More Argie-Bargie: Argentina Demands Ship Permits To Falklands

[Connaught Ranger]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100217/tuk-argentina-demands-ship-permits-to-fa-45dbed5.html


Argentina Demands Ship Permits To Falklands

42 mins ago
http://l.yimg.com/i/i/any/skylo.jpg?x=140&y=26&q=75&sig=oedxwteT6cU.4X3EUgIhKw-- (http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/skynews_logo/SIG=112tsq0io/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sky.com%2Fnews) © Sky News 2010

Buzz Up!
Print Story (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100217/tuk-argentina-demands-ship-permits-to-fa-45dbed5.html?printer=1)


A row between Britain and Argentina over oil drilling has deepened after the South American country effectively 'blockaded' shipping lanes to the Falklands. Skip related content (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100217/tuk-argentina-demands-ship-permits-to-fa-45dbed5.html#ynw-article-part2)
Related photos / videos


http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/skynews/20100217/12/3696657395-argentina-demands-ship-permits-falklands.jpg?x=310&y=231&q=75&wc=321&hc=240&xc=40&yc=1&sig=KsNJ78w2z9qTepgBnOXiDg--#310,231 Enlarge photo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100217/img/pbs-argentina-demands-ship-cf3827e7d4bb.html)


Buenos Aires says boats heading from its ports to the islands or sailing through Argentinian waters will now need a government permit.


The dispute centres on British plans to start offshore exploration drilling in the seabed near the Falklands, which is thought to contain up to 60 billion barrels of oil.


The issue had already come to a head earlier this month when Buenos Aires blocked a shipment of pipes it said was bound for the British-run islands.


The growing tension between the two nations comes nearly three decades after the 1982 conflict which lasted 74 days and cost the lives of 649 Argentinians 255 Britons.


Argentinian military rulers seized the islands, but then their troops were defeated and expelled by the British military.


Last month, Britain rejected Argentina's latest claim to the islands, which it has held and occupied since 1833.


In the latest development, Argentina is also demanding permits for ships heading to the uninhabited South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, over which the country also claims sovereignty.


The new ruling could affect the growing cruise ship industry based in the Patagonian port town of Ushuaia.


The Foreign Office is attempting to play down Argentina's latest move.


In a statement it said: "Regulations governing Argentine territorial waters are a matter for the Argentine authorities.


"This does not affect Falkland Islands territorial waters which are controlled by the island authorities."


The statement added that Argentina and Britain were "important partners" and pledged to "cooperate" on issues in the South Atlantic, where the Falklands are located.


Geologists believe the area around the Falklands could hold rich energy reserves, although drilling in the North Falkland Basin in 1998 did not lead to investment in exploitation.


Falkland Oil and Gas Ltd said this week it had agreed with Desire Petroleum Plc to contract a rig to drill the first ever well in the East Falklands Basin.


The company said it expected the drilling to start within the first half of the year.


View Larger Map

Connaught Ranger.

[JustinCreddible]

hmmm.. i like the British response; "Regulations governing Argentine territorial waters are a matter for the Argentine authorities. This does not affect Falkland Islands territorial waters which are controlled by the island authorities."

Just hope the Argies can wait until we have those two new carriers up and running, before kicking off again...

[CMNot]

The Admiralty must be dancing in the streets. In the fight to keep themselves significant, the Argentine Government gives them all the validity they could ever hope to need.

[martinexsquaddie]

argentian goverment probably want take too kindly to be on the royal navys chrimble card list:)
theres hardly any trade between the falklands and argentina anyway.
uragruay must be smiling

[happyslapper]

Argentina demands prior approval for vessels sailing to Falklands

16th Feb 2010

The Argentine government made public Tuesday a decree that requires prior approval for ships sailing between Argentina and the Falkland Islands. The approval will be needed for vessels travelling “or carrying goods directly or indirectly” between the mainland and the Islands, announced cabinet chief Anibal Fernandez during a press conference at Government House.

“We must make take these decisions in the defence of Argentina’s interests” that include sovereignty and natural resources, said Fernández. He added that Britain contrary to repeated United Nations reiterated declarations has “insisted in unilateral actions” ignoring the non innovation principle while the dispute is on.

The announcement comes amid escalating tensions with the United Kingdom as several oil companies prepare to drill exploratory wells to the north and south of the Falklands based on licences awarded by the Falklands elected government.

Last week the Argentine government detained a British flag cargo vessel which was loading seamless pipes, allegedly for Egypt, since the vessel had called on the Falklands/Malvinas with no Argentine government authorization.

The decree signed by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner states that “all vessels trying to transit between Argentine continental ports and Islands’ ports, or cross Argentine maritime spaces heading to a port in the Islands must request prior authorization from the Argentine government”.

To enforce the decree the cabinet chief office will create “a commission made up with representatives from the Ministries of Planning, Justice, Economy and Foreign Affairs, that will coordinate actions to implement the decree”.

The cabinet chief said that faced with the exploration for hydrocarbons in the Falklands/Malvinas maritime spaces, the Argentine government “has insisted in all world forums about the need to adjust to multilateralism and UN resolutions”.

“The UK has repeatedly confirmed its negative to abide by UN General Assembly resolutions which recognizes the existence of a sovereignty matter which demands negotiations. The UK has ignored the resolution not to innovate, which has been evidenced in the successive episodes of natural resources exploration”, added Fernandez.

Although the purpose of the latest decree as had been anticipated by Argentine authorities is clearly geared to discourage oil companies from exploring in Falklands waters by limiting the logistics and creating a sense of “lack of legal security”, it is consistent with the Kirchners policy towards the Falkland Islands dispute.
There are no direct maritime links between the Falklands and Argentina but foreign flagged fishing vessels did operate on both sides until Buenos Aires passed legislation, which forced fishing companies to opt, with severe sanctions for those companies that “directly or indirectly” retained business operations in the Islands.
The current decree based on the same spirit could also potentially have a great impact on the cruise business since most South Atlantic itineraries include Argentine ports, mainly Ushuaia, gateway to Antarctica and the Falklands.

If the decree is fully applied and the “special committee” turns out to be “lazy” or “particularly distracted” in extending authorizations for cruise vessels to navigate in the South Atlantic and call in the Falklands, the consequences could be serious for the whole industry.

On the other hand., when Argentina is attempting to return to voluntary money markets, and must reach an agreement with pending bond holders and the Club of Paris, (a multilateral government-to-government financial organization that helps bail out developing countries with soft loans), the political move is not particularly attractive, even when the nationalistic chord of a weak government will have a big echo domestically.

-----------------------------------------------------

UK stern reply to Argentine intention of controlling Falklands’ sea trade

17th Feb 2010

The Argentine government’s announcement on Tuesday that all cargo navigating between Argentina and Falklands/Malvinas Islands “will require previous authorization” received a quick and energetic response from the British government through its embassy in Buenos Aires.

Argentina is strongly protesting (and taking actions against) the oil exploratory drilling season scheduled to begin next week in the Falklands’ maritime spaces over which Argentina claims sovereignty.

“The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and surrounding maritime territories and it knows very well that the exploration of hydrocarbons is a completely legitimate project” said the British embassy spokesperson and press official, Andrés Federman.

Earlier in the afternoon cabinet chief Anibal Fernandez had announced the decree signed by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner which limits maritime transit to the Falklands since all vessels which call at Argentine ports and/or navigate Argentine waters en route to the Islands will require prior authorization from the Argentine government.

Further on British embassy spokesperson Federman pointed out that the initiative has to do with “how Argentina applies its laws within its own territories”, the same way “that the Falklands elected authorities applies laws in their own jurisdiction, it’s something that only relates to the government of the Islands”.

The quick and stern British reply surprised Argentine authorities since normally embassy officials consult with London before responding to statements or actions referred to the Falklands.

However since Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s New Year message to the Falklands, when he ratified “no doubts about British sovereignty over the Islands” based on the right to self-determination and again expressed full political and technical support for the legitimate oil exploration in the Islands, the Foreign Office has been more immediate and to the point in its replies.

-----------------------------------------------------

Mrs. Kirchner calls UN to force UK to Falklands’ sovereignty negotiations

17th Feb 2010

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner defended her decision to place stronger controls on navigation and shipping within the Falklands called on the United Nations to force the United Kingdom to come through on negotiations over the sovereignty of that territory.

During a rally held in the Buenos Aires neighbourhood of Merlo, the president said that the United Kingdom has “systematically misunderstood” the UN resolutions and that “they have rejected the idea of sitting down” for negotiation.

Mrs. Kirchner promised she will insist “one thousand and one times for the international rights” to be respected, adding that “I am telling all Argentines that we will keep working for our rights in Malvinas”.
This way the Argentine president supported her decision to impede ships from any nationality to operate within the ports in the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Island and the continent, without previous Buenos Aires authorization.

The Argentine official strategy consists of impeding the exploitation of possible hydrocarbon resources within the Falklands, particularly on the eve of an exploratory drilling round scheduled to being next week with the arrival of a rig.

[seraosha]

Your "wall of text" is unreadable.
I'll assume that English is your native tongue, perhaps using the recent invention of paragraphs might make it easier to read?

[Lov3ll]

Whats the opinions of the Argies on this board? agree with her or think it's just a bad attempt to divert attention away from something shes done or?

[Old_Boy_Steve]

Still amazes me that the Argie ringpieces are still able to spew such **** after being so roundly ****ed by HM Forces.

[Britishhawk]

Argh how exciting, give it about 5 years.. We can send 2 world class Aircraft Carriers, 6 Type 45 destroyers, 4 Astute-Class Submarines. The Argies would be NUTS to even consider it.

[happyslapper]

thanks for another stunning contribution seraosha, you're a real asset.




Argh how exciting, give it about 5 years.. We can send 2 world class Aircraft Carriers, 6 Type 45 destroyers, 4 Astute-Class Submarines. The Argies would be NUTS to even consider it.



They'd get more than enough of a kicking, even with today's locally based forces.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2ZE5rQNLXlM

[Connaught Ranger]

Your "wall of text" is unreadable.
I'll assume that English is your native tongue, perhaps using the recent invention of paragraphs might make it easier to read?

We native English speakers, will assume your comment with regards "wall of text" is an attempt at sarcasm. :roll:

[rgjbloke]

I don't for one second believe that the Argentines would ever consider a military option again. It seem's to me that they are now scratching about looking for political/legal footholds to try and have another bite at the cherry. Undoubtly in at least some quarters of Argentina, any noise made about the "Malvina's" will receive good press and as we all know, punting a popular cause about amongst the voters can be a handy thing to do. That's what the last lot did back in 1982. Then of course, now we are on the verge of finding significant oil etc, here they come again. I think there's a clear message from anybody I talk to here in Britain though. Firstly we are keeping the Falkland Islands and secondly, we are going to have the oil as well.

[Atlantic Friend]

Argentina demands prior approval for vessels sailing to Falklands

The word "preposterous" comes to mind. Granting Argentina that right would mean granting it some sort of super-sovereignty over the island. Unless it's nothing more than a need to look tough on the internal political scene of Buenos Aires.


Mrs. Kirchner calls UN to force UK to Falklands’ sovereignty negotiations[/SIZE][/B]

That's not going to happen.

[mdlmrk]

Argh how exciting, give it about 5 years.. We can send 2 world class Aircraft Carriers, 6 Type 45 destroyers, 4 Astute-Class Submarines. The Argies would be NUTS to even consider it.

lets hope they wait that long,cannot see this American Goverment offering to lend us one of there carrier battle groups like Reagans administration did...

[happyslapper]

The word "preposterous" comes to mind. Granting Argentina that right would mean granting it some sort of super-sovereignty over the island. Unless it's nothing more than a need to look tough on the internal political scene of Buenos Aires.



That's not going to happen.

The funny thing is that at the UN, Argentina's main attack on the UK is that we act unilaterally.
So ask yourself, now that they're tearing up agreements which took years of effort to create, and a great deal of compromise on the part of the UK and FI... who's acting unilaterally?!

I know exactly what will happen in the UN; the same thing as always happens:

Taiana, or maybe CFK herself, will stand up in the main chamber, then whittle on about how Argentina has an 'inalienable right', and how the UK are the big bad bullies etc.. All whilst the members groan in boredom and set about discussing more interesting things with eachother.
Then there'll be a statment later, with the predictable composition.... there will be half-hearted support from Argentina's neighbours, vigorous yet irrational agreement from Britain's enemies... and the rest will simply restate Chapter 1, Article 1 of the United Nations Charter:


To maintain international peace (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Peace) and security (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Security), to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Civil_rights) and self-determination (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Self-determination) of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
For what it's worth though, I do believe it is apporopriate to send down a couple of Nimrods to Mount Pleasant. Not as any threat to Argentina, but simply because Ocean Guardian is a tempting target for that band of super-Malvinist nutters who consider themselves to be on some kind of jihad against Britain. There have been plenty of rumours about them trying to get hold of a ship or fishing boat of some kind to do a Greenpeace-meets-Al Queda style attack on the rig. It's perfectly reasonable to increase the level of maritime surveillance in Falklands' waters.

[happyslapper]

lets hope they wait that long,cannot see this American Goverment offering to lend us one of there carrier battle groups like Reagans administration did...

That was Casper Weinberger, not the US Gov't. I think he was being rhetorical in support.

[armored_diplomacy]

Whats the opinions of the Argies on this board? agree with her or think it's just a bad attempt to divert attention away from something shes done or?

As I posted in other similar threads covering these news, Argentine main media (newspapers and TV newsreels) treated it in an extensive but not dramatic way (and I´m probably exaggerating with the word "extense"). To be honest, it was a little bit more than a headline. THe fact that she announced it on TV shouldn´t surprise anyone: for some reason she believes she has a great oratory, and since she owns and uses public TV as a private asset we have she on TV every day, giving the most incredible speeches)

As a matter of fact, most of the reader´s comments in online newspaper´s forum gave a negative support to this. It seems to be nothing but another (failed) attempt to divert public opinion from real issues. My personal: it´s BS !. This will benefit nobody elses but Uruguay, Chile, the islanders and the British military. Again, we´ll en up giving a poor image of us.

In spite of all Mrs. Kirchners efforts and paid polls, the true is that she´s one of the most unpopular presidents in the world, detested by most of the people in Argentina (her party lost elections in most of the main cities, including the capital. She even lost in a metropolitan area in the province of Buenos Aires, where poverty is outrageous but widely exploited by corrupt leaders, mostly associated with her party). Now she´s going through a "patriotic" time ...

Military action (from Argentina at least) is simply out of the question.



- Now I have a complaint: Unless I´m wrong, I find the title of this thread a little bit offensive. Just because our president is doing (her weekly) nonsense, that doesn´t allow anyone to use derogatory terms against my country.

[Asdrubal el Bello]

1982

110239110236


2010
110237110238


rofl

[Ghelp]

Whatsup with the title? It's not even on the articles link.

[happyslapper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8519334.stm

BBC Video

[Geezah]

- Now I have a complaint: Unless I´m wrong, I find the title of this thread a little bit offensive. Just because our president is doing (her weekly) nonsense, that doesn´t allow anyone to use derogatory terms against my country.

I don't feel that the title is offensive at all.

Granted, I'm an Ex-PAt, but I remember the last time the Argies kicked it off(not saying it will go that farthis time), like it was only yesterday. I went up to Wales to stay with my Grandmother for a couple of weeks thinking my old man(who was not in the Services) was going to be drafted to go and fight in the Falklands. Little daft on my part, but it's the little things you remember like the radio stations not being able to play Don't Cry for me Argentina.
My Great Uncle did fight over there though.

[Eoin666]

lets hope they wait that long,cannot see this American Goverment offering to lend us one of there carrier battle groups like Reagans administration did...

Why all the worrying about getting the carriers in service, there's already an unsinkable one the size of Wales stationed in the South Altlantic

[happyslapper]

Yes but we'd have to hope Argentina attacks on a sunny day. The RAF don't fight if it's raining.

[armored_diplomacy]

I don't feel that the title is offensive at all.

Granted, I'm an Ex-PAt, but I remember the last time the Argies kicked it off(not saying it will go that farthis time), like it was only yesterday. I went up to Wales to stay with my Grandmother for a couple of weeks thinking my old man(who was not in the Services) was going to be drafted to go and fight in the Falklands. Little daft on my part, but it's the little things you remember like the radio stations not being able to play Don't Cry for me Argentina.
My Great Uncle did fight over there though.

Sounds fine ;-)
(I can´t argue with that avatar !)

[Eoin666]

Yes but we'd have to hope Argentina attacks on a sunny day. The RAF don't fight if it's raining.

hardy ha.....lets hope the treasury are watching or being forced to watch, before they disband the RAF and halve the Navy, that not all potential future points of conflict will be Mid East guerrilla wars

[happyslapper]

By the way (going back to the original topic :) ) the drilling starts next week, and a Desire Petroleum spokesman has said that their operations are unaffected by all the tomfoolery. :grin:

http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=news&articleid=7754473&action=article

...and amen to that Eoin.

[Lazy Lob]

hardy ha.....lets hope the treasury are watching or being forced to watch, before they disband the RAF and halve the Navy, that not all potential future points of conflict will be Mid East guerrilla wars

...............x2

[Ssandro]

Can the Argentines even afford a working army or sea worthy fleet today? Argentina is an extremely poor country. Nominal Argentinian GDP is $7,508 per capita - and nominal, not PPP valued, GDP is relevant here, since the armies of lesser countries have to buy entirely foreign equipment (in $ currency). And unlike Iran or Ba'athist Iraq, the government doesn't have huge oil funds to spend.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Can the Argentines even afford a working army or sea worthy fleet today? Argentina is an extremely poor country. Nominal Argentinian GDP is $7,508 per capita - and nominal, not PPP valued, GDP is relevant here, since the armies of lesser countries have to buy entirely foreign equipment (in $ currency). And unlike Iran or Ba'athist Iraq, the government doesn't have huge oil funds to spend.

Where do you get your information from?

After Chile Argentina is the richest and most developed nation in Aouth America and has a GDP of over 500 billion USD and is according to the OECD the 31st richest nation. Whilst it has it's problems you could consider it as being on par with the smaller nations of the EU/Europe.

[Connaught Ranger]

As I posted in other similar threads covering these news, Argentine main media (newspapers and TV newsreels) treated it in an extensive but not dramatic way (and I´m probably exaggerating with the word "extense"). To be honest, it was a little bit more than a headline. THe fact that she announced it on TV shouldn´t surprise anyone: for some reason she believes she has a great oratory, and since she owns and uses public TV as a private asset we have she on TV every day, giving the most incredible speeches)

As a matter of fact, most of the reader´s comments in online newspaper´s forum gave a negative support to this. It seems to be nothing but another (failed) attempt to divert public opinion from real issues. My personal: it´s BS !. This will benefit nobody elses but Uruguay, Chile, the islanders and the British military. Again, we´ll en up giving a poor image of us.

In spite of all Mrs. Kirchners efforts and paid polls, the true is that she´s one of the most unpopular presidents in the world, detested by most of the people in Argentina (her party lost elections in most of the main cities, including the capital. She even lost in a metropolitan area in the province of Buenos Aires, where poverty is outrageous but widely exploited by corrupt leaders, mostly associated with her party). Now she´s going through a "patriotic" time ...

Military action (from Argentina at least) is simply out of the question.



- Now I have a complaint: Unless I´m wrong, I find the title of this thread a little bit offensive. Just because our president is doing (her weekly) nonsense, that doesn´t allow anyone to use derogatory terms against my country.

Derogatory???? look it up in the dictionary kid before making meowing cat like noises.

[armored_diplomacy]

Derogatory???? look it up in the dictionary kid before making meowing cat like noises.

- Wathever :roll:
- You didn´t read the "unless I´m wrong" part. Take your crayons and colour that to :lol:
- Another member already explained its meaning, in a polite way that you obviously can´t emulate nor understand

[FREE-FRENCH]

Still amazes me that the Argie ringpieces are still able to spew such **** after being so roundly ****ed by HM Forces.

X2 Some people will never understand !

[Atlantic Friend]

The funny thing is that at the UN, Argentina's main attack on the UK is that we act unilaterally.
So ask yourself, now that they're tearing up agreements which took years of effort to create, and a great deal of compromise on the part of the UK and FI... who's acting unilaterally?!

Buenos Aires, clearly. What they're demanding is recognition that the Falklands is theirs, they just changed the wording. "Prior autorization for ships", that's rather ridiculous.




I know exactly what will happen in the UN; the same thing as always happens:

I concur. There'll be some vague "yes, this Falklands situation really is complex", "the dignity of Argentina is of course non-negotiable", "the sovereign rights of Great Britain are naturally unalterable", "oh how much we hope some permanent solution could be reached"...


For what it's worth though, I do believe it is apporopriate to send down a couple of Nimrods to Mount Pleasant. Not as any threat to Argentina, but simply because Ocean Guardian is a tempting target for that band of super-Malvinist nutters who consider themselves to be on some kind of jihad against Britain. There have been plenty of rumours about them trying to get hold of a ship or fishing boat of some kind to do a Greenpeace-meets-Al Queda style attack on the rig. It's perfectly reasonable to increase the level of maritime surveillance in Falklands' waters.

Totally appropriate. These Nimrods will contribute to the safety of all commercial shipping/fishing in the area, including Argentina's, after all. And perhaps some light surface ship could be dispatched as well to help police fisheries (always a big concern, look at those French and Aussie ships who have to patrol the Antarctic Ocean to go after illegal fishing trawlers), or possibly stand ready to rush to the help of any ship in distress (the South Atlantic can be dangerous after all).

[Connaught Ranger]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100218/tts-uk-falklands-drill-ca02f96.html


Argentina's permits won't affect Falklands oil drill.

4 hours 2 mins ago
http://l.yimg.com/i/i/uk/ne/reute.jpg (http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/*******online/SIG=114rh0n4s/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.*******.co.uk%2F) Rosalba O'Brien and Jonathan Saul

Buzz Up!
Print Story (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100218/tts-uk-falklands-drill-ca02f96.html?printer=1)


An oil drilling project in the Falkland Islands will go ahead as planned despite a move by Argentina aimed at restricting access in the area, analysts and an exploration company said on Wednesday.


Argentina, which claims sovereignty over the British-ruled islands, said on Tuesday that boats sailing from its ports to the Falklands would need a government permit, deepening a long-running row over exploration in the disputed archipelago.

Desire Petroleum, the British oil explorer which is due to begin drilling in the islands shortly, said the move would not affect its drilling programme.

"This whole situation has unfortunately been anticipated for months," a Desire spokesman said. "Desire's logistics are unaffected."

Arbuthnot analyst Dougie Youngson said the company should be able to work around the restrictions.
"Logistically it makes life a bit more complicated but it's manageable," Youngson said.

Argentina protested to Britain earlier this month over plans to begin offshore exploration drilling near the remote Falklands, which are called the Islas Malvinas in Spanish. The nations fought a short war over the islands in 1982.

