Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I happen to find the situations perfectly equivalent. Tierra del Fuego was taken at gunpoint in the late 19th century - 50 years after the United Provinces of the River Plate lost control of the Falklands. Yet Argentina seems to insist that one 19th-century border change is unfair and should be undone, while the other isn't open for debate. Why is this?
You do not find that Argentina's change of stance - depending on what serves her interests - weakens her argument for possession of the Falklands?
Or if you find that the situations aren't comparable, will you present an argument for it being so?
You return to the same thing again and again.
Did I used as an argue any of the violations on the part of the British Empire to other multiple territories that it has occupied during his history? No, sir. Then, discuss with solid arguments, no with sophism and retorics spins.
However, there is a "little" difference between both cases: Nowadays there are no pure survivors of the Selkam people. On the other hand, there are some millions (approximately 40 ) of Argentinians living 300 miles ahead of the Falklands.
Royal Navy:
Size 96 ships including the RFA
61 landing craft of the Royal Marines
170 aircraft of the FAA
Argentine Army:
As of 2012, the army has 44,233 mlitary personnel
British Army:
Size 138,500 regular and territorial
121,800 regular reserve
Granted, I used Wikipedia to dig this stuff (which I don't usually do), but I think the glaringly obvious point should be quite clear to those in Buenos Aires contemplating a repeat of 1982, taking on what is still one of the world's strongest and most technologically advanced military powers (and per GDP spending).
There is a huge qualitative difference which has just got wider since 1982.
For a start the UK keeps fast jets (Typhoons) at the Falklands which we didn't in 1982. Their presence would be a powerful deterrent to any Argentine military action. There are also far more troops - around 1200 - than there were in 1982.
Second, the Daring class destroyers like HMS Dauntless are far more advanced and powerful than the frigates and destroyers that were deployed in 1982. They can take out multiple targets while they are still too far away to endanger the ship.
Third, British nuclear subs now carry Tomahawk cruise missiles which they did not in 1982. That would allow them to strike at targets on the Argentine mainland like airbases or the Presidential Palace. In 1982, Britain did not have that capability.
Finally, the quality of British troops is far better. In 1982, Argentina tried to defend the islands with 18 and 19 year old conscripts who, in addition to limited training, were very badly treated by their officers and NCOs. They were no match for the regular British troops - Paras, Marine Commandos, Guards and Gurkhas - who were sent against them.
Obviously, the purpose is to avoid any war by maintaining a deterrence which would render any Argentine action suicidal.
You return to the same thing again and again.
Did I used as an argue any of the violations on the part of the British Empire to other multiple territories that it has occupied during his history? No, sir. Then, discuss with solid arguments, no with sophism and retorics spins.
However, there is a "little" difference between both cases: Nowadays there are no pure survivors of the Selkam people. On the other hand, there are some millions (approximately 40 ) of Argentinians living 300 miles ahead of the Falklands.
There's an old saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Case and point:
There is a huge qualitative difference which has just got wider since 1982.
For a start the UK keeps fast jets (Typhoons) at the Falklands which we didn't in 1982. Their presence would be a powerful deterrent to any Argentine military action. There are also far more troops - around 1200 - than there were in 1982.
Second, the Daring class destroyers like HMS Dauntless are far more advanced and powerful than the frigates and destroyers that were deployed in 1982. They can take out multiple targets while they are still too far away to endanger the ship.
Third, British nuclear subs now carry Tomahawk cruise missiles which they did not in 1982. That would allow them to strike at targets on the Argentine mainland like airbases or the Presidential Palace. In 1982, Britain did not have that capability.
Finally, the quality of British troops is far better. In 1982, Argentina tried to defend the islands with 18 and 19 year old conscripts who, in addition to limited training, were very badly treated by their officers and NCOs. They were no match for the regular British troops - Paras, Marine Commandos, Guards and Gurkhas - who were sent against them.
Obviously, the purpose is to avoid any war by maintaining a deterrence which would render any Argentine action suicidal.
Suicidal indeed. I wonder if Kirchner's pride and lady balls are so big as to contemplate another invasion. I sincerely hope not, as I'm not even a fan of war. The odds would certainly not look too good for Argentina. As much as I would not vote for him or the Tories, I don't think Cameron would stand for any nonsense either.
Suicidal indeed. I wonder if Kirchner's pride and lady balls are so big as to contemplate another invasion. I sincerely hope not, as I'm not even a fan of war. The odds would certainly not look too good for Argentina. As much as I would not vote for him or the Tories, I don't think Cameron would stand for any nonsense either.
Still I don't know why you think that the Argentine government looks for a war, my god
I was at a military high school in the UK and did three years of cadets (CCF). I have several friends who fought in the Falklands War. I chose not to go into the army but had friends who went into all three services.
I am also very interested in military history and especially that of the Falklands war because I remember it so well.
Nope, it's just cold hard facts. No one is telling you to shut up, I am merely pointing out that another assault on the islands would be extremely unwise.
If you have such strong principles regarding how awful empires are or were, I suggest you lobby your government to hand all of your lands back to the native tribes. Same principle, right?
No, in fact, i don't support this government.
"Saxons, Angles, get out of the british islands, invaders" No, stop with biased arguments and fallacy of distracting
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) of Argentinians living 300 miles ahead of the Falklands.
