Falklands

[ICantSpellDawg]

What in the hell? Clearly the inhabitants are predominately British and the Crown has held the Islands for most of their inhabited history. What in the world are the Lating American nations talking about?

Are the Argentinians going to start another war? What do you guys think?

[spmetla]

Not likely, just the usual saber rattling to distract the populace. Besides, Argentina's amphibious capabilities haven't been expanded while the Falklands are now actually garrisoned by a quite capable force. In a few years the Royal Navy should have two very capable Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers which will also be able to project the UK's power a lot better than during the last go.

Now that the Brits are developing its oil reserves Argentina wants its cut. Argentina, if anything is probably just going to take advantage of the anti anglo/american climate in the world to try and push through UN resolutions to establish some undeserved rights in the Falklands.

Here's the article I think you're referring to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8529605.stm

Latin American and Caribbean leaders have come to an agreement supporting Argentina over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, reports say.

The leaders are to approve a document supporting Argentina in its territorial dispute with the British government.

No official statement has been made but it is thought the document was drawn up behind closed doors at a regional summit in Cancun in Mexico.

The announcement comes as a British rig began drilling for oil off the islands.

According to reports from Cancun, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner says her government has won the backing of other regional leaders in its dispute with the UK over the territory in the South Atlantic.

The Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, is reported to have said that a document has been drawn up behind closed doors giving Argentina unanimous support.

The BBC's Andy Gallacher in Cancun says that any broad agreement at the summit could put more pressure on the British government in what has become an escalating diplomatic row.

Leaders at the summit, between the Rio Group and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), are also said to have discussed plans for a new pan-American alliance which would exclude Canada and the United States.

The new grouping would serve as an alternative to the Organisation of American States (OAS), the main forum for regional affairs in the past 50 years.

"It's time to realise the unity of Latin America and the Caribbean," said Mr Calderon, asking the attending leaders and foreign ministers to put aside their political differences.
Ocean Guardian under tow
The Ocean Guardian is in Falkland Islands waters

'Legitimate right'

The British rig, The Ocean Guardian, 100km (62 miles) north of the Falklands, started drilling on Monday, despite fierce opposition from Argentina.

Desire Petroleum, which is carrying out the drilling, said operations had started on the Liz 14/19-A exploration well at 1415 GMT.

Argentina claims sovereignty over what it calls the Islas Malvinas and has imposed shipping restrictions.

But UK Defence Minister Bill Rammell said the government had a "legitimate right" to build an oil industry in its waters.

Mr Rammell said the UK would take "whatever steps [were] necessary" to protect the islands and that it had made Argentina "aware of that".

Argentina is already assured of support from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who said Britain was being irrational and had to realise the "time for empires was over".

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has called for "Britain to return the territory of the Malvinas to its real owners - to return it to Argentina" on Venezuelan Telesur television.

Argentina has long claimed the islands. It invaded the Falklands in 1982, before a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel.

But it has ruled out military action and is trying to pressure Britain into negotiations on sovereignty.

Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by the UK.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN later this week.

[Subotan]

Wouldn't it make more sense for Argentina to see if there's actually any oil there first?

[naut]

Are the Argentinians going to start another war? What do you guys think?
Bring 'em on I say. We ruffed them up proper last time. If they want round two then we should oblige. Another invasion will surely put a damper on any support for them outside of South/Central America.

[Furunculus]

What in the hell? Clearly the inhabitants are predominately British and the Crown has held the Islands for most of their inhabited history. What in the world are the Lating American nations talking about?

Are the Argentinians going to start another war? What do you guys think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands

they cannot invade, they have nothing to invade with as they can no longer project meaningful power. more to the point; the falklands is much better defended and much more easily reinforced.
ain't gonna happen.

[InsaneApache]

Bring 'em on I say. We ruffed them up proper last time. If they want round two then we should oblige. Another invasion will surely put a damper on any support for them outside of South/Central America.

Back in 83 I worked with a guy, ex-para, who'd been in the Falkland war. I have no idea what he saw or what happened to him and I didn't really want to pry but I'll never forget the eyes. It was the sort of look you get from traffic cops who've seen too many car crashes.

As for the Argies, rearranged these words in the corrct order:

Arses, plate, handed, them, to, on, a. :sweatdrop:

[Furunculus]

Chavez is making himself look like a berk again:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100027019/hugo-chavez-would-make-a-perfect-court-jester/

“Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas? Queen of England, I’m talking to you… The time for empires are over, haven’t you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine people… The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982. If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then.”

lol.

[Subotan]

Argentina and Venezuela United vs. Kingdom of England?

TAKING ALL BETS

[HoreTore]

Let 'em have it, I say.

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

But I guess the Brits need something to remind themselves of a time when other nations actually cared about them....

[InsaneApache]

Let 'em have it, I say.

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

But I guess the Brits need something to remind themselves of a time when other nations actually cared about them....

Dear oh deary me. Following your logic, Alaska should be Canadian, the Channel Islands should be French, oh and Norway should be Swedish. :wink:

The people who actually live there want to remain British. It's not that hard really! :book:

[Pannonian]

Let 'em have it, I say.

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

But I guess the Brits need something to remind themselves of a time when other nations actually cared about them....

Because we can.

[HoreTore]

Dear oh deary me. Following your logic, Alaska should be Canadian, the Channel Islands should be French, oh and Norway should be Swedish. :wink:

Yes, and what would be the problem with that?


Because we can.

Gordon Brown should troll some forums for his e-penis enlargment instead....

[therother]

Argentina do have a strong claim to the islands (*). That much has been recognised by the UK since the early 1900s at least. I'm sure, if the islands had been uninhabited, then it's likely the British would have given up their claim to sovereignty, certainly after 1960 (when the United Nations passed Resolution 1514 & 1515 concerning decolonisation and the right of peoples to be self-governing) and probably before that.

The problem is that they are not uninhabited and the majority of the people wish to remain British citizens, which is pretty much the end of the matter for me. Indeed, a significant majority of the Islanders are openly hostile to any negotiations over sovereignty, particularly since the Falklands war. Until the Islanders are say they want to either be independent or part of a former Spanish colony, I think it would be very hard for any democratic government to transfer governance of a territory against the express wishes of its inhabitants.

Argentina, it appears, is not swayed by the self-determination argument though. It argues that as the Islanders are not aboriginal they do not have the right of self determination. Which is a puzzling argument to me, as if the non-aboriginal Falkland Islanders don't have the right to determine the fate of the Falkland Islands then it follows that non-aboriginal Argentinians have no right to determine the fate of Argentina...

(*) although probably not much stronger than other former Spanish colonies in the region such as countries Uruguay and Paraguay.

[Myrddraal]

Dear oh deary me. Following your logic, Alaska should be Canadian, the Channel Islands should be French, oh and Norway should be Swedish.:wink:

Q.E.D.


Yes, and what would be the problem with that?

On a personal level I don't really care, but the people of Alaska, the Channel Islands and even some in Norway might. On a side note, I think they should make you Norwegian envoy to Northern Ireland. I'd love to see the faces of the NI assembly when you address them: "Ladies and Gentlemen, yesterday I took out my ruler and found that NI was right next to the republic of Ireland, but my ruler was not even long enough to reach Wales! Stop the violence!" :wink:

[naut]

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.
Except 70% of the population are British. The remaining 29% are Kelpers, who are ethnic Islanders with British citizenship. In fact less than 1% are Argie. The Spanish speakers on the Island are Chilean, mostly immigrants from San Helena. Additionally the Argies never owned it for a meaningful period of time.

I feel the same way about this as I do with Gibraltar. Keep it British for as long as the population feels they are British.

[InsaneApache]

Aye, and while we're about it, we'll have Australia back.:laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

you might not care about the westphalian system of sovereign nation states, but i've yet to see any evidence that your view-point is in the majority, there is not even an accepted legal position on co-sovereignty that could replace the former.

Except 70% of the population are British. The remaining 29% are Kelpers, who are ethnic Islanders with British citizenship. In fact less than 1% are Argie. The Spanish speakers on the Island are Chilean, mostly immigrants from San Helena. Additionally the Argies never owned it for a meaningful period of time.

I feel the same way about this as I do with Gibraltar. Keep it British for as long as the population feels they are British.
Gibralter has no been in British possession longer than it has Spanish.

[tibilicus]

The Argies know if they try anything they will just get kicked into touch again. It's just a lot of talk, their sovereignty claims are weak and really invalid.

[naut]

Gibralter has no been in British possession longer than it has Spanish.
Yes. I was alluding to the 2002, Gibraltar sovereignty referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002).

Additionally the Argie government is using this to avoid addressing the internal problems they are facing. Nothing like a bit of nationalism to get everyone's mind off the real pressing matters at hand.

[Furunculus]

Yes. I was alluding to the 2002, Gibraltar sovereignty referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002).


np.

funnily enough, of the 194 years that the state of argentina has existed it only actually held de facto sovereignty of the falklands for the first 17 of them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let 'em have it, I say.

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

But I guess the Brits need something to remind themselves of a time when other nations actually cared about them....

But...HoreTore, what about the right of a people to determine their own destiny?

The Falklanders want to be British.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Argentina honest to God believes it has a good claim to the islands. They just delivered 600 kilos of documents to the UN.

Me, I must say that of all the disputed territories in the world, Argentina's claim to the Falklands is amongst the weakest. It is based on several dozen Buenos Aires fisherman having a semi-permanent camp on the islands in the early 19th century. Reinforced by the idea that the islands should be Argentinean because they are closer.

Oh, oh, the delusions of irredentism. That sense of amputation, of incompleteness, the idea that there can be no national contentment until the lost territory is regained. Never mind that Argentina has only been in possesion of the islands for little over a decade, during which they were little more than an extremely remote station, while the entire southern half of Argentina was as yet unexplored and unsettled.

The Malvinas are a central element of Argentinean nationalism, even identity.

I think Argentina has a sense of national unfullfilment, of national shortcoming. Argentina has never quite lived up to its promise. A century ago, it was richer than Norway, poised to be some sort of Canada. As they say,'Italians who speak Spanish and think they're British'. It ended all too soon. Stagnation set in, its middle classes forever under threat, the typical South American society of a very narrow elite and poor masses developed. (Be warned, US. The same mechanism threatens your society). Melancholy as the national sentiment developed.

When one enters Argentina, the first thing one sees is a large sign that says: 'The Malvinas are Argentinean'.

Let 'em have it, I say.

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

But I guess the Brits need something to remind themselves of a time when other nations actually cared about them....I say you give Argentina the Svalbard Islands instead. Just why should you imperialists own these islands anyway.

While we're at it, Hawaii to Korea, Réunion to India and Madeira to Senegal!

[HoreTore]

Just why should you imperialists own these islands anyway.

We don't.

As Svalbard is about as close to Norway as it is to Russia, we co-own it with the russkies. You see, civilized people are capable of sharing their stuff ~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

We don't.

As Svalbard is about as close to Norway as it is to Russia, we co-own it with the russkies. You see, civilized people are capable of sharing their stuff ~;)That's because there is no oil near the Svalbard.

Will you share your oil rich North Sea possesions with the UK then? Because this is what Argentina is asking of the UK at the moment.

[HoreTore]

That's because there is no oil near the Svalbard.

Will you share your oil rich North Sea possesions with the UK then? Because this is what Argentina is asking of the UK at the moment.

Yes, with absolute equality to us Norwegians, just as the case is with the natural resources found there now. And there's plenty of coal there, and you've all had the opportunity to take part in the mining.

That's assuming oil will be extracted even if found though... Which doesn't sound very likely.

[therother]

Britain and Argentina did sign an agreement in 1995 to share any oil profits from the area. The Argentinians, under their previous President (husband of the current president), withdrew from that agreement in 2007, saying all the oil belonged to Argentina alone.

[Furunculus]

Britain and Argentina did sign an agreement in 1995 to share any oil profits from the area. The Argentinians, under their previous President (husband of the current president), withdrew from that agreement in 2007, saying all the oil belonged to Argentina alone.

"lol, then we'll keep it all then", has always been my attitude to that diplomatic tantrum.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All your oil are belong to the ArgieWhat insufferable insolence.

I say let Britain man their ships and set sail, and we'll move troops from the Crimea and land in the South. Show these upstarts who rule the world.


Wait...I keep forgetting I was born in the wrong century. Gah! To be born a 19th century imperialist.
What went wrong!? :wall:

[Beskar]

Is the Falklands a crown province like the Isle of Mann (Independent, but has the Queen at the top) ? or is it more directly controlled?

[Furunculus]

Is the Falklands a crown province like the Isle of Mann (Independent, but has the Queen at the top) ? or is it more directly controlled?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories

[Beskar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories

Thanks, Isle of Mann is a Crown Dependencies, and Falklands is Overseas territory. :bow:

[Hosakawa Tito]

If I remember, the last war in 1982; Argentina was on the verge of large scale civil unrest and economic turmoil and the new junta needed a foreign boogeyman. They underestimated Maggie Thatcher, big time. The inhabitants are UK citizens and want to remain so. I would expect the UK will defend their citizens this time around too. Remember Port Stanley, Goose Green, and Colonel Jones.

[Furunculus]

what they need to focus on is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=-51.824782,+-58.456450&num=1&t=h&vps=1&jsv=209c&sll=-51.902049,-58.502178&sspn=0.885551,2.04895&hl=en&ie=UTF8&geocode=FXI36fwdfgaE_A&split=0

[Rhyfelwyr]

I used to be good friends with a guy from the Falklands, so many jokes about pengiuns...

Anyway, if the people of the Falklands want to remain British, and they have for a good part of their history been admnistered as a British territory, then what reason is there for it not to remain so?

[HoreTore]

I used to be good friends with a guy from the Falklands, so many jokes about pengiuns...

Anyway, if the people of the Falklands want to remain British, and they have for a good part of their history been admnistered as a British territory, then what reason is there for it not to remain so?

It's always fun to stick it to the british nationalists ~;)

[Beskar]

Being honest, I wouldn't mind seeing the area become politically independent with a lease to the British armed forces. In such a way, they become part of the Commonwealth, they have a lease to the armed forces, in return of British support for the Falklands, etc, etc, so instead of the Falklands being seen as claiming land back from the British, it would be seen as trying to invade a legitimate independent nation allied to Britain.

[Furunculus]

It's always fun to stick it to the british nationalists ~;)

i would have to feel chastened or humiliated before i'd felt like you'd 'stuck' it to me. hasn't been any evidence of that so everything is peachy as far as i am concerned. :)

[InsaneApache]

It's always fun to stick it to the british nationalists ~;)

It's always fun to hear a leftwinger support an aggressor against a vunerable victim.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always fun to hear a leftwinger support an aggressor against a vunerable victim.

Quite, his principles seem to last only so long as they do not interfere with his prejudices.


Being honest, I wouldn't mind seeing the area become politically independent with a lease to the British armed forces. In such a way, they become part of the Commonwealth, they have a lease to the armed forces, in return of British support for the Falklands, etc, etc, so instead of the Falklands being seen as claiming land back from the British, it would be seen as trying to invade a legitimate independent nation allied to Britain.

I would prefer that all remaining territories be integrated into the UK and send MP's to Westminster, including the Falklands and Gibralter.

[HoreTore]

i would have to feel threatened or humiliated before i'd felt like you'd 'stuck' it to me. hasn't been any evidence of that so everything is peachy as far as i am concerned. :)

Argentina taking the falklands is sure to make every british nationalist throw a tantrum. For that fact alone, I'm willing to support an armed invasion :smash:


It's always fun to hear a leftwinger support an aggressor against a vunerable victim.

So you brits have started playing the victim-game now?

[Subotan]

I would prefer that all remaining territories be integrated into the UK and send MP's to Westminster, including the Falklands and Gibralter.
This. Surely the purpose of the overseas territories is that they are too far from Westminster to be controlled directly from there. With improved communications, surely that's irrelevant?


Argentina taking the falklands is sure to make every british nationalist throw a tantrum. For that fact alone, I'm willing to support an armed invasion
I'm not a British/English/Whatever nationalist in any sense of the word, and I think the Falklands should remain with the UK,

[Justiciar]

Argentina taking the falklands is sure to make every british nationalist throw a tantrum. For that fact alone, I'm willing to support an armed invasion :smash:You think armed conflict, the seizure of another nation's sovereign territory, and the loss of life involved therein is justified by your own smug and petty prejudices? How in the hell are you still here?

[Strike For The South]

The Monroe Doctrine

[Beskar]

I would prefer that all remaining territories be integrated into the UK and send MP's to Westminster, including the Falklands and Gibralter.

I agree with that with Crown Dependencies (Isle of Mann, Channel Islands, et al). Though the geographical difference to the Falklands is sort of too far away, in my opinion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always fun to hear a leftwinger support an aggressor against a vunerable victim.


Argentina taking the falklands is sure to make every british nationalist throw a tantrum. For that fact alone, I'm willing to support an armed invasion :smash:

So you brits have started playing the victim-game now?

Thank you for proving our point, HoreTore.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with that with Crown Dependencies (Isle of Mann, Channel Islands, et al). Though the geographical difference to the Falklands is sort of too far away, in my opinion.

Why? Admittedly, the MP or two elected would have some long-haul flights, but supplies and personnel are flown in and out regularly. I'm sure they could catch a lift.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Argentina taking the falklands is sure to make every british nationalist throw a tantrum. For that fact alone, I'm willing to support an armed invasion :smash: :unitedkingdom: I am a staunch British nationalist. God Save the Queen and Rule Britannia and

That spawn of Satan, this perfidious Albion, foul excrement of the sea, which cursed flag one is bound to find where ever wood can swim, is quite right.

Argentina's claim is extraordinarily weak. Plus I have little sympathy for nationalist hysteria, nor for holding modern societies and international relations ransom over ancient documents and semi-mythology, never mind for irredentist militaristic adventures.


Argentina is in the grip of that cursed disease that plagues so many countries that feel they don't occupy a place in accordance to their own sense of importance: irredentism.


Grief and mourning are channeled into a call to renewed arms. The deaths are not granted peace. To give up Las Malvinas amounts to betrayal to the death:


https://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1127/monumentodemalvinas.jpg



The Falklands are given an importance far out of proportion to the actual importance of a few windswept semi-arctic islands sevral hours flight away. Drive into Argentina, and the first thing they want the foreigner to learn is:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/1702763.jpg



The citizens of Argentina are inculcated into a national myth, an identity, of perceived loss, which festers into irredentism.
Argentina has been stripped of something. The difference between Argentina's promising past and its subsequent near-perennial state of decline, its inability to live up to its promise, are projected onto the Malvinas, this physical embodiment of a sense of loss, of melancholic longing for a past that actually never was.
It is endemic, pathological, militaristic. Not really deserving of foreign enticement.


https://img715.imageshack.us/img715/1296/11263160416thankstomarc.jpg

[Fisherking]

I think HoreTore is ticked off because he thinks Norway still has a clime to the Shetland Islands.
:wiseguy:

[Beskar]

I think HoreTore is ticked off because he thinks Norway still has a clime to the Shetland Islands.
:wiseguy:

Funnily enough, I was thinking of that, due to EU3.

[TinCow]

I find this situation immensely ironic, since Argentina are now playing the Imperialists. They are trying for a land-grab due to natural resources located on the islands, with no regard whatsoever for the sovereignty of the inhabitants of the islands. Sounds like Argentina have turned into the very Evil Colonialists that they accuse Britain of being.

[gaelic cowboy]

Louis scanning Wikipedia I came across this paragraph seeing as France is the new ruler of the sea in the channel maybe its time to load up those aircraft carriers and bring the revolution the the South Atlantic

Obtenir votre manteau et votre vie longue la révolution

The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name,[12] "Îles Malouines", named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France.[12] The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands#Falklands_War

[Subotan]

It's always fun to hear a leftwinger support an aggressor against a vunerable victim.
Don't tar all of us with the same brush :(

[Pannonian]

Quite, his principles seem to last only so long as they do not interfere with his prejudices.



I would prefer that all remaining territories be integrated into the UK and send MP's to Westminster, including the Falklands and Gibralter.
Do some of them have enough population to send an MP without being called a rotten borough? According to wiki Ascension has a population of 940.

[Subotan]

Do some of them have enough population to send an MP without being called a rotten borough? According to wiki Ascension has a population of 940.
You could merge that, St. Helena, the Falklands etc. into a South Atlantic Constituency.

[HoreTore]

Funnily enough, I was thinking of that, due to EU3.

I've actually never invaded Scotland....

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis scanning Wikipedia I came across this paragraph seeing as France is the new ruler of the sea in the channel maybe its time to load up those aircraft carriers and bring the revolution the the South Atlantic

Obtenir votre manteau et votre vie longue la révolution

The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name,[12] "Îles Malouines", named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France.[12] The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands#Falklands_WarWe've gotten over losing bloody Canada to the Brits. Never mind those windswept rocks and two dozen sheep of the Falklands.

People need to get over stuff.



I find this situation immensely ironic, since Argentina are now playing the Imperialists. They are trying for a land-grab due to natural resources located on the islands, with no regard whatsoever for the sovereignty of the inhabitants of the islands. Sounds like Argentina have turned into the very Evil Colonialists that they accuse Britain of being. Aye.

What's more, after Argentina lost the Falklands, Argentina conquered an area half the size of Western Europe. Let them give that back to the natives if they are this concerned with ancient claims and original inhabitants.
(Although, in the case of the Falklands, neither 'original' nor 'inhabitants' apply to the Argentines)

[gaelic cowboy]

What's more, after Argentina lost the Falklands, Argentina conquered an area half the size of Western Europe. Let them give that back to the natives if they are this concerned with ancient claims and original inhabitants.
(Although, in the case of the Falklands, neither 'original' nor 'inhabitants' apply to the Argentines)

Every year they do a pantomine of asking for it back its political theatre no more no less the whole thing will be forgoten when Argentina is allowed to benefit from it economically by acting as the hub for supplies for the rigs.

[drone]

This is perfect. After England beats the Germans in the round of 16, they will lose another heartbreaker to the Argies in the quarterfinals. My money is on penalties. :yes:

But Argentina won't get the Falklands back.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Hortorian says:"The Falklands thing was a fight between two bald men over a comb," said the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges after the South Atlantic conflict was over, but it is a fight that some people still want to pick. Almost three decades on from Britain's last imperial war, the slightest sign of Argentine edginess sets the white ensigns waving. The Sun yesterday seized upon (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2858607/Brown-Well-defend-the-Falklands.html) the routine voyage of HMS Scott, a deep-water survey vessel, as evidence that a new taskforce has set sail. No matter that all Argentina (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/argentina) has done is to demand permits (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15546482) from any ships sailing from its ports or crossing its waters to a planned oil exploration platform near the Falklands (something that the oil firm involved says will not affect its work). National pride is at stake. Britain is taking "all the necessary precautions", the prime minister said gravely yesterday. The brass beat of a Royal Marines band all but echoes in the background.


Why do we continue to respond in this way? Britain feels it necessary to maintain 1,000 troops, a destroyer and £300m worth of Typhoon fighter aircraft on the islands to defend 3,000 people, 500,000 sheep and a claim that does not come out particularly well from historical scrutiny. Patriotism and posturing on both sides has obstructed what would otherwise be the natural way forward, a pooling of sovereignty that would allow the islands to develop normal relations with their nearest neighbour. It might have happened in 1980 had Nicholas Ridley not been shouted down in the Commons (http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle13.html), and blocked by the islanders, when he proposed a reasonable plan to lease the islands from Argentina after a formal exchange of sovereignty.


The Falklands are British because we fought for them in 1982 and because no government now could survive the apparent shame of giving them up. As a result, the UN's ritual annual call (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/18/argentine-protests-falklands-oil-drilling-before-the-rio-group-and-un) for direct talks over the issue gets nowhere. No one likes to admit that the islands dropped into our hands through an accident of empire: Spanish, French, Portuguese and even Turkish sailors passing by before Britain, along with France and Spain, got a foothold.


The history matters not because it calls into doubt Britain's modern right of possession, but because it adds weight to Argentinian grievances and the case for compromise on both sides. The British, after all, abandoned the islands in 1776, while Spain remained and ruled them until 1811. Before Britain returned in 1833, the newly independent Argentinian republic had made several attempts to establish a presence. Yet Britain asserts its claim today as if only a fool could find it odd that in 1993 it declared a 200-mile exclusive oil exploration zone around some lonely islands 8,000 miles from London.


Britain is stuck in a militaristic pose that it no longer has the resources or need to support, and ought to be looking for an escape from it. The Argentinian junta's decision to invade the islands in 1982 was deplorable and obviously illegal; faced with aggression, Britain had little choice other than to respond. It is understandable that since the war the islanders have set themselves against a deal. Who, in their place, would not want to do the same? They have done well from fishing rights, and if oil is found in economically exploitable quantities they will get richer. Port Stanley may even become a mini-Dubai with a union flag flying over it. But it will still remain in artificial isolation from the country nearest to it, lack its help in developing an oil industry, and always need a British military presence for its security. Defence cutbacks elsewhere will only expose the cost of sustaining the garrison.


It may suit both sides, for political reasons, to strut about boasting of sovereign rights, but this does not mean it is the mature thing to do. Britain can keep the islands in limbo; Argentinian politicians find the Malvinas issue an easy distraction. It is time for both to grow up.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/19/falkland-islands-editorial




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~



This is perfect. After England beats the Germans in the round of 16, they will lose another heartbreaker to the Argies in the quarterfinals. My money is on penalties. :yes:The evil argies will need to use their hands again. Cheating bastards. :furious3:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thanks guys. That was the dialog I was looking for.

[Subotan]

a claim that does not come out particularly well from historical scrutiny
wut

[Louis VI the Fat]

wutWell Britain simply showed up one day and proclaimed the Falklands theirs. That much is true.

Such is imperialism.

In this the Argentinians are right. I still remember dear old Soulforged (hope he is well), our Buenos Aires law student, arguing at great length the legal history of the Falklands. The poor guy was right too.
It's just that more overriding sentiments for me are the sheer passage of time and the nature of colonial landgrabbing, most of which can scarcely be undone anymore. And for most Britons, self-determination.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well Britain simply showed up one day and proclaimed the Falklands theirs. That much is true.

Such is imperialism.

In this the Argentinians are right. I still remember dear old Soulforged (hope he is well), our Buenos Aires law student, arguing at great length the legal history of the Falklands. The poor guy was right too.
It's just that more overriding sentiments for me are the sheer passage of time and the nature of colonial landgrabbing, most of which can scarcely be undone anymore. And for most Britons, self-determination.

Quite so. On the other hand, Argentina could be argued to have asserted it's right in 1982 and to not have been up to the task.

[Centurion1]

Let 'em have it, I say.

Why the brits feel they can own a piece of land on the other side of the globe is beyond me, really. It's closest to Argentina, and as such it's appropriate for the islands to belong to Argentina.

But I guess the Brits need something to remind themselves of a time when other nations actually cared about them....

I sir demand you return your norwegian territory in Antartica.

such a ridiculous statement.

If the Falkies vote in a referendum for independence they are welcome to it. If not tough luck Argies.

Stupid argument anyway as the Brits would militarily kick the Argies into next week. The Brits are at the moment technologically superior and battle hardened from Afghanistan (which matters more you could ever imagine).

By the By i do enjoy the Brits clinging to some of the last vestiges of British Empire. not that i argue im a big fan.

[KukriKhan]

So, I guess we all agree, that the chances of POTUS Obama trying to revive some version of the Monroe Doctrine... are less than nil?

[rory_20_uk]

Every area of land has been claimed and re-claimed over the years. Try to sort out what bits of Europe belong to who, for example. Proximity has no bearing on the matter - especially as it's a few hundred miles off the coast.

Land is invariably taken by force and kept by force. In the old days to prove the point, the persons who were on the land were slaughtered to ensure no resurgence, or at the least "relocated" elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

Surely if we wish to return the island to it's original inhabitants, we should kick out the British and establish a Penguin's Republic of the Falklands?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Surely if we wish to return the island to it's original inhabitants, we should kick out the British and establish a Penguin's Republic of the Falklands?The French are the first humans to settle the Falklands.

Gives it back to the natives, you bastards! :furious3:


*Nails signs saying 'The Falklands are French' all over France*

[Boohugh]

Sorry I'm late to the thread, been busy passing AIB the last few days :)

Just got a few points to make in no particular order:

1) Argentina has similar military capabilities to the ones it had almost 30 years ago and, if anything, they have actually got worse.

2) The Royal Navy has been training for just this situation for almost 30 years. They are now far better equipped to neutralise any and all threats the Argentians can muster (look up Sea Dart, Seawolf, Goalkeeper and Phalanx if you want to know why). The only area we are worse off now than in 1982 is naval fighter cover since Mr Brown et al decided to retire Sea Harrier and not bother replacing it to save money, however we have 4 brand-spanking new Eurofighters sitting in hardened shelters on the Falklands instead which, conveniently, brings me on to...

3) We are actually prepared to repel an invasion now. There are constantly 1000 or so military personnel ready to defend the islands. The Argentinians either need to come by air, in which case the Eurofighters and Rapier AA defences will rip them to shreds, or they need to come by sea, in which case an SSN or two will decimate their fleet.

Basically, an Argentinian invasion is just a complete non-starter! Now we know there is oil (likely 60 billion barrels or so), there is no chance we'll give it up without a fight and, due to the reasons above, it is a fight we'll win every time, not to mention the Islanders clear preference for British rule.

[Beskar]

What makes it worse for the Argentinians is that they gave 50% of their share of that oil away in protest in 2007... talk about stupid moves to do.

[Centurion1]

wait the british got rid of the sea harrier and decided not to replace it so you have no naval fighters. im sorry thats just stupid then you should just get rid of your carriers.

[Gregoshi]

*Nails signs saying 'The Falklands are French' all over France*
:yes: Falk the French!!

[Louis VI the Fat]

:yes: Falk the French!!Pft.

You'll notice the Britons here bite their tongue over my provocations.


That is because they don't have a Navy deserving of that name anymore and will be dependent on Paris' mighty fleet for maintaining their Empire. I will have my fun for my tax money. In fact, it is the best €8500000000000000 I've ever spend. Washington is not going to help them. It didn't last time, nor will it want to upset Latin America this time - what with the Latino vote etc.
Britain will come running to us. So looking forward to their grovelling. From behind my large mahogany desk, I shall threat the Briton with due reservedness and natural aloofness. I'll wear my dark suit I imported from Milan, its tone reflects well in my eyes, gives them a natural authority.

*dreams*

[Gregoshi]

Louis, I think that silence is really just pity. I know. I get that all the time. :laugh4:

[Tellos Athenaios]

So, I guess we all agree, that the chances of POTUS Obama trying to revive some version of the Monroe Doctrine... are less than nil?

Which would be that the USA would do nothing and the UK would be well within its right to slap Argentina should it invade. Monroe doctrine specifically limits its scope to asserting the right of (former) colonial territories to independence and the US' god given right to remove any such independence in whatever America; it does not include the right of former colonies to do a land grab with USA support.

[spmetla]

wait the british got rid of the sea harrier and decided not to replace it so you have no naval fighters. im sorry thats just stupid then you should just get rid of your carriers.

They're just waiting for the F-35 to finally go into production and those will go on the new carriers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

wait the british got rid of the sea harrier and decided not to replace it so you have no naval fighters. im sorry thats just stupid then you should just get rid of your carriers.

No, Fleet Air Arm got an upgrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

The F2 was ancient anyway, about 3 generations behind the GR9.

[HoreTore]

I sir demand you return your norwegian territory in Antartica.

Do you even know what the Norwegian land in Antarcita consists of?:inquisitive:

It's a research facility. Norwegian scientists want to do research on ice and stuff like that, so we've built a few shacks down there for them. Whether the land legally belongs to the Norwegian state or not is so irrelevant it's getting ridiculous.

Anyway..... No matter how you look at it, the Falklanders are immigrants. British nationalists usually tell immigrants to "go back where they came from".... Or is that only the case with brown immigrants?

[Thermal]

What in the hell? Clearly the inhabitants are predominately British and the Crown has held the Islands for most of their inhabited history. What in the world are the Lating American nations talking about?

Are the Argentinians going to start another war? What do you guys think?

I think there being much more discreet this time, I could see a possible war if Argentina are ready to do so. There reasoning is awful though, clearly just want the islands for themselves. I think an attempt at diplomacy could be useful this time instead of just going in all guns blazing.

The only way this will truly be resolved is if England conquers over Argentina, or just gives Argentina the islands, both seem unlikely, lol.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you even know what the Norwegian land in Antarcita consists of?:inquisitive:

It's a research facility. Norwegian scientists want to do research on ice and stuff like that, so we've built a few shacks down there for them. Whether the land legally belongs to the Norwegian state or not is so irrelevant it's getting ridiculous.

Anyway..... No matter how you look at it, the Falklanders are immigrants. British nationalists usually tell immigrants to "go back where they came from".... Or is that only the case with brown immigrants?

Patriots are not nationalists. In any case, the indiginous population also want the islands to remain British, and hold British citizenship.

[Samurai Waki]

If Argentina decides to start another Falklands war, I think perhaps after the UK gets done spanking the Argentines, the Brits should annex Terra Del Fuego just to piss them off a little more.

[gaelic cowboy]

Just to point out UK will never invade Argentina over the Falklands again mainly cos Brazil the new regional power in South America would not be best pleased that either side started throwing stones at each other.

This type of political posturing is likely to increase now that Britain is seen as fading in a military sense. Argentina is not able to press it further but having a powerful Brazil next door allows them to shout behind them so to speak at the other party.

The UK is likely to find it will have to engage in diplomacy in a very serious manner in this region sooner or later there is a possibility of being pushed aside by Brazil. This outcome is not something I believe Brazil crave's although Argentina would be over the moon it is possible it could happen if the UK ignore the situation.

[HoreTore]

Patriots are not nationalists.

One might think that would be the reason why I said "nationalists" and not "patriots".


In any case, the indiginous population also want the islands to remain British, and hold British citizenship.

Indigenous people...? You mean the animals or what?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

[Subotan]

The only way this will truly be resolved is if England conquers over Argentina, or just gives Argentina the islands, both seem unlikely, lol.
Or if the UK asked the EU for help, and the EU as a whole put sanctions on Argentina until it abandoned it's claim.

[gaelic cowboy]

Or if the UK asked the EU for help, and the EU as a whole put sanctions on Argentina until it abandoned it's claim.

Never happen Spain and Portugal would never allow it they have too many business links with there former colonial possessions to help UK

[Subotan]

That would only be a problem with Spain, and Portugal if Brazil throws a hissy fit. Besides, we would certainly have the support of France, and if we dangled a promise of greater integration, then you could probably get everyone else on board.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?

[Mikeus Caesar]

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

There was no human habitation of the Falklands prior to European settlement. 70% of the native-born population is of British descent. These are the legendary 'kelpers'. The other 30% percent are nearly all recent immigrants from Britain, and then a very small percent of the population is people from other countries.

[Pannonian]

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?
Sure. Britain conquers Argentina and integrates it as part of the UK of Britain, Northern Ireland and Argentina, then they'll become an integrated part of the EU.

[Viking]

Indigenous people...? You mean the animals or what?

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

[InsaneApache]

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

Living slap bang in what was known as the danegeld, I reckon about 1000 years. :laugh4:

I'll give you a clue. I have blond hair and blue eyes and a Norse/Germanic surname. So, am I English? :inquisitive:

[Pannonian]

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

You need special clothing and a phonebooth.

[Beskar]

I'll give you a clue. I have blond hair and blue eyes and a Norse/Germanic surname. So, am I English? :inquisitive:

Well, it is no wonder you got a Norse name when you are living in Jorvik

[InsaneApache]

Well, it is no wonder you got a Norse name when you are living in Jorvik :laugh4:

Not quite but near enough. I also use 'flat' vowels and use the Norse word for thankyou every day.

Ta -Tak. :juggle2:

[Furunculus]

Pft.

You'll notice the Britons here bite their tongue over my provocations.


That is because they don't have a Navy deserving of that name anymore and will be dependent on Paris' mighty fleet for maintaining their Empire. I will have my fun for my tax money. In fact, it is the best €8500000000000000 I've ever spend. Washington is not going to help them. It didn't last time, nor will it want to upset Latin America this time - what with the Latino vote etc.
Britain will come running to us. So looking forward to their grovelling. From behind my large mahogany desk, I shall threat the Briton with due reservedness and natural aloofness. I'll wear my dark suit I imported from Milan, its tone reflects well in my eyes, gives them a natural authority.

*dreams*

lol, reminds me of the joke about the early tornado fighter bombers that had a concrete weight in the nose instead of the blue-vixen radar that was too far behind in development to be installed.

led to the joke about Britain's secret war-winning technology dubbed the blue-circle radar.

seriously though, the main reason why the falklands is a desirable to Britain outside of the oil is because it is a strategic lauch point.

if you want to project power into the middle east you stage from Cyprus

if you want to project power into the south america you stage from the Falklands

if you want to project power into the south asia you stage from Diego Garcia

if you want to choke movement into the med you stage from Gibralter

as long as we have military installations on those parts of the world we are the strategic partner of choice outside of the US. France could make the same claim.

[Boohugh]

No, Fleet Air Arm got an upgrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

The F2 was ancient anyway, about 3 generations behind the GR9.

The Harrier GR7 and 9's primarily provide close air support to ground troops. They can carry a couple of Sidewinders but (again) to save money the powers that be decided not to put the Blue Vixen radars from the FA2's into the upgraded Harriers leaving them without a dedicated Air-to-Air radar and only relatively short ranged missiles. To say the GR9 is an upgrade over the FA2 in providing air cover for a naval task force is just completely off-target! In 2005, just before they were retired, the FA2's were kicking the butts of F15's in an exercise at Lakenheath, hardly a sign of an ancient, outdated aircraft. The GR9 could do an adequate job (they did ok against some Gripen's over Norway last summer) but the FA2 would still be far better.

The sad fact is that, due to purely financial reasons, Britain now lacks any significant naval air cover and, as the JSF is looking increasingly unlikely to appear anytime soon, the problem will continue on our brand new carriers. Luckily, we haven't needed any naval air cover recently and we need to hope that continues until they either finish the JSF or they decide to bin it and make a navalised Eurofighter instead (or just buy some F18's from the Yanks).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Harrier GR7 and 9's primarily provide close air support to ground troops. They can carry a couple of Sidewinders but (again) to save money the powers that be decided not to put the Blue Vixen radars from the FA2's into the upgraded Harriers leaving them without a dedicated Air-to-Air radar and only relatively short ranged missiles. To say the GR9 is an upgrade over the FA2 in providing air cover for a naval task force is just completely off-target! In 2005, just before they were retired, the FA2's were kicking the butts of F15's in an exercise at Lakenheath, hardly a sign of an ancient, outdated aircraft. The GR9 could do an adequate job (they did ok against some Gripen's over Norway last summer) but the FA2 would still be far better.

The sad fact is that, due to purely financial reasons, Britain now lacks any significant naval air cover and, as the JSF is looking increasingly unlikely to appear anytime soon, the problem will continue on our brand new carriers. Luckily, we haven't needed any naval air cover recently and we need to hope that continues until they either finish the JSF or they decide to bin it and make a navalised Eurofighter instead (or just buy some F18's from the Yanks).

GR7/9 can carry 6 AARRM. The lack of radar is an issue, but the increased range and loiter time count in it's favour. The Harrier has always been a dedicated-to-nothing fighter/bomber and the GR9's are perfectly adaquate for dealing with the Argantine Air Force. Not to mention, we have 45 of them, vs the 18 we had in 1982.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?A good question, actually.

To be fair, I do not expect any hostilities. This all bears the stamp of ritual posturising, combined with the eyes of both parties firmly fixed on the possibility of oil.

The UK's point of view does not automatically generate Europe's sympathy. A silly, obsolete game of 'let's play Empire' I think is the commonly held view. Spain, Hispanophone, trying to be the gateway between Europe and Latin America, plus itself having a similar dispute over Gibraltar, clearly sides against the UK. The overriding sentiment in the other countries is neither sympathy nor antipathy, but mostly an overwhelming sense of 'could not care any less about something than about some godforsaken Islands in the South Atlantic'.
In this sense, closer EU co-operation in defense, closer political integration, and an active European policy by Britain could help London to gain support for its position.



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


The UK receives EU support in two ways:




Relations with the EU
Under the 9th EDF, € 4,547 million (i.e. the 9th EDF territorial allocation of € 3 million + transfers from decommitted funds for an amount of € 0.047 million) and € 1.500 million from the MTR) is allocated to the Falkland Islands by means of a single programming document (SPD). The SPD identifies capacity building in the area of trade development with a view to encourage trade growth and increased value added in the Falklands Islands main production sectors of fisheries, agriculture and tourism as focal sectors.
Under the 10th EDF Falklands islands will receive 4.6 million euros.
Some €1.500 per Falklander per year in direct EU subsidies.
Combine this with the British expenditure on defense - 1000 men for 3000 inhabitants, and the Falklanders could well be Europe's most expensive citizens.

The other point, very important, and it would actually be interesting to see if it gets tested, is:


"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".
That's right. Since two months, all of Europe is obliged to come to Britain's assistance in the case of attack.

Whether the Falklands counts as 'territory', I am not entirely sure. My Google-fu is failing me. Does anybody know whether NATO's similar article five was invoked in 1982?


Edit: my fu is back:
NATO, article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

No NATO obligations then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, given that France is the only other country with any Force-Projection I don't see that it matters. Unless we're going to stick German or Dutch troops on British/French transports.

[HoreTore]

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

I suggest you look up the facts before you speak.

[Beskar]

:laugh4:

Not quite but near enough. I also use 'flat' vowels and use the Norse word for thankyou every day.

Ta -Tak. :juggle2:

I saw it said "Grand Duchy of Yorkshire" so I had to comment. I like York, I would install the North England assembly/parliament there, if we ever get one. I am even saying that as an Lancastrian.

[InsaneApache]

I saw it said "Grand Duchy of Yorkshire" so I had to comment. I like York, I would install the North England assembly/parliament there, if we ever get one. I am even saying that as an Lancastrian.

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot :laugh4:) in Cheshire.

[Beskar]

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot :laugh4:) in Cheshire.

Ah, you are one of our brothers who have invaded the Jorvick infidels and their silly white rose. Red Rose forever!

[Furunculus]

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot :laugh4:) in Cheshire.

i lived with the poofy southern lot for eight or more years. :p



That's right. Since two months, all of Europe is obliged to come to Britain's assistance in the case of attack.


lol, i wait with baited breath to discover if our glorious continental comrades will ever make good on that defence arrangement!

[Subotan]

I was just reminded of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_settlement_in_Argentina)
Giving up our claim to Chubut Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chubut_Province) in return for recognition of the Falklands as British seems like a fair deal to me.

[KukriKhan]

Which would be that the USA would do nothing and the UK would be well within its right to slap Argentina should it invade. Monroe doctrine specifically limits its scope to asserting the right of (former) colonial territories to independence and the US' god given right to remove any such independence in whatever America; it does not include the right of former colonies to do a land grab with USA support.

Yeah, that's pretty much the policy interpretation Reagan used to explain our "hands off" approach last time. I vividly remember sitting on the tarmac at MacDill AFB for a tense 3 days back then; where we might go was clear, but who, exactly, we were confronting... not so much, 'til Ronnie & Maggie ironed it out and we stood-down.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.


Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/february-2010/us-refuses-to-endorse-british-sovereignty-in-falklands-oil-dispute/



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~



Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan’s support for Britain in 1982 “irked a lot of people in Latin America”.

The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region”, he said. Latin America has awoken. a lot of this sabbre-ratlling is to do with new economic might, shifting demographic balances, and the need for Latin America to express newfound confidence and solidarity at last week's Latin american summit. Always good to have a foreign scapegoat or enemy to emphasise internal closed ranks.

Not to be mean or anything, but the very surname of the Brookings Intitution analyst is a hint to the other reason why the US does not back Britain this time round. The world changes.

[Boohugh]

If anything did happen, the US would almost certainly do what it did last time - no official support for the UK and no signs of cooperation, but it would actually provide significant intelligence support and also some subtle logistical support (easing the passage of ammunition/missile purchases, etc).

[Furunculus]

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.


~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


Latin America has awoken. a lot of this sabbre-ratlling is to do with new economic might, shifting demographic balances, and the need for Latin America to express newfound confidence and solidarity at last week's Latin american summit. Always good to have a foreign scapegoat or enemy to emphasise internal closed ranks.

Not to be mean or anything, but the very surname of the Brookings Intitution analyst is a hint to the other reason why the US does not back Britain this time round. The world changes.

that is because saint obama wants a EUropean superstate to prop up a declining american hegemony in the 21st century.

to achieve this he needs a europe that is powerful (i.e. Britain is in it), and anglophile (i.e. Britain is in it).

thus saint obama needs to 'wean' the UK of its US dependancy, because like it or not 21st europe has become a strategic backwater so having the UK as its unsinkable aircraft-carrier off europe is no longer the advantage it once was, we can be of more use to the yanks as a leading light in a federal europe.


but here's the thing Louise*, just because saint obama would have it thus does not mean that Britain should roll over and 'take' it thus. saint obama will be gone one day, and the US will once again realise that an ally that can project power (presuming we still can post May 2010) is an invaluable thing.

the fact that america wants something inimical to the soveriegnistas of Britain is not the cause of a crisis, it's realpolitic, but at the end of the day Britain is still going to have more in common with the anglosphere than it ever will with old-europe. our problems are not yours**.


* post done in a Scrubs style Dr. Cox rant (no offence intended)
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island&p=2064955&viewfull=1#post2064955
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island&p=2065209&viewfull=1#post2065209
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island&p=2065918&viewfull=1#post2065918

[Louis VI the Fat]

If anything did happen, the US would almost certainly do what it did last time - no official support for the UK and no signs of cooperation, but it would actually provide significant intelligence support and also some subtle logistical support (easing the passage of ammunition/missile purchases, etc).Probably, sure.

But I don't think any war will be coming any time soon. Argentina has embarked on a diplomatic Bltizkrieg, not a military one.

Even as we speak, the Argentine foreign minister is adressing the UN, seeking 'mediated negotiation'. Or, seeks support for diplomatic pressure on Britain. This has been Britain's message to the US yesterday: no mediated negotiation from Washingtonnor support from Washington for this. What America's stance is, today, I do not know. I expect the US will not support mediated negation. Will be fun to find out though. The US is in a difficult position, trying to maintain neutrality.

Maybe America's neutrality/support can be ensured if Britain politely indicates it can't afford both an increase in troops in the Falklands and the maintainance of the second largest force in Afghanistan?

[TinCow]

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians. Since the UK is perfectly capable of hanlding the situation on their own, there's no point in us barging into the situation. I guarantee you that if for some reason Argentina captured the islands and the UK was unable to get them back, the US would begin actively aiding the UK.

[Boohugh]

But I don't think any war will ne coming any time soon. Argentina has embarked on a diplomatic Bltizkrieg, not a military one.

Even as we speak, the Argentine foreign minister is adressing the UN, seeking 'mediated negotiation'.

I agree that military conflict is pretty unlikely and almost certainly wouldn't happen in the short term at least. It's worth noting, however, that Argentina and the UK were engaged in 'mediated negotiations' at the UN for a few years prior to outbreak of hostilities in 1982 too and look how that ended for the Argies! :smash:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians.Yes it does. The UK does need help. Militarily, no. But there probably won't be a war to begin with.

Diplomatically, yes. Today, Argentina appealed to the UN for mediated negotiation and immediate cessation of the British drilling for oil and gas that started this week. This is the bone of contentment. The US could, arguably, should, have issued the statement, public or through diplomatic channels, yesterday that the US will not support this.
That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

We've always been of two minds on this one. The USA treasures the Monroe Doctrine (even though our efforts to 'enforce' it were mixed), so there's some "Europe shouldn't mess with the New World" sentiment at play. At the same time, its a God-awful ways away from us, we have no direct interest (at least since we stopped whaling), and since WW2 we've had the special relationship. Reagan's solution was to be "neutral" (but not yelp at the UK using satellite info and other NATO resources). Obama wants to take a more pro Latin America stance, but can't afford to screw up the alliance too badly. He'll do the same thing, stay neutral. Obama's neutral is likely to be a little quieter and maybe a hint more pro-Argentina, but that's about it.

[TinCow]

That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

Well, I certainly am not privy to the decision-making process, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that the Obama administration would ever actually provide diplomatic support to Argentina on this issue. Not only is the US-UK alliance very strong (even amongst us pinko-liberals), as has been noted above the Falkland Islanders want to be part of Britain. The situation might be different if they wanted to join Argentina or be independent, but as it stands I just cannot conceive of any American administration backing Argentinian sovereignty over the islands. At the moment, the neutral line is the best for our interests because it doesn't tick off our southern neighbors and the US-UK alliance is strong enough to withstand neutrality on this issue. If the situation changed such that the US had to make a choice (either diplomatically or militarily) between Argentina and the UK, there's really no question of which way it would go. Not only are the UK our strongest allies, international law is strongly on their side. That said, I'm a huge anglophile and I'm probably biased; I'm very pro-Obama, but that would change overnight if he actively backed Argentina on this issue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians. Since the UK is perfectly capable of hanlding the situation on their own, there's no point in us barging into the situation. I guarantee you that if for some reason Argentina captured the islands and the UK was unable to get them back, the US would begin actively aiding the UK.

