dribbler

The Falkland Islands

37 posts in this topic

As tensions between London and Buenos Airies increase, I wonder what people's thoughts are on the Falkland Islands?

I guess I'm specifically interested in hearing Andres's take, as he will no doubt be able to give us a real flavour of how his President has traditionally conducted herself.

In the past, it was always assumed that the Argentinians were the bad guys by invading (this is how I felt, as a naive nine year old, back in 1982) But this latest tactic is far more diplomatic and cleverly conceived, as the President seeks approval through the United Nations. Indeed, it's precisely the sort of route the UK would take in order to portray its good intentions.

With the UK government standing firm, I get a sense that that as support for Argentina grows we may see another escalation of hostilities with just may be a different outcome this time around. If that happens, it would be a hugely significat blow to how Britains strenght of character is perceived around the world.

London are using the human shield argument, saying "any change would have to be a the request of the Islanders", but that's about the strength of their case. I personally feel uncomfortable representing a nation that snatched territory around the world and still feels it has a right to it.

Oh man, that crude, black liquid. It'll be the death of us all. Oops, sorry! Did I just suggest it has to do with oil? I meant of course it's to do with what's best for a handful of insignificant Brits a few thousand miles away.....

Edited by dribbler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday night was another damp, tropical hot night and that kept me up turnong around and aroun in my bed until sleep finally rescued me. Amopng the zillion things I wondered one of them was exactly this. How do English consider all this Malvinas (sorry, I might sound silly but it's like a taboo, I can't just force myself to call them Falklands).

I have to go to a meeting right now. I promise you one of my longer, incoherent answers later during the day!

In the meantime, I must warn you, I am extremely skilled with champagne glasses. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, a brief (and as unbiased as I can) history of the whole Malvinas row for those who venture here and want to understand what Steve and I will talk about:

Past: these were nothing moe than a bunch of deserted rocks for most of their history, besides some temporary bases from the argentinian natives, dutch, french, spaniards and british. At some point (during the Xviii century or so) Britain agreed to evacuate whatever small settlement they had there to be replaced by an equally small settlement of Spaniards (which was mostly composed of french people, ironically). Finally, everybody left (from pure boredom, I guess and the islands were deserted once again. Finally, in 1820 a small group of Argentinians decided to settle there, mostly to monitor the increasing ilegal fishing operation carried by many countries, among them the British and the American (yes, Eric, that means YOU!)

Anyways, one day the Americans decided that they couldn't catch fish peacefully if someone would be watching from the islands so they chose to just bombard the Argentinian base, before deciding that it wasn't even worth that and left. A little later (in 1833) the British grew tired as well and took the matter in their hands. They sent a single battleship and the Argentinian settlement decided that discretion was the better part of valor and left without firing a single shot.

After 13 years (yup, just 13 years) of Argentinian effective posession, the British occupied them and had been there for the past 149 years.

In 1982 the famous Malvinas/Falklands war started, lasting for 2 and a half months and costing some 2,000 lives from both sides. UK won the war and established an exclusion zone around the islands.

Today: the islands have currently some 2,200 inhabitants, their main income being mainly selling fishing licenses to other countries and rising cattle. Oil is supposed to be a plenty around the islands but so far nobody has hit the jackpot. They are just a group of barren, poor islands surrounded by rich fish banks.

The issue (IMHO): Both countries have their points. The people that has lived there for the past 150 years are British, even if pre-1982 nobody in Britain even knew that the guys were there and were as highly regarded as we regard Paul, just to name an example. They were just a bunch of forgotten cattle breeders in two barren islands nobody gave a Sh#t about. Still, they were British with their full rights and (my guess) they fought hard to survive in such wastelands for generations. Why move guys that have been living peacefully there for generations just to handle them to some people that hasn't been there more than 13 years?

On the other hand, the origin of such colony was blatantly illegal (let's keep in mind that in 1833 there were no real geopolitical reasons, nor oil-related reasons to keep them, apart from the whaling industry)and obvious territorial connections make them a natural territory of Argentina, not British. Just imagine Argentina taking posession in 1833 of the Isle of Wight and occupying it ever since. Would you let the whole thing go even after 150 years?

(continues on next post)

Edited by Quiet One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I can't believe a sudden powerdown has just erased the one-billion words long post I was making arghhhhh!)

Damn! Now I lost the whole thing. *sigh* I'll try again.

