Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday April 06 2015, @01:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the finally-real-spying dept.

Not sure why Snowden & friends are releasing this, as it is the traditional purpose of spying [and the one that virtually everybody but the people who actually do the spying think of].

"According to reports in the Argentine media, Britain was concerned that Argentina could launch another attempt to reclaim the Falkland Islands"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32172669

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @06:58PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday April 06 2015, @06:58PM (#167090) Journal

    You misinterpreted my intent. I was purposely being blunt by calling the land worthless. The reason I used resource value was to further illustrate how petty the war really was (the 1982 invasion).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @07:29PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 06 2015, @07:29PM (#167117) Journal

    There was no known oil in 1982. The invasion was entirely orchestrated by Galtieri as a way of diverting attention from domestic problems - as pointed out by Gungnir Sniper. Prime Minister Thatcher elected to re-capture the islands to uphold the democratic principle (I'm not arguing whether that was justified or not - so I'm not looking for a political debate). If you had asked most Britons where the Falkland Islands were, they wouldn't have had a clue. In fact, there was a media report of someone (can't remember who) asking how the Argentinians had managed to reach Scotland undetected?

    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @08:22PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday April 06 2015, @08:22PM (#167154) Journal

      I dont think my point came across properly. I knew of the Falklands and the 1982 war. But I was ignorant as to why Argentina wanted to capture it. I suppose after witnessing two pointless "wars" one which involves the USA military running around the middle east and the other involves Russia. Both had one thing in common: oil which is just another word for money. I think I just couldn't see why anyone was so willing to throw away human life for land that had no economic value. So I did my homework and I now know the reasons.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @09:13PM

        by frojack (1554) on Monday April 06 2015, @09:13PM (#167170) Journal

        See your wrong there as well. The left is fond of saying the wars in the middle east are about oil.
        But they never were. Afghanistan and Iraq were never significant historical sources of Oil for the US, and that hasn't changed. There were principals involved in both wars, and you have to admit that there are principals involved in Russian moves in Ukraine as well. Oil isn't one of them.

        Oil is just a convenient excuse to denigrate any historical event with which the left disagrees.

        Living peacefully on farms they built, upon land that had never actually been inhabited by Argentina, the farmers and shop keepers managed to change the only available resource (grass) into a living.

        Your mentioning of resources suggested to me, that Argentina's taking of the land, or England's retaking of the land, would have been OK (in your view) if there were valuable minerals or oil there. But the conflict was devoid of any possible justification on either side given that there was nothing there but grass.

        It suggested to me that the rights of the only historical long term residents meant nothing to you.

        That may not have been your intent, but that is how it came across.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:36PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:36PM (#167457) Journal

          I was in a rush typing those replies while at work. I was a bit rude and blunt when I said worthless, that I apologize for.

          See your wrong there as well. The left is fond of saying the wars in the middle east are about oil.
          But they never were. Afghanistan and Iraq were never significant historical sources of Oil for the US, and that hasn't changed.

          Why are you talking about the middle east and left/right politics?

          Your mentioning of resources suggested to me, that Argentina's taking of the land, or England's retaking of the land, would have been OK (in your view) if there were valuable minerals or oil there.

          You really misread my words. And part of that is my fault. Every fight, no matter how big or small has a reason. They are for power, control, money; basically anything which benefits the aggressor. And to better understand you sometimes have to put the shoe on the other foot. And from Argentinas shoes, there was nothing to gain from going to war with a country who historically was known for kicking ass and taking names. What did they have to gain from the war? In the end it was just a distraction. And that is what is sort of mind boggling to me. I sort of get it, they were desperate. But seriously, wtf. Its like shooting a man dead because he stepped on your new shoes.

          But the conflict was devoid of any possible justification on either side given that there was nothing there but grass.

          Yup. Exactly. Shoes on the other foot and I see nothing worth throwing away peoples lives for. Then again I am not a megalomaniac so perhaps I am not seeing things from a crazy dictators view. In the end I just can't comprehaned why people makes such choices. I can understand motives. e.g A man shoots his wife dead when he catches her in bed with another man. I get why he did it. I don't agree with it, It is wrong. But I get it. Another example is I get why people break into houses: they need money, usually for drugs. Motive. I just can't see motive for invading small farming islands and wasting life.

          Oh, and of course Britian had every right to defend its borders. I am not arguing against their decision. It unfortunately had to be done.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:41AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:41AM (#167340) Journal

      Prime Minister Thatcher elected to re-capture the islands to uphold the democratic principle (I'm not arguing whether that was justified or not - so I'm not looking for a political debate). If you had asked most Britons where the Falkland Islands were, they wouldn't have had a clue,

      So, it was just like Iraq only with Tony Blair not in drag this time? I am so confused.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:08PM (#167468)

      Make no mistake, it wasn't to uphold any democratic principle, it was just to show that those who have the big guns make the law and you don't fool around the big boys and leave unscathed.