More Falklands Trouble

[Glasgia]

All that will happen is this:
Falklanders have nowhere to export oil
Falkanders have loads of Oil
Falklanders start car companies to use up oil
Falklanders build racecourse
FALKLANDS F1 GRAND PRIX IN 2020!!!

[Dagnia]

This is really petty of them. Still butthurt over a war they lost, what, 30 years ago?

[Risottia]

Guy: "I hereby declare myself as citizen and soldier of Risottia, bound to protect the interests of Risottia above any other country's!"
British gov't: "Then you're excused from your British citizenship, since you like Russia more than Britain"
Guy: "OMG YOU EVIL OPPRESSIVE BRITISH GUBMINT NEED TER "LOSS" YER FOCKIN ATTITUDE".

I fail to be impressed.

Brasil is more economically developed than Britain.

And this is relevant, how?

Do you mean "might makes right, Brazil is more powerful than Britain, so Britain got to do what Brazil says"? Well, if might makes right, all Brazil and Argentina have got to do is build a fleet and try to take the Falklands by force. Last time, they attempted the "might makes right" thing, and failed at it.

Anyway, no. Brazil is LESS "economically developed" than Britain; A LOT less. For a very simple reason:
UK: about 35 k$ ; Brazil: about 11 k$
Brazil: Gini 53.6 ; UK: Gini 41.0 .

If you used absolute GDP figures to evaluate a country's development, you'd have that, let's say, the Czech Rebublic is less developed than Egypt. Which would be laughable.

[Risottia]

daily mail reports that ships flying falklands flags would be allowed to fly the red ensign without re-registering.

Which is what I said earlier. Woot. I won.

[Great Agram]

Brasil is more economically developed than Britain.

And this is relevant, how?

Do you mean "might makes right, Brazil is more powerful than Britain, so Britain got to do what Brazil says"? Well, if might makes right, all Brazil and Argentina have got to do is build a fleet and try to take the Falklands by force. Last time, they attempted the "might makes right" thing, and failed at it.

Anyway, no. Brazil is LESS "economically developed" than Britain; A LOT less. For a very simple reason:
UK: about 35 k$ ; Brazil: about 11 k$
Brazil: Gini 53.6 ; UK: Gini 41.0 .

If you used absolute GDP figures to evaluate a country's development, you'd have that, let's say, the Czech Rebublic is less developed than Egypt. Which would be laughable.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2011/12/26/brazi ... 6-economy/

The Uk is not even a regional power and Brasil will in a few years become a world power, it is better for the UK to stop act as if has some influence on world politics.The times when UK was a signifant factor in the world are gone, vorbei, schluss Maybe Brasil and Argentina have no fleet but nevettheless they have more soldiers than the UK and their economies grows rapidly and in few years brasil will be one of few leading nations.

[Kulverint]

And this is relevant, how?

Do you mean "might makes right, Brazil is more powerful than Britain, so Britain got to do what Brazil says"? Well, if might makes right, all Brazil and Argentina have got to do is build a fleet and try to take the Falklands by force. Last time, they attempted the "might makes right" thing, and failed at it.

Anyway, no. Brazil is LESS "economically developed" than Britain; A LOT less. For a very simple reason:
UK: about 35 k$ ; Brazil: about 11 k$
Brazil: Gini 53.6 ; UK: Gini 41.0 .

If you used absolute GDP figures to evaluate a country's development, you'd have that, let's say, the Czech Rebublic is less developed than Egypt. Which would be laughable.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2011/12/26/brazi ... 6-economy/

The Uk is not even a regional power and Brasil will in a few years become a world power, it is better for the UK to stop act as if has some influence on world politics. Maybe Brasil and Argentina have no fleet but nevettheless they have more soldiers than the UK.

As we've said, GDP is highly misleading, as the higher population you have, the higher GDP you will get. On GDP per capita, however, the UK has something like 3 times as much money as Brazil.

Anyway, its irrelevant. Suddenly because Brazil has a larger total GDP than the United Kingdom, that means the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina? I fail to see your logic.

[Kouralia]

Anyway, its irrelevant. Suddenly because Brazil has a larger total GDP than the United Kingdom, that means the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina? I fail to see your logic.

Don't worry, it's not just you.

...it is better for the UK to stop act as if has some influence on world politics...

That'd be hard, because we do.

Maybe Brasil and Argentina have no fleet but nevettheless they have more soldiers than the UK....

