Falklands Referendum

[expatinowncountry]

I think it is good that the Kelpers recognize what they are... British people. Like that Argentina will only have to deal with the UK instead of a three part negotiation.

As for Argentina, the only place they could invade is Colonia... using the Buquebus ;-)

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Argentina has a long history of foreign invasions: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/science/ant-species-losing-ground-to-venomous-kind.html?_r=1&

 

[Yogur griego]

Argentina has a long history of foreign invasions: http://www.nytimes.c...kind.html?_r=1

Eat this 'MatiasBA'-style counter-argument

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/10/05/italy-faces-invasion-of-american-killer-squirrels/

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Eat this 'MatiasBA'-style counter-argument

http://blogs.scienti...ller-squirrels/

We have similar problems in California: http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Squirrels-imported-from-East-a-pesky-pest-3209819.php

 

[quitodario]

I believe the present government has stated they are taking the diplomatic road on this. Plus, I think the Falklands War of the `80s should be put in perspective. It was waged by a military dictatorship as a desperate move to whip up enough national fervor so as to remain in power. Over a beer at a London pub once, a Brit once said to me the English did the Argentines a favor winning that war, and, as an Argentine, I think that is absolutely right; soon thereafter, the junta stepped down and democracy was restored. "Not so good for us, though," said the Brit, noting that Thatcher won re-election a year later. I picked up the tab in a show of appreciation/consolation.

So, yes, I believe it is paranoid to suggest that Argentina will resort to military action over the Falklands.

IMHO, this article from the Guardian is right on about the insignificance of the Falkland resolution:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/09/meaningless-falklands-referendum-uk-sovereignty?INTCMP=SRCH

It is now more than 30 years since that ill-conceived war. I think the Arg. govt. is right to push the UK to a return to negotiations, which is were both countries were before the military dictatorship invaded the islands ... here's another article on the UK's willingness to negotiate the turnover of the Islands before the war:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/28/british-approach-falklands-neglect-hope

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I believe the present government has stated they are taking the diplomatic road on this. Plus, I think the Falklands War of the `80s should be put in perspective. It was waged by a military dictatorship as a desperate move to whip up enough national fervor so as to remain in power. Over a beer at a London pub once, a Brit once said to me the English did the Argentines a favor winning that war, and, as an Argentine, I think that is absolutely right; soon thereafter, the junta stepped down and democracy was restored. "Not so good for us, though," said the Brit, noting that Thatcher won re-election a year later. I picked up the tab in a show of appreciation/consolation.

So, yes, I believe it is paranoid to suggest that Argentina will resort to military action over the Falklands.

IMHO, this article from the Guardian is right on about the insignificance of the Falkland resolution:
http://www.guardian....nty?INTCMP=SRCH

It is now more than 30 years since that ill-conceived war. I think the Arg. govt. is right to push the UK to a return to negotiations, which is were both countries were before the military dictatorship invaded the islands ... here's another article on the UK's willingness to negotiate the turnover of the Islands before the war:
http://www.guardian....ds-neglect-hope

There's a great deal to gain from cooperating with the Islanders, but the biggest obstacle is Argentine intransigence.

 

[camberiu]

So, yes, I believe it is paranoid to suggest that Argentina will resort to military action over the Falklands.

It is not paranoid, it is outright delusional. Argentina could not try to re-take the Falklands even if it wanted to. For all practical intents and purposes, Argentina HAS NO MILITARY. Yes, it has the legal entities representing the Army, Navy and Air Force, respectively, but that is it. Those are just empty shells. Its ships can't sail, its planes can't fly and its army has no ammo or fuel. To get troops to the Falklands, Argentina would have two choices:

1) The Argentinian invading forces could all take a bus to Santiago, Chile and from there book a flight on LAN to Port Stanley. It would probably take several flights to get a significant number of troops over there. So the soldiers that arrive there first would probably have to book rooms at the local hotels and wait, which would add additional costs tot he invasion. Also, the AFIP would need to approve the expenses in advance and provide the currency, which can also be an issue.

2) The Argentinian soldiers could try to swim all the way to the Falklands.

 

[quitodario]

There's a great deal to gain from cooperating with the Islanders, but the biggest obstacle is Argentine intransigence.

I disagree. The Islanders are UK citizens and negotiations should be bi-national ... Argentina and the UK.

The UK is refusing to come to the negotiating table and pick up were things left off pre-82 invasion. How is Argentina being intransigent?

 

[Gringoboy]

To pick up where things were left pre-82 would be a little odd to say the least.
The war changed everything.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I disagree. The Islanders are UK citizens and negotiations should be bi-national ... Argentina and the UK.

The UK is refusing to come to the negotiating table and pick up were things left off pre-82 invasion. How is Argentina being intransigent?

Well, how about denying the Islanders' existence and engaging in verbal abuse, refusing to permit overflights of Argentine territory, and enforcing a commercial blockade from South American ports, all for a very dubious irredentist claim?