Falklands Island dispute heats up

Peyre · August 9th, 2006, 12:58 AM

There was a thread a while back with rumour of a Falklands 2.

Well the Argentinian President has come out in public, making clear his ambition to reclaim the falklands. They've also set up a parliamentary group dedicated to it. And have contacted the UN on sovreignty issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060808/wl_csm/omalvinas_1

JDRS · August 9th, 2006, 01:09 AM

What a waste of time. It's a tiny part of land and rightly belongs to the British. Argentinia have nothing to gain from taking sovereignty over the Falklands, and disputing something that happened almost 2 centuries ago is crazy. Why don't they spend their time and money on the real issues of people living in Argentinia?

jrb · August 9th, 2006, 01:11 AM

A perfect time for the Argies to launch a second invasion. Our armed forces are already stretched to breaking point.(Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)

I wonder if Diego will give the Argentinian armed forces a 'HAND' and stretch himself pontoon style over the Atlantic. I suppose he could also fly them over as well. Might need to re-fuel first though.

Pobbie · August 9th, 2006, 04:35 AM

Not again. I can see this thread being hijacked very quickly...

***gothicform*** · August 9th, 2006, 04:40 AM

oh yawn... and theyll hold a vote there and the islanders will vote to stay british a bit like gibraltar.

Manchester Planner · August 9th, 2006, 11:35 AM

How good is the Argentine Navy these days?

I can see it now - Argentinia will have a fleet of about 40 ships, mostly second hand, while the British will send down something like HMS Ocean, 2 T23 frigates, a T42 destroyer, a minesweeper or two and a Trafalgar/Swiftsure class submarine. I think I know who will win.

And yes, the Argentinians better not wait - by 2010 we'll already have two T45 destroyers in commission and the first Astute class submarine. Then things could get real messy (for them, of course).

potto · August 9th, 2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrb

...I wonder if Diego will give the Argentinian armed forces a 'HAND' and stretch himself pontoon style over the Atlantic. I suppose he could also fly them over as well. Might need to re-fuel first though.

Fat Man Mk II?!

potto · August 9th, 2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrb

A perfect time for the Argies to launch a second invasion. Our armed forces are already stretched to breaking point.(Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)
....

I wonder if this could be a tatic by other nations, pushing this policy route in Argentina would really mess up the UKs plans in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore piling on the pressure onto the US... interesting, Russia? China seems to be quite influencial in SOuth AMerica at the moment...

Engels · August 9th, 2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manchester Planner

How good is the Argentine Navy these days?

I can see it now - Argentinia will have a fleet of about 40 ships, mostly second hand, while the British will send down something like HMS Ocean, 2 T23 frigates, a T42 destroyer, a minesweeper or two and a Trafalgar/Swiftsure class submarine. I think I know who will win.

And yes, the Argentinians better not wait - by 2010 we'll already have two T45 destroyers in commission and the first Astute class submarine. Then things could get real messy (for them, of course).

I made a similar comment last time this topic thrust it's head up on these boards that if there were going to be a military entanglement then the best timing for Argentina would be sooner rather than later. British forces are overstreched in Iraq & Afganistan, so much so that there are no Chinooks free to back up the request in Afganistan. Secondly the Royal Navy is at a cyclical weak spot in it's procurement with the Carriers and Destroyers all at the end of their life.

Had Argentina got the timing right last time by say waiting til 1983 after HMS Hermes had been broken up, Britain would have been unable to project the same airpower in the South Atlantic and may have lost the conflict.

This time delay is likely to be as costly as over eagerness was before. Britain will at some point expedite it'self from Southern Iraq as it is relatively peaceful and in contrast to Baghdad it is clear that our presence is part of the problem not part of the solution.

As important a calculation is the strength of the Royal Navy and RAF vs Argentine forces as unlike in 1982 a direct assult is likely to be resisted more effectively perhaps fighting to a stalemate with Argentine and Britsh forces holding different parts of the island group for 6weeks until the Royal Navy arrived in the conflict zone (that's how long it took last time for the fleet to travel the distance).