About our government: Cristina Kirchner is a populist. Nowadays "populist" is used as a word to scare children, albeit is a word as good or bad as you choose to, being applied to governments as varied as Chavez semi military, semi socialist government to Kennedy's government and pretty much anything in between. Kirchner's, like it or not, is closer to Kennedy's administration than to Chavez. It is authoritarian, personalist and corrupt, but barely militaristic (quite the contrary) and still very, very very democratic by all accounts. No actual political prisoners, no killing of leaders from the opposition, a continuous battle with the main multimedia and news networks, but they are still free enough precisely to be at war with the government with nothing worse and the continuous hassle of the IRS up their asses for every minor infraction and the written attacks from the government paid newspapers/journalists. Not a pretty sight, but legitimate.

She and her deceased husband and former president Nestor Kirchenr came from the southernmost province of Santa Cruz, the closest to the Islands. So they made a big issue of anything related to the Malvinas.

Anyways, all they did was what most governments have done since 1982. Try to obtain as many condemning declarations against UK as they can. That was a successful strategy pre 1982 and was proving as such now. It calls for patience, of course.

Cameron, on the other hand, has suddenly started a slowly increasing escalation of acts, for reasons I can't discern. I can understand Kirchner taking the bait because we are as stupidly chauvinistics as the next country, and because she can take advantage of the emotional surge for her own goals, much like the military tried to do with the actual war, and lost and much like Ms.tatcher tried to do, and won.

Probably before you notice there, but certainly mmediately noticed down here, there were sudden reports from military advisors in UK to warn Cameron of "probable hostile measures taken by argentina" and "increasing threats of economic/military boycott to the Islands" which were of course horsecrap, except for the economic boycott which is rather a group of mild sanctions and supported by most Latin American countries. Still, most of these measures are being already overlooked by other means so it has more symbollic value for the Argentinian people and psychological impact for the islanders than actual value.

(posting up to this just in case)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclussion: I think this time Kirchner payed her hand better than Cameron. Argentina gladly accepted the challenge offered by UK, but by sticking to the international agencies and making big declarations of national honor and such, they brought many sympathies at almost no cost. Cameron on the other hand, embarked himself in a course that needs to be backed up by actions, not just words. And actions cost money.

Right now, just the building costs of a new airstrip at St.Elen's islands (another group of Islands I bet most English never heard of, except for those who know the history of Napoleon, which was kept there till he died) will cost 300 million dollars just to keep the supply lines with the Malvinas (and, I guess with St.Elen's themseleves which were living in total darkness until now). This, not to mention the cost of the increase alertness level of the military forces, sending the prince down here, etc. All amid the current crysis and for nothing.

The main danger with militarization is, of course, that any spark could start a fire. Even if I deem a military movement from Argentina nighly impossible, it is true that such an emotional issue can make all the psycho chauvinist do stupid things just like D'Annunzio did in Trieste back in the 20s.

What would happen if an ultra nationalist group of drunken ex military decides to land a cessna in the islands? Or a bunch of ignorant younguns inflamed by all the words decide to make a landing in some sort of ship. I am talking about isolated movements by very minor groups, like hooligans, not any planned invasion. But with testosterne levels so high that could start some serious Sh#t and that is what worries me.

It's not worth it. It simply isn't. Not for Argentina, not for the British. Solution isn't simple and in the best scenario will take decades.

And, beyond all the fish and all the oil that might be there (which, by the way, nor Steve nor I will get a single penny of revenue from them) it is not just worthless of a single drop of Argentinian or British blood, it is not even worth a single drop of shared whisky and good memories shared watching the last formula one race with my many good friends up there :D

So, let's raise our glasses to friendship, and peace for all.

Wha...? Hey, what are you doing with that champagne glass??? I said whisky! Wait!! Noooo!! Ughhhh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclussion: I think this time Kirchner payed her hand better than Cameron. Argentina gladly accepted the challenge offered by UK, but by sticking to the international agencies and making big declarations of national honor and such, they brought many sympathies at almost no cost. Cameron on the other hand, embarked himself in a course that needs to be backed up by actions, not just words. And actions cost money.

Right now, just the building costs of a new airstrip at St.Elen's islands (another group of Islands I bet most English never heard of, except for those who know the history of Napoleon, which was kept there till he died) will cost 300 million dollars just to keep the supply lines with the Malvinas (and, I guess with St.Elen's themseleves which were living in total darkness until now). This, not to mention the cost of the increase alertness level of the military forces, sending the prince down here, etc. All amid the current crysis and for nothing.

The main danger with militarization is, of course, that any spark could start a fire. Even if I deem a military movement from Argentina nighly impossible, it is true that such an emotional issue can make all the psycho chauvinist do stupid things just like D'Annunzio did in Trieste back in the 20s.

What would happen if an ultra nationalist group of drunken ex military decides to land a cessna in the islands? Or a bunch of ignorant younguns inflamed by all the words decide to make a landing in some sort of ship. I am talking about isolated movements by very minor groups, like hooligans, not any planned invasion. But with testosterne levels so high that could start some serious Sh#t and that is what worries me.

It's not worth it. It simply isn't. Not for Argentina, not for the British. Solution isn't simple and in the best scenario will take decades.

And, beyond all the fish and all the oil that might be there (which, by the way, nor Steve nor I will get a single penny of revenue from them) it is not just worthless of a single drop of Argentinian or British blood, it is not even worth a single drop of shared whisky and good memories shared watching the last formula one race with my many good friends up there :D

So, let's raise our glasses to friendship, and peace for all.

Wha...? Hey, what are you doing with that champagne glass??? I said whisky! Wait!! Noooo!! Ughhhh...

In that case it should all be fine then. Cameron couldn't back up a laptop, and we have no money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a few words to fullfil Andres excellent recap of almost 2 centuries: " in Argentina every goverment remember those islands only when they need to distract and hide local problems" Take your own conclusions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andres, an excellent summary of events. Nothing to add really, you thread killer.

Bugger, looks like I'm going to have to resort to bald insults earlier than I thought........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andres, an excellent summary of events. Nothing to add really, you thread killer.

Bugger, looks like I'm going to have to resort to bald insults earlier than I thought........

Bah, you are as boring as a Team Principal's press conference :meh:

Now I want a war, a nuclear war, at the gaybar! (oops, got carried away there)

Anyways, I would like to know how much thought do you actually give to this matter? Is it something you all watch oon the news but barely give any thought besides that? Is it something only weird...Steve-like...people pay any attention? Is it something interesting enough to comment at work or with your friends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah, you are as boring as a Team Principal's press conference :meh:

Now I want a war, a nuclear war, at the gaybar! (oops, got carried away there)

Anyways, I would like to know how much thought do you actually give to this matter? Is it something you all watch oon the news but barely give any thought besides that? Is it something only weird...Steve-like...people pay any attention? Is it something interesting enough to comment at work or with your friends?

It's not often other countries stand up to us here in Blighty - so for me, it's big news and something I'm keeping a close eye on. I have to say, I am nowhere near as well versed on the hisory as you are. From that side, it brings a very interesting and welcome dimension to my interest in the whole piece. I discussed it with a colleague yesterday lunch time, but he had a choclate eclair wedged in his mouth and was therefore unavailable for comment. My wife looked at me blankly this morning when I mentioned it, which means she thinks I am being more boring than normal. I am yet to argue discuss this with my Father, who will definitely have an opinion. He was (and rather worryingly may still be)in love with Thatcher, so his stance is not difficult to predict.

Thanks for the 'weird' description. It puts your irregularities into perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not often other countries stand up to us here in Blighty - so for me, it's big news and something I'm keeping a close eye on. I have to say, I am nowhere near as well versed on the hisory as you are. From that side, it brings a very interesting and welcome dimension to my interest in the whole piece. I discussed it with a colleague yesterday lunch time, but he had a choclate eclair wedged in his mouth and was therefore unavailable for comment. My wife looked at me blankly this morning when I mentioned it, which means she thinks I am being more boring than normal. I am yet to argue discuss this with my Father, who will definitely have an opinion. He was (and rather worryingly may still be)in love with Thatcher, so his stance is not difficult to predict.

Thanks for the 'weird' description. It puts your irregularities into perspective.

:lol: BTW is not a matter of being well versed in history. Here we all study how you evil pirates stole them from us every single year during elementary school. We even have a patriotic song about them (The Malvinas Anthem) which goes something like "Past their foggy shroud we will never forget them [...] the Lost Pearls of the South" and so forth.

Another thing that always makes me wonder (and almost cost me a punch in the face by a friend with a more nationalist sense than I have) is: if we consider ourselves with the right to own the Islands because we were the "originary inhabitants" regardless of who inhabit them now, why don't we extend the same courtesy to the "originary inhabitants" of the continent?

With the added factor that, unlike argentinians of which not a single one has actually lived in Malvinas for the past century and a half, the originary people in the continent, dwindling numbers and such, are still living here.