I dissagree. I struggle to remember a time the US has supported Britain without it's own interests being directly threatened. Reagan could (and perhaps should) have sent a Carrier Group as soon as the Argantine Junta invaded. This would have massively reduced the loss of life and probably the laying of mines. That he didn't is just one of many examples of Washington being unwilling to decisively intervene on the behalf of it's most faithful ally.

Obama deserves far more censure given Britain's support of two on-going American Imperial wars (rumour has it 22 Regiment is still in both countries doing the dirty).

[Louis VI the Fat]

In actual war, I think Washington will back the UK.

But in diplomacy? In the the tussle over who gets to enjoy the spoils of the sea?


The US policy has not simply been one of neutrality, but of deafening silence in this past week. Meanwhile, British flags are being burned on the streets of Buenos Aires. Brazil has urged Britain to negotiate. The entire Rio Group declared its support for Argentina on Monday. Argentina's foreign minister had talks with the UN secretary General today, pressing Ban ki-moon to intervene, to urge the UK to negotiate.

Is silence 'neutral', under these circumstances? If the world has changed, is the same US policy still viable? What if the secutiry council will be forced to a resolution?
(Of course, if I were Obama, I'd be silent about it all too for now)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gifThe higher profile the Argentine government has recently managed to give the Falklands/Malvinas dispute reflects the greater support Buenos Aires has over the issue these days.
Following backing for Argentina's claim by the Rio Group of Latin American countries, the matter is being raised by Argentina's foreign minister with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Of course, the background is completely different today, compared with 1982 when the war over the islands took place.
There has been a democratic revolution across South America and the old antagonisms (especially between Argentina and Chile, which supported Britain in 1982) have died down.

Grandstanding
Despite dismissing it as another round of grandstanding that will lead nowhere, the British government is having to work harder than usual diplomatically to justify its refusal to discuss sovereignty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8534901.stm

It is highly likely that the Falklands dispute will gain considerable momentum in the coming weeks, and the possibility of another military confrontation between Britain and Argentina, as well as Venezuela, cannot be ruled out. Britain has rightly warned (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2858607/Brown-Well-defend-the-Falklands.html)Argentina that the future of the Falklands is non-negotiable, and that the islands will be defended against any attempts to blockade them.

If the Obama administration does not take a clear position in support of London, the Anglo-American Special Relationship will be significantly damaged. It is imperative that in the coming days the White House issues an unequivocal statement backing UK sovereignty over the Falklands in the face of Argentinian bullying, and sends a clear signal that it stands united with Great Britain.

President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cannot remain neutral and sit on the fence over an issue of vital national interest to the United Kingdom. While British and American soldiers fight side by side on the battlefields of Afghanistan, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with the British people as they once again confront Argentine aggression and defend their own kith and kin.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100027226/barack-obama-must-side-with-britain-over-the-falklands/




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~



In other news, the new EU 'foreign minister', the very British Baroness Ashton, has been spotted in a photograph of....
...nuclear disarmament protesters in 1982, demanding that Thatcher repeals the British Naval Task Force she just dispatched to the Falklands.

[Subotan]

An English language Argentinian Newspaper that may be of interest
http://www.buenosairesherald.com

*****

And who knows? Another war might kill 1,000 people, but it may save Gordon Brown's career :yes:

[Aemilius Paulus]

And who knows? Another war might kill 1,000 people, but it may save Gordon Brown's career :yes:
Lulz, it saved Thatcher, but you would think a Tory is more suited for war than the Labour...

[InsaneApache]

You're a bit late to the party on Cathy Ashton Louis. As a europhile I'm amazed that you aren't aware that she isn't allowed to see confidential defence plans. Not even secret or top secret or even FYEO.

Still, she scrubs up well for a former commie. :sweatdrop:

[tibilicus]

In actual war, I think Washington will back the UK.

But in diplomacy? In the the tussle over who gets to enjoy the spoils of the sea?


The US policy has not simply been one of neutrality, but of deafening silence in this past week. Meanwhile, British flags are being burned on the streets of Buenos Aires. Brazil has urged Britain to negotiate. The entire Rio Group declared its support for Argentina on Monday. Argentina's foreign minister had talks with the UN secretary General today, pressing Ban ki-moon to intervene, to urge the UK to negotiate.

Is silence 'neutral', under these circumstances? If the world has changed, is the same US policy still viable? What if the secutiry council will be forced to a resolution?
(Of course, if I were Obama, I'd be silent about it all too for now)




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~



In other news, the new EU 'foreign minister', the very British Baroness Ashton, has been spotted in a photograph of....
...nuclear disarmament protesters in 1982, demanding that Thatcher repeals the British Naval Task Force she just dispatched to the Falklands.

Irrelevant.

They can scream and cry to the UN all they want and get all those really great allies like Venezuela to back them, nothing will happen.

Their claim to the Falklands and the area surrounding it simply doesn't hold up under international law. China owns Tibet and parts of Kashmir, Chinas claim to these areas is far weaker than Britain's claim to the Falklands yet do you think they're ever going to give these areas up? Do you think there's going to be any real pressure ever put on them to give up these areas? The answer is no.

Argentina need to go cry some where else.

[Furunculus]

Lulz, it saved Thatcher, but you would think a Tory is more suited for war than the Labour...

what you mean to say is; Thatcher did the right thing, achieved the right result, and thus won the gratitude of the electorate.

the way you frame the statement makes it sound like thatcher started the war in order to divert public protest outside, which she did not, and which argentina notably did.

Irrelevant.

They can scream and cry to the UN all they want and get all those really great allies like Venezuela to back them, nothing will happen.

Their claim to the Falklands and the area surrounding it simply doesn't hold up under international law. China owns Tibet and parts of Kashmir, Chinas claim to these areas is far weaker than Britain's claim to the Falklands yet do you think they're ever going to give these areas up? Do you think there's going to be any real pressure ever put on them to give up these areas? The answer is no.

Argentina need to go cry some where else.

agreed.

Louis is insinuating that a crisis is brewing, america is failing us, and only the EU stands between the Falklands and Argentina, and weren't we shortshighted selecting such a non-entity for the foriegn-affairs position.

Not only is that not true, it is laughable, contemptible even.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

interestingly, James Corum blames the collective lack of yanky backbone on the inexperience of Clinton:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamescorum/100027451/american-neutrality-on-the-falklands-is-a-symptom-of-us-foreign-policy-drift/

[The Wizard]

I find it hilarious when I see pictures in my daily of Argentinian leftists calling for the conquest of the Falklands. Aren't lefties supposed to be opposed to irredentism?

As for U.S. neutrality, I'm not sure but I think Washington was studiously quiet in 1982 as well.

[KukriKhan]

If he follows his usual modus operandi on Foreign Policy and Military matters, Obama will study the issue for about 90 days, gathering input, after which he will issue a statement. Or not, as the issues at-hand may be overcome by events (he would hope). ...all the while whispering to the Brits "we're on your side".

It's my guess that he won't try to resurrect Monroe; rather he'll most likely kick it to the UN. Meanwhile, the boys in Florida (home of CentCom) will have already dusted off the '82 OpPlans for updating, and have the Navy, MilAirliftCmd & a brigade of 82d Airborne on heightened alert (quietly).

[rory_20_uk]

Seeing as how the UN have (of course) done nothing but almost stand up and nearly be heard, they're going to run to Ms Clinton for help...

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis is insinuating that a crisis is brewing, america is failing us, and only the EU stands between the Falklands and Argentina, and weren't we shortshighted selecting such a non-entity for the foriegn-affairs position.

Not only is that not true, it is laughable, contemptible even.Louis never insinuates. Louis speaks his mind outright.


So I'll be frank. Your analysis is correct. Having thus been found out, no need for us to keep up the charade anymore: marxist Obama will indeed be the first Secretary-General of the EUSSR, yes.
That's what this whole crisis has been all about. Lady Ashton's in on it as well.


that is because saint obama wants a EUropean superstate to prop up a declining american hegemony in the 21st century.

to achieve this he needs a europe that is powerful (i.e. Britain is in it), and anglophile (i.e. Britain is in it).

thus saint obama needs to 'wean' the UK of its US dependancy, because like it or not 21st europe has become a strategic backwater so having the UK as its unsinkable aircraft-carrier off europe is no longer the advantage it once was, we can be of more use to the yanks as a leading light in a federal europe.


but here's the thing Louise*, just because saint obama would have it thus does not mean that Britain should roll over and 'take' it thus. saint obama will be gone one day, and the US will once again realise that an ally that can project power (presuming we still can post May 2010) is an invaluable thing.

the fact that america wants something inimical to the soveriegnistas of Britain is not the cause of a crisis, it's realpolitic, but at the end of the day Britain is still going to have more in common with the anglosphere than it ever will with old-europe. our problems are not yours**.


* post done in a Scrubs style Dr. Cox rant (no offence intended)
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island&p=2064955&viewfull=1#post2064955
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island&p=2065209&viewfull=1#post2065209
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island&p=2065918&viewfull=1#post2065918

[Furunculus]

Argentina threatens BHP with sanctions if they continue with falklands drilling:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7326568/Argentina-warns-BHP-not-to-drill-for-Falklands-oil.html

[tibilicus]

Argentina threatens BHP with sanctions if they continue with falklands drilling:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7326568/Argentina-warns-BHP-not-to-drill-for-Falklands-oil.html

:laugh4:

Are they not aware that any sanctions will probably hurt them more than us?

I say keep on drillin'.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You don't believe that this evolution is necessary? Europe needs to prop itself up strategically. Europe and North America as a loose confederation of states with a quasi-joint military - all doing their part - is a must have imho.

[Furunculus]

Falklanders are narked that British official history is too pro-argentinian:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html


Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina
Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of "serious" errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory.

By Jasper Copping

The critics say that several apparent statements of fact in the book are "nonsense" and "seriously defective", making Buenos Aires's historical claim to the South Atlantic archipelago "appear stronger than it actually is".

The legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected.

Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, the book's author and also a member of the Chilcot Inquiry panel which is investigating the 2003 Iraq war, said he was "happy to accept the corrections".

The episode comes as Argentina is stepping up diplomatic pressure over its claim for sovereignty, after a British oil rig arrived in the territory's waters last week.

The factual mistakes contained within the book, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, have been detailed by historians writing in the latest newsletter of the Falkland Islands Association, a British-based group set up to support the islanders.

Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper say the errors are contained in the first chapter of the book, covering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

They say the work misrepresents treaties between Spain and Britain and repeats a false claim that the Argentines established a penal colony on the islands.

They say the book gives a "seriously misleading" account of events in the 1820s and 1830s, when the islands were first claimed in the name of Argentina. The events of that era are central to the South American country's current claim to the islands.

Mr Pepper said: "This work has the stamp of official history. That is the problem. If it was just another history book, then it wouldn't really matter. We wanted to put the record straight."

Mike Summers, spokesman for the Islands' legislative assembly, said: "If this was a normal history book it might just be part of a healthy historical debate, but being an official history gives it a certain prominence that it wouldn't otherwise have.

"We have contacted the Cabinet Office pointing out there were inaccuracies and suggesting it should be amended.

"Given who [the author] is and given that it was supposed to be an official history of the war you wouldn't want inaccuracies to have gone unchallenged."

Colin Wright, honorary secretary of the Falkland Islands Association, said: "There are a number of errors which the Argentine government would be able to look at and which could be all part of undermining and chipping away the status of the islands and in strengthening their own claims."

Prof Freedman's account of the 1982 war itself is not contested and both editions have otherwise been generally well received.

Two volumes have been published. Volume one, containing the contentious chapter, was first published in 2005 and was reprinted in 2007, when the errors were repeated.

The full response from Dr Pascoe and Mr Pepper has only now been published, in the Falkland Islands Newsletter, in the form of a pull-out errata slip to be inserted into copies of the book.

Prof Freedman, a vice principal at King's College, London, also writes on the errata slip.

He said: "It was not a part of my remit to do a lot of original research into the eighteenth century.

"I was trying to explain the nature of the arguments. I was not looking at any primary sources. I couldn't claim to be a historian of that period. My remit was to write about 1982.

"At no point do I give any indication of support for the Argentine claim on sovereignty.

"It is a question about history rather than support for Argentina. It happens. It is the nature of the job. I don't feel I have been caught out in a fundamental misdeed.

"There is interesting new research that has been done that has shed new light on the issue."

The Cabinet Office declined to comment.

Some of the errors

Official history: When Spain returned the settlement of Port Egmont, on the islands, to Britain in 1771, the Spaniards made a declaration in the treaty with Britain in which "it reserved its position on sovereignty".

Correction: This claim was not made in the treaty's final text.

Official history: Another treaty between Spain and Britain "clearly prevented Britain from occupying the Falklands".

Correction: The treaty allowed the establishment of a settlement if another power (such as Argentina), made such a settlement.

Official history: When a British sailor Captain Onslow of HMS Clio arrived on the islands in 1833, he told the captain of an Argentine warship there that "the Islands belonged to no one".

Correction: The whole point of Onslow's voyage was to sustain Britain's claim, which dated from their base on the islands 60 years earlier. He told the Argentine commander as much.

Official history: After Onslow's arrival, convicts from an Argentine penal colony which had been established on the islands were forced to leave.

Correction: There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't believe that this evolution is necessary? Europe needs to prop itself up strategically. Europe and North America as a loose confederation of states with a quasi-joint military - all doing their part - is a must have imho.

What's your point. The only country to have seriously threatened Britian in 100 years is Germany, and that is largely a result of us fighting them in the last war when (honestly) they weren't really a problem for us so.... no, I don't believe political union with Europe is necessary.

[Furunculus]

What's your point. The only country to have seriously threatened Britian in 100 years is Germany, and that is largely a result of us fighting them in the last war when (honestly) they weren't really a problem for us so.... no, I don't believe political union with Europe is necessary.
kind of the point i have been trying to unsuccessfully hammer into various peoples heads for some time now: "we understand why the continent might be willing to go federalism, but Britain doesn't need it, and we certainly don't want it, but please by all means go right on ahead if that's what you want to do, just don't try and drag us into it."

to which i typically recieve mystified replies stating that Britain is no different to the continent, and bizarre threads like:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island

[Cute Wolf]

If there's going to be a war, I'll place $ 1000 bet on British Victory! :wink:

[Sigurd]

The Brits are giving away territories?

Put us down for claims:
Shetland
Orkney
Caithness
Outer Hebrides
Isle of Man
Jorvik

Heck! as long as we are doing claims...
Iceland
Faeroe Islands
Jämtland
Herjedalen
Bohuslän
Dublin
Erik Raudes land ... eh let's just grab the entire Island (Greenland)
Vinland
Markland
Helluland

[Pannonian]

The Brits are giving away territories?

Put us down for claims:
Shetland
Orkney
Caithness
Outer Hebrides
Isle of Man
Jorvik


Don't you also have some claim to England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_III_of_Norway)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

However, Harold Godwinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson) was not prepared to give up his throne. At the Battle of Stamford Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge), outside York, on 25 September 1066, Godwinson's forces met with Harald's. Godwinson's forces were heavily armed, heavily armoured, and heavily outnumbered Harald's. Although one of Harald's men single-handedly blocked the English from the bridge for some time, when he fell, Harold Godwinson's better armed and better equipped forces easily cut through Harald's. Harald was killed by an arrow through his eye. Earl Tostig was also killed.

LOL

[Sigurd]

LOL
You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?

[Pannonian]

You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?

Hard bastard (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/stamfordbridge.html)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?

The idea that the Fyrd was better armed and armoured on average than the Vikings is laughable, nor do I think the Norsemen were "heavily outnubered", not to mention the Fyrd's forced march.

Nice to see you around again, btw.

[Pannonian]

The idea that the Fyrd was better armed and armoured on average than the Vikings is laughable, nor do I think the Norsemen were "heavily outnubered", not to mention the Fyrd's forced march.

Nice to see you around again, btw.

Nuber (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuber)

buy nuber mugs, tshirts and magnets
A person that has perma-fried their brain through either drugs or alcohol. Stems from the latin root numer, meaning number, shows that an individual has destroyed a large number of brain cells

It's quite probable that the Norse were heavily nubered, and with the average young Briton's fondness for chemically assisted nights out, it's quite likely the Norsemen were heavily outnubered as well. Of course, a Finnish army would easily outnuber them all.

[bobbin]

What's your point. The only country to have seriously threatened Britian in 100 years is Germany, and that is largely a result of us fighting them in the last war when (honestly) they weren't really a problem for us

Thats a bit of an overstatement, for a long period of the war we were on the ropes, it was only with the start of war with the USSR that things started to change.

