The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about who has what kit and who's missile can sink what ship and make Britain and Argentina should make an agreement about how this huge amount of resources is going to be extracted and how both countries can benefit.
To successfully and efficiently extract a considerable amount of oil and other natural resources in this remote area, both sides need to work together and share the $4 trillion bounty that is estimated to exist.
Then maybe the Argentinian Polo ponies will still be available for our Royal Family to use when they jet over to eat steak and drink Argentinian wine!
To successfully and efficiently extract a considerable amount of oil and other natural resources in this remote area, both sides need to work together and share the $4 trillion bounty that is estimated to exist.
Then maybe the Argentinian Polo ponies will still be available for our Royal Family to use when they jet over to eat steak and drink Argentinian wine!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Skyland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed about the number of lines dropped in this post!!!
As I said some days before, we must talk as gentlemen but please do not distort the history!! Why frenchs have to take the control of the islands? The Argentinan goverment was entitled in 1810 and by that time Spain had the control over the islands, and all the territories which belongs to Spain came to Argentina, not to the previous countries.
If you want to believe that those islands are yours... cheers for you! but who used to live there? EXILES. But now the situation has changed... it seems that there is oil, and the islands are important for you? I bet my right hand that if there were no oil at all this topic will not have place.
And for those who are claiming about if Venezuela should help Argentina, just remember what Chile, France and USA did in 1982. I do not like Chavez at all, but please try to look back and analise who helped the UK in the past...Pinochet was not a saint, but Mrs Tatcher was not worried in that.
Please go and visit the islands to know of what are you talking about.
As I said some days before, we must talk as gentlemen but please do not distort the history!! Why frenchs have to take the control of the islands? The Argentinan goverment was entitled in 1810 and by that time Spain had the control over the islands, and all the territories which belongs to Spain came to Argentina, not to the previous countries.
If you want to believe that those islands are yours... cheers for you! but who used to live there? EXILES. But now the situation has changed... it seems that there is oil, and the islands are important for you? I bet my right hand that if there were no oil at all this topic will not have place.
And for those who are claiming about if Venezuela should help Argentina, just remember what Chile, France and USA did in 1982. I do not like Chavez at all, but please try to look back and analise who helped the UK in the past...Pinochet was not a saint, but Mrs Tatcher was not worried in that.
Please go and visit the islands to know of what are you talking about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I really hope this does not kick off again.
On the other hand:
1. Maybe Argentina senses weakness in the UK, in a financial sense. Could we afford and are we financially ready to repel an advance?
2. We are plainly heavily committed elsewhere unlike 1982. How ready would the UK be to open another front?
3. There may be oil reserves. The revenue from these could save Argentina (or the UK for that matter) from the big money troubles ahead.
4. Although 'Air' would be helped by the new Airbase, the RN are weakened since the last conflict. Mind you the Arg. Navy is nothing special.
5. Rightly or wrongly the Argentinians continue to assert their claim to the islands. their point of view enjoys a degree of synpathy.
I suspect if the did start again, HMG would find itself in quite a difficult position.
My own judgement, however, is that the Argentinians will do nothing.
Hope so.
On the other hand:
1. Maybe Argentina senses weakness in the UK, in a financial sense. Could we afford and are we financially ready to repel an advance?
2. We are plainly heavily committed elsewhere unlike 1982. How ready would the UK be to open another front?
3. There may be oil reserves. The revenue from these could save Argentina (or the UK for that matter) from the big money troubles ahead.
4. Although 'Air' would be helped by the new Airbase, the RN are weakened since the last conflict. Mind you the Arg. Navy is nothing special.
5. Rightly or wrongly the Argentinians continue to assert their claim to the islands. their point of view enjoys a degree of synpathy.
I suspect if the did start again, HMG would find itself in quite a difficult position.
My own judgement, however, is that the Argentinians will do nothing.
Hope so.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maddog37, we don't just believe the islands are ours - they are.
I have been to the islands and I have met and lived with many islanders. They are more British than most of those who live in UK now and none of them wish to change that status.
It is not the prospect of oil that makes us care about the islands and our people who live there - we cared so much in 1982 that many of our servicemen died kicking your invaders out.
Despite the best efforts of our politicians to weaken our armed forces I have no doubt you will get another kicking if you invade again.
I have been to the islands and I have met and lived with many islanders. They are more British than most of those who live in UK now and none of them wish to change that status.
It is not the prospect of oil that makes us care about the islands and our people who live there - we cared so much in 1982 that many of our servicemen died kicking your invaders out.
Despite the best efforts of our politicians to weaken our armed forces I have no doubt you will get another kicking if you invade again.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maddog, a number of people in this thread are likely to have visited the islands for extended periods of time, many on several occasions, and therefore they DO know what they're talking about! Granted it is likely many have not. Have you spent any real time there?
Whilst perhaps the UK government were negligent in their duty to properly support and protect the islanders prior to 1982, The UK cared enough about the islands in 1982 to take them back, before any real talk of oil or natural resources. You could argue that Argentina wouldn't be making this much fuss if there was no oil! So I think you'll find oil doesn't play the part you think it does (although I'm not saying its irrelevant!). If we didn't care, you'd still have them after your 1982 invasion. I'll send you a postal address for your right hand if you wish?
You know, all of this could easily be resolved by asking the residents of the islands what they think...! Self Determination I think they call it, and a key part of the UN charter. Would that solve the problem do you think maddog, as both our countries are signatories to the UN charter, and therefore both our countries are bound by the wishes of the residents?
Whilst perhaps the UK government were negligent in their duty to properly support and protect the islanders prior to 1982, The UK cared enough about the islands in 1982 to take them back, before any real talk of oil or natural resources. You could argue that Argentina wouldn't be making this much fuss if there was no oil! So I think you'll find oil doesn't play the part you think it does (although I'm not saying its irrelevant!). If we didn't care, you'd still have them after your 1982 invasion. I'll send you a postal address for your right hand if you wish?
You know, all of this could easily be resolved by asking the residents of the islands what they think...! Self Determination I think they call it, and a key part of the UN charter. Would that solve the problem do you think maddog, as both our countries are signatories to the UN charter, and therefore both our countries are bound by the wishes of the residents?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Camberley
Age: 58
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Escalating diplomatic row?
Re: BarbiesBoyfriend point;
See this in todays Buenos Aires Herald;
Buenos Aires Herald
Buenos Aires Herald
I suggest that they are doing something, and it's happening right now! What at first would appear to be a rather low(ish) key diplomatic affair that requires some face-to-face discussions to put to bed quickly, will quite easily escalate once they have the full backing of States in the region, including Chavez.
I agree with previous statements in this thread regarding the current economic status in Argentina and that in order to secure another term in the elctions next year that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is willing to venture into a risky game with Brown whilst garnering a lot of support for the sovereignty claims from other LA and Caribbean states. And we all know that Brown is a puppy when it comes to foreign policy, he just hasn't the guts to stand up strong against this sort of situation. And I wouldn't trust Ainsworth as far as I could throw him (see last night's abject performance on Newsnight!).
I'd also like to understand what the US may do if this situation does escalate? If Bush was still in the chair then I could see him getting his hands dirty, especially as this really is all about natural resources. Obama will go down the diplomatic route entirely (as this situation should be and not miltary action). But as they will not want to be putting themselves into direct conflict with LA states then inevitably they will expect UK to go it alone.
My own judgement, however, is that the Argentinians will do nothing.
Buenos Aires Herald
Buenos Aires Herald
I suggest that they are doing something, and it's happening right now! What at first would appear to be a rather low(ish) key diplomatic affair that requires some face-to-face discussions to put to bed quickly, will quite easily escalate once they have the full backing of States in the region, including Chavez.
I agree with previous statements in this thread regarding the current economic status in Argentina and that in order to secure another term in the elctions next year that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is willing to venture into a risky game with Brown whilst garnering a lot of support for the sovereignty claims from other LA and Caribbean states. And we all know that Brown is a puppy when it comes to foreign policy, he just hasn't the guts to stand up strong against this sort of situation. And I wouldn't trust Ainsworth as far as I could throw him (see last night's abject performance on Newsnight!).
I'd also like to understand what the US may do if this situation does escalate? If Bush was still in the chair then I could see him getting his hands dirty, especially as this really is all about natural resources. Obama will go down the diplomatic route entirely (as this situation should be and not miltary action). But as they will not want to be putting themselves into direct conflict with LA states then inevitably they will expect UK to go it alone.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maddog
I have visited the Falkland Islands many times & they are more British than parts of Britain itself. The Falklanders themselves want to remain British & want virtually nothing to do with Argentina. The UN will take consideration of the 2000+ inhabitants before several hundred miles of sea bed.
I have visited the Falkland Islands many times & they are more British than parts of Britain itself. The Falklanders themselves want to remain British & want virtually nothing to do with Argentina. The UN will take consideration of the 2000+ inhabitants before several hundred miles of sea bed.
I have spent a total of 31 months on the islands, including a 23 month accompanied tour with the family. We still have many good friends there. Stuff the oil, it is about British people who wish to remain so and are more patriotic than the Pearly King.
I would far rather we put all necessary resources into protecting them than propping up that corrupt b*stard in Kabul.
However, the islanders are predominantly white, loyal to the Crown and hard working. Everything Labour and 'Dave' hate.
Look on the bright side though, if they do find oil the Americans will invade.......
I would far rather we put all necessary resources into protecting them than propping up that corrupt b*stard in Kabul.
However, the islanders are predominantly white, loyal to the Crown and hard working. Everything Labour and 'Dave' hate.
Look on the bright side though, if they do find oil the Americans will invade.......
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISTR that the Government / MOD had NO contingency plans for what transpired in 1982 and the whole plan to retake the Falkland Islands had to be forged from essentially blank pieces of paper....
This sabre-rattling by Argentina may in fact be all very timely coming as it does just ahead of a general election and a SDR.
I only hope that this time the Government does have a contingency plan already drafted, to include both deterrence to disuade Argintina from taking military action (i.e. overt military re-inforcement) as well as plans to land troops to retake the islands if, for example, MPA was either captured by the Argies in an attack by SF or aerial mines or bombs put the runway out of action so preventing its use for re-inforcement. Even a few Argie SF with MANPADs would cause more than a few problems.....
MB
This sabre-rattling by Argentina may in fact be all very timely coming as it does just ahead of a general election and a SDR.
I only hope that this time the Government does have a contingency plan already drafted, to include both deterrence to disuade Argintina from taking military action (i.e. overt military re-inforcement) as well as plans to land troops to retake the islands if, for example, MPA was either captured by the Argies in an attack by SF or aerial mines or bombs put the runway out of action so preventing its use for re-inforcement. Even a few Argie SF with MANPADs would cause more than a few problems.....
MB
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Renaming of thread
Mods,
Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.
Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.
Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.
Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maddog,
Maybe you're right, if there was no oil, then maybe this sabre rattling wouldnt be going on.
maybe if there was no oil, Nestor would not have ripped up the agreement previously signed back in 1995 back in 2007.
Cuts both ways, chap.
I did four tours on the islands and from what I had seen of the place myself and the places where those who fought on both sides died, I sure as hell dont want to see anything kick off again. No way. But the islander's self determination is of paramount importance. And, they do not want to live under an Argentine administration. Its that simple.
Maybe you're right, if there was no oil, then maybe this sabre rattling wouldnt be going on.
maybe if there was no oil, Nestor would not have ripped up the agreement previously signed back in 1995 back in 2007.
Cuts both ways, chap.
I did four tours on the islands and from what I had seen of the place myself and the places where those who fought on both sides died, I sure as hell dont want to see anything kick off again. No way. But the islander's self determination is of paramount importance. And, they do not want to live under an Argentine administration. Its that simple.
Mods,
Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.
Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.
Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.
Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.
http://www.pprune.org/5530853-post133.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes
Thanks, I see the two offended posters now. Sheesh!
Aeronut, you're not alone there are two of you. Good work on giving yourself a round of applause for acting as the morally outraged spokesperson.
How was The Daily Mail today?
Soddim, I too have visited the islands, East and West and all stops between. You're quite correct that they are British. If your comment referring to those "with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands" was aimed at me I must rebuff those too. I know from personal cost how much it took to defend the Islands. Also, how do you say that "They are more British than most of those who live in UK..."? I've neither the time or inclination to research population rates, immigrants vs indigenous Britishers and attitudes thereof but I very much doubt it if out of the approx 60 million people dwelling in the British Isles over 59 million people do not see themselves as British.
Now, let the debate carry on and if you find the points of view so reprehensible I suggest you try here:
Mumsnet Discussions - Am I being unreasonable?
Top of the day to you!
Thanks, I see the two offended posters now. Sheesh!
Aeronut, you're not alone there are two of you. Good work on giving yourself a round of applause for acting as the morally outraged spokesperson.
How was The Daily Mail today?Soddim, I too have visited the islands, East and West and all stops between. You're quite correct that they are British. If your comment referring to those "with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands" was aimed at me I must rebuff those too. I know from personal cost how much it took to defend the Islands. Also, how do you say that "They are more British than most of those who live in UK..."? I've neither the time or inclination to research population rates, immigrants vs indigenous Britishers and attitudes thereof but I very much doubt it if out of the approx 60 million people dwelling in the British Isles over 59 million people do not see themselves as British.
Now, let the debate carry on and if you find the points of view so reprehensible I suggest you try here:
Mumsnet Discussions - Am I being unreasonable?
Top of the day to you!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba. Assuming that you are not the ex-Tomcat backseater version, I don't believe this has really got as far as sabre rattling. Once the media realise that neither side proposes to invade the other, this faff over a 'spudded' exploration well will sit uneasily in political and diplomatic circles. It will flare up in the next two weeks when Cristina K' has another attempt to get her hands on her country's banking reserves and again in about four weeks when Desire Petroleum announce the results from Liz 14 /19-A. With luck, military shipping and aircraft will go about their business while one old oil rig grinds away. However, difficulties over commercial shipping will continue and we will watch with some concern.
It is likely that Nestor K' tore up the 1995 agreement as part of the ploy to get Cristina elected later in 2007, more than a calculated bet on commercial levels of oil. Indeed, there was an alternative view that he had scapped the agreement because there was oil and he wanted some political freedom to wave the sovereignty flag to get a better deal.
For Plane Dumb, With the exception of Diego Garcia, the Permanent Joint Operations Bases are serviced using commercial aircraft for what is routine business. I might even suggest that the Air Seychelles provided 767-300 ER is probably the best aircraft available in terms of seating capacity and range to cover the HQBF requirements. As a relatively frequent flyer, I know which kind of seat I would rather use for 2x 7+ hours.
I will stick with the Chief Foreign Commentator for the Times, Bronwen Maddox, when she considered:
It is likely that Nestor K' tore up the 1995 agreement as part of the ploy to get Cristina elected later in 2007, more than a calculated bet on commercial levels of oil. Indeed, there was an alternative view that he had scapped the agreement because there was oil and he wanted some political freedom to wave the sovereignty flag to get a better deal.
For Plane Dumb, With the exception of Diego Garcia, the Permanent Joint Operations Bases are serviced using commercial aircraft for what is routine business. I might even suggest that the Air Seychelles provided 767-300 ER is probably the best aircraft available in terms of seating capacity and range to cover the HQBF requirements. As a relatively frequent flyer, I know which kind of seat I would rather use for 2x 7+ hours.
I will stick with the Chief Foreign Commentator for the Times, Bronwen Maddox, when she considered:
For once, the tone that Britain has adopted is right: firm, but low-key. The best outcome is clear too: that the drilling goes ahead, and given that the Falkland islanders do not want the infrastructure on their soil, that Argentina rapidly benefits from the industry that will spring up.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that you are not the ex-Tomcat backseater version,
My mind boggles at your above implication, D-L, but I think in a pleasant way...
Apart from that, yes, I'm quite happy to accept your analysis and would rather see the outcome you specify rather than one of escalation.
My mind boggles at your above implication, D-L, but I think in a pleasant way...
Apart from that, yes, I'm quite happy to accept your analysis and would rather see the outcome you specify rather than one of escalation.
Grabbers For what it's worth I think the Mods have a cheek renaming your thread just because it seems to have offended Aeronut's fragile sensiblities! I spoke up on your behalf before and I do so again. For what it's worth I'm 100% behind the islands remaining British, but that doesn't prevent me, or anyone else having a bit of fun with the name.
As I posted on the Persian/Arabian Gulf thread maybe we should follow the Irish solution to the Londonderry/Derry question and refer to them as the Stroke Islands (as in Stroke City).
TTN
As I posted on the Persian/Arabian Gulf thread maybe we should follow the Irish solution to the Londonderry/Derry question and refer to them as the Stroke Islands (as in Stroke City).
TTN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grabbers, yours was the offending post - if you cannot see that you have no sensitivity.
Most British people thought the Argies had a bloody cheek in 1982 and re-naming our Islands was part of that bloody cheek. So why would any true Brit want to perpetuate that new name??
Most British people thought the Argies had a bloody cheek in 1982 and re-naming our Islands was part of that bloody cheek. So why would any true Brit want to perpetuate that new name??
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim, I apologise for being insensitive. While we are on the subject of sensitivity, I note your perjorative use of the word 'Argie'. Do you use the word 'Paki' or are you only selectively racist?