We offer them some very restricted areas and the next day we are happily selling half of those areas to the highest bidder (which, in many cases are British companies!)

I do understand the legitimacy or Argentina's claims, as I do understand the legitimacy of UK claims. What I don't understand is the totally neglect to follow a rational course to try to make both end meets and rather mount irrational behavior over irrational behavior based on short term sights.

20th century was witness to much of the most horrendous wars fared over the most ridiculous claims. I know this incident will not go that far, but still...why the need? Why live in a world with war and famine? Why live in a world where Helmut Marko's face appears on TV? Why? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: BTW is not a matter of being well versed in history. Here we all study how you evil pirates stole them from us every single year during elementary school. We even have a patriotic song about them (The Malvinas Anthem) which goes something like "Past their foggy shroud we will never forget them [...] the Lost Pearls of the South" and so forth.

Another thing that always makes me wonder (and almost cost me a punch in the face by a friend with a more nationalist sense than I have) is: if we consider ourselves with the right to own the Islands because we were the "originary inhabitants" regardless of who inhabit them now, why don't we extend the same courtesy to the "originary inhabitants" of the continent?

With the added factor that, unlike argentinians of which not a single one has actually lived in Malvinas for the past century and a half, the originary people in the continent, dwindling numbers and such, are still living here.

We offer them some very restricted areas and the next day we are happily selling half of those areas to the highest bidder (which, in many cases are British companies!)

I do understand the legitimacy or Argentina's claims, as I do understand the legitimacy of UK claims. What I don't understand is the totally neglect to follow a rational course to try to make both end meets and rather mount irrational behavior over irrational behavior based on short term sights.

20th century was witness to much of the most horrendous wars fared over the most ridiculous claims. I know this incident will not go that far, but still...why the need? Why live in a world with war and famine? Why live in a world where Helmut Marko's face appears on TV? Why? Why?

I guess it boils down to what Argentina thinks it is missing out on and if it is, what it feels it's entitled to. I can't help but be geographical about these things; Britain laying claim to these Islands seems bizarre. However, I'm with you - why not share or reach an amicable solution based on compromise instead of chest puffing.

Who owns what anyway? It's actually a ridiculus concept that a certain bunch of animals with a certain colour of skin or a certain way of speaking should be able to lay claim to certain lumps of rock on a stupid little planet in the middle of a stupid nowhere universe.

Accept that and suddenly you embrace each other and realise there is far more to life. Let's find that oil, if its there, and share the profits. If not, let's drink, be merry and eat fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it boils down to what Argentina thinks it is missing out on and if it is, what it feels it's entitled to. I can't help but be geographical about these things; Britain laying claim to these Islands seems bizarre. However, I'm with you - why not share or reach an amicable solution based on compromise instead of chest puffing.

Who owns what anyway? It's actually a ridiculus concept that a certain bunch of animals with a certain colour of skin or a certain way of speaking should be able to lay claim to certain lumps of rock on a stupid little planet in the middle of a stupid nowhere universe.

Accept that and suddenly you embrace each other and realise there is far more to life. Let's find that oil, if its there, and share the profits. If not, let's drink, be merry and eat fish.

Bah, you are just scared we might exchange the Malvinas for the Island of Wight. Now I want the Island of Wight! (Is it any good?)

EDIT: And you get to keep Helmut Marko on TV

Edited by Quiet One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some controversy to an all too civil thread, down with Argentina! Up with the Brits!

It's ours, want it? Come and try to take it! Ner ner ner ner ner ner! :-P

I quite like how we are only defending what the Island has requested however - they wanted to stay under English rule, seems fair enough to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some controversy to an all too civil thread, down with Argentina! Up with the Brits!

It's ours, want it? Come and try to take it! Ner ner ner ner ner ner! :-P

I quite like how we are only defending what the Island has requested however - they wanted to stay under English rule, seems fair enough to me.

Civil is just one way of having controversies! If you think we are too peaceful try to have a heated argument with Steve, he'll tear your intestines apart and feed them to Paul!

As for your last paragraph:

1) You like exactly what about that defense? The fact that Cameron is sticking with the islanders rights? Debatable buyt quite understandable. The fact that you are wasting money mobilizing your army in an intimidating gesture towards a country that has not mobilized a single street cop against the islanders? That sounds like an expensive way of diverting you from more local, urgent matters (same happens here, btw, but at least all this macho talk isn't costing us a single penny so far)

2) About the islanders right to remain English citizens. We both agree. But that has not much relevance towards the actual ownership of the land. I already say I sympathize with their rights but that's not as automatically admitting theUK should own the islands.

