After 21 years and 140 posts in this train wreck, can’t we just have Argentina finally admit they lost the fucking war?
Along the same lines, will someone explain to me why exactly Britain should apologise for ever having nuclear weapons on their subs during the Falklands War, seeing as Argentina invaded British territory?
To me that reads like complaining about the opposition fighting back with guns when someone invades their territory using sticks.
If you invade another country’s territory you should expect them top fight back with whatever they have got. Demanding an apology for them doing that is quite simply fucking ridiculous. The Argentines should be thanking the Brits for not using the fucking things.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mr. B *
**I have provided the following syntheses: [list=1][li]For more than 20 years, there has been widespread public knowledge that Britain deployed nuclear armaments in the Falklands War.[]Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner has forced the British government to make the unprecedented admission that nuclear weapons were deployed during the Falklands War.[]President Kirchner has made a mockery of the British government’s foreign policy.[]The “apology demand” has been spun by the British government in order to distract the British public. **[/li][/QUOTE]
As ever, you are talking complete nonsense. In order of your points:
- Still uncited, and still irrelevant to the OP. I have even offered to reword the OP just to get you to stop returning to this moot, yet you continue to raise it as if it makes any difference to a statement in the last two weeks by the Argentine president.
- Untrue. As shown to you previously, Kirchner had nothing to do with the statement from the Navy.
- See above. He has had no influence over policy on this at all.
- Why have you put apology demand in quotes. Kirchner has said “The UK must ask our forgiveness”. You cannot claim even for a second that to describe this as a demand for an apology is spin.
I know you have no meaningful answer to any of the above, so why don’t you just continue to hide.
Do you know, that’s exactly the point I tried to raise in the OP.
Yeah, but nukes are bad and shit.
Wait. Britain deployed nukes on subs in the Falklands War? When did the British government admit to this? Is the “apology demand” really about this?
Sorry, amanset, upon review it appears I omitted the following from the end of my reply: :dubious:
The man has a point.
It still hasn’t been answered, has it?
How about you anwser the point raised by the OP you thundering imbecile?
Forget it - he won’t. Judging by his tactics to date he’s going to try and find another moot point to argue and hide behind. For example, amanset referred to nuclear weapons on subs, rather than anti-submarine nuclear weapons, so he’s going to try to claim that as some point.
Having now established the “nukes” in question were 600lb/4’/10 kiloton depth charges, no one has established the size – assuming it existed at all – of the Argentine submarine fleet, it’s modernity and potency (threat), or whether the UK counter-measures where sufficiently advanced (ahead of the Argentines) to negate that threat and, implicitly, the need to even entertain the possibility of using nuclear depth charges to fracture the outer skin(s) of any subs.
To this humble, Christmas shopping avoiding observer, it all seems like quite a lot of hot air without that pretty useful context ?
Wait. They’re UK citizens but they don’t have a right to actually live there? How does that work?
L_C, I don’t see the relevancy of any of the above questions.
I mean, if I’m missing something please tell me. At the moment though all I can see is a very cut and dry case. Argentina invaded the falklands. Now their President ask for an apology because the response fleet had nukes on board when they left dock. Do you think that is merited, or do you think it’s almost laughable?
Whoops, sorry about that. I guess that’s what happens when you’re amazed that the thread has gone on for three pages without the simple questions in the OP being even mentioned in passing.
Ok this argentinian is going to become the leader of a bloody revolution that will hang president Kirchner, it is mindblowing how this man is using a “popular issue” to distract the population of more important problems… my english isn’t that good I lack the words to describe such a monster :: Estilicon checks his latest edition of the Ozxfor dictionary:: Oh wait, I have the word… he… is a … politician.
You should thank god, every morning, that you (americans, french and canadians) don’t have that kind of human beings. Perhaps if in your next elections President Bush or Prime Minister Blair loose (an unlikely event) we could import those magnificent examples of leadership… in an few years we would become a world power. And if they win, at least send some of their sperm, we will impregnate our best women and we will raise a generation of Napoleons, Pitts, Antoninos Pios, etc…
I thought till this threat that there was nothing worst than an “ugly american”… I was wrong an “ugly english” is ten times worst. Their latest military exploit (not counting the presente fiasco in Irak) was using all it’s military might to recover two god forsaken islands from a small, weak country that only made a half hearted effort to recover them. And for that every time they hear the word “falklands” they go to their knees and kiss Tatcher’s and the Queen´s wrinkled, old asses… pathetic.-
Now regarding “who legally owns those islands”, the least you can say is, that it is a controversial issue. It merits at least a discussion, this may the pit but this are still Cecil’s domains so a I will give a couple of points, I studied this issue back in college in international law, but I wasn’t the best student so you are free to correct me:
1.- Right of discovery: As I remember it doesn’t amount to much in I. Law, even if it did for every Captain Cook that supposedly was the first to discover the islands we have can raise a Captain Perez that found them first, the sources aren’t clear so this argument is useless anyway.
But Engalnd and Spain signed a treaty in which the first recognized Spanish sovereignity. Now the English always say that it isn’t so, that they only agree of leaving for and indefinit period of time. But if that is not recognizing Spain’s right, I don’t know what it is.
2.- Treaties and Papal Bulls. Somehow I can’t convince myself that the English care much about Tordesilla Treaty, but that they dispase the bulls granted to Spain by that Saintly man, A.K.A. Pope Alexander VI, convinces me that all english when they die join Luther and Calvin in Hell. It doesn´t matter I will be in paradise with my twenty virgins.
But Engalnd and Spain signed a treaty in which the first recognized Spanish sovereignity. Now the English always say that it isn’t so, that they only agree of leaving for and indefinit period of time. But if that is not recognizing Spain’s right, I don’t know what it is.
3.- Geographical Arguments. Argentina use them but really doesn’t think they are valid. Useless argument.
4.- Self determination. English best, and only, legal argument. Who can’t symphatize with it? After all we are all democrats. Unfortunately for the English Falklanders are an implanted population and I. Law does not grant those populations that right. My personal feelings. a) The english goverment is the most hypocrit goverment on earth when it uses this argument, after all a few years ago it gave back Hong Kong to a comunist dictatorship… I really don’t know much about the far east but i suspect the people of Hong Kongs were not very excited about joining the ranks of Mao. b) Falklanders, simply put, they live there, and no matter how much we say that they are no part of the problem the reality is that they are…
5.- Succesion. Till the latest military dictatorship Argentina had an small and managable external debt. The militars changed that. But when democracy returned the argentinian civil goverments recognized that debt simply because they were the succesors of the dictatorship “heirs” of all it’s right and debts.
The same happen between Spain and the then called “United Provinces of River Plate”, the latter was the succesor of spain in all this lands. And the First Junta (our first governing body) was the succesor of the Viceroy. In that character, the junta replaced the Malvinas’s administrator for it’s own, just as it did in every other part of it’s territory. That is why the fucking idiot who used as an argument “that Argentina only occupied those islands twenty years” is not very bright, of course that’s true just as it was true that when the british occupied Washington in the war of 1812 “americans were just there for 20 years” duh. To conclude this Argentina’s best argument.-
6.- Force of Arms. The fact is the English conquer those islands (in 1833) kept them, and defended them (1982). In I. Law this isn’t a legal argument or at least till bush decides to declare the war against terror to I. Law (wait he did that already). In privat law (at least in Roman Law) you can acquire property if you hold it’s possesion for a certain period of time even if you acquire that possesion with violence, fraud etc. As I said it doesn’t happen in I. Law.
In conclussion Malvinas is an very interesting issue but it si not the most important one, certainly not to my country that has a lot of political and economic troubles.-
Any chance of you actually saying either who or what you’re talking about? You know, kissing thatcher, the queen, “ugly english” whatever thats about.
The funny thing is, most of the Brits in this thread would probably rather eat their own testicles than kiss Mrs Thatch.
No, I don’t give a damn for the populist (in his view) position of the Argentine President. As I posted before, imho he’s in it for the political capital and for no other reason. Thus, he can file his request for an apology deep in his Interior.
And, aside from this hackneyed Mr B character, that point seems pretty clear.
There is, though, an interesting moral question implicit in taking “nukes” into a war zone – at least to those who (in ye olde days) valued the debate CND generated, if not always the arguments themselves. It’s even more interesting if it’s done ‘in your name’, as these weapons were for anyone who’s British.
As it’s the first time the UK has done this alone (in my knowledge), I suppose I’m just trying to focus on the fact ‘we’ may have crossed an interesting nuclear threshold in that campaign . . . “well, we did it in the Falklands, why not now”/slippery slope, and all that.
So, I’m trying to clarify the ground before asking (probably myself), why would ‘we’ take easily removed and stored nukes into a war zone if there weren’t circumstances – no matter how extraordinary - in which they would be used ‘in our name’, and, what do I think of that?
- but as to your OP, I agree, the president is an obvious opportunist.
Let us just say her popularity in Scotland is such that the state should plan for the installation of a wooden dance floor, sound system and mirror ball above her grave to accomodate all the dancers
But isn’t the point that they are not easily removed and stored, it would take 36 hours to do so. Of course the UK could have waited 36 hours before setting sail, but to many people waiting a further 36 hours, in the process letting a foreign power get an even better foothold in British territory, was simply not an option.