The ability of the Royal Navy to cut off Argentine reinforcements and assert air superioirity in conjunction with the RAF would be the decisive factor as to who won the conflict in this hypothesis. One of the key elements therefore is whether the RN would have 0, 1, 2 or however many T45 destroyers given the relative lack of capability of the existing T42s to defend the fleet. I would have serious doubts, should it all kick off tomorrow, that we would have the capabiliites to defend the fleet off a hostile coast.

Personally i think it'd be a rather an unlikely set of circumstances that brought us to war again, Democracies just don't go to war with each other... although they didn't until Israel started bombing Lebanon. Secondly what is ultimately stopping Argentina is the prospect of the US getting directly involved this time, personally i think they would never try it because of this.

Manchester Planner · August 9th, 2006, 10:10 PM

"although they didn't until Israel started bombing Lebanon"

you're forgetting that common sense doesn't exist in the middle-east!!

Zim Flyer · August 9th, 2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engels

I made a similar comment last time this topic thrust it's head up on these boards that if there were going to be a military entanglement then the best timing for Argentina would be sooner rather than later. British forces are overstreched in Iraq & Afganistan, so much so that there are no Chinooks free to back up the request in Afganistan. Secondly the Royal Navy is at a cyclical weak spot in it's procurement with the Carriers and Destroyers all at the end of their life.

Had Argentina got the timing right last time by say waiting til 1983 after HMS Hermes had been broken up, Britain would have been unable to project the same airpower in the South Atlantic and may have lost the conflict.

This time delay is likely to be as costly as over eagerness was before. Britain will at some point expedite it'self from Southern Iraq as it is relatively peaceful and in contrast to Baghdad it is clear that our presence is part of the problem not part of the solution.

As important a calculation is the strength of the Royal Navy and RAF vs Argentine forces as unlike in 1982 a direct assult is likely to be resisted more effectively perhaps fighting to a stalemate with Argentine and Britsh forces holding different parts of the island group for 6weeks until the Royal Navy arrived in the conflict zone (that's how long it took last time for the fleet to travel the distance).

The ability of the Royal Navy to cut off Argentine reinforcements and assert air superioirity in conjunction with the RAF would be the decisive factor as to who won the conflict in this hypothesis. One of the key elements therefore is whether the RN would have 0, 1, 2 or however many T45 destroyers given the relative lack of capability of the existing T42s to defend the fleet. I would have serious doubts, should it all kick off tomorrow, that we would have the capabiliites to defend the fleet off a hostile coast.

Personally i think it'd be a rather an unlikely set of circumstances that brought us to war again, Democracies just don't go to war with each other... although they didn't until Israel started bombing Lebanon. Secondly what is ultimately stopping Argentina is the prospect of the US getting directly involved this time, personally i think they would never try it because of this.

That is a superb post Engels, very astute and very right. Thank you.

Engels · August 10th, 2006, 01:02 PM

Cheers Zim

and MP you are right about the Mid East it rewrites all the rules of normality.. new Democracies are the most unstable and are probably the exception that proves the rule that democracy is the most stable and best form of government.

Peyre · August 10th, 2006, 02:53 PM

if it gets ugly feel free to close it down, its fine for the mo.

I can't see them invading. Its more of a political move to try and deflect domestic problems. the fact of the matter is everyone on that island wants to be british, and the UN would take that into consideration.

Lostboy · August 10th, 2006, 06:24 PM

There was a thread a while back with rumour of a Falklands 2.

Well the Argentinian President has come out in public, making clear his ambition to reclaim the falklands. They've also set up a parliamentary group dedicated to it. And have contacted the UN on sovreignty issues.

So you mean to say, that they've followed diplomatic procedures in a legal way as is their right, and in short behaved like a mature nation with a land dispute issue?

JDRS · August 10th, 2006, 08:31 PM

A bit of history:

Quote:

Discovered by English navigator John Davis in 1592, the French took possession and founded the settlement of Port Louis in 1764. The British, who claimed them on the grounds of their previous discovery, removed the French in 1765; meanwhile France had sold her rights to Spain who yielded the islands to Great Britain in 1771.

It was only in 1820 that the new country of Argentina laid claim to the islands, but the British declared them a crown colony in 1832.

Against this backdrop of benign diplomatic debate, to shift attention away from the faltering economy of General Galtieri's regime, the islands were invaded on 2 April 1982.

andysimo123 · August 10th, 2006, 08:47 PM

I'll just add afew words to this thread Nuclear sub, Challenger 2 tank and Apache. Argies don't bother it will all end rather bad for you again.

August 10th, 2006, 09:05 PM

Hey guys. Im a Peruvian living in London....have done so for the last 14 years. Dont get me wrong...I respect your country very much etc etc, however, you guys did ILLEGALLY take the falklands by force. Now...the Peruvians helped out in the war of the falklands - that was their only ally. (A peruvian Mirage 2000 Plane sunk the HMS Sheffield, under Argentine command, the argies didnt know how to command the armed forces properly, and thats why they lost) The argentinians didnt know their assess from their elbows.
This time round the Argentinians have, not only Peru as their ally a regional military force, but they also have venezuela, brasil and other countries on their side. Lets face it, the U.K will never use its nuclear weapons....too many interests in Latin America right? ---Right.
The u.k is involved in a few wars at the moment and the armed forces of this country are stretched enough as it is. Tell you what guys....last time in 1982...it was very close..and you guys werent fighting any other wars....had a bigger navy fleet etc, however, times have changed and Britain has few allies, argentina has got several.
Another thing I would ask some hot-headed british folk is to be more humble. The Peruvian president in 1982 suggested killing everyone on the Malvinas (Thats the correct name) so that the british would have no claim on the mentioned isles. That guy presidente Belaunde Terry, was a friend of the family. Say the argentinians would have followed the peruvian presidents advise? You guys would have nothing to shout about. Your government needs to be careful or else this time round the U.K will be humiliated. The moral of the story is....you british...Dont bother guys..or else you'll end up rather humiliated and sad. Lol....That would certainly add insult to injury...You lose a world cup and then the "Falklands". Anyway....seeya later alligators.

Engels · August 10th, 2006, 09:21 PM

Hmm i'm not a big fan of your post Peruanisch but accept your different views however you are foolish if you underestimate the relative military strength of Britain and the strength of the Argentinan diplomatic position.

Despite my position above that this is the best timing for Argentna to try it i still forcast a British victory in any war. Brazil would never get involved for a start. Any involvement of Venusula would definitly bring the US into the conflict as they hate Hugo Chavez.

Our Navy is Nuclear tipped not just in Arsenal but in our all Nuclear engined modern submarine force that given the time to get into the conflict zone could sink any navy and inflict damage to strategic land assets with it's combination of Cruise Missiles and Harpoon anti ship missiles. They wouldn't even need to come close enough to use torpedos...

August 10th, 2006, 09:50 PM

Engels thanks for noticing that I have a balanced and clear-headed view about the subject. One thing i have to say is:: LMAO--- come on....do you think in Latin america we still fight with bows and arrows? sticks and stones? Brazil has nuclear submarines, as does Chile (Who helped the U.K out in 1982 under Augusto Pinochet)...Margaret Thatchers latin american toy boy.
The presidenta of Chile Michelle Bachelet was a war prisoner under Pinochet, and completely refuted and refutes chiles involvement against Argentina. Britain until recently chiles military sugar daddy has sold state of the art submarines to chile. Chile and Peru have had bad relations since 1879 when Peru Chile and Bolivia fought their version of the war of the Pacific. The new presidents of Peru and Chile get on like a house on fire, so theres no more picking of sides like there was last time.
Now...Brazil could very well get involved in the war if it ever came about, mainly because they are in the same economic group to argentina, and other countries set to help out Argentina. Venezuela would definately get involved as it sees the UK and the U.S.A as imperialists.
Furthermore. If latin america (The proper south i.e: from venezuela all the way down to Argentina) makes up 34% of the worlds G.D.P and most countries in latin america spending no less than 3% of their GDP per year, on their armed forces i.e: the army, navy and air forces...and other specialised sub-branches, then Britain has ALOT of military hardware to compete with and subsequently try to extinguish. Also britains army would be outnumbered, as the latin-american forces altogether would have more than a 6 to 1 ratio of soldiers alone.
Dont get me wrong, its true: Britain does have a HUGE military arsenal, however, you cant cover the sun up with one finger....the british would get completely and utterly bumfucked, because compared to the other countries altogether that have advocated helping Argentina out the british and latin american arsenals would be comparable david and goliath... where david is britain and goliath is Latin America. (Lets not get into the semantics of david beating goliath...thats a myth...just trying to prove a point)
The british have been beaten in latin america before. The british during victorian times went to Peru and told the captain of the ship...to lower the Peruvian flag in the name of queen victoria... thats when the first torpedo from ship to ship was fired and missed. Latin america has a history of kicking foreign ass. In that particular event...the Peruvian captain rammed his ship into captain De Horsey's ship "HMS SHAH" made the ship limp back the the uk, and also made the Amethyst run. Another thing that should be learnt from events like that is that, yes,....sometimes you may have the gizmos etc...but that doesnt always equals success.

