More Fun To Compute
Member
Well, I don't want to say for sure, but evidence in the form of one our nation's favourite songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWz9MrHskk
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Argentines seek peaceful resolution in Falklands, Brits says its settled.
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
Well, I don't want to say for sure, but evidence in the form of one our nation's favourite songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWz9MrHskk
Monty Mole
Member
We can't even "beat" the Taliban.
It just happens to be that a new vessel is being deployed as part of a routine rotation around the South Atlantic waters. Another (older) vessel is being withdrawn. I'd be interested to know if you consider Prince William being deployed as part of a search and rescue training operation is also "instigating things"?
It's also ironic that you accuse Brits in this thread of behaving like "fucking idiots". If it wasn't for your government's constant diplomatic/economic escalation, increasing rhetoric and prior history, then we wouldn't have to spend so much money patrolling the waters and skies with billions of pounds worth of equipment.
Sir Hamish
Member
Yes. Especially when that same developing country used it's Navy to invade our land 30 years ago.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Germany
France
Hungary
Italy
Spain
Turkey
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Georgia
Denmark
Belgium
Czech Republic
Norway
Bulgaria
South Korea
Albania
Azerbaijan
Singapore
I'm sure all those nations combined couldn't defeat Argentina in conventional warfare either.
Amirite?
Did you even read that article.
The US navy is more than capable of dealing with Iran all by itself. They were telling the UK 'thanks, but we got this' ... not 'lol, no thanks'.
Or do you think the US's 100x larger military budget would not be enough to take on Irans?
USA says hello
When the islands were invaded there was a military junta that had taken control. You can't equate that with the democratic government we have here now.
I'm not sensitive to the issue because like I stated, it doesn't affect me on a personal or emotional level. So no, I don't see the prince being sent here as instigating things. But speaking objectively, sending a billion-dollar warship over here *is* instigating, whether it's replacing another or not. I don't agree with the trade embargoes that the government may be imposing, but at the least its end goal is diplomacy. A warship esentially just says "Go fuck yourself," which the British have all but said in any case.
In full disclosure, I loathe the current government and did not vote for them. I see this as just a typical political stunt to play on emotions and get people's minds off everything else that's wrong here at the moment. The sooner it's behind us the better.
Joel Was Right
Gold Member
I read the article just fine. What it showed was the US, naturally, doesn't need military support but the Europeans, who needn't be there at all, wanted to portray military relevance as well but had to convince the Americans to allow them to join for posturing if nothing else.. It left the British feel "humiliated". The Argentinians feeling the British now militarising their posture in the Falklands could be interpreted in Whitehall wanting to validate (say in Washington) something.
My post had nothing to do with Iran but rather attitudes towards Britain's military capabilities - something that was widely reported on during the summer/fall of 2010
DOBERMAN INC
Member
Out of curiosity,how does HMS Dauntless compare to its US counterparts?
It's very likely a misinterpretation of the classic boilerplate "no closer ally" line.
Sir Hamish
Member
Yes you can. The Government might have changed but your new 'democratic' government is still pushing for blockades and attempting to isolate the people of the Falklands islands. The nature of the Government that pulled shit like this before doesn't really matter to the UK, it's still a sign of aggression and an anti-British agenda. Clearly it doesn't matter to the Argentinian Government either since you've just named a sport's league after a warship that was carrying out that military junta's agenda.
Speaking objectively, preventing ships flying the Falklands flag from docking in South American and Caribbean ports as the first stage of campaign to isolate the people of the Falklands islands *is* instigating something. Sending a billion-dollar warship to the islands after this campaign began isn't instigating anything. Believe it or not you guys don't have a good track record when it comes to not invading the Falklands so sending a ship out there to dissuade a second attempt is well within our rights, especially when British lives could be at risk.
EDIT: I apologize for my aggressive tone. You're right that this is a political stunt to divert attention from Argentina's real problems and you're right not to vote for Kirchner's government. But it's hard to be sympathetic when a political stunt is going to, at best, make life more difficult for the islanders and at worst see the loss of British and Argentinian lives.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
No. not again.. This wont end well.
by that logic, Europe belongs to the UK, mwhahahahahahah, so does africa and Asia then, hey its just one large land mass
by that logic, Europe belongs to the UK, mwhahahahahahah, so does africa and Asia then, hey its just one large land mass
You're putting the word "democratic" in quotes as if no first-world power has ever forced embargoes on anyone. The government does not sympathize with the fact that the islands were attacked, it sympathizes with the fact that they feel Argentina has a claim to them and there were lives lost on that ship. The junta forced common untrained civilians into the war and as a result hundreds died in what was basically a massacre--this is why this is a particularly sensitive issue over here. Also as a technicality, the name is for only a tournament, not a league. It's just a cheap ploy to get the issue across to the plebeian masses that don't read or watch the news. The government took over all funding and advertising for football on television so you can be sure they're going to peddle their shit.
I'll also reiterate that the embargoes are with the end goal of forcing the British into some kind of talk... there is no way Argentina is going to use any military force at all, and the British government knows it. I don't know how the media is portraying things over there, but if that's the line they're taking, you're also being manipulated.
Like I said, this won't escalate into anything. And if the islanders are going to be inconvenienced, it'll be due to the obstinance from both sides. They'll be fine eventually.
Sir Hamish
Member
They aren't portraying Argentina as seeking to use military force but you can't really blame the British for being over-cautious. And Britain isn't going to enter into any talks since there is nothing to talk about. The islands are British, more importantly the people are British and want to remain British. Case closed.
Can't say I'm in disagreement.
A land dispute from something that took place 200 years ago is a bit silly... let it go.what talks? there's nothing to discuss.
Can't say I'm in disagreement.
we have.
I think that comparison would be with the now ageing Arleigh Burke class destroyer-
The Arleigh Burke class destroyer, is larger, heavier and carries a larger supply of more diverse weaponry, while the type 45 is a dedicated anti-air destroyer which is ran 'fitted for but not with' anti ship missile systems. In essence the AB is a better all round ship in terms of weaponry while the type 45 will have to have extra weapons bolted on to be as diverse which it is capable of but to save money it doesnt come equipped with as standard. The type 45's anti sub capability comes from a helicopter based weaponry rather then its own systems.
Both ships are equipped with multi purpose cannons and other such traditional weaponry.
Both ships Have speeds over 30knots which is good pace but the type 45 can travel almost twice the distance.
The main functional difference is the sampson and associated radar systems which give the type 45 massive radar range and scope of many times the distance and many times the amount of targets, the type 45 is capable of monitoring targets the size of golf balls 4x further out then the AB class.
And obviously as a brand new hull the type 45 has been built around a radar 'stealth' body shape, But both air ruddy great targets so I will presume they both pretty easy to hit.
So in essence as a anti-air system or anti-air area defence ship the type 45 kicks ass as it can monitor everything flying across whole countries with immense tracking capabilities, which is probably why the argentians are unhappy its there as it can monitor their entire country while sat in falklands harbour. In terms of a general purpose warship the AB is much better as it has far greater diversity thanks to a wide array of weaponry and capabilities.
Put both in a single fleet with a ASW ship and nothing could get close.
It's the most advanced anti-air ship in the world.
You mean a billion dollar ship that's primary purpose is defensive means ... is 'instigating'?
Shut the fuck up. Argentina is pissed because the presence of this ship effectively cripples any possibility of an attack on the island.
The fact they're upset with the presence of the ship says more than the actually presence of the ship been there.
It's equivalent to bitching at cops for wearing bullet proof vests as a sign they're instigating violence.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
No.
Cuba belongs to the US, the US belongs to the UK and the UK belongs to continental europe.
Settled? Settled.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Bullshit
In reality the Americans PAY Britain to station its mine hunters in the gulf because their capabilities far exceed the American equivalents.
Well, the Americans sure wanted our support when fighting horribly unpopular wars in an area they had little experience (counter insurgency / desert warfare).
Bit much to then say "oh, no thanks we gud lol"
And the US did support the UK in the Falkands war, although quietly, I remember seeing pics of US choppers dropping of SAS / SBS patrols.