"It's all sabre rattling," Youngson said. "They want to exert a bit of muscle but I don't think it will come to anything."

John Dalby, chief executive of maritime security company MRM, which provides risk assessments to shipping companies, said drilling companies could bypass Argentina and pick up bunker fuel and other resources at ports in Brazil.

"If a company wants to establish a platform out there serious consideration should be given to chartering a relatively small tanker loaded with fuel oil and marine diesel and ship-to-ship transfers could then be conducted, weather permitting, en route," he said.

FRONTIER EXPLORATION

Britain's Tristan da Cunha islands, which are quite close to the Falklands, could also be used as a logistics hub, he said.

J. Peter Pham, an adviser on strategic matters to U.S. and foreign governments, said Argentina's move could create "momentary disruptions" for companies, but added they would divert their shipping needs elsewhere.

"Ultimately it may determine where these energy supplies will be shipped through and that will be in Argentina's long term disadvantage," he said.

The drill is likely to become a more significant issue should oil actually be discovered, analysts said.
Arbuthnot's Youngson said earlier this week in a note on Borders & Southern, which also has interests in the area but has not yet contracted a rig, that this was "frontier exploration" with a 20 percent or less chance of success.

Desire has contracted the 'Ocean Guardian' rig, which is due to arrive by the end of the week and would be the first to drill in the South Atlantic islands since 1998.

Desire's shares pared earlier losses of over 3 percent and were up 0.46 percent at 4:42 p.m., while Borders & Southern was down 3.62 percent.

Two other explorers with Falklands drilling campaigns planned were also down - Falkland Oil & Gas fell 3.49 percent, while Rockhopper Exploration slid 0.39 percent.

(Additional reporting by Sarah Young, Editing by Paul Hoskins and Sharon Lindores)Connaught Ranger

[Connaught Ranger]

- Wathever :roll:
- You didn´t read the "unless I´m wrong" part. Take your crayons and colour that to :lol:
- Another member already explained its meaning, in a polite way that you obviously can´t emulate nor understand

Gee . . . . and after all the effort of picking a nice blue colour to represent Argentinia.

Sorry but I do not do "polite" on Thursdays with an "A" in the name of the month. :lol:

[varius]

Whats the opinions of the Argies on this board? agree with her or think it's just a bad attempt to divert attention away from something shes done or?

My humble opinion as Argentinean, regardless of my opinion toward the Malvinas/Falkland issue:


I think is more of a show off, as you mention to divert the attention away. There are bigger issues going on locally.
To even start speculating on the fact of possible military action by Argentina is to have no idea of the current political situation or state of the Argentina armed forces.
This will have no positive effect on the Argentina Navy.

Hope it help I didn’t expect to see such a reaction for such a news that locality is not very material.

[Eoin666]

These Nimrods will contribute to the safety of all commercial shipping/fishing in the area, including Argentina's, after all. And perhaps some light surface ship could be dispatched as well to help police fisheries (always a big concern, look at those French and Aussie ships who have to patrol the Antarctic Ocean to go after illegal fishing trawlers), or possibly stand ready to rush to the help of any ship in distress (the South Atlantic can be dangerous after all).

The MR2s are virtually out of service (MR2 aircraft will be withdrawn on 31 March 2010, a year earlier than planned, for financial reasons) the MRA4s aren't in service yet, and the few that have been ordered might yet be cancelled.....we'll take 21, make that 18, did I say 18 I meant 16, in fact definitely 12, err 9 then.

Maybe we can beg the aircraft restorers to give us the single Vulcan back

[Atlantic Friend]

The MR2s are virtually out of service (MR2 aircraft will be withdrawn on 31 March 2010, a year earlier than planned, for financial reasons) the MRA4s aren't in service yet, and the few that have been ordered might yet be cancelled.....we'll take 21, make that 18, did I say 18 I meant 16, in fact definitely 12, err 9 then.

Maybe we can beg the aircraft restorers to give us the single Vulcan back


What will you use as long-range patrol aircraft then?

[happyslapper]

Falklands are fully protected, insists Gordon Brown

By Matt ****inson, Press Association

Thursday, 18 February 2010




Britain has made all the preparations necessary to ensure Falkland Islanders are protected, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said today amid Argentinian efforts to control shipping in the region.

The Argentinian government has issued a decree that tightens control over shipping in the area ahead of British efforts to start oil and gas exploration off the islands' waters.

According to The Sun newspaper, a new British naval task force comprising two ships and an oil supply tanker has been sent to the South Atlantic isles.

But the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was "maintaining" British force levels in and around the Falkland Islands and Mr Brown said he did not expect to need to send a task force to the area.

Speaking on a phone-in with Real Radio in the North East, he said: "I think you will find we have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected.

"...This is oil drilling that is exploration for the future. It is perfectly within our rights to do this."

He added that he believed the Argentinian government understood this and "sensible discussions" would prevail.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague suggested that an increased naval presence in the area might be necessary.

He said: "The islanders have every right to develop the natural resources of their islands and surrounding waters.

"It should be made very clear that the wholly legitimate search for oil in the Falklands waters will not be affected by unwarranted threats or interference from Argentina.

"Additionally, the British Government should state clearly that no vessel operating within the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands will require any form of permit from any other country.

"Increased British naval presence in the area would leave no doubt as to this position."

The MoD said the UK's existing "deterrence" in the Falklands was not being increased and UK force levels were being maintained.

A spokesman said: "The Government is fully committed to the South Atlantic Overseas Territories, which include the Falkland Islands.

"A deterrence force is maintained on the islands. That deterrence force comprises a wide range of land, air and maritime assets which collectively maintain our defence posture.

"We have a permanent presence in the South Atlantic, including one frigate/destroyer, a patrol vessel, a survey ship and a replenishment vessel.

"We also have 1,076 service personnel on land."

Argentina's president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner issued a decree covering all ships that enter its waters, which Buenos Aires regards as those covering the entire South Atlantic continental shelf.

The Foreign Office shrugged off the demand yesterday, insisting that the seas around the Falklands were controlled by island authorities and would not be affected by the decree.

But it is understood to be watching the situation closely.

As the issue escalated, Sir Nicholas Winterton, chairman of the all-party Falklands group, said he would seek a meeting with senior officials at the Foreign Office when Parliament returns from recess next week.

He dismissed Ms Fernandez's decree as "pathetic and useless" as Argentina has no jurisdiction over the seas around the Falklands.

And he stressed that both the Government and Conservative opposition remain committed to British sovereignty over the islands and the principle of self-determination for their inhabitants.

"The Argentinians are again indulging in hostile behaviour - albeit at this stage only in words - against a friendly neighbour, the Falklands," said Sir Nicholas.

"I believe they are doing so for internal purposes and that it will not affect the Falkland Islands at all.

"All they are trying to do is impede the economic progress of the Falkland Islands because, of course, the encouragement of hydrocarbon exploration in the area is an important part of achieving a sustainable future for the islands.

"I don't think one wants to exacerbate what is already a difficult situation, but clearly it is important that the Foreign Office indicates that they believe that this decree has no jurisdiction over international waters."

The Foreign Office said Britain was ready to co-operate with Argentina on South Atlantic issues and was working to develop relations between the two countries.

"Argentina and the UK are important partners," said the Foreign Office spokesman.

"We have a close and productive relationship on a range of bilateral and multilateral issues, including the global economic situation (particularly in the G20), human rights, climate change, sustainable development and counter-proliferation.

"And we want, and have offered, to co-operate on South Atlantic issues. We will work to develop this relationship further."

Despite being ejected from the islands, which they know as the Malvinas, after a two-month occupation and war in 1982, Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over the Falklands.

The dispute over the territory has flared up recently because of interest in possible oil reserves.

Several British companies are poised to begin exploration using an offshore rig, while Desire Petroleum has licensed six areas where it predicts 3.5 billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be recovered.

[happyslapper]

Falkland Islands: First it was sovereignty, now it's oil

</EM>
Ministry of Defence steps up surveillance of Argentinian navy as tensions escalate over black gold
By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent

Thursday, 18 February 2010

The British military and the Foreign Office are stepping up surveillance of Argentinian naval action following the threat from Buenos Aires to blockade the Falkland Islands.

The imminent arrival of a British company’s oil rig in the area is an immediate source of friction between the two countries, which has reignited 28 years after the war with the discovery of rich petroleum and gas reserves around the islands.
The Argentinian government has declared that it was taking control of all shipping between its coastline and the disputed islands it calls Islas Malvinas and the adjoining South Georgia, a claim promptly rejected by the UK.

Buenos Aires has demanded that the Falklands should suspend oil exploration on the seabed, which is estimated to contain 60 billion barrels of oil
– indicating that it has reserves on the scale of the North Sea. Last week Argentina detained a supply ship, the Thor Leader, which was transporting pipes to the islands from an Argentinian port.
The oil rig, the Ocean Guardian, is said to have been “buzzed” by Argentinian warplanes on its way to the South Atlantic, although other reports say that it may have been coastguard aircraft which was involved. Anibal Fernandez, the chef de cabinet in Buenos Aireas, said: “Any boat that wants to travel between ports on the Argentinian mainland to the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands? must first ask for permission from the Argentinian government.”

Following the 1982 war, an “economic zone” of 200 nautical miles was established around the Falklands. British military and diplomatic sources have stated that any attempt by the Argentinians to stop the rig in these waters would be in breach of international law.
They also pointed out that the Ocean Guardian was registered in the US and the detention of its crew would make Buenos Aires answerable for its action to Washington as well as Britain.
The British military maintains a force of 1,076 soldiers, and a small number of warplanes on the Falklands and there is a flotilla of ships offshore including, at present, the Type 42 frigate HMS York. The aircraft are on 15 minutes’ notice to fly.
A defence source said yesterday: “The Thor Leader was stopped at an Argentinian port. The rig will be sailing in international waters and any attempt to interfere with it would be in breach of international law and we have the forces available and ready in the region to address that problem if that is what the Government wants us to do.”
Earlier this week Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the head of the Royal Air Force, drew attention to the situation in the South Atlantic in a speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) referred to “ the increasingly tense situation around the Falkland Islands” to stress the need for maintaining air superiority.

The Parliamentary all-party group on the Falklands yesterday called for Argentina’s ambassador in London to be censured over the actions of his government. The secretary of the group, the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, said: “Any attempt by Argentina to claim any sort of rights of sovereignty over the region is something we should take very seriously. I don’t think we should appease Buenos Aires – we found out last time what happens when we do that.”

Another member of the group, his fellow Tory MP Sir Nicholas Winterton, said: “They are trying to impede the economic progress of the Falkland Islands, because of course the encouragement of hydrocarbon exploration in the area is am important part of achieving a sustainable future for the islands.”

It is widely accepted the that Argentinian military does not have the capabilities to carry out another invasion of the islands, which are, in any case, far better defended now than they were three decades ago.

However, harassment of supply ships and the refusal to let them use Argentinian ports for supplies would significantly add to the cost for oil companies and, some analysts believe, this could be a tool to force the UK and the Falkland Islands to come to a deal with Buenos Aires.
There is also apprehension among some in Argentina that the situation may lead to the rejuvenation of the extreme right-wing in the country, which had been dormant since the fall of the military dictatorship.
Frederico Thomsen, a political analyst in Buenos Aires, said: “For centuries the Falklands were about some sheep, penguins and fish – and even so, we had a war. Should someone find ‘black gold’, things will get uncomfortable and nationalists will be stirred.”

[happyslapper]

And my favourite article so far, right from the horses mouth....

Stuart Wallace: We watch Argentina's behaviour with bemusement

</EM>
This is a bizarre move by a government keen to divert attention from its domestic woes

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Life in the Falklands has always had its challenges: a pretty robust climate, limited resources, geographical isolation, the threat from Argentina and a tiny population all combine to make it not the easiest place in which to live. But for all that, I don't think we have made such a bad job of things.

Political tensions with Argentina have been the backdrop to the lives of all of us in the Falklands over the years. In 1982, of course, political aggression turned to military aggression and we were invaded. After our liberation there were some years of relative calm, even what might be regarded as normality in other circumstances.

Unfortunately, particularly since the emergence of the Kirchner governments, things have deteriorated. For some time now Argentina has adopted policies that are designed to damage or hinder the development of our economy and advance their own ambitions. They do this by interrupting the growth of our air links with Chile, and by targeting their fisheries policies in ways designed to damage this mainstay of our revenues.
They act with irresponsibility over what are called "straddling fish stocks" – fish which are in both the Argentine and Falklands waters and which the Falklands have managed in a sensible and sustainable way. Argentina refuses even to share its data, let alone arrive at a co-operative way of ensuring their sustainability. They object when we contribute to international gatherings on global issues such as the sustainability of fisheries.

This latest "decree" of the Argentine government heightens the tensions between us. I suppose that what they do in their territorial waters is a matter for them, but it may have some unwelcome effect on our economy. It seems like a bizarre move by a government increasingly desperate to divert attention from its domestic woes.

The response from the British government was immediate. We are well defended, and although it would be nice if the Argentine government behaved differently, we are accustomed to this running interference and will do what we can to mitigate any adverse effects of this latest move. Our oil exploration programme will continue.

I don't think people here are unduly concerned. We do discuss what the Argentines are up to, and we take what action we can, but I think the most common reaction is one of bemusement that our neighbours seem to be caught in some sort of time warp, dissipating what little reputation they have for seriousness left by adopting polices guaranteed to alienate people – Falkland Islanders and others in the international community – even further. All while their own economy implodes. But it is summer here, and I'm going fishing at the weekend with my granddaughter. So sod the Argentines.

The writer has lived in the Falklands for more than 50 years and is the managing director of Fortuna, the largest fishing company in the islands

:lol:

[CMNot]

If Brown says the situation is in hand, then likely there will never be a better time for the Argies to invade.

And lol at that last line.

[Niall]

Crikey is it really going to kick off again? Seems very unlikely but you never know..

[martinexsquaddie]

the 4 tiffies down there can loft enough radar guided air to air missiles between them to destroy argentinas entire fast jet inventory in one sortie without even having to engage in dog fighting .
might be worth investing in the MR4 stragetic bomber :) hang some storm shadows on a nimrod and you have the only "bomber" in the world that can head towards argentina while the crew enjoy bacon butties cooked i nthe galley:)

it was a stupid move in 1982 it would be sucide in 2010 we have tube lauched cruise missiles Mrs kircher and WE DO KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE :)

[martinexsquaddie]

yes but its cold and wet here:)
Any attempt by the argentine army to enforce there claim to east sussex will be foiled by Brighton and hove councils road management plan.:)
due to there traffic calming measues its quicker to walk no Amtrack will be leaving the beach anytime soon :) though I have a friend who sells mate in his health food shop may have to have him arrested in the intrest of national secuirty:)

[armored_diplomacy]

Gee . . . . and after all the effort of picking a nice blue colour to represent Argentinia.

Sorry but I do not do "polite" on Thursdays with an "A" in the name of the month. :lol:

We all are entitled to that
:hug:

[happyslapper]

might be worth investing in the MR4 stragetic bomber :) hang some storm shadows on a nimrod and you have the only "bomber" in the world that can head towards argentina while the crew enjoy bacon butties cooked i nthe galley:)


MRA4 already has Storm Shadow integration. :-)
Kiss goodbye to Puerto Belgrano if the legislation turned into an actual blockade (which is an act of war).

Wasn't Gen. Dannet so wise when he said that future conflicts would happen in deserts of the Middle East and Asia, how we have no need for capital ships or 'prestige' items such as maritime patrol aircraft and fighters...
oh wait... whaaaaa?

But back to reality for a second; Ocean Guardian is about to pass into Falklands' waters. If the Argentines continue their harassment into this zone, then that changes matters considerably. My guess is they will not.

[Ssandro]

Originally Posted by Ssandro http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4768146#post4768146)
Can the Argentines even afford a working army or sea worthy fleet today? Argentina is an extremely poor country. Nominal Argentinian GDP is $7,508 per capita - and nominal, not PPP valued, GDP is relevant here, since the armies of lesser countries have to buy entirely foreign equipment (in $ currency). And unlike Iran or Ba'athist Iraq, the government doesn't have huge oil funds to spend.


Where do you get your information from?

After Chile Argentina is the richest and most developed nation in Aouth America and has a GDP of over 500 billion USD and is according to the OECD the 31st richest nation. Whilst it has it's problems you could consider it as being on par with the smaller nations of the EU/Europe.

In per capita terms, Argentina is a very poor country. Its nominal per capita GDP is even poorer than Russia, and much poorer than the Eastern-European countries (except Romania, which is only slightly richer than Argentina).
The average Argentinean nominally earns half what even the average Estonian earns (not exactly a rich country).

Nominal Argentinian GDP is $7,508 per capita (nominal is what matters for military and imports of any kind). To put it into context, Americans earn $47,440 per capita.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=10&pr.y=18

Unlike Russia or Iran (i.e. poor countries which can maintain high military expenditure), a country like argentina doesn't have access to oil-rents. The government would have to get its military $ from taxing impoverished citizens.

[martinexsquaddie]

the nimrod as a strategic bomber is pushing it even the professionals on pprune had there tougue firmly in cheek when they came up with this idea:)
we could always borrow the last vulcan get it to mpa load up with jdams and get the 4 tiffies to escort it in :)
black buck two the emprie strikes back again

[Breerman]

So where is Hugo Chavez in all this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece

[armored_diplomacy]

In per capita terms, Argentina is a very poor country.

Unlike Russia or Iran (i.e. poor countries which can maintain high military expenditure), a country like argentina doesn't have access to oil-rents. The government would have to get its military $ from taxing impoverished citizens.

hmmm ...
I´ll not discuss those numbers; all I´d like to tell to you (in case you don´t know or have never being here :hug:) is that the average Argentine ("middle class") has a standard of life that differs considerably from what you can see, expect or understand by truly poor countries (ad science, culture, etc. ).

Under risk of OT:
List of countries by GDP (nominal): Argentina nº 31 (eg: Chile is 48)
List of countries by Human Development: Argentina nº 49
Quality-of-life index: Argentina nº 40 (out of 110)

There´s a lot of good things to be proud down here. Take a look ! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina )

But every rule has an exception:

110469

[Ssandro]

hmmm ...
I´ll not discuss those numbers; all I´d like to tell to you (in case you don´t know or have never being here :hug:) is that the average Argentine ("middle class") has a standard of life that differs considerably from what you can see, expect or understand by truly poor countries (ad science, culture, etc. ).

A hundred years ago Argentina was one of the most developed countries in the world, so it has a cultural legacy. Also wealth and culture are not directly related. Obviously everyone knows that the two best pianists in the world, barenboim and argerich, are from argentina, and that someone like borges could only have been the product of civilization. That's not relevant here. We're not talking about classical music or literature. The numbers are what determines a country's military ability, which is what I was asking about.

Also, Argentina's per capita purchasing power parity is $14,125 (because prices are low inside the country, due to things like cheap labour etc), so people can afford much more locally produced goods than the nominal figures indicate. But nominal figures determine what they can buy in military equipment (which is imported).


Under risk of OT:
List of countries by GDP (nominal): Argentina nº 31 (eg: Chile is 48)

But "List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita Argentina nº66"

Per capita is a relevant figure for maintaining military expenditure, because when per capita is low, you can't tax people to buy weapons without greatly lowering their quality of life. If per capita income is $50,000, then the government can easily take $10,000 from each person to spend on weapons without that much effect on the population's real quality of life. The population already has more than enough money to provide for the necessities of life (anything over, say, $20,000 is really surplus). But if per capita income is $7,000, then taking even $1,000 from each person for weapons will have a huge effect on them, even though it's a lower percentage of their total income. Although in some cases, (like e.g. Russia, Iran and Saddam's Iraq) the government of a poorer country can maintain very high military expenditure because it has direct access to oil rents (which means they don't have to get the funding from tax or appropriation of property - although they might do that as well).

For example Argentina's military expenditure in 2007 was $5.6 billion which is only 2.1% of GDP. America's expenditure ($664 billion), on the other hand, is actually 4.7% of their GDP. However, that 4.7% tax will have far less effect on the living quality of their population, since it's taxing surplus income to a far greater extent.

[DeltaWhisky58]

That's it - throw your teddy out of the pram.

Grow up!

[XShipRider]

Right of innocent passage should prevail.

[Atlantic Friend]

Will you stop with the childish chit-chat, you two? ;)

BBC Mundo has an interview of Ruperto Godoy, who apparently co-presides Argentine Parliamentary Commission on Foreign Relations, and he insists about how Buenos Aires' every step will be of a diplomatic, political nature, concluding the interview by excluding any confrontation with the United Kingdom. He vaguely expects support from the Rio Group countries, but by that I suppose it only means that these countries would swing their votes Argentina's way at the UN, to demand some debate or some resolution.

Kirchner has just cancelled fisheries and oil cooperation agreements allowing UK firms to operate in Argentina in fisheries and oil sectors - could it be that these are the real issue (apart from domestic issues of the Justicialistas), and that Buenos Aires is setting up a "frame" of unrealistic demands about the Falklands as a negotiation tool?

[Lov3ll]

Holding firm over the Falklands

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47333000/jpg/_47333178_003899137-1.jpg
Argentina and Britain went to war over the Falklands in 1982
By Andrew Harding
BBC News, Buenos Aires

When it comes to the Falkland Islands, there are two things that almost everyone seems to agree on in the alleys and boulevards of this sunny, eccentric cocktail of a city (one part Manila, two parts Paris).
The first home truth - shared by the languid sunbathers adorning the public parks, and the tattooed shopkeepers in the dusty slums - is that the Falklands - or Las Malvinas as they're known here - belong to Argentina and should at some point be incorporated into her sovereign territory.
For some, that belief has a casual, wistful, almost dream-like quality. For others it is a raw and immediate article of faith.
But either way, 28 years after Argentine troops invaded the islands and were defeated by a British naval task force, this country and its government hold steadfast to the conviction that the islands belong to them.
'Too bad to mention'
The latest diplomatic feud with Britain over oil exploration around Las Malvinas has merely brought those feelings closer to the surface.


Our politicians are working to have this issue in the newspapers as a distraction so our people don't think about other more important things
"Pablo"
Drilling 'to go ahead' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8523894.stm)
Oil or no oil? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8519807.stm)


"This is what they teach us in school," said Noelia, a shy girl of 14 selling vegetables near the old port. "I believe it."
"I feel angry more than frustrated," said Luis Fernandez, 47, a Falklands war veteran camped out in the park outside the presidential palace with a group of former soldiers demanding government assistance.
"I lost two friends in the war. Everyone knows it is our land and the United Kingdom is simply a colonial power. What they are doing there is too bad to even mention.
"They are our islands. It's not fair that a British company comes to our territory to get the oil," said a young man roller-blading along the embankment in the city centre.

Need for dialogue

The second shared conviction here is that Argentina cannot and must not try to resolve the issue by military means.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47333000/jpg/_47333179_008718760-1.jpg
A shipment of pipes for the Falklands was blocked by Argentina this month
For some this is simply a realistic assessment of the odds of victory, but for many people it is part of a more general acknowledgement of Argentina's transformation from a military dictatorship to a globally-integrated democracy.
"Let me stress that we are only pursuing this through diplomatic channels and protests," said Ruperto Godoy, a Congressman and now the government's nominated spokesman on the Falkands question.
"There is no possibility of having any kind of confrontation with the United Kingdom. We want to sit down and have a dialogue."
A mile away, in the narrow alleys that make up the Villa Treinta Uno slum, a pot-bellied man named Alcides, sporting a giant Virgin Mary tattoo on his back, put it more simply.
"We have no money and no soldiers. You can't beat the United Kingdom with bows and arrows."
"It would be a military disaster," agreed Eduardo Diez, from the Centre for Argentine-American dialogue. "Would we send people without arms, without weapons?"

Confusing signals

As for why the fate of the islands is suddenly back in the headlines - Argentines are more divided.
Some people share the official government view here, that Britain has triggered the new diplomatic stand-off by acting unilaterally and provocatively to pursue plans to exploit new oil fields under the sea bed around Las Malvinas.
"This move looks like the United Kingdom is moving the course unilaterally, and unilateralism is unpredictable," said Fernando Petrella, a former Argentine ambassador.
"And unpredictability is very confusing for peaceful and fruitful diplomatic relations between friendly countries."
But some people here take a more distrustful view.
"We have a lot of problems here, with politics and the economy and things that have nothing to do with the Falklands," argued a young man who said his name was Pablo.
"Our politicians are working to have this issue in the newspapers as a distraction, so our people don't think about other more important things."
That view seems quite widely held. Argentina has suffered years of economic and financial hardship and the fate of Las Malvinas is clearly not seen as high priority for many here now.
"We are in a terrible condition," said a woman called Lola.
"We are a Third World Country, so we deserve (oil revenue from the Falklands) but to be honest I really hate this country and if I could I would live somewhere else."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8524001.stm

[a_very_ex_STAB]

When are the Argies going to get it into their thick skulls that the state of Argentina never owned the Falklands?:roll:

[Niall]

Britain probably has a more valid claim on calais than Argentina does to the Falklands!

[Stolly]

"This move looks like the United Kingdom is moving the course unilaterally, and unilateralism is unpredictable," said Fernando Petrella, a former Argentine ambassador.
"And unpredictability is very confusing for peaceful and fruitful diplomatic relations between friendly countries."

I suppose, in the fantasy land that this man inhabits, that using force of arms to change the nationality of peaceful sheep farmers was not unilateralism. Then again for Argentina it is all about unilateraly dealing direct with the UK, ignoring the wishes of the Falkland islanders. Fernando is full of ****.

[Arnie100]

Maybe Argentina needs another reminder? ;-)

[Connaught Ranger]

I suppose, in the fantasy land that this man inhabits, that using force of arms to change the nationality of peaceful sheep farmers was not unilateralism. Then again for Argentina it is all about unilateraly dealing direct with the UK, ignoring the wishes of the Falkland islanders. Fernando is full of ****.

He probably would state that the "Disperados" (sp?) or Argentinia's "the disapeared" from the early yearsof the dictatorship, are not really missing, just filed in the wrong place.:roll:

[Lazy Lob]

He probably would state that the "Disperados" (sp?) or Argentinia's "the disapeared" from the early yearsof the dictatorship, are not really missing, just filed in the wrong place.:roll:

What did happen to Alfredo Astiz? Wonderful democrat.

[DeltaWhisky58]

What did happen to Alfredo Astiz? Wonderful democrat.

Bravo LL rofl

[Scriptable]

The end result will probably be the deaths of many good Argentine sailors due to the incompetence and plain ****ing stupidity of the Argentine politicians and bureaucrats.

[Lov3ll]

Chavez: 'UK Is Desperate For Falklands Oil'
6:21pm UK, Saturday February 20, 2010
Julia Reid, Sky News Online

The Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has launched an angry tirade over Britain's plans to drill for oil off the Falklands.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Feb/Week3/15554766.jpg
Hugo Chavez said Britain is 'desperate' for oil

In a televised speech, Mr Chavez said Britain was flouting international law and should return the islands to Argentina.
"The British are desperate for oil since their own fields in the North Sea are now being depleted," he said.
"When will England stop breaking international law? Return the Malvinas to Argentina!"
The socialist leader said he supports Argentina's protests over planned drilling in the Falklands, known as the Malvinas in Spanish.
He claims foreign powers envy Venezuela's rich oil reserves.
"The English are desperate, the Yankees are desperate and here we have the biggest petroleum reserves in the world," he said.


http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Feb/Week3/15551054.jpg
Oil companies are keen to exploit the waters off the Falklands

Several British companies are poised to begin exploration using an offshore rig, and Desire petroleum has licensed six areas where it predicts 3.5 billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic.
Despite being ejected from the islands after a two-month occupation and war in 1982, Argentina continues to claim sovreignty over the islands and is attempting to block the planned drilling.
Earlier this week, Buenos Aires said it would require all ships from the islands to obtain permits to dock in Argentina.
The Foreign Office said Britain was ready to co-operate with Argentina on South Atlantic issues and was working to develop relations between the two countries.
"Argentina and the UK are important partners," said the Foreign Office spokesman.
In a radio interview, Gordon Brown said the action was "perfectly within our rights" and that the UK had made all preparations necessary to ensure proper protection of the Falkland Islanders.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Hugo-Chavez-Venezuelan-President-On-Falklands-Row-British-Are-Desperate-For-Oil/Article/201002315554704?f=rss

[ChrisBV]

Chávez hates everything 'gringo' and 'white' so his rants are not surprising.

[Lazy Lob]

We envy the chavez ***** and the ticks he has in his arse crack. Anyway we've got chavs of our own.

[DeltaWhisky58]

I find the entire matter of the ongoing Argentine claim for the Falkland Islands quite ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't understand this really ought to take a serious look at the history involved and see just how utterly tenuous the Argentine claim really is.

As for Chavez getting involved - what an arse he is.

Argentina doesn't have the finance or infrastructure to exploit South Atlantic oil whatever, it it really is time that this childish bickering finished.

[Asdrubal el Bello]

We envy the chavez ***** and the ticks he has in his arse crack. Anyway we've got chavs of our own.

The North Sea oil *****

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KfdYGbOXmok/RqTmXjIl-aI/AAAAAAAAAGI/rNUVZV4o_NE/s320/oil_cliff_north_sea.gif

[Atlantic Friend]

Chávez hates everything 'gringo' and 'white' so his rants are not surprising.

Chavez and the Chavettes would just invite themselves into any South American issue, that goes with his "New Che Guevara" attitude.

[DeltaWhisky58]

The North Sea oil *****

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KfdYGbOXmok/RqTmXjIl-aI/AAAAAAAAAGI/rNUVZV4o_NE/s320/oil_cliff_north_sea.gif

What on earth has this got to do with the South Atlantic? The North Sea is to the North East of the British Isles and has been producing oil since the 1970s. Even Argentina hasn't managed to object to that.

Do you actually know the difference between the North Sea and the Falklands Economic Zone?

[Connaught Ranger]

Perhaps he is using it to show the decline of British Oil production as Chavez claims?

Connaught Ranger.

[CMNot]

Cod eyed tosser is gambling on South Atlantic oil to save his arse as Thatcher gambled on North Sea oil saving hers.

[lunte]

hmmm.. i like the British response; "Regulations governing Argentine territorial waters are a matter for the Argentine authorities. This does not affect Falkland Islands territorial waters which are controlled by the island authorities."

Just hope the Argies can wait until we have those two new carriers up and running, before kicking off again...

Oh yes, otherwise it could get a bit interesting...

[DeltaWhisky58]

The Argentines continue to insist that they aren't seeking a military solution to the crisis that they themselves have created. The only reason they continually spout such rubbish is because they have considerably less capability than they had in April 1982.

As for Sr. Chavez, he personally produces more Bullsh!t than the bovine population of the Argentine Pampas.

A message to Ms Kirchner in the vernacular of the English football fans whose team are the only Brits defeated by Argentina ... ... "Come and 'ave a go if you think your 'ard enough" ... ... ... but as you discovered last time, it's not a wise idea.



http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/HighlandSniper58/Emoticons/explosion.gif http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/HighlandSniper58/Emoticons/explosion.gif http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/HighlandSniper58/Emoticons/explosion.gif

[N.B. The flamable content of this post is wholly intentional] p-)

[armored_diplomacy]

1- As for Sr. Chavez, he personally produces more Bullsh!t than the bovine population of the Argentine Pampas.

2- ... the English football fans whose team are the only Brits defeated by Argentines ... ...

3- [N.B. The flamable content of this post is wholly intentional] p-)

1- Chavez seems to have a pathologilcal compulsion to do that.

2- That´s innacurate, you know that. ;-) But a common saying down here is "we should have let them win"

3- Time to brush up the rules:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?1554-Forum-Rules
Additional Forum Rules
6. Don't hijack a good conversation thread with an off-topic political or flame war. Posts of this nature will be deleted from now on.

And the mod developed quick reference version...
10. Don't be aggressively nationalistic

Got it? ;-)

[martinexsquaddie]

chavez bring your new toys to the party biggles and andrew would love some more targets

[ChrisBV]

A bluff? Loss of credibility yet again? British cruise ship tests the Argentine blockade; so far, business are carried out as usual:


British cruise ship tests Argentine blockade in Falklands

As the war of words between Argentina and Britain continues, it's business as usual for the cruise ships naviagating the South Atlantic waters.

By Harriet Alexander
Published: 7:00AM GMT 21 Feb 2010

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01582/StarPrincess_1582494c.jpg
Star Princess: A British cruise ship is leading the charge in the latest stand-off over the Falklands, as it sails towards the harbour at Port Stanley Photo: AP

Her decks boast sun loungers and golf simulators rather than machine guns and torpedoes, while those on board are more likely to be sipping G&Ts than rehearsing military drills.

But today a British cruise ship is leading the charge in the latest stand-off over the Falklands, as it sails towards the harbour at Port Stanley in the first major test of Argentine resolve.

Last week the Argentine government, in response to a British company's planned exploration of oilfields off the Falkland coast, decreed that all ships travelling between Argentina and the Falklands must be granted permission from the Argentine government.

Observers noted that the decree could potentially ensnare all boats travelling to and from the Falkland islands – including the cruise ships that bring over 60,000 tourists annually to the remote rocky outcrops in the South Atlantic.

Yet two days after the decree was issued, the Star Princess set sail for the Falklands from the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, with no demand for a permit from the Argentine authorities. It is due arrive in Port Stanley tomorrow, and then dock again in the Argentine port of Ushuaia, near Cape Horn, on Wednesday – and as of yet, there has still been no request to submit official paperwork.

"Everyone is very calm on board," a spokesman from the Purser's office of the Star Princess told The Sunday Telegraph. "Unless there is any hidden information that we've not been told of, it's business as usual – and all of our guests seem very happy.

"No one is asking anything about whether we will visit the Falklands or not. It's part of our itinerary and they expect it to go ahead."

As it marks a course for the Falklands, the Star Princess, with its 2,600 guests on-board, strikes an odd parallel to the British naval task force that called the Argentian bluff in 1982.

A high proportion of the passengers are British, and see the chance to visit the scene of the historic victory over Argentina as one of the highlights on their tour of Latin America.

The presence of a number of Argentinian tourists on board as well, though, will doubtless be adding an edge to the atmosphere in the ship's bars and restaurants.

"Many Argentinians like to see the islands for themselves, although they aren't always very happy at getting their passports stamped," said a member in the ship's purser's office.

"Once, when the weather was bad and the captain decided we couldn't land there, the Argentinian passengers got upset because they suspected he was just deliberately preventing them going ashore."

A spokeswoman for the Ushuaia ports authority confirmed that the Star Princess was set to dock in the port on Wednesday.

"We haven't received any special instructions," she said. "The boats come and they go – we don't know where they are going. We just reserve the space in the port."

President Cristina Kirschner's government is now in a tricky position. It could enforce its own edict, banning ships from travelling to the Falklands and losing a lucrative slice of the cruise tourism pie. Or it could let the ships slip in and out of territorial waters unopposed, showing that their grandstanding and posturing is little more than empty rhetoric.

"They really do cut off their nose to spite their faces," said Andy Williams, owner of Falkland Islands Tours and Travel, part of an island industry that now takes in almost 70,000 visitors. "When you think of the amount of financial trouble the Argentine government is in at the moment, and then they jeopardise this. There are massive logistics involved in cruise ships docking anywhere – flights, tourism, transport. It's not the Argentinian people – it's just the politicians. Hurting tourism won't help anyone."

Last week's decree followed Argentine outrage as a British oil rig, the Ocean Guardian, arrived off the Falklands from Scottish water to begin oil exploration. Buenos Aires, which feels it is being denied a share of potential oil revenues, has also threatened to ban British companies with links to oil ventures from doing business on the Argentine mainland. Last week the authorities stopped a shipment of pipes bound for the island, although Britain's officials believe it is unlikely they would try to detain cruise passengers in the same fashion.

Argentina's deputy foreign minister, Victorio Taccetti, played down Argentina's intentions, saying that the government was merely seeking renewed dialogue over the sovereignty of the Falklands.

"This is just something that we have to do in order to protect our rights," he said. "We consider that this exploration and eventual exploitation of our natural resources is illegal."

The heightened tensions were a subject of much discussion last week in the Victory Bar in Port Stanley, where islanders gather to drink imported Boddingtons, Fosters and Carlsberg (Argentina’s top-selling Cerveza Quilmes is not served here).

Since the early 1980s, the bar’s sea-rusted corrugated iron walls have been replaced by wood cladding, and the in-pub entertainment now includes Premier League Football broadcast as well as darts.

But when it comes to attitudes about Argentina, not that much has changed since the war.

“Whenever I talk about the Argies, I tend to swear a lot,” said landlord Alastair Jacobson. “Ever since '82, they have always been trying to upset things.”

On topics other than Argentina, though, his customers have relatively little to complain about.

Some 27 years on from the conflict that killed almost 1,000 people, their South Atlantic home has been transformed from an isolated, shrinking community of sheep farmers into a thriving tourist destination that has doubled in size.

And the real boom times may be yet to come.

If the offshore drilling hits paydirt, the islands could become a South Atlantic answer to the Gulf States, making its population of 3,000 islanders among the richest people in the world.

The only kind of Argentine invasion they get these days, meanwhile, is of the tourist kind.

“We had one cruise ship in a while back that had 800 Argentinians on board,” said Mr Jacobson. “We don’t have a problem with the people themselves, just their government, and we were happy to serve them here in the pub.

"Most of them keep fairly quiet, to be honest. Although I did see one guy getting his partner to picture him holding up a little Argentine flag.”

Additional reporting by Colin Freeman

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7279507/British-cruise-ship-tests-Argentine-blockade-in-Falklands.html)

Ultimately, Argentina loses altogether: if Argentine authorities enforce their own blockade, they risk damaging the lucrative tourism industry and, furthermore, risk a serious international incident. I think Argentina will have to back down eventually (the sooner the better), losing credibility and (further) weakening the administration.

[DeltaWhisky58]

1- Chavez seems to have a pathologilcal compulsion to do that.

2- That´s innacurate, you know that. ;-) But a common saying down here is "we should have let them win"

3- Time to brush up the rules:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?1554-Forum-Rules
Additional Forum Rules
6. Don't hijack a good conversation thread with an off-topic political or flame war. Posts of this nature will be deleted from now on.

And the mod developed quick reference version...
10. Don't be aggressively nationalistic

Got it? ;-)

Joined January 2010 and already you're running the place - wise up :bash:

[happyslapper]

So a British cruise liner has made it though the 'blockade'...
what will they do now?
Slink quietly back away into their corner, answer some awkward questions about Argentina's impotence, then go back to the usual internally-aimed rhetoric? Or will they up the stakes and start penalising and more rigourously enforcing this joke of legislation?
We'll soon find out.

By the way, the newspaper of the Falklands; Penguin News, was hacked this morning by Argentine nationalists.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1235702&pid=8368254&toi=6277

Rough translation:


The Falklands' Newspaper has been hacked

The digital edition of the Penguin News awoke with an image of the flag of Argentina, a statement and a march to honour war dead

The newspaper's online portal Penguin News was hacked this morning with pictures of the Argentine claim to the Falklands.

The online edition of the newspaper, the most traditional and most widely circulated of which are published in the islands, woke up with an image of the flag of Argentina, a statement and a march in homage to Argentina's war dead.

The text on the page read: "They're Argentinas by: heritage, inherited from Spain and the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, by geographical location, Argentina is the closest country; history since the discovery by Magellan and Amerigo Vespucci and other Spanish sailors; jurisdiction, by papal award to Spain, for administrative reasons and because they are part of the undersea continental shelf and Argentine subsoil.

"Other than the first children really Falkland Islanders (born in the Falklands) are / were Argentines," added the statement, followed by the exclamation "Argentina will endure!".

Around 9:30, the site was restored [but has since gone down again - HS]. The perpetrators are still unknown.

[Connaught Ranger]

Unfortunatly for the Argentinian people, they are cursed to be ruled by dictaors and buffoons and their idoitic supporters.

[Niall]

-edited out-

[armored_diplomacy]

Joined January 2010 and already you're running the place - wise up :bash:

Respose by PM p-)

[armored_diplomacy]

1 - So a British cruise liner has made it though the 'blockade'... what will they do now?

2- Rough translation:
The Falklands' Newspaper has been hacked ... added the statement, followed by the exclamation "Argentina will endure!".


1- No news about that so far (main Argentine media at least)(they do quote, however, that the "Mail On Sunday" would have called Mrs. Kirchner "old plastic face" :lol: )

2- That´s a pretty accurate translation.

[DeltaWhisky58]

So a British cruise liner has made it though the 'blockade'...
what will they do now?
Slink quietly back away into their corner, answer some awkward questions about Argentina's impotence, then go back to the usual internally-aimed rhetoric? Or will they up the stakes and start penalising and more rigourously enforcing this joke of legislation?
We'll soon find out.

By the way, the newspaper of the Falklands; Penguin News, was hacked this morning by Argentine nationalists.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1235702&pid=8368254&toi=6277

Rough translation:


The Falklands' Newspaper has been hacked

The digital edition of the Penguin News awoke with an image of the flag of Argentina, a statement and a march to honour war dead

The newspaper's online portal Penguin News was hacked this morning with pictures of the Argentine claim to the Falklands.

The online edition of the newspaper, the most traditional and most widely circulated of which are published in the islands, woke up with an image of the flag of Argentina, a statement and a march in homage to Argentina's war dead.

The text on the page read: "They're Argentinas by: heritage, inherited from Spain and the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, by geographical location, Argentina is the closest country; history since the discovery by Magellan and Amerigo Vespucci and other Spanish sailors; jurisdiction, by papal award to Spain, for administrative reasons and because they are part of the undersea continental shelf and Argentine subsoil.

"Other than the first children really Falkland Islanders (born in the Falklands) are / were Argentines," added the statement, followed by the exclamation "Argentina will endure!".

Around 9:30, the site was restored [but has since gone down again - HS]. The perpetrators are still unknown.


I wonder just how childish they can get. In a number of years studying the 1982 Conflict and its origins over several decades, I have yet to see and explanation to any Argentine territorial claim which is anything other than nonsense - it's long overdue that they accept this and get on with their lives. As for hacking Penguin news, that's truly pathetic, imagine the fuss if any Brits dared to do likewise to any such news source in Argentina.

[ChrisBV]

So a British cruise liner has made it though the 'blockade'...
what will they do now?
Slink quietly back away into their corner, answer some awkward questions about Argentina's impotence, then go back to the usual internally-aimed rhetoric? Or will they up the stakes and start penalising and more rigourously enforcing this joke of legislation?

Ocean Guardian arrived in Falklands territorial waters a few days ago. No actions taken by Argentina.

British liner Star Princess is on its way to the Falklands. No actions taken by Argentina.

I think it's perfectly clear how effective this 'blockade' is and how things seem to go according to plan for Mrs. K. :D

[armored_diplomacy]

Brand new:

(Source http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1235746&pid=8368780&toi=6268)

"Mira tú Inglaterra, ¿hasta cuándo vas a estar tú en las Malvinas?"
Hugo Chávez advirtió que la Argentina "no estará sola" en un hipotético conflicto armado con Gran Bretaña por la soberanía de las Islas

("Look, England: for how long will you be on the Malvinas?
Hugo Chavez warned that Argentina will not be alone in a hypothetical armed conflict against Great Britain fot the Island sovereignty")

:-| I don´t feel safe at all ...
I Chavez will help us to fight England as he fights the evil US .... I wouldn´t be surprised if he ends up selling oil to the Task Force.

[ChrisBV]

I Chavez will help us to fight England as he fights the evil US .... I wouldn´t be surprised if he ends up selling oil to the Task Force.

Quoted for truth :D

[happyslapper]

Ask yourself, how might Chavez contribute to an armed conflict?
The Yanks would have all the excuses they need to depose him, as would his increasingly powerful political opposition at home.
So how is he going to fly his airshow Flankers across the continent, to do battle with the RAF's Typhoons? Is he going to send his new T-72s too?

It's beyond ridiculous, just like everything else that comes out of his desperate, retarded mouth.

[Old_Boy_Steve]

Brand new:

(Source http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1235746&pid=8368780&toi=6268)

"Mira tú Inglaterra, ¿hasta cuándo vas a estar tú en las Malvinas?"
Hugo Chávez advirtió que la Argentina "no estará sola" en un hipotético conflicto armado con Gran Bretaña por la soberanía de las Islas

("Look, England: for how long will you be on the Malvinas?
Hugo Chavez warned that Argentina will not be alone in a hypothetical armed conflict against Great Britain fot the Island sovereignty")

:-| I don´t feel safe at all ...
I Chavez will help us to fight England as he fights the evil US .... I wouldn´t be surprised if he ends up selling oil to the Task Force.

1. Britain.
2. The Falkland Islands.

[happyslapper]

What were you expecting, Steve. He also referred to Her Majesty as ''Mrs Queen''! (follow the link)

[Old_Boy_Steve]

What were you expecting, Steve. He also referred to Her Majesty as ''Mrs Queen''! (follow the link)

Ha, that's brilliant. I'm waiting for Duke of Edinburgh to wade in on this one.

[armored_diplomacy]

1. Britain.
2. The Falkland Islands.

(sic) Hugo Chavez dixit.

[happyslapper]

http://www.youtube.com/v/-nGeIhNZy_k

[ChrisBV]

"Victory is ours! Die, you pirates!" Click, click! (frantic keyboard-typing and mouse-clicking sounds)

Ahhh, cyberwarriors... woot

[RSone]

I could imagine there will be a number of countries supporting the brits if Hugo decides to get involved. The French and Dutch can't be overpy trustful of Chavez' Venezuela.

