Las Malvinas.

Lemming · 26-02-2014 2:24pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Does this say to ignore all the lessons of the last one?

It infers by being old news that it is not relevant. The important part of the sentence is the first two words, not that yesterday's battle is not today's (although I'm sure there's a few WW1 survivors somewhere that might disagree with that assessment)

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:33pm

Lemming wrote: »

It infers by being old news that it is not relevant. The important part of the sentence is the first two words, not that yesterday's battle is not today's (although I'm sure there's a few WW1 survivors somewhere that might disagree with that assessment)

No that is subjective interpretation.

Yesterdays battle is not todays. (read the words literally....for what they say.... not what you want them to say)

Tell me how this infers a disregard for similar factors.

Yesterdays boxing match is not todays - this infers I disregard what I have learned from prior matches. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays mock maths exam is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from yesterday. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays battle is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from the previous battle. Yes or no ?

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 2:41pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

"ignore all the lessons of the last one".

Show me where I said this.

Show it to me.

No rush, take your time.

Really?

Having highlighted the last few words of the quote thus...

"If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that a future war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that it will be so utterly different that we can afford to ignore all the lessons of the last one"
John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, Air Power & Armies

You then proceeded to say.....

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said ....... emmm where now ??

in respect of your words in another post....

"Yesterdays news, yesterdays battle is not todays."

Are you now saying that is what you didn't say.....

You're retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier.....

Lemming · 26-02-2014 2:43pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

No that is subjective interpretation.

Yesterdays battle is not todays. (read the words literally....for what they say.... not what you want them to say)

Tell me how this infers a disregard for similar factors.

Yesterdays boxing match is not todays - this infers I disregard what I have learned from prior matches. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays mock maths exam is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from yesterday. Yes or no ?

Yesterdays battle is not todays - this infers I dismiss what I learned from the previous battle. Yes or no ?

One word. "Context". The examples you have given lack context. In themselves your questions cannot be answered because they lack ... wait for it .... context.

As I said before; the words preceding your statement provide context as to how the statement should be read.

Regardless, this thread is a mess so that's my cue, just after I point out that following your logical fallacy from earlier about the Falklands being "doomed", why bother? The earth is doomed because one day the Sun will go supernova.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:49pm

@jawgap
@lemming

Hmm, lets see.

Heres what I said.

"Yesterdays battle is not todays."

Do you agree.

Yes/No

Now that you're done with that, you can point out to me the bit where I disagree with the air marshals quote.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:53pm

Lemming wrote: »

logical fallacy from earlier about the Falklands being "doomed", why bother? The earth is doomed because one day the Sun will go supernova.

Which is why I said 'in my opinion'.

In my opinion the falklands are doomed in the long-very long term.

Show me the logical fallacy.

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 2:58pm

Jawgap wrote: »

You're retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier.....

Resorting to ad hominem.

Jawgap · 26-02-2014 3:06pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

@jawgap
@lemming

Hmm, lets see.

Heres what I said.

"Yesterdays battle is not todays."

Do you agree.

Yes/No

Now that you're done with that, you can point out to me the bit where I disagree with the air marshals quote.

As I said - retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier!

By the way, Slessor was a Marshal - you've just knocked him back about two ranks and three stripes:)

You know what you meant - you now want to move to a literal interpretation of your words.

OK, I agree that is what you said and absence of apostrophes notwithstanding (I assume you'd prefer that not be literally interpreted) - "yesterdays battle" can never be "todays battle" - because yesterday is not today (but it will be tomorrow) and today is not yesterday, but yesterday today was tomorrow so "yesterdays battle" while not being "todays battle" cannot be tomorrow's battle - although at some point "yesterdays battle" will become last week's battle - and that even less like "todays battle".....

Never a good sign when someone starts discussing logical fallacies and ad hominem........the last refuge and all that.....

And that's it for me.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-02-2014 3:18pm

Jawgap wrote: »

As I said - retreating faster than an Argentinian aircraft carrier!

Again, really ? - Well, I'll put it down to frustration.

By the way, Slessor was a Marshal - you've just knocked him back about two ranks and three stripes:)

Very well. ... maybe minor corrections can make up for an overall lose.

You know what you meant - you now want to move to a literal interpretation of your words.

Yes I do know what I meant. Yes I generally rely more on the actual words themselves rather than emotions and subjectivity.

