General News Thread

[bovril]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

 That Argentina decided to invade kicked any nuance into touch.  

Yeah it wasn't the smartest move

[westernpark]

11 minutes ago, bovril said:

I personally think the dispite is more nuanced than people in Britain think it is, and as far as I'm aware the government before the 1982 war were considering transferring sovreignty at least partially to Argentina. Ultimately I don't believe it'll just come down to what the 3000 population want. 

Can you provide evidence as to why it’s more nuanced than has been suggested?

[leicsmac]

Given their past actions, the Argentinians can't expect or even hope to gain control of those islands through diplomatic or democratic process - not until the memory of military action fades a lot more than it has already done, which will take a pretty long time IMO. 

 

That leaves just coercion and/or more military action, and unless they have a more powerful ally at their back for the duration and thereafter, I don't expect that to work either. 

 

I've been told rather a lot in the past that international relations aren't about what things should be, but what things are. And that, in this case, is what things are. 

Edited Friday at 15:15 by leicsmac

[Sampson]

15 minutes ago, bovril said:

I personally think the dispite is more nuanced than people in Britain think it is, and as far as I'm aware the government before the 1982 war were considering transferring sovreignty at least partially to Argentina. Ultimately I don't believe it'll just come down to what the 3000 population want. 

 

I have to strongly disagree on this one tbh. I think you're doing the classic contrairian thing of thinking because Britain has done a lot of bad (which is true) in its history then everything its done is bad. I think you're assuming there's nuance where there isn't - again, you're just going on vibes and cannot provide any concrete reasons as to what this nuance is or why Argentina should have genuine sovereignty over the land and tge people whove now lived there for generations.

 

I would say with the Falklands the issue is tge exact opposite and that many people asssume there's much more nuance than there is and so people assume it's similar to Ireland or Hong Kong where British settlers took over and ruled the natives when it really really isn't - and Argentina itself is a colonial nation of Spanish and Germans and unlike other new world countries doesn't really have a native South American populations trying to claim independence either, so by the same reductive reasoning Argentina should be handed back to native Peruvians and Brazilians as they're the closest native peoples if you're using the same reductive reasoning, the reality is Argentina doesn't have any claims to it, and Argentininas themselves are just Spanish and German settlers from the colonial era as Falklanders were British settlers anyway.

 

The government were planning that because they thought no one cared about the Falklands and its an economic drain on the uk and the country was bankrupt at the time,. That was about economics though, they realised people obviously care about it and that Argentina has no actual "nuanced" claims on it.

Edited Friday at 15:08 by Sampson

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Can you provide evidence as to why it’s more nuanced than has been suggested?

I think there's a belief in Britain that when the majority of British settlement took place, the islands had been uninhabited and Argentina didn't exist, which is not really true. 

[bovril]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

I have to strongly disagree on this one tbh. I think you're doing the classic contrairian thing of thinking because Britain has done a lot of bad (which is true) in its history then everything its done is bad. I think you're assuming there's nuance where there isn't - again, you're just going on vibes and cannot provide any concrete reasons as to what this nuance is or why Argentina should have genuine sovereignty over the land and tge people whove now lived there for generations.

 

I would say with the Falklands the issue is tge exact opposite and that many people asssume there's much more nuance than there is and so people assume it's similar to Ireland or Hong Kong where British settlers took over and ruled the natives when it really really isn't - and Argentina itself is a colonial nation of Spanish and Germans and unlike other new world countries doesn't really have a native South American populations trying to claim independence either, so by the same reductive reasoning Argentina should be handed back to native Peruvians and Brazilians as they're the closest native peoples if you're using the same reductive reasoning, the reality is Argentina doesn't have any claims to it, and Argentininas themselves are just Spanish and German settlers from the colonial era as Falklanders were British settlers anyway.

 

The government were planning that because they thought no one cared about the Falklands and its an economic drain on the uk and the country was bankrupt at the time,. That was about economics though, they realised people obviously care about it and that Argentina has no actual "nuanced" claims on it.

I don't really give a shit as I have said and obviously the Argentinians are incredibly cringey about it.

 

However, having read about the settlement of the island over time and the different claims, I actually think it's messier than people here realise. We didn't permanenently settle the island when there were just penguins on it and Argentina didn't exist, as a lot of people think. There are plenty of good, detailed discussions about it online from people neither from Britain or Argentina. 

 

You accuse me of being biased but I'm trying to be objective. If it were a dispute between say Romania and Indonesia over an island in the south pacific, I'd think it was messy and nuanced. People in the UK take a very firm stand on it because of what happened in 82 and because Argentinian politicians are dicks about it. Unfortunately now as leicesmac says above any kind of diplomatic process towards settling the sovreignty dispute is not going to happen.

 

I could see a case in the future where international pressure + a dwindling number of people caring about it at home leads the UK government to change their position slightly.

 

I don't care, it's 3000 people living thousands of miles away. This discussion came about because I pointed out that of course the Falkanders see themselves as British because they are, we put them there. 

Edited Friday at 15:31 by bovril

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

I don't really give a shit as I have said and obviously the Argentinians are incredibly cringey about it.

 

However, having read about the settlement of the island over time and the different claims, I actually think it's messier than people here realise. We didn't permanenently settle the island when there were just penguins on it and Argentina didn't exist, as a lot of people think. There are plenty of good, detailed discussions about it online from people neither from Britain or Argentina. 

 

You accuse me of being biased but I'm trying to be objective. If it were a dispute between say Romania and Indonesia over an island in the south pacific, I'd think it was messy and nuanced. People in the UK take a very firm stand on it because of what happened in 82 and because Argentinian politicians are dicks about it. Unfortunately now as leicesmac says above any kind of diplomatic process towards settling the sovreignty dispute is not going to happen.

 

I could see a case in the future where international pressure + a dwindling number of people caring about it at home leads the UK government to change their position slightly.

 

I don't care, it's 3000 people living thousands of miles away. This discussion came about because I pointed out that of course the Falkanders see themselves as British because they are, we put them there. 

As the vast majority of people want to remain British and that Argentina have no doubt ensured that generations of future islanders will have a much stronger wish to stay British the rest is up to Britain and the islanders. 

[st albans fox]

Apropos of nothing, my 2026 bingo card did not have the wife of the national security adviser being investigated by police for expressing support for Palestine action ….

 

irrespective of the sense/legality etc of the proscription, I imagine dinner this evening in the Powell household will be ‘interesting’. 

[Vacamion]

 

Either the rules based international order endures, in which case the Falklands are British because of their inhabitants' wishes.

 

Or Trump's recent assertion "To the victor, the spoils" now holds, in which case the Falklands are British, because the Argies lost after they tried to take them by force in 1982.

 

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Don’t think she’s going to last 

 

they’ll use her claims to be a lawyer (when she hasn’t passed the bar exam) to sack her.

 

Her appearance on hannity where he hung her out to dry on that was lining that up 

 

I just hope she gets a second conference for our amusement before they pull the plug 

Boooo!

not gonna be a second presser ….

[Izzy]

16 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Boooo!

not gonna be a second presser ….

Trump doesn't want her to 'suffer' at the hands of the press 

[Zear0]

I’ll remember her fondly as a true forty year old scorcher.

[leicsmac]

Just another peroxide blonde in the field of highly questionable worldviews found to be entirely out of her depth. 

 

Not really much to see here. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

9 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Me neither . 

You can be sure however, that the pro gun lobby will use this as an example of the right to bare arms being a good thing. Why? Because the killer was shot dead by a member of the public.

They really don't get it, do they?

Yeah bad guys 4 good guys 1, you still didn't "win" America. No guns and it's a 0-0 draw, but Americans hate a draw.

 

Thickos. (In general - obviously anti-gun Americans exist, I presume.)

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, Sly said:

Funnily enough, I was going to write the same thing about the Faroe Islands!

Funnily enough, I was about to write the same thing about Frog Island.

[leicsmac]

So, according to the Torygraph, Musk not only was behind throttling the Starlink internet operations in Ukraine, resulting in some serious operational problems for them, but then lied about it by saying Trump was the first one to have the idea and he merely went along with it, rather than going to Trump with the idea himself. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 19:49 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

Incredible stuff

[Zear0]

47 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Incredible stuff

It is a banger tbf.