P.S: Sorry to keep on using Peru as an example...Just that im Peruvian and I know my history better than....say.... argentina. Just trying to give examples...forgive me if it sounds like im some harcore nationalist lol...im not.

JackSwan · August 10th, 2006, 10:24 PM

why would we assume you're a hardcore nationalist?

i think peruanisch's post illustrates something i've long been troubled by though....the fact that a foreign national can live in our country, sometimes for decades, and yet still exhibit no greater love for or loyalty to britain than when they first arrived. it's not necessarily a criticism of you, peruanisch, if anything more so of our own all-pervasive culture of self-loathing that undoubtedly infects newcomers as well. in stark contrast, emigrants to america seem to be buoyed by a singular determination to integrate into mainstream u.s. society and to contribute positively to it - they're possessed of a real desire to make a success of themselves and the country they're newly-arrived in. peruasnisch, on the other hand, quite gleefully acknowledges his conviction that if embroiled in another war in the south atlantic, britain would be 'bumfucked' (presumably that means we'd lose and isn't some crass reference to navy boys shore leave plans).

August 9th, 2006, 12:58 AM	#1
Peyre Waiting for 122 Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Harrow-On-The-Great-Big-Fucking-Hill, London Posts: 3,816 Likes (Received): 0	Falklands Island dispute heats up There was a thread a while back with rumour of a Falklands 2. Well the Argentinian President has come out in public, making clear his ambition to reclaim the falklands. They've also set up a parliamentary group dedicated to it. And have contacted the UN on sovreignty issues. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060808/wl_csm/omalvinas_1 __________________ Help Save London's future. Show your opposition to UNESCO attempting to undermine London's sovereignty http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ldntower/ Last edited by Peyre; August 9th, 2006 at 01:49 AM.

August 10th, 2006, 01:02 PM	#12
Engels Simples Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 4,098 Likes (Received): 7	Cheers Zim and MP you are right about the Mid East it rewrites all the rules of normality.. new Democracies are the most unstable and are probably the exception that proves the rule that democracy is the most stable and best form of government. __________________ You were born poor, naked and helpless. Everything in your life was given to you, the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the shelter you received. Most importantly of all you received an education. You were given this because people loved you, because people you never knew worked to feed you and long before you were born people died to protect you and to give you the opportunities they never had. Life doesn't owe you anything! YOU owe life!

August 10th, 2006, 02:53 PM	#13
Peyre Waiting for 122 Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Harrow-On-The-Great-Big-Fucking-Hill, London Posts: 3,816 Likes (Received): 0	if it gets ugly feel free to close it down, its fine for the mo. I can't see them invading. Its more of a political move to try and deflect domestic problems. the fact of the matter is everyone on that island wants to be british, and the UN would take that into consideration. __________________ Help Save London's future. Show your opposition to UNESCO attempting to undermine London's sovereignty http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ldntower/