OK, I agree that is what you said and absence of apostrophes notwithstanding (I assume you'd prefer that not be literally interpreted) - "yesterdays battle" can never be "todays battle" - because yesterday is not today (but it will be tomorrow) and today is not yesterday, but yesterday today was tomorrow so "yesterdays battle" while not being "todays battle" cannot be tomorrow's battle - although at some point "yesterdays battle" will become last week's battle - and that even less like "todays battle".....

emmm... ok whatever.

Never a good sign when someone starts discussing logical fallacies and ad hominem........the last refuge and all that.....

Yeah they're generally...... recognized for what they are.

And that's it for me.....

Bye now.

ChicagoJoe · 25-03-2014 3:19pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

(imho, this aside, Falklands are doomed in the long to very long term, by diplomacy or military it will become Argentinian land. And rightly)

The British actually were hinting that they wanted to get rid of them, the Galtieri then jumped at the opportunity of gaining public support as Argentina's economy was in the toilet by invading This was a Godsend to Thatcher too who was doing very badly in the polls in the UK after race riots in Brixton, Liverpool etc. And so we had a ' war ' about two little known islands in the south Atlantic.

So in the long term they will indeed go to the Argentinians and people will ask what the 1982 deadly fiasco was all about.

ChicagoJoe · 25-03-2014 3:26pm

Jawgap wrote: »

"sod that, I'll make their eyes water" - Lt Keith Mills, Royal Marines, when told he was only required to put up a token resistance before surrendering. I think in the end they forced an Argentinian corvette to retreat and brought down a Puma.

Lemming wrote: »

That radio trasnsmission was the prelude to a two hour battle at Grytviken between a handful of Royal Marines, later nicknamed Mills Marauders, and a considerably larger Argentine invasion force.

Do you have an independent source to back this up like one of the Argentine soldiers or a non British journalist ? Sounds like typical British tabloid journalism sh*t like the ' heroic failure ' of Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Gordon of Khartoum :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 25-03-2014 7:33pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Do you have an independent source to back this up like one of the Argentine soldiers or a non British journalist ? Sounds like typical British tabloid journalism sh*t like the ' heroic failure ' of Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Gordon of Khartoum :rolleyes:

I don't think there were any journalists there, and he said it while in communication with HMS Endurance so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest none of the Argentine soldiers were present at either end of the line or were eavesdropping.

Only two people know exactly what was said, but maybe they colluded to make up the story about what was said?

My Spanish isn't great but Wikipedia en Espanol doesn't seem to disagree.....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Georgias

They cite the following book as the source for their information on Grytviken.....

"Admiral Horacio A. Mayorga: No Expired . Ed Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998."

The Diabolical Monocle · 26-03-2014 12:55pm

And that's it for me.

ah hes back.

knucklehead6 · 27-03-2014 8:52am

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think there were any journalists there, and he said it while in communication with HMS Endurance so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest none of the Argentine soldiers were present at either end of the line or were eavesdropping.

Only two people know exactly what was said, but maybe they colluded to make up the story about what was said?

My Spanish isn't great but Wikipedia en Espanol doesn't seem to disagree.....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Georgias

They cite the following book as the source for their information on Grytviken.....

"Admiral Horacio A. Mayorga: No Expired . Ed Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998."

Jawgap, I really don't think there's any point talking to these two. Whether or not Mills actually said that will be what they fixate on, not the actions of him and his men in repulsing the initial assault.

Jawgap · 27-03-2014 9:12am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Jawgap, I really don't think there's any point talking to these two. Whether or not Mills actually said that will be what they fixate on, not the actions of him and his men in repulsing the initial assault.

I'm taking one for the team - if they're posting here they're leaving other people in peace:)

Actually, @the diabolical monocle's last post reminds me of Brian Hanrahan's "I counted them all out and I counted them all back" news report......

ChicagoJoe · 28-03-2014 3:57pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think there were any journalists there, and he said it while in communication with HMS Endurance so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest none of the Argentine soldiers were present at either end of the line or were eavesdropping.

Only two people know exactly what was said, but maybe they colluded to make up the story about what was said?

My Spanish isn't great but Wikipedia en Espanol doesn't seem to disagree.....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Georgias

They cite the following book as the source for their information on Grytviken.....

"Admiral Horacio A. Mayorga: No Expired . Ed Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998."

You might as well have got in up in Chinese while you were at it buddy

And wiki too !!! Like I said, typical British tabloid journalism sh*t like the ' heroic failure ' of Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Gordon of Khartoum.

Jawgap · 28-03-2014 5:28pm

seen as you don't speak Spanglish....

The next morning the captain of the Bahia Paraiso at Leith, South Georgia, radioed news of the Falklands surrender to the 23-man British detachment at Grytviken, urging them to capitulate to avoid further violence.

He subsequently sent a corvette and two Alouette helicopters to Grytviken, where the Royal Marines opened fire with small arms and 84 mm anti-tank rockets. Their surprise resistance damaged one of the helos
and forced the corvette to retreat hastily. After two hours of heavy fighting, however, the marines, low on ammunition and facing a far superior Argentine force now established ashore, surrendered.

HMS Endurance, at sea nearby, was preparing to come to the assistance of the marines at Grytviken, but was directed by Fleet Headquarters to refrain from engaging in offensive action and to conceal its whereabouts until given further guidance. Frustrated, it consequently turned north to rendezvous with its replenishment ship, Fort Austin.

From "The 1982 Falklands-Malvinas Case Study," THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT

ledgebag1 · 28-03-2014 5:39pm

Argentina have to modernise and upgrade their naval and army/ air equipment. A lot of governments do this, in essence to keep up with other nations who may be a potential threat, it's not uncommon. Spending on this equipment is not purely a military upgrade but also political, in that they will buy the equipment from as mentioned Israel and possibly America/ Russia. These contracts are politically very strategic and with the equipment may come alliances, guarantees of protection.

Oil is the key here! Not military action.

The Diabolical Monocle · 30-03-2014 4:34am

Hes gone, hes back, gone, back. More comebacks than Lazarus, and still as emotional as ever.
Ah well, better he lets it all out here. :pac:

Reminds me of the way the old empire died.

Jawgap · 30-03-2014 8:14am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Hes gone, hes back, gone, back. More comebacks than Lazarus, and still as emotional as ever.
Ah well, better he lets it all out here. :pac:

Reminds me of the way the old empire died.

In my defence, I think I only left once and came back once, so you seem to be over-egging your pudding there old chap.

I'm not sure where you get your evidence for me being emotional - the capitalisation in that last post wasn't me being emotional, it was me being lazy when I cut and paste the title of the document into the posting.

I don't know which 'old empire' you're referring to (there've been a few) but certainly some arguments on this thread have reminded me of the ARA Belgrano - impressive at first sight, but oh so easy to torpedo.........

The Diabolical Monocle · 30-03-2014 4:11pm

Jawgap wrote: »

[IMG][/IMG]

In my defence, I think I only left once and came back once, so you seem to be over-egging your pudding there old chap.

I'm not sure where you get your evidence for me being emotional - the capitalisation in that last post wasn't me being emotional, it was me being lazy when I cut and paste the title of the document into the posting.

I don't know which 'old empire' you're referring to (there've been a few) but certainly some arguments on this thread have reminded me of the ARA Belgrano - impressive at first sight, but oh so easy to torpedo.........

Did I say Lazarus ? ..... must have meant Tom Jones.

Lots of structures are easy to torpedo.

Jawgap · 30-03-2014 4:24pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Did I say Lazarus ? ..... must have meant Tom Jones.

Lots of structures are easy to torpedo.
[IMG][/img]//d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1388299126l/2313808.jpg

You don't seem to have embedded your image link properly - go again, as the actress said to the bishop.

I did click though and the first point I'd make is that there's a ton of evidence out there to show the momentum behind decolonisation began after WW1 from about 1918/19 onwards

The book also neglects (based on its title) the role people like Attlee, Eden, Macmillan and Wilson played in the retreat from empire.

Anyway, given the success of Ghandi, there's probably a lesson in there for Argentina - you should forward the link on to them. If a guy in a nappy can secure the largest democracy in the world out from under British rule, I'm sure a well developed country can get hold of a few sheep infested rocks.......

EDIT: Well done on fixing your image problem........

Jawgap · 30-03-2014 4:33pm

Incidentally, if you are interested in Herman, given you've included him in your posting I assume you are, can I suggest another of his books........fascinating reading.......from pg549 on - that deals with the Falklands Campaign - quite a rousing story of how Leach pretty much guaranteed the RN could put a taskforce to sea in 72 hours - despite everyone saying it was impossible....

:D

The Diabolical Monocle · 30-03-2014 5:40pm

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't seem to have embedded your image link properly - go again, as the actress said to the bishop.

I did click though and the first point I'd make is that there's a ton of evidence out there to show the momentum behind decolonisation began after WW1 from about 1918/19 onwards

The book also neglects (based on its title) the role people like Attlee, Eden, Macmillan and Wilson played in the retreat from empire.

Anyway, given the success of Ghandi, there's probably a lesson in there for Argentina - you should forward the link on to them. If a guy in a nappy can secure the largest democracy in the world out from under British rule, I'm sure a well developed country can get hold of a few sheep infested rocks.......

EDIT: Well done on fixing your image problem........

Thank you for notifying me at 16:24 of a minor edit I had fixed by 16:15.

I dont think Argentina need to look to Ghandi, unlike him they have no dire need to act on the Malvinas issue from what I can tell.

Life in Argentina (for its 42 million population), although a 2nd world country in many regards, requires nothing from the islands in the meantime.

Theres an abundant wealth of opportunity for all manner of activities, cultural, leisure, and business. Breathtaking scenery from sun and sand to snow capped mountains. Concerts, shopping malls, you name it. A warm sunny climate overall.

Plenty of trade too, with the other Mercosur community neighborhood countries, such as Uruguay. Who have deep relations with Argentina on all levels.

Incidentally - between 2006 and 2012 the falklands normal population (~2500) officially grew by 1. (one).

Overall the population is considered to be on the 'ageing' side of the scale.

Meanwhile...

Jawgap · 30-03-2014 6:01pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Thank you for notifying me at 16:24 of a minor edit I had fixed by 16:15.

I dont think Argentina need to look to Ghandi, unlike him they have no dire need to act on the Malvinas issue from what I can tell.

Life in Argentina (for its 42 million population), although a 2nd world country in many regards, requires nothing from the islands in the meantime.

Theres an abundant wealth of opportunity for all manner of activities, cultural, leisure, and business. Breathtaking scenery from sun and sand to snow capped mountains. Concerts, shopping malls, you name it. A warm sunny climate overall.

Plenty of trade too, with the other Mercosur community neighborhood countries, such as Uruguay. Who have deep relations with Argentina on all levels.

Incidentally - between 2006 and 2012 the falklands normal population (~2500) officially grew by 1. (one).

Overall the population is considered to be on the 'ageing' side of the scale.

Meanwhile...

Yes, I played rugby there (in Cordoba) in 1996. Fabulous country. I just wish I'd more time there. I'd love to tavel down to the south of the country.

By the way, regarding the highlighted bit above and there being no dire need for Argentina to act.....you seem to change your tune more often than the aforementioned Tom Jones......didn't you originally post....

So there you have it.
1)History of bad blood, from 1833 to 1982...and '82 to present day....and from present day to, well theres enough national sentiment in both countries (moreso Argentina) to keep that one going another century or two.

2)Oil. Say no more.

3)A hypothetical invasion deadline of 2020.

4)A sudden peak in Argentine military spending.

5)Argentinas govt not very happy with companies drilling there, prison terms threatened for company execs, various financial dissuasion to companies for taking part. Argentina not doing so brilliantly financially at the same time as someone, in their eyes, travelling 12,000 km to siphon off lots of oil/money thats (quite possibly) on their continental shelf.

So if ever there was a probable time since 1982 its not far off.

It seems to me that a any country that is "a 2nd world country in many regards" could do with any commercial quantities of oil that might be discovered in waters they consider their own......especially when the government is 'cash strapped' and where workers are looking for "pay raises to match one of the world's highest inflation rates."

Argentina's government begins painful cuts

That definitely doesn't sound like a country in dire need to me........just as well they have

".....all manner of activities, cultural, leisure, and business. Breathtaking scenery from sun and sand to snow capped mountains. Concerts, shopping malls, you name it. A warm sunny climate overall"

..... because let's face it, decent wages in a low inflation economy are both hugely over-rated.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 30-03-2014 6:24pm

Speaking of time.

Bad timing old bean....yet again.

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RKH

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/30/argentina-debt-goldman-idUSL1N0MR09W20140330

I shall arise again later on.

Much like yourself.

Mines%20Warning.jpg

Jawgap · 30-03-2014 6:58pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Speaking of time.

Bad timing old bean....yet again.

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RKH

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/30/argentina-debt-goldman-idUSL1N0MR09W20140330

I shall arise again later on.

Much like yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZKHvlrctQ

An exploration company's stock drops and the Argentinian government have borrowed a billion (at 6.5%!!!!!)? What does that prove other than the world is turning......and Argentina is having to pay through the nose to float their bonds because of previous defaults and restructuring?

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 12:12am

Well my reincarnating amigo, that Goldman Sachs has some confidence in Argentinas abilities to survive long enough to repay 1 billion.

Oh and the chart shows that investors have no confidence in Rockhopper.
Its within touching distance of its all time low.

So dont go counting on that oil just yet.

Vaca muerta on the other hand .... well, thats been declared by the US geological agencies as being the 2nd or 3rd largest shale gas deposit on the planet, and its slowly giving up the goods.

Then theres Argentinas 1/3 share in the worlds largest lithium deposits up in the north of the country. (Lithium triangle)

UK, US, Europe, all have been in the straits at one time or another.
But I think that once any country attains as many universities, satellites, nuclear energy, 5 star hotels, stadiums, skyscrapers and huge scale agriculture that it can be said that its there to stay for the long run.

Mendoza.

Cordoba.

Rosario.

Buenos Aires.

Ruined I tells ya.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 4:47am

Well done on dragging the thread off topic to try and disguise the ridiculousness of your original and opening post.

For those of us with less insight into this matter perhaps you'd care to illustrate how your economic 'analysis' and holiday snaps relates to you're original post......

(Maybe you could send it to the people of the Falklands? Perhaps when they read it along with your insights on Arentina's military build up and the overall political situation they'll clamour for a re-run of the vote to determine which country they'd like to be part of and vote to go with the one with the prettiest pictures?)

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Thought I might stir it up a bit as this topic tends to separate into two camps fairly quickly from what I've seen.
This forum seemed to fit best.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/argentina-falklands-oil-international-courts

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/152905/british-%E2%80%98monitor-argentine-military-revamp%E2%80%99

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/461327/New-arms-threat-Argentina-s-3billion-boost-to-military

South Atlantic.

Las Malvinas/The Falkland islands.

President De Kirchner has just upped her country's defence budget by some 26.7%.

BRITISH military chiefs were last night “carefully monitoring” developments after Argentina announced a £3billion revamp of its armed forces:

Random lazy quote:

"Buenos Aires will acquire military hardware including fighter aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons and specialised radar, as well as beefing up its special forces. The news comes months before drilling for oil begins in earnest off the Falkland Islands, provoking Argentina’s struggling President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Last month she created a new cabinet post of Secretary for the Malvinas, her country’s name for the Falklands."
(israeli air defence systems too apparently)

Note also, come 2020 Britain will have 2 new aircraft carriers.

Also theres supposedly a sht load of oil off the islands, although this is still speculated on and yet to produce...investors remain faaairly positive yet nothing certain.

So there you have it.
1)History of bad blood, from 1833 to 1982...and '82 to present day....and from present day to, well theres enough national sentiment in both countries (moreso Argentina) to keep that one going another century or two.

2)Oil. Say no more.

3)A hypothetical invasion deadline of 2020.

4)A sudden peak in Argentine military spending.

5)Argentinas govt not very happy with companies drilling there, prison terms threatened for company execs, various financial dissuasion to companies for taking part. Argentina not doing so brilliantly financially at the same time as someone, in their eyes, travelling 12,000 km to siphon off lots of oil/money thats (quite possibly) on their continental shelf.

So if ever there was a probable time since 1982 its not far off.

(imho, this aside, Falklands are doomed in the long to very long term, by diplomacy or military it will become Argentinian land. And rightly)

As for Goldman Sachs - I don't doubt that they do know what they're doing......

I haven't the first clue of Rockhopper's fundamentals so it's impossible for me to say anything about future value.

I wasn't "counting on the oil" - you introduced it (see point 2 in your original post)

Lithium triangle? Didn't Top Gear go there?

Shale gas? Good for them, hopefully extraction will speed up and environmental damage will be minimal.

Sounds like a fine country with plenty of infrastructure.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 5:05am

Incidentally, old fruit, any reason why you only deputised Rockhopper into your argument?

Got to admit if I was investing in that part of the world I'd be going with Falkland Island Holdings (which includes Falkland Oil and Gas)......

Decent P/E ratio........paying a dividend (modest enough at 3.65%, but a dividend is a dividend) ........fairly strong cashflows.......it's not exactly Ryanair, but it's not a dog either.

Las Malvinas.

Comments