HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Second Falklands War?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 07:50 PM
  #26
Sevanston
Registered User
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
I can't believe anybody would start a war over some ****** island.
Land/territory has been, and probably always will be, the leading cause of war.

Abolish land!

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:51 PM
  #27
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,191
vCash: 500
They might if it's convenient to whip up nationalist sentiment at home. Usually they just whip up the nationalist sentiment, then back down. Reboot at a later date. Distracts the natives from other problems.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:59 PM
  #28
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,744
vCash: 500
Toured a nuclear submarine and heard an interesting story. The Argentine navy and air force held off on significant activity because they were afraid of a British nuclear submarine that they believed was near the Falkland Islands. Turns out the sub was in dry dock and didn't leave the northern hemisphere until after the war had started. Later in the war, the sub had a significant impact on the war by sinking an Argentine cruiser and tracking Argentine planes that were active in the area.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:52 PM
  #29
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: United States
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
lol. Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister outside of Winston Churchill that this country has had. She was the only person to have the balls to stand up to the Union and actually give them what for rather than let them have their way. She herself didn't expect the Argentinians to invade the Falklands in what both sides know was a pointless war. Argentina can try what they want to get the islands back but they won't because the Islands will forever be British.

Argentina is meant to be in decline domestically and de Kirchner is only using the Falklands to boost her popularity despite the fact that they have no claim whatsoever and are just acting like children.
Thatcher was an economic catastrophe for the British

Eisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:57 PM
  #30
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 34,067
vCash: 5113
Just political posturing. Espeically with the Royal Navy upgrading its force projection with a couple supercarriers in the near future, a second Falklands War would be an absolute stomping of Argentina, and they know it.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:34 PM
  #31
kaiser matias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
I can't believe anybody would start a war over some ****** island.
Now come on. There are two main islands. That makes it totally worthwhile.

But seriously. I wrote a paper on the historical dispute leading up to 1982 last year. Interesting to note that in the 1970's the UK was actually negotiating with Argentina to give up the islands, even with protests from the people. But then Galtieri was becoming increasingly unpopular at home and was afraid of being overthrown because Argentina was bankrupt, so he decided to distract the people. Suddenly a group of islands the UK didn't care about and didn't really want were key pieces of national defence policy. Now they will likely never leave.

Also worth noting that the war probably saved Thatcher's political career. To paraphrase my paper "Gallup polls in the fall of 1981 had Thatcher with the lowest Gallup ratings of any PM since they began polling; by the start of December approval of the government was at 27%. This wasn't helped by massive cuts to defence in order to balance the budget. In the post-war climate, Thatcher called an early election in 1983, securing the largest majority of a British government since the end of the Second World War."

kaiser matias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:48 PM
  #32
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 31,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Just political posturing. Espeically with the Royal Navy upgrading its force projection with a couple supercarriers in the near future, a second Falklands War would be an absolute stomping of Argentina, and they know it.

Hasbro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:49 AM
  #33
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,712
vCash: 500
Argentina's economy cannot be so bad that they would actully go into war with Britain? Oh wait....

Everlasting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 06:32 AM
  #34
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,191
vCash: 500
After Thatcher's popularity ratings, the biggest winner of the Falklands war was MBDA, a European missile company. Their Exocet missiles, which hit the British warships, became a hot item and sold like hotcakes after the war ($).

The mainland Chinese leadership use island confrontation all the time to make various points at home and abroad (South China Sea, off the coast of Japan, Taiwan).

Heck, even the US gets in on the fun once in awhile (see Ronald Reagan vs Grenada).

Canada and Denmark recently had a comic row over Hans Island (populated only by seagulls) in the North Atlantic. Sometimes the issue is over future offshore gas and oil rights.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 08:35 AM
  #35
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 77,342
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisen View Post
Thatcher was an economic catastrophe for the British
People seem to forget that when she came into power Labour had already buggered it up with inflation in double figures, unions doing there where with all and high levels of Government debt. I distinctly remember (Not literally, a figure of speech, I was only born in 1992 but I enjoy looking at the past) being told from parents and grandparents that during Labours rule with Harold Wilson and co there were common strikes and power shortages. My parents had every Wednesday without power from 2-6 I believe and the year of 76 was the worst apparently, when Callaghan was in power.

This is something that often happens as the labour looks to just spend their way out of a crisis which doesn't work and then the Tory party have to come in and look like the bad guys by making the cuts that are badly needed. By the time Thatcher was out of power in '92 she'd halved inflation levels from around 20% to 10% and at the start of 1980 the economic had negative growth but under Thatcher it had 7 years of positive growth.

Shrimper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 08:50 AM
  #36
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,594
vCash: 500
You're totally ignoring the 1970s oil crisis, man made incidentally, that was the main cause of the pre Thatcher inflation...much easier to blame Labour & claim she fixed it, totally untrue. Also you're completely ignoring the truth that the 80s boom was in fact a bubble which burst rather abruptly.

Johnnywhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 08:55 AM
  #37
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
People seem to forget that when she came into power Labour had already buggered it up with inflation in double figuresm unions doing there where with all and high levels of Government debt.
A Tory was Prime Minister when inflation rose into double figures, and inflation was a big problem in the 70s in many countries, including the USA. Also, debt did increase during the 70s but continued to increase at a similar rate under the Thatcher government.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:04 AM
  #38
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 77,342
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
You're totally ignoring the 1970s oil crisis, man made incidentally, that was the main cause of the pre Thatcher inflation...much easier to blame Labour & claim she fixed it, totally untrue. Also you're completely ignoring the truth that the 80s boom was in fact a bubble which burst rather abruptly.
She did more than Labour could ever hope to do. At least she attempted to fix the problem, Labour probably would've spend there way out. Didn't know it bursted, why?

Shrimper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:06 AM
  #39
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,486
vCash: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
You're totally ignoring the 1970s oil crisis, man made incidentally, that was the main cause of the pre Thatcher inflation...much easier to blame Labour & claim she fixed it, totally untrue. Also you're completely ignoring the truth that the 80s boom was in fact a bubble which burst rather abruptly.
ahaha yea right 1970s stagflation was all cuz of oil crisis LOL you lefties will say anything to excuse policy failure. You're as bad that guy in another thread claiming the 6 trillion debt Obama added is all Bush's fault.

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:25 AM
  #40
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
ahaha yea right 1970s stagflation was all cuz of oil crisis LOL you lefties will say anything to excuse policy failure. You're as bad that guy in another thread claiming the 6 trillion debt Obama added is all Bush's fault.
In fact the manufactured 'oil crisis' was the prime cause of 70s inflation, no matter how much you want to piss in the wind & claim otherwise.
So Bushie is blameless in the economic collapse we're hopefully recovering from now...nice to know, untrue, but comforting.

Johnnywhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:31 AM
  #41
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 8,210
vCash: 500
Shrimper isn't alone, I had a polisci professor insist that Callaghan started the inflation at a dinner. That was...uh interesting.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:01 AM
  #42
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 9,202
vCash: 500
(1) Thatcher's economic record was neither miraculous awesomeness nor catastrophe. But since it majorly aided the structural transformation of Britain from Rust Belt decay to global commercial service hub, it has to be considered a success.

Some people say that the neglect of manufacturing was a mistake and while I tend to agree that a big country cannot just rely on services, British manufacturing was well and truly ****ed by the time Thatcher became a national political figure. And at least she tried to move away from one of the things that ****ed it in the first place i.e. hapless bureaucrats, union officials, executives and of course politicians sitting around tables thinking up a "policy" for an industry. Anyone with any experience in business knows that can't end well.

(2) Standing up to the Argentine junta when the U.S. and the Europeans basically wanted to give in to the politics of aggression and oppression just because it suited *them* at the time, was one of the greatest things done by any Western leader since WW2. This wasn't about nation-building or interfering with another country's affairs, this was standing up for your own citizens who were under direct unprovoked attack. It was so obviously the right thing to do yet anyone who knows this era of politics knows that no Labour PM would have done it and Heath and Co. wouldn't have either. This was the era of groveling and Mrs. Thatcher was not one for groveling.

The American role in this affair was shameful, America waged covert war in support of any old two bob dictator as long as he wasn't a commie, but god forbid Britain tries to defend her own territory and citizens. Of course, in the end Reagan did help Britain but there were various figures in his administration who really didn't want to (Haig/Kirkpatrick) and in Kirkpatrick's case probably wanted to help the Argies.

(3) Thatcher broke the Scargill insurrection, a bald attempt to bring down an elected government through bullying and blackmail. Labour themselves had tried to stand up to Scargill but for obvious reasons lacked the bottle. Scargill, an unreconstructed communist, wanted his union to be one of the final arbiters of national policy and the policy he wanted was national suicide.

What Thatcher did in the face of this threat was downright Lincoln-esque. She stood up to a small minority which enjoyed popular support in some pockets of the country and tried to dictate terms to the *entire* country. Of course, much like Lincoln was hated in much of the South (and still is by many even 150 years later), Thatcher remains hated in much of the North. A price worth paying in both instances, given that national survival was at stake.

The two things alone: Falklands and Miners' Strike make her a towering figure and *the* giant of British post-war politics.

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:36 AM
  #43
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,191
vCash: 500
Before the miners' strike there were 180,000 miners working at 170 pits. Today there are what, about 6,000 miners at 17 pits? Privatised UK Coal is restructuring again and on life support. This must be one of those pyrrhic victories. Thatcher was also hailed as deregulating the financial sector. How is that doing lately, post 2008? Counting Thatcher's victories is largely based on partisanship and ideology in my opinion. There are tons of external factors at play to determine wins vs losses, these discussions can never truly pinpoint the true effects of various policies; most of us are biased and listen to preferred versions of events. I never liked Thatcher, but that doesn't mean much either. Just saying the Big Lovers of Reagan and Thatcher can be just as wrong about their heroes; the big determinant of all this hero worship isn't reality but personal political philosophy.

As for the Falklands, the NATO country with the most modern forces won. No big surpise there, most would have been shocked if the opposite happened.


Last edited by Puck: 01-08-2013 at 11:41 AM.
Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:49 AM
  #44
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: United States
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
(1) Thatcher's economic record was neither miraculous awesomeness nor catastrophe. But since it majorly aided the structural transformation of Britain from Rust Belt decay to global commercial service hub, it has to be considered a success.

Some people say that the neglect of manufacturing was a mistake and while I tend to agree that a big country cannot just rely on services, British manufacturing was well and truly ****ed by the time Thatcher became a national political figure. And at least she tried to move away from one of the things that ****ed it in the first place i.e. hapless bureaucrats, union officials, executives and of course politicians sitting around tables thinking up a "policy" for an industry. Anyone with any experience in business knows that can't end well.

(2) Standing up to the Argentine junta when the U.S. and the Europeans basically wanted to give in to the politics of aggression and oppression just because it suited *them* at the time, was one of the greatest things done by any Western leader since WW2. This wasn't about nation-building or interfering with another country's affairs, this was standing up for your own citizens who were under direct unprovoked attack. It was so obviously the right thing to do yet anyone who knows this era of politics knows that no Labour PM would have done it and Heath and Co. wouldn't have either. This was the era of groveling and Mrs. Thatcher was not one for groveling.

The American role in this affair was shameful, America waged covert war in support of any old two bob dictator as long as he wasn't a commie, but god forbid Britain tries to defend her own territory and citizens. Of course, in the end Reagan did help Britain but there were various figures in his administration who really didn't want to (Haig/Kirkpatrick) and in Kirkpatrick's case probably wanted to help the Argies.

(3) Thatcher broke the Scargill insurrection, a bald attempt to bring down an elected government through bullying and blackmail. Labour themselves had tried to stand up to Scargill but for obvious reasons lacked the bottle. Scargill, an unreconstructed communist, wanted his union to be one of the final arbiters of national policy and the policy he wanted was national suicide.

What Thatcher did in the face of this threat was downright Lincoln-esque. She stood up to a small minority which enjoyed popular support in some pockets of the country and tried to dictate terms to the *entire* country. Of course, much like Lincoln was hated in much of the South (and still is by many even 150 years later), Thatcher remains hated in much of the North. A price worth paying in both instances, given that national survival was at stake.

The two things alone: Falklands and Miners' Strike make her a towering figure and *the* giant of British post-war politics.
-But on the other hand you have a massive unemployment in these years (with very little wellfare).
-The Unions were weakened (a big negative in my eyes at least).
-Sold off state assets under price
-the north saw hardly anything of the money made (in-land inequality)
-financial deregulation was the reason for the demise of industry and the start of a financial bubble
-the poll tax (that was probably the worst idea she had)

Eisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:32 PM
  #45
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,486
vCash: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Before the miners' strike there were 180,000 miners working at 170 pits. Today there are what, about 6,000 miners at 17 pits? Privatised UK Coal is restructuring again and on life support.
Haha what? You are pining for a return of the UK coal industry?

First off, of those 170 pits, most were unprofitable, which was the reason for the militant union standoff. Labour wanted the government to keep running all these money losing coal mines, Thatcher said no.


Even today in the UK, coal use continues to decline, why the hell would there be more mining done??

Big demand for coal is coming from Asia, where there is PLENTY of supply, and exporters who have larger, more efficient operations (Australia), or cheaper labour (Indonesia), and all of them are closer to the big import markets (Japan, Korea, China) so cheaper transport costs. UK coal has zero comparative advantage here, so no duh it's not gonna compete. Even US coal is basically in the same boat long term, declining local demand, poor economics for Asian market.

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:39 PM
  #46
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 77,342
vCash: 50
As Burke said. Most of those coal pits where haemorrhaging money and weren't financially viable. Made sense to close them.

Shrimper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:59 PM
  #47
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,191
vCash: 500
Sure, there are many good reasons for the UK coal industry to wind down. And it isn't just the UKs fault, many of their competitors subsidize their own industry, making it doubly difficult to compete on price. The point was, what exactly did Thatcher win? In hindsight, I figure not much. Time might have reached the same results without all her hawkish hooplah. And the Falklands could have easily flipped over to Argentina without a burp had the Argentinians demonstrated more patience and diplomacy (it's not like she saved anything they weren't about to give away anyway had it been done different). My point is the partisan cheerleading is a pile...you're quite welcome to beatify your political saints inside your group, just don't expect everyone to swallow the steaming pile though....

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 03:49 PM
  #48
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Sure, there are many good reasons for the UK coal industry to wind down. And it isn't just the UKs fault, many of their competitors subsidize their own industry, making it doubly difficult to compete on price. The point was, what exactly did Thatcher win? In hindsight, I figure not much. Time might have reached the same results without all her hawkish hooplah. And the Falklands could have easily flipped over to Argentina without a burp had the Argentinians demonstrated more patience and diplomacy (it's not like she saved anything they weren't about to give away anyway had it been done different). My point is the partisan cheerleading is a pile...you're quite welcome to beatify your political saints inside your group, just don't expect everyone to swallow the steaming pile though....
That last comment is funny coming from a guy who turns basically every debate into a partisan argument.

Krut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 07:28 PM
  #49
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
That last comment is funny coming from a guy who turns basically every debate into a partisan argument.
Not quite true. I hardly spend any time defending my so-called party as much as the CPC posters here do theirs. I've voted Liberal, NDP, Green even the odd Marijuana Party protest vote once. I don't have a personal party choice. I don't have a problem with moderate Progressive Conservatives or Libertarians either, but they prolly get offended if I slam the CPC if they've adopted that brand.

The most partisan, tribal and defensive bunch on this board are right-wingers. The most hawkish and extreme posters on this board are on the right, not the left. The majority of posters here are economic right-wing or centrist. The social liberals fight with the social conservatives but there are only a handful of genuine true lefties on this board. I doubt they consider me one of their own, I have too much classical conservative cells (not modern) in my blood. If you feel you are swamped by lefties on this board, that's a good indication of just how far right you might be.

Yes I do slam the CPC and the GOP. It isn't meant to be universal in nature, it isn't meant for the moderates. I know there are progressive moderates on the right out there who vote for a brand by inheritance, or they could easily vote for another centrist party or love another hockey team had they been born in a different city. It's unfortunate if you get caught in the net, but if you do vote CPC or GOP, it ain't personal. I just think your party svcks more than the rest at this point in history.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 07:31 PM
  #50
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,889
vCash: 500
Respectfully-speaking, you are without question one of the most shamelessly partisan posters on this forum. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I find your faux-moderate stance to be a little hypocritical given the stances that you have repeatedly taken in the past when it comes to Canadian politics, including bringing up the CPC when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

With that being said, the Falklands are populated by British-descended residents who drive on the left side of the road, own and operate pubs, raise sheep in the northern English/Scottish manner, and, most importantly, consider themselves to be British subjects. The fact that Argentina is again claiming the Falklands entirely on the basis on geography, simply yet another transparent attempt to take attention off of their woeful domestic economic concerns notwithstanding (as in the first Falklands conflict), sets a potentially terrible precedent in the realm of international law, particularly given that it would essentially give cart-blanche to other nations to claim territory based solely on proximity.

Let's send the Van Doos and the PPCLI to invade Saint-Pierre and Miquelon on Canada's behalf! After all, they're right next to Newfoundland, so they must be our territory.

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.