Falklands war - the sequel?

[Captain Seafort]

Exactly how long do you think it takes to borrow a civilian shallow bottom craft?

How do you expect said shallow-bottomed craft to get to the Falklands? Sailing them through the roaring forties is idiocy, and carrying them aboard a larger ship just gives 1435 Flight a bigger target.

You'll have minimal air coverage and little to no air reinforcements.

Minimum air cover is plenty against the crap the Argies can put up.

This has been brewing for the last two years. Something tells me that the UK just doesn't have the fight left in it to push this issue otherwise you would have fortified the islands already.

What's been "brewing"? Kirchner screaming and stamping her feet like a five year old does not constitute an imminent military threat to the islands. All that's been achieved is a lot of hot air, a few symbolic gestures, and her and Obama making themselves look stupid.

[Deepcrush]

How do you expect said shallow-bottomed craft to get to the Falklands? Sailing them through the roaring forties is idiocy, and carrying them aboard a larger ship just gives 1435 Flight a bigger target.

Shallow bottomed crafted doesn't equal "easy flip barge". Also, for the RAF based on the islands to do anything against transports requires them to maintain air superiority. That in itself requires the RAF to keep an 8:1 kill ratio which is something I doubt the RAF will achieve.

Minimum air cover is plenty against the crap the Argies can put up.

A heat-seeker still kills, no matter if its launched from the Arg-Crap or from a F35. Again its a numbers game which leaves the RAF in a bad position.

What's been "brewing"? Kirchner screaming and stamping her feet like a five year old does not constitute an imminent military threat to the islands. All that's been achieved is a lot of hot air, a few symbolic gestures, and her and Obama making themselves look stupid.

A, you have a country that has tried before to take something from you. B, your own country is far weaker then it was the last time around. C, the enemy from the last time around is better off then before. D, you've had two years of "stomping" which is about twenty-three months to long for the UK to wait to make a show of force.

Finally, what does Obama have to do with your country's inability to manage a fellow second rate power? Last I checked, the US wasn't defending that pack of Islands.

[Captain Seafort]

That in itself requires the RAF to keep an 8:1 kill ratio which is something I doubt the RAF will achieve.

Why not? We're talking about Typhoons against a bunch of badly-maintained Mirages and a few upgraded Skyhawks. 1435 would slaughter them.

A heat-seeker still kills, no matter if its launched from the Arg-Crap or from a F35. Again its a numbers game which leaves the RAF in a bad position.

A numbers game of four against none in terms of who can get in range.

A, you have a country that has tried before to take something from you.

They failed, their armed forces have deteriorated badly since then, and they're a lot more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about them these days.

B, your own country is far weaker then it was the last time around.

Which means it's doubtful we could retake the islands. The Argies' problem is that their deterioration since last time round has been far worse than ours, and the Falklands are vastly better defended than last time.

C, the enemy from the last time around is better off then before.

Flat out wrong. The Argentine army of 1982 was brave, but badly trained and badly led, but air force could and did put up a serious fight against the task force, and we were lucky the navy decided to bugger off after the Belgrano was sunk. These days the army's in much better nick, but the equipment of the navy and air force is mostly pre-war vintage, and largely dependant on using half their nominal strength as spare-parts bins to keep the other half in some semblance of working order. This has had an obvious detrimental effect on the competence of their operators - they simply can't get the flight/sea time to keep their skills up.

D, you've had two years of "stomping" which is about twenty-three months to long for the UK to wait to make a show of force.

Until the Argies show some sign of doing something dangerous, why should we give a badly-behaved child the attention it wants?

Finally, what does Obama have to do [the Falklands]

Because when some noisy idiot demands that your closest ally hand over bits of its territory, the correct response is to either ignore them, or tell said idiot to fuck off and get back in their box. Saying that your closest ally should negotiate with said idiot is downright offensive, and simply makes you look like an idiot.

your country's inability to manage a fellow second rate power?

Second-rate power? You have a vastly overrated notion of the Argentine military. They're a third-rate power at best, and even weaker in the naval strength they'd need to take the Falklands.

[Mikey]

Because when some noisy idiot demands that your closest ally hand over bits of its territory, the correct response is to either ignore them, or tell said idiot to fuck off and get back in their box. Saying that your closest ally should negotiate with said idiot is downright offensive, and simply makes you look like an idiot.

Ah, but when the rest of the world tells the U.S. that we should back off from our support of Israel, or intervene less in the attempt to halt brutal warlords in the third world, then it's OK. Sure, that's not arbitrary.

[Captain Seafort]

Ah, but when the rest of the world tells the U.S. that we should back off from our support of Israel, or intervene less in the attempt to halt brutal warlords in the third world, then it's OK. Sure, that's not arbitrary.

Four problems with that objection:

1) Israel and various third world thugs aren't overwhelmingly inhabited by US citizens

2) The Falkland Islanders haven't been behaving like a bunch of thugs towards their neighbours. Israel has. The fact that said neighbours behave even worse towards Israel does not excuse this.

3) The US does not have a good record of cleaning up the mess it leaves in the course of removing third world thugs.

4) Try and remember which country has been backing your efforts, by recognising that poor implementation is not a reason to bin the whole idea.

[Mikey]

1) Israel and various third world thugs aren't overwhelmingly inhabited by US citizens

So, protecting humans in general doesn't count? Typical, considering how the British Empire operated.

2) The Falkland Islanders haven't been behaving like a bunch of thugs towards their neighbours. Israel has. The fact that said neighbours behave even worse towards Israel does not excuse this.

Ah, protecting oneself because of the hostilities generated by the British gerrymandering of the area is "acting like a thug?" Trading thousands of legitimately-arrested lawbreakers for one Israeli non-deployed soldier, who was kidnapped from a base inside undisputed Israeli territory while at stand-down, is "acting like a thug?"

3) The US does not have a good record of cleaning up the mess it leaves in the course of removing third world thugs.

This argument fails on two points:
1 - Who has a better record? The Brits? See the Middle East after WWII, etc.
2 - The vast majority of cases to which this would apply are cases in which the U.S. is expected to - and does - shoulder the overwhelming majority of the workload, manpower requirements, and casualties. If somebody could do a better job, why haven't they stepped up to the plate?

4) Try and remember which country has been backing your efforts, by recognising that poor implementation is not a reason to bin the whole idea.

Whether or not you've been reluctantly helping because you happen to remeber your status as allies and UN partners is immaterial - what we're discussion is how your public (and the rest of the First World) decries our actions after-the-fact while helping precious little during.

[Captain Seafort]

So, protecting humans in general doesn't count?

Protecting one's own citizens is far more important than protecting foreigners. The US has no absolute obligation to defend the rights or the lives of the Israelis, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, or anyone else. The UK does have an absolute obligation to protect the rights and the lives of the Falkland Islanders.

Ah, protecting oneself because of the hostilities generated by the British gerrymandering of the area is "acting like a thug?" Trading thousands of legitimately-arrested lawbreakers for one Israeli non-deployed soldier, who was kidnapped from a base inside undisputed Israeli territory while at stand-down, is "acting like a thug?"

Indiscriminate use of WP and cluster munitions in civilian areas is acting like a thug, regardless of what's been chucked out of those areas.

1 - Who has a better record? The Brits? See the Middle East after WWII, etc.

Tu quoque fallacy.

The vast majority of cases to which this would apply are cases in which the U.S. is expected to - and does - shoulder the overwhelming majority of the workload, manpower requirements, and casualties. If somebody could do a better job, why haven't they stepped up to the plate?

Because they don't have the capacity to do so. The complaint made wasn't "we could do better", it's "you'll make matters worse".

Whether or not you've been reluctantly helping because you happen to remember your status as allies and UN partners is immaterial - what we're discussion is how your public (and the rest of the First World) decries our actions after-the-fact while helping precious little during.

Wrong. What we're discussing is the fact that the UK has backed you to the hilt for the last decade. We stood by you in the belief that your actions were right in principle even if the implementation was sometimes flawed. Our reward is being told to negotiate over a piece of British sovereign territory. Until Obama opens negotiations with Spain for the return of Puerto Rico and Mexico for the return of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, he can go and fuck himself.

[Mikey]

Ah, here we go. "Do as I say when it's convenient, but then we'll crucify you for it." Well, for good or ill I'm a bit too inebriated from watching the Super Bowl of real, useful football (and yes, I can call it that because we won the American Revolution) to break down this handful of tripe on a drek-by-drek basis, but watch this space tomorrow.

