[wunfellaff]

kiwififer, on 11 February 2012 - 08:59, said:

Someone has posted a link on my FB of a stupid wee lassie burning a top with a UJ on it and 100 comments from Argentinians on it going 'malvinas' etc.

Should I try and troll it? I must admit, my online trolling skills are not that great...

hmmmmmm, or they are very, very good...........

[Swampy]

MONKMAN, on 11 February 2012 - 08:27, said:

Now they're claiming the British have sent a vanguard class sub to the area. Whether or not this is true, submarines that fire nuclear weapons are cool as f**k


LINK

As long as we're going to have a ludicrously overinflated military it makes sense to use it to defend our territory.

Let's all remember who it was who kept turning down arbitration over the Falklands post-WW2. It wasn't the UK...

[kiwififer]

wunfellaff, on 11 February 2012 - 12:23, said:

hmmmmmm, or they are very, very good...........

nah, she's about 18, Argentinian and is a bit 'look at the pwetty bubles' so she's not on the trolling. It was on my mates FB, he commented on her picture and it was then linked to mine.

PM me if you want a link, she's actually not too bad

[H_B]

I watched the Argentinian ambassador's high school level Powerpoint presentation to the UN on Friday

That was hilarious. So many comedy highlights.

"Why do Britain feel the need to militarise the area?" - Well baldy, maybe we wouldn't have had to if, oh I don't know, some colonialist scumbags hadn't tried to flex their muscles 30 years ago.

[NewBornBairn]

Thing is, all this posturing isn't for countries who know what's going on. It's for all the Jibrovia's who don't give a f**k about oil rights or self-determination and would probably struggle to find the South Pole on a map. There's enough of these backward wee nobodies at the UN who vaguely think Britain = Empire therefore Argentina = Oppressed & Exploited that a full General Assembly vote could be quite embarrassing for Britain. If it got as far as the Security Council we could have the US abstaining in order not to offend South America, France considering the same thing and China could quite possibly side with Argentina. Add in Colombia, Guatamala, Morocco, Pakistan & Togo and the vote isn't so straightforward.

Of course, Britain could use the veto but that would be a diplomatic disaster and would send Argentina into overdrive claiming Britain is being colonialist and defying the entire UN.

[H_B]

NewBornBairn, on 13 February 2012 - 10:14, said:

Of course, Britain could use the veto but that would be a diplomatic disaster

Why? It happens all the time at the Security Council.

[H_B]

Loved the little bald boy's attempts to get Ban Ki Moon in to negotiate.

Negotiate about what?

Think I might ask him to negotiate about my claim to my neighbour's flat. See if there's any settlement we can work out.

[NewBornBairn]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 11:31, said:

Why? It happens all the time at the Security Council.

Because it would change the whole affair from the usual Dago annual moan to a full Diplomatic Incident requiring "Something To Be Done".

[Enrico Annoni]

What claim have they made for the islands, apart from them being a wee bit close to Argentina?

[H_B]

NewBornBairn, on 13 February 2012 - 11:39, said:

Because it would change the whole affair from the usual Dago annual moan to a full Diplomatic Incident requiring "Something To Be Done".

Nothing would require to be done. All of the permanent members of the SC exercise vetos regularly, in matters concerning themselves or their allies.

It wouldn't be an issue at all. Argentina have no legitimate claims to the Falklands. Their presentation is utterly laughable and no one who matters cares about it.

[H_B]

Enrico Annoni, on 13 February 2012 - 11:41, said:

What claim have they made for the islands, apart from them being a wee bit close to Argentina?

They colonised them for about 30 minutes 200 years ago before being turfed out.

[chico]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 11:50, said:

They colonised them for about 30 minutes 200 years ago before being turfed out.

Ah, I thought they inherited the Spanish Empire's claim after the argies went independent.

[The Old Northerner]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 11:50, said:

They colonised them for about 30 minutes 200 years ago before being turfed out.

And at the time of colonisation Argentina itself was still under Spanish colonial authority.

[Gordon EF]

The Old Northerner, on 13 February 2012 - 12:06, said:

And at the time of colonisation Argentina itself was still under Spanish colonial authority.

The Spanish probably have a much better claim than the Argies.

But then if Spain can't even get Gibraltar, don't think Argentina have much chance with the Falklands.

[H_B]

Gordon EF, on 13 February 2012 - 12:11, said:

The Spanish probably have a much better claim than the Argies.

Well, it's degrees of nothingness really. A Spanish claim would be laughable, which shows just how poor the Argentine claim is.

The only thing they might have a point about is Britain's opt-out on certain provisions of the nuclear proliferation treaty in the region. I can understand why they wouldn't be happy about nuclear subs running about in the waters off the South American coast. Albeit we are never going to stop doing that either, for obvious reasons.

[deky]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 12:18, said:

Well, it's degrees of nothingness really. A Spanish claim would be laughable, which shows just how poor the Argentine claim is.

The only thing they might have a point about is Britain's opt-out on certain provisions of the nuclear proliferation treaty in the region. I can understand why they wouldn't be happy about nuclear subs running about in the waters off the South American coast. Albeit we are never going to stop doing that either, for obvious reasons.

We're britian and we do what we want?

[H_B]

deky, on 13 February 2012 - 13:30, said:

We're britian and we do what we want?

More or less, yes. Within our territorial waters and the high seas.

[Enrico Annoni]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 13:50, said:

More or less, yes. Within our territorial waters and the high seas.

unless we decide to invade

[deky]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 13:50, said:

More or less, yes. Within our territorial waters and the high seas.

Or re-draw territorial waters to suit.

[Reynard]

Enrico Annoni, on 13 February 2012 - 14:03, said:

unless we decide to invade

Has anyone ever been invaded by submarine?

[H_B]

deky, on 13 February 2012 - 14:20, said:

Or re-draw territorial waters to suit.

When did we do that?

[the jambo-rocker]

NewBornBairn, on 13 February 2012 - 11:39, said:

Because it would change the whole affair from the usual Dago annual moan to a full Diplomatic Incident requiring "Something To Be Done".

Uh-huh. Tell me, when Russia vetoed on the Syrian slaughter, did that turn in something needing to be done?

Enrico Annoni, on 13 February 2012 - 14:03, said:

unless we decide to invade

If...

[Enrico Annoni]

Reynard, on 13 February 2012 - 14:48, said:

Has anyone ever been invaded by submarine?

1st time for everything

[yoda]

Sean Penn decides that this issue certainly deserves his opinion.

[NewBornBairn]

yoda, on 13 February 2012 - 20:59, said:

Sean Penn decides that this issue certainly deserves his opinion.

p***k