England versus Argentina...

It's kind of a joke, right?

/American.

Unless Argentina plans on pulling the trigger again I don't think they have anything to worry about.

Ahh, militaristic dickwaving. This never leads to anything bad.

Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

The Trafalgar-class "hunter-killer" vessel slipped into a port in South Africa last week under a cloak of secrecy.

Simon's Town dock in Cape Town is a strategic staging post for South Atlantic missions.

Uh...way to keep up the cloak of secrecy there guys.

SoxSweepAgain: England versus Argentina...

It's kind of a joke, right?

/American.

It wasn't so funny last time when the Exocets were drilling hospital ships.

/..the codes, GIVE US THE EFFING CODES!!

Two bald men fighting over a comb?

I guess that hottie PM wants to show the redneck types in her country that she has balls.

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

I don't think Britain cares too much one way or the other. Like Gibraltar it has said it is up to the people who live there to decide.

Considering their recent history in the Falklands, I guess the Brits figured it would be more difficult for the enemy to burn a submarine....

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

That's the thing though - it's a windswept, miserable dump,

In fact so is Northern Ireland, what is it with the Brits and wanting to keep miserable windswept dumps?

Cormee: praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

That's the thing though - it's a windswept, miserable dump,

In fact so is Northern Ireland, what is it with the Brits and wanting to keep miserable windswept dumps?

Those are simply the only places that no one else wanted to take from them.

If the people living there want to be British subjects, what legitimate casis belli does Argentina have? My understanding is that this isn't even the argument of Texas vs Mexico where a bunch of foreigners moved in and declared independence (not saying that's what happened either way, just stating that there's argument about it). Further, if the whole world can come to Kuwait's defense against Iraq, why is this situation any different? (and yes, I know the answer is oil)

Heb: praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

I don't think Britain cares too much one way or the other. Like Gibraltar it has said it is up to the people who live there to decide.

Funnily enough, that's one of the reasons why Spain continues to control Ceuta and Melilla, despite Morocco's objections...

/the map's in Spanish, FYI
//and don't get the Portuguese started on Olivença

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

60 billion barrels of oil will make any place look pretty.

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

Oil.

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

60 billion barrels of oil, actually...

potierrh: If the people living there want to be British subjects, what legitimate casis belli does Argentina have?

Absolutely none. The British case is based on the fact that we settled them first, and that the people living there want to be British subjects. The Argentinian case is based on the fact that the Argentinian President wants to prevent her countrymen from noticing that she's a biatch.

"Talent"... really? What happened to "Indomitable," "Illustrious," or, even "Indefatigable?"

nicoffeine: "Talent"... really? What happened to "Indomitable," "Illustrious," or, even "Indefatigable?"

A "talent" is a measurement of silver. Historically, it was the amount needed to pay the crew of a trireme for one month.

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

Nicer one would surmise than Iraq, another disputed territory... and it is suggested for the same reasons.

Or this is what Oil Drum Harry was on about anyway.

The Argentinians have a legitimate case. The Falklands don't have a native population, so it's a case of who got there first. The real answer is the French, but they don't give a rip anymore and gave up control in the 1700s by giving the colony to the Spanish. The Brits got there second, but abandoned their outposts during the American Revolution, but they kept up a 'no trespassing sign. Spain had settled shortly after the Brits did (and had the whole 'The French gave it to us' thing to back their claim) and maintained a presence for a long while, this presence was claimed by Argentina after they declared independence. So Argentina has its settlers there for a bit. The Brits realize that the Falklands would make a good whaling grounds, so they boot the Argentinians out, pointing out that their no trespassing sign meant they were there first. The Argentinians were not able to militarily take it back, so the Brits moved in their own settlers and that's who is there now. So, obviously the British people living in the Falklands want to remain British. The Argentinians say, "Of course they do. If we kick all of them out and put Argentinian settlers there like you did to us, they'd vote to be Argentinian. It doesn't change the fact that you abandoned the Falklands and then kicked us out when you wanted them back."

nicoffeine: "Talent"... really? What happened to "Indomitable," "Illustrious," or, even "Indefatigable?"

I'm waiting for HMS "Precious".

Tenebreux: praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

Oil.

Anti-colionalism/development discussion aside it cracks me up whenever any latinamerican politician opens their piehole to go on one of their 'for the people!' tirades. Especially when, with so few exceptions, corruption is so mothercorking rampant from Tijuana to Tierra del Fuego.