For example, I guess you have some Chinatown or something similar in your country. Let's asume that this Chinatown decides that they are Chinamen and thus they are part of China and ruled by Chinese law. Er...nope. They can remain as Chinese citizens if they originally were such, of course. They are entitled to work and live there pretty much unmolested. But they are still part of Britain, abiding by Bitish rule, etc. Populations have rights to self determination, the issue lies in determining exactly what a population is. And please bear in mind that the supreme interest of the islanders was not enough to consider them fully British citizens before the war, so I am not that sure that this is a matter of defending "your own"

Is it illogical to claim this from the Islanders? I know we are far from reaching such point, but that's exactly what happened in some other former colonies after all.

(Controversy lever went up just a notch :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to waste our warships by using them somewhere, makes no difference where - in reality that destroyer was going to sail around somewhere, so it's not like it's cost anything to send it there instead of some random place nobody has ever heard of!

Also, I hear that we won the Island in a bingo competition, so it's ours, end of :-D

...One last thing, no idea who Steve nor Paul are. So I've decided to watch a dancing banana instead of reply to whatever that paragraph refers to :-D Yey look at it dance! :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the claims of "militarisation" as a recent development leading to these current tensions. As far as I understand it: British military forces and bases have been there ever since the 1982 conflict. All that happened recently was a new ship was sent to replace one already almost permanently stationed there (granted, a much more expensive and new ship, but nevertheless, just another ship). I don't see the relevance of Prince William being there either, in terms of a provocation. Now, I am not discussing the merits of having that particular ship there or not, or anybody's claim to the Isles, but if anybody is expected to believe that Argentine claims are being brought to the forefront again is anything other than political misdirection to distract from other issues (and of course, nobody really does..), then you have to look for some kind of change in circumstances which explains the issue being focussed on again. Replacing a ship and sending a member of the Royal family, hardly seems like a significant provocation or change in circumstance to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Paparazzi influx following the Prince that Argentina are terming "militarisation" :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the claims of "militarisation" as a recent development leading to these current tensions. As far as I understand it: British military forces and bases have been there ever since the 1982 conflict. All that happened recently was a new ship was sent to replace one already almost permanently stationed there (granted, a much more expensive and new ship, but nevertheless, just another ship). I don't see the relevance of Prince William being there either, in terms of a provocation. Now, I am not discussing the merits of having that particular ship there or not, or anybody's claim to the Isles, but if anybody is expected to believe that Argentine claims are being brought to the forefront again is anything other than political misdirection to distract from other issues (and of course, nobody really does..), then you have to look for some kind of change in circumstances which explains the issue being focussed on again. Replacing a ship and sending a member of the Royal family, hardly seems like a significant provocation or change in circumstance to me.

I think it's all about the timing and the perception that it was some sort of symbollic gesture by the UK. They may have a point. However, it is a bit like cclaiming someone is likely to kick you, just because they are wearing big boots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divide and rule policy is the tried and tested method used by Politicians and religious leaders....despite advancement in our education system and our understanding of the world, we will always fall for this trap...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's all about the timing and the perception that it was some sort of symbollic gesture by the UK. They may have a point. However, it is a bit like cclaiming someone is likely to kick you, just because they are wearing big boots.

Exactly.

@George: just to make things clear about the replacing a ship with another. The replacement itself was a sign: the HMS Montrose is an average service ship with 4,600 or so tons of displacement. The HMS Dauntless is a state of the art, anti stealth, 8,000 tons of displacement rigged with the latest developments in anti aerial guns "that can shoot the Argentinian airplanes before they could take off" as one English representative boasted in the media.

It was sent along with a Trafalgar class nuclear submarine (either the HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent) capable of carrying Tomahawk missiles with nuclear warheads.

This is not a full mobilization with landing of troops and shoots fired, but that's the difference between "militarisation" and "war". They simply increased the offensive capabilities against either Argentina, or the penguins in Antarctica.

In the middle of an escalation of comments from both sides, it is clearly a "militarisation", and not a "routine movement of troops, we could have done the same around the Bahamas but we like it better around the Malvinas, you know...we love the weather down there".

Edited by Quiet One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's all about the timing and the perception that it was some sort of symbollic gesture by the UK. They may have a point. However, it is a bit like cclaiming someone is likely to kick you, just because they are wearing big boots.

