If the Falklands Islands was attacked again, would you send - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

If the Falklands Islands was attacked again, would you send in the army?

Yes
35
66%
No
5
9%
Hand over the Islands to Argentina
12
23%
Power Share the Island
1
2%
User avatar
By Dr House
#13237893
Onomautopia wrote:Assumptions have no place in military strategy planning.

Yeah, yeah, just hand over the damn islands and we can all go home.
By Moderatepartypower
#13237899
I se some people want to hold votes and ask the people what they want us to do. At this point they are being attacked, what do you think they will say! No let these guys who are attacking us rule us!
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#13237978
Housey-housey wrote:Yeah, yeah, just hand over the damn islands and we can all go home.


:roll:

You're trolling now, House, and it's unbecoming of you.

How would you like it if some smart-ass suggested we hand Puerto Rico to a foreign power - one which is hostile to the inhabitants, doesn't speak the same language or share any of the inhabitants cultural norms?

If the Falkland Islanders suddenly come over all Latin and decide to become Dagos, then they can do that. Whilst it is their wish to remain British, Britain will defend their wishes.
User avatar
By Nets
#13237981
Cartertonian wrote:How would you like it if some smart-ass suggested we hand Puerto Rico to a foreign power - one which is hostile to the inhabitants, doesn't speak the same language or share any of the inhabitants cultural norms?


Didn't exactly that happen in 1898? :lol:

God Bless America!
User avatar
By Dr House
#13237989
cartertonian wrote:How would you like it if some smart-ass suggested we hand Puerto Rico to a foreign power - one which is hostile to the inhabitants, doesn't speak the same language or share any of the inhabitants cultural norms?

Well it happened already, and it was rather shitty. However, since we're talking about the Falklands rather than Puerto Rico I'm still compelled to side with Argentina on this one.

I repeat, fuck Britain.

But yeah I'm just having a bit of fun here. ;)
User avatar
By Beren
#13237999
The defeat by the British in the Falklands War discredited the military regime and led to free elections in 1983. So I would have done certainly the same as Thatcher did.
User avatar
By Typhoon
#13238114
Spain wants Gibraltar, Argentina wants the Falklands, the US is pretty much occupying Diego Garcia and its too bad China got Hong Kong because I support the idea of keeping hold of these little islands.

Still with the Tornado-F3 on its way out, an increasingly small number of Eurofighters to fill the places and a defence ministry thats going to bankrupt itself bringing one maby two carriers and the F-35 into service, our chances of keeping hold of these little islands could be in real danger over the next 10 years.
By stalker
#13238127
But fortunately for Britain the Argentina military still sucks, AFAIK.
By stalker
#13238134
A present for Dr. House: ;)

It is hard to escape the war in Puerto Argentino. At the city's tiny airport, a gigantic mural commemorates the soldiers from the mainland who lost their lives. Beside the old Anglican cathedral, now draped with a massive blue-and-white flag, the statue of General Leopoldo Galtieri gazes impassively out to sea. In recent years, there has been talk of opening a garden of reconciliation to mark the sacrifice of the enemy troops, too.

Yet even today, almost 30 years on, the island's authorities are nervous about re-opening old wounds. On the Malvinas, history is a touchy subject.
Most historians now agree that Britain could never have won the war for what people in 1982 still called the Falkland Islands. To expect victory after an amphibious assault on a handful of tiny rocky islands, thousands of miles from home, with supply lines stretched over the South Atlantic, was the stuff of fantasy. After the false dawn of the recapture of South Georgia, reality soon broke in on the British public.

The sinking of HMS Sheffield marked the beginning of the end, and after the disastrous failure of the San Carlos landings, the game was up. Thatcher managed to persuade her friend Ronald Reagan to act as a go-between, but the Washington peace talks were no more than a fig leaf to preserve Britain's last shreds of respectability. As all the world could see, after years of economic decline and under-investment, the imperial lion was no longer capable even of defending its own territory.

For Thatcher herself, the results were calamitous. Although her government seemed to be regaining popularity just before the war, its ratings collapsed afterwards and her own leadership was fatally discredited. The backbench rebellion that finished her off a year later was only a matter of time, although the principal assassin, an obscure young MP called John Major, is entirely forgotten today. The Tory vote held up surprisingly well in 1983, but the Whitelaw-Owen government of the late 1980s was a very different proposition from the hard-right administration likely to have emerged had Thatcher survived.

