar 2013 at 11:49

estebanrey said:
According to a woman on the news the other day the oil thing is being exaggerated anyway, it's supposedly really low grade and may even be useless.

Isn't low grade oil what petrol comes from? I read an article (that may have been rubbish as it was on the internet) somewhere that said North sea oil is quite poor for petrol production because its too high a grade, hence why we export it and buy in Arabic oil.

elmarko · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:01

estebanrey said:
According to a woman on the news the other day the oil thing is being exaggerated anyway, it's supposedly really low grade and may even be useless.

If I recall correctly a fair bit.

Can't vouch 100% for the accuracy (US article) - but it doesn't seem bias either way to either us or Argentina.

"There are an estimated 60 billion barrels of oil around the Falklands basin worth $167 billion dollars in royalties and taxes for the Falklands' government which will receive 26 percent of the profits from companies drilling for oil and nine percent royalties on every barrel sold, according to U.K.-based Edison Investment Research."

dalin80 · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:15

grumpysculler said:
When the US was getting all snooty over the ITAR waiver, BAE was asked to do a study costing up exactly that work. I forget the actual figure, but it turned out to be a lot less than you might think. The overall Typhoon solution (including redesign and purchase of extra aircraft) was less than the JSF programme cost to the UK. Funnily enough, as soon as that study was complete the USA granted the ITAR waiver.

Worth remembering that the UK makes (or will) money from the JSF as we build about 20% of them. So we need it to be a success as it is holding the remnants of our aviation industry up.