/was refreshing to hear one of the Mexican presidential candidates say that Mexico has no reason to demand ethical treatment of its citizens illegally residing in the US when it treats its own immigrants like shiat
//then you find out his new party was founded by one of the country's most despised "politicians" to get in on the scam....er, funding granted to political parties. Wugh. Link

Cormee: praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

That's the thing though - it's a windswept, miserable dump,

In fact so is Northern Ireland, what is it with the Brits and wanting to keep miserable windswept dumps?

Reminds them of home.

Cormee: praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

That's the thing though - it's a windswept, miserable dump,

In fact so is Northern Ireland, what is it with the Brits and wanting to keep miserable windswept dumps?



It's all I have!

Cormee: praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

That's the thing though - it's a windswept, miserable dump,

In fact so is Northern Ireland, what is it with the Brits and wanting to keep miserable windswept dumps?

Have you been to the UK?

see, Argentine, I know you really want some kind of issue to polarize your society. but ...

England has two incredibly powerful weapons: Nuclear weapons and Monarchy.

Unlike a whole lot of other nations, the UK will not just fight you with the hardened fruits of its superior economic and political system, but it will also demonstrate resolve and leadership by sending the blood relatives - children and cousins - of their leadership into battle against you. This suggests that they are really really not going to fark around.

Why shound I care about this place. I didn't even like The Sound of Music.

Wire guided torpedoes? That just seems odd.

Brits must have some excess WWII torpedoes they want to unload again.

/Isn't this a repeat from 1982?

nicoffeine: "Talent"... really? What happened to "Indomitable," "Illustrious," or, even "Indefatigable?"

The Brits name their submarines (and possibly all naval ships, but I'm only familiar with the subs) so that all boats in a class share the same first letter. Don't ask me why they chose "Talent," but it does explain the diminished pool of choices.

Why can't they just let that nice old man from Wargames live out a quiet retirement? He must be 90 by now.

Dear Argentina, The Brits are part of NATO, You are not. If you go full retard we will be treaty bound to invade you.

Sincerely, The U.S.

Oldiron_79: Dear Argentina, The Brits are part of NATO, You are not. If you go full retard we will be treaty bound to invade you.

Sincerely, The U.S.

Wait - a south Atlantic country isn't part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

The more you know.

Oldiron_79: Dear Argentina, The Brits are part of NATO, You are not. If you go full retard we will be treaty bound to invade you.

Sincerely, The U.S.

If we send one nuke carrier to the falklands how soon will Chavez in venezuela send 3 Pedal boats as a show of force?

Misconduc: Oldiron_79: Dear Argentina, The Brits are part of NATO, You are not. If you go full retard we will be treaty bound to invade you.

Sincerely, The U.S.

If we send one nuke carrier to the falklands how soon will Chavez in venezuela send 3 Pedal boats as a show of force?

We'll let the Canadians handle our light work

Oldiron_79: Dear Argentina, The Brits are part of NATO, You are not. If you go full retard we will be treaty bound to invade you.

Sincerely, The U.S.

No we won't in this day and age it's too many white people(88%) in Argentina via Europe

abhorrent1: Wire guided torpedoes? That just seems odd.

They carry their own sensors as well, but the wire-guidance allows a whole range of tactical options not available normally. In theory, they're more accurate, too.

This business will get out of hand. It will get out of hand and we'll be lucky to live through it.

So sorry, we've already set up our picnic tables. It is a lovely little island, you know. Toddle along now.

senoy: The Argentinians have a legitimate case. The Falklands don't have a native population, so it's a case of who got there first. The real answer is the French, but they don't give a rip anymore and gave up control in the 1700s by giving the colony to the Spanish. The Brits got there second, but abandoned their outposts during the American Revolution, but they kept up a 'no trespassing sign. Spain had settled shortly after the Brits did (and had the whole 'The French gave it to us' thing to back their claim) and maintained a presence for a long while, this presence was claimed by Argentina after they declared independence. So Argentina has its settlers there for a bit. The Brits realize that the Falklands would make a good whaling grounds, so they boot the Argentinians out, pointing out that their no trespassing sign meant they were there first. The Argentinians were not able to militarily take it back, so the Brits moved in their own settlers and that's who is there now. So, obviously the British people living in the Falklands want to remain British. The Argentinians say, "Of course they do. If we kick all of them out and put Argentinian settlers there like you did to us, they'd vote to be Argentinian. It doesn't change the fact that you abandoned the Falklands and then kicked us out when you wanted them back."

when "Argentinia" settled it the first time was (a) 200 years ago and (b) they were a Spanish colony so when Spain gave up her claim so did Argentina; and this time around Great Britain has more than enough firepower on hand to protect her interests.