Few British schoolchildren today know the first thing about the Malvinas war, but it is clear that it marked a watershed in our history: the moment when dreams of empire and great-power status were banished for good. Under the Tory-SDP administrations of the 1980s and 1990s, Britain became perhaps the guiding spirit behind the new Europe, and a posterboy for post-imperialism. But in the late-night tango bars of Puerto Argentino, nobody cares about Britain any more. The "Stanley" signs are long gone. Only a few red postboxes remain to remind visitors of the old days.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13238169
Few British schoolchildren today know the first thing about the Malvinas war, but it is clear that it marked a watershed in our history

Why would a Brit call it the Malvinas?
Or is this article written by an Argentine trying to imply they are British?



The sinking of HMS Sheffield marked the beginning of the end, and after the disastrous failure of the San Carlos landings, the game was up.

Eh?
Thatcher ordered British nuclear missile subs into the waters to nuke Buenos aires if the war got really bad, its what she black mailed Miterand with.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13238915
House wrote:Hand over the Islands to Argentina.

Fuck Britain.


Given the options, this is the best Truth. Any good anti-imperialist (or American for that sake) will have the same reaction.

Of course, optimally, the people should overthrow the capitalist system and oppose anyone that tries to put it back in to place and so on and so forth.
User avatar
By Dave
#13238927
If I were British, yes, absolutely, and invade the Argentine mainland to teach them a lesson they'll never forget. Of course Britain doesn't have the strength to do either, but you get the picture.

As an American I would favor Britain due to our close cultural and diplomatic links with her.

The Immortal Goon wrote:Given the options, this is the best Truth. Any good anti-imperialist (or American for that sake) will have the same reaction.

I wasn't aware that Americans were required to be Anglophobic.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13238946
If I were British, yes, absolutely, and invade the Argentine mainland to teach them a lesson they'll never forget.

Too costly in British lives. Just lob a couple of nukes in their direction. Problem solved. :)
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13238964
Dave wrote:I wasn't aware that Americans were required to be Anglophobic.


Monroe Doctrine, bitches. But mostly, we're Americans - not Europeans.

But aside from poking a stick at the conflict, I honestly don't know enough about it to go in to a detailed analysis or anything.
User avatar
By Dave
#13238977
The Immortal Goon wrote:Monroe Doctrine, bitches.

The Monroe Doctrine is not a law--it is a policy suggestion. As you know very well it was established at a time when the United States was menaced by European powers and had defensive intent. As that is no longer the case I see no reason to stick to it. If European powers (or anyone else) started interfering with our interests in the backyard, then of course we would need to intervene.

The Immortal Goon wrote:But mostly, we're Americans - not Europeans.

We are diaspora Europeans with an unique national identity, but I'm not sure at any rate why this would require Anglophobia.
User avatar
By Tailz
#13239377
Let the people of Islands decide for themselves, give them autonomy (independence) from England and Argentina.

If Argentina tried to take the Islands by force (again), then yes military force should be bright to bear to help the Islanders and repell the invaders.

Dr House wrote:What strategic importance do the Malvinas have anyway? Why does Britain want them so badly?

Why does Argentina want them so badly?

The islands have become a symbol of nationalist pride and little else for Argentina. The issue of the islands is only waved about as a Weapon of Mass Distraction to distract Argentina's population with their own nationalism, from the otherwise more important issues Argentina faces.
User avatar
By Dr House
#13239378
tailz wrote:Why does Argentina want them so badly?

I don't know... Yet I somehow don't care. They should have them anyway.
User avatar
By Dave
#13239379
Issues of identity and pride transcend "more important issues", even if they are manipulated to distract from practical matters. To Argentina, the Falklands are Argentina. This is all that matters, and to act as if it is unimportant is to belittle a whole people, perhaps even an entire civilization given where Latin America's sympathies lie.
Florida Bans CRT in Schools

It has been argued that it is patently untrue that[…]

You got it backwards. The fascist Franco governme[…]

Why Did Europeans Enslave Africans https://www.y[…]

I have seen propaganda from both sides, so the re[…]