Refugees "flooding" Europe !NEW POLL!

[Turkhammer]

This is of absolutely no relevance to the migrations crisis but I'd like to point out a couple things here.

First of all America did very little other than serve as an intermediary in negotiations during the Falklands conflict; at the time they said if it came to full scale war they would have supported the UK and I don't see how that would be any different today considering the UK is still a major player in NATO, is one of america's closest security allies (n.b. FVEY), and america are probably even less concerned about their reputation in southern america now than they were in the 1980's.

Secondly the only major power who has publicly supported Argentinian claims on sovereignty over the Falklands is China, but this is probably more to do with their claims on Taiwan and the south china sea where, if UN resolutions passed the Falkland isles to Argentina, China could push for further control over these disputed areas.  An intervention by China in this conflict would undoubtedly result in NATO intervention and as such is unlikely to be directly forthcoming.

Furthermore a direct conflict between Argentina and Britain would likely end exactly as it did before considering the higher combat experience and superior equipment of British armed forces in comparison with Argentinian forces who are still underfunded and inexperienced.  A quick look at the military budget of the two countries outlines the gross disparity in military power. Britain spends around $69 billion p.a. (roughly 2% of their  GDP) while Argentina spends only $5 billion p.a. (around 0.7% of their GDP), on top of this Britain is still a nuclear power while Argentina is not. 

The only likely case of Britain transferring sovereignty to Argentina would be if massive social pressure from either the Falkland residents, the British public or the wider international community (most important UN security council) insisted upon this, until then legacies of British imperialism across the globe will likely remain, disputed as they may be.

Per the wiki:

(click to show/hide)

The United States was concerned by the prospect of Argentina turning to the Soviet Union for support,[29] and initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the US peace overtures, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the US Congress passed resolutions supporting the US action siding with the United Kingdom.[30]

The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.[31][32][33][34] President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima‍ '​s systems

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Destabilizing influence of the EU !!!!!! Yes preaching religious tolerance and encouraging secular governments is bad I hope you learned your lesson you insensitive racist.

....

EU influence is much more than just NATO though, it includes aid, incentives, trade agreements etc. The problem throughout the cold war leading up to now is there were no other alternatives other than dealing directly with the leaders in power of these particular countries no matter how corrupt they were. In many cases trade agreements and aid were and still are filtered through corrupt and greedy governments leaving much of their populace in poverty.

Most governement in sub-saharian africa can stand only thanks to foreign influence. Military intervention from France in Mali, Ivory coast, republique of centre-africa, Tchad and military presence in Gabon, Djibouti is not what I would consider encouraging secular governement.

[Casimir]

Per the wiki:

(click to show/hide)

The United States was concerned by the prospect of Argentina turning to the Soviet Union for support,[29] and initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the US peace overtures, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the US Congress passed resolutions supporting the US action siding with the United Kingdom.[30]

The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.[31][32][33][34] President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima‍ '​s systems

Yeah but the political support from the US. was of far greater significance than any materials and as I said before this hasn't changed.  As the Wiki said the US. was only concerned if there was Global involvement, something which would be the same today.  The material and financial disparity between Britain and Argentina means the situation is unlikely to change without international intervention.

There are far better sources of information than Wikipedia, try reading something academic on this. A good starting point is T. Paul 'Asymmetric conflict', the section Falklands may even be free an google books iirc.

[Overdriven]

The only likely case of Britain transferring sovereignty to Argentina would be if massive social pressure from either the Falkland residents, the British public or the wider international community (most important UN security council) insisted upon this, until then legacies of British imperialism across the globe will likely remain, disputed as they may be.

And they held a referendum there that the Argentinian's conveniently decided to ignore as 'illegal'. Most residents are British there and as I understand it the islands were uninhabited before this. It seems to be more an issue of oil than anything else these days.

[Angantyr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/middleeast/sale-of-us-arms-fuels-the-wars-of-arab-states.html?_r=0

[Grytviken]

....Most governement in sub-saharian africa can stand only thanks to foreign influence. Military intervention from France in Mali, Ivory coast, republique of centre-africa, Tchad and military presence in Gabon, Djibouti is not what I would consider encouraging secular governement.

It's better than the alternative. The FFL has selflessly saved countless lives, a task mostly overlooked being deployed in dangerous areas that are ignored and forgotten by the international community.

[Kafein]

Yeah, the "prose" thing is a bit much, I just rant. I wouldn't say much horseshit but I'm biased.

If it's horseshit it's Arabian horseshit. Swift and agile.

And they held a referendum there that the Argentinian's conveniently decided to ignore as 'illegal'. Most residents are British there and as I understand it the islands were uninhabited before this. It seems to be more an issue of oil than anything else these days.

Basically nobody living in the Falklands wants to become Argentinian. They wouldn't say no to independence, but they also know that it wouldn't last very long. The UK is by far the lesser evil, considering Argentina is so psychotically obsessed with this issue they would probably deport the current population and colonize the island if they could.

[Turkhammer]

Yeah but the political support from the US. was of far greater significance than any materials and as I said before this hasn't changed.  As the Wiki said the US. was only concerned if there was Global involvement, something which would be the same today.  The material and financial disparity between Britain and Argentina means the situation is unlikely to change without international intervention.

There are far better sources of information than Wikipedia, try reading something academic on this. A good starting point is T. Paul 'Asymmetric conflict', the section Falklands may even be free an google books iirc.

Is the wiki I quoted factually wrong?  If not, it is a valid source sufficient for the present discussion.  Academia is not necessarily more valid or less biased.

[Grytviken]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/middleeast/sale-of-us-arms-fuels-the-wars-of-arab-states.html?_r=0

Selling F-15's and F-35's to a country that executes people for practicing "magic tricks" and witchcraft in 2015 is a great idea. Surprisingly Women are allowed to fly them as well, they just have to be chauffeured to the airport because the Quran does not permit women driving automobiles.

[Turkhammer]

Once again, you think this means that i'm saying my country is a smart and accountable member of the international community? Lol

I'm not.

Merely saying that the US is a retarded one. If people *choose* to read that as me beating my chest in patriotic fervour then that's a product of their own overactive imaginations or poor reading comprehension.

No I think that you are saying that you consider the UK to be the wise old hand that the poor simpleton and completely at sea US should follow.  It has been a while since the UK had responsibility for much beyond it's shores.  I merely point out that your country, among others, does depend upon the retard, and not at times of your choosing.

Which countries do you consider to be smart and accountable members of the international community?  Now mind you, these countries should actually have something to be accountable for and smart about.  Hand wringing and tut tutting don't qualify.

[Grytviken]

No I think that you are saying that you consider the UK to be the wise old hand that the poor simpleton and completely at sea US should follow.  It has been a while since the UK had responsibility for much beyond it's shores.  I merely point out that your country, among others, does depend upon the retard, and not at times of your choosing.

Which countries do you consider to be smart and accountable members of the international community?  Now mind you, these countries should actually have something to be accountable for and smart about.  Hand wringing and tut tutting don't qualify.

Whether the US supports the UK or not it would be hilarious to watch another Royal Marine take an Argentine warship out of commission with an anti-tank rocket again.

[Grytviken]

This is a german Singer/Songwriter on YouTube, Maximnoise.
It takes alot of courage to do, what he did.

For everyone who understands german:
If not, just watch the Video from 1:15

can we turn this into a Deutschland music appreciation thread since this topic has been derailed by trolls like heskeytime?

[Casimir]

Is the wiki I quoted factually wrong?  If not, it is a valid source sufficient for the present discussion.  Academia is not necessarily more valid or less biased.

Half of the references from that wiki are dead sources, others are news paper articles relating to personal anecdotes and one is simply a blog site that talk about military hardware and it's significance during crisis.  None of these provide any concrete or valid evidence to suggest america wouldn't support Britain in exactly the same way as before if there was a second Falklands conflict as you initially stated.

[Beauchamp]

Selling F-15's and F-35's to a country that executes people for practicing "magic tricks" and witchcraft in 2015 is a great idea. Surprisingly Women are allowed to fly them as well, they just have to be chauffeured to the airport because the Quran does not permit women driving automobiles.

stfu please, ty very much (i mean overall, in general, your post bring just garbage (nothing) to the topic - sry i'm so opened)

[Beauchamp]

ok i got a question:

i did read that a lot of people in munchen were welcoming refuges : is it general "munchen" feeling or not? what is the general attitude towards refugees there among common population?