/the only reason the Argentinian gov't is making noise about this is that they don't want their citizens to notice how bad of a job they're doing(and how much money they're stealing)....just like the last time.

senoy: The Argentinians have a legitimate case. The Falklands don't have a native population, so it's a case of who got there first. The real answer is the French, but they don't give a rip anymore and gave up control in the 1700s by giving the colony to the Spanish. The Brits got there second, but abandoned their outposts during the American Revolution, but they kept up a 'no trespassing sign. Spain had settled shortly after the Brits did (and had the whole 'The French gave it to us' thing to back their claim) and maintained a presence for a long while, this presence was claimed by Argentina after they declared independence. So Argentina has its settlers there for a bit. The Brits realize that the Falklands would make a good whaling grounds, so they boot the Argentinians out, pointing out that their no trespassing sign meant they were there first. The Argentinians were not able to militarily take it back, so the Brits moved in their own settlers and that's who is there now. So, obviously the British people living in the Falklands want to remain British. The Argentinians say, "Of course they do. If we kick all of them out and put Argentinian settlers there like you did to us, they'd vote to be Argentinian. It doesn't change the fact that you abandoned the Falklands and then kicked us out when you wanted them back."

The native americans have a stronger case for taking back the whole of the US than the Argentinians have for the Falklands.

Voiceofreason01: senoy: The Argentinians have a legitimate case. The Falklands don't have a native population, so it's a case of who got there first. The real answer is the French, but they don't give a rip anymore and gave up control in the 1700s by giving the colony to the Spanish. The Brits got there second, but abandoned their outposts during the American Revolution, but they kept up a 'no trespassing sign. Spain had settled shortly after the Brits did (and had the whole 'The French gave it to us' thing to back their claim) and maintained a presence for a long while, this presence was claimed by Argentina after they declared independence. So Argentina has its settlers there for a bit. The Brits realize that the Falklands would make a good whaling grounds, so they boot the Argentinians out, pointing out that their no trespassing sign meant they were there first. The Argentinians were not able to militarily take it back, so the Brits moved in their own settlers and that's who is there now. So, obviously the British people living in the Falklands want to remain British. The Argentinians say, "Of course they do. If we kick all of them out and put Argentinian settlers there like you did to us, they'd vote to be Argentinian. It doesn't change the fact that you abandoned the Falklands and then kicked us out when you wanted them back."

when "Argentinia" settled it the first time was (a) 200 years ago and (b) they were a Spanish colony so when Spain gave up her claim so did Argentina; and this time around Great Britain has more than enough firepower on hand to protect her interests.

/the only reason the Argentinian gov't is making noise about this is that they don't want their citizens to notice how bad of a job they're doing(and how much money they're stealing)....just like the last time.

Also, that "settling" that Argentina did amounted to sending a businessman entrepaneur with a writ to establish a governorship, and even that guy asked for British permission to conduct trade, which was granted. As soon as England found out that Argentina (under the still-revolutionary government structure) was trying to use that businessman's settlement as a territorial claim, they objected and returned to take full (and permanent) possession.

So, yes, Argentina's claim is baseless.

Dear Argentina,

You already pissed on Spain's corn flakes with the nationalization of Repsol YPF.

If you try to test your luck with the UK, you won't have much diplomatic good will to pull you out of your mess. And you can count on Spain giving the UK a hand. They have aircraft carriers and anfibious transport docks, you know?

And I bet that any military action won't be limited to the sinking of your navy.

It's like bringing a gun to a Skittles fight.

/too soon?

Heb: The native americans have a stronger case for taking back the whole of the US than the Argentinians have for the Falklands.

A rational voice in the wilderness that is Fark.

praxis44241: Boy, the Falklands must be a lovely place if the Argentinians and the Brits want it so bad.

the falklands are known for sheep owned and operated bed & breakfasts

"Silent Death" isn't just about Consuela's House Of Pain burritos

Argentina makes some lovely beef. Would be a shame if some of their interior plains were nationalized by Britain.

I read about one of the more amusing things to come out of the Falklands War.

The main company thsat supplies ejection seats for most Western fighter jets is the Martin-Baker Co., a British company. Every pilot who successfully ejects via one of their products can apply to a special club, sponsored by the company.

After the war, an Argentine pilot, whose plane had been shot down by the Brits, successfully ejected via a Matin-Baker seat. He applied to join the club. After a long discussion with in the company and the club, he was grudgingly admitted.