Re: Falklands
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.
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
Re: Falklands
Irrelevant.Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.
Last edited by tibilicus; 02-26-2010 at 02:12.
"A lamb goes to the slaughter but a man, he knows when to walk away."
Re: Falklands
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.
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/ja...-policy-drift/
Last edited by Furunculus; 02-26-2010 at 09:14.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: Falklands
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.
Last edited by The Wizard; 02-26-2010 at 14:12.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul
Re: Falklands
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).
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
Re: Falklands
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...
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: Falklands
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.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Falklands
Argentina threatens BHP with sanctions if they continue with falklands drilling:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...lands-oil.html
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: Falklands
Are they not aware that any sanctions will probably hurt them more than us?
I say keep on drillin'.
"A lamb goes to the slaughter but a man, he knows when to walk away."
Re: Falklands
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.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Falklands
Falklanders are narked that British official history is too pro-argentinian:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...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.
Last edited by Furunculus; 02-28-2010 at 12:44.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: Falklands
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Falklands
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/showt...-not-an-Island
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: Falklands
If there's going to be a war, I'll place $ 1000 bet on British Victory!
My Projects : * Near East Total War * Nusantara Total War * Assyria Total War *
* Watch the mind-blowing game : My Little Ponies : The Mafia Game!!! *
Also known as SPIKE in TWC
Re: Falklands
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
Status Emeritus
Re: Falklands
Don't you also have some claim to England?
Re: Falklands
LOL
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Falklands
You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?
Status Emeritus
Re: Falklands
Hard bastard
Re: Falklands
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Falklands
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.
Re: Falklands
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.
Last edited by bobbin; 03-02-2010 at 14:53.
Re: Falklands
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Falklands
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.
Re: Falklands
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"
"Wishazu does his usual hero thing and slices all the zombies to death, wiping out yet another horde." - Askthepizzaguy, Resident Evil: Dark Falls
"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical"
Sun Tzu the Art of War
Blue eyes for our samurai
Red blood for his sword
Your ronin days are over
For your home is now the Org
By Gregoshi
Re: Falklands
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.
Erm, do you have any idea why the UK opposed Germany? Why the Entente cordiale came about?=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.
Re: Falklands
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Falklands
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.
Re: Falklands
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: Falklands
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!
Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 03-03-2010 at 22:01. Reason: South Atlantic, sheesh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks