The Falklands thread

[Vanilla]

I'm in Argentina. Spent the last few weeks traveling through and i've got a few more weeks to go.

It's pretty much built into the Argentinian mindset that the Falklands are theirs. Posters are everywhere. Chatty taxi drivers have suddently gone quiet as soon as I say i'm english. People at parties have given a dirty look and walked away. If I meet someone who i'm not going to meet again I often just say i'm an aussie.

When I caught the boat to Uruguay the other day for a short trip there were banners all over the terminals showing pictures of the troops, Argentinian hardware, and the slogan that the Falklands are theirs. A recent protest on the other side of the city had all the protestors who wanted the Falklands on one side of the street and all the people who didn't want the other side (including the widows, mothers and families of the fallen ).

There are always protests in the capital. There are almost always baracades around the presidential palace and a heavy police presence. The government has serious issues and is widely hated. Their inflation is 20-30% per year - so imagine your savings depreciating by this amount every year!! They are desperate to get foreign currency but forbidden from acquiring any (not sure how, maybe someone knows the details).

The official exchange rate to the US Dollar is about 5 pesos to 1 USD. On the street I changed up my USD at a rate of 7.6. This is black market but shows the actual value of the dollar - when the government sets a ration such as 5 they are just creaming off the top. They then take these USD and sell them to argentinians who want to convert their savings (hint: all of them).

Everyone wants dollars, I was buying some antihistamines in the chemist a few weeks ago and the girl their offered me a rate of 6 pesos for any dollars I had.

 

[Biohazard]

Much as no one seriously suggests the Falkland Islands are ceded to Argentina against the democratically expressed will of its population except frustrated Argentines and the odd Scot. Your double standards when it comes to anything to do with imperial Scotlands oppression of an island people in the Shetland isles as opposed to Falkland islanders is as predictable sadly as it is nationalist.

Strangely, both islands have the potential to control large oil reserves, coincidence I'm sure...

I don't think anyone has proposed ceding the Falklands to Argentina?

Imperial Scotland's oppression of the Northern Isles?

The Falklands do, not so much Shetland should it decide in the advent of Scottish independence to seek its own.

 

[Biohazard]

I think there are cultural and identity issues that are possibly more important than economic ones, I expect the Islanders wish for economic ties to Argentina as their neighbours, what Argentina wants is anyone's guess.

Would you be agreeable to opening up discussions on it?

 

[Biohazard]

You seem unable or unwilling to accept that my opinion is not as you describe it to be, and you seem set on derailing this thread and turning it into a discussion on Scotland and my character....something I am not really interested in indulging you in. My opinion have been made pretty clear in this and previous discussions, and the contexts in which they have been made. That I do not thing a devolved system in the way we have one really helps with integration of a single society and allows petty nationalism to usurp and undermine what a society should be, doesn't mean that I do not support anyone's rights to self determination....as for popular Sovereignty, I have no regard or disregard for it, I have argued the position from a legal and constitutional perspective and that I am afraid in the U.K despite devolution requires consideration of Parliamentary sovereignty...this has been borne out by the Accords leading to the Scottish Referendum. This is the last I will talk about Scottish issues in this thread, it is derailing and irrelevant. People can dig out the Scottish threads and decide for themselves if they so wish.

You won't indulge it yet you do anyway?

Your alternative and preference was direct London Rule; recinding Devolution and Holyrood against the clear wishes of the Scottish electorate. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in my eyes of using a referendum you have rediculed and argued against previous to the 2011 result as an example of some sort of altruistic British democracy in action. The truth is it is a poor example in any event, and that there are more approriate parallels to be drawn in history of British democracy.

They have a mandate collectively as the elected UK Govt. as do the Scottish Govt.

Well if the Coalition have a mandate now, the Scottish Government had a mandate then.

Was it in their manifestos, did the people vote for these parties on the manifesto pledges which included a call to referendum for independence?