Bit much to then say "oh, no thanks we gud lol"
And the US did support the UK in the Falkands war, although quietly, I remember seeing pics of US choppers dropping of SAS / SBS patrols.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Is there an election coming up in Argentina or something?
Their selective criteria for upholding the Monroe Doctrine was more a telling case of support than anything else.
Their selective criteria for upholding the Monroe Doctrine was more a telling case of support than anything else.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
They also handed us some then brand-new stinger anti-air missiles, but the main reason for doing so was that the US wanted to field test them.
Monroe Doctrine never applied to European holdings that already existed in this hemisphere.
crazygambit
Member
This is true. If you ask them what their claim of ownership is (as in any treaty or document supporting their position), they'll quickly revert to "the Faulklands are ours", just because.
There's not a single piece of evidence supporting their position. They just feel entitled to them.
For Argentina to claim sovereignty over the islands without the consent of its people is insulting. It's wholly undemocratic, unfair, and quite frankly imperialistic. They've never ruled the islands, and their only claim is one of geography. Unfortunately, that's not a strong enough reason, since any country could claim sovereignty over any neighbouring nation if that were the case.
And besides, they waived their position to negotiate when they invaded the islands. The only people who should have a say in this matter are the residents of the islands. Anything else being discussed is, quite frankly, unacceptable.
And besides, they waived their position to negotiate when they invaded the islands. The only people who should have a say in this matter are the residents of the islands. Anything else being discussed is, quite frankly, unacceptable.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Russia wants Alaska back too.
Crazymoogle
Member
How else could people posting on a gaming site make themselves feel better if not by "hurr my army is bigger than yours" dick waving?
this is neogaf.
Tea and Toast
Member
If there is no case for the Argentinians owning the Falklands, how are the government and possibly media making their point over there
as it seems they would have no argument other than it's close, therefore it's ours...?
as it seems they would have no argument other than it's close, therefore it's ours...?
It's easy to provoke nationalism with half truths and rhetoric, especially when you lost a war to the folks you are attacking.
They teach their kids lies for 100's of years it eventually becomes fact (in their mind).
Oh the irony.
Then of course Argentina wants to come to the table to talk.
Oh the irony.
Sir Hamish
Member
Yeah I saw some clips, it's a bit of a joke. Not sure where they are getting the nuclear sub shit from, don't think the UK has sent anything like that down there, or would it be protocol to keep stuff like that hush-hush?
I was talking to people in my work about it today, both of whom are interested in international affairs. Was kinda shocked to find that they both sided with the Argentinians and felt we should 'give the islands back'.
In other news a few British papers are reporting that the U.S. has sided with the Argentinian's on the issue.
Roberta S. Jacobson said:
and
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said:
America seems to be backing up Argentina's assertion that there is something to talk about, rather then the British position that the islands are British until the Falkland islanders decide otherwise. A bit disappointing/ungrateful given Britain's backing of the US since 9/11
fizzelopeguss
Banned
because you'd find out the falklands never belonged to "argentina", the claim stems entirely from from spain and the united provinces era. To see how far that kind of backward logic goes it'd be like saying England still has rights on normandy and calais.
"malvinas" is a rallying cry for the ill educated.
You mean the regular patrols of warships that have been done for the past 30 years...?
The ships and military base are only there because your government refuses to drop the claim.
StealthGoblin
Banned
The whole political rhetoric from Argentina is nuts.
They are the ones who dragged all that shit back up again, we send a ship to patrol the waters (as has been done for the last 30 odd years) and suddenly we are the big bad guys. If they'd just kept their gobs shut things would have carried on as normal.
'OMG ITS SO NOT FAIR BRITAIN IS DEFENDING THEIR ISLAND. DAMN THEM!'
They are the ones who dragged all that shit back up again, we send a ship to patrol the waters (as has been done for the last 30 odd years) and suddenly we are the big bad guys. If they'd just kept their gobs shut things would have carried on as normal.
'OMG ITS SO NOT FAIR BRITAIN IS DEFENDING THEIR ISLAND. DAMN THEM!'
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked