Perhaps the discussion in chat should have its own thread.
From: party_pants
ID: 279147Subject: re: Chat – March
Bubblecar said:
>The nearest country isn’t actually very near, they are still hundreds of km away. They have no greater moral claim to it.
It’s a territorial claim that is supported by many other countries, including those of the rest of Latin America, all African countries, China etc. Argentina is the nearest nation and considers the Malvinas to be part of the province of Tierra del Fuego.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
But they are wrong. The islands are part of the mid-ocean ridge system and not connected with the mainland. They are isolated and uninhabited when first discovered. Ownership of them was up to whoever wanted to take the time and effort to colonise them and provide the ongoing backup and support. In this case it was Britain.
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 279148Subject: re: Chat – March
Bubblecar said:
>But the great majority of the Argentinian people are “colonists” on that basis.
No. Please refer again to how I am defining “colonists” here – people who are NOW still dependent on the mother country for basic necessities of life including health & defence etc. This does not apply to the ex-colonial nations like Argentina and Australia. It’s not a matter of the people’s “ancestry” it’s a matter of their current status as citizens.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
But that’s a ridiculous way to define “colonists”. Who will benefit by forcing these people to become part of a country they do not wish to be part of?
Michael V said:
Perhaps the discussion in chat should have its own thread.
99.8% of us vote No.
From: Skunkworks
ID: 279150Subject: re: Chat – March
I think just about every bit of dirt on the planet has been contested at some stage. My opinion is that at the moment the Falkland Islanders have the strongest claim to decide if they want to remain British or not.
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 279151Subject: re: Chat – March
Bubblecar said:
>As I mentioned earlier Mr Car’s arguments are coloured by his current anti-British mood so don’t expect his arguments to make much sense.<
Your contributions to this debate have consisted almost entirely of emotive ad hominem Witty, so maybe you could find something less stressful to do.
———————————————————————————————————-
I’m just trying to help other forumites understand why you support the Argentinians. If you’re prepared to admit that your feelings on this matter are coloured by anti-British sentiment I won’t have to.
party_pants said:
.
Michael V said:
Perhaps the discussion in chat should have its own thread.
99.8% of us vote No.
:(
.
From: Bubblecar
ID: 279157Subject: re: Chat – March
Again Rev, you’re talking about ex-colonies, I’m simply pointing out that Britain’s Falklands settlement REMAINS a colony to this day, dependent on continual resupply from Britain of basic materials, trained personnel, defence forces etc.
It’s also in the middle of an oil-rich region thought to be potentially worth trillions. Is there any defensible reason why that wealth should go to a tiny handful of misplaced Britons, rather than the millions of disadvantaged regional peoples who could benefit?
Bubblecar can’t be that anti-British…he certainly reads the Daily Mirror more avidly than anyone i know
Britian is basically a secular country while Argentina is basically a Catholic enclave run by the Knights Templar and their Vatican vassals who want the oil and sheep wealth of the good people of the Faulklands Bubblecar wont be happy until he sees the Popes seal on all disputed territory.
Neophyte said:
Bubblecar can’t be that anti-British…he certainly reads the Daily Mirror more avidly than anyone i know
I hate the Daily Mail :)
From: Neophyte
ID: 279156Subject: re: Chat – March
>>But that’s a ridiculous way to define “colonists”. Who will benefit by forcing these people to become part of a country they do not wish to be part of?
And wouldn’t it mean they were just swapping dependency on one country for dependency on another?
I wond how long before we get our first Faulklands Pope?
From: Bubblecar
ID: 279166Subject: re: Chat – March
>Who will benefit by forcing these people to become part of a country they do not wish to be part of?
They DO want to be part of Britain – in fact they utterly insist on it – but they just don’t want to live there (because it would mean giving up their current very privileged position). I’m humbly suggesting that the fairest and most honest way for them to remain British citizens is to go back to Britain.
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 279170Subject: re: Chat – March
Twoy said:
I’m not full bottle on the Falklands, but if Argentina always considered the islands to be their territory and they were colonised illegally, then the opinion of the colonists would be irrelevant. Now, unlike the ‘Car I’m not saying they did settle illegally, just that I can see where Argentina would be coming from.
———————————————————
I don’t see what the opinions of one group of colonists on the rights of another group of colonists has to do with it. Colonisation has not been settled by law anywhere. The people now occuping this well defined bit of land are the only ones who should have any say in the matter.
Michael V said:
From: Neophyte
ID: 279156Subject: re: Chat – March
>>But that’s a ridiculous way to define “colonists”. Who will benefit by forcing these people to become part of a country they do not wish to be part of?And wouldn’t it mean they were just swapping dependency on one country for dependency on another?
I think Argentina wants them to actually pull their weight, not suckle at the tit. This might be where the problem lies.
Michael V said:
From: Bubblecar
ID: 279157Subject: re: Chat – March
Again Rev, you’re talking about ex-colonies, I’m simply pointing out that Britain’s Falklands settlement REMAINS a colony to this day, dependent on continual resupply from Britain of basic materials, trained personnel, defence forces etc.It’s also in the middle of an oil-rich region thought to be potentially worth trillions. Is there any defensible reason why that wealth should go to a tiny handful of misplaced Britons, rather than the millions of disadvantaged regional peoples who could benefit?
For the first part, they would be dependent upon the mainland in exactly the same way if under Argentine control.
For the second part, this is perhaps their best opportunity to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on the mother country. It can’t be used as an argument agaonst. I think that is walking both sides of the street.
Anyway I’ve clearly explained my views, yesterday and today, and am happy to leave it at that.
From: Bubblecar
ID: 279174Subject: re: Chat – March
>If you’re prepared to admit that your feelings on this matter are coloured by anti-British sentiment I won’t have to.
Yes but that’s your own, irrelevant imagination at work.
Michael V said:
Perhaps the discussion in chat should have its own thread.
Yes but correct spelling would have been even better.
Jeeze Bubblecar you are starting to thrash about a bit, from redistributing potential wealth to basically saying eff off home.
Not really addressing who has the best case for claiming sovereignty which I think is the Islanders.
My favourite quote following the 1982 war was an Argentine historian who described it as “Two bald men fighting over a comb”.
RichardC said:
.
Michael V said:
Perhaps the discussion in chat should have its own thread.
Yes but correct spelling would have been even better.
Yes it would, but tough luck.
Michael V said:
RichardC said:.
Michael V said:
Perhaps the discussion in chat should have its own thread.
Yes but correct spelling would have been even better.
Yes it would, but tough luck.
I do like your attitude Michael.
Geoff D said:
Michael V said:
From: Neophyte
ID: 279156Subject: re: Chat – March
>>But that’s a ridiculous way to define “colonists”. Who will benefit by forcing these people to become part of a country they do not wish to be part of?And wouldn’t it mean they were just swapping dependency on one country for dependency on another?
I think Argentina wants them to actually pull their weight, not suckle at the tit. This might be where the problem lies.
What on Earth does that mean?
And what does it have to do with Argentina anyway?
More seriously, is there now an issue over control of South Atlantic fisheries?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Twoy said:I’m not full bottle on the Falklands, but if Argentina always considered the islands to be their territory and they were colonised illegally, then the opinion of the colonists would be irrelevant. Now, unlike the ‘Car I’m not saying they did settle illegally, just that I can see where Argentina would be coming from.
I don’t see what the opinions of one group of colonists on the rights of another group of colonists has to do with it. Colonisation has not been settled by law anywhere. The people now occuping this well defined bit of land are the only ones who should have any say in the matter.
But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
RichardC said:
.
Michael V said:
RichardC said:.Yes but correct spelling would have been even better.
Yes it would, but tough luck.
I do like your attitude Michael.
Thanks.
But despite my best efforts, I didn’t seem to budge much of the discussion from chat into this, its own thread. I would’ve like to have read all the arguments. It seemed interesting.
Geoff D said:
I think Argentina wants them to actually pull their weight, not suckle at the tit. This might be where the problem lies.
The Falklands are very economically successful at the moment so I doubt they are suckling on the tit of anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Twoy said:
But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
While that may or may not be true does a war being fought and won trump that? Is the UN calling for it to be returned post conflict or is it recognised as a British possession?
Twoy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Twoy said:I’m not full bottle on the Falklands, but if Argentina always considered the islands to be their territory and they were colonised illegally, then the opinion of the colonists would be irrelevant. Now, unlike the ‘Car I’m not saying they did settle illegally, just that I can see where Argentina would be coming from.
I don’t see what the opinions of one group of colonists on the rights of another group of colonists has to do with it. Colonisation has not been settled by law anywhere. The people now occuping this well defined bit of land are the only ones who should have any say in the matter.
But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
On that basis we’d have to shuffle round every country on Earth to return them to the descendants of whichever group made a claim that might be considered legitimate.
Twoy said:
But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
The islands were claimed and settled a number of times by a number of different countries. But they all failed and the people eventually withdrew back to their home lands. The British were the only ones who made it work on a permanent basis. Once a colony is abandoned I think any claims of historical ownership go with it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Twoy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t see what the opinions of one group of colonists on the rights of another group of colonists has to do with it. Colonisation has not been settled by law anywhere. The people now occuping this well defined bit of land are the only ones who should have any say in the matter.
But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
On that basis we’d have to shuffle round every country on Earth to return them to the descendants of whichever group made a claim that might be considered legitimate.
That’s a bit of a strawman, I’m not saying Argentina made a claim so it’s theirs, I’m saying if their claim is legitimate then surely it’s more complicated than asking the residents.
Anyway, my original question seems to have been answered.
It seems that there are lots of non-Argentinians who think the Falkland colonists should just go back where they didn’t come from, and allow the Spanish colonists in Argentina to take the place over.
Skunkworks said:
Twoy said:But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
While that may or may not be true does a war being fought and won trump that? Is the UN calling for it to be returned post conflict or is it recognised as a British possession?
I would hope not. And I have no idea what the UN are calling for.
>>It seems that there are lots of non-Argentinians who think the Falkland colonists should just go back where they didn’t come from
Rolf.
party_pants said:
Twoy said:But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
The islands were claimed and settled a number of times by a number of different countries. But they all failed and the people eventually withdrew back to their home lands. The British were the only ones who made it work on a permanent basis. Once a colony is abandoned I think any claims of historical ownership go with it.
Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
Twoy said:
But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
By a flag raising, a hearty three cheers for the sovereign and killing the natives or was it a bit more low key and not done until after the colonisation?
I recall reading about the race for Africa, right or wrong colonies were based on who got there first with the most and countries carved up on that basis and something we live with now. If Africa had been divided into countries along ethnic lines we would have seen a lot less trouble from that continent.
But it is the real world and current realities where we live.
Twoy said:
That’s a bit of a strawman, I’m not saying Argentina made a claim so it’s theirs, I’m saying if their claim is legitimate then surely it’s more complicated than asking the residents.
But the only way it could be legitimate is by recognising claims that were made hundreds of years ago, and on that basis most, if not every country in the World would be occupied by people who did not have a legitimate claim to sovereignty.
Think I’ll leave it at that.
Twoy said:
Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
Check that Richard Branson doesn’t own it first, then you’ve got yourself a claim.
I think the Brits should just give it to the palestinians…
The Rev Dodgson said:
Twoy said:
That’s a bit of a strawman, I’m not saying Argentina made a claim so it’s theirs, I’m saying if their claim is legitimate then surely it’s more complicated than asking the residents.
But the only way it could be legitimate is by recognising claims that were made hundreds of years ago, and on that basis most, if not every country in the World would be occupied by people who did not have a legitimate claim to sovereignty.
Think I’ll leave it at that.
Like I said, I have no idea of the legitimacy of their claim, just that I think their claim stands independent of what the Falkland Islands residents think. Although it’s not irrelevant as I said before, I can understand Argentina’s view.
Divine Angel said:
Twoy said:Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
Check that Richard Branson doesn’t own it first, then you’ve got yourself a claim.
I can take him…
Twoy said:
party_pants said:
Twoy said:But the Argentinean point of view is that they claimed the islands before the colonisation. I have no idea if this is a legitimate claim or not, but if it is then the colonists are illegal and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
The islands were claimed and settled a number of times by a number of different countries. But they all failed and the people eventually withdrew back to their home lands. The British were the only ones who made it work on a permanent basis. Once a colony is abandoned I think any claims of historical ownership go with it.
Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
If you settled there, and your descendants lived there for a few hundred years, then yes, I’d say they could claim it.
You could squat there and if you go long enough unnoticed and untroubled you could probably stake a claim…
The Rev Dodgson said:
Twoy said:
party_pants said:The islands were claimed and settled a number of times by a number of different countries. But they all failed and the people eventually withdrew back to their home lands. The British were the only ones who made it work on a permanent basis. Once a colony is abandoned I think any claims of historical ownership go with it.
Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
If you settled there, and your descendants lived there for a few hundred years, then yes, I’d say they could claim it.
Doesn’t seem fair… but I’m still off to Google Earth.
furious said:
- Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
You could squat there and if you go long enough unnoticed and untroubled you could probably stake a claim…
I suppose you can always practise with Antartica first.
Twoy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Twoy said:Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
If you settled there, and your descendants lived there for a few hundred years, then yes, I’d say they could claim it.
Doesn’t seem fair… but I’m still off to Google Earth.
Fair doesn’t get much of a look in when these sort of things come up.
Divine Angel said:
furious said:
- Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
You could squat there and if you go long enough unnoticed and untroubled you could probably stake a claim…
I suppose you can always practise with Antartica first.
I believe there’s some law stopping anyone from claiming Antarctica.
Twoy said:
Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
I don’t think that is a good parallel with what is going on here. If you went in and colonised the isalnd and the original claimant didn’t do anything to stop you, then yes. It is about what happens 200 years later when the original claimants come back and demand that your great-great-great-grandchildren hand the place back because it might contain mineral resources which are now valuable.
Final comment.
Suppose that a group of 2000 people of Spanish descent were discovered living on Macquarie Island, and they’d been there for 300 years and no-one had noticed.
If they decided that they would like to be a colony of Spain, and the Spanish were happy for that to happen, then I think Australia should be agreeable to that, and I don’t see any reason why any Australian would object to it.
Skunkworks said:
Twoy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If you settled there, and your descendants lived there for a few hundred years, then yes, I’d say they could claim it.
Doesn’t seem fair… but I’m still off to Google Earth.
Fair doesn’t get much of a look in when these sort of things come up.
True, although having thought about it it doesn’t seem fair to take it from the residents either. Lose-lose situation.
Maybe the solution Scott Adams came up with for solving the Israel-Palestine dispute. Give it to Argentina and force them to lease it back to Britain at $1/year…
party_pants said:
Twoy said:Would the same go for lands under current ownership but unoccupied? If there was a theoretical island that no one lived on but obviously belonged to a country, and I went and colonised it, could I claim it?
I don’t think that is a good parallel with what is going on here. If you went in and colonised the isalnd and the original claimant didn’t do anything to stop you, then yes. It is about what happens 200 years later when the original claimants come back and demand that your great-great-great-grandchildren hand the place back because it might contain mineral resources which are now valuable.
Yeah, that’s fair enough I guess.
party_pants said:
I don’t think that is a good parallel with what is going on here. If you went in and colonised the isalnd and the original claimant didn’t do anything to stop you, then yes. It is about what happens 200 years later when the original claimants come back and demand that your great-great-great-grandchildren hand the place back because it might contain mineral resources which are now valuable.
France is claiming them now?
neomyrtus_ said:
party_pants said:I don’t think that is a good parallel with what is going on here. If you went in and colonised the isalnd and the original claimant didn’t do anything to stop you, then yes. It is about what happens 200 years later when the original claimants come back and demand that your great-great-great-grandchildren hand the place back because it might contain mineral resources which are now valuable.
France is claiming them now?
Well, France passed it on to Spain. Spain placed it under the control of the same office that looked after their colony of Argentina for the sake of administrative convenience. When Argentina gained independence from Spain they thought the administrative convenience amounted to ownership.
It’s complicated…
ok people its time to get real, i’m announcing a 200 mile exclusion zone around this thread now
any pro argentinian posters should stay out of this zone for their own good whilst the flotilla makes its way to the beachead.
oh yes
i also claim ownership of this thread in the name of god, wookiemeister and everyone else
wookiemeister said:
ok people its time to get real, i’m announcing a 200 mile exclusion zone around this thread nowany pro argentinian posters should stay out of this zone for their own good whilst the flotilla makes its way to the beachead.
Admiral Belgrano says fuck your 200 mile exclusion zone.
party_pants said:
wookiemeister said:
ok people its time to get real, i’m announcing a 200 mile exclusion zone around this thread nowany pro argentinian posters should stay out of this zone for their own good whilst the flotilla makes its way to the beachead.
Admiral Belgrano says fuck your 200 mile exclusion zone.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Final comment.Suppose that a group of 2000 people of Spanish descent were discovered living on Macquarie Island, and they’d been there for 300 years and no-one had noticed.
If they decided that they would like to be a colony of Spain, and the Spanish were happy for that to happen, then I think Australia should be agreeable to that, and I don’t see any reason why any Australian would object to it.
wookiemeister said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Final comment.Suppose that a group of 2000 people of Spanish descent were discovered living on Macquarie Island, and they’d been there for 300 years and no-one had noticed.
If they decided that they would like to be a colony of Spain, and the Spanish were happy for that to happen, then I think Australia should be agreeable to that, and I don’t see any reason why any Australian would object to it.
what if you had 100,000 of a particular nationality living in sydney that decide that they want to be part of the mother country, sounds ok to me.
If they had been living as citizens of this other country for the last 200 years, and it was a well defined area, and there was 99.8% support within the community to continue that way, then yes, I’d agree that it would be quite outrageous to suggest anything else.
The Rev Dodgson said:
wookiemeister said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Final comment.Suppose that a group of 2000 people of Spanish descent were discovered living on Macquarie Island, and they’d been there for 300 years and no-one had noticed.
If they decided that they would like to be a colony of Spain, and the Spanish were happy for that to happen, then I think Australia should be agreeable to that, and I don’t see any reason why any Australian would object to it.
what if you had 100,000 of a particular nationality living in sydney that decide that they want to be part of the mother country, sounds ok to me.
If they had been living as citizens of this other country for the last 200 years, and it was a well defined area, and there was 99.8% support within the community to continue that way, then yes, I’d agree that it would be quite outrageous to suggest anything else.
wookiemeister said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
wookiemeister said:what if you had 100,000 of a particular nationality living in sydney that decide that they want to be part of the mother country, sounds ok to me.
If they had been living as citizens of this other country for the last 200 years, and it was a well defined area, and there was 99.8% support within the community to continue that way, then yes, I’d agree that it would be quite outrageous to suggest anything else.
so it might not be too much of a stretch to get parts of the country back under british rule again and get some proper roads put in
some decent road signs
wookiemeister said:
.
The Rev Dodgson said:
wookiemeister said:what if you had 100,000 of a particular nationality living in sydney that decide that they want to be part of the mother country, sounds ok to me.
If they had been living as citizens of this other country for the last 200 years, and it was a well defined area, and there was 99.8% support within the community to continue that way, then yes, I’d agree that it would be quite outrageous to suggest anything else.
so it might not be too much of a stretch to get parts of the country back under british rule again and get some proper roads put in
The best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.
Michael V said:
wookiemeister said:.
The Rev Dodgson said:If they had been living as citizens of this other country for the last 200 years, and it was a well defined area, and there was 99.8% support within the community to continue that way, then yes, I’d agree that it would be quite outrageous to suggest anything else.
so it might not be too much of a stretch to get parts of the country back under british rule again and get some proper roads put inThe best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.
now …….about sydney harbour bridge
The best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.
maybe best for that era but they wouldn’t handle todays traffic.
Boris said:
The best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.maybe best for that era but they wouldn’t handle todays traffic.
Took a Scotsman to get it right, aye.
Boris said:
.
The best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.maybe best for that era but they wouldn’t handle todays traffic.
True enough. They were straight though, and paved.
Took a Scotsman to get it right, aye.
and when macadam got it right everyone said “Ta Mac”.
Boris said:
The best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.maybe best for that era but they wouldn’t handle todays traffic.
a road that will last forever might be dug down 1.5 m
Boris said:
The best roads in Britain were put in by the Romans, around 2000 years ago.maybe best for that era but they wouldn’t handle todays traffic.
a road that will last forever might be dug down 1.5 m
more disputed territory
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3713138.htm
China and Japan’s dispute over a few rocky, uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocean has led to troubling military posturing, as a visit to the Japanese Strike Force shows.
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Two rocky specks poking out of the Pacific are threatening to push Asia’s two superpowers towards war. Known as the Diaoyu Islands in China and the Senkakus in Japan, the outcrops are surrounded by rich oil and gas reserves. But in recent months, the Japanese-controlled islands have been the scene of some troubling military posturing. The dispute has lit a fuse under long-boiling nationalism on both sides and some experts warn that conflict could erupt. The ABC’s North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy was given exclusive access to the Japanese F-15 strike force patrolling the islands and he filed this report from Okinawa.
MARK WILLACY, REPORTER: It’s call sign is White Eagle Squadron. Japan’s frontline strike force of F-15 fighter jets. But it’s been busy. When these pilots aren’t training for dogfights, they’ve been scrambling to intercept Chinese planes probing Japanese air space.
JAPANESE AIRFORCE PILOT (voiceover translation): I perform my mission with a strong sense of responsibility: to protect the sovereignty of Japan’s air space.
MARK WILLACY: Lieutenant’s Kuniasu’s (phonetic spelling) main theatre of operations is in the East China Sea above five rocky islands, some just mere specks above the waterline.
Known in Japan as the Senkakus and in China as the Diaoyu Islands, the dispute over who controls them threatens the stability of the entire North Asian region.
JEFF KINGSTON, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, TOKYO: There could be a serious miscalculation. Things could still get out of control. Once there’s blood in the water, that’s gonna make it very, very difficult to find a compromise.
UICHIRO NIWA, FORMER JAPANESE AMBASSADOR TO CHINA (voiceover translation): We don’t have any way except dialogue between two countries. Otherwise, we have to go to war.
MARK WILLACY: The Okinawa-based White Eagle Squadron takes just a few minutes to respond to a scramble order and to reach the islands. Recently Japanese pilots took to the skies to intercept a Chinese surveillance plane, but soon found themselves being shadowed by Chinese fighter jets.
more on link:
>Jeeze Bubblecar you are starting to thrash about a bit, from redistributing potential wealth to basically saying eff off home.
Huh? I’m sure most Argentinian people wouldn’t mind the islanders staying there, as long as they’re prepared to become Argentinian citizens. If they prefer to remain British citizens, then obviously it makes sense for them to return to Britain, where they can be as British as they like.
Bubblecar said:
>Jeeze Bubblecar you are starting to thrash about a bit, from redistributing potential wealth to basically saying eff off home.Huh? I’m sure most Argentinian people wouldn’t mind the islanders staying there, as long as they’re prepared to become Argentinian citizens. If they prefer to remain British citizens, then obviously it makes sense for them to return to Britain, where they can be as British as they like.
What on Earth aree you talking about? They are already part of Britain; they don’t need to return anywhere.
I am totally mystified by your illogical insistance that this bit of land must be considered part of Argentina.
I don’t think it’s illogical, I think there are different prior assumptions at play.
You clearly regard the choice of the (historically proximate) inhabitants as being supreme. I think that’s entirely reasonable, but it is not the only way this could be approached.
From another viewpoint the territory itself is a significant resource entirely independent of any inhabitants, and thus claims to it can be made entirely independent of the status of any inhabitants.
There are all kinds of reasons for disagreeing with this latter viewpoint, but I don’t think it’s a matter of logic.
i also claim ownership of this thread
I am prepared to relinquish any claims to the ‘u’ in the thread title.
MartinB said:
I don’t think it’s illogical, I think there are different prior assumptions at play.You clearly regard the choice of the (historically proximate) inhabitants as being supreme. I think that’s entirely reasonable, but it is not the only way this could be approached.
From another viewpoint the territory itself is a significant resource entirely independent of any inhabitants, and thus claims to it can be made entirely independent of the status of any inhabitants.
There are all kinds of reasons for disagreeing with this latter viewpoint, but I don’t think it’s a matter of logic.
All fair points Martin.
>They are already part of Britain
No, they’re on Argentinian islands about 13,000 km away from Britain.
Not that long ago, most people (including the British government) were prepared to condemn the traditional practice of rich northern hemisphere nations ripping off the resources of the southern hemisphere. Allowing regional peoples to benefit from their own regional resources was held to be one of the basic principles involved in undoing the damage wrought by Western imperialism.
But it seems we’re still very ready to make entirely unjustified exceptions, ESPECIALLY where the most absurd consequences of Empire are concerned. In the Malvinas we have the wealthy population of a small British village, artificially maintained as a colony by huge sums of continuous British taxpayer subsidy, laying claim to trillions of $ of oil wealth off the coast of one of the world’s poorest continents.
And we have people like Rev prepared to fiercely attack criticism of this state of affairs as “illogical”.
Car, I think you need to recalibrate your sense of geography. The islands are not just off the coast of Argentina, they are 500 km away from the mainland. That’s further than Madagascar is away from Africa. The distance is far enough away to make it better to think of the islands as being lonely and isolated out in the Southern Atlantic Ocean and unconnected to the mainland. The islands are no more off the coast of South America than Timor is off the coast of Australia, or Reunion Island is off the Coast of Madagascar.
>Car, I think you need to recalibrate your sense of geography. The islands are not just off the coast of Argentina, they are 500 km away from the mainland.
…before you utter one more word: the islands are 13,000 km away from Britain. Case closed.
Bubblecar said:
>Car, I think you need to recalibrate your sense of geography. The islands are not just off the coast of Argentina, they are 500 km away from the mainland.…before you utter one more word: the islands are 13,000 km away from Britain. Case closed.
Bubblecar said:
>Car, I think you need to recalibrate your sense of geography. The islands are not just off the coast of Argentina, they are 500 km away from the mainland.…before you utter one more word: the islands are 13,000 km away from Britain. Case closed.
Ownership of the islands is not linked to geographical proximity.
Given the isolation, it is linked to whoever has the desire and the resources to back up the settlement and keep it viable. For 200 years that nation has been Britain.
>Ownership of the islands is not linked to geographical proximity.
Wrong again.
Bubblecar said:
>Ownership of the islands is not linked to geographical proximity.Wrong again.
>For 200 years that nation has been Britain.
…under threat of military action against challenges from the people of the region.
Anyway, I think it’s best that I withdraw from this debate. People seem to have decided that arguing with Bubblecar is more rewarding for them personally than adopting an ethically defensible position themselves.
Bubblecar said:
>Ownership of the islands is not linked to geographical proximity.Wrong again.
It seems you are the only one that thinks this way. I can’t see any grounds to justify the reasoning that any island should belong to the nearest country on the nearest continent. Just seems a bit too simplistic.
Bubblecar said:
>For 200 years that nation has been Britain.…under threat of military action against challenges from the people of the region.
Anyway, I think it’s best that I withdraw from this debate. People seem to have decided that arguing with Bubblecar is more rewarding for them personally than adopting an ethically defensible position themselves.
Actually if you care to re-examine the positions I think you’ll find that yours is the one that is not ethically defensible on the subject of sovereignty.
The question of rights to resources is an entirely different (and much more difficult) matter, which I have not addressed. I would however note that if inequitable distribution of resources is your prime concern you have chosen a very strange example as the one that we should be most concerned about.
Bubblecar said:
>They are already part of Britain Allowing regional peoples to benefit from their own regional resources was held to be one of the basic principles involved in undoing the damage wrought by Western imperialism.But it seems we’re still very ready to make entirely unjustified exceptions, ESPECIALLY where the most absurd consequences of Empire are concerned. In the Malvinas we have the wealthy population of a small British village, artificially maintained as a colony by huge sums of continuous British taxpayer subsidy, laying claim to trillions of $ of oil wealth off the coast of one of the world’s poorest continents.
And we have people like Rev prepared to fiercely attack criticism of this state of affairs as “illogical”.
Firstly, Argentina is a result of Western Imperialism.
Secondly, to quote the CIA World book:
“Argentina benefits from rich natural resources, a highly literate population, an export-oriented agricultural sector, and a diversified industrial base. Although one of the world’s wealthiest countries 100 years ago, …”
This is not a case of a rich imperialist power exploiting impoverished native peoples, it is a case of two rich imperialist powers squabbling over an occupied piece of land, whose residents have very clearly stated their preferences.
>It seems you are the only one that thinks this way. I can’t see any grounds to justify the reasoning that any island should belong to the nearest country on the nearest continent. Just seems a bit too simplistic.<
You need to put this into the context of a supposedly post-colonial world. Argentina has never relinquished its claim to the Malvinas, which Britain took by force as part of its ordinary imperial habits of the time. But the Malvinas have never evolved into a post-colonial settlement – they are still essentially a British colony. Britain’s insistence on maintaining this colony would be little more than another example of pointless British pig-headedness, were it not for the fact that there appears to be a huge amount of oil wealth in the region, which should rightfully go to the people of the region, not a tiny misplaced British village.
As an illustration of just how surreal the British claims are: the islanders hope not only to each become a multi-millionaire as a result of the oil exploitation, they hope to be able to use the funds to build their own powerful armed forces, so that they can keep the regional peoples at bay without having to constantly rely on the British Navy etc. So a tiny handful of people is planning to invest billions on their own private navy and airforce to keep out the “wogs” and “darkies” – billions that could obviously be spent in much more worthwhile ways by people who genuinely need it.
Is this really likely to be the future of the Malvinas? Not if the UN has its way, but unfortunately that doesn’t often happen in these kind of disputes.
Bubblecar said:
artificially maintained as a colony by huge sums of continuous British taxpayer subsidy
Can you please give a reference please for the annual subsidy? As mentioned earlier the Falklands are very economically successful despite their remoteness from global markets.
>whose residents have very clearly stated their preferences.
I fully agree with the Argentine foreign minister: “there is no such thing as Falkland Islanders”
‘No such thing as Falkland islanders’, says Argentine foreign minister
There is no such thing as Falkland islanders, the Argentine foreign minister has insisted, claiming they are British citizens living in disputed islands.
Hector Timerman claimed the United Nations only acknowledges two parties in the territorial disputet – the UK and Argentina.
Speaking at a press conference in central London today, Mr Timerman said: “The Falklands islanders do not exist. What exists is British citizens who live in the Islas Malvinas.
“The United Nations does not recognise a third party in the conflict. It says there are just two parts – the UK and Argentina.”
Argentine diplomats organised a conference of activitists based in Europe to plan future acts of agitation over the islands. Mr Timerman said that “everybody” in Argentina still felt the “effects of the 1833 invasion” of the south Atlantic.
….He also said that the islands would be under Argentine control within 20 years, while denouncing the British as “fanatics” and comparing the British claim to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
“I don’t think it will take another 20 years. I think that the world is going through a process of understanding more and more that this is a colonial issue, an issue of colonialism,” he said.
“We don’t support the occupation of foreign lands, and the Malvinas case is the occupation of a foreign land.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9852717/No-such-thing-as-Falkland-islanders-says-Argentine-foreign-minister.html
Bubblecar said:
Mr Timerman said that “everybody” in Argentina still felt the “effects of the 1833 invasion” of the south Atlantic.
certainly in part because it detracts from the more recent, depressing, horrific political antics in Argentina..
A bit of real history has to be taken in account. Yes, Argentina claimed the islands, but their attempts to colonise it all failed. The first attempt to set up a penal colony failed when the prisoners broke loose and murdered the guards. The second attempt failed when the workers murdered the administrators over a dispute about pay after the administrators ran out of money. It was the British that rescued the other terrified residents and brought some sense of law and order to the place. The Argentines just weren’t good at setting up colonies and keeping them going, whereas the British had decades of experience, and a large fleet to send regular visits and supplies. Their claim doesn’t really hold in a practical sense if they are too incompetent to make a viable settlement.
Bubblecar said:
>Car, I think you need to recalibrate your sense of geography. The islands are not just off the coast of Argentina, they are 500 km away from the mainland.…before you utter one more word: the islands are 13,000 km away from Britain. Case closed.
So? Australia is one case where we were also a colony .. But did allowing us to be Australia make all existing Australians get their share in the new found wealth?
Bubblecar said:
>For 200 years that nation has been Britain.…under threat of military action against challenges from the people of the region.
Anyway, I think it’s best that I withdraw from this debate. People seem to have decided that arguing with Bubblecar is more rewarding for them personally than adopting an ethically defensible position themselves.
The thing is.. It isn’t Argentina’s business. They have no claim and the only way they can take the claim away from Britain is to wrest it from them in conflict. They failed at that. Why would they make the same mistake twice?
I think at some stage Argentina’s legal (and moral) claims lapse through the passage of time and events on the ground. The claim is 180 years old and lots has happened since then in world affairs. I think their claim is hollow and has no moral or legal basis, it’s just grand-standing for domestic political purposes. I think Argentina’s claim have less moral authority than the wishes of the people that actually live there, today.
>The thing is.. It isn’t Argentina’s business.
Um, no. It is Argentina’s territory, as the British will eventually concede, once they’ve lost interest in defending a handful of greedygut squatters.
party_pants said:
I think at some stage Argentina’s legal (and moral) claims lapse through the passage of time and events on the ground. The claim is 180 years old and lots has happened since then in world affairs. I think their claim is hollow and has no moral or legal basis, it’s just grand-standing for domestic political purposes. I think Argentina’s claim have less moral authority than the wishes of the people that actually live there, today.
Yes. The problem probably more exists with the ownership which doesn’t reside there.
Bubblecar said:
>The thing is.. It isn’t Argentina’s business.Um, no. It is Argentina’s territory, as the British will eventually concede, once they’ve lost interest in defending a handful of greedygut squatters.
and the proof of that is?
>I think their claim is hollow and has no moral or legal basis
Yes but you’re not the United Nations, who disagree with you.
Bubblecar said:
>I think their claim is hollow and has no moral or legal basisYes but you’re not the United Nations, who disagree with you.
So we’ll expect the United Nations to force this issue some time in the next 200 years?
>and the proof of that is?
?
Time will tell. World opinion is mostly against Britain, and will become more so if the oil bonanza proves real and is shamelessly exploited by Britain in the name of their colonists. At the moment British governments can exploit memories of the Falklands War to ignore the problem posed by ongoing Argentinian claims, but they’re not going to go away, and international pressure for them to go to the negotiating table will increase with time. And as they well know, once they’re at the negotiating table, there can be only one outcome.
Bubblecar said:
>and the proof of that is??
Time will tell. World opinion is mostly against Britain, and will become more so if the oil bonanza proves real and is shamelessly exploited by Britain in the name of their colonists. At the moment British governments can exploit memories of the Falklands War to ignore the problem posed by ongoing Argentinian claims, but they’re not going to go away, and international pressure for them to go to the negotiating table will increase with time. And as they well know, once they’re at the negotiating table, there can be only one outcome.
World opinion would be more likely be against BP.
A game of “Risk”?
We are arguing about which country has the better claim to the islands, but we seems to be using different definitions of what makes a valid claim to a piece of territory. So….what makes a good claim to any given hypothetical territory?
The wishes of the inhabitants certainly have to be taken into account, but clearly they are no absolute, as various attempts at independence around the world have shown. The existence of some sort of peace treaty between two countries would be pretty conclusive, but could be ignored by one party if there’s enough popular groundswell. Continued habitation and administration for an extended period of time would be the only sensible thing. You could make arguments about who had control historically, but how far back can you go before things get silly?
Angus Prune said:
We are arguing about which country has the better claim to the islands, but we seems to be using different definitions of what makes a valid claim to a piece of territory. So….what makes a good claim to any given hypothetical territory?The wishes of the inhabitants certainly have to be taken into account, but clearly they are no absolute, as various attempts at independence around the world have shown. The existence of some sort of peace treaty between two countries would be pretty conclusive, but could be ignored by one party if there’s enough popular groundswell. Continued habitation and administration for an extended period of time would be the only sensible thing. You could make arguments about who had control historically, but how far back can you go before things get silly?
I think we need to add the figures on who owns what in the Falklands. Not just who lives there.
Mr Car you are still yet to provide a reference for the amount that the UK subsidises the British people who make up the Falkland Islanders.
The degree to which the Falklands people are financially self sufficient is certainly a factor in this debate.
>The degree to which the Falklands people are financially self sufficient is…
….zero. They are entirely dependent on Britain. Sure they make money from wool etc, but this constitutes a decent income only because they don’t have to pay for the many essentials paid for by Britain, including their “defence” which costs many thousands of quid per islander per year:
The UK’s Defense Of The Falkland Islands Costs A Staggering Amount Per Islander
Adam Taylor|February 14, 2012|2,010|5
(Flickr: GrahamC57)Renewed conflict in the Falkland Islands could cost the UK more than just international sympathy.Over at the Independent, Andy McSmith takes a look at the financial cost of the UK’s protection of the over 2,000 British citizens on the island (who have repeatedly confirmed they wish to remain British citizens and not become part of Argentina).
McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year.
While in the grandiose world of military budgets that might not be that much, when you look at the cost per British citizen on the Falklands, it works out at more than a whopping £20,000 or $31,000 (and that is only the defense budget, other costs will be born on other budgets).
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-14/europe/31057552_1_defense-budget-uk-falklands#ixzz2NOgzPPAP
Bubblecar said:
>The degree to which the Falklands people are financially self sufficient is…….zero. They are entirely dependent on Britain. Sure they make money from wool etc, but this constitutes a decent income only because they don’t have to pay for the many essentials paid for by Britain, including their “defence” which costs many thousands of quid per islander per year
If the Falklands were to become Argentinian territory they would still need to be defended. It’s not like a Argentinian takeover would reduce defence costs to zero.
>If the Falklands were to become Argentinian territory they would still need to be defended.
Against whom?
With the Brits out of the way, maybe Chile will have a go…
Bubblecar said:
>The degree to which the Falklands people are financially self sufficient is…….zero. They are entirely dependent on Britain. Sure they make money from wool etc, but this constitutes a decent income only because they don’t have to pay for the many essentials paid for by Britain, including their “defence” which costs many thousands of quid per islander per year:
The UK’s Defense Of The Falkland Islands Costs A Staggering Amount Per Islander
Adam Taylor|February 14, 2012|2,010|5
(Flickr: GrahamC57)Renewed conflict in the Falkland Islands could cost the UK more than just international sympathy.Over at the Independent, Andy McSmith takes a look at the financial cost of the UK’s protection of the over 2,000 British citizens on the island (who have repeatedly confirmed they wish to remain British citizens and not become part of Argentina).
McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year.
While in the grandiose world of military budgets that might not be that much, when you look at the cost per British citizen on the Falklands, it works out at more than a whopping £20,000 or $31,000 (and that is only the defense budget, other costs will be born on other budgets).
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-14/europe/31057552_1_defense-budget-uk-falklands#ixzz2NOgzPPAP
That’s not an argument against it. If Britian is prepared to spend that much money then so be it.
Anyway – you mentioned something about oil and it being worth tens of millions per person living on the island. It might work out positively profitable for Britain to establish a larger colony on the island with a larger defence contingent to protect the oil, with all of it paid out of oil royalties. The one chance the British get to finally making a return out of their 200 years of supporting a struggling colony and you’d simply have them pack their bags and leave because someone else wants the money.
>With the Brits out of the way, maybe Chile will have a go…
Chile strongly supports Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas.
Bubblecar said:
>If the Falklands were to become Argentinian territory they would still need to be defended.Against whom?
Anyone else that wants the oil.
Furthermore, if the Falkland Islands does in fact have significant mineral wealth there is a chance that the subsidy in the future could reduce to zero as mineral and energy exports rise.
In that case the arguments about subsidisation would disappear. Again we come back to the central argument which is whether 180 years is long enough for settlers to be entitled to self determination.
> It might work out positively profitable for Britain to establish a larger colony on the island with a larger defence contingent to protect the oil, with all of it paid out of oil royalties.
The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with that really does indicate an unbridgeable ethical gulf between us, party.
Because they reckon they could take them but know they probably couldn’t take the Brits. If there really is so much oil plenty of countries will come sniffing once the big guy is out of the way…
Bubblecar said:
>If the Falklands were to become Argentinian territory they would still need to be defended.Against whom?
So Argentina is allowed to use the threat of invasion as an excuse to increase British defence costs but not vice versa?
Again, I don’t see any point me discussing this further with the likes of Witty & party, who are happy for even more and more money to be squandered on the “defence” of a tiny misplaced British population, in preference to ceding regional resources to regional populations who actually need them.
>Because they reckon they could take them but know they probably couldn’t take the Brits.
?
Chile is very friendly with Britain. They support Argentina’s claim depite their “special relationship” with Britain.
Bubblecar said:
> It might work out positively profitable for Britain to establish a larger colony on the island with a larger defence contingent to protect the oil, with all of it paid out of oil royalties.The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with that really does indicate an unbridgeable ethical gulf between us, party.
Argentina is not a poor country. They are a moderately wealthy country with lots if natural resources. problem is that they have a lot of poor people but that is because they have a large disparity in wealth and power through a small elite ruling class and widespread corruption of public officials. Mr Obied would be the typical politician/business type there.
>So Argentina is allowed to use the threat of invasion as an excuse to increase British defence costs but not vice versa?
?
The Malvinas won’t revert to Argentina until the British cede them. The British are not then going to present a military risk.
That doesn’t really address what I said…
Bubblecar said:
Again, I don’t see any point me discussing this further with the likes of Witty & party, who are happy for even more and more money to be squandered on the “defence” of a tiny misplaced British population, in preference to ceding regional resources to regional populations who actually need them.
Hear hear, and on that note, I’ll leave you to bicker amongst yourselves.
Bump
Bubblecar said:
Again, I don’t see any point me discussing this further with the likes of Witty & party, who are happy for even more and more money to be squandered on the “defence” of a tiny misplaced British population, in preference to ceding regional resources to regional populations who actually need them.
It’s not mine or your money to protest about.
And further Argentina has already squandered enough natural resources anyway. One of the world’s richest countries a hundred year ago, now they are barely second world because of the mismanagement of their economy and frequent military coups.
It was only a few years back that the Uruguan president got in trouble for remarking that the reason Argentina was always in financial trouble was because they were all crooks who didn’t pay their taxes.
In Argentina the Falklands issue is primarily about using nationalism to divert attention from the real problems facing their country.
Bubblecar said:
>The degree to which the Falklands people are financially self sufficient is…….zero. They are entirely dependent on Britain. Sure they make money from wool etc, but this constitutes a decent income only because they don’t have to pay for the many essentials paid for by Britain, including their “defence” which costs many thousands of quid per islander per year:
The UK’s Defense Of The Falkland Islands Costs A Staggering Amount Per Islander
Adam Taylor|February 14, 2012|2,010|5
(Flickr: GrahamC57)Renewed conflict in the Falkland Islands could cost the UK more than just international sympathy.Over at the Independent, Andy McSmith takes a look at the financial cost of the UK’s protection of the over 2,000 British citizens on the island (who have repeatedly confirmed they wish to remain British citizens and not become part of Argentina).
McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year.
While in the grandiose world of military budgets that might not be that much, when you look at the cost per British citizen on the Falklands, it works out at more than a whopping £20,000 or $31,000 (and that is only the defense budget, other costs will be born on other budgets).
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-14/europe/31057552_1_defense-budget-uk-falklands#ixzz2NOgzPPAP
That is some of the stuff I wanted to see put into the thread.
Won’t somebody think of the kelp geese
There are only 15,000 breeding pairs of kelp gooses in the world, all of which are restricted to the Falkland Islands.
neomyrtus_ said:
Won’t somebody think of the kelp geese
Well, I am.. and I’d like to see the stats on how much both Britain and Argentinia have spent on this research.
roughbarked said:
neomyrtus_ said:
Won’t somebody think of the kelp geese
Well, I am.. and I’d like to see the stats on how much both Britain and Argentinia have spent on this research.
hrm.. too many i’s.
neomyrtus_ said:
There are only 15,000 breeding pairs of kelp gooses in the world, all of which are restricted to the Falkland Islands.
and southern patagonia
http://ibc.lynxeds.com/photo/kelp-goose-chloephaga-hybrida/female-small-chick-eating-ulvae
Anyway.. my personal fears about this speck on the ocean is in the management. Who is managing it, how well it is managed, are there better offers.. and etc.
roughbarked said:
Anyway.. my personal fears about this speck on the ocean is in the management. Who is managing it, how well it is managed, are there better offers.. and etc.
This is an avenue that Argentina should consider. How well situated are they to manage the resource from an environmentally responsible position.
i suppose with the falklands thing you could outwardly withdraw troops whilst leaving a secret arsenal of ship missiles, anti tank missiles and a hidden airforce. a series of secret watch posts and sensors would look for any unwanted visitors trying to land in the night. you could have a game with the ones that did.
when the argentines comes charging in again they’ll take enormous losses and the british need not send the flotilla down again.
once the smoke the cleared you’d call buenos aires and tell them to get all their crap off the beaches
I can’ wait until Peru and New Zealand form an alliance and throw those dirty Poms off Pitcairn island.
Looks like my decision to weed the garden beds for a few hours was the correct one. The Argentine claim over the garden beds because of the weeds growing there is now lapsed. They can claim the wheelie bin, but they’ll have to fight the council for that.
Come over and help weed mine. We can crack nano-thermite jokes to our hearts’ content while we work.
We’re a Morris Dancing troop looking for a place to go for our end of season bash.
Are there any good package deals to the Falkland Islands? what are the hotels and resorts like? Do you need a visa?
Do they have souvineer shops? Do they accept Australian dollars and can you hire a mini bus or do we have to use the public transport like Very Fast Trains?
party_pants said:
Looks like my decision to weed the garden beds for a few hours was the correct one. The Argentine claim over the garden beds because of the weeds growing there is now lapsed. They can claim the wheelie bin, but they’ll have to fight the council for that.
principally fought in middle class surburbia , narrowly lost by the might of the argentine armed forces
wookiemeister said:
party_pants said:
Looks like my decision to weed the garden beds for a few hours was the correct one. The Argentine claim over the garden beds because of the weeds growing there is now lapsed. They can claim the wheelie bin, but they’ll have to fight the council for that.
the battle of wheelie bin ridgeprincipally fought in middle class surburbia , narrowly lost by the might of the argentine armed forces
The key my suburb is control of Armadale Road. The Persians knew it, the Carthaginians knew it. Now you know it.
wookiemeister said:
party_pants said:
Looks like my decision to weed the garden beds for a few hours was the correct one. The Argentine claim over the garden beds because of the weeds growing there is now lapsed. They can claim the wheelie bin, but they’ll have to fight the council for that.
the battle of wheelie bin ridgeprincipally fought in middle class surburbia , narrowly lost by the might of the argentine armed forces
party_pants said:
The key my suburb is control of Armadale Road. The Persians knew it, the Carthaginians knew it. Now you know it.
That is what is known as vital ground, area that must be controlled, retained or denied to ensure success.
Is Wookie about?
Inside Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown
(Repeat) 9.30pm – 10.30pm SBS HDThis is an unprecedented account of the crisis inside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex after a devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan on 11 March, 2011. The program includes eye-witness accounts from key executives and workers in the drama, including those employees struggling frantically to reconnect power inside the plant’s pitch-black buildings. The story also profiles the Japanese soldiers and fire-fighters drafted to cool the reactors, as well as the local families exposed to the radioactive plume.
Ooops I return you to your scheduled program.
Skunkworks said:
Is Wookie about?Inside Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown
(Repeat) 9.30pm – 10.30pm SBS HDThis is an unprecedented account of the crisis inside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex after a devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan on 11 March, 2011. The program includes eye-witness accounts from key executives and workers in the drama, including those employees struggling frantically to reconnect power inside the plant’s pitch-black buildings. The story also profiles the Japanese soldiers and fire-fighters drafted to cool the reactors, as well as the local families exposed to the radioactive plume.
got a spare shekel for a former leper?
party_pants said:
Looks like my decision to weed the garden beds for a few hours was the correct one. The Argentine claim over the garden beds because of the weeds growing there is now lapsed. They can claim the wheelie bin, but they’ll have to fight the council for that.
Revenge of the lawn will oust their challenge.
I agree with the car on one thing.
There is no point on discussing this any further.
Not that what we have had so far could really be called a discussion.
>Not that what we have had so far could really be called a discussion.
‘Cos I didn’t agree with you? I can be stubborn like that :)
To summarise my position:
Democracy is an important principle but a more fundamental question to be resolved in this case is sovereignty. After we’ve resolved who owns the place, we can worry about taking votes as to its future etc. I side with Argentina in this matter, largely on the grounds of regional peoples being entitled to the benefits of regional resources. The tiny colonial presence on the islands don’t really count as a “regional people”, since as they themselves insist, they are “British to the core”. People who are “British to the core” can expect to find a warm welcome in Britain, but not on islands on the other side of the world, that have long been claimed by the nearest mainland.
Poik lurking? I’m on the Atacand Plus, and was warned by the pharmacist that I might feel a little dizzy etc at first. Well I’m on Day 10 now and still feel rather dizzy and a little faint at times. Is this likely to fade or should I see the GP about it?
Um, sorry :)
Bubblecar said:
To summarise my position:Democracy is an important principle but a more fundamental question to be resolved in this case is sovereignty. After we’ve resolved who owns the place, we can worry about taking votes as to its future etc. I side with Argentina in this matter, largely on the grounds of regional peoples being entitled to the benefits of regional resources. The tiny colonial presence on the islands don’t really count as a “regional people”, since as they themselves insist, they are “British to the core”. People who are “British to the core” can expect to find a warm welcome in Britain, but not on islands on the other side of the world, that have long been claimed by the nearest mainland.
To summarise my position:
Argentina showed it has no interest in the rights of the islanders in 1982 and can’t be trusted to administer the islands with any kind of responsibility. The current president is trying to garner any kind of support from the population for her incompetent government and is using the traditional means to do so.
>Argentina showed it has no interest in the rights of the islanders in 1982 and can’t be trusted to administer the islands with any kind of responsibility. The current president is trying to garner any kind of support from the population for her incompetent government and is using the traditional means to do so.
I reject that kind of argument on the grounds that it’s a reactionary response to recent politics*, and fails to grapple with the fundamental principles involved.
Bubblecar said:
>Argentina showed it has no interest in the rights of the islanders in 1982 and can’t be trusted to administer the islands with any kind of responsibility. The current president is trying to garner any kind of support from the population for her incompetent government and is using the traditional means to do so.I reject that kind of argument on the grounds that it’s a reactionary response to recent politics*, and fails to grapple with the fundamental principles involved.
- Unless you’re arguing that Argentinians are fundamentally incapable of responsibly administering the islands, simply because they’re Argentinians, which is not a position worthy of any respect.
Is that a strawman I see? Yep I think it is.
>Is that a strawman I see? Yep I think it is.
Huh?
Bubblecar said:
>Is that a strawman I see? Yep I think it is.Huh?
You put words into my mouth and then argued against them. It’s called a strawman.
Your position seems to be that because they are closer to Argentina that’s who they belong to. They were colonised by Britain before Argentina even existed, No one disputes that.
Your anti British bias shows up here often and colours your judgement.
>You put words into my mouth and then argued against them. It’s called a strawman.