Re the Falklands: It's just a bunch of sabre rattling by an unpopular Argentine leader to distract from problems at home (again), if anything its Argentina that will lose out in the end, as they could have made a lot of money providing port facilities and equiment if anything was found.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thats a bit of an overstatement, for a long period of the war we were on the ropes, it was only with the start of war with the USSR that things started to change.

You misunderstand, the "last" war was WW1, where Britain provided huge resources to help defend France, take Britain out of the picture or haver her side with Germany (as is more historically logical) and WW1 turns out very differently.

[Pannonian]

You misunderstand, the "last" war was WW1, where Britain provided huge resources to help defend France, take Britain out of the picture or haver her side with Germany (as is more historically logical) and WW1 turns out very differently.

After Versailles, we should have turned on the French, just to see which of the victors was best. It was an affront to tradition to join a war involving the French, and not fight the French at some point. We corrected that the next time round, as we demonstrated our superiority in North Africa and the near east. Pick a neutral ground, fight it out, and the winner gets bragging rights until the next time we go to war.

[Wishazu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am but I swear I remember my secondary school History teacher telling me that during the first world war, in strategic planning sessions etc. the British commanders still referred to the French as "The Enemy" i.e "Our 4 battalions will advance to face the Germans with The Enemy protecting our right flank"

[Louis VI the Fat]

After Versailles, we should have turned on the French, just to see which of the victors was best. It was an affront to tradition to join a war involving the French, and not fight the French at some point. We corrected that the next time round, as we demonstrated our superiority in North Africa and the near east. Pick a neutral ground, fight it out, and the winner gets bragging rights until the next time we go to war.Aye, Mers-el-Kébir was a great show of British skill. Almost as good as the daring British naval raids on Hamburg and Bremen earlier that June.



=AP]You misunderstand, the "last" war was WW1, where Britain provided huge resources to help defend France, take Britain out of the picture or haver her side with Germany (as is more historically logical) and WW1 turns out very differently.Erm, do you have any idea why the UK opposed Germany? Why the Entente cordiale came about?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Erm, do you have any idea why the UK opposed Germany? Why the Entente cordiale came about?

Policy, but opposition to France should have been preferable. France was the other overseas power, and therefore Britain's main Imperial rival. Germany was interested in dominating the Continent which was something of relatively little interest to Britain. Also, Germany was a monarchy closely tied to Britain whilst France was a politically volatile and unstable historical enemy which was a Republic at the time, peddling such rot as Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

[Pannonian]

Policy, but opposition to France should have been preferable. France was the other overseas power, and therefore Britain's main Imperial rival. Germany was interested in dominating the Continent which was something of relatively little interest to Britain. Also, Germany was a monarchy closely tied to Britain whilst France was a politically volatile and unstable historical enemy which was a Republic at the time, peddling such rot as Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Wilhelm was the cousin whom everyone disliked. He had a personal jealousy of Britain's overseas dominance, and wished to build up German naval strength. Unlike the Anglo-French rivalry, which was largely stable, Germany was an unpredictable player. With Wilhelm's antagonism towards everyone else, this pushed Britain towards France, aided by the francophilism of Edward VII. In Diplomacy terms, Germany was the unpredictable player whom no-one trusted, for he played without regard for logic or strategic understanding.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wilhelm was the cousin whom everyone disliked. He had a personal jealousy of Britain's overseas dominance, and wished to build up German naval strength. Unlike the Anglo-French rivalry, which was largely stable, Germany was an unpredictable player. With Wilhelm's antagonism towards everyone else, this pushed Britain towards France, aided by the francophilism of Edward VII. In Diplomacy terms, Germany was the unpredictable player whom no-one trusted, for he played without regard for logic or strategic understanding.

Quite correct. I have always wondered how the world would have turned had Germany not been so avid at buildling its fleet up to levels that threatened the UK. I don't think the entente cordiale would have materialized (certainly not so explicitly) and I think there would have been little coordination with the French. Had that been true, then the British would have intervened when Germany hit Beligium, but would likely have done so in Antwerp, helping to make it a fortified camp along with the Belgians. But there would have been nobody at Mons Canal who wasn't working for the Kaiser. Given the disaster France suffered at the battle of the Frontiers, would France have had the time to ready a riposte to Von Kluck or would Schlieffen have been vindicated.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meanwhile in the South Atlantic...


Argentina is winning, is still gaining ground. The sabre-rattling is having the desired result.

The British oil rigs will arrive together with the military. This creates the image, the perception, which Argentina seeks: that of a militaristic Britain, of aggressive plunder, that of brutal neo-colonialism. 'And aren't the British doing the same in Iraq?', is this not the same old 'Anglo plundering tof he resources of the weak by massive military force'.

Meanwhile, a Spanish ship has just left to search and drill for oil, in Argentinean waters. Peacefully. Without military accompany. Will it be chased away by force? Will the 'hypocritical British' apply 'double standards'?

There will be the image of Britain as the aggressor, and of Argentina as the reasonable party. Because Argentina is merely applying diplomacy, and Britain is forced to resort to flex its muscles, to prepare its military, in response to Argentinean provocations.

Argentina can push this a whole lot further yet. War is not the goal, not an option. Argentina is merely trying to provoke Britain, to create an image of perceived British aggression and hostile posturising. While peaceful Argentina is meanwhile asking the world to mediate, is only using civilized diplomatic means. Either Britain doesn't agree with talks, which makes it look like a bully, applying only brute force. Or Britain will negotiate. Which is Argentina's goal in the first place.





Edit: and in ninety year's time, people will claim that Argentina never lost the first Falklands war in the first place because the British never managed to invade Argentina proper, merely succeeded in driving them out of the Falklands.
This the duplicitous Brits followed up with a disastrous peace. Which they should've known was a humiliation to the militaristic Junker...erm, Junta mind.
The sneaky subsequent annexation by Britain of the Falklands in 1982 then caused economic hardship in Argentina, which explains why they tried again in 2010. A renewed conflict in which began because the stubborn, arrogant British refused to negotiate, refused to mitigate the duplicitous treaty of 1982 which left Argentina nothing.

Oh! The power of perception!

[KukriKhan]

Heh, Mon Ami... you are my favorite fellow conspiracy-theorist *slash* strategist. :)

[Furunculus]

Argentina is winning, is still gaining ground. The sabre-rattling is having the desired result.
The British oil rigs will arrive together with the military. This creates the image, the perception, which Argentina seeks: that of a militaristic Britain, of aggressive plunder, that of brutal neo-colonialism. 'And aren't the British doing the same in Iraq?', is this not the same old 'Anglo plundering tof he resources of the weak by massive military force'.

Meanwhile, a Spanish ship has just left to search and drill for oil, in Argentinean waters. Peacefully. Without military accompany. Will it be chased away by force? Will the 'hypocritical British' apply 'double standards'?

they are only winning if Britain decides to give a damn what argentina or south america thinks. it would be British weakness that allowed negotiations on the status of the Falklands, nothing else.

if they drill in argentinian waters then of course they will be left alone, but if they get any bright ideas about drilling in Falklands territorial waters.............. that will be another matter.

[Louis VI the Fat]

conspiracy-theorist strategist. :)Argentina has won this round in South America. And it has won it in Washington.

Not since a certain cigar has a Clinton shoved something up someplace this deep as Hillary/Obama did:


Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.

Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands.


Britain insisted there was no need for mediation as long as the islanders wanted to remain British. “We don’t think that’s necessary,” a Downing Street spokesman said.

What began as a last-minute change to Mrs Clinton’s itinerary on her five-day sweep through Latin America has snowballed into a major diplomatic incident that has emboldened Argentina and caught the US largely un- awares. It could force Britain to reassess the level of international support for its efforts to develop a hydrocarbon industry in the Falklands basin.

When Mrs Clinton left Washington at the weekend she was scheduled to spend just ten minutes with Mrs Kirchner on the fringes of the inauguration of the new Uruguayan President in Montevideo. Argentina was not on her itinerary. The Argentine leadership lobbied hard for more respectful treatment and was rewarded with one of the most closely watched American visits since President Bush attended a summit in Buenos Aires in 2005.

The timing, days after Argentina secured unanimous backing from South American leaders for its demand for talks on the Falklands, meant that Mrs Clinton’s words were bound to be studied for any sign of a shift from America’s traditional stance on the islands — which has been to stay out of the argument over sovereignty but offer Britain vital logistical support.

Mrs Clinton’s meeting with the flamboyant but vulnerable Argentine leader ended amid smiles and laughter. She gave no sign of backing the British position on negotiations, saying instead: “We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way. We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. We cannot make either one do so. We think it is the right way to proceed, so we will be saying this publicly.”

US officials said privately that British fears of being abandoned by the US over the Falklands were wildly overblown, but any hope on the part of the Administration of staying on the sidelines looked forlorn yesterday.

Héctor Timerman, the Argentine Ambassador to the US, said he had never seen “such substantial support” from Washington for his country’s claim. Mrs Clinton had not only offered to mediate but had also signalled that talks should be in line with existing UN resolutions, he insisted, referring to non-binding UN General Assembly resolutions from the 1970s that urge both sides to negotiate.
Ruperto Godoy, the official Argentine government spokesman on the islands, said the new pressure from Mrs Clinton was “very significant, very important” and would help Buenos Aires to force Britain to the negotiating table.

In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. “It’s outrageous after all the support we have given the United States,” said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer’s wife. “They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it’s crazy that they are even contemplating going against us.”

[Furunculus]

Louis, Louis, what has it actually won?

Nothing of any substance.

The fact that Brits are peeved is because we expect the support of our friends, not because the lack of support has any consequence in an issue where:

Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And, according to Louis, none of that really matters to the Argetines if you "blink" enough to get them a piece of that nice black "pie." I do love greed as a point of analysis, it's so refreshingly human a quality.

[Fisherking]

I think we have two idiots competing for the Peace Prize again...:embarassed:

Britain is right but with friends like that...

It might be good if Obuma were to visit the Falklands and hear what the people say...:tomato:

I wouldn’t blame Britain for making it warm for the US in foreign affaires after this one.


:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, all this demonstrates what I have been saying for years. The US is a bully that treats its allies without respect and, in particular, expects British support without having to give anything in return.

I don't believe anything will come of this, because Britain knows the Argentine government will accept nothing less than a complete capitulation. Backing down is more likely to lead to another invasion than anything else. In the mean time, I suggest we begin withdrawing from Afganistan and innuring those boys to the cold by training in Norway.

[Subotan]

Well, all this demonstrates what I have been saying for years. The US is a bully that treats its allies without respect and, in particular, expects British support without having to give anything in return.
The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

[Pannonian]

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

Britain is also of significant value locally. There are numerous groups who have a grievance with us, so Brit-bashing can get quite a few votes. Or if that's too overt, just staying quiet while Third World alliances rev up their anti-colonial rhetoric will do just as well, as brown people, Irish people, Revolutionaries, and others puff out their chests and glory in our arse-kicking in the 18th century. I suppose all we can do is suck it up, and be proud of how we've managed to upset so many people.

[Myrddraal]

Does it matter who is of a 'greater value' globally? Isn't this a matter or principle? :clown:

[Furunculus]

Does it matter who is of a 'greater value' globally? Isn't this a matter or principle? :clown:

no, i expect a friend to be supportive, especially when the friend is arguably in the right.


Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.

[Pannonian]

Does it matter who is of a 'greater value' globally? Isn't this a matter or principle? :clown:

It's a matter of politics, as everything is. That's why Israel is untouchable, but Britain is dispensable. Criticising Israel ends political careers, but there are votes to be had in standing up to the evil British empire.

[Subotan]

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.
I wasn't disagreeing with what you said, I was just making an addition to it from the U.S.'s perspective.

Britain is also of significant value locally. There are numerous groups who have a grievance with us, so Brit-bashing can get quite a few votes. Or if that's too overt, just staying quiet while Third World alliances rev up their anti-colonial rhetoric will do just as well, as brown people, Irish people, Revolutionaries, and others puff out their chests and glory in our arse-kicking in the 18th century. I suppose all we can do is suck it up, and be proud of how we've managed to upset so many people.
The Kirchners have been taking notes from Mugabe :yes:

[Boohugh]

In the mean time, I suggest we begin withdrawing from Afganistan and innuring those boys to the cold by training in Norway.

Just so you know, the Navy and Marines carried out an exercise in Norway as recently as this January, no need to worry about them being unprepared for the climate in the Falklands :wink:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a matter of politics, as everything is. That's why Israel is untouchable, but Britain is dispensable. Criticising Israel ends political careers, but there are votes to be had in standing up to the evil British empire.

Well, right now us pulling out of Afganistan would be disastrous for the US politically. The Coalition would likely collapse, and British troops once out would not go back.

[tibilicus]

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

Yes, Argentina are also a strong US ally but the simple fact is America owes us big time. Not only because of Iraq but because of the current situation in Afghanistan. Obama wanted more coalition troops, we already make up the second largest party within the coalition and Brown vowed more when Obama asked for it. Not only that but we hold down some of the most hostile and dangerous regions within Afghanistan.

Quite frankly I wish we would be done with the stinking "special relationship". I'm not saying shun the US completely, just maybe take the same approach to them as our European neighbours, friendly but cautious. The current US administration is indecisive and is sending out mixed messages on what they actually want US foreign policy to be.

Whilst I disagree with certain aspects of the current European community, I would much prefer closer ties with Europe than with the US. The special part of the "special relationship" varies depending who is the current president of the USA, Europe doesn't change like that, generally it puts forward a consensus view shared by all it's member states, rarely changing regardless of which government is in power.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, Louis, what has it actually won?

Nothing of any substance.

The fact that Brits are peeved is because we expect the support of our friends, not because the lack of support has any consequence in an issue where:

Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.Argentina will win one of two things:
- shared concession and exploration rights
- a shift in global opinion and policy towards the Argentinian goal: an acknowledgement that there ought to be negotiations over the Falklands.


It is all show. You are quite right not to go full Chubby Checker with your knickers. The shift in Washington is very slight.


One could analyse this as Britain taking one for a friend. The US has six hundred million southern neighbours to deal with. It has internal political realities. There is the Monroe doctrine. Should the US sacrifice these for what is of little consequence to Britain? (As of yet...)

Washington isn't won over until it supports negotiations, rather than 'encourage' them. Clinton did what American diplomacy had been forced to do: end the silence, sit down with Kirchner.
Hillary - bless her - was so politically clever to publicly state beforehand 'ten minutes' with Kirchner, then make it a two hour talk. This all portrays 'yes, we listen, we hear you, we understand your point - but it is not our dispute to resolve'. Good show. She gave Kirchner something to work with. Argentina can tout this around as a major diplomatic coup, whereas in reality it is of only slight consequence.

Lord knows, it might ease the tension, function as a pressure valve for the rising sentiment in Argentina, which has now found a way out.
Then again, Washington is now on record as supporting the Argentinean demand of negotiations over the Falklands - always the goal of Buenos Aires. The shift, if slight, is very real. It is as of today much more difficult for Britain to simply refuse negotiations.



The point also remains that Washington could do for Britain what all of Europe* has done: tell Buenos Aires just where to stick it, and recognise the Falklands as British territory.
*Spain is a more complex story.


Just to irritate you, (you know I have to :tongue:) the EU not kowtowing to Argentinean demands, and explicitly adopting in the Treaty of Lisbon that the Falklands are British territory:

Argentina has voiced outrage at the inclusion of the Falkland Islands as British territory in the draft EU constitution.
"We are perturbed, we reject this thoroughly, but it is not a new issue and we will have to fight about it for years to come," said foreign minister, Rafael Bielsa.

Argentina has complained to Brussels and ordered its ambassadors in the 25 EU capitals to issue protests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/1489032/Argentina-protests-at-Falklands-link-to-EU.html

Bless the Irish' 'Yes' to Lisbon a few months ago. :balloon2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

As regards the special relationship:

A rhinoceros and an oxpecker bird have a special relationship. The Rhinoceros gets its ears cleaned, is kept free of parasites, the oxpecker helps the rhino by removing the ticks who terrorize it.
The bird gets guaranteed safety in return. Nobody challenges a rhino to get a bird. The bird is guaranteed of his supply of food in this manner too, enjoys all sorts of perks.

This relationship is intimate, mutualistic, and both animals rely on it for their very health and ultimate safety.

It does not imply a relationship of recipocitry, nor of equality. The bird does not expect the rhino to follow it, never. The rhino decides, always. The bird travels along on its back, and enjoys the perks of its free ride.



https://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4295/blkrhinooxpecker.jpg

[Myrddraal]

no, i expect a friend to be supportive, especially when the friend is arguably in the right.


Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.