[Niall]

How can anyone take Chavez seriously when he still believes calling the United Kingdom as 'England' and 'Mrs Queen' are correct? We should be scared of amphibious Venezuelan T-72s attacking any taskforce though.

[Lazy Lob]

Unfortunatly for the Argentinian people, they are cursed to be ruled by dictaors and buffoons and their idoitic supporters.

Both Kirchners were democratically elected. Doesn't bode well for Argentine democracy.

[CMNot]

Hey, look who we (I use that word lightly) voted in...

[Lazy Lob]

Hey, look who we (I use that word lightly) voted in...

You're referring to the unelected quango that's running our creaking ship. :)

I'm still waiting for my ballot paper. You know the one that nobody got.

[Russian_dude]

Question 1. Why does Agentina even want that peace of rock, where it doesn't even have any citizens living?
Question 2. What claim does Argentina even have on it? It became a country when?

[DeltaWhisky58]

Question 1. Why does Agentina even want that peace of rock, where it doesn't even have any citizens living?
Question 2. What claim does Argentina even have on it? It became a country when?

1. The 1982 invasion was largely a political ploy to take public opinion away from the hugely unpopular and totally despotic quasi-fascist regime and the country's disastrous economy. One has to assume that the economic success of the Falklands post-1982 must have a lot of influence over their current revival of their claims. With the exception of a handful of Argentine/Chilean citizens currently resident on the Islands, the population is almost entirely of British origin, and more to the point under their rights of self-determination the have with one exception stated their wishes to remain British.

2. Their historic claim has almost zero credibility, the British having had possession continually (excepting the illegal occupation for a few weeks in 1982) since 1833 and for a considerable period prior to that. The Argentine claim is tenuous at best stemming from Spanish claims during their colonial period based upon a Papal Bull of much earlier. The early history of the Falkland Islands is rather complicated and involves Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, France, the USA and very briefly Argentina herself as The United Provinces of the River Plate. No doubt Argentina will try and assert her right to sovereignty yet again with the support of a couple of neighbors and a certain tin-pot dictator from the north, but 177 years of continuous British sovereignty since 1833, and previous occupation are quite clear under international law.

[rgjbloke]

You're referring to the unelected quango that's running our creaking ship. :)

I'm still waiting for my ballot paper. You know the one that nobody got.

Well it's off topic I know but this unelected quango are with the exception of any Lords and Ladies are actually elected members of parliament. We don't and never have elected The Prime Minister or the Cabinet through the national democractic process. The Prime Minister is elected by whatever parliamentary political party is in the majority in parliament. The Cabinet is appointed by whatever Prime Minister is in power. I don't agree in any way that our political institution can be compared in any way with that of Argentina.

[Breerman]

If Argentina was serious about this they would have started bolstering their defences, at least I have seen no such reports.

Russia could fairly quickly supply them with modern fighters (and sort out the financing too).

[armored_diplomacy]

:-|

Question 2. What claim does Argentina even have on it? It became a country when?

2 Here´s a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Argentine_claim

Argentina´s independece was proclamed in july 9th, 1816.





2.
a) And very briefly Argentina herself as The United Provinces of the River Plate. ...
b) No doubt Argentina will try and assert her right to sovereignty yet again with the support of a couple of neighbors and a certain tin-pot dictator from the north
c) But 177 years of continuous British sovereignty since 1833, and previous occupation are quite clear under international law.


a) It was for 4 years aproximately, untill they were evicted by British forces. And according to Argentine Constitution (article 35): "The denominations successively adopted from 1810 up to the present, namely: "United Provinces of the River Plate"; "Argentine Republic"; "Argentine Confederation", shall henceforth be official names to be indistinctly used for the designation of the government and territory of the provinces, the words "Argentine Nation" being used in the making and enactment of laws"

b) Hmmm ... We´ll have to see, but its claim may be backed by the 33 members of the current Mexican Summit (including former British possessions). And, just to be fair, I don´t see how it´s morally questionable to gain some dictator´s support, when in 1982 you had another dictator´s contribution to achieve your goals (unless your dictator is better than mine ;-))

c) Notwithstanding that:
" In 1946 the UK included the Falkland Islands on the UN list of non-self-governing territories (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories) under Chapter XI of the UN charter. However, the General Assembly of the United Nations (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/United_Nations) did not explicitly address the issue of the Falkland Islands until 1965, which Resolution 2065 noted "the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over [said] Islands", and invited those governments "to proceed without delay with the negotiations... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."
The UN General Assembly (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly) and the UN Decolonization Committee (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/UN_Decolonization_Committee) have repeated this call for the resumption of negotiations since then,[50] (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#cite_note-UNREFS-49) and especially since the restoration of democracy (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Democracy) in Argentina in 1983" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Resolutions_of_the_United_Nations_and_the_OAS)


All this is an interesting topic for sure, but my position is a little bit pessimist about it: unless Argentina become a world economic and military power, they´ll be a lost case, due to the currente "de facto" status: 177 years of British administration, and a big Argentine mess in 1982.:cantbeli:

[armored_diplomacy]

If Argentina was serious about this they would have started bolstering their defences, at least I have seen no such reports.

Russia could fairly quickly supply them with modern fighters (and sort out the financing too).

That would be so smart that we´ll probably never see it.
Defense is not a priority at all over here.

[dracon49]

Falklands was part of Argentina ,right?

[DeltaWhisky58]

Attn. armored_diplomacy - why don't you just accept that your (i.e. Argentina's) claim is tenuous at best. There would be no point in taking over sovereignty of an island group where the population is almost wholly opposed to any change in government, and whom are mostly (well over 90%+) of British origin. Be honest, the main reason Argentina wants the Falklands is not political or historical, it's wholly economical, you want the potential revenue pure and simple.

If you had carried out your 1982 invasion with proper planning and timing, you might just have got away with it, but you didn't and we all know what happened. You know and I know that you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of taking the Islands now and we're not going to let you. We have far too much invested in the Islands now to give them up in any case, plus we MUST consider the wishes of the 3,000+ British citizens who are permanently resident there and have a right to self determination under international law.

You can quote Wikipedia and as many Argentine sources are you like, but the Falkland Island are British and will remain so whether you like it or not so you might as well go back to following Bocca Juniors, dancing the Tango, Dog Walking or eating Asado, whatever floats your boat.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Union_Jack.gif

[happyslapper]

If Argentina was serious about this they would have started bolstering their defences, at least I have seen no such reports.

Russia could fairly quickly supply them with modern fighters (and sort out the financing too).

How would Argentina pay for it?

There was news out yeaterday that France is considering an Argentine request to update their Super Etendards to the Modernise standard. The liklihood is that that will be the only 'significant' improvement to the Argentine air forces for quite some time. The only aircraft which Argentina has any true operational sovereignty/manufacturng control over is the IA63 Pampa (which some might remember as being the failed alternative to the T-6 Texan). It's basically a simplified Alpha Jet, and was ditched by Lockheed when the world's aviation market pulled out of the country quicker than nuns from a **** shop.

[Breerman]

How would Argentina pay for it?
Argentina may have economic problems but it's not that big of an investment in relation to GDP. Loans are probably available on behalf of the exporting country.

Russia would do it for sure. France and US, maybe.

[Elbs]

I find it somewhat amusing to see that the Falklands issue seems to be the only salvation for making Gordon Brown seem like less of the colossal tw*t that he is.

Don't worry fellas, Cristina is just mad she hasn't been able to buy any new Chanel accessories this year and she's venting and big bad Hugo is seizing the day to live up to his bad boy image.

Instead of resorting to shooting, hows about it gets settled on the pitch at South Africa. It be a much fairer fight

[happyslapper]

@breerman
You're completely correct, the financial issues have never been the driving force behind Argentina's lack of armament. Any Argentine will tell you the same thing; it's political. It borne out of a deep mistrust for anything military. All the current generation of politicians come from a time when the military were, to say the least, abusive. Even in the times when Argentina has not been a dictatorship, there has been a lingering threat of a military coup. Hence the Kirchners, and even the majority of opposition members, are more than happy to dismantle the military until it is nothing more than a skeleton force.

France has long been the prime supplier of arms to the country, but Argentina has backed out of almost every defence contract for the last decade or so. There are no imminent signs of that changing, and even if they do... the UK has the capacity and the facilities to respond, so it's still a case of 'no dramas'.


I find it somewhat amusing to see that the Falklands issue seems to be the only salvation for making Gordon Brown seem like less of the colossal tw*t that he is.

To be fair, I think Brown's handled it reasonably well. I prefer the Tory's suggestion of showing a stronger presence in the area, but even that has little to do with Argentina itself and more to do with any kind of unconventional threat, and reminding the public of why we need a strong navy.

[Sarge543]

Falklands was part of Argentina ,right?

hahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahah................................NO!

And take it from someone that served there twice, the bennies don't want to be either. Oil or no frakkin oil!

[armored_diplomacy]

Attn. armored_diplomacy - why don't you just accept that ... QUEEN (+ waving flag)

Wow, Mr. Whisky, .... You seem to be extremely sensitive.

I DARE you to show me what part of "All this is an interesting topic for sure, but my position is a little bit pessimist about it: unless Argentina become a world economic and military power, they´ll be a lost case, due to the current "de facto" status: 177 years of British administration, and a big Argentine mess in 1982" could be understood as a "comming soon military action ... to take the islands ... for its revenues ... without considering the wishes of islanders ... Mrs. Kirchner is sexy" (you surely thought that last part ;-)).

And I even quoted the " ... interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" part !


7 years member, 5 years Mod, and your answer is a waving flag plus unrelated stuff to what I said (remember the "time to brush up the rules"?).
Good job Sir. :roll:

And end of this for me. I promise I´ll not distress your disturbed peace of mind anymore.
(pd: I don´t like football, neither dance tango)

[armored_diplomacy]

take it from someone that served there twice

Mr Sarge543:
Would you please tell us how is the general feeling in the Islands about this kind of issues?
Are people there concerned about the possibility of another military action over there, or they simply don´t care anymore (specially new generations)?
Do they see Argentina as a "hostile" nation, or do they make the difference between gov-speeches and the rest of the people?
Thanks in advance

[dracon49]

Britain has diplomatic ties with Argentina?

[happyslapper]

Britain has diplomatic ties with Argentina?

Yes


Mr Sarge543:
Would you please tell us how is the general feeling in the Islands about this kind of issues?
Are people there concerned about the possibility of another military action over there, or they simply don´t care anymore (specially new generations)?
Do they see Argentina as a "hostile" nation, or do they make the difference between gov-speeches and the rest of the people?
Thanks in advance

Judging by the fact he referred to the Islanders as ''bennies'', I doubt he lives there.

There's a number of articles released over the past few days which have been written by islanders themselves. Some even posted here. The general feeling is that it's been blown massively out of proportion by the press, that Argentina's actions will have no effect, and in the words of isalnder Stuart Wallace; ''sod the Argentines''.

[Auzaider]

Attn. armored_diplomacy - why don't you just accept that your (i.e. Argentina's) claim is tenuous at best. There would be no point in taking over sovereignty of an island group where the population is almost wholly opposed to any change in government, and whom are mostly (well over 90%+) of British origin. Be honest, the main reason Argentina wants the Falklands is not political or historical, it's wholly economical, you want the potential revenue pure and simple.

If you had carried out your 1982 invasion with proper planning and timing, you might just have got away with it, but you didn't and we all know what happened. You know and I know that you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of taking the Islands now and we're not going to let you. We have far too much invested in the Islands now to give them up in any case, plus we MUST consider the wishes of the 3,000+ British citizens who are permanently resident there and have a right to self determination under international law.

You can quote Wikipedia and as many Argentine sources are you like, but the Falkland Island are British and will remain so whether you like it or not so you might as well go back to following Bocca Juniors, dancing the Tango, Dog Walking or eating Asado, whatever floats your boat.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!


Great exaple of what you claim to be sick of... all argentinian sources are questionnable whilst british sources are truth revealed, you talk about argentinian sources and you never even read without the need of a translator...

Hope someday you realize you do not own the entire truth... until then live happy with the half of the truth you like / choose to believe.

BTW, self determination does not apply when dealing with a transplanted population.

[armored_diplomacy]

Judging ......

Thank you, Sir.

[sasman73]

BTW, self determination does not apply when dealing with a transplanted population.

Good job someone didn't tell Argentines that when ruled by Spain eh?

Self determination very much applies when it has been 180 years and there is no indiginous population

What we basically have here is one bunch of transplanted Europeans trying to subjugate another bunch of transplanted Europeans against their will. Colonialism if you will.

[CMNot]

Russia could fairly quickly supply them with modern fighters (and sort out the financing too).

Yes, because as we all know, world class pilots grow on trees.

Aircraft without top quality pilots are little more than scrap metal waiting to meet earth.


Britain has diplomatic ties with Argentina?

As and when Argentina decides they want diplomatic contact. It cycles between them throwing their toys out the pram and putting them back in again.

[Ssandro]

That would be so smart that we´ll probably never see it.
.
Why would it be smart for a poor country like Argentina, with peaceful neighbours and no immediate enemies, to waste vast amounts of its peoples' money buying mediocre equipment from Russia? So that it can get easily destroyed by the far more powerful British army (which is much better prepared than in 1982: the islands have a runway which can launch eurofighters)? What is the point? For some islands that Argentina has absolutely no historical claim over, and whose population hate them?

It would be smart for Argentina to keep the money on something which helps sustainable development, like its tourist industry. With less undiplomatic tub thumping, maybe it could build better alliances with Britain and get more British tourists

[RICHICOQUI]

This tread is going on and on!! The only reason Argentina is bringing this up now is because she want to cover her raid on the funds in her countrys central bank!! there was a BIG stink she rise by her firing the central bank prez!!

[armored_diplomacy]

Why would it be smart for a poor country like Argentina, with peaceful neighbours and no immediate enemies, to waste vast amounts of its peoples' money buying mediocre equipment from Russia? So that it can get easily destroyed by the far more powerful British army (which is much better prepared than in 1982: the islands have a runway which can launch eurofighters)? What is the point? For some islands that Argentina has absolutely no historical claim over, and whose population hate them?

It would be smart for Argentina to keep the money on something which helps sustainable development, like its tourist industry. With less undiplomatic tub thumping, maybe it could build better alliances with Britain and get more British tourists

- It would be smart to consider the new and modern Russian products in order to re-build our armed forces with updated technology (eg: Mig-35 or SU-30) in a a long term plan, considering our budget, our extension, and trying a new supplier. I was not, of course, suggesting to "grab some money and run" to buy a handful of outdated second-hand Russian made planes just to show a decent inventory. Again, it should be a long term plan. New Russian products are far from mediocre.

- As well as our neighbours, we are entitled to our defense and to secure our land (regardless of this issue). That shouldn´t be deemed as an "agression" (all our main neighbours down here did that, look at Chile).

- The funny thing: we´ve got the money already! but our security seems not to be a priority for Mr. & Mrs. K. And for the rest of your suggestions, that would divert money from important things, like retaining power by buying wills ... :cantbeli:

Cheers

[martinexsquaddie]

so armoured how long do people need to live somewhere before they get a say in what happends to where they live?.
10
40
50
100 years?
150 years/

[armored_diplomacy]

so armoured how long do people need to live somewhere before they get a say in what happends to where they live?. 10 40 50 100 years? 150 years/

I don´t know, man:-|. As a matter of fact, I´m not even sure if "time" is the preponderant element. It may be a combination of many factors, IMHO.

[Breerman]

Yes, because as we all know, world class pilots grow on trees.

Aircraft without top quality pilots are little more than scrap metal waiting to meet earth.
I don't know the status of the Argentinian Air Force other than from a technological point of view. However if you look at NATO expansion in Eastern Europe they have held courses for pilots transitioning to modern aircrafts and tactics and from what I reckon it has gone fairly well.

[Nepeccel]

so armoured how long do people need to live somewhere before they get a say in what happends to where they live?.
10, 40, 50, 100 years?
150 years/

I read a book called "the battle for the Falklands" and i think it says that a census was carried out with the islanders as to what country they want to be part of? Or did I make this up? I have a feeling I made this up...

[happyslapper]

I read a book called "the battle for the Falklands" and i think it says that a census was carried out with the islanders as to what country they want to be part of? Or did I make this up? I have a feeling I made this up...

There was an Argentine poll in 1994 (this was when the Argentines were sending Islanders Christmas Cards, goody bags, free flights to Argentina, Pingu videos for the kids, etc in an effort to seduce them). The poll found that around 90% of islanders would not consider Argentine sovereignty under any circumstances, and around 99% were opposed to Argentine sovereignty under realistic circumstances. That's from memory, but i'm sure those numbers are about right.


I don't know the status of the Argentinian Air Force other than from a technological point of view. However if you look at NATO expansion in Eastern Europe they have held courses for pilots transitioning to modern aircrafts and tactics and from what I reckon it has gone fairly well.

The Argentine forces are running at about 30% airworthiness at the moment, and have been for a considerable time. The only fast jets that can be reliably called on are 8-10 A-4AR, and about 4 Super Etendard... on a good day. I think the point CMN was making is that there is no quick fix; you can't simply buy a load of Su-30s and suddenly expect to be able to tango with the RAF's Typhoons.

[martinexsquaddie]

given historicaly the argentine military massacred indians over threw civillian goverments and tortued its own citizens why would any argentine goverment buy them new toys they are the major threat to the argentine populence :(

although if you want to disappear are current crop of no hopers I'm sure we could come to some arrangement :)

[Breerman]

The Argentine forces are running at about 30% airworthiness at the moment, and have been for a considerable time. The only fast jets that can be reliably called on are 8-10 A-4AR, and about 4 Super Etendard... on a good day. I think the point CMN was making is that there is no quick fix; you can't simply buy a load of Su-30s and suddenly expect to be able to tango with the RAF's Typhoons.
To which I responded that I think experience shows that a second or third rate Air Force can reach a high standard fairly quickly. Even in the short term an influx of modern aircrafts would be a game-changer.

I'm not sure they even would have to face them in the air. Any surprise attack has a good chance of taking out the small number of Eurofighters and the necessary runways. Unless UK has made provisions for alternative basing the main opponent in that case would probably be Harriers.

This is from a military point of view. Politically it seems Argentina has no such desire and that the hot air is a mix of "for the record" talk and to divert attention from domestic issues.

[happyslapper]

That's all very well, but it's quite difficult to surprise 3 state-of-the-art radar stations, an air defence destroyer, multiple shorad sites, and a system of aggressive air patrols, then overcome them.

[2495]

To which I responded that I think experience shows that a second or third rate Air Force can reach a high standard fairly quickly. Even in the short term an influx of modern aircrafts would be a game-changer.


Nope. Look at iraq and its MiG 29s. Versus US F-16/15/14s they got decimated. 3rd world versus 1st - its a turkey shoot. I do not doubt Argentine pilots skills in the A-4 or Etendards, but in any airframe against aggressive Typhoon CAP? nope. Sorry they are going home in a ashes urn.



I'm not sure they even would have to face them in the air. Any surprise attack has a good chance of taking out the small number of Eurofighters and the necessary runways. Unless UK has made provisions for alternative basing the main opponent in that case would probably be Harriers.

This is from a military point of view. .

You got to get undetected out of Argentinia first. Then cross the ocean, then get through the radars, then bounce the Typhoons whom will already be airborne anyway from quick alert launch.. No go this time mate. Once bitten, twice shy and the Argies are sewn up this time tighter than a kippers.

[Dwelm]

3rd world versus 1st

I don't claim to know a lot, or anything at all but my personal opinion is "there is no replacement for proper time in the air and the training to match shiny new jets"

not all 3rd world countries have the money to have their pilots do the same amount flying as the RAF

[martinexsquaddie]

The radars are big theres no cover tyhoons are built for air defence 20 old fast jets are not a realistic strike package even if some get through theres sams. And dumb dombs dont take out runways. Argie military options there are not any. Remove the garrison then you have an astute attack sub loaded with cruise missles and torpedoes heading south intent on mayhem. Uk will not give up fi with out a hell of a fight .

[armored_diplomacy]

given historicaly the argentine military massacred indians ...

Come on, that´s unfair; even though your opinion is widely shared nowadays, back in the middle/late XIX century that was the way how american govs. "dealed" with indians. We had our own "wild west", as well as the US. We can´t (IMHO, of course) judge that action under current values.

And for the rest of the more recent comments; I think it was Cap. Carballo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Carballo) who said in a TV interview that "we flew. And we flew a lot", when making a reference about the training back in those days. The extraordinary achievements of those pilots (under the most adverse circumstances) was, in a significant part, due to the extensive training they had.
I´m sad to say that all that was lost in the last 15 years. I have no doubt that in case of conflict with anyone our pilots will give the most to do their job, but in modern warfare, "b*lls and will" are simply not good enough.
As pointed above, even if we buy the most advanced plane in the world, it would take time and hard work to achieve that level again.

[martinexsquaddie]

Which you havnt got 6 years from Now UK has 2 carriers 4 t45 and 4 astute attack subs thats 30F35S Take your mate chavez out on the way as a warm up

[beatles101]

is it possible that argentina coudl go to war with britain once again over this i think it is pointless

[2495]

is it possible that argentina coudl go to war with britain once again over this i think it is pointless

It is possible - if they were suicidal and wanted not a defeat but a humiliation. Last time round the UK never struck mainland with anything more than SF troops. This time? it'll be cruise missiles over head going through windows and rooftops of the elites hidey holes.

Its about distracting the masses in Argentinia and being p1ssed at missing out on Billions of £ in oil revenue.

[beatles101]

It is possible - if they were suicidal and wanted not a defeat but a humiliation. Last time round the UK never struck mainland with anything more than SF troops. This time? it'll be cruise missiles over head going through windows and rooftops of the elites hidey holes.

Its about distracting the masses in Argentinia and being p1ssed at missing out on Billions of £ in oil revenue.

i think it's retarded to be frank with ya on this one why cant Argentina jsut grow up like honestly

[2495]

i think it's retarded to be frank with ya on this one why cant Argentina jsut grow up like honestly

As I said - its about distracting the masses inside Argentinia with more 'Patriotic' talk. Get them to focus on the right ahnd and ignore the left hand thats robbing them so to speak. It is futile, it is pathetic, but thats desperate Government types for you.

[beatles101]

As I said - its about distracting the masses inside Argentinia with more 'Patriotic' talk. Get them to focus on the right ahnd and ignore the left hand thats robbing them so to speak. It is futile, it is pathetic, but thats desperate Government types for you.

yup true to that

[rgjbloke]

This is in the Guardian. The rest of the South American club want to jump on the bandwagon now. I think it's amazing that out of 32 countries signing up to this, not one of them want's say to Argentina, "hang on, Britain might have a point." Good old regional politics."