Oh no, two countries which are aggressively expanding economically and (now it seems) territorially have more soldiers than one country which is winding down it's armed forces expenditure. Who would have suspected such a thing!

[Great Nepal]

And this is relevant, how?

Do you mean "might makes right, Brazil is more powerful than Britain, so Britain got to do what Brazil says"? Well, if might makes right, all Brazil and Argentina have got to do is build a fleet and try to take the Falklands by force. Last time, they attempted the "might makes right" thing, and failed at it.

Anyway, no. Brazil is LESS "economically developed" than Britain; A LOT less. For a very simple reason:
UK: about 35 k$ ; Brazil: about 11 k$
Brazil: Gini 53.6 ; UK: Gini 41.0 .

If you used absolute GDP figures to evaluate a country's development, you'd have that, let's say, the Czech Rebublic is less developed than Egypt. Which would be laughable.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2011/12/26/brazi ... 6-economy/

You are using GDP, which is inaccurate measure of economic strength. Unless you also say that Vietnam is more economically developed than Luxembourg and North Korea is more economically developed than Latvia.

The Uk is not even a regional power and Brasil will in a few years become a world power, it is better for the UK to stop act as if has some influence on world politics.

Yup, thats why Brazil has veto power in SC and is member of G8. Oh, wait that isn't accurate is it?

Maybe Brasil and Argentina have no fleet but nevettheless they have more soldiers than the UK.

And, how are Brazilian and Argentinian troops getting to Falklands unless they have developed teleporters, which I highly doubt?

[Eylandia]

And this is relevant, how?

Do you mean "might makes right, Brazil is more powerful than Britain, so Britain got to do what Brazil says"? Well, if might makes right, all Brazil and Argentina have got to do is build a fleet and try to take the Falklands by force. Last time, they attempted the "might makes right" thing, and failed at it.

Anyway, no. Brazil is LESS "economically developed" than Britain; A LOT less. For a very simple reason:
UK: about 35 k$ ; Brazil: about 11 k$
Brazil: Gini 53.6 ; UK: Gini 41.0 .

If you used absolute GDP figures to evaluate a country's development, you'd have that, let's say, the Czech Rebublic is less developed than Egypt. Which would be laughable.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2011/12/26/brazi ... 6-economy/

The Uk is not even a regional power and Brasil will in a few years become a world power, it is better for the UK to stop act as if has some influence on world politics.The times when UK was a signifant factor in the world are gone, vorbei, schluss Maybe Brasil and Argentina have no fleet but nevettheless they have more soldiers than the UK and their economies grows rapidly and in few years brasil will be one of few leading nations.

I'd just like to say, sure Brazil and Argentina may well have more soldiers than Britain in total, but how would they get their soldiers to the Falklands in the event of a war? An air drop of them all is pure fantasy, they have to go by ship and Brazil and Argentina have a long way to go before they rival the Royal Navy. Its navies that really decide the outcomes of wars like that, and I'd certainly put my money on the Royal Navy despite the recent cuts.

[Great Agram]

As we've said, GDP is highly misleading, as the higher population you have, the higher GDP you will get. On GDP per capita, however, the UK has something like 3 times as much money as Brazil.

Anyway, its irrelevant. Suddenly because Brazil has a larger total GDP than the United Kingdom, that means the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina? I fail to see your logic.

I am aware of the fact about the GDP per capita and the total GDP. That is the curent situation. Brasil has a higher GDP growth and in 10 years I am sure it will had a higher GDP per capita. The consequence is that it will might be a member of G8, more political infulence and so on and so on.

No, it doesnt mean that the Falklands belong to Argentina, it means it could in future belong to Argentina. Today UK has a stronger army than Argentina, but in future that could change especially if brasil an ally of argentina is and it if might have a even better lobby than the UK among the nations of South America (if I am correct even the southamerican Commonwealth nations are pro-argentina). In other hand noone in Europe is really interested in UK problems with the falkands.

[Delator]

Brasil will in a few years become a world power.

They've been saying that for about forty years now.

*personal note #57

[Great Agram]

I'd just like to say, sure Brazil and Argentina may well have more soldiers than Britain in total, but how would they get their soldiers to the Falklands in the event of a war? An air drop of them all is pure fantasy, they have to go by ship and Brazil and Argentina have a long way to go before they rival the Royal Navy. Its navies that really decide the outcomes of wars like that, and I'd certainly put my money on the Royal Navy despite the recent cuts.

I agree with you, curently the Royal Navy is mighty, but I was talking more about the future which aspect could be seen today.

[Great Agram]

You are using GDP, which is inaccurate measure of economic strength. Unless you also say that Vietnam is more economically developed than Luxembourg and North Korea is more economically developed than Latvia.

The point is on GDP growth, with this tempo Brasil will have a higher GDP per capita than Britain.

Yup, thats why Brazil has veto power in SC and is member of G8. Oh, wait that isn't accurate is it?

That might change. The old Post-WWII status is really silly and it should be changed. I mean France and Britain have a veto in the SC, but seriously they have no personal attitude (they are doing whatever the US say to do). The teo countries have no infleunce in some parts of worlds and that is why they are inadequate for the SC.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd just like to say, sure Brazil and Argentina may well have more soldiers than Britain in total, but how would they get their soldiers to the Falklands in the event of a war? An air drop of them all is pure fantasy, they have to go by ship and Brazil and Argentina have a long way to go before they rival the Royal Navy. Its navies that really decide the outcomes of wars like that, and I'd certainly put my money on the Royal Navy despite the recent cuts.

I agree with you, curently the Royal Navy is mighty, but I was talking more about the future which aspect could be seen today.

Future soldiers don't win wars. They also don't set policy.

If Argentina is arguing politics today, it is Argentina's wealth, political power, and force projection as they appear today that matters.

If Argentina pushes this to the brink of war today, it is Argentina's military strength today that matters, not some imagined mega-army they may field ten years or a million years from now.

[Fnordgasm 5]

I'd just like to say, sure Brazil and Argentina may well have more soldiers than Britain in total, but how would they get their soldiers to the Falklands in the event of a war? An air drop of them all is pure fantasy, they have to go by ship and Brazil and Argentina have a long way to go before they rival the Royal Navy. Its navies that really decide the outcomes of wars like that, and I'd certainly put my money on the Royal Navy despite the recent cuts.

I agree with you, curently the Royal Navy is mighty, but I was talking more about the future which aspect could be seen today.

Well, I'm glad you think it's justified to launch a military occupation of a 160 year old colony and subjugate the inhabitants because for just under 2% of the time since it was first colonised it was squatted by some Argentinians ..

[Grave_n_idle]

As we've said, GDP is highly misleading, as the higher population you have, the higher GDP you will get. On GDP per capita, however, the UK has something like 3 times as much money as Brazil.

Anyway, its irrelevant. Suddenly because Brazil has a larger total GDP than the United Kingdom, that means the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina? I fail to see your logic.

I am aware of the fact about the GDP per capita and the total GDP. That is the curent situation. Brasil has a higher GDP growth and in 10 years I am sure it will had a higher GDP per capita. The consequence is that it will might be a member of G8, more political infulence and so on and so on.

No, it doesnt mean that the Falklands belong to Argentina, it means it could in future belong to Argentina. Today UK has a stronger army than Argentina, but in future that could change especially if brasil an ally of argentina is and it if might have a even better lobby than the UK among the nations of South America (if I am correct even the southamerican Commonwealth nations are pro-argentina). In other hand noone in Europe is really interested in UK problems with the falkands.

Again, no - what Argentina might look like, ten years down the line, is irrelevant.

More to the point, of course - the whole argument is irrelevant. The eventual disposition of Falkland's allegiance is unlikely to be decided by GDP (or even GDP per capita) of any of the parties involved.

Politically, the Falkand Islands are allied with Britain. Militarily, the UK has a better track record of force projection, and thus a stronger claim. Economically, the GDP per capita and the GINI suggest that a Falkland's resident is going to be economically better-off tied to London.

Every metric says that the Falkland Islands are more likely to choose to side with the UK, and that the UK is more likely to be able to defend that claim.

[Kouralia]

I am aware of the fact about the GDP per capita and the total GDP. That is the curent situation. Brasil has a higher GDP growth and in 10 years I am sure it will had a higher GDP per capita. The consequence is that it will might be a member of G8, more political infulence and so on and so on.

No, it doesnt mean that the Falklands belong to Argentina, it means it could in future belong to Argentina. Today UK has a stronger army than Argentina, but in future that could change especially if brasil an ally of argentina is and it if might have a even better lobby than the UK among the nations of South America (if I am correct even the southamerican Commonwealth nations are pro-argentina). In other hand noone in Europe is really interested in UK problems with the falkands.

Again, no - what Argentina might look like, ten years down the line, is irrelevant.

