Falklands conflict #2

[thrila]

I can give you around 3000 reasons why it isn't Argentinian territory. 

[gpwurzel]

That'd be Malvinas by the way. In the last Falklands conflict (was never upgraded to a war) - the only arm of the Argentine forces that really gave us trouble was the Air Force, and some of the land forces (inc their SF contingent).

When they attacked, there was a very small group of Marines there, that were ordered to surrender after taking the fight to the argentinians. This time round, there is a much bigger, more prepared garrison, with substantial assets in place.

Could we mount another fleet? Maybe, given time. Would we fight to win (again) - You better believe it.
That said, would this current joke of a Govt have the courage to actually stand up to them?

Wurzel

(Deeply saddened by what is going on in his country)

[angelsandair]

1. It's the brits

2. The argentines suck

3. How else is the world gonna piss em off....

4. Why is it even a big deal?

5. British Citizens live there.......... 

or so we think.....

[ZetaNine]

they are wrong

I completely agree with that.  They are.

it's no different than the mexicans thinking half the western USA is still theirs....or the entire USA still belonging to native Indians....
this is why counties have armed forces....and the best armed forces get to create the borders on what we call the world map...and ocassionally enforce them again.

[Angus]

Well, the Brits have the Vulcans flying again...maybe for a reason 

[Rich46yo]

since I'm the one who brought up the monroe doctrine in this thread..........I'll humor you with your request:

one of the most basic tenets: as I said....protect the americas from european colonization.

"As Monroe stated: "The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

"Monroe's administration forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential United States territories. While Americans generally objected to European colonies in the New World, they also desired to increase United States influence and trading ties throughout the region to their south."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm

Like i said earlier there was no part of the MD that specifically said we would attack any European power. As I said it was a statement of policy and a declaration of spheres of influence. And it was as much a statement of American intent to stay out of European matters as well.

Its very possible we would have attacked say the French had they tried building empire in the new world again but the MD didn't say we had to as a matter of policy. Much of the doctrine was geared towards American monopolization of trade in the Hemisphere and other economic opportunities. Remember we were a nation of traders back then.

Your not humoring anyone. Ive read the thing. http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm

[ZetaNine]

Like i said earlier there was no part of the MD that specifically said we would attack any European power.

good lord please tell me you're kidding...............

[Rich46yo]

good lord please tell me you're kidding...............

good lord please tell me your not this ------...........

A document like the NATO charter specifically says we would attack an aggressor. The MD doesnt!!

If it had we would have attacked Britain immediately because the colonized Canada. Canada remained a British colony for many years after the MD and British troops didn't leave it until after our civil war. Britain maintained numerous Caribbean colonies some not gaining independence until after WW-ll. Russia didn't sell us Alaska until 43 years after the MD was written. Spain continued to maintain colonies in the Caribbean until the war of 1898.

The Soviet Union meddled continuously. They even used Cuba as a military outpost and exported revolution throughout central and South America.

To this day Britain, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, maintain colonies in the Hemisphere.

[ZetaNine]

do we *really* want to get into what monroe was thinking?

I see a guy who wanted to protect the america's from euro intervention ... and use military force if need be.

I'll give you the final word.....

[CptTrips]

If it had we would have attacked Britain immediately because the colonized Canada. Canada remained a British colony for many years after the MD and British troops didn't leave it until after our civil war.

Point take.  I hadn't thought about Canada.

Wab

[Masherbrum]

do we *really* want to get into what monroe was thinking?

I see a guy who wanted to protect the america's from euro intervention ... and use military force if need be.

I'll give you the final word.....

"The Dominion of Canada"?   - 1867      We never attacked the UK or Canada for this.

The Monroe Doctrine for all intents and purposes was created so that European powers would stop to colonizing and dabbling in the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas.  The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies.  However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile.

[E25280]

do we *really* want to get into what monroe was thinking?

I see a guy who wanted to protect the america's from euro intervention ... and use military force if need be.

I'll give you the final word.....

It is irrelevant what Monroe would have done.

The doctrine is NOT a treaty.  It has no force of law.  No US congress would be compelled to declare war in the event of an "offense" against the doctrine, nor would any US president be compelled to use executive authority to wage one.

It is merely a statement of principle, which can be followed (or not) at the whim of those in charge.