August 10th, 2006, 09:21 PM	#18
Engels Simples Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 4,098 Likes (Received): 7	Hmm i'm not a big fan of your post Peruanisch but accept your different views however you are foolish if you underestimate the relative military strength of Britain and the strength of the Argentinan diplomatic position. Despite my position above that this is the best timing for Argentna to try it i still forcast a British victory in any war. Brazil would never get involved for a start. Any involvement of Venusula would definitly bring the US into the conflict as they hate Hugo Chavez. Our Navy is Nuclear tipped not just in Arsenal but in our all Nuclear engined modern submarine force that given the time to get into the conflict zone could sink any navy and inflict damage to strategic land assets with it's combination of Cruise Missiles and Harpoon anti ship missiles. They wouldn't even need to come close enough to use torpedos... __________________ You were born poor, naked and helpless. Everything in your life was given to you, the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the shelter you received. Most importantly of all you received an education. You were given this because people loved you, because people you never knew worked to feed you and long before you were born people died to protect you and to give you the opportunities they never had. Life doesn't owe you anything! YOU owe life!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 9th, 2006, 01:09 AM	#2
JDRS Against ID Cards Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 9,823 Likes (Received): 0	What a waste of time. It's a tiny part of land and rightly belongs to the British. Argentinia have nothing to gain from taking sovereignty over the Falklands, and disputing something that happened almost 2 centuries ago is crazy. Why don't they spend their time and money on the real issues of people living in Argentinia?

August 9th, 2006, 01:11 AM	#3
jrb 10th February 2008 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester Posts: 26,428 Likes (Received): 279	A perfect time for the Argies to launch a second invasion. Our armed forces are already stretched to breaking point.(Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) I wonder if Diego will give the Argentinian armed forces a 'HAND' and stretch himself pontoon style over the Atlantic. I suppose he could also fly them over as well. Might need to re-fuel first though.

August 9th, 2006, 04:35 AM	#4
Pobbie BANNED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Somewhere Posts: 8,234 Likes (Received): 20	Not again. I can see this thread being hijacked very quickly...

August 9th, 2006, 04:40 AM	#5
*gothicform* Bossman Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: not london Posts: 29,234 Likes (Received): 504	oh yawn... and theyll hold a vote there and the islanders will vote to stay british a bit like gibraltar.

August 9th, 2006, 11:35 AM	#6
Manchester Planner Chief Bureaucrat Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,848 Likes (Received): 1	How good is the Argentine Navy these days? I can see it now - Argentinia will have a fleet of about 40 ships, mostly second hand, while the British will send down something like HMS Ocean, 2 T23 frigates, a T42 destroyer, a minesweeper or two and a Trafalgar/Swiftsure class submarine. I think I know who will win. And yes, the Argentinians better not wait - by 2010 we'll already have two T45 destroyers in commission and the first Astute class submarine. Then things could get real messy (for them, of course).

August 9th, 2006, 10:10 PM	#10
Manchester Planner Chief Bureaucrat Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,848 Likes (Received): 1	"although they didn't until Israel started bombing Lebanon" you're forgetting that common sense doesn't exist in the middle-east!!

August 10th, 2006, 06:24 PM	#14
Lostboy Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,038 Likes (Received): 12	There was a thread a while back with rumour of a Falklands 2. Well the Argentinian President has come out in public, making clear his ambition to reclaim the falklands. They've also set up a parliamentary group dedicated to it. And have contacted the UN on sovreignty issues. So you mean to say, that they've followed diplomatic procedures in a legal way as is their right, and in short behaved like a mature nation with a land dispute issue?

August 10th, 2006, 08:47 PM	#16
andysimo123 wind-up merchant Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,877 Likes (Received): 8	I'll just add afew words to this thread Nuclear sub, Challenger 2 tank and Apache. Argies don't bother it will all end rather bad for you again.

August 10th, 2006, 09:05 PM	#17
Peruanisch Guest Posts: n/a Likes (Received):	Hey guys. Im a Peruvian living in London....have done so for the last 14 years. Dont get me wrong...I respect your country very much etc etc, however, you guys did ILLEGALLY take the falklands by force. Now...the Peruvians helped out in the war of the falklands - that was their only ally. (A peruvian Mirage 2000 Plane sunk the HMS Sheffield, under Argentine command, the argies didnt know how to command the armed forces properly, and thats why they lost) The argentinians didnt know their assess from their elbows. This time round the Argentinians have, not only Peru as their ally a regional military force, but they also have venezuela, brasil and other countries on their side. Lets face it, the U.K will never use its nuclear weapons....too many interests in Latin America right? ---Right. The u.k is involved in a few wars at the moment and the armed forces of this country are stretched enough as it is. Tell you what guys....last time in 1982...it was very close..and you guys werent fighting any other wars....had a bigger navy fleet etc, however, times have changed and Britain has few allies, argentina has got several. Another thing I would ask some hot-headed british folk is to be more humble. The Peruvian president in 1982 suggested killing everyone on the Malvinas (Thats the correct name) so that the british would have no claim on the mentioned isles. That guy presidente Belaunde Terry, was a friend of the family. Say the argentinians would have followed the peruvian presidents advise? You guys would have nothing to shout about. Your government needs to be careful or else this time round the U.K will be humiliated. The moral of the story is....you british...Dont bother guys..or else you'll end up rather humiliated and sad. Lol....That would certainly add insult to injury...You lose a world cup and then the "Falklands". Anyway....seeya later alligators.

August 10th, 2006, 09:50 PM	#19
Peruanisch Guest Posts: n/a Likes (Received):	Engels thanks for noticing that I have a balanced and clear-headed view about the subject. One thing i have to say is:: LMAO--- come on....do you think in Latin america we still fight with bows and arrows? sticks and stones? Brazil has nuclear submarines, as does Chile (Who helped the U.K out in 1982 under Augusto Pinochet)...Margaret Thatchers latin american toy boy. The presidenta of Chile Michelle Bachelet was a war prisoner under Pinochet, and completely refuted and refutes chiles involvement against Argentina. Britain until recently chiles military sugar daddy has sold state of the art submarines to chile. Chile and Peru have had bad relations since 1879 when Peru Chile and Bolivia fought their version of the war of the Pacific. The new presidents of Peru and Chile get on like a house on fire, so theres no more picking of sides like there was last time. Now...Brazil could very well get involved in the war if it ever came about, mainly because they are in the same economic group to argentina, and other countries set to help out Argentina. Venezuela would definately get involved as it sees the UK and the U.S.A as imperialists. Furthermore. If latin america (The proper south i.e: from venezuela all the way down to Argentina) makes up 34% of the worlds G.D.P and most countries in latin america spending no less than 3% of their GDP per year, on their armed forces i.e: the army, navy and air forces...and other specialised sub-branches, then Britain has ALOT of military hardware to compete with and subsequently try to extinguish. Also britains army would be outnumbered, as the latin-american forces altogether would have more than a 6 to 1 ratio of soldiers alone. Dont get me wrong, its true: Britain does have a HUGE military arsenal, however, you cant cover the sun up with one finger....the british would get completely and utterly bumfucked, because compared to the other countries altogether that have advocated helping Argentina out the british and latin american arsenals would be comparable david and goliath... where david is britain and goliath is Latin America. (Lets not get into the semantics of david beating goliath...thats a myth...just trying to prove a point) The british have been beaten in latin america before. The british during victorian times went to Peru and told the captain of the ship...to lower the Peruvian flag in the name of queen victoria... thats when the first torpedo from ship to ship was fired and missed. Latin america has a history of kicking foreign ass. In that particular event...the Peruvian captain rammed his ship into captain De Horsey's ship "HMS SHAH" made the ship limp back the the uk, and also made the Amethyst run. Another thing that should be learnt from events like that is that, yes,....sometimes you may have the gizmos etc...but that doesnt always equals success. P.S: Sorry to keep on using Peru as an example...Just that im Peruvian and I know my history better than....say.... argentina. Just trying to give examples...forgive me if it sounds like im some harcore nationalist lol...im not.

August 10th, 2006, 10:24 PM	#20
JackSwan click click Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Suffolk, England Posts: 7,907 Likes (Received): 100	why would we assume you're a hardcore nationalist? i think peruanisch's post illustrates something i've long been troubled by though....the fact that a foreign national can live in our country, sometimes for decades, and yet still exhibit no greater love for or loyalty to britain than when they first arrived. it's not necessarily a criticism of you, peruanisch, if anything more so of our own all-pervasive culture of self-loathing that undoubtedly infects newcomers as well. in stark contrast, emigrants to america seem to be buoyed by a singular determination to integrate into mainstream u.s. society and to contribute positively to it - they're possessed of a real desire to make a success of themselves and the country they're newly-arrived in. peruasnisch, on the other hand, quite gleefully acknowledges his conviction that if embroiled in another war in the south atlantic, britain would be 'bumfucked' (presumably that means we'd lose and isn't some crass reference to navy boys shore leave plans).