Argentina opens up second front in Falklands Kerfuffle

[pErvinalia]

yeah, most school children do too.

It would be nice to think (wishful thinking, I know) that we have more than kids running our affairs. If the island has no benefit to the UK, then why waste so much money on it? Fucking sell it to someone.

Because people live there who are just as much a part of a certain country as those living in London. Those people live lives, have children, and follow the rules applicable to UK-ers. Selling it to Argentina is to sell them down the river, and some modicum of empathy and compassion dictate that if they've honored their bit of the social contract that the State with whom they have that contract ought to honor its bit.

The state is WAY bigger than a couple of thousand people on a rock the other side of the world. Sell the Islands, repatriate those who want repatriation, and then be done with the whole debacle.

That may be easier on you, and seen as the easy way out from the point of view of an onlooker, but other factors can enter into it:

1. Compassion and understanding for people who have lived under the law of the UK for going on 190 years, and have no desire to leave their country.
2. Defense of one's country's territorial integrity -- one has to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps France wants the Channel Islands. It may well be easier and less expensive to just sell them to France, and there are very few people on those islands, but is it the right thing to do?
3. It's only a debacle because you don't care about it. By your logic, why don't you advocate that your country give away chunks of its sparsely populated land. Australia is a pretty big island, which was taken by force from its original inhabitants. Just sell it to one of the neighboring countries and have done with the whole debacle.

It's a debacle because they've already spent millions/billions(?) defending a rock on the other side of the world, lost a bunch of soldiers lives, and may very well do the whole thing again once or more in the future.

I do have sympathies for the idea of protecting the loyal people, but I don't think much of nation states and all the bollocks that goes with it. I would think that pragmatics would be a better option here in this age.

[Cormac]

yeah, most school children do too.

It would be nice to think (wishful thinking, I know) that we have more than kids running our affairs. If the island has no benefit to the UK, then why waste so much money on it? Fucking sell it to someone.

Because people live there who are just as much a part of a certain country as those living in London. Those people live lives, have children, and follow the rules applicable to UK-ers. Selling it to Argentina is to sell them down the river, and some modicum of empathy and compassion dictate that if they've honored their bit of the social contract that the State with whom they have that contract ought to honor its bit.

The state is WAY bigger than a couple of thousand people on a rock the other side of the world. Sell the Islands, repatriate those who want repatriation, and then be done with the whole debacle.

That may be easier on you, and seen as the easy way out from the point of view of an onlooker, but other factors can enter into it:

1. Compassion and understanding for people who have lived under the law of the UK for going on 190 years, and have no desire to leave their country.
2. Defense of one's country's territorial integrity -- one has to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps France wants the Channel Islands. It may well be easier and less expensive to just sell them to France, and there are very few people on those islands, but is it the right thing to do?
3. It's only a debacle because you don't care about it. By your logic, why don't you advocate that your country give away chunks of its sparsely populated land. Australia is a pretty big island, which was taken by force from its original inhabitants. Just sell it to one of the neighboring countries and have done with the whole debacle.

It's a debacle because they've already spent millions/billions(?) defending a rock on the other side of the world, lost a bunch of soldiers lives, and may very well do the whole thing again once or more in the future.

I do have sympathies for the idea of protecting the loyal people, but I don't think much of nation states and all the bollocks that goes with it. I would think that pragmatics would be a better option here in this age.

It isn't a question of that.

What we have here is one nation state seeking to extinguish the democratic and human rights of people, simply because they live nearby and they have stuff that that state wants.

Like the UK and USA have done and continue to do to the Chagos Islanders.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a debacle because they've already spent millions/billions(?) defending a rock on the other side of the world, lost a bunch of soldiers lives, and may very well do the whole thing again once or more in the future.

It's not just a rock. It's people. It's not characteristically different than Berwick Upon Tweed, or is Berwick a "chunk of dirt?"

I do have sympathies for the idea of protecting the loyal people, but I don't think much of nation states and all the bollocks that goes with it. I would think that pragmatics would be a better option here in this age.

