Fawklands, Who Should Have Them?

[Geanna]

C'est bon, mon cheri

My French is deeply inadequate, forgive me.

Bien, je ne parle pas tri bien francais...

Touche

[Edgy Opinions]

Every country needs land reform.
Does Brazil have a Green party, or movement? What Brazil needs, regarding its environmental problems, is a large organised ecological movement.
/I think we're quite off-topic.

Yes, actual socialist parties think the same. But even the very moderate Workers' Party must struggle its best continue the show or be ousted fast.

The PV... They're romantic and have negligible non-environmental political aspirations. People who call communists and anarchists Utopians would have the duty to rage with their ingenuous idealism.

/I agree, just responding

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

According to demographics, Amerindians make between 31% to 46% (some areas even had up to 53%) of the population in Argentina, as per studies done by region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... mographics

That same pages says though..

In the survey, based on self-identification or self-ascription, around 600,000 Argentines declared to be Amerindian or first-generation descendants of Amerindians, that is, 1.49% of the population

What you quote likely just includes Argentines who are white, but happen to have an Amerind ancestor from way back, which is not the same as actually being Amerindian.

Also, the parts of the country where Amerindians are a majority are irrelevant, because they still make such a small portion of the nation as a whole.

I'm not sure how exactly they are irrelevant when they're part of the nation.

[Geanna]

They don't have the economy, the numbers or the wish to do so ding dong, the Falklanders always wanted to be part of Britain since they were settled by the Brits centuries ago, (just as much as Hong Kong hated Maggie for "returning" them to a bunch of commies)

I should have worded my response differently, but I agree with the sentiment of your response. What I was driving at is that the Falklands wanted to be part of the Commonwealth due to, as you said, historical and cultural ties. The fact that they have continually expressed such to date shows that it is their decision to "remain British".

For the most part, however, the main reason why they are under British protection and garrison is because they have had Argentina across the way, loudly protesting (even a brief shooting war in 1982) that the islands were theirs, damn historical fact and technicality to the contrary. So as long as they continue to try and wrest the islands away from the Falklanders and as long as these cultural ties are shared by the community, we can expect a continuing strong alliance between the Falklands and Britain for years to come.

Indeed - the UK has made it quite clear that it will ensure Falkland Sovereignty, for as long as the resident population feels they must remain British. With Argentina's periodical sabre-rattling, the UK did boast a bit more defense following the war, as well as the phase-out of the T-42 following the significant flaw in the ship's design that resulted in a global shift in ship designs against radar. [Fun Fact: The Argentine Anti-Ship missiles displayed a flaw with flat facing hulls - and following the war, many nations outfitted their ships with more slanted body-designs to counter-act the advancements of radar]

[Edgy Opinions]

I noticed how you changed it from "underdeveloped" to "developing". They are two very different things.

At least you admit it.

Yea?

1. I'm from Brazil. We count them as the same. People who want to believe in the advancement of the planet say developing, people who acknowledge the current status quo as a predatory hierarchy enforced by rulers who do not represent the majority who gets the short end (i.e. all of the intellectual elite, and what we use in education) say underdeveloped.

2. Of course? I'm not a fan of borders or States to just go and support causes that have fuck all to do with leftist rather than nationalist objectives. The only meaningful leftist thing about taking the islands from Britain is that we're taking them from Britain, but it'd be bad propaganda and they're not that important, and likely will continue to not be important in the future.

3. What do you mean with 'so-called Indigenous'?

[Geanna]

That same pages says though..



What you quote likely just includes Argentines who are white, but happen to have an Amerind ancestor from way back, which is not the same as actually being Amerindian.

Also, the parts of the country where Amerindians are a majority are irrelevant, because they still make such a small portion of the nation as a whole.

I'm not sure how exactly they are irrelevant when they're part of the nation.

Ochlocracy *nod*

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

According to demographics, Amerindians make between 31% to 46% (some areas even had up to 53%) of the population in Argentina, as per studies done by region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... mographics

In fairness, that statistic is disputed.

From another corner of Wikipedia:

Most Argentines, between 83% to 86%, are descended from colonial-era settlers and of the 19th and 20th century immigrants from Europe. An estimated 8% of the population is Mestizo, and a further 4% of Argentines are of Arab (in Argentina the Arab ethnicity is considered among the White people, just like in the US Census) or Asian heritage. In the last national census, based on self-identification, 600,000 Argentines (1.6% of the population) declared to be Amerindians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... settlement

The part that potentially leaves room for both articles to be correct is use of 'self-identification' in the second link.

There's been a large influx of illegal immigration into Argentina from Bolivia, Peru and Paraguay (also notable for having large Amerindian populations). Is this offsetting Argentina's demographics in some way?

Adding, I find it ridiculous when someone says the indigenous population of a place is pretty much dead when that's not true. I am not referring to you, btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... ties_today

[Geanna]

I should have worded my response differently, but I agree with the sentiment of your response. What I was driving at is that the Falklands wanted to be part of the Commonwealth due to, as you said, historical and cultural ties. The fact that they have continually expressed such to date shows that it is their decision to "remain British".

For the most part, however, the main reason why they are under British protection and garrison is because they have had Argentina across the way, loudly protesting (even a brief shooting war in 1982) that the islands were theirs, damn historical fact and technicality to the contrary. So as long as they continue to try and wrest the islands away from the Falklanders and as long as these cultural ties are shared by the community, we can expect a continuing strong alliance between the Falklands and Britain for years to come.

Indeed - the UK has made it quite clear that it will ensure Falkland Sovereignty, for as long as the resident population feels they must remain British. With Argentina's periodical sabre-rattling, the UK did boast a bit more defense following the war, as well as the phase-out of the T-42 following the significant flaw in the ship's design that resulted in a global shift in ship designs against radar. [Fun Fact: The Argentine Anti-Ship missiles displayed a flaw with flat facing hulls - and following the war, many nations outfitted their ships with more slanted body-designs to counter-act the advancements of radar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo_jxJPjKzw

Fun watch. talks about the mentioned above within the first ten-minutes

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm not sure how exactly they are irrelevant when they're part of the nation.

Ochlocracy *nod*

Ah, the pejorative of majoritarianism. *nod*

[Camelza]

Every country needs land reform.
Does Brazil have a Green party, or movement? What Brazil needs, regarding its environmental problems, is a large organised ecological movement.
/I think we're quite off-topic.

Yes, actual socialist parties think the same. But even the very moderate Workers' Party must struggle its best continue the show or be ousted fast.

The PV... They're romantic and have negligible non-environmental political aspirations. People who call communists and anarchists Utopians would have the duty to rage with their ingenuous idealism.

/I agree, just responding

I see, I'll tg you.

[Celibrae]

I should have worded my response differently, but I agree with the sentiment of your response. What I was driving at is that the Falklands wanted to be part of the Commonwealth due to, as you said, historical and cultural ties. The fact that they have continually expressed such to date shows that it is their decision to "remain British".

For the most part, however, the main reason why they are under British protection and garrison is because they have had Argentina across the way, loudly protesting (even a brief shooting war in 1982) that the islands were theirs, damn historical fact and technicality to the contrary. So as long as they continue to try and wrest the islands away from the Falklanders and as long as these cultural ties are shared by the community, we can expect a continuing strong alliance between the Falklands and Britain for years to come.

Indeed - the UK has made it quite clear that it will ensure Falkland Sovereignty, for as long as the resident population feels they must remain British. With Argentina's periodical sabre-rattling, the UK did boast a bit more defense following the war, as well as the phase-out of the T-42 following the significant flaw in the ship's design that resulted in a global shift in ship designs against radar. [Fun Fact: The Argentine Anti-Ship missiles displayed a flaw with flat facing hulls - and following the war, many nations outfitted their ships with more slanted body-designs to counter-act the advancements of radar]

Type 45 is pretty much Argentine-proof. The problem with the Type 42 was it couldn't detect the missile. Type 45 has radar that can detect the missile, and guide in its own missile to destroy it. Along with stealth X hull.

