Falklands

Remove all ads!

Actually, the comments I've seen from him are really not that bad (and his comments about Chavez are routinely misquoted).

This comment was very reasonable considering Argentina views the warships accompanying the Prince as a threat. In fact, Argentina is very concerned that the UK is deploying nuclear missiles on the Falklands. I've been involved in a lot of "Freedom of Navigation" exercises in my life and every one of them was basically daring the other guys to fight -- it was like the bully on the playground taunting anyone to take him. Sending William to the Falklands is basically the same thing -- taunting the Argentinians. I personally don't care one way or the other, but I can at least recognize it for what it is and understand when others don't agree with the idea.

Once again, not really a big deal here either. He's stating an opinion (which the US doesn't follow either) and I actually think he's got a interesting idea. Although I really don't care if there are colonies out there....

Barmy, the warships are not helping one bit. British imperialistic attitudes are not helping one bit. I think it's better that Argentina went to the UN instead of launching an air assault ... the Dauntless will run out of missiles before Argentina runs out of pilots and jets ... just sayin'.

 

If there are any imperialistic attitudes here, they're on the Argentinian side. You've made the mistake of Penn and made yourself look like a idiot, congratulations. Read up on this issue before you comment please, starting with my above post.

As for the warships, they have always been there. This new one is to replace an old decommissioned one, nothing more. We will put our military where we like within our own borders. Right now the Falklands are the hottest area of the UK and is the one area under any kind of threat. Of course we're going to have stuff there, to do otherwise would be foolish. As for the prince, he goes on tour everywhere with the navy and RAF, this one tour was organised ages ago, long before Argentina decided to take umbrage.

Really pal....

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

BTA -- not every missile hits. Older systems use the shoot-shoot-look-shoot method (automatically firing two missiles and then a third if the probability of a hit looks too low -- three missiles before a hit), the newer systems like Aegis and what's on Dauntless use shoot-look-shoot. That's still going to pump out ~one and a half missiles for each jet ... and that assumes all the slots for missiles are surface-to-air (which is not always the case for our ships). I haven't even counted on missiles leaving the rails of the jets and adding targets. It's easy for a land based attack to overwhelm a ship. Of course, that said the Falklands are on the outer limits of range for the Argentina air forces (which is why they lost before -- 50 miles closer would have given the advantage to Argentina).

Barmy -- your chest thumping made hearing the message difficult. But as I said twice in my comment ... I don't care what happens in the Falklands. I'm pretty much a neutral bystander and can see both sides of the arguments. You're the one with the blinders on and only seeing one point of view.

 

I agree with you that their where huge problems in the 70ies with stagflation. But my point was mainly that Thatcher is definetly not the mother of British industry, considering she single handedly destroyed the manufacturing base.
My general point was that the modeling put in place instead of keynesianism has been spectacularly bad for huge parts of the world. Structural adjustment of the Chicago kind has destroyed many a life. Both in the old manufacturing centres of the developed world, and in developing countries.

But saying that the economic woes for UK was Wilsons fault and Thatcher somehow saved it, is wrong.
My point with the graphs was simply to illustrate how slow the recovery under Thatcher was, and that is not even taking into consideration that the growth mainly happened in the south.

To stay on topic, I contend that Thatcher would never have won more than one election if she had not milked the Falkland war as she did.

And dont get me started on the rebates and how poorly that portrays UKs commitment to a peaceful Europe.

 

Good way of refusing to admit you were wrong and uninformed. I don't care that you don't care, I care that you were wrong. The fact you don't care enough to actually learn about the situation first before spouting off made your post even worse.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

Wrong about what Barmy? You have yet to give any specifics refuting anything I, or Sean Penn for that matter, have said. I've just said I understand where Penn and Argentina are coming from. Of course if you truly believe sending a state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyer to replace an aging Type 23 frigate is an equal defense posture and does not represent a shift in power then go right ahead. But that's evidently not the way it's being viewed in Argentina. And that such a shift is done when a member of the royal family just happens to go out there ... well, those people in Argentina are just plain loco if they believe the leadership is being beefed up out there ... "honest there's nothing going on out here ... trust us, but don't even think about flying over us 'cause we'll blow you out of the sky with our new Sea Viper missile system sitting out here ... just ... because ... um ... yeah."

I personally think what the UK is doing is just fine, but it's not helping relations with Argentina. And that's basically what Penn is saying.

The whole "I don't agree with you so you must be an idiot" argument is rather old.

 

I'll reply when I'm back home mate.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

Defreni1, do me a favour, go to college, study economics, you're going to want to look at the economical history of the UK from about the 40's up where the whole colliery issue started. For the record, the guardian is not a good source for any journalism especially since pretty much anything they print is anti government. Thatcher didn't destroy anything, you know whats happening in Greece right now? times it by about 10 and you'd have the current economical state of the UK if it werent for thatcher maybe worse, as any tax revenue right now would be going to pay for food to feed the deperately starving masses who have no jobs or money, no hospitals, no firefighters, no police force and certainly no millitary because after the winter of discontent, as I said earlier, inflation was at 18% (18.3%) when she took power, the highest it has ever been, that means that every year every product sold in the UK increased by nearly 20% so in 5 years everything has nearly doubled in price - who the hell would buy british steel at those prices? or british beef or lamb or anything? they cant sell the goods, they lay off staff, or go bust - Less tax revenue. As these businesses are going bust and laying off staff, the UK woukd be hit with a massive influx of cheap imported goods, killing whatever industry remained in the country, more unemployment (lets bear in mind that it was at 3mil when she took power, by this point in my scenario most of the country would be out of work). As tax revenue has fallen the government has to make further cuts to services, hospitals, schools, firestations and police stations close... in other places staff are unpaid and strike is the result.

Every British person should be kissing her feet, she saved the british economy, our livelyhoods and our futures.

 

As i wrote I did not have time to look for a better graph. Funny you should mention college. I have actually studied economic history at university level. Just because you dont adhere to the dominance of the Chicago school doesnt mean you have no clue.

In my younger days I thought the same as you. The bad bad socialist had destroyed the economy in an elusive quest for full employment. The consequence was stagflation, and the good guys saved the day, meaning Thatcher et. al. Only problem with this story is that it is very one dimensional, and hence wrong.

By the way, funny example you use right after you invite me to go to college...again. Inflation is, if all else is equal, actually a boon for industry in an export situation. If the pound looses its value british steel will get cheaper for people buying in dollars. Econ 101.

A good read for an alternative account of economic history is this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Rich-Countries-Poor-Stay/dp/1845298748/ref=pd_sim_b_2

I must confess that I have mainly read development economics, and it is allmost 15 years ago i read introductory macro economics, so I am a bit rusty. But to hear that Thatcher saved british industry was just to phenomenal to let lie.

And if titles instead of arguments count, I am willing to go into a namedropping contest with you. It just seems so....well 1. year in University was the last time I did that time wasting excersice.

Regards
Defreni

 

Regarding what? The islands sovereignty? This isn't in question, and anyone who bothers to read about the history of the island knows this. Argentina's single claim to the island seems to be that they are closer to Argentina than Britain, which is obviously idiotic. Argentina wasn't even formed as a country when the island became British. The islanders overwhelmingly want to remain British, but because they're close to Argentina, they want them, and we're being the colonialists here?

Of course we're bulking up defences a bit. The last time Argentina went off about this, they invaded the islands and tried to take them by force. I don't think that will happen this time, but it doesn't hurt to be careful.

No it's not. Nowhere did he say he agrees with the British irrefutable claim to the islands, and actually harked on about colonial ideology. Colonial ideology doesn't come into it, it's called respecting your subjects right to self determination and protecting them

I didn't call you an idiot because I disagreed with you, I called you an idiot because you made comment on this without garnering any understanding about the situation first. Argentina have no claim to the islands, at all. Think about that for a second, then look at this issue again.

 

Barmy Army is right in most of what he posted. The islands are British and the people want to be British. Britans navy is protecting it's people and if I was among the small population living there I would be proud and relieved to know that. This is an opinion based on what I feel and think not on history or where in the world the islands are or what they are called. Put yourself on the islands with a neighbor next door over wanting you gone and the view of the problem might shift a bit. If the islanders wanted to join Argentina It would be a different type of problem, not the same thing.

 

I never said Argentina had a claim to the islands. I do not agree that Britain has an irrefutable claim to the islands either but I agree that the people on the islands can choose to be a colony of Britian (these are two different things after all) -- I don't believe Penn has ever disputed the right of the people of the Falklands to be British citizens.

You're too busy buying in to the propaganda to really pay attention to what people are saying (and using a very biased press as your filter). You're using a straw man fallacy and calling people idiots for things you think they said without having a clue about the actual points presented. Who's the real idiot?

 

What? Since when has the BBC and The Guardian been biased press and propaganda? and I think this quote "I think that the world today is not going to tolerate any kind of ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology." makes Penns stance on this perfectly clear. 'Archaic commitment to colonialist ideology' indeed. Get your facts straight Penn. You're only digging a bigger hole for yourself here Bruno; notice that noone else is with you?

 

Do the Argentinians have a reason other than proximity for having a hard on for the Falklands? This seems pretty straight forward. The people on the islands consider themselves British. They've been considered British for the past 200 or so years. They want to remain British. It would seem like there would need to be some other factor at work for there to be a change in the status quo.

 

They believe the islands should have fallen to them from the Spanish government (for some reason) and believe their proximity makes the islands theirs.

Ignoring the nonsensical geography argument, a good analogy would be your grandparents (the British) stealing a house (the Falkland Islands) off someone (the Spanish), then, several generations down the line, your children get told that they are facing possible eviction, the challenge coming not from the descendents of the original owners of the house, but a family that married into the original owners family (the Argentines).

One would think it fairly straight forward, but apparently not. I visit another forum with people from all over the world and this discussion came up, with people asking Argentinians what they thought about it.

The majority were totally against the President and said that nothing will happen and it's all stupid. There were a few people who wanted to Forum-fight, but the majority said it was the Argentinian President doing nothing more than trying to get more votes and make Argentina more known-of on the map.

 

Heh, I guess we don't really. I guess it just serves to illustrate the general lack of understanding about the situation around the world. You're right though, he's not worth listening to.

 

Barmy, your insistance that the only claim Argentina has is that they are closer to the island is almost laughable.

American Indians were the first peoples to "Discover" the islands. The British sure weren't the first Europeans to land there. Many Euro countrires have claimed all or parts of the islands throughout the centuries. Britian, Spain, France, Holland, etc... they were abandoned and re-settled by Argentines almost 200 yrs ago. The Brits kicked them out then, with Argentine protest and have never let them back in.

Now, reading the history on the Falklands, I would assume that the Brits have more of a claim than anyone else, but to say that Argentina doesn't is plain wrong. But if an International Court or type of Governing body that most if not all Countries are willing to accept jusdgement from states the territory is the Brits, then I would think Argentina should abide by it.

But to claim someone is an idiot on these boards for claiming to understand both sides of the fight is idiotic in itself.... your posts are not usually of this fashion and actually surprised me when I first read it. Disagree all you want, but I also don't see anyone jumping in on your side as well... think about that for a minute...