Enough people did to form a minority Government (excluding Greens who also stand on a manfesto of Scottish Independence like the Socialists). Respected long term opinion polls on the matter, and extensive political commentary in the media, were evidence of the general will for all political parties.

The Unionist parties ignored that will to try their hardest to sidestep the 'Positive Case for the Union' and refused to support the Government, their own arguments, or many of their supporters and voters by frustrating the process. Thankfully they are irrelevent in this matter now.

Members of the UK parliament are threatening to bomb Scotland? Really!!!

Yes.

As I said, I don't think Scotland and the British state is the best example when it comes to respecting self-determination.

To be honest I don't see the point of discussing Scotland with you, and this is certainly not the thread for it in any case.

Sweet.

They relate entirely to what I stated if you have quoted them without clarifying to whom you are addressing, if you are now talking about something unrelated to that then continue...it has nothing to do with me so I see no point in you quoting me in such responses as that only confuses the issue.

Only confuses you perhaps?

I will refrain from discussing anything you haven't said in future. Although it might stiffle debate a little.

Hold on, did I not mention this tacitly in my original post, the one which you took exception to?

Absolutely Castiel, you have made clear you acknowledge the difficult history. I was complaining specifically about your Scottish example.

Other options?

Suggestions, if we haven't explored all the options maybe you can enlighten us what those options are and why they need be explored and what practical advantages they have given the stated positions of all three parties, even if one of the parties doesn't recognise there are three in the dispute.

Opening discussions with an arbitrator would be a good start, as for proposals I've put some across but I like you do not have much idea of the Argentine position beyond the rhetoric, it could be loosened up and tempered with trade. I think the UK government should look at long term solutions for the Falklands staying as an overseas territory or as an independent state. The latter would be far more potent and certainly defuse some of the complaints thus far.

I don't think there is any real danger of another war, at least not at the moment. And independence requires the assent of the Islanders, which has not been forthcoming so far.

Has it been explored much?

I hope this does not resort to war, although I think the potential is there more longer term which is my concern.

Perhaps.



Then make yourself clear, as you are quoting me directly so it also implies that you are addressing points I raised.....or trying to alter the context of what I have said or implied something I have not said. I am afraid that you need to clarify to whom your are referring when making such allegations or not if that is case. The simple addition of the word 'others' would suffice, particularly as you were responding to the supporting a position shared by the British Govt. I don't think that the epitept 'gritted teeth' really applies whether you were referring to me or to the British Govt or both, it is a position they have maintained for decades.

Do you know what, I'll do us both a favour by letting this bit slide but I'm more than happy to go quote digging.

The Islanders expressed the same very recently, in the discussions leading up to and including the referendum. It was a consideration for the referendum but was unpopular so was set aside.

Do you have source? I can perhaps understand why given the bluster, but if they genuinely don't want independence once it's been explored then I would have to revert to exploring a lease or joint sovereignty - in consultation with the islanders - if Argentina won't stand down. Argentina clearly aren't going to wake up one day and forget all about the Malvinas, so all it's going to take is a further weakening of British power or economic / political instability over there before we end up seeing some sort of stunt.

I am sure they do, however that doesn't alter the rhetoric or the underlying reason for that rhetoric.

Which is what, their genuine belief of their territorial claim? That was my point. If accurate, I'm not suprised by the rhetoric..

I don't think a war is either practical or on the agenda for Argentina, I think it is more about political capital rather than any real desire to own the Falklands.

I'm sure people were saying that before the Falklands?

I guess we'll just have to sit back and see what happens in years to come for this one.

 

[Castiel]

snip

Give over, go do your derailing with someone else. This conversation ended days ago.

 

[Biohazard]

Give over, go do your derailing with someone else. This conversation ended days ago.

It's called a discussion Castiel, and neither are you timekeeper of the forum I've been busy but came back this evening to find the thread at the top of GD?

The conversation is clearly still very much alive.

The Falklands problem isn't going to just disapear, neither am I for that matter.

 

[G|mp]

Swap numbers?

 

[Biohazard]

Swap numbers?

Only if you rub my leg a little bit more.

 

[Brookert]

Well it didn't take her long to sink her claws onto the pope and drag this pointless debate into the limelight. If the Pontiff has any sense, he should say this is not a matter for the Catholic church................which it isn't.

 

[Frxn]

as soon as I say i'm english. ... I often just say i'm an aussie.

Does that work? I mean I could understand if you were a New Zealander or South African claiming to be Aussie as the accents are relatively similar (at least to someone not from one of these places) but I've never heard an English accent that's anything close to these. Guess they're as much aware of our different accents as we are to theirs?

 

[Vanilla]

Guess they're as much aware of our different accents as we are to theirs?

Exactly!

 

[Woden]

Does that work? I mean I could understand if you were a New Zealander or South African claiming to be Aussie as the accents are relatively similar (at least to someone not from one of these places) but I've never heard an English accent that's anything close to these. Guess they're as much aware of our different accents as we are to theirs?

"We don't all sound like Crocodile Dundee you racist wallaby!"

 

[robfosters]

It seems as though Kirchner is starting to get unsettled now. Have we actually mobilized yet, or are we holding off.

 

[Burnsy2023]

It seems as though Kirchner is starting to get unsettled now. Have we actually mobilized yet, or are we holding off.

I highly doubt anything will come of this. No mobilisation will happen any time soon. Like has been said, the defensive capability will mean that there will need to be more than just posturing before anything escalates.

 

[ubersonic]

Is that the PAK ?

Maybe, the PAK is the new 5th gen air superiority/fighter bomber jet, whether it becomes the new naval jet too depends how well its naval variant does against the 5th gen Mig/Yak prototype naval jets competing for the role. The PAK seems to be an amazingly versatile design, they are even planning an XXXL version to replace the TU-160 Blackjack.

Give over, go do your derailing with someone else. This conversation ended days ago.

Dude, everybody in the thread bar one individual can see your the "good guy" here, just stop feeding it

It seems as though Kirchner is starting to get unsettled now. Have we actually mobilized yet, or are we holding off.

Why would we need to mobilize anything against a potential enemy who couldn't even scratch us?

 

[Woden]

I highly doubt anything will come of this. No mobilisation will happen any time soon. Like has been said, the defensive capability will mean that there will need to be more than just posturing before anything escalates.

That's the thing though. When we retired an old Type 42 and replaced it with the Type 45 we sent down there, the Argentine government saw that as militarisation. Where all we did was replace a ship, not add another one.

Of course the fact it could down their entire air force within a few minutes probably scared them a little, but the Type 45 is a defensive ship with little offensive capability, no land attack and minimal anti ship. Unless you count the binoculars they would use to watch their ships sink as they try to leave dock.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Perhaps we'll be marched on by the Swiss Guards?

 

[Biohazard]

This is the thing I don't get, if they were inferior as a military force at the onset of the Falklands War why are do you think they wouldn't try again?

Can we completely rule it out as a possibility? None of us know what is around the corner.

 

[Woden]

This is the thing I don't get, if they were inferior as a military force at the onset of the Falklands War why are do you think they wouldn't try again?

Can we completely rule it out as a possibility? None of us know what is around the corner.

The Falklands, at the time, were minimally defended. No doubt the Junta figured they were not worth retaking (no oil back then).

Different story now. They wouldn't land a single soldier.

 

[Biohazard]

The Falklands, at the time, were minimally defended. No doubt the Junta figured they were not worth retaking (no oil back then).

Different story now. They wouldn't land a single soldier.

Perhaps not a soldier, at least overtly ie the merchants, but they're quite happy to hop across when they like..

To compete on British soil, we train on Argentinian soil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17948710

All we're missing is an argentine flag being raised by the group and it could be considered a preamble for war!

Yes, we're slightly more progressed since then but it wouldn't take much for one of these stunts or public bluster to set a more serious tone.