Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Argentina collapsing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    As the offending party, I will try to steer it back. What kind of people leave a side of good Argentine beef laying on the floor? Seriously, my wife takes me to the doctor's office for my shoulder p/t. 4 kids left home alone for 45 min. Return to find everything thrown all over the floor, every bit of junk or snack food in the house gotten into, dog running loose in the neighborhood. It's almost human nature when authority goes away chaos reigns, unless the majority of people are naturally self restrained by cultural norms and habit. Hey, here in the US we see it happen. If the police were on strike here or refused to patrol a particular area you see looting, high crime and you also see business owners on the roof with shotguns- think Rodney King. If you already have popular discontent with the govt and competition between the regional govt and the central govt like in Argentina it isn't that surprising. I mean governing by tweeting? Is there no other means of communication? Didn't someone try Facebook?
    Last edited by DonBelt; 09 Dec 13,, 03:35.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
      The economy has been a mess for a while. The political system is borderline dysfunctional & the government, while democratic, has a tendency to stand over media outlets that disagree with it. In fact, the government refuses to publish reliable figures on the economy & I think may even have made it illegal for others to try to do so. Official inflation is probably less than half the actual rate (in reality over 20%). The police standing down has simply let people vent their frustrations. This isn't a complete shock.

      If Kirchner resigns or is forced out as a result of this it might actually be a positive, but the former course seems unlikely. She is too bloody minded for that. Perhaps others in her party will find a way to oust her.
      BF:

      I think we're missing the point. The politicians aren't to blame for this. Inflation isn't to blame. It's something deeper. Lack of pride, self-esteem, moral conscience? Who knows. If they were after food because of extreme hunger, I could understand it. If it was government oppression, they would sack government offices, not private businesses. Not even during the worst of the Great Depression did people loot stores. Anyway, they ought to fire all the policemen who went on strike.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
        Listed as aerobatics team. Not sure what their status is as potential combat aircraft, but given what poor shape everything else is in, probably not great.
        I initially thought you meant to put 'SU-27'. But nope the Argentinian Airforce has SU-29s. It's completely unrelated to anything else, would be of no training or combat value. What a waste of money.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
          BF:

          I think we're missing the point. The politicians aren't to blame for this. Inflation isn't to blame. It's something deeper. Lack of pride, self-esteem, moral conscience? Who knows. If they were after food because of extreme hunger, I could understand it. If it was government oppression, they would sack government offices, not private businesses. Not even during the worst of the Great Depression did people loot stores. Anyway, they ought to fire all the policemen who went on strike.
          JAD,

          There is nothing especially unusual about riots in Argentina. Every few years. In 2001 the forced the President to resign. I gave part of the background on the current round. They aren't explicitly political at this point, but there is undoubtedly resentment at austerity measures. Just because people don't burn down the nearest government office doesn't mean there isn't a link between government behaviour & the riot. Argentina has long term issues with the way its politics work. Generational issues. Under those circumstances I'm not wildly surprised by this.

          These things are rarely simple, though sometimes people see a certain set of circumstances as giving them 'permission' to transgress - 'Black Friday' anybody?

          I would also be careful about what 'deeper issues' you ascribe to this sort of thing. My observation is that the 'deeper' reasons people ascribe often have a lot more to do with what they think than what the people rioting think. It is always easy to assume that people you neither know nor understand 'lack pride, self-esteem or moral conscience' based on small bits of data. Absent a profound understanding of Argentine society I would be reluctant to assume too much about 'underlying' issues.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
            I initially thought you meant to put 'SU-27'. But nope the Argentinian Airforce has SU-29s. It's completely unrelated to anything else, would be of no training or combat value. What a waste of money.
            Not like they have the money to waste.

            I haven't dug into their Army much, but their airforce & navy seem like a complete joke. There is barely a combat ship in the navy fit to put to sea & most of their fighters appear to be pensionable or not especially useful. I doubt they could credibly threaten Paraguay or Uruguay, let alone islands hundreds of kms away.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #21
              Well, probably better for them that they can't logistically even make the attempt. If they are that dysfunctional and bad off they don't need the temptation to stage a distraction of that sort.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                .....you are taking their side in the argument.



                They used to be....until they were invaded. There were quite close links between the Falklands & the mainland before the war. Argentina broke that trust & has made little effort to rebuild it, yet you seem to put all the onus on a tiny, isolated population to do the reconciling. BTW, Argentineans are allowed to visit the islands.



                There were next to no permenant residents there when the British established their colony & their fate is unclear depending on who you ask. As to 'keeping everybody else out', that is pretty much what you do with territory you own. I look forward to an 'open door' policy on the Andaman & Nicobar islands. I'm sure the Rohynga would like a new home. They are more proximate that 99.9% of Indians.



                Doesn't matter how many, just whose nation they want to be a part of. Apparently they prefer a functional, democratic first world nation over a shambolic third world nation with a history of dictatorship. Why is this bad again?



                They've managed for almost 2 centuries. I'll back their experience against your opinions. I suspect the oil that will start flowing ion a few years will make the place even more resilient.



                Exchange 'remote' for 'hot', 'humid' or 'hellishly underdeveloped' & you describe most of India to an outsider. I doubt the islanders are any more interested in your judgement of their home than you would be in theirs of yours.



                You have got to be shitting me. The ONLY reason for the military base is that last time they left the islands undefended Argentina invaded them. The base is purely defensive. The forces there are tiny - about 1000 soldiers, 4 typhoons, 2 helicopters & a destroyer - and they are a LONG way from Argentina. The last time Argentineans were allowed as regular visitors they used the opportunity to undermine British sovereignty & scout for an invasion, yet Britain does allow Argentinean visitors. As for trade, Argentina is the one playing stupid games.

                It is frankly bizarre that you want Britain to allow settlers from a nation that claims the islands, invaded British territory to take them and has maintained a bellicose attitude ever since. If someone came on here suggesting that India allow Chinese settlers into some of its northern regions to 'ease tensions' you would scream the house down.

                If you take of your anti-British blinkers for 5 seconds you might see that Argentina has created this problem all by itself. Before the invasion Britain was ambivalent about the status of the islands & was prepared to engage in discussions on their long term status over the objections of the residents. There was free movement of people & I suspect Argentineans could buy land - yet none of this 'eased tensions'. Had the military dictatorship not been so desperate for a 'short victorious war' Argentina might be on the path to owning them. Instead a bunch of people got killed for zero reason and Argentina poisoned the well for generations. Now Britain has decided to honour the wishes of the residents and defend its sovereign territory, as is its right. Argentina has a problem. Britain does not. Argentina needs to find a peaceful way to solve it. Thus far there is no sign that is likely - just lots of rhetoric & tantrums.
                Then you should have been against Hong Kong handover. The people of Hong Kong did not want to be handed over to China and yet Britain completely caved. Your arguments doesn't hold under the Hong Kong example

                Comment


                • #23
                  China didn't invade Hong Kong and the Lease was up.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    China didn't invade Hong Kong and the Lease was up.
                    But that didn't stop the people of Hong Kong from not wanting to join China. The reasons you cited are just legal excuses. If it was true, that America would have to give up Gitmo but it didn't.

                    So moral of story for Argentina, if you want something bad, you are gonna have to build up a military necessary to take it back and for Britain, this will be a costly effort just to defend 3000 people, which is even more than the tax collections Britain gets from the island. I wonder how long Britain can sustain such an effort, especially when Scotland is threatening to break away and Britain is having a hard time paying for operation of one carrier when it had to mothballed the second one.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I think BF's point is that the invasion, more than that, a failed invasion, changes the entire dynamics of the situation. The UK was negotiating with Argentina about the future of the Islands before the invasion. Those negotiations are gone for the foreseeable future.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re. the people of the Falklands wanting to remain with the UK, well the people don't always get what they want. The people of Portugese occupied Goa wanted to join India, but none of the Western democracies ever tried to tell the Portugese govt., their fellow NATO member, to uphold the principle of Self Determination as per the UN charter and leave. Eventually, India had to throw them out forcibly (after waiting 14 long years) and was roundly condemned by everyone, especially the US, for doing it.

                        Unfortunately for Argentina, the Brits were too powerful and their military action failed.
                        Last edited by Firestorm; 09 Dec 13,, 20:57.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The Brits would happily drop the falklands like a hot potato if there were incentive to do so, just as any nation would. The incentives are all the other way. Imagine the political fallout in Britain now were the govt. to negotiate. Political suicide. To paraphrase BF, the likelyhood of the Falklands coming under Argentinian sway was put back at least 2 generations simply by the invasion.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What do you think, The Brits to retake all of the Faulklands and we'll put Tankie in power to impose the "Old" British theory of Law.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                              Then you should have been against Hong Kong handover. The people of Hong Kong did not want to be handed over to China and yet Britain completely caved. Your arguments doesn't hold under the Hong Kong example
                              You just comprehensively lost an argument, so you bring up an example with only partial relevance? Not going down that rabbit hole BM. If you want to discuss the Falklands then have at it. Thus far you have put the entire onus for current problems on Britain & the islanders. You have even placed the responsibility for regional arms spending on Britain (neatly ignoring almost 2 centuries of history between the other parties....and a bunch of other stuff). Your points don't stand up to scrutiny.

                              So moral of story for Argentina, if you want something bad, you are gonna have to build up a military necessary to take it back and for Britain, this will be a costly effort just to defend 3000 people, which is even more than the tax collections Britain gets from the island. I wonder how long Britain can sustain such an effort, especially when Scotland is threatening to break away and Britain is having a hard time paying for operation of one carrier when it had to mothballed the second one.
                              Tax revenues will rise rather nicely when oil & gas production starts in a few years....not that the cost of defending your territory & citizens is remotely relevant here. I doubt many Britons will be compelled to live in 3rd world conditions in order to pay for it.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                                You just comprehensively lost an argument, so you bring up an example with only partial relevance? Not going down that rabbit hole BM. If you want to discuss the Falklands then have at it. Thus far you have put the entire onus for current problems on Britain & the islanders. You have even placed the responsibility for regional arms spending on Britain (neatly ignoring almost 2 centuries of history between the other parties....and a bunch of other stuff). Your points don't stand up to scrutiny.
                                You are the one going down the rabbit hole. I am not. Feel free to imagine your victories. I have not lost the argument. I was playing devil's advocate and if you cannot recognize that instead of thumping your chest and making it personal, that is your problem, not mine.

                                No matter how you argue it, the reality remains the same.... Britain's hold over the island only remains as long as the Argentina military remains weak. The day Argentina military becomes strong is the day that Falklands have no say. Hong Kong proved that and that was my reason for bringing it up. Not my fault if you can't recognize that or if you can't master lateral thinking. Yes I placed some of the responsibility on Britain because if Argentina wants the islands bad enough, they have to develop a powerful military to defeat Britain and they have the means once they get the economy back together in the same way that China did before taking on Hong Kong. In doing so, it creates a chain effect of other countries following suit to make sure that Argentina doesn't turn its sights on other countries after the Falklands Island.

                                At the same time, I am not absolving Argentina either. If it had been patient, it would have gotten the islands in one form or the other in an easier way, migration to the islands in the form of tourism and trade and making Falklands totally dependent on Argentina's economy. That boat has sailed but it is even worse for Falklands because Britain is certainly not going to be around forever to protect Falklands.

                                This academic discussion is called game theory discussion and cause and effect discussions. That is why we have the forum in place.

                                Tax revenues will rise rather nicely when oil & gas production starts in a few years....not that the cost of defending your territory & citizens is remotely relevant here. I doubt many Britons will be compelled to live in 3rd world conditions in order to pay for it.

                                Yes the cost of defending is very relevant especially when the population is 8000 miles away and only 3000 people. Money doesn't grow on trees. As for oil and gas production, let's see how well that turns out but before the discovery of oil, Britain was banging on its head for having to defend Falklands considering the exorbitant costs of doing so compared to the assets in that area.

                                And more soever, the amount of deposits is not big and will not last for more than a decade at the necessary production to sustain the cost of producing the oil.
                                Last edited by Blademaster; 10 Dec 13,, 08:19.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X