Heres the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil

Latin American leaders back Argentina over Falkland oil drilling

Solidarity vote is a diplomatic bonus for Cristina Kirchner but backing of Venezuela and Brazil unlikely to end UK drilling



http://static.guim.co.uk/static/86320/common/styles/wide/images/icon_digg.gif (http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F23%2Fargentina-uk-falkland-row-oil&title=Latin+American+leaders+back+Argentina+over+Falkland+oil+drilling)
http://static.guim.co.uk/static/86320/common/styles/wide/images/icon_buzz.gif (http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=the_guardian665&targetUrl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil&summary=Solidarity+vote+is+a+diplomatic+bonus+for+Cristina+Kirchner+but+backing+of+Venezuela+and+Brazil+unlikely+to+end+UK+drilling&headline=Latin%20American%20leaders%20back%20Argentina%20over%20Falkland%20oil%20drilling%20%7CUK%20news%20%7Cguardian.co.uk)
http://static.guim.co.uk/static/86320/common/styles/wide/images/icon_facebook.gif (12) (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F23%2Fargentina-uk-falkland-row-oil)
Tweet this (15) (http://twitter.com/home?status=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F23%2Fargentina-uk-falkland-row-oil)




Rory Carroll (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/rorycarroll), Latin American correspondent
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Tuesday 23 February 2010 18.16 GMT
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil#history-link-box)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/2/23/1266948739583/Latin-American-leaders-at-001.jpg Latin American leaders at the Rio Group summit pose for the summit's official photo on the outskirts of Playa del Carmen, near Cancún, Mexico Photograph: Israel leal/AP

Latin America and Caribbean nations appeared to close ranks behind *Argentina (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/argentina) today in its dispute with Britain over oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil) exploration in Falkland islands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/falklands)' waters.
A summit of 32 countries in Mexico (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mexico) endorsed an Argentine document accusing Britain of flouting international law by permitting drilling to begin this week, said Argentina's president, Cristina Kirchner.
"We have achieved very strong support, something that legitimates our claims fundamentally against the new petroleum activity."
The Argentine statement quoted Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, saying: "The heads of state represented here reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain."
The Rio Group summit, meeting in Cancún, made no immediate official statement but there was no doubting support for Argentina from leftist allies. Venezuela (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/venezuela)'s Hugo Chávez (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hugo-chavez) and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega demanded the UK hand back the Falklands, which Argentinians call las Malvinas, to Buenos Aires.
The longstanding sovereignty dispute flared earlier this month over the arrival of a rig, the Ocean Guardian, which is to drill offshore for oil and gas deposits which could turn the windswept archipelago into an oil magnate.
Desire Petroleum, a small British company, started drilling on Monday about 60 miles north of the islands. Geologists say there could be up to 60bn barrels although sceptics doubt that they are commercially viable.
The row has brought Anglo-Argentine relations to a new low since the 1982 conflict but Kirchner ruled out any attempt to blockade the islands.
Analysts said Buenos Aires scored a diplomatic victory in mustering regional solidarity but that the practical effects were negligible.
"Beyond making Kirchner, and some other Latin American leaders, feel good and perhaps getting a bit of a political bounce at home, the collective regional posture will mean very little on the ground," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think-tank.
"Though the Argentine government will keep the issue alive and make a lot of noise, further escalation of the dispute is improbable, and Britain will continue drilling for oil."
The main purpose of the two-day summit, which finished today was to agree on a new pan-regional body which would exclude the US and Canada and eclipse the toothless Washington-based Organisation of American States.
The host president, Calderón, said it will defend democracy and human rights and foster co-operation in the region. A working summit document leaked to the Associated Press, said a possible name for the new body, which is expected to be inaugurated next year, would be the "Latin American and Caribbean Community".
Pledges of solidarity were overshadowed by a row between Chávez and Colombia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/colombia)'s president, Alvaro Uribe. The Venezuelan socialist has frozen commercial ties to his neighbour in a dispute over the US military personnel involved in Colombia's battle against leftist guerrillas and narco-traffickers.
At a lunch from which the media were excluded, exchanges between the two leaders, whose mutual loathing is longstanding, reportedly escalated into a shouting match. According to accounts in several Mexican and regional newspapers, Chávez said "vete al carajo", which can be translated either as go to hell, or go **** yourself, and threatened to walk out.
Uribe reportedly replied that the Venezuelan should "be a man" and stay to argue his case rather than hurl insults from afar. Cuba (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cuba)'s president, Raúl Castro, intervened to cool the row.

[Chimera]

At a lunch from which the media were excluded, exchanges between the two leaders, whose mutual loathing is longstanding, reportedly escalated into a shouting match. According to accounts in several Mexican and regional newspapers, Chávez said "vete al carajo", which can be translated either as go to hell, or go **** yourself, and threatened to walk out.
Uribe reportedly replied that the Venezuelan should "be a man" and stay to argue his case rather than hurl insults from afar. Cuba's president, Raúl Castro, intervened to cool the row.

OOOooh South America, your scorching heat and passionate people!

[wilmet]

Did this summit of South American leaders actually produce anything significant apart from the declaration of support towards Argentina from the other members? In a region where tensions between politicians are never far from the surface (see Chavez and Uribe) this just seems like a reasonably easy opportunity to be seen as being united and "producing" a result, nothing gets people together more easily (and deflect attention from issues at home) than joining behind a "common ennemy" so to speak. Should we be reading anything from this?

[Sarge543]

Yes



Judging by the fact he referred to the Islanders as ''bennies'', I doubt he lives there.

There's a number of articles released over the past few days which have been written by islanders themselves. Some even posted here. The general feeling is that it's been blown massively out of proportion by the press, that Argentina's actions will have no effect, and in the words of isalnder Stuart Wallace; ''sod the Argentines''.

Gents, nope I don't live there. Served there twice with BFFI (British Forces Falkland Islands).

The Locals, Islanders (Benny is military slang for them) are fervently Falklanders, they do however have alligence to the crown and requested protection as such. Hence the Typhoons, Infantry and FIPS (Falkland Islands Patrol SHip). They dont want the Argentinians there in any shape or form. There's a tourist office in Stanley run by the Bean Eaters and every time I saw it it was in some state of disrepair due to having its windows busted or grafitti on it. THey universally dislike the ARgentinians for what they did in 82. Sorry but that was the feeling when I was there and I doubt it will have changed or be changed by pillocks like Chavez and his mates.

And BTW between the FIDF and the British military I think we may be able to hold off the Argies again.

[armored_diplomacy]

. There's a tourist office in Stanley run by the Bean Eaters (:roll: I´ll overlook that ...) and every time I saw it it was in some state of disrepair due to having its windows busted or grafitti on it.

I´ve never read anything about that (and I´m quite sure that such an incident would have had media impact); have you being there in recent years?

[martinexsquaddie]

never met an islander who wanted anything to do with argentina unless they wanted to leave the ilslander in peace. which is argentinas only option ironic that the UK tried to offload the islanders on argentina. Unfortunatly the islanders did'nt fancy being part of a tyranny and a basketcase economy ok the tyrannys going the economy is still a basket case.
the falklands island goverment even without oil is doing ok

[Nuttyer]

Don't know if this has been posted before but here's a (fairly long) history of the falkland islands

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

[happyslapper]

Don't know if this has been posted before but here's a (fairly long) history of the falkland islands

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Good effort for posting that. It's by faaaaaaaar the best concise explanation of why the Argentine claim is wrong. Although to anyone without a fairly extensive interest in the subject it's a heavy-going read, it's actually just a 'short' response to an attempt by the Argentine Government to propagandise a group of LSE Students a couple of years ago.
It's actually a prelude to a ~2000 page document along similar lines, which is going to be the most extensively researched piece on the sovereignty dispute ever written. It was actually due out towards the end of last year, but seems to have been delayed for some reason.

Good post though.

(Guys, if you seriously want to understand the depth of the Argentine deception.... read that link!!)

[2495]

Don't know if this has been posted before but here's a (fairly long) history of the falkland islands

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf


Thats what I call game, set & match.

damn good effort their lads.

[happyslapper]

Did this summit of South American leaders actually produce anything significant apart from the declaration of support towards Argentina from the other members? In a region where tensions between politicians are never far from the surface (see Chavez and Uribe) this just seems like a reasonably easy opportunity to be seen as being united and "producing" a result, nothing gets people together more easily (and deflect attention from issues at home) than joining behind a "common enemy" so to speak. Should we be reading anything from this?

I'm still struggling to understand what exactly happened at this summit, other than a bizarre show of support for Argentine neo-colonialism over British post-colonialism (despite the fact that many of the countries voting are/were beneficiaries of British post-colonialism).... there was the even more bizarre fight between Uribe and Chavez... and the only thing of true significance; the clear statement to the US and Canada that they are no longer welcome to have tea and cookies with the neighbours.

The response on the Falkands was entirely predictable, and not without precedent. What truly beggars belief is that not one of the delegations actually challenges Argentina on why they should put their name to this paper. Kirchner stands up and utters some rubbish about the UK acting unilaterally and unlawfully (which is completely untrue), then slips in a few words like ''usurp... imperialist... colonial'' then whittles on about how much of a happy brotherhood South America is. And voila! Another ridiculously ignorant, propagandistic statement is born.

However, for the other South American countries, the issue is not about the Falklands, it's about sending an 'up yours' to the established order. They consider themselves the victims of the world's status quo, and want to unite against it. An easy way of doing that is by having a go at a big power like the UK, using the Falklands.

[beatles101]

look honestly i just think that Argentina really needs to grow up like think of it this way talking to Argentina is like talking to a 5 year that wants get everything his or her way but they cant so they start acting like they are two no offence to our follow argentines on here but honestly why cant Argentina Accpet the Fact that they are wrong about the Falklands

[Asdrubal el Bello]

I'm still struggling to understand what exactly happened at this summit, other than a bizarre show of support for Argentine neo-colonialism over British post-colonialism (despite the fact that many of the countries voting are/were beneficiaries of British post-colonialism).... there was the even more bizarre fight between Uribe and Chavez... and the only thing of true significance; the clear statement to the US and Canada [and United Kingdom], that they are no longer welcome to have tea and cookies with the neighbours.

The response on the Falkands was entirely predictable, and not without precedent. What truly beggars belief is that not one of the delegations actually challenges Argentina on why they should put their name to this paper. Kirchner stands up and utters some rubbish about the UK acting unilaterally and unlawfully (which is completely untrue), then slips in a few words like ''usurp... imperialist... colonial'' then whittles on about how much of a happy brotherhood South America is. And voila! Another ridiculously ignorant, propagandistic statement is born.

However, for the other South American countries, the issue is not about the Falklands, it's about sending an 'up yours' to the established order. They consider themselves the victims of the world's status quo, and want to unite against it. An easy way of doing that is by having a go at a big power like the UK, using the Falklands.

The price of arrogance.


David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, insisted yesterday that the exploration was fully within international law although ministers admit privately that the UK has been preparing for a diplomatic confrontation with Argentina for months.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7039257.ece

[martinexsquaddie]

The uk could put 12 typhoons down there short of the usa joining in game over

[Nepeccel]

The price of arrogance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7039257.ece

Why would the UK be at a summit of American leaders? So no, what you bolded and changed was incorrect, read what people have written before calling members arrogant please.

[happyslapper]

Adrubal, I can only assume that you don't read the news, or else you're highly unfamiliar with world geography.

The United Kingdom is not part of the Rio Group/OAS/etc.

As for South Americans having a shared feeling of victimhood... it's not an outrageous thing to say. Many will tell you themselves... for instance it was an Argentine who first said it to me, and explained how Argentina's post-war history is one of feeling sorry for itself.
The Falklands issue is a classic example.

[Chimera]

(Guys, if you seriously want to understand the depth of the Argentine deception.... read that link!!)

I won't.

All that matters is that the people living on the Falkland Islands feel British. End of the thread.

[beatles101]

I won't.

All that matters is that the people living on the Falkland Islands feel British. End of the thread.
yup that is very true and the sacrifices made by the 255 british woudl be for nothing if the UK gave the islands

[Asdrubal el Bello]

Happyslapper, you understand me perfectly. In Hispanic America is forming a bloc that is rejecting the interference of Anglo-Saxon countries (as well say, historically the UK had a big influence).


(despite the fact that many of the countries voting are/were beneficiaries of British post-colonialism)

The gap will be filled by Spain and France. Things of history.

[DeltaWhisky58]

I won't.

All that matters is that the people living on the Falkland Islands feel British. End of the thread.

HALLELUJAH!

At last - the most common sense I've seen on this matter from a non-Brit.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Ordie]

never met an islander who wanted anything to do with argentina unless they wanted to leave the ilslander in peace. which is argentinas only option ironic that the UK tried to offload the islanders on argentina. Unfortunatly the islanders did'nt fancy being part of a tyranny and a basketcase economy ok the tyrannys going the economy is still a basket case.
the falklands island goverment even without oil is doing ok

Correction:
Argentina is a democracy. Its economy is more stable now than it was in the previous decade. Its going through is pains as Argentina is a Rolls Royce driven by an Eygptian Chauffuer.

It's been a long term policy that the Islanders are recognized as Argentine Citizens and are eligible for all rights and priviliages including the ownership of property, health care and free university education.

In reality, given the event of 1982, I highly doubt any Islander who would take up the offer.

As for the "oil" rights.

Let's talk business. The cost of extraction and transport of oil to the UK would be mitigated if the refining and distribution were to happen on the mainland. A joint BP/YPF venture would placate the Argentines (i.e. Jobs) and benefit the British (mitigate the environmental impacts of refining).

As for distribution, Patagonia/Falklands have a greater access to emerging markets to South Africa, Australia, New Zealand

[beatles101]

i'd say let the people of the falklands be British andif they want to be under Argentine rule then they should decide but let them be, now since they want to be british and unde independent rule i say let them they seem happy and want to be like that i cant blame them either. As for Argentina just give it a rest please it's gettin old in this world, that being said i agree with the British on this one it there islands so let them be left alone
cheers from
Canada

[happyslapper]

Happyslapper, you understand me perfectly. In Hispanic America is forming a bloc that is rejecting the interference of Anglo-Saxon countries (as well say, historically the UK had a big influence).



The gap will be filled by Spain and France. Things of history.

In which case your post makes no sense. The issue is about the literal case of the USA and Canada being left out of a pan-American bloc. It's not about the racist tendancies of various south american regimes, rising up against the very thing that has done so much to correct the path set by the ibero-italian settlers. As for your bitterness, as ever, you'll only end up swallowing it.

[happyslapper]

As for the "oil" rights.

Let's talk business. The cost of extraction and transport of oil to the UK would be mitigated if the refining and distribution were to happen on the mainland. A joint BP/YPF venture would placate the Argentines (i.e. Jobs) and benefit the British (mitigate the environmental impacts of refining).

As for distribution, Patagonia/Falklands have a greater access to emerging markets to South Africa, Australia, New Zealand

There was a full and binding agreement between the UK and Argentina, which would have split both revenue and workload in a logical way, so as to maximise profit for all parties, and avert the very situation we have this year.

The Kirchners unilaterally threw it out of the window. I still don't understand why the press aren't making this a key part of their stories on the current 'crisis'.

So now here we have Argentina accusing the UK of acting ''unilaterally'', whilst imposing unilateral, legally-greyed limitations on something that is outside thier juridiction, having unilaterally withdrawn from logical multilateral agreements.

I completely agree that ideally Argenitne companies should be involved. The irony is that in light of the Arg government penalising companies working in both Arg and FI, many Arg companies may end up working in the Falklands and simply ditch Argenitne operations. Can you blame them? They get shat on and pulled around by the government depending on the latest political crisis, so why not opt for the relative stability in the Falklands...
Theres increasing signs of Chilean companies wanting to get involved. There's already Australian, Norwegian, and Danish companies involved in the Falklands operation, contrary to the Kirchners' assertaions that it's a British operation that intentionally excludes non British companies.

[armored_diplomacy]

... and explained how Argentina's post-war history is one of feeling sorry for itself.
The Falklands issue is a classic example.

Quoted for true.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Don't know if this has been posted before but here's a (fairly long) history of the falkland islands

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf


Good effort for posting that. It's by faaaaaaaar the best concise explanation of why the Argentine claim is wrong. Although to anyone without a fairly extensive interest in the subject it's a heavy-going read, it's actually just a 'short' response to an attempt by the Argentine Government to propagandise a group of LSE Students a couple of years ago.
It's actually a prelude to a ~2000 page document along similar lines, which is going to be the most extensively researched piece on the sovereignty dispute ever written. It was actually due out towards the end of last year, but seems to have been delayed for some reason.

Good post though.

(Guys, if you seriously want to understand the depth of the Argentine deception.... read that link!!)


Thats what I call game, set & match.

damn good effort their lads.

What a superb and well researched article. Is the Argie document of 2007 available online?

As 2495 so rightly says, "Game, Set & Match".

[happyslapper]

MALVINAS. ARGENTINE RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY

Date: Mon, 3 Dec, 6.30pm
Venue: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Room U8, Tower 1, Clement's Inn, WC2A 2AE
6.30 pm
Opening
Ambassador Federico Mirré

6.45 pm
Colloquium
Moderator
Professor George Philip, LSE
Speakers: Dr. Raúl Vinuesa, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Professor Rudolf Dolzer, University of Bonn, Germany, Virginia Gamba, Director of Safer Africa , South Africa
Wine reception will follow

R.S.V.P. 020 7318 1300/6
mailto:confirmation@argentine-embassy-uk.org%20 (confirmation@argentine-embassy-uk.org%20)


I'm trying to track down the main body now, DW. May take a while...

[armored_diplomacy]

Don't know if this has been posted before but here's a (fairly long) history of the falkland islands

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Thank you very much for uploading it, its extremely interesting !

As for the Argentine 2007 report:
here: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/

Our "Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores" (similar to your "foreign office", I guess) has published this brief report that when compared with what is quoted in the pdf file as the Argentine Report seems to be the same. With the permission of the Thread mod, I´ll "copy and paste" it in it´s english version, just as it´s presented there:

"Historical precedents
The Malvinas Islands became part of an area under Spanish jurisdiction with the entry into force of the first international instruments to delimit the “New World” soon after its discovery in 1492. Papal Bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 are the first instruments reflecting Spanish titles in accordance with international law of the period.
For most of the 16th century only navigators in the service of Spain travelled the maritime routes along the South American coast, advancing southwards in their search for an inter-oceanic passage. In this process the Malvinas Islands were discovered by members of Magellan’s expedition of 1520. From that moment on they were recorded on European maps under a variety of names and remained under effective control of the Spanish authorities.
During the 17th century the Malvinas Islands were sighted by navigators from other nations who had ventured into Spanish domains at the risk of provoking reactions and protests from Spain whenever it received news of such expeditions. But the whole southern region of America, with its coasts, seas and islands, indisputably remained under Spanish sovereignty through the different treaties signed in the period, such as the “American “ Treaty of 1670 between Spain and England.
The Peace of Utrecht, signed in 1713, assured the integrity of Spain’s possessions in South America and confirmed its exclusive right to sail in the waters of the South Atlantic. As a signatory of the Utrecht agreements, and of later treaties in the 18th century ratifying them, England accepted these clauses. However, towards the middle of that century, the Malvinas Islands provoked the interest of Great Britain and France, which were seeking to establish a strategically located settlement opposite the Strait of Magellan.
In 1749 Spain received news of a British project to settle the Malvinas Islands and strongly protested to the government of Great Britain which as a consequence decided against it.
When in 1764 France established Port Louis on Soledad Island, Spain objected and won the recognition of its rights to the islands from France. The French government ordered the evacuation and handover of the settlement to the Spanish authorities. The handover was made in 1767 and from then on a Spanish governor responsible to Buenos Aires was resident in the Malvinas Islands.
The year after the French settlement, a clandestine British expedition arrived in the archipelago and in 1766 English sailors established a fort at a place they named Port Egmont on an island to the west of Gran Malvina. Despite the secrecy of the British government, Spain became aware of it and insisted on protesting its rights. Not receiving an acceptable response, it set out to find the illegal settlement and in 1770 expelled the settlers by force. As a result of that act, both countries were on the verge of war, which was averted by a bilateral agreement signed in 1771. This agreement consisted of a Declaration by which Spain returned Port Egmont to the British in order to save the honour of the King of England, making express reservation of its sovereignty over the whole of the Malvinas Islands, and also of an Acceptance of this Declaration in which Great Britain remained silent as to the reservation of Spanish rights. As part of the agreement it was verbally agreed that the English would withdraw from Port Egmont, which they did in 1774. From then on the Spanish authorities in Puerto Soledad continued to exercise their jurisdiction and control over the whole of the archipelago.
In 1790, with the signing of the Treaty of San Lorenzo at the El Escorial, Great Britain undertook not to establish any settlements on either the eastern or the western coasts of South America or on the adjacent islands already occupied by Spain such as the Malvinas Islands.
Spain appointed a succession of thirty-two governors in the Malvinas Islands up to 1811, when the garrison at Puerto Soledad was summoned to Montevideo to defend the Spanish monarchy at the beginning of the Wars of Independence. In the framework of this conflict, the first governors of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata included the Malvinas in different administrative acts, considering them an integral part of their territory inherited from Spain by the succession of States in accordance with the uti possidetis juris of 1810.
In 1820, while difficult conditions reigned due to internal struggles faced by the Argentine state in formation, naval Officer David Jewett took possession of the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata at a public ceremony at Puerto Soledad, which was attended by sealers and whalers of different nationalities, including American and British, who happened to disembark on the islands in the course of their work. The news was published in the media in the United States and the United Kingdom but there was no official comment from either country. Nor did Great Britain stake any claim to the Malvinas Islands in the process of recognition of Argentina which ended with the signing by both countries of the Treaty of Friendship, Trade and Navigation in 1825.
During the 1820s, Argentine governments took various actions confirming their sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, including the appointment of governors, legislation on fishing resources and the granting of territorial concessions. As a result, Puerto Soledad grew and its inhabitants worked in stockbreeding, sealing and providing services to the boats, which came into port.
On 10 June 1829, the Argentine government enacted a decree creating the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas Islands. After having remained silent for over 50 years, in the course of which there had been successive uncontested Spanish and Argentine administrations in the Malvinas Islands, in November 1829 the United Kingdom objected to that decree against the backdrop of renewed strategic interest in the South Atlantic.
At the end of 1831, a United States warship razed Puerto Soledad as reprisal for the capture of sealing vessels caught infringing fishing laws by the Argentine authorities. The Argentine government immediately began attempts to obtain reparations from the United States and at the same time sent a navy schooner to restore order in the islands upset by the arrival of the American vessel.




http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Origin of the sovereignty dispute

Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities and population, in 1834 the British government assigned a Navy officer to remain in the islands and only in 1841 did it decide to “colonise” the Malvinas Islands and appoint a “governor”. The act of force of 1833, carried out in peacetime without prior communication or declaration by a government friendly to the Argentine Republic, was immediately rejected and protested against. On 16 January 1833, when news of the events in the Malvinas Islands reached Buenos Aires, the Argentine government demanded explanations from the British Chargé d’Affaires who was unaware of the actions carried out by vessels of his country. On 22 January the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented a protestation to the British government official, which was renewed and extended on repeated occasions by the Argentine representative in London. The Argentine presentations were rejected by the British government.
The issue remained unsettled and was recognised as such by the British Foreign Secretary in 1849. Meanwhile Argentina continued to present the issue at different levels of government and it became a subject of debate in the Argentine Congress. In 1884, at the lack of response to the protests, Argentina proposed to submit the issue to international arbitration, which was also rejected by the United Kingdom without any reason being given.
From that time on, the Argentine Republic made repeated demands formulating the relevant protests whenever it had notice of British actions contradicting its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas not only bilaterally but also in different multilateral fora, including the United Nations and the Organisation of American States, thus promoting the adoption of resolutions calling on both Parties to settle the controversy and of declarations in support of the Argentine position.



http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

There are only two parties to the sovereignty dispute: the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.

Within the framework of Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 of the General Assembly of the United Nations—which establishes that the controversy between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom concerning the sovereignty over the islands must be solved through negotiations which take into account the dispositions and objectives of the United Nations Charter, Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly as well as the interests of the population of the islands—a process of bilateral negotiations got under way which analysed various formulas to solve the dispute. No agreement was reached.
In 1982 the conflict of the South Atlantic took place and diplomatic relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom were broken off. These were restored in February 1990.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Present situation.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/pixel.gif Bilateral diplomatic relations between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom were restored as a result of the Joint Declarations of Madrid of 1989 and 1990, thanks to the adoption of a formula safeguarding sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. Pursuant to the Joint Declaration of 19 October 1989, this formula applies to all bilateral meetings concerning practical aspects in connection with the Malvinas as well as with declarations and acts of the parties or third parties, which occur as a consequence of what has been agreed at the meetings.
After the 1989 and 1990 Joint Statements signed in Madrid with the United Kingdom various provisional understandings on practical questions related to the South Atlantic were adopted in successive joint statements and exchanges of notes in accordance with the formula of safeguarding of sovereignty. Such understandings have a provisional character and aim at bringing about conditions for resuming negotiations about sovereignty.
In spite of the above, the sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands is still awaiting a solution due to the British reticence to respond to the reiterated calls of the international community to both countries to resume negotiations on the Question.



http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Sovereignty is the core of the dispute
The sovereignty question, the issue that is central to the dispute, has not yet been addressed due to the reluctance of the United Kingdom to include this topic in the negotiations, despite the many calls of the international community in favour of a definitive solution.
The First Transitory Provision of the Argentine National Constitution of 1994 stipulates: “The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptibly sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and island spaces, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and in accordance with the principles of International Law, are a permanent and irrenounceable objective of the Argentine people.”
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has reaffirmed unequivocally the permanent and non-renounceable nature of the legitimate aspiration of the Argentine Republic to recover, by peaceful means, its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. In her inaugural address to the Argentine Congress on 10 December 2007, the President reaffirmed “[…] once again, our non-renounceable and irrevocable sovereignty claim over our Malvinas Islands”, recalling the existence of a “[…] colonial enclave denounced before the United Nations” and emphasising that “it is time to resume compliance of the mandate given by the United Nations we all belong to”.
Within the framework of its constitutional mandate, the Argentine Republic has repeated in international and regional organisations and to the international community in general, the call of the latter on the United Kingdom to comply with the repeated international summonses to resume negotiations on sovereignty in accordance with the resolutions and declarations of the United Nations and the Organisation of American States, as well as the permanent willingness of Argentina in this regard.
In this regard, on the occasion of his address to the United Nations General Assembly at its Sixty-Second Session, former President Néstor Kirchner underlined the “permanent” nature of the Argentine claim and the legitimacy of its sovereignty rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. It also highlighted the fact that, ever since 1833, the Argentine Government “has always protested this illegal occupation, while claiming the restitution of the full exercise of sovereignty over this part of its territory, as well as permanent readiness to resume negotiations aimed at a solution to the dispute, as reflected in its own National Constitution”.
At the same time, the Argentine government reaffirms its respect for the way of life of the islanders guaranteed by the National Constitution and the Argentine commitment to consider their interests, pursuant to the United Nations resolutions.

Notwithstanding the above, the Argentine Republic rejects and objects to British unilateral acts in the disputed area which do not take into account the provisional understandings under the sovereignty formula and are contrary to the provisions of Resolution 31/49 of the United Nations General Assembly, which urges the Parties to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications to the situation.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)




[I]United Nation´s General Assembly
On 14 December 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” which proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations“, enshrining two fundamental principles that were to guide the decolonisation process: self-determination and territorial integrity.
The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands Question.
The specificity of the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow its return, thus violating Argentine territorial integrity. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. It is important to note that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” stipulates in paragraph 6 “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
The General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands”—it applies the principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands—in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 which was reaffirmed by other resolutions in 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) y 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) to the Parties “to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)“.
As of 2004, by virtue of a process of revitalisation of the General Assembly, the Argentine government ensured that the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” appeared on the permanent agenda and in the Document of the General Assembly Bureau. The topic may be discussed subject to prior notification by a Member State.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Special Committee on Decolonisation of the United Nations.
This Committee, currently comprising twenty-seven countries, annually adopts a resolution which—among other things—requests both governments to consolidate the present process of dialogue and cooperation through the resumption of negotiations, with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the controversy over sovereignty as soon as possible. The last Resolution of this type, of 12 June 2008, reiterates that the way to bring to an end the special and particular colonial situation in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” is the peaceful and negotiated solution of the controversy on sovereignty that exists between the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and requests both Governments to resume negotiations to find, at the earliest, a peaceful solution to the controversy.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Organisation of American States
Every year since 1982, the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States has adopted a resolution, and since 1993 a declaration stating that the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” is of permanent interest to the whole hemisphere. It calls on Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful and definitive solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands as soon as possible; it expresses its satisfaction at the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine government to continue exploring all possible ways to securing a peaceful solution to the controversy, particularly its positive considerations on the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands; and decides to continue examining the question until its final solution. The last ****ouncement of this type was made on 3 June 2008.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Mercosur
On 25 June 1996 the Mercosur Member countries Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay plus Bolivia and Chile expressed in the Declaration of Potrero de los Funes their full support for Argentina’s rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, sending a clear message from the sub-regional bloc on the need to find a solution to the controversy. Their full support was reiterated in the Asuncion Declaration of 15 June 1999.
On 1 July 2008, the Presidents of the Mercosur Member States and Associated Countries issued a joint statement that included the following paragraphs:
“[Member States and Associated Countries] renew their commitment with the ‘Declaración sobre Malvinas’ signed at Potrero de los Funes on 25 June 1996, and reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute regarding the Question of the Malvinas Islands”.
“Likewise, they stress that the adoption of unilateral measures is incompatible with the ****ouncements by the United Nations, and recall the regional interest on seeing the protracted sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, reach a solution at the earliest, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the declarations of the Organisation of American States.”
“They further state that, in respect of the Treaty of Lisbon modifying the Treaty of the European Union and the Constitutive Treaty of the European Community, that the inclusion of the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands in the regime of ‘Association of Countries and Overseas Territories’ is incompatible with the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic and the existence of a sovereignty dispute over the aforementioned archipelagos”.
ALADI
The Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Latin-American Association of Integration (ALADI) adopted, on 11 March 2008, in Montevideo, Uruguay, a declaration in support of the “legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute referred to as the ‘Question of the Malvinas Islands’”, and ratifying the “regional interest in that the protracted sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands reach, as soon as possible, a solution in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the Organisation of American States”.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Rio Group
The Rio Group has issued statements on the Malvinas Islands Question since 1993. More recently, the Heads of State and Government of the Rio Group, gathered in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, reaffirmed, on 7 March 2008, their support to the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom about the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” and reminded the regional interest that the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resume negotiations in order to reach as soon as possible a fair, peaceful and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute about the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and declarations of the United Nations and the Organization of American States.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Meeting of South American and Arab Countries
The Declaration of Buenos Aires of 20 and 21 February 2008 and de Summit of South South American and Arab Countries called on the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to "resume negotiations in order to find, at the earliest, a just, peaceful and lasting solution to the sovereignty controversy about the "Question of the mailvinas Islands", in accordance with the numerous relevant United Nations resolutions". They further stated that the inclusion by the European Union of the malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands in the list of overseas territories to which the regime of "Association of Countries and Overseas Territories" applies is incompatible with the existence of a sovereignty dispute over those archipelagos."


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Ibero-American Summit.
The Ibero-American Summits which bring together the heads of State and Government of twenty-two Ibero-american countries—including Spain and Portugal—, have stated on several occasions, the last time in 2007 in Santiago de Chile, the need for the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find, at the earliest, a solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the Organisation of American States and the provisions and objectives of the United Nations Charter, including the principle of territorial integrity.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/../images/subir.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#Tope)

Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic
The Final Declaration of the VIIth Meeting of Member States of the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic, issued in Luanda on 19 June 2007, “[c]alled for the resumption of negotiations between the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on the ‘Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)’ with a view to finding as soon as possible a peaceful, just and durable solution to the sovereignty dispute”

The “Question of the Malvinas Islands” in the realm of the European Union
On 13 December 2007, due to the signature, by EU member States, of the Treaty of Lisbon, which modifies the Treaty of the European Union and the Constitutive Treaty of the European Community, the Argentine Government reaffirmed, once more, its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands. It also reiterated its position and rejected, again, by notes addressed to the Presidencies of the EU Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, and to all EU Member States, the pretension to include those parts of the Argentine national territory in the list of overseas territories governed by the regime of “Association of Countries and Overseas Territories”
"

[DeltaWhisky58]

43. Conclusion

The principal arguments put forward by the Argentinians in their 3 December 2007 seminar, and repeated
in both the 2007 pamphlets, are untrue. The truth of the matter is that:

(1) The 17th and 18th-century treaties between Britain and Spain did not prohibit British possession of
the Falklands.

(2) The Argentinians have quoted the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement incorrectly. The agreement as
finally signed preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain, not Spain alone. There was no secret
promise by Britain to evacuate the Falklands after the restitution of Port Egmont.

(3) The Argentinians and Professor Dolzer have incorrectly described the history of the 1820s in the
Falklands. David Jewett did claim the Falklands then for Argentina, but he had not been sent there.
He did not attempt to apply fishing regulations, or Argentine laws, or tell any foreign ships to leave.
His claim was not announced formally in Argentina or even mentioned in his report. Professor Dolzer
has also incorrectly described the activities of Pablo Areguati in the Falklands in 1824. Areguati was
never given any official rank, nor did he attempt to enforce Argentine law or fishing regulations. It
was all he could do to survive himself, and his expedition collapsed after a few weeks. Britain did
object promptly when Louis Vernet was given an official title in 1829. Professor Dolzer’s assumption
that Argentina did establish itself adequately in the islands in the early 1820s is based, as we have
shown, on a profound distortion of history.

(4) Argentina’s claim that the 1825 Treaty of Friendship and Navigation with Britain supports its claim to
the Falklands is incorrect. There was no one from Argentina in the Falklands at that time, and the
Treaty does not describe Argentine territory at all.

(5) The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is
false; the settlement continued, and most of its inhabitants were from Buenos Aires.

(6) Argentina did not inherit a unitary claim to the Falklands from Spain, and its claim is further
weakened by the lack of foreign recognition in the 19th century and by Louis Vernet’s preference for
British sovereignty.

(7) Argentina dropped its claim to the Falklands by ratifying the Convention of Settlement in 1850. The
failure to mention that this ended Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is a gross distortion of history, as
are the statements by Argentine historians that the British Foreign Secretary accepted in 1849 that the
matter was “pending” or “postponed” – the reverse is true. After 1850 Argentina dropped all protests
to Britain over the Falklands, and did not mention the Falklands to Britain for 34 years. The dropping
of the Argentine claim was confirmed by Argentine leaders in their Messages to Congress in the
1860s, and the Falklands were not mentioned in any Message to Congress for 91 years until 1941.
(8) The Argentine claim was artificially revived in 1884, by non-diplomatic means – the “Affair of the
Map” – but after failing to change Britain’s position Argentina dropped the matter again for several
decades.

(9) The Argentinians have never had a valid claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
These islands were only claimed by Argentina after the Second World War, after decades of
acquiescence and after acknowledgement of Britain’s sovereignty there.

(10) The Argentine argument that Islanders have no right to self-determination is absurd. They have the
same rights as any other immigrant population of the New World.

We conclude that the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007 and the two Argentine 2007 pamphlets do
not make a case for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands. All these islands are rightfully British.

The Falklands dispute was ended over 150 years ago with Argentina’s agreement; there is no need
for any “solution”.

This is the conclusion from the document mentioned earlier.

A brilliant analysis of a complex issue and well summarised.

[Sarge543]

I´ve never read anything about that (and I´m quite sure that such an incident would have had media impact); have you being there in recent years?

Apologies for the bean remark. :oops: Have been there recently, yes.

The Islanders are fervently Pro-UK and have no interest in anything Argentinian.

[Ordie]

The Kirchners unilaterally threw it out of the window. I still don't understand why the press aren't making this a key part of their stories on the current 'crisis'.

So now here we have Argentina accusing the UK of acting ''unilaterally'', whilst imposing unilateral, legally-greyed limitations on something that is outside thier juridiction, having unilaterally withdrawn from logical multilateral agreements.

The Kirchners are from the Patagonian province of Santa Cruz, an oil producing region. Much of their political success to the Casa Rosada stems from oil revenues. When YPF was broken down, and the revenues were distributed, the Provinces shared the wealth. The majority of provinces deposited the money in local banks. Santa Cruz, under governor Kirschner at that time deposited the money in Switzerland. When the economic meltdown happened, all banks closed overnight and no one got paid. Except Santa Cruz public employees which were immune thanks for money being stashed in Switzerland.

Oil from the S. Atlantic including from Brazil may decrease the supply and drive down the revenues.

Argentine politics is driven by populism and patronage. Christina over promised and under-delivered to her base of support. (The low income neighborhoods in outer Buenos Aires, most specifically the area of Matanzas with a population of 1 million).

No one pays taxes and everything is dependent on agricultural exports. The farmers given up on cattle and growing soybeans for China. In response Christina increased the export tax and ban the exportation of beef in order to feed the masses their daly ration of beef at a reduced cost. The Argentine football league is broke, Christina mandates free access to placate the masses. Thankfully, there's checks and balances within the Argentine government to keep her in line.

Both Gordon Brown and Christina Fernandez are going through their domestic issues. Both may seek a way to capitalize on the oil exploration issue.

[armored_diplomacy]

Apologies for the bean remark. :oops: Have been there recently, yes.

The Islanders are fervently Pro-UK and have no interest in anything Argentinian.

Thank you :hug:.

[am39exocet]

Hi,

Indoubtely, Argentine doesn't have means to do a conventional war , however, the geopolitical situation is not the same than in 1982.

In this time, Argentine is completely isolated due to this act of war against Falklands, even if revendications are fully justified, this was not the better choice to do.

Nowadays, the situation have changed , the action of UK to begin an oil exploration without resolved the problem soverignity is a very bad attitude. Now UK is viewed like an empire colonialist by South American countries. These countries support Argentina in its revendications now.


My opinion it is that Argentine will not engage a war , in a first time . But if UK follows this entreprise we can't exclude this possibility with a problable help of others countries....

[Connaught Ranger]

Hi,

Indoubtely, Argentine doesn't have means to do a conventional war , however, the geopolitical situation is not the same than in 1982.

In this time, Argentine is completely isolated due to this act of war against Falklands, even if revendications are fully justified, this was not the better choice to do.

Nowadays, the situation have changed , the action of UK to begin an oil exploration without resolved the problem soverignity is a very bad attitude. Now UK is viewed like an empire colonialist by South American countries. These countries support Argentina in its revendications now.


My opinion it is that Argentine will not engage a war , in a first time . But if UK follows this entreprise we can't exclude this possibility with a problable help of others countries....

Name all the countries that support Argentinia:-
1.
2.
3.

Yeah, like the thought of an Argie-Venezuela pact scares anybody!:roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[martinexsquaddie]

we've got a nuclear attack submarine south americas combined navys are target practice for itany you know it.
THE ISLANDERS DON'T WANT TO BE ARGENTIANIAN FORGET IT.

[Lov3ll]

we've got a nuclear attack submarine south americas combined navys are target practice for itany you know it.
THE ISLANDERS DON'T WANT TO BE ARGENTIANIAN FORGET IT.

Are you drunk? at 10am? p-)

[martinexsquaddie]

no just angry.
The bennies may be inbred wierdos with a festish for berghaus jackets wellies and landrovers.
but until they decide they don't want to be British or independant.
Argentina or the rest of South America can do one. They can whine all they like islanders have been british for the last 170 years and likely to remain so. everything thing else is an attempt to ignore the islanders wishes.
we know south americans arn't really sold on people power if the people don't speak spanish. armoured diplomancys twists to explain the islanders have no rights because they settled an empty island. But people in patagonia have rights cause they masscared the orginal inhabitants.

[am39exocet]

About countries wich support Argentina stance see here :

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuesti%C3%B3n_de_las_Islas_Malvinas#Pa.C3.ADses_que_apoyan_la_causa_argentina

red and assimilates : support Argentina
blue and turkish : support UK


We have clearly a gap ....

[Connaught Ranger]

About countries wich support Argentina stance see here :

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuesti%C3%B3n_de_las_Islas_Malvinas#Pa.C3.ADses_que_apoyan_la_causa_argentina

red and assimilates : support Argentina
blue and turkish : support UK


We have clearly a gap ....

Yeah you clearly do if you are going to use Wiki as a source.rofl

[DeltaWhisky58]

no just angry.
The bennies may be inbred wierdos with a festish for berghaus jackets wellies and landrovers.
but until they decide they don't want to be British or independant.
Argentina or the rest of South America can do one. They can whine all they like islanders have been british for the last 170 years and likely to remain so. everything thing else is an attempt to ignore the islanders wishes.
we know south americans arn't really sold on people power if the people don't speak spanish. armoured diplomancys twists to explain the islanders have no rights because they settled an empty island. But people in patagonia have rights cause they masscared the orginal inhabitants.

I know we're singing from the same hymn sheet, but you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours with comments like that about the Falkland Islanders.

The Falkland Islanders are no different from people in isolated farming communities in The Scottish Western Isles, much of the Scottish Highlands, rural parts of Wales, East Anglia, Ireland, the South West and anywhere else in the British Isles where there are such communities.

Those brave people endured untold hardships including torture, mock executions and even deportation to the Argie Concentration Camp at Port Howard during the 1982 occupation. If Major Patricio Dowling and his evil band of SS-Totenkopf impersonators had got their way, things would have got much worse. Please show them the respect they deserve.

[Lov3ll]

Navy intercepts Argentinian warship near British waters

Ocean Guardian oil rig in the Cromarty Firth, near Invergordon, Scotland. The British rig has begun drilling for oil in the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands, despite strong opposition from Argentina


Destroyer HMS York spotted the vessel around ten miles inside the disputed “oil zone” around the South Atlantic islands.
The British crew had to radio the Argentinian ship, a smaller corvette named ARA Drummond, to demand that it change its course.
Sources told The Sun that the ship made an “innocent navigational blunder” and were embarrassed about the mistake.
It is believed that the Drummond was spotted sailing alongside a French fleet before it broke away and headed for the disputed zone.
Under international law, the 15 miles of sea surrounding the Falklands are officially British waters.
The ship was spotted around 65 miles from the islands, in an area of sea called the “conservation zone”.
It is in this zone that the oil exploration is taking place. It is not illegal for Argentinian ships to enter it but the incident has heightened tensions.
A spokesman for the MoD played down the incident, insisting that the radio communication had been “friendly”.
He said: “We can confirm that on 28 January this year during rough weather and at night, HMS YORK and an Argentine ship were operating in the same locality in international waters around 50 miles from Falkland Island Territorial Waters. After a friendly dialogue by radio they each continued with their own exercises.”
On Wednesday the MoD said that HMS York would remain the area around the islands. A British submarine has also been dispatched to the Falklands to patrol the area.
Argentina has since protested to the UN about the British oil exploration. Its foreign minister is due to meet Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7313829/Navy-intercepts-Argentinian-warship-near-British-waters.html

[martinexsquaddie]

tbf I was telling a slightly off colour joke about cousins. when someobdy said I'm from the falklands opps. No don't worry they are really like that :)

[DeltaWhisky58]

Destroyer HMS York spotted the vessel around ten miles inside the disputed oil zone around the South Atlantic islands.

The British crew had to radio the Argentinian ship, a smaller corvette named ARA Drummond, to demand that it change its course.

Sources told The Sun that the ship made an innocent navigational blunder and were embarrassed about the mistake.

It is believed that the Drummond was spotted sailing alongside a French fleet before it broke away and headed for the disputed zone.

Under international law, the 15 miles of sea surrounding the Falklands are officially British waters.

The ship was spotted around 65 miles from the islands, in an area of sea called the conservation zone.

Yeah, pull the other one - even the Argie Navy doesn't make such navigation errors rofl Do the Argies need reminding of the capabilities of the Royal Navy?

That's just like the Argie Air Force and Naval Air Arm a/c which get "lost" and subsequently intercepted.


tbf I was telling a slightly off colour joke about cousins. when someobdy said I'm from the falklands opps. No don't worry they are really like that :)

This will probably only be of significance to our British members, but my pal (RAF Wing Commander) recently showed me a photo he took on the road from MPA to Stanley. Along with the "Stanley" sign, there was one saying "Welcome to Royston Vasey".

In all reality, I suspect the Falklanders of today are very different indeed to the way they were pre 2nd April 1982.

[Nepeccel]

Are the French doing an excersise in the South Atlantic at the moment? The artical says the Argentine corvette was near a french fleet before heading towards the Falklands.

[Lazy Lob]

....., but my pal (RAF Wing Commander) recently showed me a photo he took on the road from MPA to Stanley. Along with the "Stanley" sign, there was one saying "Welcome to Royston Vasey"......

I know I shouldn't but rofl

[armored_diplomacy]

"Those brave people endured untold hardships including torture, mock executions and even deportation to the Argie Concentration Camp at Port Howard during the 1982 occupation ...."

From what independent source may I get more info about those incidents?

[knowitall]

"The Falkland Islanders are no different from people in isolated farming communities in The Scottish Western Isles, much of the Scottish Highlands, rural parts of Wales, East Anglia, Ireland, the South West and anywhere else in the British Isles where there are such communities."

like the man said "inbred wierdos with a festish for berghaus jackets wellies and landrovers."

though im from lincolnshire so i've not go much room to take the piss!

[Connaught Ranger]

"The Falkland Islanders are no different from people in isolated farming communities in The Scottish Western Isles, much of the Scottish Highlands, rural parts of Wales, East Anglia, Ireland, the South West and anywhere else in the British Isles where there are such communities."

like the man said "inbred wierdos with a festish for berghaus jackets wellies and landrovers."