[Mikey]

Protecting one's own citizens is far more important than protecting foreigners. The US has no absolute obligation to defend the rights or the lives of the Israelis, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, or anyone else. The UK does have an absolute obligation to protect the rights and the lives of the Falkland Islanders.

Convenient, but two-faced. Nobody believed that load when the French begged for help when they couldn't handle their shit at Dien Bien Phu. Nobody believed that load when the Brits were starving for food and materiel in WWII, or when Vinegar Joe had to cut 'round the long way to Burma to help them out. Etc., etc., ad nauseum. All the times we bailed out everyone else's asses, nobody minded us helping people who weren't our own. Now, it's convenient for this argument for you to say otherwise, and it's a rhetorically nice thing to say - but it rings as hollow as a bell.

Indiscriminate use of WP and cluster munitions in civilian areas is acting like a thug, regardless of what's been chucked out of those areas.

The use of the term "indiscriminate" supports your point very well, and I suppose it's good for you that you don't worry about the factual accuracy of saying so. In the real world, however, Israeli has time and again targeted (and ONLY targeted) legitimate targets of retaliation or suppression (unlike those aggressors, BTW.) The fact that these so-called populist supporters would actually use the people they are supposed to be supporting as meat shields isn't Israel's fault. If you really want to say that Israel targets civilians the way that Palestinians do, I would point up the fact that such a statement is proved false by the fact that Palestinians aren't yet extinct, nor are the West Bank or the Gaza Strip yet flat expanses of obsidian.

Tu quoque fallacy.

You're so full of shit, your breath stinks. This is no way fallacious or spurious - YOU broached the topic of our handling of certain types of international issues, your handling of the same type of issues is therefore a legitimate conversation point. To put it crudely but effectively - "Don't start none, won't be none... don't want none, don't start none."

Because they don't have the capacity to do so.

The reasons why everyone needs us to handle their shit for them are immaterial. What's at point here is the fact that it happens, not why it happens.

The complaint made wasn't "we could do better", it's "you'll make matters worse".

You don't really have a base to complain about the latter if you can't truthfully state the former.

Wrong. What we're discussing is the fact that the UK has backed you to the hilt for the last decade. We stood by you in the belief that your actions were right in principle even if the implementation was sometimes flawed. Our reward is being told to negotiate over a piece of British sovereign territory. Until Obama opens negotiations with Spain for the return of Puerto Rico and Mexico for the return of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, he can go and fuck himself.

[/quote]

If that makes you feel better about whining, then so be it. It's still not true, though.

[Captain Seafort]

Convenient, but two-faced. Nobody believed that load when the French begged for help when they couldn't handle their shit at Dien Bien Phu. Nobody believed that load when the Brits were starving for food and materiel in WWII, or when Vinegar Joe had to cut 'round the long way to Burma to help them out. Etc., etc., ad nauseum. All the times we bailed out everyone else's asses, nobody minded us helping people who weren't our own. Now, it's convenient for this argument for you to say otherwise, and it's a rhetorically nice thing to say - but it rings as hollow as a bell.

We're not talking about the actions of the US sixty or seventy years ago, when it certainly did a lot of good in the world, we're talking about the past decade, when virtually everything it's touched seems to have turned to shit.

Israeli has time and again targeted (and ONLY targeted) legitimate targets of retaliation or suppression (unlike those aggressors, BTW.) The fact that these so-called populist supporters would actually use the people they are supposed to be supporting as meat shields isn't Israel's fault.

The fact that Israel continued to dump WP and cluster munitions onto the offending firebase despite the presence of civilians is Israel's fault.

This is no way fallacious or spurious - YOU broached the topic of our handling of certain types of international issues, your handling of the same type of issues is therefore a legitimate conversation point.

Wrong. The fact that the UK's track record in the region is far from perfect is has no bearing on the fact that the US' track record is also far from perfect.

The complaint made wasn't "we could do better", it's "you'll make matters worse".

You don't really have a base to complain about the latter if you can't truthfully state the former.

On the contrary - the ability to do something is not a prerequisite for disputing someone else's ability to do something. The accuracy of me stating that you can't run faster than sound or that you'd loose a punch-up with a gorilla is not affected by the fact that those statements are true of me as well.

It's still not true, though.

Which bit of it?

[Captain Seafort]

And another thing... I don't even know why we're having this argument. I didn't accuse every single American of ingratitude. I didn't even accuse the US Government of ingratitude. I had a go at one idiot for his ingratitude. One man. Not the whole country. Jesus wept.

[Mikey]

We're not talking about the actions of the US sixty or seventy years ago, when it certainly did a lot of good in the world, we're talking about the past decade, when virtually everything it's touched seems to have turned to shit.

It's dishonest to try and discuss one particular set of such events in a vacuum. Sure, some shit got botched... but without the prior history of intervention, there wouldn't be any future of it. The U.S. was only kept in the position of everybody else's ass-bucket carrier because we did OK when we were first put into that position.

The fact that Israel continued to dump WP and cluster munitions onto the offending firebase despite the presence of civilians is Israel's fault.

You'll notice that you included the phrase "onto the offending firebase." You guys didn't complain too much when the U.S. fire-bombed Dresden, but the last time I checked cities tended to hold civvie populations. I guess it's not as reprehensible when the UK benefits directly from the action? Attacking a military target is not "thuggish," no matter if the disgusting subhumans operating said target decide to run their own civilians out as meat shields.

Wrong. The fact that the UK's track record in the region is far from perfect is has no bearing on the fact that the US' track record is also far from perfect.

I agree, and I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Upon what that fact does have a bearing, though, is people complaining about how we do things when a) those people expect us to do those things, and won't contribute the same amount of effort, and b) they don't know how to do it better. See below.

On the contrary - the ability to do something is not a prerequisite for disputing someone else's ability to do something. The accuracy of me stating that you can't run faster than sound or that you'd loose a punch-up with a gorilla is not affected by the fact that those statements are true of me as well.

Again, agreed. What's at issue here, though, isn't the fact that I'd lose the fight to a gorilla; it's the fact that because you would too, and don't know how to fight gorillas any better than I do, you have no place trying to give me advice on gorilla-fighting techniques.

Which bit of it?

Let's see... mostly; the part in which you think we owe the UKoGBaNI something, and especially the part in which you somehow think Obama's suggestion to negotiate somehow means that we wouldn't back you if it came to it. You know quite as well as I do that we would, even if it were independent of the Sec Council.

I don't even know why we're having this argument.

Because that's what we do.

Jesus wept.

Sorry, the reference is completely lost on me. I know of the O'Neill play Lazarus Laughed, and Lazarus is a Biblical figure somehow connected with Jesus, but that's it.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I can't see the United States take a diplomatic side against its most powerful ally in Europe and probably 2nd most important in the influence game currently being played in Europe against a re surging Russia, to favor an aggressor who's only strategic value at stake might be a hypothetical foil against Brazil in a far future.

Anything the Argentinian regime is doing in the South American political field is self-serving, so I doubt very much they'd suddenly break away from their current front to join Chavez's Merry Band of Authoritarian Nuts simply because the United States not directly backing them into what is effectively a war of aggression against one of the world's leading power and close ally.


Also, I doubt very much the Argentinian would deploy 20,000 troops to secure the Islands, even if they had the amphibious capability. With less than 3,500 population, I don't think you need to go too close of the 4 digits before you may think of it as an overkill. Plus, the Argentinians would know any troops deployed on the Falklands islands would find itself under naval blockade very quickly and unable to procure any food. Even if the Royal Navy won't bomb in order to protect the civilians, they wouldn't be above starving everyone until they surrender or they are ready to be stroke.

Argentinians can't be that stupid. Saber-rattling, sure, why not, but actual open warfare? They learned the hard way in the 80's that you can't rely on something silly as "the public's dislike of war" when you play the aggressor. Specially aggressor of British ground.

[Deepcrush]

The number of troops isnt about the number of people living on the islands. Its about presenting a force strong enough to survive and repel a UK counter attack.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I see your point, but without air superiority or naval support, the only thing more troops bring to the islands would be more targets for the Royal Navy to shoot at. What can 20,000 marines do against a carrier or a destroyer task force?

More troops on the islands just means a larger supply need, and if the Royal Navy blockades the occupied islands, too many men can end up being more a liability than a reliable asset. The UK would know that storming the islands would result in one massive bloodbath, so bombardment/blockade would be the strategically sound choice.

Except if I missed something, obviously.