Yes I read that argument, but to me choosing to take offence at a symbolic gesture seems odd, considering the place is occupied by British forces anyway. It's like if you thought someone stole your car and you got offended because they played rap music on the stereo. Seriously, what difference does him being there make in real terms. Saying that, I can see the argument, it's probably just difficult for me to think of it in the same way as Argentines do, because I don't care too much about the place or feel that Prince William is really representative of Britain (whereas ironically, other countries will always consider him as more important than plenty of us do).

Exactly.

@George: just to make things clear about the replacing a ship with another. The replacement itself was a sign: the HMS Montrose is an average service ship with 4,600 or so tons of displacement. The HMS Dauntless is a state of the art, anti stealth, 8,000 tons of displacement rigged with the latest developments in anti aerial guns "that can shoot the Argentinian airplanes before they could take off" as one English representative boasted in the media.

It was sent along with a Trafalgar class nuclear submarine (either the HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent) capable of carrying Tomahawk missiles with nuclear warheads.

This is not a full mobilization with landing of troops and shoots fired, but that's the difference between "militarisation" and "war". They simply increased the offensive capabilities against either Argentina, or the penguins in Antarctica.

In the middle of an escalation of comments from both sides, it is clearly a "militarisation", and not a "routine movement of troops, we could have done the same around the Bahamas but we like it better around the Malvinas, you know...we love the weather down there".

Well, I see your point. But to me a ship is a ship, and British military force would apparently (according to what I read) be strong enough for any Argentine force regardless of whether you have a ship there or not (not that it would come to anything like that). So okay, it's another political gesture, that doesn't realistically change the status quo. All that happened was our militarisation got a little bigger and better, with no real change in the actual level of threat to anybody.

I'm not saying that Prince William being there and the ship weren't political decisions, I am just saying they have probably been over exaggerated a bit on Kirchner's part, and realistically nothing has actually changed in terms of the Islands to warrant all this increased focus. I guess what I am saying is what I think was already said: it's all a bit stupid from both sides in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I read that argument, but to me choosing to take offence at a symbolic gesture seems odd, considering the place is occupied by British forces anyway. It's like if you thought someone stole your car and you got offended because they played rap music on the stereo. Seriously, what difference does him being there make in real terms. Saying that, I can see the argument, it's probably just difficult for me to think of it in the same way as Argentines do, because I don't care too much about the place or feel that Prince William is really representative of Britain (whereas ironically, other countries will always consider him as more important than plenty of us do).

Precisely. And, in fact, had they only send William down here it would not have raised much controversy. In previous cases it was usually portrayed as some kind of punishment to send a member of the royal family down here. If this had happened in some other context everybody would have just said "I bet the kid had been drinking and partying too much".

Well, I see your point. But to me a ship is a ship, and British military force would apparently (according to what I read) be strong enough for any Argentine force regardless of whether you have a ship there or not (not that it would come to anything like that). So okay, it's another political gesture, that doesn't realistically change the status quo. All that happened was our militarisation got a little bigger and better, with no real change in the actual level of threat to anybody.

A ship is a ship? I don't think you are that naive, my friend. And if you are, I think (hope!) your Government should not be that naive either. You are holding onto the isolated fact, without the context and the actual kind of ships involved here. If all the ships are the same, why change it? Like you say, the Montrose was more than enough for the current state of military threat. Why send a last generation destroyer and a nuclear submarine "at this moment in time"? You are an average citizen. But if the Secretary of Defense (or your equivalent) and the Prime Minister in the middle of a renewed controversy on the Islands decided to send these ships could be because:

1) They are in the middle of a military escalade, thus this is not just a political but a miilitary move. Calling it a routine movement is at least cynical.

2) "Oh, we don't see the fuzz, it is just a routine movement of troops...you know, we do these every Tuesday": this is even worse as it would mean that your Government is totally incapable of predicting that sending troops (any kind) would be obviously perceived as a threat.

Again, I am not defending the Argentine equally chauvinistic posture. I can read the provocations made by our government through their comments to the press and the rather blunt intents of isolating the Islanders something I really oppose No matter what, right or wrong, the well being of the Islanders should be preserved by both sides.

I'm not saying that Prince William being there and the ship weren't political decisions, I am just saying they have probably been over exaggerated a bit on Kirchner's part, and realistically nothing has actually changed in terms of the Islands to warrant all this increased focus. I guess what I am saying is what I think was already said: it's all a bit stupid from both sides in different ways.

As usual, in the end we both agree and our arguments are (as in the points above) the sort of nuances that make people go to war :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now