Argentina opens up second front in Falklands Kerfuffle

[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?

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.

You really don't see that Argentina will still want the Falkland Islands even if it is owned by someone else other than Britain? Is the UK the only country we "give a shit" about? If there is war between the purchaser of the Falklands and Argentina, or if Argentina is saber rattling against the new owner, nobody "gives a shit" anymore?

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?

Argentina stops threatening war.

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.

There you have it. The solution. A concerted anti-Argentina block that says - "bleat all you want, Argies, but if you initiate aggressive action, we're going to blow your ass up."

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.

The British people aren't the only interest here.

It's not irrelevant because if you're saying -- "sell the islands to someone else" then that country X has the same fucking problem as the Brits. Jeezus pleezus, man? How do you solve that problem when country X owns the Falklands and Argentina still wants it? What do you do? Advise that they be sold again, and again, like hot potato? What fucking good does that do?

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)?

The Argentinians want the Falklands -- no matter who owns it. Do you think the Argies will be like -- "oh, well, since you sold it to Australia, well, we renounce our claim to the Malvinas." Is that really what you think?

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?

Wait - you think that the Argentinians don't really want to own the Malvinas - they just want them because of some particular affront they take to the Brits owning them? You think if it's sold to Brazil or Uruguay, that the Argies will be like -- oh, well, as long as another south American country owns them, then that's fine? What the bloody 'ell, mate?

Look, ultimately, I don't give a shit about this issue.

O.k., cool.

I just find sabre rattling (which includes Britain) to be Neanderthal.

Then why is the focus of your comments almost exclusively on Britain's conduct (which involves 0 saber rattling) and you only mentioned Argentina's conduct in response to a specific question I posed? Why wouldn't your response be, "Argentina needs to shut the fuck up and stop behaving like Neanderthals?"

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?

It would not achieve anything, but it would the Argentinian's responsibility. As long as Britain doesn't fire at the Argentinians or invade their space, then they've done nothing wrong. If the Argentinians rattle sabers, they are threatening illegal action.

[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.

You really don't see that Argentina will still want the Falkland Islands even if it is owned by someone else other than Britain? Is the UK the only country we "give a shit" about? If there is war between the purchaser of the Falklands and Argentina, or if Argentina is saber rattling against the new owner, nobody "gives a shit" anymore?

You really don't see that my advice in this particular instance is in relation to the BRITISH and Argentinean situation. Anything else is straw. Getting it yet?

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?

Argentina stops threatening war.

How's that going to happen, and how many billions of pounds is it going to cost?

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.

There you have it. The solution. A concerted anti-Argentina block that says - "bleat all you want, Argies, but if you initiate aggressive action, we're going to blow your ass up."

You seemed to have missed my bit about Neanderthals.

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.

The British people aren't the only interest here.

It's not irrelevant because if you're saying -- "sell the islands to someone else" then that country X has the same fucking problem as the Brits. Jeezus pleezus, man? How do you solve that problem when country X owns the Falklands and Argentina still wants it? What do you do? Advise that they be sold again, and again, like hot potato? What fucking good does that do?

It's no longer a BRITISH problem, which is what this issue (and thread) is about. I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler for you.

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)?

The Argentinians want the Falklands -- no matter who owns it. Do you think the Argies will be like -- "oh, well, since you sold it to Australia, well, we renounce our claim to the Malvinas." Is that really what you think?

I think you'd argue black was white till the cows came home.

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?

Wait - you think that the Argentinians don't really want to own the Malvinas - they just want them because of some particular affront they take to the Brits owning them? You think if it's sold to Brazil or Uruguay, that the Argies will be like -- oh, well, as long as another south American country owns them, then that's fine? What the bloody 'ell, mate?

They might be like - "dood, let's get high instead"!. Or, I mightn't give a shit.

I just find sabre rattling (which includes Britain) to be Neanderthal.

Then why is the focus of your comments almost exclusively on Britain's conduct (which involves 0 saber rattling) and you only mentioned Argentina's conduct in response to a specific question I posed? Why wouldn't your response be, "Argentina needs to shut the fuck up and stop behaving like Neanderthals?"

Because I am secretly racist against Brits and am an Argentinean undercover sleeper agent. Either that, or your biases don't allow you to have an honest debate.

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?

It would not achieve anything, but it would the Argentinian's responsibility. As long as Britain doesn't fire at the Argentinians or invade their space, then they've done nothing wrong. If the Argentinians rattle sabers, they are threatening illegal action.

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?

[mistermack]

Rev, your argument, that it's not worth it, applies equally to Argentina.

So Britain and Argentina both have the same reasons for not bothering with it.
The only difference is that Britain HAS got it, has had it for a long long time, and it's lived on by people who consider themselves Brits.

So out of the two, it's Argentina who might as well forget it. Unless they like having a sore ass.

[pErvinalia]

Britain is in the position of power. They dictate how the whole affair will end. If they can avoid war relatively cheaply, then that's good I suppose. But then you've still got the issue of subsidising an island halfway around the world. It just doesn't make sense to me. What was the reason the Brits laid claim to it in the first place? Or perhaps more importantly, why did people settle there?

[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?

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.

You really don't see that Argentina will still want the Falkland Islands even if it is owned by someone else other than Britain? Is the UK the only country we "give a shit" about? If there is war between the purchaser of the Falklands and Argentina, or if Argentina is saber rattling against the new owner, nobody "gives a shit" anymore?

You really don't see that my advice in this particular instance is in relation to the BRITISH and Argentinean situation. Anything else is straw. Getting it yet?

Solving the problem by saying "make it someone else's problem" is rather silly. That's like saying "solve the Afghanistan War by replacing the US with Russia."

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?

Argentina stops threatening war.

How's that going to happen, and how many billions of pounds is it going to cost?

A strong, united, unequivocal position that their aggression will not be tolerated, and I support US involvement in the sense of backing up the UK to the fullest. I know Obama won't do it, but he should announce that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Brits. If the powerful nations of the world would all stand together, Argentina would back down.

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.

There you have it. The solution. A concerted anti-Argentina block that says - "bleat all you want, Argies, but if you initiate aggressive action, we're going to blow your ass up."

You seemed to have missed my bit about Neanderthals.

You only said that in response to my question. All other solutions you've offered have focused on the Brits.

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.

The British people aren't the only interest here.

It's not irrelevant because if you're saying -- "sell the islands to someone else" then that country X has the same fucking problem as the Brits. Jeezus pleezus, man? How do you solve that problem when country X owns the Falklands and Argentina still wants it? What do you do? Advise that they be sold again, and again, like hot potato? What fucking good does that do?

It's no longer a BRITISH problem, which is what this issue (and thread) is about. I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler for you.

It's about the problem of the Falklands -- it's not about "how do we make it not a BRITISH problem?"

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)?

The Argentinians want the Falklands -- no matter who owns it. Do you think the Argies will be like -- "oh, well, since you sold it to Australia, well, we renounce our claim to the Malvinas." Is that really what you think?

I think you'd argue black was white till the cows came home.

I just find it remarkable that you take the position you do on this issue, and that you think that the Argentinians might not demand the Malvinas if it was owned by a non-British country, and that you think that the real issue in this thread is how can we make this problem not be "British." And, then you accuse me of trying to argue black is white? It is to laugh...

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?

Wait - you think that the Argentinians don't really want to own the Malvinas - they just want them because of some particular affront they take to the Brits owning them? You think if it's sold to Brazil or Uruguay, that the Argies will be like -- oh, well, as long as another south American country owns them, then that's fine? What the bloody 'ell, mate?

They might be like - "dood, let's get high instead"!. Or, I mightn't give a shit.

O.k. - got it - you don't give a shit. That must be why you're offering solutions....to a problem you don't give a shit about.

I just find sabre rattling (which includes Britain) to be Neanderthal.

Then why is the focus of your comments almost exclusively on Britain's conduct (which involves 0 saber rattling) and you only mentioned Argentina's conduct in response to a specific question I posed? Why wouldn't your response be, "Argentina needs to shut the fuck up and stop behaving like Neanderthals?"

Because I am secretly racist against Brits and am an Argentinean undercover sleeper agent. Either that, or your biases don't allow you to have an honest debate.

I haven't said that. Lefties, though, tend to support anything non-Anglo. It's the knee-jerk reaction of the Sean Penn-ite.

[pErvinalia]

I AM Sean Penn.

I'm really bored of debating this shit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Britain is in the position of power. They dictate how the whole affair will end. If they can avoid war relatively cheaply, then that's good I suppose. But then you've still got the issue of subsidising an island halfway around the world. It just doesn't make sense to me. What was the reason the Brits laid claim to it in the first place? Or perhaps more importantly, why did people settle there?

There you have it -- the "Britain is in the position of power" line. That's the left's mantra, and why they will support the wrong party in this dispute.

The Brits don't "dictate" how this whole affair will end. The Brits are minding their own fucking business -- the Argentinians are the ones going to war over this. The Argentinians could end this matter today by saying "o.k., we aren't going to go to war over the Falklands."


The Britis laid claim to it in the first place for much the same reasons as they laid claim to Australia.

[Coito ergo sum]

I AM Sean Penn.

I'm really bored of debating this shit.

We could have solved World War 2 in 1941 by selling Great Britain to the Germans. Anything to avoid being attacked would have been the prudent thing to do.

[pErvinalia]

They should have sold the US to the French.

[mistermack]

Historically, I think it was a valuable base for whaling ships. Not sure about that, but whaling was a huge industry, nearly 200 years ago.

Now it's pretty much self-sustaining, apart from the military.
The GDP per person is comparable to the UK, and the highest in South America.

I don't think it needs much subsidy, apart from the military aspect.

[pErvinalia]

Ok. I thought someone mentioned earlier in the thread it was fairly heavily subsidised.

[Coito ergo sum]

They should have sold the US to the French.

Yep, the thread would be closed then. Anyone with a dispute with the US would no longer have a dispute with the US, it would be a dispute with the US's new owner, France, and so any other argument is a "straw man."

[pErvinalia]

then the US could invade itself, instead of everyone else, for a change...

[Coito ergo sum]

then the US could invade itself, instead of everyone else, for a change...

Because, of course, the US invades "everyone" --

Let's see --

Korea -- oh, yeah - Australia, Great Britain, and the rest of the UN were involved in that one.
Vietnam -- oh, yeah -- on a pro rata basis, Australia sent as many people to Vietnam, as a percentage of the population, as the US did. They were in it to the end.
Afghanistan -- oh, hmmm...well, let's see, NATO action, approved by the UN, in response to an attack on the US by an organization operating from bases in Afghanistan.
Iraq -- Hmm... well, let's see the UK and Australia and about 30 other countries participated in the Iraq War, and Australia contributed one of the top 4 most substantial forces to the 2003 invasion -- Operation Falconer -- and Australia supported the disarmament efforts against Iraq leading up to the war.

But, right - it's all the US - we're "invading" everyone.

[pErvinalia]

you made us all do it.