It has nothing much to do with their loyalty. They are as much citizens (well, maybe "subjects") as folks on the London Tube today.

It's all well and good that you don't think much of nation states. if that's the case, why are you siding with Argentina? Why should you declare that Britain must not waste lives and money defending the Falklands, but you don't say "Argentina -- can it with your national sovereignty bullshit! Stop wasting lives and money over these little rocks!" I never hear that directed at Argentina -- only at the UK.

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

[MrJonno]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

I prefer the pragmatic bribe the islanders, unless their is really profitable oil there.

[pErvinalia]

I do have sympathies for the idea of protecting the loyal people, but I don't think much of nation states and all the bollocks that goes with it. I would think that pragmatics would be a better option here in this age.

It has nothing much to do with their loyalty. They are as much citizens (well, maybe "subjects") as folks on the London Tube today.

It's all well and good that you don't think much of nation states. if that's the case, why are you siding with Argentina?

Who said I am siding with Argentina? Sell it to anyone. Just get rid of it.

Why should you declare that Britain must not waste lives and money defending the Falklands, but you don't say "Argentina -- can it with your national sovereignty bullshit!

Because I am not required to confirm your biases in this argument.

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

Sell the whole fucking thing and let someone else deal with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

I prefer the pragmatic bribe the islanders, unless their is really profitable oil there.

Bribe them to do what, exactly?

[Coito ergo sum]

I do have sympathies for the idea of protecting the loyal people, but I don't think much of nation states and all the bollocks that goes with it. I would think that pragmatics would be a better option here in this age.

It has nothing much to do with their loyalty. They are as much citizens (well, maybe "subjects") as folks on the London Tube today.

It's all well and good that you don't think much of nation states. if that's the case, why are you siding with Argentina?

Who said I am siding with Argentina? Sell it to anyone. Just get rid of it.

Why?

And, if it doesn't go to Argentina, how is the problem solved? Won't Argentina just be rattling sabers at someone else? Is that "solving the problem?" Jeezus, folks -- how craven have the Anglo-Saxons become, if this is a common attitude?

Why should you declare that Britain must not waste lives and money defending the Falklands, but you don't say "Argentina -- can it with your national sovereignty bullshit!

Because I am not required to confirm your biases in this argument.

Of course you're not required to confirm my biases, if any. But, I'm asking you -- not telling you -- do you think Argentina should stop rattling sabers, wasting lives/money and demanding ownership of this piddling rock? Up to you whether you do or don't, and feel free to decline to answer, but it is rather telling that you make that statement about the UK (which has populated the islands for 2 centuries, and claimed them for about three) and you conspicuously don't make that statement about Argentina, which never owned them and never populated them.

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

Sell the whole fucking thing and let someone else deal with it.

You're Australian. How does that change your analysis? That would help Britain take the "easy way out," but does it solve the problem? Sell it the US or France, then. So, now Argentina rattles sabers and continues to demand the islands be handed over under pain of war. What do you advise then? Sell the "fucking thing" and let someone else deal with it? Can you think of a more pointless non-solution solution?

Curious how you refer to a place where people live, work, love, go to school, make livings, enjoy life, get married, have babies, and die and are buried as a "fucking thing." If your home is ever threatened, hopefully the rest of the world and your own country won't just consider your home a "rock" and a "fucking thing" and that we'd all be better off if you just picked up your lifetime of belongings and moved somewhere else, because that's "easier" - capitulation to extortionists is "easier" than protecting the innocent. What word did I use before? Ah, yes -- craven. That's the one.

[pErvinalia]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

Sell the whole fucking thing and let someone else deal with it.

You're Australian. How does that change your analysis? That would help Britain take the "easy way out," but does it solve the problem? Sell it the US or France, then. So, now Argentina rattles sabers and continues to demand the islands be handed over under pain of war. What do you advise then? Sell the "fucking thing" and let someone else deal with it? Can you think of a more pointless non-solution solution?

Rubbish. It's a solution for Britain. And who says the argies are going to give a shit about the island once the brits are gone?

Curious how you refer to a place where people live, work, love, go to school, make livings, enjoy life, get married, have babies, and die and are buried as a "fucking thing." If your home is ever threatened, hopefully the rest of the world and your own country won't just consider your home a "rock" and a "fucking thing" and that we'd all be better off if you just picked up your lifetime of belongings and moved somewhere else, because that's "easier" - capitulation to extortionists is "easier" than protecting the innocent. What word did I use before? Ah, yes -- craven. That's the one.

Man, my hand was on my heart as I read that. Beautiful.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

Sell the whole fucking thing and let someone else deal with it.

You're Australian. How does that change your analysis? That would help Britain take the "easy way out," but does it solve the problem? Sell it the US or France, then. So, now Argentina rattles sabers and continues to demand the islands be handed over under pain of war. What do you advise then? Sell the "fucking thing" and let someone else deal with it? Can you think of a more pointless non-solution solution?

Rubbish. It's a solution for Britain. And who says the argies are going to give a shit about the island once the brits are gone?

The Argies say - they want the islands for their own use. And, if the Brits sell the island to another country, why would another country buy it if they aren't going to do anything with it?

Curious how you refer to a place where people live, work, love, go to school, make livings, enjoy life, get married, have babies, and die and are buried as a "fucking thing." If your home is ever threatened, hopefully the rest of the world and your own country won't just consider your home a "rock" and a "fucking thing" and that we'd all be better off if you just picked up your lifetime of belongings and moved somewhere else, because that's "easier" - capitulation to extortionists is "easier" than protecting the innocent. What word did I use before? Ah, yes -- craven. That's the one.

Man, my hand was on my heart as I read that. Beautiful.

I always find the "compassionate left" to lose all compassion as soon as it is put into practice. Ah, yes, we must have compassion and empathy -- but, fuck the Falkland Islanders, tell 'em to move off that "fucking thing" and that "stupid rock" and just go somewhere else. Just give it away, FFS -- better to capitulate to extortion...

[pErvinalia]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

Sell the whole fucking thing and let someone else deal with it.

You're Australian. How does that change your analysis? That would help Britain take the "easy way out," but does it solve the problem? Sell it the US or France, then. So, now Argentina rattles sabers and continues to demand the islands be handed over under pain of war. What do you advise then? Sell the "fucking thing" and let someone else deal with it? Can you think of a more pointless non-solution solution?

Rubbish. It's a solution for Britain. And who says the argies are going to give a shit about the island once the brits are gone?

The Argies say - they want the islands for their own use. And, if the Brits sell the island to another country, why would another country buy it if they aren't going to do anything with it?

Who gives a shit?

Curious how you refer to a place where people live, work, love, go to school, make livings, enjoy life, get married, have babies, and die and are buried as a "fucking thing." If your home is ever threatened, hopefully the rest of the world and your own country won't just consider your home a "rock" and a "fucking thing" and that we'd all be better off if you just picked up your lifetime of belongings and moved somewhere else, because that's "easier" - capitulation to extortionists is "easier" than protecting the innocent. What word did I use before? Ah, yes -- craven. That's the one.

Man, my hand was on my heart as I read that. Beautiful.

I always find the "compassionate left" to lose all compassion as soon as it is put into practice. Ah, yes, we must have compassion and empathy -- but, fuck the Falkland Islanders, tell 'em to move off that "fucking thing" and that "stupid rock" and just go somewhere else. Just give it away, FFS -- better to capitulate to extortion...

Well if war is the other option, then I think yes, my approach is actually better and more compassionate.

[MrJonno]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

I prefer the pragmatic bribe the islanders, unless their is really profitable oil there.

Bribe them to do what, exactly?

Give up sovereignty , what happens next is down to the Argentians if the islanders stay there or up to them if they leave. A million of so gives you lots of options

[Coito ergo sum]

It's easy to say "pragmatics would be a better option." Sure. But, what? Divide it in half? Would the Argentinians go for it? Would that really be better? Hand them over to Argentina to take the "Easy way out"? Would THAT really be better? Is there another pragmatic option? If so, what?

I prefer the pragmatic bribe the islanders, unless their is really profitable oil there.

Bribe them to do what, exactly?

Give up sovereignty , what happens next is down to the Argentians if the islanders stay there or up to them if they leave. A million of so gives you lots of options

They don't have sovereignty now. They are subjects of the British crown.

All the UK has to do to achieve the result you want is cut them loose. Pass a law that renounces all British ties to the Falklands, and leave it up the residents there to start their own country or vote to join another country, if that other country wants them.

Sounds like less of a bribe, and more of a salve on the British conscience. "Fuck 'em -- we gave them a million pounds! If they chose to stay, that's their business." Right?

[Coito ergo sum]

Who gives a shit?

Apparently you do, since you've suggested a solution to the problem. If you don't give a shit, then why do you even care if the Brits don't return it to the Argies? After all, who gives a shit?

Man, my hand was on my heart as I read that. Beautiful.

Well if war is the other option, then I think yes, my approach is actually better and more compassionate.

Who said anything about war being the other option?

The only country that initiated war in the Falklands and the only country threatening war is Argentina. Don't you think they should stop doing that?

Your approach is not better or compassionate, because your approach is just to sell the islands to another country. Unless that country is Argentina, how does it solve anything? The same problem, only with Russia or Germany in the place of the UK. That's "compassion" in your book?

[MrJonno]

They don't have sovereignty now. They are subjects of the British crown.

All the UK has to do to achieve the result you want is cut them loose. Pass a law that renounces all British ties to the Falklands, and leave it up the residents there to start their own country or vote to join another country, if that other country wants them.

Sounds like less of a bribe, and more of a salve on the British conscience. "Fuck 'em -- we gave them a million pounds! If they chose to stay, that's their business." Right?

We have told them that they can choose sovereignty (ie a referendum) , and its not easing our conscience its reducing our defence budget. If it costs £2 billion to produce 2000 happy Falkland Islanders and a happy Argentina which will pay for itself with a year everyone is a winner. (even better if we do some sneaky keep it quiet negotiations with Argentina I bet we could get the £2 billion of them)

I have no emotional attachment to any borders, we do however have a duty of care for all British subjects but giving them a million quid it a lot of care

[pErvinalia]

Who gives a shit?

Apparently you do, since you've suggested a solution to the problem. If you don't give a shit, then why do you even care if the Brits don't return it to the Argies? After all, who gives a shit?

I'm saying, who gives a shit after the Brits sell it? This problem is about Britain and Argentina. That problem goes away when they have nothing to fight over.

Man, my hand was on my heart as I read that. Beautiful.

Well if war is the other option, then I think yes, my approach is actually better and more compassionate.

Who said anything about war being the other option?

So, what is the other option then?

The only country that initiated war in the Falklands and the only country threatening war is Argentina. Don't you think they should stop doing that?

Yes.

Your approach is not better or compassionate, because your approach is just to sell the islands to another country. Unless that country is Argentina, how does it solve anything? The same problem, only with Russia or Germany in the place of the UK. That's "compassion" in your book?

It's compassionate for the British people in general. And they are the people (nation) that will be selling it. Hence why any questions of compassion regarding Russia or Germany etc are irrelevant to what I am saying.

And anyway, who says the Island has to be sold to someone that is likely to piss the Argentineans off (as irrational as that might be)? There might be the possibility to sell it to a third party that is a bit more neutral, but not likely to piss the argies off. Maybe one of their Sth American neighbours?

Look, ultimately, I don't give a shit about this issue. I just find sabre rattling (which includes Britain) to be Neanderthal. The world needs to move past this petty shit. Sure, the argies could get more and more belligerent and might even step up to have their arses kicked again. But what would that achieve for either side? Is it really worth it? I don't think it is. Not sure how many Brits are there, but I recall someone mentioning perhaps 1500? That many people are probably forced to move in Australia each year, so I imagine the figure would be higher in the UK and other more populace western nations. Just because they happen to live on an Island apart, should issues of greater concern to the nation as a whole not encompass their domain?