More to the point, of course - the whole argument is irrelevant. The eventual disposition of Falkland's allegiance is unlikely to be decided by GDP (or even GDP per capita) of any of the parties involved.

Politically, the Falkand Islands are allied with Britain. Militarily, the UK has a better track record of force projection, and thus a stronger claim. Economically, the GDP per capita and the GINI suggest that a Falkland's resident is going to be economically better-off tied to London.

Every metric says that the Falkland Islands are more likely to choose to side with the UK, and that the UK is more likely to be able to defend that claim.

Especially since (I believe) NATO would have to automatically side with Britain, and the UN would regard it as an invasion, siding with Britain.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, no - what Argentina might look like, ten years down the line, is irrelevant.

More to the point, of course - the whole argument is irrelevant. The eventual disposition of Falkland's allegiance is unlikely to be decided by GDP (or even GDP per capita) of any of the parties involved.

Politically, the Falkand Islands are allied with Britain. Militarily, the UK has a better track record of force projection, and thus a stronger claim. Economically, the GDP per capita and the GINI suggest that a Falkland's resident is going to be economically better-off tied to London.

Every metric says that the Falkland Islands are more likely to choose to side with the UK, and that the UK is more likely to be able to defend that claim.

Especially since (I believe) NATO would have to automatically side with Britain, and the UN would regard it as an invasion, siding with Britain.

NATO and the UN would probably sit it out, in reality. But they would be stroking their beards and clicking their tongues disapprovingly at Argentina. Very disapprovingly.[/i]

*nods*

[Eylandia]

As we've said, GDP is highly misleading, as the higher population you have, the higher GDP you will get. On GDP per capita, however, the UK has something like 3 times as much money as Brazil.

Anyway, its irrelevant. Suddenly because Brazil has a larger total GDP than the United Kingdom, that means the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina? I fail to see your logic.

I am aware of the fact about the GDP per capita and the total GDP. That is the curent situation. Brasil has a higher GDP growth and in 10 years I am sure it will had a higher GDP per capita. The consequence is that it will might be a member of G8, more political infulence and so on and so on.

No, it doesnt mean that the Falklands belong to Argentina, it means it could in future belong to Argentina. Today UK has a stronger army than Argentina, but in future that could change especially if brasil an ally of argentina is and it if might have a even better lobby than the UK among the nations of South America (if I am correct even the southamerican Commonwealth nations are pro-argentina). In other hand noone in Europe is really interested in UK problems with the falkands.

Even if Brazil is as strong as you suggest, which I don't personally believe will be the case even in a few decades time, it wouldn't get involved in a dispute in the Falklands. It is a dispute between Britain and Argentina, and Brazil would lose many allies if it were to aid Argentina in a conquest of the Falklands. Already Brazil looks like a bit of an outsider to the main international community, strong ties with Iran to name but one issue. If they were to openly go to war against the UK do you really think they would have much of a standing left on the international stage?

[Eylandia]

I am aware of the fact about the GDP per capita and the total GDP. That is the curent situation. Brasil has a higher GDP growth and in 10 years I am sure it will had a higher GDP per capita. The consequence is that it will might be a member of G8, more political infulence and so on and so on.

No, it doesnt mean that the Falklands belong to Argentina, it means it could in future belong to Argentina. Today UK has a stronger army than Argentina, but in future that could change especially if brasil an ally of argentina is and it if might have a even better lobby than the UK among the nations of South America (if I am correct even the southamerican Commonwealth nations are pro-argentina). In other hand noone in Europe is really interested in UK problems with the falkands.

Again, no - what Argentina might look like, ten years down the line, is irrelevant.

More to the point, of course - the whole argument is irrelevant. The eventual disposition of Falkland's allegiance is unlikely to be decided by GDP (or even GDP per capita) of any of the parties involved.

Politically, the Falkand Islands are allied with Britain. Militarily, the UK has a better track record of force projection, and thus a stronger claim. Economically, the GDP per capita and the GINI suggest that a Falkland's resident is going to be economically better-off tied to London.

Every metric says that the Falkland Islands are more likely to choose to side with the UK, and that the UK is more likely to be able to defend that claim.

I couldn't agree more. Until the day that the Falklanders themselves decide that they want to be Argentinian (hardly likely any time soon) the Falkland Islands will stay British.

[Eylandia]

You are using GDP, which is inaccurate measure of economic strength. Unless you also say that Vietnam is more economically developed than Luxembourg and North Korea is more economically developed than Latvia.

