Could I take the south bit of Argentina?

The only reason 'the UK' gives a twopenny whatsit for those islands is that the Argentines attacked 'em before Thatcher could arrange to sell them, political prestige got involved, and now they're a huge charge on the taxpayers to help the politicians look respectable. I don't know what has got into Auntie's noddle, but these war-fantasies are distasteful.

 

The Falklands isn't the only territory the UK has in the region, but it is the only island in the region to have a port and air port, the UK would still use it, and since Argentina claims the other territories in the region, the UK could want to keep the Falklands independent from Argentina.

The UK would give and sell the Falklands weapons and assets, for the reasons I have already said.

I don't an economic the same or bigger than Argentina, I want the Falklands to have a better GDP per person and with that a bigger military budget, where as Argentina couldn't spend more the 1-2 percent of it GDP on the military the Falklands could spend 5 percent plus. So the Falklands would need a economy 5 time smaller than Argentina, because they could spend as much or more money than Argentina on defence. The 8 years would be for that economic and population growth to take place.

Yes the port and air port would be where a lot of the growth would come from, like in Hong Kong. No their would also be from other job and walks of life.

 

However, it is much much more then that. Because you see, you also have the inertia of an Argentine military that has been developing it's military for 200 years. It has equipment, bases, military achademys, and everything else already in place that your new nation will have to build itself.

If you tried to rebuild then entire US military from the ground up it would probably take the entire GDP of the US for the next 5 years to recreate what it has now. Do you really think that will happen?

And what quality of military do you think you will get down there? I will tell you, half will probably be the dregs that have failed elsewhere. Alcoholics, 25 year Majors in dead-end jobs with delusions of grandeur, Sergeants that run supply dumps because they can't be trusted with troops.

Or individuals like William Walker. I know I mentioned his name before, but obviously you did not even bother to look him up. Here, look him up now, a rather interesting character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

And your economy would be entirely dependent on the price of oil to survive. If OPEC decided to drop the price of oil back to $50 a barrel, your entire national economy would collapse, because they have nothing else to export. But they would still be entirely dependent on imports for survival.

You are aware are you not that this entire nation would only be 4,700 square miles, are you not? This would not even be a subburb of Los Angeles, and is roughly the size of Qatar.

And where are these ports going to be? You can't just will a port into existance. They generally have to be built where an existing harbor of suitable size already exists.

You live in a fantasy world, and I agree with SFJEFF, stick to Colonization. Because you really don't have a clue.

And do you really think Chilie will back this little nation, after it watches it hack a chunk off of it's neighbor? Because you seem to have all the answers here for the opening part, but absolutely no follow-through.

Because let me give you the answer here.

25 years from now, the Falklands decide they need Lebensraum, so invade Southern Argentina, including Tierra Del Fuego. This pulls in the OAS, as well as the UN. And it gets bogged down in central Argentina as constant waves of counter-attacks occurs.

Eventually a UN Force assists a South American coalition from removing the Falkland forces and sending them back to where they belong. They then tack on repatriation fees to Falklands, place limits on what kind of military they can have, and an embargo limiting how much oil they can export.

Oh, and your Navy? You had better go check out our discussions on why China can't just invade Taiwan. Because you are going to need a similar military build-up to invade Argentina. Not just destroyers and subs, but Ro-Ros, Amphibious Assault ships, and a lot of other specialized equipment and training.

 

So who do you think should have the Falklands, the UK or Argentina?

 

Well, the Argentinians have a far better legal claim, and we could make all the current inhabitants millionaires for far less than we spend to 'defend' that inhospitable place. What is the point of all the fuss?

 

Military spending in the Falklands is 350 million a year, the cost of making everybody in the Falklands millionaires would over 3 billion.

Please tell me how Argentina has a better legal claim? Because I just don't see it.

 

We've been spending that sort of money every year since Thatcher's war. I think you must be using billion in the American sense. How many non-military persons live in the Falklands? The last time I looked into it, it was about the same as a very small village.

Spain owned the islands first, and Argentina is the successor state to Spain. Go back and read Doctor Johnson, for a start: right back in his time it seems absurd for us to be bothered with such nonsense.

 

The UK and France had the Falklands befor Spain. And when the UK send ships to retake the Falklands, 60% of the population on the islands was British. That Falklands has a population of 3500, which is the size of the town near to where I live. And not a very small village. Total military spending since the Falklands war would be around 12 billion. And the Falklands economy is worth 130 million a year.

 

"Military spending in the Falklands is 350 million a year,"

So Britain is spending 3 times as much to defend the Falklands as the Falklands generates in income?

I really don't care about historic claims much. And I really don't care whether the UK or Argentina controls the Falklands- and pretty much no one else does other then them and the people of the Falklands.

If the Brits are willing to continue to throw their money at the Falklands and the population there wants to stay part of UK, then why do I care?

 

Oh and with a population of 3500 and the UK spending 350,000,000 a year, Britain could afford to pay every man, woman and child $50,000 a year for the rest of their lives each to live wherever they wanted to, and still save 175,000,000 a year.

But, hey, spend your money any way you want to.

 

You forget the land, and the debt that can be put against it. In WW2 the UK used land to hold more debt, so the Falklands really are worth over £1 billion to the UK, if you include debt that can and is being taken out against them by the UK government. The same goes for other territories the UK has.

 

As with all lands be it the Falklands or be it Palestine the sovereignty of it should be decided by those who live on and work the land and who's ancestors lived on and worked the land.

Nobody else has the right to decide, not Britain, not Argentina, not the United Nations. It must be their decision and their decision alone.

 

Oh and with a population of 3500 and the UK spending 350,000,000 a year, Britain could afford to pay every man, woman and child $50,000 a year for the rest of their lives each to live wherever they wanted to, and still save 175,000,000 a year.

But, hey, spend your money any way you want to.

 

Viva Las Malvinas.

 

We both know the British have had naval bases in the Falklands for over 100 years, and that there is RAF mount Pleasant, and a naval bases connected to it. Also the Falkland has it's own light infantry company sized defence force, called the Falkland Islands Defence Force, or FIDF.

I am not talking about the US military, over 3 million men and over 600 military bases, but 35,000 men and 5 military bases. 3 of which the UK has made already, 1 RADAR station, 1 RAF base and 1 naval base. There would still need to be a Army training base, but that's a lot less than what you think would need to be built.

Are sure that 50% of the Falklands military would be like that? After training?

What if the Falklands joined OPEC? And I no longer think OPEC has the power to change the fuel price that much, plus the Falklands would be based on the British economic model of cheap oil and cheap credit, with no tax on fuel the Falklands consumer would be able to keep the economy going when oil isn't.

What's wrong with being the same size Qatar? They are rich are they not? And we both know size doesn't really matter, if it did then Russia would be miles ahead of rest of the world, and if it's population the China would be, but it's about what you do with your population and territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Harbour

I have said what I think would happen in the end, Argentina will be unable to retake the southern bit of Argentina, and sue for peace, Chile or Brazil will do the talks between the two nations, and for Argentina getting back the bit of Argentina, it will give up any claim to the Falklands. And Chile and Argentina aren't the best of friends you know, while the rest of south America bans Falklands ships, Chile doesn't, but it does support Argentina's claim, however Chile wouldn't accept Argentina attack another nation in the region would it? That's the same as it wouldn't accept the Falklands taking part of Argentina, but which nation would it be most bothered by? Argentina, not the Falklands, so it would try and make peace between the two.

Why would anybody be stupid enough to invade Argentina or Chile for real?

This isn't invading a US backed island with 23 million people on it. Is a lightly defended part of Argentina, with at most 150,000 people.

You talk to me about apples and oranges, but that's what you are doing, when you say China invading Taiwan is like the Falklands invading a region of Argentina. For one the reason for invading is different.

And I know the Falklands would need at least 2,000 marines, in the first wave, and enough ships to get them their, and ship to defend them from the Argentine navy and airforce while they are going their. And then other equipment to move them fast to take the bridges and capital city of 60,000 poeple.

 

Thanks, long live the Falklands, and their people.

 

May the future Argentinians live long and prosper.

 

Well I hope they do as well, as long as they respect the Falklanders right to self-determination.

 

In twenty years time the Falkland Islands will be a memory. Britain needs to get out of the western hemisphere.

 

Well, if you go through the chain of discovery and colonization, it should be arther obvious.

The islands were discovered by England in 1690, but nothing made of the claim.

In 1764 East Falklands were claimed and colonized by France.

In 1766 the West Falklands were claimed again by England.

In 1770 Spain was given control by France, and they expelled the British colony.

In 1771 the English colony was allowed to return.

In 1774 England abandoned the colony.

In 1811 Spain turned control over to the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (forrunner of modern Argentina).

In 1828 the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata established a colony there, after gaining permission from both England and Spain.

In 1832 England returned, attacked the Argentine garrison there and expelled the colonists. This was then used as a staging point for the 6 year long blockade-seige bt France and England to try and gain control of Argentina and other former Spanish colonies in South America.

And yes, I see the islands as belonging to Argentina, and having been illegally siezed as a base to attempt an invasion of Argentina. One which failed.

And trust me, most of South America knows all to well the attempt by England and France to try to come in and take control of the various nations in the region once they gained their independence from Spain. And that hatred and distrust still exists to this day.

In fact, the Confederation that was formed in South America during the mid 1800's was not able to even get started until after a joint French-British attack in Argentina. The Confederation only consisted of Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Once this battle happened, both Chilie and Brazil both became supporters of the Confederation.

So if you think that this war would gain the support of Chilie, you are dead wrong. Just look at history, and the way the region would respond to what would be seen as an attempt to restore European colonization.

As for self-determination, let them make the same choice that many other former people in former Colonial areas were given. Stay where they are and become citizens of the new state, or emmigrate to the home of the current government. This has been done countless times in the last century. Why should this be any exception?

Of course, this will never happen. Because for the last 50+ years, any time Argentina tried to bring this up in the UN, the UK simply used it's veto power and the question went away.

 

Little countries like Britain shouldn't be permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power.

 

How do you know that they would want to form a new state? Is anybody who is not happy with their government going to secede and form their own country? I really don't see the point in that. There should be a one world state. People need to learn to accept their differences.

 

Good luck with that. The impulse is for more and more and more ethno-nationalism.

 

I don't know why I bother....you don't learn from anything we say.

But this observation: The Empire of Japan based their strategy in WW2 on a similar strategy- however as deluded as it was- it was more realistic than yours.

The Falklands has no industry, no ability to produce even bullits for guns, let alone ammo for sophisticated weapons. Argentina is an industrialized nation, with natural resources, and land borders with sympathetic neighbors.

The Falklands would immediately be embargoed by the U.S., and likely blockaded by the U.S.(the Monroe Doctrine again), and Latin America would rally around Argentina- seeing the move- correctly- as European imperialism.

The Falklands wouldn't be able to even resupply the forces it would be lucky enough to get to Argentina. Argentina could retool its domestic industry to produce defense products and easily recruit millions of patriotic Argentinians to repell the Europeans.

This whole suggestion is so ridiculous.

 

I got arrested in Westminster Abbey when I tried to urinate on Cromwell's grave.