No? That's my point exactly. It would be nice to think that what mattered was the principle of self determination. Unfortunately, it seems that what's more important to US politicians is posturing to gain votes. Then again, why should I single out US politicians...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As regards the special relationship:

A rhinoceros and an oxpecker bird have a special relationship. The Rhinoceros gets its ears cleaned, is kept free of parasites, the oxpecker helps the rhino by removing the ticks who terrorize it.
The bird gets guaranteed safety in return. Nobody challenges a rhino to get a bird. The bird is guaranteed of his supply of food in this manner too, enjoys all sorts of perks.

This relationship is intimate, mutualistic, and both animals rely on it for their very health and ultimate safety.

It does not imply a relationship of recipocitry, nor of equality. The bird does not expect the rhino to follow it, never. The rhino decides, always. The bird travels along on its back, and enjoys the perks of its free ride.



https://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4295/blkrhinooxpecker.jpg

No, I think not. We have supported the US in two wars, we are their major military ally. They need to either support us to prevent a possible military action, or shop elsewhere for men to put in body bags; I would not be surprised if Britian currently fills more body bags as a retio in Afganistan than anyone else.

[Pannonian]

No, I think not. We have supported the US in two wars, we are their major military ally. They need to either support us to prevent a possible military action, or shop elsewhere for men to put in body bags; I would not be surprised if Britian currently fills more body bags as a retio in Afganistan than anyone else.

No fear. The ever valuable Israel will gladly take Britain's place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Both are, at least technically, allies of the USA.

For me, Britain has fought/bled with us, which counts for more in my book (but I'm a crusty conservative type).

For the US political left, the alliance with Britain is important, but not singularly.

For the US far left, the alliance with Britain is part of our imperialism AND Britain is standing in the way of a Truly United Europe.

Obama will, effectively, sit this one out. I don't know if he'll support the UK sub-rosa, as did Reagan.

Long term, most of the political left are convinced that Argentina is either a) in the right or b) willing to keep after the issue. Either way, they'd view the easiest long-term solution as Argentine control so that the issue goes away.

As I said earlier, our alliance with Britain is the single most important and trustworthy one we have. We should tend to it better.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Both are, at least technically, allies of the USA.

For me, Britain has fought/bled with us, which counts for more in my book (but I'm a crusty conservative type).

For the US political left, the alliance with Britain is important, but not singularly.

For the US far left, the alliance with Britain is part of our imperialism AND Britain is standing in the way of a Truly United Europe.

Obama will, effectively, sit this one out. I don't know if he'll support the UK sub-rosa, as did Reagan.

Long term, most of the political left are convinced that Argentina is either a) in the right or b) willing to keep after the issue. Either way, they'd view the easiest long-term solution as Argentine control so that the issue goes away. Objection, your honour!


This conservative is trying to portray this as a US left intervention.

Not so:


A SECRET transcript of a telephone conversation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan has revealed how the former president tried to persuade the prime minister to stop the Falklands war as British troops were advancing on Port Stanley.

The document shows Thatcher was determined to deliver a crushing victory to avenge British losses. Her response to the peace initiative left the president stammering on the transatlantic hotline. At one stage a clearly heated Thatcher demanded to know what Reagan would do if Alaska had been invaded and the United States had suffered casualties recapturing it.

“I wonder if anyone over there realises, I'd like to ask them. Just supposing Alaska was invaded ...” asked Thatcher. “Now you've put all your people up there to retake it and someone suggested that a contact could coe in ... you wouldn't do it.”

“No, no, although, Margaret, I have to say I don't quite think Alaska is a similar situation” said Reagan.

“More or less so,” snapped Thatcher. Reagan feared the pending rout of Argentine forces in the south Atlantic would destabilise the region, damaging Washington's battle against left-wing regimes in Latin America.

But Thatcher, with barely concealed impatience, scotched the plan with a verbal explosion. Reagan could barely get a word in as the prime ministe gushed out a torrent of dismissal. “I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives, to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing,” she said.

“Oh. Oh, Margaret, that is part of this, as I understand it ...” stammered Reagan, trying to outline a Brazilian peace plan. It called for a ceasefire, Argentine withdrawal and a third-party peace-keeping force in the disputed islands. “Ron, I'm not handing over ... I'm not handing over the island now,” insisted Thatcher.


http://www.margaretthatcher.org/commentary/displaydocument.asp?docid=110526

[KukriKhan]

“I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives, to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing,” she said.

You won't believe this, but... I read something along those lines back in those days. NOT in the New York Times.

A sizable portion of the America that I know, supports the UK in this matter; if we come out on the side of Kosovar independence on the principle of local determination and sovereignty, then consistency - and true blood alliance - demands unquestioned support. By God, we should be playing "God Save The Queen" every morning when the colours are raised at The White House!! And tell the Argie's (politely): "Stuff it."

Triangulated Political intrigues are so 1960's. Our New Boss promised an end to such playground epics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kukri speaks for me as well (though I'd have them run up our colors and anthem first).

[Fisherking]

What should be important to the people of the US is the right of self determination by people world wide.

Most remember the Falklands and supported the UK. To them Argentina is a place far away where the government changes every week.

It would be a hard sell to the American Public. The attitude of the Democrat Government can be seen by watching the American Media though, and if they start supporting the Argentine claim watch out.

I am sure the Obama Administration sees big points to be made by being a peace maker. Most politicians would sell out their mother if the gains suited them. But have they judged political opinion in Britain correctly?

To me it would seem that the US needs Britain much more than the other way around.

A scathing response based on peoples self determination and human rights might get Washington’s attention. That would also be a soft spot with the US Press.

South America in general and Argentina in particular are not known for caring much at all for human right.

But the British Government and the British Press have to be smart enough to capitalize on this.

Taking the moral high ground at home is one thing. It has to be taken to the American Public.

Then you will see a quick dance as the Democrats show that they too agree with human rights and self determination.

Otherwise, Britain is a US pawn...



Louis, I found your hero.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/Tommasar/Clintpoleon.jpg?t=1267654883

[Furunculus]

Argentina will win one of two things:
- shared concession and exploration rights
- a shift in global opinion and policy towards the Argentinian goal: an acknowledgement that there ought to be negotiations over the Falklands.


i agree with everything you said below the statement above, but take issue with the quoted statement itself.

it won't 'win' and oil concession, it was already offered one, 50% i believe.
who cares about global opinion. *rhetorical question*

of course global opinion matters, but when;
Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.
why are we negotiating something that we have no intention of relinquishing?

it was endless useless negotiation from the FCO that caused the original war as much as the removal of the navy ship.

[Pannonian]

Louis, I found your hero.


Wow, look at the size of Hillary's packet.

[The Wizard]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago. This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

[Furunculus]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago.

This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.
it has been mentioned

for a rought idea:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-Kingdom
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Argentina

[The Wizard]

I'd imagine it has more to do with their regional position than their position worldwide, as far as Argentina is concerned.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago. This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

[KukriKhan]

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry, over that.

[Pannonian]

I don't know whether to LOL or cry, over that.

It's true though. Have a look at Wizard's riposte to Lemur's question of what Israel gives to the US in return for the billions in aid, then have a look at his weighing of Britain and Argentina in a matter that doesn't cost the US a cent. The political reality is that Israel and other vocal lobbies get massive amounts of money and cannot be questioned, but Britain fits into whatever policy the US government currently favours, without complaint, and we spend billions for this privilege.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

1. Be careful there pan-man, choking on your own vitriolic sarcasm is a harsh way to go.

2. For the vast majority here, you are preaching to the choir. The BR crowd has a few ardent Israel supporters....but only a few. The rest are more nuanced in their support, with a significant minority actively opposing pretty much everything Israel is/does/stands for.

3. I, for one, value all three alliances, but would rank-order their importance (and my attitudes thereunto) differently than the current crop of politicos. I suspect both I and Kukri and a raft of others would agree that the Special Relationship has been taken for granted by comparison.

[Subotan]

I remember hearing it being put that the USA has lots of special relationships. It has one with Japan, one with South Korea, one with Turkey, one with Pakistan, one with Israel, one with Mexico etc. It just suits British politicians seeking to win prestige at home, and American politicians who want British boots on the ground to ramble on about the Anglo-American special relationship, as if Britain was the only ally the USA had.

[Pannonian]

Not so much a special relationship, as an odd relationship.

The Sphinx and the curious case of the Iron Lady's H-bomb (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article592059.ece)


“Excuse me,” Mitterrand begins, apologising for his late arrival. “I had a difference of opinion to settle with the Iron Lady. What an impossible woman, that Thatcher! “With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina — unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians. Margaret has given me very precise instructions on the telephone.”
...
“I ask you to keep that to yourself. I’ve been told that psychoanalysts don’t know how to keep mum in town! Is that true?” Magoudi did not reply. Instead he asked: “How do you react to such an intransigent woman?” Mitterrand replied: “What do you expect? You can’t win a struggle against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman. To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded to her. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”
...
“I will have the last word,” Mitterrand replied. “Her island, it’s me who will destroy it. Her island, I swear that soon it will no longer be one. I will take my revenge. I will tie England to Europe, despite its natural tendency for isolation. How? I will build a tunnel under the Channel. Yes. I will succeed where Napoleon III failed.”

Clearly delighted with his vision, Mitterrand had no doubt he would persuade Thatcher to accept the tunnel. “I will flatter her shopkeeper spirit. I will tell her that the welding to the Continent will not cost the crown one kopeck. She will not resist this resonant argument.”
...
Mitterrand’s presidency ended in 1995. He died the following year. Thatcher remembered him as “quieter, more urbane” than Jacques Chirac, his long-term rival and successor as president. Chirac “had a sure grasp of detail and a profound interest in economics” while Mitterrand “was a self- conscious intellectual, fascinated by foreign policy and bored by detail and possibly contemptuous of economics”.

“Oddly enough,” she wrote, “I liked them both.”

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Sphinx and the curious case of the Iron Lady's H-bomb (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article592059.ece)A curious tale indeed. I've heard it before, I've never quite known what to make of it, I am not sure what to make of Magoudi. Nor of this version of Mitterand's role in the Falklands war. But Mitterand remains a mystery, anything is possible.

I must say that there seems something...not quite fitting the character, or the polics. I think Masoudi does not understand politics as well as psychotherapy. Why should Mitterand be blackmailed by Thatcher's threat to nuke Argentina? He would either have calmed her down, or called her bluff. It was not a political possiblity for the UK to employ nukes. Thatcher knew this, Mitterand knew this, and they both knew the other knew this.

The story that Mitterand then took revenge on the UK with the chunnel. Meh. 'France outwits Britain yet again by shoving something down its throat which it neither needs nor wants' - that story goes down equally well on both sides of the channel. It is usually a gross distortion of the thruth.


I think there are four simpler motives for Mitterand:

1 Mitterand, despite being a socialist, was a realist. He was very much of the mind that when push comes to shove, you fight with the Anglos. As he did in the first Gulf War too.
2 Mitterand hated the fascist Junta more than he feared Argentina's left opposition. Washington felt the reverse. With the result that the socialist Mitterand supported the Conservative Thatcher, and Reagan supported the fascists against Thatcher.
3 France and Britain have a special relationship. Since 1903 France joins the UK in war while America every single time endlessly debates whether to support the UK, or to support its mortal enemies. :curtain:
4 Following up on reason three, the petty grovelling of the Briton as he realises he's made the same mistake as all the other times before, pleases us.
Reagan supporting the UK? Not so, says John Nott in his autobiography, the UK Secretary of State for Defense under Thatcher in 1982. Washington even forbade Britain to use the joint US/UK airbase in Ascension, which is British teritory no less.

Odd how, when you want to believe someone is your staunch friend, you keep screening out evidence to the contrary. So it is with our special relationship with America. They’re just not that into us.
Why do we find it so hard to see this? All this week I’ve been reading alarmed commentary about the United States “wavering” in its support on the Falklands. Wavering? Not a bit of it. America has never backed Britain’s territorial claim. But because we haven’t wanted to hear such things, the story told by the man who was the Defence Secretary during the Falklands war, Sir John Nott, has been almost entirely ignored. Here he is, though, in his own words, in his autobiography Here Today, Gone Tomorrow published eight years ago.

The Americans, he says, “were very, very far from being on our side”.

“The State Department, the White House security staff, led by Judge C1ark, and Reagan himself, were never wholly committed to our case, although they came out publicly in our support on April 30. Even thereafter the Americans gave every assistance to the Peruvians, the United Nations, and every other mediator — Brazilians, Mexicans and the rest — to bring about a negotiated settlement on terms which would have been seen as a surrender by ... press and public opinion in the United Kingdom . . . The Americans leant heavily on us, backed up by telephone calls from Reagan to Thatcher, to find some way of saving Galtieri’s face . . .”

“Only Mitterrand and the French remained staunch allies to the end.”

This may not suit your preferred view of international relations. It didn’t (as he admits) suit the profoundly eurosceptical Sir John’s. But if we screen out what has happened in the past, we may be screening out what could hit us next.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7048684.ece

You'll notice the Britons here bite their tongue over my provocations.

That is because they don't have a Navy deserving of that name anymore and will be dependent on Paris' mighty fleet for maintaining their Empire.

Washington is not going to help them. It didn't last time, nor will it want to upset Latin America this time

Britain will come running to us. So looking forward to their grovelling. From behind my large mahogany desk, I shall threat the Briton with due reserve and natural aloofness. I'll wear my dark suit I imported from Milan, its tone reflects well in my eyes, gives them a natural authority.

*dreams*

[The Wizard]

It's true though. Have a look at Wizard's riposte to Lemur's question of what Israel gives to the US in return for the billions in aid, then have a look at his weighing of Britain and Argentina in a matter that doesn't cost the US a cent. The political reality is that Israel and other vocal lobbies get massive amounts of money and cannot be questioned, but Britain fits into whatever policy the US government currently favours, without complaint, and we spend billions for this privilege.

That would be a valid point if Israel actually got the money because of a lobby. Which it didn't.

What you need to understand is that the U.S. is primarily self-interested when it comes to foreign policy. Obama has made regaining the initiative in Latin America a major policy goal, and he's decided the only way to do so is to abandon Dubya's policy of confrontation/firing the ignore cannon. And considering he's had to start with the initiative in Latin American hands, he'll have to accommodate them. Or at least, that's his vision (I lean towards agreeing). Face it: you're tiny, the U.S. is big. Not as tiny as, say, the Netherlands, but the comparison is akin to putting a terrier next to a parakeet, respectively.

P.S. I might also add that giving a country major non-NATO ally status does cost the U.S. money, considering it means the ally in question gets access to the U.S. defense market and the country's technology development, gets loans and U.S. financing for its acquisitions, and more goodies.

EDIT: Excellent link, “What do you expect? You can’t win a struggle against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman.” :laugh4:

[Fisherking]

I should resist but I just can’t...

So Louis, you have cited another episode of American Presidents being duplicitous and disingenuous, just like WW I...

:laugh4:

[Furunculus]

the thoughts of the kings of war:
http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/03/dear-abby-my-girlfriend-is-a-circus-fat-lady-and-shes-hankering-after-argentine-beef-whats-a-skinny-boy-to-do/

[Louis VI the Fat]

I should resist but I just can’t...

So Louis, you have cited another episode of American Presidents being duplicitous and disingenuous, just like WW I...

:laugh4:Not at all! I think that neither Wilson, Colonel House, Reagan, nor Obama/Hilary's shift are duplicitous and disingenuous.

What I do think is that the Special Relationship has been experienced in an altogether too sentimental, almost childish, manner since 2003. By these standards, Britain ought now to be renaming American food by now. By these standards Britain just took it up *there*.
I have, rather confusingly, been posting two different sorts of posts: one from the perspective above, with a wee bit of provocation thrown in for good effect. And, secondly, I've said that I thought Hillary was sensible, and that one must not make too much out of all of this. Regarding this latter: I don't see why the relationship should suffer when both parties could understand the position of the other?


Sentimentalism is fine, as long as one does not apply it to politics. The relationship suffers in this crisis from too much sentimentalism, not too little.*
The UK is not the 51st state either. Special Relationship implies a deeper, underlying relationship that goes beyond petty sentiments and incidents.
It implies both parties can understand that the other pursues private interests, that there are differences, trade disputes, that each one is entitled to some naughtiness too. It means that one understands all this, while at the same time the deeper understanding is maintained.

It does not mean both parties parrot and follow each other, always. If you want that, form a Union.

*As it did in 2003. Both parties were too much embolded by the support of the other, and lost track of the virtue of a sober assesment of the situation. Blair rushed to Bush's aid, which was his overriding sentiment. Bush was highly embolded by this, by Blair.

[Furunculus]

not far of what the kings of war said above ^.