More info here

and here

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Indeed - the UK has made it quite clear that it will ensure Falkland Sovereignty, for as long as the resident population feels they must remain British. With Argentina's periodical sabre-rattling, the UK did boast a bit more defense following the war, as well as the phase-out of the T-42 following the significant flaw in the ship's design that resulted in a global shift in ship designs against radar. [Fun Fact: The Argentine Anti-Ship missiles displayed a flaw with flat facing hulls - and following the war, many nations outfitted their ships with more slanted body-designs to counter-act the advancements of radar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo_jxJPjKzw

Fun watch. talks about the mentioned above within the first ten-minutes

I often wonder if La Kirchner would be daring enough, and stupid enough too, to engage the British armed forces.

[Tagmatium]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo_jxJPjKzw

Fun watch. talks about the mentioned above within the first ten-minutes

I often wonder if La Kirchner would be daring enough, and stupid enough too, to engage the British armed forces.

Probably not.

It'd likely not go well for any concerned.

[Geanna]

Indeed - the UK has made it quite clear that it will ensure Falkland Sovereignty, for as long as the resident population feels they must remain British. With Argentina's periodical sabre-rattling, the UK did boast a bit more defense following the war, as well as the phase-out of the T-42 following the significant flaw in the ship's design that resulted in a global shift in ship designs against radar. [Fun Fact: The Argentine Anti-Ship missiles displayed a flaw with flat facing hulls - and following the war, many nations outfitted their ships with more slanted body-designs to counter-act the advancements of radar]

Type 45 is pretty much Argentine-proof. The problem with the Type 42 was it couldn't detect the missile. Type 45 has radar that can detect the missile, and guide in its own missile to destroy it. Along with stealth X hull.

More info here

and here

Indeed - this may also be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-8HxaDhn_E

[Geanna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo_jxJPjKzw

Fun watch. talks about the mentioned above within the first ten-minutes

I often wonder if La Kirchner would be daring enough, and stupid enough too, to engage the British armed forces.

I doubt it - if anything I see Kirchner as more of a populist pawn - desperately trying to keep Argentine Nationalist sentiment, but too weak-kneed to do much about it.

[Celibrae]

I often wonder if La Kirchner would be daring enough, and stupid enough too, to engage the British armed forces.

Probably not.

It'd likely not go well for any concerned.

Don't make me write an essay on why Argentina would get destroyed....

I'm going to keep this quick. The majority of Argentian warships are decaying relics of the Cold War. Britains new Astute stealth nuclear attack submarines, which will be nigh on invisible to the below average crews and sub-par warships will be able to deal with the Argentine navy on their own.

[Celibrae]

Type 45 is pretty much Argentine-proof. The problem with the Type 42 was it couldn't detect the missile. Type 45 has radar that can detect the missile, and guide in its own missile to destroy it. Along with stealth X hull.

More info here

and here

Indeed - this may also be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-8HxaDhn_E

Thanks.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I often wonder if La Kirchner would be daring enough, and stupid enough too, to engage the British armed forces.

I doubt it - if anything I see Kirchner as more of a populist pawn - desperately trying to keep Argentine Nationalist sentiment, but too weak-kneed to do much about it.

I'm sure it wouldn't go well for her. And Argentina. I just do wonder if, min order to maintain that nationalist sentiment, she would be desperate enough to engage the British armed forces. It's election year after all... More than likely she doesn't have the cojones to do it.

[Tagmatium]

Probably not.

It'd likely not go well for any concerned.

Don't make me write an essay on why Argentina would get destroyed....

I'm going to keep this quick. The majority of Argentian warships are decaying relics of the Cold War. Britains new Astute stealth nuclear attack submarines, which will be nigh on invisible to the below average crews and sub-par warships will be able to deal with the Argentine navy on their own.

Eh, no war is particularly good.

I don't doubt that Argentina will be on the wrong end of it, but it would still mean that billions would be spent on something that could be avoided and there would be British members of the armed forces coming back in body bags.

[Celibrae]

Don't make me write an essay on why Argentina would get destroyed....

I'm going to keep this quick. The majority of Argentian warships are decaying relics of the Cold War. Britains new Astute stealth nuclear attack submarines, which will be nigh on invisible to the below average crews and sub-par warships will be able to deal with the Argentine navy on their own.

Eh, no war is particularly good.

I don't doubt that Argentina will be on the wrong end of it, but it would still mean that billions would be spent on something that could be avoided and there would be British members of the armed forces coming back in body bags.

I doubt the Argentines will set foot on the Falklands - they will be blown up before they get there. They won't just be on the wrong end, they will be completely overmatched.

Argentina's military has gone backwards, but Britain's has gone forwards.

[Geanna]

I doubt it - if anything I see Kirchner as more of a populist pawn - desperately trying to keep Argentine Nationalist sentiment, but too weak-kneed to do much about it.

I'm sure it wouldn't go well for her. And Argentina. I just do wonder if, min order to maintain that nationalist sentiment, she would be desperate enough to engage the British armed forces. It's election year after all... More than likely she doesn't have the cojones to do it.

Given the UK made it clear to Argentina following the 1982 war, that if Argentina tried again, they would have no issue slapping them again; Argentina's in no economic, nor battle-condition to indeed, try a second time. Kirchner may try and play the beat-puppy, ''The British are trying to assassinate me''; but she's seen as little threat. If, for some god-forsaken reason she tried, I imagine the British might strike just hard enough to prove a point, that a third-attempt would be nearly impossible. If anything, geopolitically, she's seen more as an attention-centric annoyance and irritation.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm sure it wouldn't go well for her. And Argentina. I just do wonder if, min order to maintain that nationalist sentiment, she would be desperate enough to engage the British armed forces. It's election year after all... More than likely she doesn't have the cojones to do it.

Given the UK made it clear to Argentina following the 1982 war, that if Argentina tried again, they would have no issue slapping them again; Argentina's in no economic, nor battle-condition to indeed, try a second time. Kirchner may try and play the beat-puppy, ''The British are trying to assassinate me''; but she's seen as little threat. If, for some god-forsaken reason she tried, I imagine the British might strike just hard enough to prove a point, that a third-attempt would be nearly impossible. If anything, geopolitically, she's seen more as an attention-centric annoyance and irritation.

I honestly do not understand how she's stayed in power this long.

[Geanna]

Given the UK made it clear to Argentina following the 1982 war, that if Argentina tried again, they would have no issue slapping them again; Argentina's in no economic, nor battle-condition to indeed, try a second time. Kirchner may try and play the beat-puppy, ''The British are trying to assassinate me''; but she's seen as little threat. If, for some god-forsaken reason she tried, I imagine the British might strike just hard enough to prove a point, that a third-attempt would be nearly impossible. If anything, geopolitically, she's seen more as an attention-centric annoyance and irritation.

I honestly do not understand how she's stayed in power this long.

Given the stability cycle, I imagine Argentina will be on the list as inevitable to collapse here within the next 20 years. A nation's public can only take so much before civil unrest erupts, add in the economic downturn and bumpiness, and the ingredients are there. The problem is, when these cycles complete, and a series of governments fall [Arab Spring for example], it becomes imperative to avoid radicals from obtaining power thereafter, or you end up with the lovely dynamic prior to 1939.

[Celibrae]

I'm sure it wouldn't go well for her. And Argentina. I just do wonder if, min order to maintain that nationalist sentiment, she would be desperate enough to engage the British armed forces. It's election year after all... More than likely she doesn't have the cojones to do it.

Given the UK made it clear to Argentina following the 1982 war, that if Argentina tried again, they would have no issue slapping them again; Argentina's in no economic, nor battle-condition to indeed, try a second time. Kirchner may try and play the beat-puppy, ''The British are trying to assassinate me''; but she's seen as little threat. If, for some god-forsaken reason she tried, I imagine the British might strike just hard enough to prove a point, that a third-attempt would be nearly impossible. If anything, geopolitically, she's seen more as an attention-centric annoyance and irritation.

This^

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I honestly do not understand how she's stayed in power this long.

Given the stability cycle, I imagine Argentina will be on the list as inevitable to collapse here within the next 20 years. A nation's public can only take so much before civil unrest erupts, add in the economic downturn and bumpiness, and the ingredients are there. The problem is, when these cycles complete, and a series of governments fall [Arab Spring for example], it becomes imperative to avoid radicals from obtaining power thereafter, or you end up with the lovely dynamic prior to 1939.

She has become a bit radicalized as the years have progressed. I do not remember Kirchner being like this in the beginning. It's like her presidential years have been one series of one misshape after another.