Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Falklands War Hero Condems Advert as Cheap and tawdry

  1. #1 Falklands War Hero Condems Advert as Cheap and tawdry 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    "Falklands war veteran Simon Weston says an ad showing an Argentinian athlete training on a war memorial on the islands is desperate, and President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner should concentrate on the problems in her own country."

    Video: Simon Weston: Falklands advert is cheap, tawdry and sad - Telegraph


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Falklands? Don't you mean the Maldives?
    Barack Obama makes Falklands gaffe by calling Malvinas the Maldives - Telegraph


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Argentine president Cristina Kirchner.is portraying the Argentinian people as permanent victims. She wants to stop getting her panties in a bunch about the Falkland Islands, and sort things out at home. Obama needs a geography lesson.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Argentine president Cristina Kirchner.is portraying the Argentinian people as permanent victims. She wants to stop getting her panties in a bunch about the Falkland Islands, and sort things out at home. Obama needs a geography lesson.
    I don't think most ordinary argentinians care much about the falkland islands anyhow, and certainly the british arn't going to abandon them after british lives were lost defending the islands and people who live there. I think the only hope the argentinians have of getting the islands is to convince the people that live their to want argentine rule. But again that is also unlikely as they are of british decent for 200 years, speak english have a british culture and way of life and want to be british.

    What sort of example would it set around the world if islands where people had been living for 200 years were just given willy nilly to the nearest foriegn country.

    That said I don't think there any appetite for a second falklands war. If there was I think the british would probarbly remove the argentine government completely and set up a permanent military base in argentina, they may even split argentina up like what happened to germany after the second world war. Either way the outcome for argentina would not be good. The british has always proved pretty effective when it comes to wars to protect their people.

    The british have the 4th largest defense budget in the world and have a 1958 mutual defense treaty with the US so all things being equal I don't think we would see any angentinian aggression succeed.

    All that being said what this all really seems to be about is a nationalistic smoke screan by the argentinians to distract from their own domestic problems and a desire for resorces such as oil.

    At present there seems to have been very little official response from the british despite argentine sabre rattling, but don't expect that to continue if argentina decides to up the anty.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    A second Falklands war would not be a foregone conclusion. It's widely questioned whether we would be able to retake the islands if the Argentinians were to invade. 4th largest defence budget or not, retaking an Island 4000 miles from home is not easy - especially when you don't have any aircraft carriers!

    The key would be to stop the Argentines taking the islands in the first place. A difficult task.

    And regarding the 1958 treaty with the US, it didn't do much to bring them into the battle the last time did it? So I don't think it can be relied upon the next time.

    That said, I do fully support the Islanders right to remain British. If the Argentines tried to take it by force, I'd demand that we went to the Islanders rescue, like we did in 82.

    I see they are planning a referendum. Hopefully that'll put the issue to bed - but I doubt it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    A second Falklands war would not be a foregone conclusion. It's widely questioned whether we would be able to retake the islands if the Argentinians were to invade. 4th largest defence budget or not, retaking an Island 4000 miles from home is not easy - especially when you don't have any aircraft carriers!

    The key would be to stop the Argentines taking the islands in the first place. A difficult task.

    And regarding the 1958 treaty with the US, it didn't do much to bring them into the battle the last time did it? So I don't think it can be relied upon the next time.

    That said, I do fully support the Islanders right to remain British. If the Argentines tried to take it by force, I'd demand that we went to the Islanders rescue, like we did in 82.

    I see they are planning a referendum. Hopefully that'll put the issue to bed - but I doubt it
    After constant british support in Iraq and Afghanistan I think any request for military assistance to US would be hard for them to turn down, even if it was politically akward for them, though that said I don't think it would be required as Argentina don't have the military capacity they had back in the days of the Falklands war and our new destroyers are more than capable of tracking and shooting down multiple aircraft, something we didn't have back then either as their airforce was causing havoc. Also I just don't think a war would happen again, they know they lose, even if we couldn't retake the islands there would nothing to stop us blowing the crap out of their military command from ship based cruise missiles and they know it.

    It could also easily esculate as I don't think the UK government could accept the islands under argentine rule while british people lived there. So it could well end up with a full scale regime change campaign into Agentina it's self, again something their government wouldn't dare risk.

    No most of this posturing is about trying to get concessions for oil and mineral rights near the islands.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Argentina has their eye on the oil in the Falklands or offshore thereof. A referendum isn't going to stop them. Obama doesn't like Britain, so he isn't going to help. I don't know what Romney would do. Maybe we can look for Argentina to invade while Obama is still in office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Can you imagine how much damage it would do to the US's reputation if the UK had to ask the French for support? I don't it would go down to well after all the UK support the US military campaigns have recieved. All things considered there would be no way for Argentina to succeed.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What sort of example would it set around the world if islands where people had been living for 200 years were just given willy nilly to the nearest foriegn country.
    You mean sort of like Hong Kong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    If there was I think the british would probarbly remove the argentine government completely and set up a permanent military base in argentina, they may even split argentina up like what happened to germany after the second world war.
    You cannot be serious! This would bring condemnation from just about every country on the planet and military support from half the Latin american coutnries. Moreover the ability of the UK to deliver any meaningful assault force would be less than zero. This is so monumentally dumb you have to be winding us up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The british have the 4th largest defense budget in the world
    Are you aware that we gained victory in the last conflict by the skin of our teeth. If the Argentines had figured out they were setting the bomb fuses incorrectly we would have lost several more ships. We could not mount a comparable operation today and you are proposing we could invade an entire country. Amazing!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What sort of example would it set around the world if islands where people had been living for 200 years were just given willy nilly to the nearest foriegn country.
    You mean sort of like Hong Kong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    If there was I think the british would probarbly remove the argentine government completely and set up a permanent military base in argentina, they may even split argentina up like what happened to germany after the second world war.
    You cannot be serious! This would bring condemnation from just about every country on the planet and military support from half the Latin american coutnries. Moreover the ability of the UK to deliver any meaningful assault force would be less than zero. This is so monumentally dumb you have to be winding us up.

    Yes, that was actually tongue in cheek.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The british have the 4th largest defense budget in the world
    Are you aware that we gained victory in the last conflict by the skin of our teeth. If the Argentines had figured out they were setting the bomb fuses incorrectly we would have lost several more ships. We could not mount a comparable operation today and you are proposing we could invade an entire country. Amazing!!
    That was then this is now, and most of our problems were caused by their airforce which is now hopelessly out of date and can now be tracked and shot down by our new type 45's.

    Anyway, stop worrying there's not going to be another war they haven't the stomach for it.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    It would really take the flipping biscuit if british soldiers are giving their lives in Afganistan and the UK couldn't even defend the sovereignty of actual British people!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    A second Falklands war would not be a foregone conclusion. It's widely questioned whether we would be able to retake the islands if the Argentinians were to invade. 4th largest defence budget or not, retaking an Island 4000 miles from home is not easy - especially when you don't have any aircraft carriers!

    The key would be to stop the Argentines taking the islands in the first place. A difficult task.

    And regarding the 1958 treaty with the US, it didn't do much to bring them into the battle the last time did it? So I don't think it can be relied upon the next time.

    That said, I do fully support the Islanders right to remain British. If the Argentines tried to take it by force, I'd demand that we went to the Islanders rescue, like we did in 82.

    I see they are planning a referendum. Hopefully that'll put the issue to bed - but I doubt it
    After constant british support in Iraq and Afghanistan I think any request for military assistance to US would be hard for them to turn down, even if it was politically akward for them, though that said I don't think it would be required as Argentina don't have the military capacity they had back in the days of the Falklands war and our new destroyers are more than capable of tracking and shooting down multiple aircraft, something we didn't have back then either as their airforce was causing havoc. Also I just don't think a war would happen again, they know they lose, even if we couldn't retake the islands there would nothing to stop us blowing the crap out of their military command from ship based cruise missiles and they know it.

    It could also easily esculate as I don't think the UK government could accept the islands under argentine rule while british people lived there. So it could well end up with a full scale regime change campaign into Agentina it's self, again something their government wouldn't dare risk.

    No most of this posturing is about trying to get concessions for oil and mineral rights near the islands.
    I agree that war will not happen, but I doubt whether we would win a war should it occur. This article: BBC News - Could the UK still defend the Falklands?

    explains the situation and agrees with me that our chance would rest upon stopping them invading. If they invade, it would be extremely difficult to win them back.

    I think you are deluding yourself regarding our relationship with the US. Obama won't think he owes us anything for our support in Iraq and Afghanistan - he isn't exactly a fan of those wars. Nowadays our military is so depleted that we need to beg the Yanks to tag along in certain operations - I'm thinking of the show of strength in the Straits of Hormuz.

    There is no way whatsoever that we could "split" Argentina up in the way you describe. We can barely hold down a country like Afghanistan, there is simply no way we and our 80,000 troops could hold down Argentina. Kirchener would be ousted if she lost a war, but it wouldn;t be 'regime change'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I think you are deluding yourself regarding our relationship with the US. Obama won't think he owes us anything for our support in Iraq and Afghanistan - he isn't exactly a fan of those wars. Nowadays our military is so depleted that we need to beg the Yanks to tag along in certain operations - I'm thinking of the show of strength in the Straits of Hormuz.
    Everyone compared notes and did the "math" in '82 and it didn't look like UK had a chance. As it turned out better equipment and training made it pretty simple once it got there.

    Obama won't think he owes us anything for our support in Iraq and Afghanistan - he isn't exactly a fan of those wars
    He was a fan of Afghan was and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't fully support a UK operation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Obama won't think he owes us anything for our support in Iraq and Afghanistan - he isn't exactly a fan of those wars
    He was a fan of Afghan was and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't fully support a UK operation.
    Why is he calling the Falklands the Malvinas then? Looks to me like he sides with Argentina.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Everyone compared notes and did the "math" in '82 and it didn't look like UK had a chance. As it turned out better equipment and training made it pretty simple once it got there.
    Pretty simple?

    Deary me


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    He was a fan of Afghan was and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't fully support a UK operation.
    Is this from the same country which calls the Falkland Islands The Malvinas? Obama has repeatedly said that it's a bi-lateral issue, and he would not intervene. At a time when Iran is their biggest concern, his only motivation would be to get the war over as quickly as possible, and that will mean suing for peace ASAP - regardless of who has control over the Falklands
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think you are deluding yourself regarding our relationship with the US. Obama won't think he owes us anything for our support in Iraq and Afghanistan - he isn't exactly a fan of those wars. Nowadays our military is so depleted that we need to beg the Yanks to tag along in certain operations - I'm thinking of the show of strength in the Straits of Hormuz.
    Everyone compared notes and did the "math" in '82 and it didn't look like UK had a chance. As it turned out better equipment and training made it pretty simple once it got there.

    Obama won't think he owes us anything for our support in Iraq and Afghanistan - he isn't exactly a fan of those wars
    He was a fan of Afghan was and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't fully support a UK operation.
    Thanks for the kind words, but trust me it wasn't simple. It at one stage involved the furthest bombing raid in history, with about 20 odd planes setting off so they could keep refueling each other until finally a single bomber had the range to make a bombing run. It also brought a whole knew word into the English language, that of 'Yomping'. A lot of very brave young people lost their lives in the process and it's something we won't forget or take lightly.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    At the time, I didn't understand why the US stayed neutral and did not support Britain. It seems that the reason was that Reagan was afraid of losing support of South American countries against leftists.
    Falklands: Reagan phone call to Thatcher (urges ceasefire) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

    This time around, we have a president who's a leftist himself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    At the time, I didn't understand why the US stayed neutral and did not support Britain. It seems that the reason was that Reagan was afraid of losing support of South American countries against leftists.
    Falklands: Reagan phone call to Thatcher (urges ceasefire) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

    This time around, we have a president who's a leftist himself.
    See that's a problem, not so much with being a leftist per say, because genrally that means looking after the under dog and supporting those who can't help themselves, which is in principle good, but unfortunately in practice is doesn't always work out. Just using this situation for instance it's all very well and good to say that oh yes Argentina should have the Falklands they are a poor country and could probarbly use the natural resources. However in practice that presents the UK with a big problem, firstly because the islanders themselves wish to remain british and british lives were lost in the process of recaputing the islands and also the president it sets. The UK has got over sees territories all around the world that it is responsible for and citizens of which it is responsible for defending.

    This where a more pragmatic approach is needed. If example the US president came out and declared support for argentinas claim to the islands it would also put in jepody the soveignty of other territories around the world even including US foriegn territories. So it not so easy to take a purely leftist stance when looking at the big picture and all the potential ramifications.

    Does he screw over an allie for the sake of principle and put up with the global repercussions or sacrafice his principles for the greater good, but then that's why he's President and has to make the big calls.

    I think his best cause of action would be to not get involved at all, only if he was faced with a direct request for military assistance would he then actually have to make a decision. Which again unless absolutely necessary I don't think the UK would put him in that position.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    It also brought a whole knew word into the English language, that of 'Yomping'.
    I think you will find the war simply brought it to the attention of the general public. the term itself has been around for some time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    It also brought a whole knew word into the English language, that of 'Yomping'.
    I think you will find the war simply brought it to the attention of the general public. the term itself has been around for some time.
    hmmm new word! Surprised I'd not heard of it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    It also brought a whole knew word into the English language, that of 'Yomping'.
    I think you will find the war simply brought it to the attention of the general public. the term itself has been around for some time.
    Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. I thought it was invented for the war.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    At the time, I didn't understand why the US stayed neutral and did not support Britain. It seems that the reason was that Reagan was afraid of losing support of South American countries against leftists.
    Falklands: Reagan phone call to Thatcher (urges ceasefire) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

    This time around, we have a president who's a leftist himself.
    There's also the Monroe Doctrine. Technically, by interacting violently with South America directly, the English were infringing on the USA's claim of semi-sovereignty over the whole of North and South America.

    If anything, we should have thrown in with Argentina. But we like the British. They speak English like we do. That makes them pretty valuable allies.

    Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    In relation to those who think the US should, or normally would be in support of British military action I have one word. Suez.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. YOU can be Budget Hero!
    By The Finger Prince in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 19th, 2011, 01:20 AM
  2. How can a young person become a hero/ine?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 24th, 2009, 07:16 AM
  3. Hero Says: I AM SOMEBODY
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 7th, 2008, 11:06 AM
  4. The American Cultural Hero-System
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 16th, 2008, 06:54 AM
  5. intelligent design advert
    By marnixR in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 07:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •