Could I take the south bit of Argentina?

And Argentina is unquestionably an Industrialized nation. They have an active industry in military equipment as well.

One of the aircraft they have built over the years were German designed Flying Wings, as well as the TC-66, a locally made C-130.

One thing I have not mentioned here much, is that my wife is from Argentina. She and her family fled here during the Dirty War, and her father was a metalurgist on the TC-66. When he discovered a flaw due to substandard metals, he unfortuniately made the report to the General that was getting the kickbacks for the used of inferior metals. This caused he and his family to flee to the United States, where I met her.

But needless to say, their level of industry would take any upstart nation in the Falklands decades to come even close to matching. And Brazil has a rather formidable industrial capacity as well.

One of the reasons for the entire Malvinas crisis in the 1980's was that the military junta wanted to try and unify the people behind them in a war. And it almost worked, and they almost got the rest of South American to join them. If they were invaded, I have no question that every nation from Chilie and Brazil to Venezuela and El Salvador will immediatley rally behind them to fight off the European Puppet State.

So if this invasion happened, I would place the lifespan of the Republic of the Falklands as measured in months, if not weeks.

Of course, they would starve to death long before it ever got that far.

 

The theory is okay, but the numbers and the cost render the argument a bit perverse, I think, as if a rich street in some town should declare itself independent. It is my very firm belief that the English, like the zionists later, were settling people on someone else's property*, what's more, which, again, makes the principle a bit weak.
*My urge to get into throwing nationalistic history sources at one another is small.

 

In fact similar right-wingers dug him up and - with that well-known aristocratic charm - went to boast to his daughter about it. She said, as do I now, that she doubted if he cared. Just as he stuck strictly to the laws of war when he was campaigning in Ireland, he was above the kind of barbarism that meddles with human remains. Keave that stuff to the extremright.

 

Little countries? With a top 10 world economy, the largest banking sector on earth, the leading member of the commonwealth, a leader member of the EU, one of the best militaries in the world, we shouldn't be off the UN security council, others should be able to join, like Germany, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Turkey, and such like, but the UK leave that's the most stupid thing I have ever heard.

 

Cromwell was a muduring bastard, well done to you sir. As like most British people a support the monarchy. But would choose parliament over the monarchy.

 

You miss out the USA's part, don't you. And that their was a large British population on the Falklands, at the time when the UK came to retake the Falklands. And British never recognised Argentina having control of the Falklands.

Do you also think Argentina had a right to south Georgia? And the British Antarctic territories?

 

Well that's a shock!!!!!!!! hahaha.

 

What US part? Unless you are talking about the few months (1831) that the US claimed sovereignty over the islands? That was really essentially a trade dispute (the Argentine Confederation tried to say that nobody but they could hunt seals in the area). The US sent one warship down (USS Lexington), attacked the colony, and left once the Argentine Confederation recognized the right of others to hunt and fish in the area. When they left a few months later, there was still an Argentine colony on the island. It was over a year later that the British returned again and expelled all the Argentine colonists.

And excuse me, what "large population"? I have been to parties which had more people then the entire population of the Falklands Islands.

As for England never recognizing the Argentine claim, WTF does that matter? North Vietnam never recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam, and North Korea has still never recognized the sovereignty of South Korea. That is the bully's justification to do whatever it wants, and has no place in such a discussion. Heck, many nations in the Middle East and Asia still refise to recognize the sovereignty, let alone the existance of Israel. Does that mean it does not exist?

 

It is only a shock to you, because you know a lot less then you think you do, and really have no idea of what you are talking about. And you conviently ignore anything mentioned to you that does not fit in your narrow workd-view.

So what about William Walker? How are you any different then he is, other then he actually tried the overseas adventures you only fantasize about?

 

Do I need to say it again, over the Falklands, the USA doesn't matter, it's the EU that matters. And the UK and EU would stop any US blockade, you say the US and China wouldn't go to war because China has so much US debt, but the EU has more US debt, so the EU could just say no to the US doing that. So a US blockade I don't think so, and the EU has a great deal of power in south America, more so than any outside power. And I wonder why a democratic party white house support a talks, on a south American matter?

Also Japan attack the European empires and the US empire, then those empires fought back, the Falklands would be the European and US empires, fight back after, Argentina attacked the Falklands.

All the rest you said is correct, but it still doesn't get away from the fact that Argentina doesn't have that in the place I would be trying to take, and no matter how big their army is, it couldn't cross the straits of magellan, so the one power thing Argentina has it's army and population is gone, it's 30 year old navy and 50 year old air force would be destroyed, when they first attack the Falklands, along with their best troops.

And as I said if the Falklands have backing from the EU, the other south American nations couldn't do anything, nor could the US or China.

 

I'd rather have a monarchy.

 

Do you think the rest of the EU is going to figt to extend UK Colonializim again? If you think so, you are greatly deluding yourself. The minute that the Falklands go independent the EU will drop them. Because they are not in their sphere of influence.

And really? The UK will break a US blockade? Against a Navy that outwrighs them like 6 to 1? Not even the Soviets were able to do that.

As for the President, I could not care less what he thinks in this matter. Other then if he sends me down there to fight off such imperialism, I will go and fight against it.

OK, this makes no sense. In WWII, yes, Japan attacked the US and most European nations. But the vast majority of the fighting was done by the US, Europe was busy in Europe at the time, and had little left over to give their colonists. Is it any wonder most of them fought for their freedom and independence after the war was over? Within a few decades, the colonies were mostly gone.

And why bring up Argentina attacking here? You are the one that advocates a UK puppet attack and invade Argentina here.

As I said, naked imperialization. You are now trying to hide this as an attack by Argentina, which has neither been threatened, nor have you brought up until now.

Yes, if Argentina attacked the Falklands the EU would get involved, it is part of an EU nation. If they went independent, the EU would drop them. And if Argentina attacked them, even independent the EU would complain, just as they would any other agressive invasion against another nation.

But you have not been talking about Argentina invading the Falklands, you have been talking about the Falklands invading and conquering the south of Argentina. Stop trying to flip your story here buddy. It is dishonest.

Wanna bet? Tell you what, go get some education on what land based aircraft could do, and the Brazilian Navy and what it can do, and then look at some nautical charts of the passage to that region of the world.

And yes, China could not do anything, they lack the naval assets. But I never mentioned China, did I? You are trying to derail the debate yet again.

And really, you think the entire UK Navy could stand against a US Battle fleet, based around 1 or 2 Nuclear carriers? If you think that, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Do you really think that a passage through the Brazilian Basin would go unopposed?

I am aware you believe that South America is full of broken nations that need your Civilizing influence. But that will never happen, and you will onyl succeede in having them unite against the UK, again. And likely force a major split between US-UK relations, probably to the point that they will never work together again.

So go back to your OP, and stop trying to flip this into something other then what you said.

 

So the US claimed the Falklands, and then the UK took them, so how can the US now support Argentina's claim, when they didn't support their claim in 1833? And we didn't kick them all out we paid some to say.

As a percentage, of the people left when the US took some of the people off the islands, the British had 15%-20% of the population, of 27 people.

It matters because no Argentine was living on the Falklands when the British claimed them, the UK had the first claim, was Argentina claiming them then? No it wasn't even a country, Spain and France, have a claim as good as Argentina, but their claims are still nowhere near a good as the British claim. Who had the Falklands first, has claimed them even since, who has fought and won a war over them, and who the population of the island want to be defended by. The UK's claim is backed by the EU, commonwealth and Turkey, the Argentina claim is backed by Russia, China, Iran and other south American nations. So who has the moral high ground, the UK. The UK has history, the population and international unions on it's side. And Argentina lie's about the Falklands, history and what the UK did when it retook the Falklands.

Are you saying the current Falklands population is to small to have any right to self-determination?

 

I was joking. And the difference between me a Walker is I would have the support of the EU.

 

If I could vote for the monarchy every 5 years, I would rather have the monarchy aswell.

 

Why don't both the U.S. and UK agree to split the area they conquer? The U.S. doesn't have to worry about a major war in their backyard like Europe did in the 1940's, so you really are saying the U.S. can maintain imperialism in South America.

 

No the EU doesn't fight military war, it's a political and economic union, that's where it's power is. So the EU would give economic and diplomatic support to the Falklands, if they were attacked by Argentian. Which I said in my OP that I would trick Argentina into starting a war they couldn't win by making the Falklands look weaker than it real would be. The Falklands would be a ally of the EU and UK, and in the EU sphere of influence, as the EU is south Americas biggest trading partner and invester, also the UK would keep it's other territories in the region.

I am taking about who has the most power in south America out of the 3 main foreign power, and the EU has the most power, China is growing and the US falling away, in economic terms.

Please tell me how counter attacking, a Argentina attack on the Falklands is imperialism?

What does who did the most fighting against Japan have to do with anything. The person I was replying to said, they stratagy is like Japan in WW2, I was saying it was more like the allies power fight against Japan, as the Falklands would be attack by Argentina and fight back. Any way, I don't want to get into WW2 and who did the most where, and why the UK lost it's empire.
Yes I am saying the Falklands should have a plan to invade Argentina if they are attacked. And that the Falklands should be able to do the operation, but only if and when Argentina attacks them.

I have said many times, that Argentina would be attacking the Falklands first, like what I said Chile wouldn't like Argentina attacking another south American nation.

But I wasn't taking to you when I said anything about China, and China is a growing power in the region, and backs Argentina, but they don't yet have the economic or political power the EU has in the region, so they couldn't force say Chile to attack the Falklands, as the EU could say stop Brazil from doing so.

I am not stupid enough to invade Argentina, for no real reason. With out Argentina attack the Falklands first, because it see's the Falklands as a easy target and a territory it once had.

This is what I am saying, the Falklands get independence from the UK, with the support of the UK, EU, Turkey, Commonwealth, then builds up it's economy and military ever 8 years, by which time Argentina will be a strong enough economic and political power to defend it's position in the UN, thinking the Falklands like 1982 would be easy to take, but over those 8 years the Falklands have be building up their military power with help from the EU and UK, so when Argentina attacks, they lose, but refuse to make peace and give up their claim to the Falklands, so the Falklands with 25,000 troops would invade and take the southern bit of Argentina, forcing them to make peace, and end their claim to the Falklands. As I said befor the hardest thing would be hiding the military, so Argentina thinks the Falklands are weak.

I said befor Brazil is a real threat, not because of it's carrier but because of the rest of it's navy. And if their military backed Argentina, the war would be over, but the power of the EU would mean Brazil wouldn't back Argentina in that way, I am not take about a war between the EU and Brazil but, the EU have economic power that Brazil couldn't do without.

And yes the UK would be crushed by 1 US carrier group, but the US wouldn't got to war with the UK in the first place or blockade the Falklands, because of the EU's economic and political power.

And no I don't think that at all about south America, I know a few people from Peru and my aunty has been to Peru 4 times and other nations in south America, and they aren't broken states, they just have a different way of doing things.

And am not Mitt Romney I have not flipped or flopped, at all, you just miss read what I was saying. Like youdid with the QE carriers thread.

 

You can't even get the support of a single poster here.

How would you get the support of the EU?

 

Pardon me?

Are we both thinking of the same Oliver Cromwell?

 

Well that's because I didn't get my point across that Argentina would be attacking the Falklands first, then the Falklands would invade the southern bit of Argentina, so have a better position the peace talks.

 

How many rights were given the citizens of other former UK colonies like India, Pakistan, and Rhodesia after the end of colonization? What about the citizens of nations like Algeria and Indochina when the French left?

Well, they were all given a choice. They were citizens of the colonial nations as well, and huge numbers choose to emmigrate to their "home nations" rather then stay with the colony. Even to this day you have citizens of Rhodesia emmigrating to the UK from their former colony.

And I still fail to see what this has to do with an invasion of Argentina. The argument you raised was not where the Falklands belong, but instead an invasion of and siezing a huge chunk of land from Argentina, a sovereign nation that has been at peace with the UK now for over 30 years.Why can't you stick to your original claims of what you want to see happen?

You honestly think the EU would support the invasion and siezing part of Argentina?

This is where you make several huge assumptions, all of them very wrong.

Argentina today is not the same Argentina of 31 years ago. There is no longer a military junta ruleing the nation, and the Republic in place now has no reason to attack the Falklands.

In case you were not aware of it, Argentina in 1981 never expected to actually be able to hold the islands. It was all a kind of Patriotic War, with the hopes that it would rally the people around the flag, and return support to a failing and collapsing military junta.

It was not really about the Falklands, it was about holding power in Argentina. If they thought they could have started a similar war with a neighboring nation and not had the war continue for years, they would probably have done that instead.

The political situation in Argentina is nowhere near the same as it was in 1981. So thinking they would invade is simple foolishness. They have the military to invade and take them over again at any time they choose to. But that will not happen, no more then the UK of today would engage in another of Vickie's Little Wars, or like the War of Jenkin's Ear.

 

He was neither a bastard nor did he murder anyone. He fought against the same forces as the French and American Revolutionaries, for the same reasons, and was certainly the best ruler Britain ever had, if yoiu like rulers.

 

No - you are thinking about a lot of tedious old crap put about by the IRA, doubtless, I of history.

 

So he was better than Attlee and Churchill then? He was crap, as bad as the king that came befor him.

 

Excuse me?

A supporter of the IRA? Moi?

McKeiver is one of the very few historians who would argue that Cromwell's actions fell within the then accepted rule of law.

The vast bulk of historic scholarship shows his Irish campaign to be monstrous even by the standards of the day.