No, I presented my interpretation of your position, which is that you’re failing to grapple with the basic issue of colonial claims vs regional people’s claims to regional resources.
perhaps you’re misinterpreting…?
Neophyte said:
perhaps you’re misinterpreting…?
While that’s a possibility, it can’t really be called making use of a “straw man”.
Bubblecar said:
>You put words into my mouth and then argued against them. It’s called a strawman.No, I presented my interpretation of your position, which is that you’re failing to grapple with the basic issue of colonial claims vs regional people’s claims to regional resources.
You clearly misinterpreted my position, deliberately.
There were no “regional people” on the islands in 1790, Argentina did not exist in 1790 and they are hundreds of miles from Argentina. Their claim is spurious.
The fact remains that after they showed their contempt for the population in 1982, they cannot be trusted to look after the islanders as they claim they will.
Britain offered Argentina joint sovereignty in 1974 and they rejected it.
>You clearly misinterpreted my position, deliberately.
Nup.
>There were no “regional people” on the islands in 1790
We’re talking 2013, i.e., a supposedly post-colonial era. Argentina has long been post-colonial, but the British Malvinas settlement is maintained as a colony, supplied from the other side of the world and with its inhabitants themselves insisting that they are “British to the core.”
>they are hundreds of miles from Argentina
They are about 13,000 km from Britain.
>The fact remains that after they showed their contempt for the population in 1982, they cannot be trusted to look after the islanders as they claim they will.
“They”? Argentina was under a military dictatorship at the time. If you believe the current and future governments of Argentina are all of the same stripe, this can only be interpreted as a prejudiced view of Argentinians in general.
Bubblecar said:
>>
We’re talking 2013, i.e., a supposedly post-colonial era. Argentina has long been post-colonial, but the British Malvinas settlement is maintained as a colony, supplied from the other side of the world and with its inhabitants themselves insisting that they are “British to the core.”
<<Oh right, just now you were rejecting arguments about “current politics”
“I reject that kind of argument on the grounds that it’s a reactionary response to recent politics*
So now current politics don’t matter.
>>“They”? Argentina was under a military dictatorship at the time. If you believe the current and future governments of Argentina are all of the same stripe, this can only be interpreted as a prejudiced view of Argentinians in general. <<
The current government is coming up with all the same rhetoric of the previous military dictatorship. That’s what my view is based on.
Bubblecar said:
To summarise my position:Democracy is an important principle but a more fundamental question to be resolved in this case is sovereignty. After we’ve resolved who owns the place, we can worry about taking votes as to its future etc. I side with Argentina in this matter, largely on the grounds of regional peoples being entitled to the benefits of regional resources. The tiny colonial presence on the islands don’t really count as a “regional people”, since as they themselves insist, they are “British to the core”. People who are “British to the core” can expect to find a warm welcome in Britain, but not on islands on the other side of the world, that have long been claimed by the nearest mainland.
Whilst your principle is sound.. People who are British to the core who live in Britain are backing this to the tune of more than many of them earn.
Bubblecar said:
>Argentina showed it has no interest in the rights of the islanders in 1982 and can’t be trusted to administer the islands with any kind of responsibility. The current president is trying to garner any kind of support from the population for her incompetent government and is using the traditional means to do so.I reject that kind of argument on the grounds that it’s a reactionary response to recent politics*, and fails to grapple with the fundamental principles involved.
- Unless you’re arguing that Argentinians are fundamentally incapable of responsibly administering the islands, simply because they’re Argentinians, which is not a position worthy of any respect.
Apart from the fact that they haven’t put forward details of that position.
>So now current politics don’t matter
Not in detail, no, only in principle. Your position seems to be a response to the actions of this or that government, not an appraisal of the fundamental principles involved.
>The current government is coming up with all the same rhetoric of the previous military dictatorship. That’s what my view is based on.
I think you can rest assured that any Argentinian government will be maintaining the Argentine claim to the Malvinas. This doesn’t mean they’ll be engaging in reprehensible military adventures.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/falkland-islands-referendum
As usual the comments run form the sublime to the ridiculous.
Bubblecar said:
>The current government is coming up with all the same rhetoric of the previous military dictatorship. That’s what my view is based on.
I think you can rest assured that any Argentinian government will be maintaining the Argentine claim to the Malvinas. This doesn’t mean they’ll be engaging in reprehensible military adventures.
It’s just what the military junta was doing in 1981/2
Kirchner won’t be making any military misadventures because she has run the economy into the ground and with it the armed forces. If she had the might, she might.
Again, a government no one in their right mind would want to be governed by. I guess it’s an improvement from a military dictatorship that murdered thousand of its own citizens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/15/falkland-catholics-want-pope-to-visit
Falkland Islands Catholics want new pope to visit them
Priest in Port Stanley calls on Pope Francis to visit islands faithful when he next journeys to Argentina
Catholics on the Falkland Islands want the new Argentinian pope to visit the territory, according to a Brazilian newspaper.
The Catholic faithful gathered at St Mary’s church in Port Stanley on Thursday morning to celebrate the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as the new Pope Francis.
Parish priest Michael Bernard McPartland, 73, told the newspaper Folha de São Paulo: “If the Pope goes to Argentina, he should come here too.
“It is wonderful that a Latin American has been chosen. There is no hostility here, only a lot of hope.
“We are very happy, it is great having a new pope. In a few months it will not matter where he’s from. A pope is a pope, he is universal.
“A Latin American pope can do a lot to make our activities grow in the region, at least that’s what I hope.”
During the Falklands war, McPartland negotiated with the Argentinian troops to continue giving mass in English.
“The church stayed apart from the conflict, seeking to receive all, as we continue doing today,” he said.
The 300-strong congregation of St Mary’s includes 29 Catholics with dual British-Argentinian nationality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/14/pope-francis-argentina-falklands-dispute
Pope Francis appointment gives Argentina hope in Falklands dispute
Former archbishop of Buenos Aires previously said islands were ‘usurped’ by Britain, but experts say he will remain neutral
Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, hopes to have won a powerful new ally in her campaign to wrest the Falklands from British control with the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope.
The archbishop of Buenos Aires is on record as saying the islands were “usurped” by Britain, raising the possibility that he could use his position as leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics to influence the future of the Falklands.
Pope Francis is known to have a frosty relationship with Fernández but the president has already hinted that she views his election as a boost to get back what Argentinians call Las Malvinas.
Without mentioning the islands by name, Fernández expressed a hope that the pope would “send a message to the great powers so they will engage in dialogue”.
Fernández has demanded that Britain begin negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands the two countries went to war over just over 30 years ago – a demand rejected by the British government.
At a memorial mass last year marking 30 years since the Falklands war, the then Cardinal Bergoglio said: “We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend their mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped.”
Fury of the Falklands heroes over new Pope: He believes ‘the Malvinas’ belong to Argentina, and its president hopes he will support her case
Pope Francis calls Falkland Islands ‘Argentine soil’ General Sir Hew Pike said new pontiff does not observe islander’s rights Argentina’s president Kirchner hopes Francis will help her claim to islandsFalklands veterans told of their dismay last night after the Argentine president hinted she hoped the new Pope – her countryman – would mediate in the dispute surrounding the territory.
Pope Francis believes the South Atlantic islands are ‘Argentine soil’.
In 2010 the then Buenos Aires Cardinal declared: ‘The Malvinas are ours’, and last year he accused Britain of ‘usurping’ the islands.
Firebrand Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, who has for months been seeking easy home popularity by calling for Britain to enter talks on withdrawing from the Falklands, has leapt on the promotion of her fellow Argentine to the papacy to boost her case.
In a televised address yesterday she pointedly said she hoped the new Pope would ‘take a message to the major world powers that they need to participate in dialogue’.
The controversy was stoked up only days after the islanders voted almost unanimously to retain their ties to London.
Last night retired Lieutenant General Sir Hew Pike, who commanded 3 Para in the 1982 conflict, said the newly elected leader of the Catholic Church seemed not to recognise the Falkland islanders’ right to self-determination.
Sir Hew, 69, said the Pope’s statements about the Falklands gave no recognition of the islanders’ wish to remain British.
Sir Hew said: ‘It saddens me that a man of the Pope’s stature does not seem to respect the rights of a group of people to self-determination
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293598/Fury-Falklands-heroes-new-Pope-He-believes-Malvinas-belong-Argentina-president-hopes-support-case.html#ixzz2Na2m8hCo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
if argentina wants the falkland islands why don’t they grow a pair and simply take them?
unfortunately the argentinian military are only good for torturing unarmed civillians and disposing of their bodies anonymously – they are only good for one thing, strong arming their own population – when they met with real opposition they caved.
wookiemeister said:
if argentina wants the falkland islands why don’t they grow a pair and simply take them?unfortunately the argentinian military are only good for torturing unarmed civillians and disposing of their bodies anonymously – they are only good for one thing, strong arming their own population – when they met with real opposition they caved.
Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
Skunkworks said:
wookiemeister said:
if argentina wants the falkland islands why don’t they grow a pair and simply take them?unfortunately the argentinian military are only good for torturing unarmed civillians and disposing of their bodies anonymously – they are only good for one thing, strong arming their own population – when they met with real opposition they caved.
Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
wookiemeister said:
Skunkworks said:
wookiemeister said:
if argentina wants the falkland islands why don’t they grow a pair and simply take them?unfortunately the argentinian military are only good for torturing unarmed civillians and disposing of their bodies anonymously – they are only good for one thing, strong arming their own population – when they met with real opposition they caved.
Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
if the british had lost a few more ships you can bet that things would have got really down and dirty – think full scale attack on argentinian ports/ military and civillian airports and infrastructure. once things were over the british would have demanded compensation.
As I understand it, they were pushed logistically and of course there are considerations of public opposition if 3 or more warships, especially if one is a carrier go to Davey Jones locker. Plus a few silly decisions along the way by the argies but that is par for the course in any conflict and usually only apparent in hindsight and with complete information.
at the time there were people queuing up at the local army recruitment office just begging to get involved in the fight
i’d heard some story about goebbels complaining that he couldn’t get anyone to come and watch army faux field exercises even for the charge of a few pennies – imagine his amazement when he found out that people paid good money in britain to go and see stuff like the royal tournament.
Skunkworks said:
wookiemeister said:
Skunkworks said:Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
if the british had lost a few more ships you can bet that things would have got really down and dirty – think full scale attack on argentinian ports/ military and civillian airports and infrastructure. once things were over the british would have demanded compensation.As I understand it, they were pushed logistically and of course there are considerations of public opposition if 3 or more warships, especially if one is a carrier go to Davey Jones locker. Plus a few silly decisions along the way by the argies but that is par for the course in any conflict and usually only apparent in hindsight and with complete information.
if i were the british i might have swapped the heads on a few polaris missiles and bombed something valuable with my ICBMs – that would have annoyed the hell out of the military
if i had been in charge i would have followed up the falklands up with a full scale assault on the mainland and kicked the argentinians off their islands nearby.
you could have landed a battle group somewhere remote where its difficult for the argentinian army to get to you. you could declare this land british territory as compensation for the war.
any invasion in australia will most likely come from an invasion based in an area for anyone to get to
sure they could send the australian airforce but if you had some decent missiles you could knock them out with no worries
i don’t believe any invasion here will involve the cities – most likely mines and things of real value.
the navy doesn’t have much scope over here so control of the skies and water in the north would be held by the invading army if they could knock out the remaining collins class that worked it would be game over.
things might actually be better under an invading force here – GST would be virtually uncollectable as well as carbon tax so i’d imagine that the locals would most likely cheer their new masters on to greater things.
wookiemeister said:
EDIT
any invasion in australia will most likely come from an invasion based in a remote hard area for anyone to get to if they lived in brisbane and sydneysure they could send the australian airforce but if you had some decent missiles you could knock them out with no worries
i don’t believe any invasion here will involve the cities – most likely mines and things of real value.
the navy doesn’t have much scope over here so control of the skies and water in the north would be held by the invading army if they could knock out the remaining collins class that worked it would be game over.
things might actually be better under an invading force here – GST would be virtually uncollectable as well as carbon tax so i’d imagine that the locals would most likely cheer their new masters on to greater things.
wookiemeister said:
things might actually be better under an invading force here – GST would be virtually uncollectable as well as carbon tax so i’d imagine that the locals would most likely cheer their new masters on to greater things.
Don’t forget the killing. Everyone loves the killing.
Too many damn people already, for the land that we could use for golf…
Witty Rejoinder said:
wookiemeister said:
things might actually be better under an invading force here – GST would be virtually uncollectable as well as carbon tax so i’d imagine that the locals would most likely cheer their new masters on to greater things.
Don’t forget the killing. Everyone loves the killing.
if the invading force more or less left people alone you’d have a much easier time especially with no tax collectors on the scene.
who knows they might even build a few decent roads whilst they are here
I wonder what Bubblecar thinks of giving north-western Australia to the Chinese.
Witty Rejoinder said:
I wonder what Bubblecar thinks of giving north-western Australia to the Chinese.
wookiemeister said:
things might actually be better under an invading force here – GST would be virtually uncollectable as well as carbon tax so i’d imagine that the locals would most likely cheer their new masters on to greater things.
Wait, what? You think an invasion by another country would be welcomed to get rid of the GST and carbon tax?
Witty Rejoinder said:
I wonder what Bubblecar thinks of giving north-western Australia to the Chinese.
well, we are, really… when ya think about it.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Nah give NZ to the Chinese, but they have to keep the Kiwis.
I wonder what Bubblecar thinks of giving north-western Australia to the Chinese.
And they can reclaim their gooseberries…
Skunkworks said:
wookiemeister said:things might actually be better under an invading force here – GST would be virtually uncollectable as well as carbon tax so i’d imagine that the locals would most likely cheer their new masters on to greater things.
Wait, what? You think an invasion by another country would be welcomed to get rid of the GST and carbon tax?
obviously you’ve never read any machiavelli
you could probably point out the local problems to the new admin that blight the community that the “law” can’t deal with and let the invading force take the fall for the “crimes against humanity” – it would all be very said but my bets would be the crime rate would bottom out at zero after a few weeks and the streets would be safe to walk in again.
you could probably send all the legal gentlemen down to the south and let them blight the community down there
wookiemeister said:
obviously you’ve never read any machiavelli
Mossad does
neomyrtus_ said:
wookiemeister said:obviously you’ve never read any machiavelli
Mossad does
i doubt if the australian gov minds so its ok
Never in the course of something or other has so much crap been emitted by so few. Ref: Winston Churchill
Phone lines have been restored to residents in parts of north-west Queensland’s Gulf Country.
For more than a week residents in the Gregory Downs have been without landlines, internet, EFTPOS and ATMs after a lightning strike damaged a Telstra tower.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-15/gulf-phone-services-restored/4575462?section=business
this would have never happened if our prospecptive masters were in control
wookiemeister said:
this would have never happened if our prospecptive masters were in control
The Chinese control the weather now?
wookiemeister said:
this would have never happened if our prospecptive masters were in control
Fark! They can prevent lightning strikes!
wookiemeister said:
Phone lines have been restored to residents in parts of north-west Queensland’s Gulf Country.
The work of Mossad
neomyrtus_ said:
wookiemeister said:
Phone lines have been restored to residents in parts of north-west Queensland’s Gulf Country.The work of Mossad
in other news we can’t even square off against the japanese coast guard in own waters
too wet and too rusty for the australian navy
wookiemeister said:
squirting poison into people’s ears is more mossads line of work
well, it certainly unblocks impacted ear wax.
neomyrtus_ said:
wookiemeister said:squirting poison into people’s ears is more mossads line of work
well, it certainly unblocks impacted ear wax.
other stuff in the mossad beauty treatment line
face removal cream
vanishing cream – smear on journalists, history and anything else inconvenient and make them disappear!
“seacret” – packaged slime and muds from the dead sea area and sold at shppping centres whilst the real employees go snooping around the neigbourhood whilst people are out working
jehovahs special gel – turns anyone into a lunatic hellbent on world domination $14.99 plus post and packaging
Skunkworks said:
Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
Quite the opposite IMHO. At the time the feeling amongst the population was more of the line “ Why aren’t we bombing their fuckin’ airfields?”
pommiejohn said:
Skunkworks said:Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
Quite the opposite IMHO. At the time the feeling amongst the population was more of the line “ Why aren’t we bombing their fuckin’ airfields?”
Bit hard to do when you are pushing the envelope logistically and lost your carrier plus a few other billion dollar war ships.
Skunkworks said:
pommiejohn said:
Skunkworks said:Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
Quite the opposite IMHO. At the time the feeling amongst the population was more of the line “ Why aren’t we bombing their fuckin’ airfields?”
Bit hard to do when you are pushing the envelope logistically and lost your carrier plus a few other billion dollar war ships.
theres a way
Skunkworks said:
pommiejohn said:
Skunkworks said:Not so sure about that, if a few more of those Exocets had worked Britain may well have backed off. And yes, I am aware of the rumour about France passing on codes and frequencies to defeat the missiles.
Quite the opposite IMHO. At the time the feeling amongst the population was more of the line “ Why aren’t we bombing their fuckin’ airfields?”
Bit hard to do when you are pushing the envelope logistically and lost your carrier plus a few other billion dollar war ships.
Fortunately that didn’t happen though.
They did manage to bomb Stanley airfield from Ascension Island so in theory they could reach Argentina too.