Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Britain's invasion of the Falkland islands

Chloe8
Posts: 3,621
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.
Jovian
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 8:01:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

I've heard Thatcher did it because of the oil resources on the islands, but I don't know, detesting her seems to be mandatory in UK, so I have to read for myself instead.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 9,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 9:13:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Let me answer this in vi_spex fashion:

i have no intention of joining a religion

uk citizens + uk territory =/= argentina

argentina + take uk stuff = bad = true = 1

uk takes back lost citizens and territory from bad (1) = good = true = 1(!)

It was justified.
"If anyone wants to engage in casual anti-Semitism, then whatever." ~Max

Techno-Hyperkant arrives from the future. The Categorical Imperative ignites the eternal Nightmare of Ends. You are delighted to death.

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."
Chloe8
Posts: 3,621
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2016 8:01:53 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

I've heard Thatcher did it because of the oil resources on the islands, but I don't know, detesting her seems to be mandatory in UK, so I have to read for myself instead.

I'm sure the potential fossil fuel resources were a factor in the decision. The UK claims many other nearby uninhabited islands as well as a large chunk of Antarctica. These areas and the surrounding ocean are widely thought to contain fossil fuels that could be valuable when resources are exhausted in the future and drilling and mining in the Antarctic region becomes both legal and economically viable. this is the reason Argentina is so keen to control the islands to lay claim to the potential fossil fuel reserves.

Thatcher is not universally hated. It's only the left who hate her. Conservatives like me consider her one of Britain's greatest ever prime minister's.
Chloe8
Posts: 3,621
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 10:30:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2016 9:13:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Let me answer this in vi_spex fashion:

i have no intention of joining a religion

uk citizens + uk territory =/= argentina

argentina + take uk stuff = bad = true = 1

uk takes back lost citizens and territory from bad (1) = good = true = 1(!)

It was justified.

Im guessing vi_spex is another ddo member? Does he/she really answer like that?

It sort of makes sense I guess!
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 9,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:44:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2016 10:30:00 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 2/26/2016 9:13:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Let me answer this in vi_spex fashion:

i have no intention of joining a religion

uk citizens + uk territory =/= argentina

argentina + take uk stuff = bad = true = 1

uk takes back lost citizens and territory from bad (1) = good = true = 1(!)

It was justified.

Im guessing vi_spex is another ddo member? Does he/she really answer like that?

Yeah. He is rather popular amongst older members, and he is still present on this site. And yes, he really answers like that, although I have talked with him in a PM, and he is really smart and writes legibly.

Yeah. Here is the man himself: http://www.debate.org...

Here is a vi_spex impersonation debate I did a while back: http://www.debate.org...

It sort of makes sense I guess!

In a way, it always does.
"If anyone wants to engage in casual anti-Semitism, then whatever." ~Max

Techno-Hyperkant arrives from the future. The Categorical Imperative ignites the eternal Nightmare of Ends. You are delighted to death.

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."
Leaning
Posts: 814
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2018 9:31:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Yes.
When another country takes your land, your citizens you are pledged to protect, challenges you, it is Just to show strength and defeat them.

Did Argentina have a right to the land? I dunno, don't think so. Iffy.

When I read an account of the invasion, I was surprised at how outmatched the Argentine air force was.
I suppose it goes to show if you have outdated or inferior arms then you REALLY need to outmaneuver or overwhelm your enemy.

It seems to me Argentina would have been better off building an additional thousands of really primitive planes and overwhelmed the British ships. That or play a quick attrition game to the point that the British wasted too much supplies fighting off the hordes of planes.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 5,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2018 2:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

I think it was justified, but saying that I believe the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina since they are literally of the coast of Argentina nowhere near the UK, England is what 6000 miles away??

I never understood the whole owning land thousands of miles away when the land is near other countries. It's like St Pierre and Miquelon islands owned by the French yet 20 miles of the Canadian coast,

Places that far away from the main country never work out as the citizens of those islands always want independence, they do not want to be govern by a country thousands of miles away. That is why British India didn't work out for England, or Algiers for France or Guyana for England, I still don't get how Greenland is owned by the Danish when they are 5 thousand miles away.
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2018 6:05:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
To those who say it wasn't worth it:
What would've happened had Britain done nothing? Wouldn't have all the world's countries be practically trampling over each other at that point to carve up all that remained of the British empire, once it became clear that they would not defend their territory?
Wouldn't the communists have just seized Hong Kong on the spot? Wouldn't the Spanish have just taken Gibraltar on the spot? Wouldn't the Argentines themselves have went on to assume complete control over British Antarctica? Wouldn't the Irish take Ulster? Wouldn't the Cubans have taken the Cayman Islands?
The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of.
-Blaise Pascal
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 5,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2018 2:10:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/2/2018 6:05:44 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
To those who say it wasn't worth it:
What would've happened had Britain done nothing? Wouldn't have all the world's countries be practically trampling over each other at that point to carve up all that remained of the British empire, once it became clear that they would not defend their territory?
Wouldn't the communists have just seized Hong Kong on the spot? Wouldn't the Spanish have just taken Gibraltar on the spot? Wouldn't the Argentines themselves have went on to assume complete control over British Antarctica? Wouldn't the Irish take Ulster? Wouldn't the Cubans have taken the Cayman Islands?

Swagnarok so please explain to me why nothing was done when Russia invaded Crimea and just took it over by force??

I just want to hear your explanation on it
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2018 9:48:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/2/2018 2:10:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 2/2/2018 6:05:44 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
To those who say it wasn't worth it:
What would've happened had Britain done nothing? Wouldn't have all the world's countries be practically trampling over each other at that point to carve up all that remained of the British empire, once it became clear that they would not defend their territory?
Wouldn't the communists have just seized Hong Kong on the spot? Wouldn't the Spanish have just taken Gibraltar on the spot? Wouldn't the Argentines themselves have went on to assume complete control over British Antarctica? Wouldn't the Irish take Ulster? Wouldn't the Cubans have taken the Cayman Islands?

Swagnarok so please explain to me why nothing was done when Russia invaded Crimea and just took it over by force??

I just want to hear your explanation on it

I fail to see your point. Crimea was not a British territory, nor did Britain have any sort of strategic interest in the peninsula (to my knowledge).
The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of.
-Blaise Pascal
levi_smiles
Posts: 286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2018 1:13:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/2/2018 9:48:16 PM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 2/2/2018 2:10:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 2/2/2018 6:05:44 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
To those who say it wasn't worth it:
What would've happened had Britain done nothing? Wouldn't have all the world's countries be practically trampling over each other at that point to carve up all that remained of the British empire, once it became clear that they would not defend their territory?
Wouldn't the communists have just seized Hong Kong on the spot? Wouldn't the Spanish have just taken Gibraltar on the spot? Wouldn't the Argentines themselves have went on to assume complete control over British Antarctica? Wouldn't the Irish take Ulster? Wouldn't the Cubans have taken the Cayman Islands?

Swagnarok so please explain to me why nothing was done when Russia invaded Crimea and just took it over by force??

I just want to hear your explanation on it

I fail to see your point. Crimea was not a British territory, nor did Britain have any sort of strategic interest in the peninsula (to my knowledge).

*starts reciting Charge of the Light Brigade*
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2018 2:44:59 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/26/2016 11:29:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
On the 2nd April 1982 the Argentine dictatorship decided to invade the Falkland islands a British overseas territory it had claimed for decades since it's independence from Spain. The decision to invade though was made as an attempt to increase the popularity of a regime that feared it was about to be kicked out in a military coup. The island was not defended adequately so Argentina easily asserted control over the territory and it's 2, 000 or so citizens who favoured UK not Argentine control.

The Argentine military dictatorship calculated the area meant little to Britain, it would not risk military action to retake the islands and would not act without support from the USA which it seemed unlikely to obtain. However the British public were infuriated by the invasion as was the British government. Margaret Thatcher a right wing authoritarian was infuriated by what had happened and a huge task force was assembled to retake the islands.

Upon reaching Argentina the modern British ships and planes and better trained troops destroyed the argentinians in a short war. Soon retaking the islands after numerous battles and skirmishes ending in resounding British victories.

255 British soldiers and 649 Argentine soldiers died in the war on top of many soldiers seriously injured, the loss of ships and aircraft and a huge economic cost for both sides. The victory was received with great delight and satisfaction in the uk and more or less everyone agreed it was the right decision even those who initially opposed the mission to recapture the islands.

The question is was it justified? I think yes mainly because the citizens of the Falklands wanted to be part of Britain and it would have been weak and disloyal to have abandoned them.

Thatcher wasn't Authoritarian, but anyway... Rule Britannia
#StandWithBossy
johnsmith22
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:32:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 1/31/2018 2:17:49 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
I think it was justified, but saying that I believe the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina since they are literally of the coast of Argentina nowhere near the UK, England is what 6000 miles away??

Argentina was a Spanish colony so arguably Argentinians don't even have rights to their mainland, let alone the Islands off the coast! - it should all belong to the indigenous Indian tribes!

The wishes of the people living on the Falklands were paramount. The Argentians tried bully tactics and had their bluff called.

Due to defence cuts and other commitments It is by no means certain that the U could mount a successful defence of the Falklands now.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 5,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2018 2:33:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/2/2018 9:48:16 PM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 2/2/2018 2:10:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 2/2/2018 6:05:44 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
To those who say it wasn't worth it:
What would've happened had Britain done nothing? Wouldn't have all the world's countries be practically trampling over each other at that point to carve up all that remained of the British empire, once it became clear that they would not defend their territory?
Wouldn't the communists have just seized Hong Kong on the spot? Wouldn't the Spanish have just taken Gibraltar on the spot? Wouldn't the Argentines themselves have went on to assume complete control over British Antarctica? Wouldn't the Irish take Ulster? Wouldn't the Cubans have taken the Cayman Islands?

Swagnarok so please explain to me why nothing was done when Russia invaded Crimea and just took it over by force??

I just want to hear your explanation on it

I fail to see your point. Crimea was not a British territory, nor did Britain have any sort of strategic interest in the peninsula (to my knowledge).

Swagnarok, you said all countries would just start taking over other countries by force like Britain, so I said what about Russia, taking over Crimea, nobody stopped them. So countries can just trample over other countries?
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2018 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 2/5/2018 2:33:17 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 2/2/2018 9:48:16 PM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 2/2/2018 2:10:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 2/2/2018 6:05:44 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
To those who say it wasn't worth it:
What would've happened had Britain done nothing? Wouldn't have all the world's countries be practically trampling over each other at that point to carve up all that remained of the British empire, once it became clear that they would not defend their territory?
Wouldn't the communists have just seized Hong Kong on the spot? Wouldn't the Spanish have just taken Gibraltar on the spot? Wouldn't the Argentines themselves have went on to assume complete control over British Antarctica? Wouldn't the Irish take Ulster? Wouldn't the Cubans have taken the Cayman Islands?

Swagnarok so please explain to me why nothing was done when Russia invaded Crimea and just took it over by force??

I just want to hear your explanation on it

I fail to see your point. Crimea was not a British territory, nor did Britain have any sort of strategic interest in the peninsula (to my knowledge).

Swagnarok, you said all countries would just start taking over other countries by force like Britain, so I said what about Russia, taking over Crimea, nobody stopped them. So countries can just trample over other countries?

I was talking about Britain and its territories. I said that if Britain didn't defend the Falklands, hostile countries might've thought they could get away with gobbling Britain's other overseas territories.
Ukraine is located in Europe, uncomfortably close to the easternmost NATO countries; had Russia gone so far as to invade all of Ukraine, that might've sparked a war between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance, and by extension a war between Russia and the US. The Russians didn't want to risk that, and neither did we, so we let them get away with snatching a small part of Ukraine, and they limited themselves to that. Were Russia not a nuclear power, we might've just moved into immediately to liberate Crimea by military force. It should be noted that even as great the risks of war are, NATO still out crippling sanctions on Russia.
The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of.
-Blaise Pascal
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 5,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2018 2:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
It should be noted that even as great the risks of war are, NATO still out crippling sanctions on Russia.


We said that about North Korea, yet they are still a threat, sanctions don't work, the country being sanctioned just gets what it needs from it's allies anyways