[Louis VI the Fat]

not far of what the kings of war said above ^.You hacked the forum and sneaked that in to embarrass me. :furious3:

[Furunculus]

You hacked the forum and sneaked that in to embarrass me. :furious3:

i do try my best. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not at all! I think that neither Wilson, Colonel House, Reagan, nor Obama/Hilary's shift are duplicitous and disingenuous.

What I do think is that the Special Relationship has been experienced in an altogether too sentimental, almost childish, manner since 2003. By these standards, Britain ought now to be renaming American food by now. By these standards Britain just took it up *there*.
I have, rather confusingly, been posting two different sorts of posts: one from the perspective above, with a wee bit of provocation thrown in for good effect. And, secondly, I've said that I thought Hillary was sensible, and that one must not make too much out of all of this. Regarding this latter: I don't see why the relationship should suffer when both parties could understand the position of the other?


Sentimentalism is fine, as long as one does not apply it to politics. The relationship suffers in this crisis from too much sentimentalism, not too little.*
The UK is not the 51st state either. Special Relationship implies a deeper, underlying relationship that goes beyond petty sentiments and incidents.
It implies both parties can understand that the other pursues private interests, that there are differences, trade disputes, that each one is entitled to some naughtiness too. It means that one understands all this, while at the same time the deeper understanding is maintained.

It does not mean both parties parrot and follow each other, always. If you want that, form a Union.

*As it did in 2003. Both parties were too much embolded by the support of the other, and lost track of the virtue of a sober assesment of the situation. Blair rushed to Bush's aid, which was his overriding sentiment. Bush was highly embolded by this, by Blair.

All of this rather indicates NO special relationship; in which case we should begin withdrawing troops from Afganistan and getting them winter gear. If America isn't going to at least stay out of this squabble (note that I'm not asking for support) then we should vcertainly no be offering military support to America.

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

[tibilicus]

All of this rather indicates NO special relationship; in which case we should begin withdrawing troops from Afganistan and getting them winter gear. If America isn't going to at least stay out of this squabble (note that I'm not asking for support) then we should vcertainly no be offering military support to America.

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

I would say longer than 20 years, about the only time it was good was the Reagan Thatcher relationship. Remember the so-called "special relationship" of Super Mac and JFK? Our so called allies were funding and encouraging the tensions which would lead to the formation in the future of the IRA because JFK felt some personal attachment to his "homeland". You know, being so in touch with his Irish heritage and everything.

Point being I see the relationship as a result of Britain's declining status in the 1950's, the Yanks stated they would help us if we opened up the remaining colonies we had post war so they could get in on the cash without paying any upkeep. Then along came Suez which would become synonymous for meaning "you don't start a war unless we say you can". Although I'm pretty certain they kicked up a stink when we and the rest of Europe wouldn't let them use our airfields during the Yom-Kippur war to give israel aid (I think it was that war).

Basically I personally think that even if you can justify there being a need for a "special relationship" at some point in time, which I can't, I really feel there's no need for one now, especially when we could be co-operating more with our European neighbours.

[Furunculus]

two points to all those getting there knickers in a twist about iraq:

1) regardless of the lack of apparent suport from america, First, it remains part of the strategic bargain with larger na?ons who are friends and allies in particular, the US to ensure collective security in the widest sense, whether in a NATO context or some other arrangement. The bargain with larger nations and influence over them relate to an important additional factor: inherent (or existential) military deterrent capability. This is the need collectively to maintain suffcient levels of military capability in particular combat capability to deter any emerging or existing power in the future from developing or using the military instrument for bullying or blackmail.

2) regardless of the obligation, i am happy that it is in Britains wider strategic interests that countries like 90's afghanistan are not failed states and actively exporting virulent brands of ideological terrorism around the globe.

In short, we didn't do it just because we are America's bitch!

[Pannonian]

All of this rather indicates NO special relationship; in which case we should begin withdrawing troops from Afganistan and getting them winter gear. If America isn't going to at least stay out of this squabble (note that I'm not asking for support) then we should vcertainly no be offering military support to America.

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

We're in Afghanistan as a result of our formal and moral obligations to the US, so it should be among the last places where we should look for cutbacks, and certainly not permanently. Iraq, and other theatres of choice, should be considered before Afghanistan.

[Pannonian]

2) regardless of the obligation, i am happy that it is in Britains wider strategic interests that countries like 90's afghanistan are not failed states and actively exporting virulent brands of ideological terrorism around the globe.

In short, we didn't do it just because we are America's bitch!

If that's the strategic aim, we're ignoring the two big elephants in the room. In going after Afghanistan and Iraq, even Iran, we're going after insignificant sources of Islamist ideological terrorism, whilst ignoring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

[Tristuskhan]

In short, we didn't do it just because we are America's bitch!

That's a fact: UK was not paid in return...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're in Afghanistan as a result of our formal and moral obligations to the US, so it should be among the last places where we should look for cutbacks, and certainly not permanently. Iraq, and other theatres of choice, should be considered before Afghanistan.

We have no moral obligation to the US, as the Falklands situation demonstrates, as far as a formal obligation; I would consider that it has been apply discharged. It is a military reality that most of our combat and jogistics brigades are deployed in Afganistan; if the US is not willing to support our security in the South Atlantic diplomatically then we will be forced to withdraw troops to cover it militarily. The US is failing in its strategic obligation to us, which requires us to abrogate our own obligation.

[Pannonian]

We have no moral obligation to the US, as the Falklands situation demonstrates, as far as a formal obligation; I would consider that it has been apply discharged. It is a military reality that most of our combat and jogistics brigades are deployed in Afganistan; if the US is not willing to support our security in the South Atlantic diplomatically then we will be forced to withdraw troops to cover it militarily. The US is failing in its strategic obligation to us, which requires us to abrogate our own obligation.

The US has fulfilled, and still fulfills, its part in Europe (even though it never actually came to war), so I'd want Britain to fulfill our part to the best of our ability. Now practical needs may require pulling out of Afghanistan to fill more British-oriented needs elsewhere, but I wouldn't want us to permanently leave Afghanistan, or at least not until the US tells us we're no longer needed. Iraq, OTOH, is a campaign we shouldn't have been involved with in the first place.

[The Wizard]

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

You're the weaker partner. You can't really do anything except suck it up.

[Furunculus]

That's a fact: UK was not paid in return...
are you sure?

we are sitting on 19% of iraq's oils. how much has the rest of europe got?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#Energy

[Meneldil]

are you sure?

we are sitting on 19% of iraq's oils. how much has the rest of europe got?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#Energy

Thanks for finally admitting that the whole "WMD" and "we have to establish democracy" excuses were a bunch of lies :D

[Furunculus]

Thanks for finally admitting that the whole "WMD" and "we have to establish democracy" excuses were a bunch of lies :D
i will make no shock admission now.

----------------------------------------------------------
i always said WMD was an excuse.
----------------------------------------------------------
and i always said we went to iraq because:
1. we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span
2. we wanted to ensure our unhindered future economic growth, which requires our energy security and thus a 'stable' middle east*
----------------------------------------------------------
to provide the engineering half of the energy security dilemma requires western investment in iraqi oil-fields, we deserve it since we paid the price in blood and treasure.



* yes, that does mean some form of representative government, because the continuance of authoritarian despotism only turns up the heat on the middle east pressure cooker, which is bad for ensuring unhindered western growth. it is not the oil per-se, it is the guarantee of future access to it at a stable market price that the west needs. we are susceptible to oil shocks, invading iraq is a way around that.

[Shaka_Khan]

A democracy never invaded another democracy. Look at how the old Axis Powers are some of the most peaceful countries now. There are anti-war people in every country and these people get heard in a democracy. They especially feel uneasy about invading another democracy.

[Furunculus]

britain apparently wasn't too happy with the spineless level of support given by washington:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7055925.ece

[HoreTore]

1. we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span

You already had that with Saddam Hussein.

Because of the invasion, you now face the prospect of militant islamist control of Iraq....

[Furunculus]

You already had that with Saddam Hussein.

Because of the invasion, you now face the prospect of militant islamist control of Iraq....

you missed the point of the comment:

"we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span"

the point was not to invade a theocracy, as that would just be another example of 'western imperialism', it was to say; balls in your court guys, we're in the middle east, in an arab muslim country, you have every advantage you could want, now prove to the world that your ideology has got staying power by preventing us turning this country into a western liberal paradise. if you fail............. well, be aware that everyone in the world will be watching your failure on 24 hour news.

[HoreTore]

you missed the point of the comment:

"we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span"

.....And that was what Saddam was doing, until you tied a rope around his neck.

[Furunculus]

.....And that was what Saddam was doing, until you tied a rope around his neck.

he was maintaining a secular arab state, true, but his antagonism with regional neighbours was preventing western energy security, a threat to allies, and non-compliant with disarmament resolutions.

this thread too is going OT.......

[al Roumi]

i will make no shock admission now.

----------------------------------------------------------
i always said WMD was an excuse.
----------------------------------------------------------
and i always said we went to iraq because:
1. we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span
2. we wanted to ensure our unhindered future economic growth, which requires our energy security and thus a 'stable' middle east*
----------------------------------------------------------
to provide the engineering half of the energy security dilemma requires western investment in iraqi oil-fields, we deserve it since we paid the price in blood and treasure.

* yes, that does mean some form of representative government, because the continuance of authoritarian despotism only turns up the heat on the middle east pressure cooker, which is bad for ensuring unhindered western growth. it is not the oil per-se, it is the guarantee of future access to it at a stable market price that the west needs. we are susceptible to oil shocks, invading iraq is a way around that.

Meh, these motivations, like those presented to the Iraq war enquiry -and however self-interested and machiavelian, are retrospectively imposed.

The UK went because it was either in or out of the US' plans. The decision over being "in" with the US or "out" was taken at the highest level of British politics and there certainly was no supportive consensus within the rest of UK government for it beyond "toeing the party line" and this "special relationship" stuff. The "reasons" for going to war that were presented in the UK were no more than attempts at justification. Each one was shot down in flames by the UK civil society and media, having no small part in causing Blair's complete break-down in relations with the media.

[HoreTore]

he was maintaining a secular arab state, true, but his antagonism with regional neighbours was preventing western energy security, a threat to allies, and non-compliant with disarmament resolutions.

this thread too is going OT.......

His antagonism, with the exception of Kuwait, was with militant islamists....

[Furunculus]

His antagonism, with the exception of Kuwait, was with militant islamists....
funny, i thought iran and israel might figure on there too.

[HoreTore]

funny, i thought iran and israel might figure on there too.

Iran isn't a militant islamist anymore...? What just happened?

[Furunculus]

Iran isn't a militant islamist anymore...? What just happened?

irrelevent, they are another actor that affects energy price stability. you are conflating differing motives for no useful gain.

[HoreTore]

irrelevent, they are another actor that affects energy price stability. you are conflating differing motives for no useful gain.

You're changing your argument too fast for me to follow...

I said that with the exception of Kuwait, Saddam went after militant islamists, and Iran is certainly one of those. And now you bring in the oil price effect an unstable Iran would have? I call foul on that one, NATO is actively seeking to undermine the Iranian government, just like Saddam would have, and for the exact same reasons as well!

[Furunculus]

You're changing your argument too fast for me to follow...

I said that with the exception of Kuwait, Saddam went after militant islamists, and Iran is certainly one of those. And now you bring in the oil price effect an unstable Iran would have? I call foul on that one, NATO is actively seeking to undermine the Iranian government, just like Saddam would have, and for the exact same reasons as well!

no i'm not, i said:



i always said we went to iraq because:
1. we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span
2. we wanted to ensure our unhindered future economic growth, which requires our energy security and thus a 'stable' middle east*

* yes, that does mean some form of representative government, because the continuance of authoritarian despotism only turns up the heat on the middle east pressure cooker, which is bad for ensuring unhindered western growth. it is not the oil per-se, it is the guarantee of future access to it at a stable market price that the west needs. we are susceptible to oil shocks, invading iraq is a way around that.
whether saddam went after islamic militants is irrelevant to future unhindered and uninterrupted growth via energy security, and certainly doesn't inhibit our goal of using iraq as a battleground to fight militant islamism.

[al Roumi]

our goal of using iraq as a battleground to fight militant islamism.

eh?

What, so the "strategy" was to demolish a secular state (yes, a very nasty and authoritarian one), create a power vacuum that brought sectarian tensions to the surface and allow civil war and islamist violent extremism to break out while trying to set up "democracy"? All so that the west could demonstrate to the Arab and Muslim world how great, peaceful and prosperous democracy is?

Pass me whatever you are smoking mate, even if it's banana skins.

[HoreTore]

Pass me whatever you are smoking mate, even if it's banana skins.

It's the banana skin that gets you high?!??! Why didn't you tell me that 8 years ago?!

[Furunculus]

eh?

What, so the "strategy" was to demolish a secular state (yes, a very nasty and authoritarian one), create a power vacuum that brought sectarian tensions to the surface and allow civil war and islamist violent extremism to break out while trying to set up "democracy"? All so that the west could demonstrate to the Arab and Muslim world how great, peaceful and prosperous democracy is?

Pass me whatever you are smoking mate, even if it's banana skins.

lol,

it has never been stated, and even if true it never will be stated that iraq was used as a place to fight militant islam other than in your own front yard.

by the time 911 happened militant islam had been invisibly churning out bearded crazies from al-quada training camps for around a decade.
no-one knew who these people were, or where they went.

after 911 the US, and to a degree the little satan too, knew they would have to mop up these crazies, and no doubt they preferred not to do so without their sky-scrapers collapsing every other day, so the aim of the game is to fight them elsewhere.

to do that you need a venue attractive enough to tempt the bearded crazies there, rather than downtown new-york or central london.

pick an arab country, it'll be close.
pick a muslim country, it'll really annoy them.
pick a secular country, it'll seem like a challange.

pick a country that is technically an enemy, it'll keep allies on-side.
pick a country that is in violation of UNSC resolutions, it'll be easier to justify.
pick a country that meets wider strategic goals, like securing future energy security.

pick a country that is secular, arab, and muslim, because when you win it will discredit the ideology.

what's not to like, your going to fight them anyway, might as well secure a strategic ambition at the same time as preserve your own sky-scrapers?

why do you think we went to iraq?

[HoreTore]

lol,

it has never been stated, and even if true it never will be stated that iraq was used as a place to fight militant islam other than in your own front yard.

by the time 911 happened militant islam had been invisibly churning out bearded crazies from al-quada training camps for around a decade.
no-one knew who these people were, or where they went.

after 911 the US, and to a degree the little satan too, knew they would have to mop up these crazies, and no doubt they preferred not to do so without their sky-scrapers collapsing every other day, so the aim of the game is to fight them elsewhere.

to do that you need a venue attractive enough to tempt the bearded crazies there, rather than downtown new-york or central london.

pick an arab country, it'll be close.
pick a muslim country, it'll really annoy them.
pick a secular country, it'll seem like a challange.

pick a country that is technically an enemy, it'll keep allies on-side.
pick a country that is in violation of UNSC resolutions, it'll be easier to justify.
pick a country that meets wider strategic goals, like securing future energy security.

pick a country that is secular, arab, and muslim, because when you win it will discredit the ideology.

what's not to like, your going to fight them anyway, might as well secure a strategic ambition at the same time as preserve your own sky-scrapers?

why do you think we went to iraq?

....And you honestly believe that people who couldn't even find Afghanistan on a map devised this plan...?*

Not to mention that it completely ignores the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and there were talks about it from the day he took office.

Militant islam simply gave him an excuse, one that you seem to have swallowed whole...

*that was according to Condi Rice, in a pro-bush bragging documentary released around 04-05 about the invasion of afghanistan

[Furunculus]

....And you honestly believe that people who couldn't even find Afghanistan on a map devised this plan...?*

Not to mention that it completely ignores the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and there were talks about it from the day he took office.

Militant islam simply gave him an excuse, one that you seem to have swallowed whole...


gee, the state department and the pentagon have been running the worlds most sophisticated strategic apparatus for the last 65 years, this shouldn't be beyond them.

so what, at which point does a pre-existing desire to invade iraq negate the utility of using the war as a method of hosting a terrorist war away from your own homeland. yes, america wants to ensure future energy security to ensure future continued growth, this ain't news to anyone.

militant islam was an extant problem, iraq was a potential solution, and iraq was never seriously justified on the grounds of the GWoT, it was justified by WMD's which is what i said before.

[Pannonian]

gee, the state department and the pentagon have been running the worlds most sophisticated strategic apparatus for the last 65 years, this shouldn't be beyond them.

so what, at which point does a pre-existing desire to invade iraq negate the utility of using the war as a method of hosting a terrorist war away from your own homeland. yes, america wants to ensure future energy security to ensure future continued growth, this ain't news to anyone.
.

Thank goodness those terrorists blew up those trains and buses In Iraq, otherwise they might have been tempted to do so in London. Every time I go through the Liverpool St-Bethnal Green area I'm reminded that I could have been on those trains.

[Furunculus]

Thank goodness those terrorists blew up those trains and buses In Iraq, otherwise they might have been tempted to do so in London. Every time I go through the Liverpool St-Bethnal Green area I'm reminded that I could have been on those trains.

thanks for the irrelevant comment. :)

[Pannonian]

thanks for the irrelevant comment. :)

Just showing the falsehood of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. The London bombers (both sets) cited Iraq as their reason for what they did. If we didn't fight them over there, we wouldn't have had to fight them over here.

so what, at which point does a pre-existing desire to invade iraq negate the utility of using the war as a method of hosting a terrorist war away from your own homeland.
This reasoning doesn't get any less bollocksish the more one repeats it.

[Furunculus]

Just showing the falsehood of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. The London bombers (both sets) cited Iraq as their reason for what they did. If we didn't fight them over there, we wouldn't have had to fight them over here.

so what, at which point does a pre-existing desire to invade iraq negate the utility of using the war as a method of hosting a terrorist war away from your own homeland.
This reasoning doesn't get any less bollocksish the more one repeats it.
it doesn't do anything of the sort.

your example demonstrates that those terrorists got so riled up about iraq that they decided to blow stuff up.

I also never claimed that the 'strategy' i postulated was;
a) sensible
b) successful
because we will never know the cost-benefit of foriegn fighters killed in iraq vs domestic muslims radicalised to the point of terrorism.

it is merely a postulate that i deem worthy of serious consideration, and that in my opinion probably was a serious motive for the iraq war............. alongside other long standing motives such as securing long term energy security, and improving the strategic balance for the west in the ME.

and you still haven't answered my question; why do you think we invaded iraq?

[al Roumi]

why do you think we went to iraq?

Because the Bush (II) administration had a hard-on for kicking Saddam and securing energy stability. The UK would clearly benefit from that too and felt obliged to honour the special relationship.

Tony Blair being a sort of nice-ish chap (to begin with), probably had some inkling that you couldn't just proclaim a war to enforce independance a-la-gringo, you need some sort of cassus belli such perhaps a need to head-off a threat to others: allies, friends or "innocents". A strong case for a "hummanitarian war", a-la Sierra Leone being denied by the crippled Iraqi military capability, existence of harsh sanctions which least affected Saddam and his clique, lack of WMDs (do you even remember Blix?) and ultimately the lack of UN resolution.

This meant nothing was left to cover or legitimise the invasion and Blair was stuck with his initial commitment to "stand by America". The best justification left was that it was a war of liberation, to free the Iraqi's of the shackles of Sadam and the Baath party, but they compromised this by cycling through the alternatives (WMD, Axis of evil etc) before, never mind the appaling mess they mad eof the country and thousands of people's lives.

I agree with pannonian, the idea that Iraq was chosen for a war with Islamic extremism is flawed, both by the pre-existing conditions and what was actually done.

[Furunculus]

Because the Bush (II) administration had a hard-on for kicking Saddam and securing energy stability. The UK would clearly benefit from that too and felt obliged to honour the special relationship.

Tony Blair being a sort of nice-ish chap (to begin with), probably had some inkling that you couldn't just proclaim a war to enforce independance a-la-gringo, you need some sort of cassus belli such perhaps a need to head-off a threat to others: allies, friends or "innocents". A strong case for a "hummanitarian war", a-la Sierra Leone being denied by the crippled Iraqi military capability, existence of harsh sanctions which least affected Saddam and his clique, lack of WMDs (do you even remember Blix?) and ultimately the lack of UN resolution.

This meant nothing was left to cover or legitimise the invasion and Blair was stuck with his initial commitment to "stand by America". The best justification left was that it was a war of liberation, to free the Iraqi's of the shackles of Sadam and the Baath party, but they compromised this by cycling through the alternatives (WMD, Axis of evil etc) before, never mind the appaling mess they mad eof the country and thousands of people's lives.
i agree with you.

I agree with pannonian, the idea that Iraq was chosen for a war with Islamic extremism is flawed, both by the pre-existing conditions and what was actually done.
that is because you are putting too much prominence on that idea, to the exclusion of all others.

it wasn't a grand conspiracy theory, it was a happy confluence of events.

we wanted long-term energy security, so invading iraq was the logical choice, the fact that the GWoT was happening lent a warlike air to proceedings that made war less unpalatable to the public than at other times.

at the same time, we were already fighting an ideological war with militant islamism having realised that we had dropped the ball by allowing an invisible decade of al-quada training happen in afghanistan, we didn't know who or where these people were and we needed to find them before they announced themselves in an explodey sky-scrapery way.

given the above do you think for a second that the advantage of invading a secular arab state, was not considered by strategists in the US & UK, in order that these invisible lunatics might be drawn to iraq rather than too new-york, as an easier and more 'honourable' outlet for their anger?

given that this was a war against an ideology, and the intention was to go into iraq and win, do you think for a second that the advantage of publicly humiliating militant islam by turning iraq into a western liberal state, live on C-span, was not considered by strategists in the US & UK?

It was a happy confluence of events that provided self-reinforcing justifications, because if it wasn't for the bellicose atmosphere of the GWoT the US would probably never have attempted to invade iraq regardless.

now listen to the next bit really carefully; none of what i say above is evidence that the act of attacking iraq was either sensible or successful, we made a great many mistakes that cost both us and the iraqi's dearly, but anyone who doesn't believe that the above were objectives in the iraq war (along with all the other ones) is grossly naive!

[Beskar]

Saddam was the originally ruler of the Falklands before the Americans and British invaded to challenge Islamic terrorism and remove weapons of mass destruction? Looks like I am completely out of touch with world geopolitics.

[Furunculus]

Saddam was the originally ruler of the Falklands before the Americans and British invaded to challenge Islamic terrorism and remove weapons of mass destruction? Looks like I am completely out of touch with world geopolitics.

thank you beskar, as i pointed out earlier, this worthy subject is veering rapidly OT.

[KukriKhan]

Maybe Blighty and 'Tina will settle this ON THE PITCH (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257150/Argentinas-football-fans-plan-fight-English-supporters-World-Cup.html).

[Myrddraal]

Or in the surrounding area... :no:

[Furunculus]

Or in the surrounding area... :no:

it won't happen, they have nothing worthwhile to fight with.

[HoreTore]

it won't happen, they have nothing worthwhile to fight with.

Since when was "something of worth" a requirement for english hooligans to behave like monkeys?

[Furunculus]

Since when was "something of worth" a requirement for english hooligans to behave like monkeys?

lol, sorry, i read Myrddrall's comment as meaning the falklands rather than the ale-houses surrounding the fottball pitch. :)

[Pannonian]

it doesn't do anything of the sort.

your example demonstrates that those terrorists got so riled up about iraq that they decided to blow stuff up.

I also never claimed that the 'strategy' i postulated was;
a) sensible
b) successful
because we will never know the cost-benefit of foriegn fighters killed in iraq vs domestic muslims radicalised to the point of terrorism.

it is merely a postulate that i deem worthy of serious consideration, and that in my opinion probably was a serious motive for the iraq war............. alongside other long standing motives such as securing long term energy security, and improving the strategic balance for the west in the ME.

and you still haven't answered my question; why do you think we invaded iraq?

You never seriously asked me that question, at least not in a form that's easily distinguishable from being a rhetorical question.

I think we invaded Iraq because Blair decided we must stick close to the US in order to have some say in what Bush would do or decide. There were various other supporting reasons, but the need to stick close to the US in return for influence was the main one. IMHO it's an utter failure, and should never have been followed in the first place.

And no, I still don't think your argument of fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here has any merit to it. The Islamists over here were never militant before we went into Iraq.

[Furunculus]

well we are disagreed, and i think you very naive.

[al Roumi]

it wasn't a grand conspiracy theory, it was a happy confluence of events.

we wanted long-term energy security, so invading iraq was the logical choice, the fact that the GWoT was happening lent a warlike air to proceedings that made war less unpalatable to the public than at other times.

at the same time, we were already fighting an ideological war with militant islamism having realised that we had dropped the ball by allowing an invisible decade of al-quada training happen in afghanistan, we didn't know who or where these people were and we needed to find them before they announced themselves in an explodey sky-scrapery way.

given the above do you think for a second that the advantage of invading a secular arab state, was not considered by strategists in the US & UK, in order that these invisible lunatics might be drawn to iraq rather than too new-york, as an easier and more 'honourable' outlet for their anger?

given that this was a war against an ideology, and the intention was to go into iraq and win, do you think for a second that the advantage of publicly humiliating militant islam by turning iraq into a western liberal state, live on C-span, was not considered by strategists in the US & UK?

It was a happy confluence of events that provided self-reinforcing justifications, because if it wasn't for the bellicose atmosphere of the GWoT the US would probably never have attempted to invade iraq regardless.

now listen to the next bit really carefully; none of what i say above is evidence that the act of attacking iraq was either sensible or successful, we made a great many mistakes that cost both us and the iraqi's dearly, but anyone who doesn't believe that the above were objectives in the iraq war (along with all the other ones) is grossly naive!

Has "militant Islam" been publicly humiliated in Iraq? I'm not so sure.... do you read Al-Jazeera? It's not like Iraq is peaceful yet....

I can see that Iraq being a fully functioning & free democracy being a great coup for the promotion by example of western liberal values in the Middle East, but frankly it appears "democratic" Iraq is heading much more closely towards a police state. I know this is judging an intention by outcomes but still, it's not like the UK was really commited to helping Iraq was it, it pulled out asap!

I don't know, your theory would just imply too callous a mind to actually think: "lets have the fight among the muslims and that way protect our own people". It's also a terrible idea for its consequences of feeding the fires of grievance against the West -how better to look like bloody crusaders than invading a Muslim country? One of Al-Qaida's main aims is the removal of Christian soldiers from Muslim/Arabian soil -Saudi primarily, but also Iraq and anywhere else.

[al Roumi]

And no, I still don't think your argument of fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here has any merit to it. The Islamists over here were never militant before we went into Iraq.

Hmm, they had little-to-no interest in targetting the UK itself, that much may be true. Hard to say the UK population didn't contain people who were prepared to fight for Al-Qaida's ideology though...

[Pannonian]

Hmm, they had little-to-no interest in targetting the UK itself, that much may be true. Hard to say the UK population didn't contain people who were prepared to fight for Al-Qaida's ideology though...

We could have just expelled them and forbidden them and their sort from setting foot in the UK. There was a militant preacher who was expelled to Lebanon IIRC.

[Furunculus]

Has "militant Islam" been publicly humiliated in Iraq? I'm not so sure.... do you read Al-Jazeera? It's not like Iraq is peaceful yet....

I can see that Iraq being a fully functioning & free democracy being a great coup for the promotion by example of western liberal values in the Middle East, but frankly it appears "democratic" Iraq is heading much more closely towards a police state. I know this is judging an intention by outcomes but still, it's not like the UK was really commited to helping Iraq was it, it pulled out asap!

I don't know, your theory would just imply too callous a mind to actually think: "lets have the fight among the muslims and that way protect our own people". It's also a terrible idea for its consequences of feeding the fires of grievance against the West -how better to look like bloody crusaders than invading a Muslim country? One of Al-Qaida's main aims is the removal of Christian soldiers from Muslim/Arabian soil -Saudi primarily, but also Iraq and anywhere else.

why aren't you getting this:
"now listen to the next bit really carefully; none of what i say above is evidence that the act of attacking iraq was either sensible or successful, we made a great many mistakes that cost both us and the iraqi's dearly, but anyone who doesn't believe that the above were objectives in the iraq war (along with all the other ones) is grossly naive!"
????

iraq on one its way to becoming the second real representative democracy in the middle east, which not only being good for itself also removes regional tension between it and kuwait, israel and iran. the changes in iraq will create a push for representative reform in other arab countries which will relieve their internal social repression. in the long run, this will be good for western energy security, and because of our dependence on oil, it will by extension be good for our unhindered future economic growth.

"One of Al-Qaida's main aims is the removal of Christian soldiers from Muslim/Arabian soil -Saudi primarily, but also Iraq and anywhere else." and there, boys and girls, we have the crux of the argument for using a secular arab country as a place to host a type of war that you really don't want to host at home! but remember, this is not a sole justificiation, it is a happy confluence of events given that we wanted to invade iraq anyway.

[Boohugh]

I know this is judging an intention by outcomes but still, it's not like the UK was really commited to helping Iraq was it, it pulled out asap!

You may see this as nitpicking, but you speak as if the UK has entirely pulled out of Iraq which is just not true. Yes, the Army doesn't have much of a presence anymore, but the Royal Navy does. We have a couple of minehunters and a couple of frigates, along with a significant training team still in Iraq. It is our job to protect the 2 oil platforms off the Iraqi coast, through which almost all Iraqi oil flows, which is also the source of over 90% of Iraqi income currently, so rather important. It is our job to train the Iraqi Navy to protect those platforms themselves and create a modern, professional naval force. So no, we haven't pulled out asap, we still have a significant presence there and are committed to securing Iraq's future revenue (it's oil). Of course we have a selfish interest in doing that, but it's being done nevertheless and we haven't abandoned Iraq.

I don't hold you responsible for not knowing this of course. As the press has moved on to Afghanistan, you don't hear anything about Iraq in the mainstream anymore, which is why the troops in Afghanistan were showered in christmas packages and gifts sent from the UK by charities, etc whilst the troops in Iraq didn't receive a single one. Out of the press focus means out of mind, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening.

[Beskar]

Has "militant hispanola" been publicly humiliated in the Falklands? I'm not so sure.... do you read Al-Mexicano? It's not like the Falklands is peaceful yet....

I can see that the Falkslands being a fully functioning & free democracy being a great coup for the promotion by example of western liberal values in the South America, but frankly it appears "democratic" Falklands is heading much more closely towards a police state. I know this is judging an intention by outcomes but still, it's not like the USA was really commited to helping the Falklands was it, it pulled out asap!

I don't know, your theory would just imply too callous a mind to actually think: "lets have the fight among the latinos and that way, protect our own people". It's also a terrible idea for its consequences of feeding the fires of grievance against the West -how better to look like bloody crusaders than invading a South American country? One of Al-gentina's main aims is the removal of caucasian soldiers from Latino/South American soil -Brazil primarily, but also Falklands and anywhere else.

So many things I learnt about South America in this post that I never learnt before.

[gaelic cowboy]

why aren't you getting this:
"now listen to the next bit really carefully; none of what i say above is evidence that the act of attacking iraq was either sensible or successful, we made a great many mistakes that cost both us and the iraqi's dearly, but anyone who doesn't believe that the above were objectives in the iraq war (along with all the other ones) is grossly naive!"
????

iraq on one its way to becoming the second real representative democracy in the middle east, which not only bing good for itself also removes regional tension between it and kuwait, israel and iran. the changes in iraq will create a push for representative reform in other arab countries which will relieve their internal social repression. in the long run, this will be good for western energy security, and because of our dependence on oil, it will by extension be good for unhindered future economic growth.

"One of Al-Qaida's main aims is the removal of Christian soldiers from Muslim/Arabian soil -Saudi primarily, but also Iraq and anywhere else." and there, boys and girls, we have the crux of the argument for using a secular arab country as a place to host a type of war that you really don't want to host at home! but remember, this is not a sole justificiation, it is a happy confluence of events given that we wanted to invade iraq anyway.

Your claims mean nothing as do your war aims the victor can write history but the defeated can create there myths which propel them to ignore your history Iraqi's what do Iraqi's believe not what YOU believe.

The reason is simple the Iraqi people will create there own national narrative using there own myths and beliefs the western attempt at social engineering is doomed if the westerners don't leave. The US/UK can debate the whys and hows the pro's and the con's and at the end of it the Iraqi's will reject everything you give because that is the nature of people.

[Furunculus]

Your claims mean nothing as do your war aims the victor can write history but the defeated can create there myths which propel them to ignore your history Iraqi's what do Iraqi's believe not what YOU believe.

The reason is simple the Iraqi people will create there own national narrative using there own myths and beliefs the western attempt at social engineering is doomed if the westerners don't leave. The US/UK can debate the whys and hows the pro's and the con's and at the end of it the Iraqi's will reject everything you give because that is the nature of people.

jolly good, but none of this has any relevance to my premise on the motives for war.

can we return this to the falklands now?

[gaelic cowboy]

Isnt it already kind of cooling off every paper I read seems to be saying the UK is gonna have to swallow there tongue in order to ensure Britain's future in a rising region like Brazil etc etc