 

That said, RIP not the best metaphor given the state of him.

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Zear0 said:

It is a banger tbf.

 

That said, RIP not the best metaphor given the state of him.

just more psycho stuff to scare the Iranians 

 

you’d think after six months they’d have realised that the Iranian govt  aren’t scared because the ultimate ending for them is glorious martyrdom.

 

at some point, someone will say that they don’t want to die but the Americans aren’t prepared to reach that point because it would involve huge numbers of ground troops. 
 

If he loses congress badly in a couple weeks then us politics could get quite ‘interesting’ ……..

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c65ynk7212vqo

 

It's rather reprehensible that their own government can't or won't keep these "settlers" in check. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

just more psycho stuff to scare the Iranians 

 

you’d think after six months they’d have realised that the Iranian govt  aren’t scared because the ultimate ending for them is glorious martyrdom.

 

at some point, someone will say that they don’t want to die but the Americans aren’t prepared to reach that point because it would involve huge numbers of ground troops. 
 

If he loses congress badly in a couple weeks then us politics could get quite ‘interesting’ ……..

Well, he's already waived quite a few sanctions on Russia, so it's plenty interesting already. 

Edited yesterday at 06:53 by leicsmac

[Trav Le Bleu]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c65ynk7212vqo

 

It's rather reprehensible that their own government can't or won't keep these "settlers" in check. 

The problem is that they believe that God gave them those lands.

 

The fact that, by the own religious texts, God took them away again for being bad people, seems to be forgotten.

 

That said, God gave them back again, though, by Christian writings, they got taken away again in an "obviously once wasn't enough" kind of warning and it's hard to deny, regardless of faith or belief, that the Romans did a far more effective job of destroying Israel as a nation than Babylon ever did.

 

So it's really hard to argue they have divine right to these lands, even by their own beliefs.

 

They think they are blessed and forget that they were also punished in the writings.

 

Conversely Palestine has no divine right either, though I'm not so sure that's their claim, correct me if wrong. Their claim is rather, that they've lived there for 2 thousand years almost. Which is far longer than most European countries.

 

Of course not all Jews believe this, but it is the belief of those that provocatively settle themselves where they shouldn't. When I say they/them it's these I'm referring to. In no way am I anti-Semitic, nor am I pro-Palestine. I'm just stating some historical facts.

Edited yesterday at 12:10 by Trav Le Bleu
Grammatical corrections. Original can be seen in reply below.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The problem is that they w believe that God gave them those lands.

 

The fact that, by the own religious texts, God took them away again for being bad people, seems to be forgotten.

 

That said, God gave them back again, though, by Christian writings, they got taken away again in an "obviously once wasn't enough" kind of warning and it's hard to deny, regardless of faith or belief, that the Romans didn't do a far more effective job of destroying Israel as a nation than Babylon ever did.

 

So it's really hard to argue they have divine right to these lands, even by their own beliefs.

They think they are blessed and forget that they were also punished in the writings.

 

Conversely Palestine has no divine right either, though I'm not so sure that's their claim, correct me if wrong. Their claim is rather, that they've lived there for 2 thousand years almost. Which is far longer than most European countries.

 

If course not all Jews believe this, but it is the belief of those that provocatively settle themselves where they shouldn't. When I say they/them it's these I'm referring to. In no way am I anti-Semitic, nor am I pro-Palestine. I'm just stating some historical facts.

FWIW I think you've framed the attitude here very objectively and there's no bias.

 

So, with this in mind, perhaps it's up to their peers and authorities to disabuse them of this religious mania that causes rather a great deal of harm to innocent (at least in the eyes of anyone who knows the rule of law) people.

[leicsmac]

22 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Boooo!

not gonna be a second presser ….

 

22 hours ago, Izzy said:

Trump doesn't want her to 'suffer' at the hands of the press 

That's a damn shame. 

 

One of the highlights of her brief tenure was to refer to the Daily Mail as "left-wing".

 

...I mean, what Overton Window are these people looking out of?

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

That's a damn shame. 

 

One of the highlights of her brief tenure was to refer to the Daily Mail as "left-wing".

 

...I mean, what Overton Window are these people looking out of?

She actually said it’s not conservative cos she was accused of only taking questions from conservative media