The point is on GDP growth, with this tempo Brasil will have a higher GDP per capita than Britain.

Yup, thats why Brazil has veto power in SC and is member of G8. Oh, wait that isn't accurate is it?

That might change. The old Post-WWII status is really silly and it should be changed. I mean France and Britain have a veto in the SC, but seriously they have no personal attitude (they are doing whatever the US say to do). The teo countries have no infleunce in some parts of worlds and that is why they are inadequate for the SC.

GDP per capita is just as discredited as GDP. Also, GDP does not decide the outcomes of limited wars such as one for the Falklands would be.

I very much doubt the UN SC will be changing any time soon. Britain and France have nukes, that automatically entitles them to a permament seat pretty much. And yes, they do have their own opinions. The Libyian intervention (whatever your opinion of it) was Anglo-French opinions in action whilst the US stood back and watched. Britain is still powerful at the end of the day.

[Grave_n_idle]

The point is on GDP growth, with this tempo Brasil will have a higher GDP per capita than Britain.



That might change. The old Post-WWII status is really silly and it should be changed. I mean France and Britain have a veto in the SC, but seriously they have no personal attitude (they are doing whatever the US say to do). The teo countries have no infleunce in some parts of worlds and that is why they are inadequate for the SC.

GDP per capita is just as discredited as GDP. Also, GDP does not decide the outcomes of limited wars such as one for the Falklands would be.

I very much doubt the UN SC will be changing any time soon. Britain and France have nukes, that automatically entitles them to a permament seat pretty much. And yes, they do have their own opinions. The Libyian intervention (whatever your opinion of it) was Anglo-French opinions in action whilst the US stood back and watched. Britain is still powerful at the end of the day.

Britain has a lot of support in Europe, if they want it. It's arguably the upside of being the political equivalent of a popular kid who won't go to parties.

So, the French and Germans lean a little towards open support of the UK's position in the Falkland's dispute, and the UK leans a little closer towards whatever is the issue of the day in the EU.

[Risottia]

The Uk is not even a regional power and Brasil will in a few years become a world power, ] it is better for the UK to stop act as if has some influence on world politics.The times when UK was a signifant factor in the world are gone, vorbei, schluss Maybe Brasil and Argentina have no fleet but nevettheless they have more soldiers than the UK and their economies grows rapidly and in few years brasil will be one of few leading nations.

So, I was right. It's a case of "might makes right" in your opinion.
My reply being:
1.I don't accept might making right - as you militarists and imperialists do. I'm sort of into democracy and self-determination, and the Kelpers want to stay British, live on the land they were born on, with the laws they set for themselves through a government they voted for in fair and free elections.
2.If we were to accept might making right, then it would be up to the Argies and their eventual allies to show they can conquer that land and keep it. Which, so far, they failed to do.
3.Britain is a world power because it has the ability to strike targets wherever they want in the globe, ranging from just sending in the SAS and the SBS, to patrolling the seas with surface and underwater units, to the nuclear option. Argentina and Brazil have a low blue water capacity and no worldwide power projection ability at all. So, militarily, they are relevant "as the Two of Spades when the briscola seed is Hearts", as we say in Italy.
4.Of course, Brazil pulling on the invasion hat would also piss off ANOTHER world power which shares a land border with Brazil, aka France. Another country with significant power projection capability and a nuclear arsenal. And veto power at the SC, by the way. It would also piss off all ESA member countries - because, you know, Kourou - and Russia - again, because of the Soyuz launch pad at Kourou.

[Salandriagado]

From your source:


Shock horror. You have to have citizenship to vote. That is so pro-British.

Oh yes. Very biased. Do us a favour and come back with an actual argument.

"Someone can lose their right to vote if (..) they have any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or State" except the United Kingdom. Same source.

And how about you do us a favour and lose your f***ing attitude?

An effectively identical phrase appears in the election law of every single other country I'm aware of. What it means is that if I go on holiday there, I can't wander in and have vote. The same way that I wouldn't be able to vote if I happened to be in France at the time of their elections.

[The UK in Exile]

4.Of course, Brazil pulling on the invasion hat would also piss off ANOTHER world power which shares a land border with Brazil, aka France. Another country with significant power projection capability and a nuclear arsenal. And veto power at the SC, by the way. It would also piss off all ESA member countries - because, you know, Kourou - and Russia - again, because of the Soyuz launch pad at Kourou.

more like the soyuz non-launch pad.