ChatterBank1 min ago
realpolitik
What is so bad with it?..we don"t all have rich land-owning ancestors!
Michael Portillo accused George Galloway of using Realpolitik in resolving matters in the S.Atlantic.(Falklands)
Because British blood has been spilled there,does all pragmatism"go out the window"?
Michael Portillo accused George Galloway of using Realpolitik in resolving matters in the S.Atlantic.(Falklands)
Because British blood has been spilled there,does all pragmatism"go out the window"?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zhukov. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The rules of international politics are simple:
If a small country has an undemocratic government and no oil, we condemn it but surreptitiously supply weapons to it.
If a small country has an undemocratic government and oil, we trade with it and openly supply weapons to it.
If a large country has an undemocratic government and lots of money we trade with, borrow from it and will probably end up buying weapons from it.
If any country has a dispute with us, we seek a peaceable solution to the dispute (except when the party in Government needs a boost in the polls).
It's ALL 'realpolitik' but whether anyone actually admits to it or not depends upon whether doing so is likely to bring them praise or condemnation (which, of course, is also 'realpolitik').
Chris
If a small country has an undemocratic government and no oil, we condemn it but surreptitiously supply weapons to it.
If a small country has an undemocratic government and oil, we trade with it and openly supply weapons to it.
If a large country has an undemocratic government and lots of money we trade with, borrow from it and will probably end up buying weapons from it.
If any country has a dispute with us, we seek a peaceable solution to the dispute (except when the party in Government needs a boost in the polls).
It's ALL 'realpolitik' but whether anyone actually admits to it or not depends upon whether doing so is likely to bring them praise or condemnation (which, of course, is also 'realpolitik').
Chris
Las Malvinas?
The policy of all UK political parties seems primarily to simply forget that the islands exist (on the basis that you can't be criticised for an opinion if you don't express one in the first place).
If they're actually forced into expressing an opinion (or even a policy!), almost any politician is going to give the answer which will get the best newspaper headlines. That almost invariably means starting out with a statement that the islands will remain British as long as the people living there wish them to be so.
However, given the fact that many people here no longer have an appetite for war - after Iraq and Afghanistan - and the near impossibility of launching an invasion without any aircraft carriers, no politician is likely to commit the UK to military action in the event of Argentinian aggression.
So, after a bit of banner-waving, they'll go on to talk about 'seeking meaningful discussion' with Argentina (while hoping that the problem will simply go away).
The policy of all UK political parties seems primarily to simply forget that the islands exist (on the basis that you can't be criticised for an opinion if you don't express one in the first place).
If they're actually forced into expressing an opinion (or even a policy!), almost any politician is going to give the answer which will get the best newspaper headlines. That almost invariably means starting out with a statement that the islands will remain British as long as the people living there wish them to be so.
However, given the fact that many people here no longer have an appetite for war - after Iraq and Afghanistan - and the near impossibility of launching an invasion without any aircraft carriers, no politician is likely to commit the UK to military action in the event of Argentinian aggression.
So, after a bit of banner-waving, they'll go on to talk about 'seeking meaningful discussion' with Argentina (while hoping that the problem will simply go away).
If you're thinking of emigrating, Zhukov, it would probably help if you've got knowledge of sheep farming or fishing. Life is possibly still a little 'primitive' by (mainland) UK standards
http://www.falklands....//Falklands_Life.html
with leisure facilities being on a par with those found in a small town here
http://www.falklands....rts___Recreation.html
There appear to be some close comparisons to some of our remoter Scottish islands:
http://www.falklandislands.com/
http://www.falklands....//Falklands_Life.html
with leisure facilities being on a par with those found in a small town here
http://www.falklands....rts___Recreation.html
There appear to be some close comparisons to some of our remoter Scottish islands:
http://www.falklandislands.com/
In 1982, there was only a tiny garrison of some 40 marines based in the Falklands, hence they were relatively easily overrun. Now, according to our military top brass, we are perfectly capable of handling any attack Argentina could reasonably mount, given that they are, for example, still flying the same aircraft they used back then.
In addition, of course, we could even nuke Buenos Aires from a submarine, if we felt like it, or - more reasonably - pound their attacking soldiers from patrolling surface ships.
The reason the islanders are so determined to remain British is the fact that so many of their forebears actually WERE shepherds from some of our "remoter Scottish islands"!
In addition, of course, we could even nuke Buenos Aires from a submarine, if we felt like it, or - more reasonably - pound their attacking soldiers from patrolling surface ships.
The reason the islanders are so determined to remain British is the fact that so many of their forebears actually WERE shepherds from some of our "remoter Scottish islands"!
We have also invested in some very advanced early warning systems down there.
The Argentinians couldn't get anything bigger than a sea kayak within five hundred clicks and we'd be on them.
<<So actually they're not from the Falklands at all but another bunch of imported Scots>>
No they ARE from the Falklands.
It was their ancestors who were imported - rather like the Spanish who have 'colonised' Argentina. And those nice Canary Islands - let's not hold our breath waiting for Spain to hand them over to Morocco.
The Argentinians couldn't get anything bigger than a sea kayak within five hundred clicks and we'd be on them.
<<So actually they're not from the Falklands at all but another bunch of imported Scots>>
No they ARE from the Falklands.
It was their ancestors who were imported - rather like the Spanish who have 'colonised' Argentina. And those nice Canary Islands - let's not hold our breath waiting for Spain to hand them over to Morocco.
J, re your point about possible Scottish independence, I have often wondered whether - given the historical ethnic background - the Falkland Islanders might actually CHOOSE to be attached to Scotland rather than whatever remains of the UK!
It'd be a hoot, wouldn't it, if all the vaunted South Atlantic oil became Scottish as well as a substantial whack of the North Atlantic's, whilst none of either was England's?
It'd be a hoot, wouldn't it, if all the vaunted South Atlantic oil became Scottish as well as a substantial whack of the North Atlantic's, whilst none of either was England's?
1 to 17 of 17