[B]though im from lincolnshire so i've not go much room to take the piss!

Particularly if you are from around Market Rasen (sp?) / Louth area :lol:

[DeltaWhisky58]

"Those brave people endured untold hardships including torture, mock executions and even deportation to the Argie Concentration Camp at Port Howard during the 1982 occupation ...."

From what independent source may I get more info about those incidents?

There are plenty of published accounts of atrocities carried out by certain elements of the Argentine forces of occupation April-June 1982. I thought you were the expert on everything Falklands related? If you don't know about the torture, mock executions, the Port Howard concentration camp, Major Patricio Dowling and his merry man then you're not the well informed little Argentinean you like to make out you are.

Remember, we british haven't been kept in the dark and fed sh!t by our government over the past umpteen decades. Face facts, when your brave countrymen invaded British sovereign territory illegally in March/April 1982, most Brits had never heard of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and of those who had, most thought them to be off the coast of Scotland, propaganda was therefore wasted on us.

Suggest you do a little research into what really happened before making any more stupid posts - listen to less institutional propaganda and think outside of the box you silly little man. Consider that Argentine sources might just be wrong and read some independent accounts, or which there are just too many for them to be anything but correct :bash:

Ask yourself this - what was the background of the Argentine Commandant of the Falkland Island, what was the background of his head of intelligence - don't know or choose not to?

[happyslapper]

What a superb and well researched article. Is the Argie document of 2007 available online?

As 2495 so rightly says, "Game, Set & Match".




I'm trying to track down the main body now, DW. May take a while...

I've checked my hard drive, and e-mailed the likely contacts... no luck I'm afraid. It was only distributed in paper form, and it seems the LSE students were not motivated enought by it (read into that what you will) to scan it and post it online.

However, we can be sure that it toes the party-line, and was probably just an even more turbo-bullsh;t version of the link Armoured Diplomacy posted to the Foreign Ministry website.
If it miraculously turns up, I'll post it.

[happyslapper]

Hi,

Indoubtely, Argentine doesn't have means to do a conventional war , however, the geopolitical situation is not the same than in 1982.

In this time, Argentine is completely isolated due to this act of war against Falklands, even if revendications are fully justified, this was not the better choice to do.

Nowadays, the situation have changed , the action of UK to begin an oil exploration without resolved the problem soverignity is a very bad attitude. Now UK is viewed like an empire colonialist by South American countries. These countries support Argentina in its revendications now.


My opinion it is that Argentine will not engage a war , in a first time . But if UK follows this entreprise we can't exclude this possibility with a problable help of others countries....


About countries wich support Argentina stance see here :

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuesti%C3%B3n_de_las_Islas_Malvinas#Pa.C3.ADses_que_apoyan_la_causa_argentina

red and assimilates : support Argentina
blue and turkish : support UK


We have clearly a gap ....


Well thankfully international law, human rights, etc, is not a popularity contest. If we're to judge by that map (which I'm sure you know is a gross oversimplification of the issue) then I'm quite happy with Argentina being supported by it's neighbours, and a series of renegade despotic regimes.

Also, the UK is free to act to develop a hydrocarbons industry in it's administrative area. The fact that it offered a jaw-droppingly good deal to Argentina, in the spirit of reconciliation, is amazing. The fact that the Kirchners then threw it back in the UK's face is equally amazing.

This is not unilateral; Argentina has been kept informed, offered a part, and offered effectively 'free money', but has failed to take advantage.
This is also nothing recent, Falklands hydrocarbons have been on the cards since the 1990s. In 1998, exploratory wells were drilled, with nothing like this reaction from Argentina, and that was without the offers that were made this time around.

I shall take the liberty (correct me if I am wrong) of assuming you hail from Argentina. All I can say is to look beyond the rhetoric, and see what is stone-cold and logical. Things are not quite as CFK would like you to believe....

[DeltaWhisky58]

I've checked my hard drive, and e-mailed the likely contacts... no luck I'm afraid. It was only distributed in paper form, and it seems the LSE students were not motivated enought by it (read into that what you will) to scan it and post it online.

However, we can be sure that it toes the party-line, and was probably just an even more turbo-bullsh;t version of the link Armoured Diplomacy posted to the Foreign Ministry website.
If it miraculously turns up, I'll post it.

Thanks for your efforts, much appreciated. As you say, it was clearly a work of fiction but I'd have been interested to read it.

In these days of Andrex* two-ply and decent central heating, I'm guessing the Argie leaflets weren't even put into worthwhile use by the LSE students. I wonder how well attended the lecture actually was and what reception the propaganda party received.





* Andrex is a well known British brand of toilet paper

[armored_diplomacy]

a) There are plenty of published accounts of atrocities carried out by certain elements of the Argentine forces of occupation April-June 1982.
b) I thought you were the expert on everything Falklands related? If you don't know about the torture, mock executions, the Port Howard concentration camp, Major Patricio Dowling and his merry man
c) then you're not the well informed little Argentinean you like to make out you are.

d) we british haven't been kept in the dark and fed sh!t by our government over the past umpteen decades.
e) Face facts
f) Suggest you do a little research into what really happened
g) before making any more stupid posts
h) listen to less institutional propaganda and think outside of the box
i) you silly little man
j) Consider that Argentine sources might just be wrong and read some independent accounts


Seems like a sensitive soul has being touched ...

a) Good to know; that´s why I was asking for some of them as reference. It was my undertanding that nice forums like this were, among other things, to share information. But you´re failing to quote a single one ....
b) Then you´re wrong, and have a poor judgement. What made you believe that?
c) Again, you failed. I never assume that possition here.
d) True, that´s one of the (many) things I admire about Britain. Yes, you read correctly: I admire many things form your country.
e) Most of my previos posts here are oriented to face the facts, and to accept that for Argentina, the islands are a lost case. But you surely didn´t read them, right? (looks like, instead, you used your bad judgement to get a weak conclusion. Good job !)
f) Thank you ! I started one (since I would never have thought about that)
Look what I found at English wikipedia (that place everybody hates but everybody uses):
Major Patricio Dowling, an Argentine of Irish origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Argentine) who hated all things British, became the chief of police. He frequently over-stepped his authority, ignoring instructions to treat the islanders with respect, and quickly became known throughout the islands for his tendency to resort to violence. Dowling imposed a regime of arbitrary house searches, arrests and questioning. His actions came to the attention of Comodoro Carlos Bloomer-Reeve who recommended to Brigadier-General Menéndez that he be removed and he was subsequently sent back to the mainland in disgrace.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#cite_note-Bound-18#cite_note-Bound-18)
Comodoro Carlos Bloomer-Reeve in conjunction with Major Barry Hussey were instrumental in protecting the Falkland Islanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islanders) and avoiding conflict with the Argentine military. Bloomer-Reeve had previously lived on the islands when he ran the LADE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LADE) operation in Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley,_Falkland_Islands) and had great affection for the islands. Despite their political differences, the humanity and moral courage of both men earned them the enduring respect and affection of many islanders.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#cite_note-Bound-18#cite_note-Bound-18)
No wholesale confiscation of private property occurred during the occupation (all goods obtained from the Islanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islanders) were paid for), but had the Islanders refused to sell, the goods in question would have been taken anyway, as is normal in military situations.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#cite_note-Martin_Middlebrook_p.44-16#cite_note-Martin_Middlebrook_p.44-16) However, Argentine officers did expropriate civilian property at Goose Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_Green) following the detention of the civilian population (Over one hundred islanders were imprisoned in the community hall), although they severely punished any conscripts that did the same.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#cite_note-Bound-18#cite_note-Bound-18)
There was no widespread abuse of the population; indeed after the war it was found that even the Islanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islanders)' personal food supplies and stocks of alcohol were untouched, and Brigadier-General Menéndez, the Argentine governor of the Islands, had made it clear from the start that he would not engage in any combat in Stanley itself. Private Santiago Carrizo of the 3rd Regiment described how a platoon commander ordered them to take up positions in the houses and "if a Kelper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelpers) resists, shoot him", but the entire company did nothing of the kind.[21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#cite_note-fn_4-20#cite_note-fn_4-20)
17) Martin Middlebrook, The Argentine Fight For The Falklands, ISBN 085052978-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0850529786), p.44 (looks like a British book)

19) Bound, Graham, Falkland Islanders at war, Pen and Sword Books Limited, ISBN 1 84415 429 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1844154297) (looks like a British book)

21) Max Hastings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hastings) & Simon Jenkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Jenkins), The Battle For The Falklands, p. 307 (again, looks like a British book)

g) Show me one of my “stupid posts”, please. Seriously, I´d like to see what other stupidity I have posted, specially if my teacher is going to be a guy with such a great judgement ....rofl


h) I don´t listen to institutional propaganda, thanks for the advice. The only Argentine Gov. Document that I quoted was in order to have here what seems to be a sumary of the Argentine Panflet form 2007, quoted by another (British) member. My bad for bringing another non “UK is great !” element of exam (ironic here). I though it would be appreciated as a reference.


i) (ever read the forum Rules?) :roll: Don´t worry, at this point I guess you´re not even worth a report.


j) What part of “independent sources” was not clear to you?. Are you one of those “mine good yours bad” dudes when it comes to sources? Since this is an english-based site, I always look for and post British sources !

To summ up: even though I am Argentine, since my first time here I assumed a calm possition, deprived of nationalistic crap, always asking for more references instead of the silly “you´re wrong !” just becasue the source quoted was not produced in my country. I have maintained a position of reality, facing the facts and current status, and being polite with everybody. Not uploading waving flags as empty answers to questions; not being stupidly agressive without any reason, just becasue the other guy doesn´t think like me.
Being on this thread was very nice; my (good) opinion about British people will not change just becasue a couple of id*ots believe they own the reason. Awsome sources were uploaded by other members, more willing to share knowledge rather than being internet-tough s*ckers. To that cool people, see you in other threads, it was very nice to meet you here.
To pathetic people like you: you win, Sir. Keep the thread to yourself. I´ll not post here anymore.

[DeltaWhisky58]

armored_diplomacy - throughout the life of this forum there have been a succession of know-it-all assholes such as yourself who try to justify Argentina's actions before, during and after the illegal occupation of British sovereign territory in 1982. Frankly I don't give a tuppeny sh!t what you think of me or my views, you can analyse my posts as long as you like.

If a few quotes from Wikipedia are all you can manage then your research is somewhat flawed. There are numerous highly detailed first hand accounts written by, or following interviews of, Falklanders who lived through the illegal occupation in 1982. I, and no doubt many of the pro-British members here have read these sources, which are just as available to you if only you'd make the effort to look for them. I have published numerous book lists on this forum which you can find for yourself, if you're genuinely interested. I don't need to and won't justify my views to you.

I've been researching/studying the 1982 conflict for years and have all of my own reference material. What I have said about the mistreatment of Falkland Islanders is based on documented fact from trusted and well known sources, a couple of which you have quoted in name only, you'll need to do better than that. I honestly don't think you have a clue about what really went on - you have mentioned the inhumane detention and treatment of the Goose Green community, do you really know what went on there, I doubt it. Do you know just how badly Argentine officers/NCOs treated their conscript soldiers - murder, torture, starvation - if they can treat their own like that, what hope is there for occupied civilians.

Answer me this - if Argentine forces were so well disciplined and treated the Islanders so well, explain to me why Argentine troops defecated in beds, baths, drawers, cupboards etc. of almost every house and building they occupied, looted extensively and stole Islanders food wherever possible. Why were the inhabitants of various outlying communities such as Goose Green, Port Howard and others, imprisoned and so badly treated? All of this is fully documented both in print and filmed interviews with the Islanders in documentaries often shown in the UK/USA/Canada by The History/Discovery Channels - I suppose you'll call those propaganda and lies.

Before you come back to me with any further breakdown and half-arsed analysis of my posts, do some bloody research both on this forum and elsewhere - who knows you might even learn something.

Have a look for my book-lists and do some research of your own, don't immediately write off British sources as propaganda, all can be verified by independent corroboration.

[Atlantic Friend]

It is believed that the Drummond was spotted sailing alongside a French fleet before it broke away and headed for the disputed zone.
Under international law, the 15 miles of sea surrounding the Falklands are officially British waters.
The ship was spotted around 65 miles from the islands, in an area of sea called the “conservation zone”.
It is in this zone that the oil exploration is taking place. It is not illegal for Argentinian ships to enter it but the incident has heightened tensions.

That doesn't seem to serve a lot of purpose to intercept a ship entering an area it can legally enter.

[Silver Etherium]

BTW, self determination does not apply when dealing with a transplanted population.
The majority of the Argentinian population qualifies as a transplanted population. Does that mean that whatever country decides to annex bits of Argentina, the consent of the people living there would not matter?


And how long does it take for a population to stop being "transplanted"? Because technically speaking, every population in history had to have been transplanted to a new region at some point. Are you arguing that every population on earth doesn't have a right to self determination? If there was any time limit needed to for a population to go from "transplanted" to "native", I'd certainly think it'd be after 177 years.

[DeltaWhisky58]

The majority of the Argentinian population qualifies as a transplanted population. Does that mean that whatever country decides to annex bits of Argentina, the consent of the people living there would not matter?


And how long does it take for a population to stop being "transplanted"? Because technically speaking, every population in history had to have been transplanted to a new region at some point. Are you arguing that every population on earth doesn't have a right to self determination? If there was any time limit needed to for a population to go from "transplanted" to "native", I'd certainly think it'd be after 177 years.

As James McNeill Whistler is reputed to have said to Oscar Wilde ... ... ... I wish I had said that ... ... ... brilliant!

[Ordie]

I just talked with my cousin in Buenos Aires.
No one is paying attention to the oil rigg, the UK, or the Malvinas and they are not being duped by Fernandez. (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me)

The public sentiment at the moment is anti-military/war.

The headlines in Buenos Aires has more coverage on the Killer Whale story than the oil rigg.

So Fleet Street is on own beating the war drums.

[Thom]

So Fleet Street is on own beating the war drums.

What? Who the hell wants to go to war?

[Elbs]

People in Argentina are more worried about prospects for the World Cup with Maradona at the helm than anything dealing with the Falklands.

[DeltaWhisky58]

I just talked with my cousin in Buenos Aires.
No one is paying attention to the oil rigg, the UK, or the Malvinas and they are not being duped by Fernandez. (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me)

The public sentiment at the moment is anti-military/war.

The headlines in Buenos Aires has more coverage on the Killer Whale story than the oil rigg.

So Fleet Street is on own beating the war drums.

I don't think it's fair to say that Fleet Street is beating any war drums, just responding to the threats from Ms Kirchner and her cronies. Clearly Britain doesn't want any conflict, but the possibility has to be considered, and the ensuing discussion would obviously involve relative capabilities and likely outcome.


What? Who the hell wants to go to war?

We certainly don't.


People in Argentina are more worried about prospects for the World Cup with Maradona at the helm than anything dealing with the Falklands.

Seems reasonable to me - as I suggested earlier, playing football, making wine and rearing great beef are what Argentina is best at. Worrying about a junkie screwing up your world cup chances are clearly more important to the people than the ramblings of their power-mad female premier. As we saw in 1982, The Falklands are again being used to distract public opinion by the government, but with luck it isn't working this time.

[happyslapper]

I tend to read both Argentine and British news about the islands. They've both been pretty similar in terms of the volume and type of stories over the past couple of weeks.
The predictable response in Arg...
"malvinas = waaaaahhh! Usurpadores! Piratas! Malvinas Argentinas! They're bullying us and stealing our resources"

The predictable response in UK...
"falklands = synonym for war. Let's jump on the defensive and make constant references to '82"

If you look at mainstream British media websites, the main international stories are the same as Clarin, La Nacion, BsAs Herald, etc.

[ChrisBV]

“Falklands has a right to oil exploration”, letter in The Times

Licences to drill for oil in Falkland Islands territorial waters were issued by the Falklands’ government, not by London, and Islanders are entitled to do this by the terms of the Joint Declaration over Oil issued by the Argentine and British governments in 1995, said Falklands Government Representative in London Sukey Cameron.

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/26314/240x0/sukey-speech.jpg
Ms Sukey Cameron, FIGO representative in London

On February 25 The Times printed a letter from Ms Cameron in rebuttal of assertions made earlier by an Argentine contributor to the newspaper’s letters page, Dr. Celia Szusterman, “Future of the Falklands”, Feb. 23.

The letter in full follows:

Sir, Celia Szusterman presents a confused and partial analysis of the situation over oil exploration in Falklands waters (“Future of Falklands”, letter, Feb 23). First, it was the Falkland Islands government (which Argentina consistently refuses to recognize) that granted the exploration licences. We are fully entitled to do this in our own territorial waters. This right was recognized by Argentina and the UK in the 1995 Joint Declaration over Oil.

The declaration stated the full claim by each side to the territory involved and was to allow Falklands’ oil exploration to go ahead in Falklands waters as defined by the fishing zones — effectively with the agreement of the Argentine Government and without interference or government involvement by it. The first round of exploration duly went ahead in 1998 on these terms. The agreement also designated an area straddling the border of the Falklands’ designated area as a special co-operation area to be exploited jointly.

A further licensing round in the Falklands took place in 2001 and ended in 2005; again within the terms of the 1995 agreement: so there is no question of a “unilateral decision to grant exploration rights”, as Dr Szusterman implies.

It was not until March 2007 (not 2005), that the Argentine Government unilaterally repudiated the 1995 agreement. To use Dr Szusterman’s words, “it signaled that co-operation over oil, fisheries, conservation and other matters should be steps in a path that must lead to talks on sovereignty.”

People may be forgiven for thinking that this announcement, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Argentine invasion and when the licensed companies had already invested two years’ work, was carefully planned to disrupt the exploration process and “revive the old cause”.

Argentina is attempting to achieve by economic sanctions what it failed to achieve by military means. It has withdrawn co-operation on fishing conservation and environmental protection. It has threatened sanctions against companies holding licences to fish in Falklands’ waters and tried to exclude Falklands Islands’ representatives from participating at international fish conservation conferences. Now it is attempting to disrupt oil exploration.

On one point I agree with Dr Szusterman’s analysis. It is time that Argentina recognized the Islanders and their democratically elected government. We are no longer a British colony but a self-governing overseas territory with full rights of self-determination. We have chosen to remain British citizens.

We have no desire to be colonized by Argentina, which refuses to recognize our Government or our right to determine our own future, but simply wants to seize our homeland, where we have lived for nearly 180 years. We will not be bullied into submission.

Sukey Cameron,
Representative Falkland Islands Government
London SW1

So, the Argentine Government accepted back in '95 that the UK was in control of the Falklands when they signed the Joint Declaration, that is, they accepted the status quo (without dropping their claim, accepting, nevertheless, that the UK was in charge and in control of the archipelago) and agreed to jointly explore the Falklands seabed for hydrocarbons with the UK. So they didn't mind for UK companies to explore and conduct oil drills in the Falklands' territorial waters back then; now after unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement, they claim that British oil drills "threaten Argentine sovereignty"?

:roll:

I suppose it's just the way it is, a Darwinian thing, perhaps: whether it's a military dictatorship or a democratically-elected administration, it would seem clear that Argentine governments are fond of the 'strategy' of taking away with one hand what they give with the other. And they expect the rest of the world to fall for it and just play along...

[rgjbloke]

This was in the Guardian. Mrs Clinton trying to be all things to all people? I've added the very last line because that's how I feel about it.

Heres the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil

Clinton: US will help resolve Falklands oil row

US secretary of state says UK and Argentina should talk 'in a peaceful and productive way'



http://static.guim.co.uk/static/86669/common/styles/wide/images/icon_digg.gif (http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Fmar%2F02%2Fclinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil&title=Clinton%3A+US+will+help+resolve+Falklands+oil+row)
http://static.guim.co.uk/static/86669/common/styles/wide/images/icon_buzz.gif (http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=the_guardian665&targetUrl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil&summary=US+secretary+of+state+says+UK+and+Argentina+should+talk+%27in+a+peaceful+and+productive+way%27&headline=Clinton:%20US%20will%20help%20resolve%20Falklands%20oil%20row%20%7CUK%20news%20%7Cguardian.co.uk)
http://static.guim.co.uk/static/86669/common/styles/wide/images/icon_facebook.gif (9) (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Fmar%2F02%2Fclinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil)
Tweet this (20) (http://twitter.com/home?status=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Fmar%2F02%2Fclinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil)




Adam Gabbatt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/adam-gabbatt)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Tuesday 2 March 2010 10.04 GMT
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil#history-link-box)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/3/2/1267523905465/01.03.10-Hillary-Clinton--001.jpg Hillary Clinton, left, and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner during their meeting in Buenos Aires yesterday. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AFP/***** Images

Hillary Clinton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hillaryclinton) has said the US is ready to help Argentina (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/argentina) and Britain resolve tensions over the ownership of the Falkland Islands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/falklands).
The US secretary of state is in Buenos Aires as part of a five-day South American tour which will also see her visit earthquake-hit Chile. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/01/chile-earthquake-armed-troops-riots)
Tensions between Argentina and the UK have flared in recent weeks over British oil exploration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-steps-up-falkands-oil-row) in the islands' waters.
Clinton met Argentinian president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Montevideo, Uruguay, yesterday, before flying to Buenos Aires for further talks today.
Clinton said: "We are not interested in, and have no real role in, determining what decide between the two of them. What we want to do is facilitate them talking to each other."
She and Kirchner were in Uruguay to attend the inauguration of President José Mujica (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/01/uruguayans-reject-president-inauguration). Clinton had reportedly only intended to spend 10 minutes talking with Kirchner in Montevideo, before a late change in travel plans saw her depart for Buenos Aires.
Kirchner has been pushing Britain to engage in talks over the Falklands, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, since the arrival of the Ocean Guardian oil rig (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/22/falkland-islands-oil-drilling-begins) in the islands' waters.
"What we have requested is mediation as a friendly country of both Argentina and the United Kingdom," Kirchner said.
She added that Argentina wants those the talks to take place within a framework established by the United Nations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/unitednations) following the 1982 conflict. "That's it. The only thing we have asked for is just to have them sit down at the table. I don't think that's too much."
Desire Petroleum, a small British company, started drilling about 60 miles north of the islands on 22 February. Geologists say there could be up to 60bn barrels of oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil) in the area, although sceptics doubt its commercial viability.
Talking to reporters en route to Buenos Aires last night, Clinton agreed on the need for talks between the countries, but did not spell out what role the US would play in any discourse.
"We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way," she said.
Argentina has been stepping up its diplomatic offensive in the last few days. Last week a summit of 32 countries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil) in Mexico endorsed an Argentinian document accusing Britain of flouting international law by permitting drilling to begin. On Thursday Argentina appealed to the United Nations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/25/argentina-united-nations-falklands) to put pressure on Britain over the islands' sovereignty.
The UN has called for talks between the two countries, but would be unable to intervene without the backing of the security council, where the UK would be able to veto substantive resolutions.


[B]In an entirely seperate developement, Great Britain has offered to facilitate and mediate on negotiations between the U.S. and Texas about their sovereignty issues.

[Lazy Lob]

I saw that. Duplicitous two faced b!tch. The other one just looks like a waxwork.

[Old_Boy_Steve]

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1646/article12547730886b38e0.jpg (http://img535.imageshack.us/i/article12547730886b38e0.jpg/)

..........

[muttbutt]

I saw that. Duplicitous two faced b!tch. The other one just looks like a waxwork.
No no the "special relationship" is a two way street...ect ect.

[Old_Boy_Steve]

No no the "special relationship" is a two way street...ect ect.

I agree... ect ect.

[DeltaWhisky58]

The the people some countries put in charge these days ... ... ...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/HighlandSniper58/Album%20No2/Album%20No3/Album%20No4/article12547730886b38e0.jpg

[happyslapper]

Unfortunately my interwebs down, and I can't link from my phone, but the follow on from that was No10, saying "no thanks" (yes - it was as blunt as that). It was a massively stupid move from Clinton, even to offer ANY American involvement.
But surprise surprise, Argentina and the UKs bleeding-heart Guardian readers swiftly manipulated what she said as being anti the British stance, which is bull. All she said was that she'd like the UK and Arg to talk. Unfortunately, even that is demonstrative of her and the wider Obama administration's complete ignorance/nonchalance to international issues.

In other news, Argentinas visit to the UN achieved nothing other than an unflattering photo of Taiana and Ban Ki Moon.
Argentina's economic blockade has worked about as well as a woolen fireguard, with news today that Borders and Southern plans to become the 4th company to drill for oil and gas.

I wonder now how many millions of dollars Argentina has lost by now as a result of it's foot-shooting hissy fit...

[ChrisBV]

Official US policy regarding the Falklands 'dispute' is that it is a bilateral issue between the UK and Argentina and as such, the United States won't be acting as a 'mediator' of any sort. So Hillary and Cristina can have a healthy girl talk (about Botox or whatever) if they please but the State Department has already stated the official position of the United States on this matter.

Falklands a “bilateral issue between Argentina and UK”, insists Washington (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/27/falklands-a-bilateral-issue-between-argentina-and-uk-insists-washington)

@ DW58: LOL!!!! XD

[martinexsquaddie]

Hilary shoving her face where its not wanted.
islanders happy at mo at anything changes we will ring you

[pedro_rafael]

Sooooo, all the hype here means no more "Argies, pls, pls do it again" threads ?????

LOL

[happyslapper]

Dragged from the dead, yes, but I thought it was a better option than creating another Falklands thread...

Thought this might interest/entertain a few of you:

Falklands: Taiana certain UK will understand it must sit to negotiate

19th March 2010

Argentine Foreign Affairs minister Jorge Taiana said on Thursday that there has been progress in creating the “political and diplomatic conditions” for the United Kingdom to understand the need for negotiations on the Falkland Islands sovereignty.


“We are advancing towards creating political and diplomatic conditions so that finally the United Kingdom understands that it must comply with United Nations mandates and sit down to negotiate with Argentina”, Taiana said in a interview with a Buenos Aires radio station.

Taiana added that this year the reaction from the UN Security Council “has been very committed and positive”, and recalled it was the first time the “council has expressed publicly” on the issue.
He added that the United Kingdom must abide UN resolutions, particularly taking into account that it is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council and therefore “among those with the greatest responsibilities”.

Taiana said that his recent visit to the UN had much to do with the “mandate extended to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by the General Assembly and the council” to begin good offices actions so that UN resolutions are followed by both countries (Argentina and the UK) and sovereignty negotiations can begin.
“For the last two/three years we have been in talks with the Secretary General. He has been receptive, but obviously to advance you need the support from both sides. From our side our willingness to sit and talk is very clear”, said the Argentina official.

Taiana said that the UN Secretary General has growing and better information “about all that is happening and above all about the unilateral actions from Britain”.

Relations between Argentina and the UK have strained lately particularly since the beginning of a round of exploratory drilling for hydrocarbons in the Falklands waters by several British and Australian companies.
Argentina made a formal complaint before the UN and even requested US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to encourage a dialogue between both countries over the disputed islands in the South Atlantic.

Argentina considers that the oil companies are in violation of its sovereignty over the Islands and adjoining waters, and has even imposed restrictions on vessels travelling to the Falklands.

London’s position all along has been that the UK has no doubts about British sovereignty over the Falklands, that the Islanders have the right to self-determination and to explore and exploit resources in Falklands’ territory and waters.

The latest British official to ratify such a policy was Foreign Office Minister Chris Bryant who visited Chile to deliver relief aid and funds to earthquake victims and for the inauguration of President Sebastian Piñera on March 11, a week ago.
“We are prepared to talk, debate with Argentina on many issues, but not sovereignty over the Falklands. We have no doubts about our sovereignty, if not we would be involved in international lobbying. And since there are no doubts we do not need any lobbying and we don’t want to raise our voice”, said Bryant interviewed by El Mercurio from Santiago.
He added it was the elected government of the Falklands that issued the licences for the exploratory drilling round, and since “we are convinced of their right to self determination, we believe they have all the legal right to explore for oil, and also to exploit hydrocarbons if there are any”.
“We are most sure about our legal position regarding sovereignty over the Islands, and the Falklands government is very sure about what they are doing exploring for oil” emphasized Bryant.
Finally the FO official said that according to the Lisbon Treaty, “the Falklands are part of the United Kingdom” and regarding Latinamerican support for the Argentine claim, Bryant pointed out that “it was not the first time for such a support, it’s the fifth, sixth, seventh time…it’s only normal”.
“We’re not interested in fighting with Argentina. We are working together in many things with our good close Argentine friends such as efforts against non proliferation of nuclear weapons, climate change, the global financial problems”, concluded Bryant.


-----------------

What planet do mongs like Taiana and CFK live on??!! :cantbeli:

[Atlantic Friend]

How about organizing a Falklands-wide referendum, with the usual international monitoring? There's little chance the islanders will decide they're really Argentinians at heart, after all.

[happyslapper]

How about organizing a Falklands-wide referendum, with the usual international monitoring? There's little chance the islanders will decide they're really Argentinians at heart, after all.


Already happened. It was an Argentine led poll (so at leas they can't claim pro-UK bias...) and the results, as you might expect, were massively in favour of of remaining a British OT. Most said they would not consider Arg sovereignty under any circumstances, a handful said independance was the best eventual route.

It was around about this point that Argentina suddenly started claiming the the Uiversal Right to Self-Determination did not apply in the case of the Falklands. Funny that....

---------------

A couple of other exciting stories (the politics just goes in circles anyway, as we all know) is that a mob attacked the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, and were beaten back by Argentine riot police. Also, there have been attacks on British banks across the country, with one branch of HSBC being burnt down. And, a group has been forming, heavily composed of veterans of '82, urging 'violent action' against British persons/interests/businesses/etc across Argentina and the neighbouring area. It's only talk at the minute, but given the handful of violent actions recently, we'll see what becomes of it...

[Atlantic Friend]

When was that?

[2495]

When was that?


1994 and 87% of the islander said 'fvck off Argentinia' and quite rightly too.

[happyslapper]

It was under Menem, around 1995 I think. I'll try to find an internet link later.

EDIT: No need, thanks 2495

[Eoin666]

A couple of other exciting stories (the politics just goes in circles anyway, as we all know) is that a mob attacked the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, and were beaten back by Argentine riot police. Also, there have been attacks on British banks across the country, with one branch of HSBC being burnt down. And, a group has been forming, heavily composed of veterans of '82, urging 'violent action' against British persons/interests/businesses/etc across Argentina and the neighbouring area. It's only talk at the minute, but given the handful of violent actions recently, we'll see what becomes of it...

From the Sun....I know...

EXTREMISTS have firebombed a branch of HSBC in Argentina - sparking fears of a dramatic escalation in the Falklands row.

And the fanatics urged their countrymen to target MORE British interests after the front of the bank melted in the fierce blaze.

A group calling itself Southern Commando claimed responsibility. It objects to UK sovereignty over the Falklands and the massive Brit-backed oil drilling operation taking place off the islands' coast.

The extremists told an anti-British website: "Our constitution obliges us to take up arms faced with the aggression by the external enemy Britain.

"We will attack all British objectives in our territory until they return our islands and stop stealing our riches."

The group mistakenly believes HSBC has links to Desire Petroleum, which will reveal next week if it has found Falklands oil. Police arrested two people after Tuesday's attack in Mar Del Plata but refused to confirm they are part of the extremist group.

Meanwhile, Argentine veterans of the 1982 war yesterday threatened to invade the island again.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898308/Anti-Brit-Argies-firebomb-HSBC.html

[ChrisBV]

From the Sun....I know...

Here's the same story as confirmed by an Argentine newspaper:

Group claims responsibility for attack against HSBC bank office (http://www.diarioelatlantico.com/diario/2010/03/17/9635-un-grupo-se-atribuyo-el-atentado-contra-la-sucursal-bancaria-ubicada-en-luro-e-independiencia.html)

This one's great, I LMAO when I read it:

Argentine Falklands veterans threaten to invade islands over Britain's 'pirate' oil exploration (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1258952/Argentine-Falklands-veterans-threaten-invade-islands-Britains-pirate-oil-exploration.html)

:lol:

[Asdrubal el Bello]

Cuando despertó, el dinosaurio todavía estaba allí.
Augusto Monterroso, El Dinosaurio.

[happyslapper]

Cuando despertó, el dinosaurio todavía estaba allí.



When he awoke, the dinosaur was still there

I have no idea what that means, but here's some reading for you:



10. This site's language is English. Using alternate languages to get around the flaming or insulting rules is not allowed and can earn a ban.


Thanks

[happyslapper]

Another interesting fact about how well the permits are doing...

In spite of bad weather 16 cruise vessels visited South Georgia during February, 40% higher than normal, and inspite of an anticipated 15-20% reduction in Cruise visits to the Falklands and South Georgia, South Sandwich islands. Almost all cruise ships visiting the area transit via or to Ushaia, Argentina.
Early surveys report that the squid stocks (which contribute approx 50% of FI's GDP) are very good this year, and take up of fishing licenses from the FI Gov't is significantly higher than anticipated.
This being despite promised infractions by the Argentine government on any company operating in the Falklands.

The Falklands economy was predicted to grow 5.3% in 2010, but it seems that figure may have to be upwardly revised. Especially if Desire's announcement in around four days time (March 25th) reveals an oil strike from the first well.

[lunte]

I think we should provoke the Argies a bit more - just enough to make them treathen to invade again and that way we can boots the military budget in the UK...

[martinexsquaddie]

FIG used to give each islander £2000 to spend on a holdiay somewhere else:)
probalby only goverment that worries about its investment portfolio isn't doing very well.
why exactly would they vote to become argentina and watch there cash vanish?

re the vetrans they are threatining to return as soldiers someone unkindly suggested would make a change for last time then:(

[Asdrubal el Bello]

i have no idea what that means, but here's some reading for you:



10. This site's language is english. Using alternate languages to get around the flaming or insulting rules is not allowed and can earn a ban.


thanks


corruptissima repvblica plvrimae leges

[happyslapper]

Well the mods would be delighted to hear you say that.

Them be the rules. Abide by them, or gtfo. Once again, thanks for your contribution.

[martinexsquaddie]

When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there.
Augusto Monterroso, the dinosaur. bing translation of the first one 2nd one no idea

[happyslapper]

It's a famous Roman quote; ''the more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the rules''

[pedro_rafael]

Translated for you (sort of) ...


Cuando despertó, el dinosaurio todavía estaba allí.
Augusto Monterroso, El Dinosaurio.

'Smoke Curtains' won't relieve reality. Not that easy to wish away the Monster in the self.



corruptissima repvblica plvrimae leges

Rules won't hide your incapacity to deal with Life. Corruption arises when Nature is set aside.


------

Translation (guess-work) only, not opinion.

[ChrisBV]

In 1995, Argentina signed a Joint Declaration with the UK, by which the South American nation agreed it was OK for British companies to conduct hydrocarbon explorations in the SW Atlantic. President Néstor Kirchner withdrew from the agreement in 2007, claiming it "harmed Argentine interests". Now, Argentina claims that the presence of British oil rigs is to be regarded as "unilateral initiatives" and presents a case to the Organisation of American States!


Falklands’ oil dispute: Argentina presents its case and backgrounds to OAS

Argentina presented before the Organization of American States, OAS, documents on recent British decisions and actions referred to the disputed Falkland Islands and requested they be made public to all members of the OAS General Assembly.

Among the information delivered by Argentine Ambassador before OAS, Rodolfo Hugo Gil are reports on UK’s “unilateral initiatives regarding hydrocarbons explorations in the Southwest Atlantic, and which have been going on since last October”.

The information delivered also included the Argentine Decree 256 which establishes previous authorization from Argentina for all vessels planning to sail between continental Argentine ports and the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands or crossing Argentine jurisdictional waters or transporting freight to be Islands, directly or indirectly.

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/26604/240x0/arghugogil.jpg
Argentine Ambassador before OAS, Rodolfo Hugo Gil

OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza received the documents and promised to deliver a copy to all country members of the organization.

The Falklands/Malvinas dispute between Argentina and Britain which dates back two centuries escalated last month with the arrival to Falklands’ waters of an exploratory oil rig “Ocean Guardian” that has seen since been drilling for hydrocarbons at an estimated 100 miles to the north.

Argentina considers that these operations are infringing on its sovereignty over the South Atlantic Islands and adjacent waters and has imposed restrictions on vessels travelling to the Islands from the continent.

UK argues there are no doubts about British sovereignty over the Islands and that Islanders have a right to self determination, and as such to issue oil licences in Falklands’ waters and develop an oil industry.

Sources from the British embassy in Buenos Aires have repeatedly stated that UK kept Argentina informed of all the hydrocarbons exploratory activities in Falklands’ waters even when Argentina unilaterally decided to reject a South West Atlantic joint oil exploration and production understanding dating back to 1995.


Mercopress (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/03/23/falklands-oil-dispute-argentina-presents-its-case-and-backgrounds-to-oas)

Is this (whole affair) a bad joke or am I missing something?

[martinexsquaddie]

President Néstor Kirchner
being an arrse basically not even really working at home . yes rest of south america signed up becuase it cost them nothing harms none of there intrests and looks like there sticking it to the man (el gringos) and does'nt mean they have to do anything:)
At home nobodys really intrested the place has problesm enough and they know the UK can and will defend the islands

[Silver Etherium]

How about organizing a Falklands-wide referendum, with the usual international monitoring? There's little chance the islanders will decide they're really Argentinians at heart, after all.Irrelevant. the argies don't think the Falklanders have a right to self determination because they're a transplanted population.

I'll kindly ask all those white Europeans living in Buenos Aires what exactly they think they ****ing are?

[DeltaWhisky58]

Irrelevant. the argies don't think the Falklanders have a right to self determination because they're a transplanted population.

I'll kindly ask all those white Europeans living in Buenos Aires what exactly they think they ****ing are?

Exactly ... ...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/HighlandSniper58/Album%20No2/Album%20No3/Album%20No4/pot-kettle-black.jpg

What a nation of bean-eating hypocrites!

I find it quite pathetic and truly laughable how Argentine wheels out the ragged old Malvinas drum and starts beating out of tune every time their country is in a mess. It's quite clear they've got no balls for a fight, but another damned good kicking from Britannia is maybe what she needs.

I'd be interested in what's going on secretly in the background, promises of exploration rights to certain oil companies perhaps, with the prospect of large back-handers to Ms Kirchner and her band of arse lickers no doubt.

[pedro_rafael]

Falklands oil unviable - Desire Petroleum

LONDON (*******) - Oil explorer Desire Petroleum (DES.L) will report that oil discovered in test drilling off the Falkland Islands is not commercially viable, The Sunday Times reported, citing industry sources.

The newspaper said Desire was expected to say that while it had found oil, there was not enough to justify developing the field.

Drilling by the company of the first well in the region in over a decade ignited protests from Argentina, which claims the British territory.

Buenos Aires said the exploration was a breach of its sovereignty, but Britain, which established rule in the islands in the 19th century and defeated an Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, rejected the complaint.

Analysts had said the prospect could contain reserves of up to 400 million barrels, but the risk of hitting nothing was also seen as high.

Three other explorers are planning to drill in the area: Falkland Oil and Gas (FOGL.L), Rockhopper Exploration (RKH.L) and Borders and Southern Petroleum (BSTH.L)

A spokesman for Desire said on Sunday that tests were ongoing, and the company would issue a statement on Monday morning clarifying the situation to shareholders.

(Reporting by Paul Sandle, editing by Will Waterman)

http://uk.*******.com/article/idUKTRE62R0WD20100328


<---End of Quote--->

Related Article:
Monday, March 29th 2010 - 18:34 UTC
Falklands: “no return to the 80s”, tacit UK/Argentine agreement

Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant said that UK and Argentina agree there is “no return to the eighties” regarding the Falkland Islands which he underlined are British as long as the Islanders so wish.

In an interview with the Mexican daily Excelsior, Bryant also revealed he has had talks with Argentina’s Foreign Affairs minister Jorge Taiana and relations with Buenos Aires, with the exception of the Falklands/Malvinas issue are very good and strong.

In perfect Spanish he also recommended Latinamerican countries to “open up” and stop blaming the US and Europe for all their problems. “Let’s face it, the anti Yank spirit does not help lift the poor or build hospitals”.

“We won the (1982) conflict and have had problems with Argentina for the last thirty years over the Falklands’ sovereignty, but as a country and as democrats we believe in self determination, and if the people of the Islands want to remain British, that is their choice and we will always support them”, said Bryant who insisted that “we have no doubts as to whom the Falklands belong”. Besides in the European Union Lisbon Treaty “it is clearly spelled out that the Falklands belong to Britain”.

He added that trade relations with Argentina remain very strong and good and both countries are working closely in many world affairs and challenges. “PM Gordon Brown and President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner work very closely in the G20 framework, UK and Argentina are strong allies; we only have this little problem over the Falklands”.

Bryant pointed out that contrary to media frondose coverage “there’s no return to the eighties. I was told so by Argentine politicians; Mrs. Kichner never said she’s planning to block the Falklands, so the situation is much calmer than what your read. The Falklands as such don’t belong to us but the people democratically want to be British and we respect and support that”.

The Foreign Office minister revealed he has a fluid dialogue with the Argentines: “I met and talked with Jorge Taiana during the inauguration of President Piñera in Chile. We have an active ambassador in Buenos Aires in regular contact; they have a consular officer in London; we are all the time in contact”.
When asked about the recent Latinamerican and Caribbean leaders’ summit with strong support for Argentina, Bryant said “it’s normal. Since we have no doubts about the Falklands we don’t need any lobbying. Besides this year is the independence bicentennial of several of the region’s countries and the British helped with that struggle. For the last 200 years we have had very close links with many Latinamerican countries (Chile, Brazil) among others; we are working with Colombia and Venezuela in drugs control…”

Bryant recalled he spent six months in Buenos Aires in 1986, “I loved the city and love the Argentine spirit. I know all of (folklorist) Mercedes Sosa’ songs and play them in the guitar”. That was four years after the war, “so I understand very well when my Argentine colleagues say no return to the eighties”.
Finally FCO Minister Bryant was asked about Latinamerica and the future.

“In my personal opinion one of the main problems in Latinamerica for the last fifty years has been that they blame their problems on the US and Europe. I’d say the anti-Yank spirit is useless: it doesn’t help to lift the poor or build hospitals. Latinamerica has to open to the world, economically, politically, socially. You have to look inside to solve your own problems, not criticizing the US or Europe”.

However he added that countries such as Mexico and Brazil have very strong and solid economies and will grow sustainedly. “Their importance and influence in world affairs is going to increase, but I still feel there’s in Latinamerica an anti Yank stance which is totally distractive and non helpful”.


http://en.mercopress.com/2010/03/29/falklands-no-return-to-the-80s-tacit-uk-argentine-agreement

[DeltaWhisky58]

Falkland Islands oil disappoints for Desire Petroleum (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8592734.stm)

[Follow link for full story]

Shares in Desire Petroleum have almost halved after the oil explorer said a well being drilled off the Falkland Islands may not be economically viable.

Shares in other companies operating off the Falklands also fell amid fears that the region's reserves may disappoint.

The well is the first to be drilled in the area for a decade and has prompted Argentina to renew its claim to the Falklands, sparking a row with the UK.

[IDF_TANKER]

^^^ Perhaps, it's for the best after all - to reduce the the tension over the islands.

[DeltaWhisky58]

It'll certainly be interesting to see whether Ms Kirchner et al bang the monotonous drum a little less if the prospects of oil diminish.

[happyslapper]

^^^ Perhaps, it's for the best after all - to reduce the the tension over the islands.

It's only ONE well. Desire has 6 planned wells, the other 3 companies have a couple of wells each (one acerage will require a more capable rig).

Currently, everything is as expected... this entire round of drilling is a long shot and always was. The 1998 drilling showed similar results; oil present but not quite in the quantities for mass extraction.

Regardless of what happens, this is a good year for the Falklands. Suddenly people have remembered that they exist, are remembering the appalling injustice of the Argentine state, and are realising the massive investment opportunities that exist.
The Falklands can only benefit. Argentina can only falter. The oil business can do either.

1 well down.... let's wait and see what happens.

(and also wait for an official annoucement from Desire, which should give some useful details, not to mention the fact that teh extracted gas has yet to be analysed).

[happyslapper]

Irrelevant. the argies don't think the Falklanders have a right to self determination because they're a transplanted population.

I'll kindly ask all those white Europeans living in Buenos Aires what exactly they think they ****ing are?

I don't know whether you were paraphasing or not, but for the record, the Falkland Islanders are not a ''tranplanted population''. They are the oldest non-native community that far south anywhere in the world, and are per-capita considerably older than any nation on the South American mainland.

[timetraveller]

For the cry is no surrender and surrender we shall not with our hearts in hand and swords and shields we guard these falklands shores ..

[armored_diplomacy]

Permission for brief OT:

Fellow members who have posted here: I have requested Deltawhisky58 to correct the terms he used in his post #236, since I think that´s unnecessary rude. I have contacted him, but he has accused me of "continually posted veiled anti-British material for some considerable time which (he) find(s) highly offensive. (MY) posting on the Falklands topics has been inflammatory, aggressive and seriously irritating". I asked him to tell me what post was like that, but I didn´t get an answer.
That´s why I appeal to any British member here to tell me what part of any post that I wrote here is offensive or agressive or "anti-British", and I´ll edit / delete them (please use MP so thread is not derailed). Maybe I have being unaware of that content.
Then I´ll expect the same toward post # 236, or similars.
Thank you all.

[Old_Boy_Steve]

Permission for brief OT:

Fellow members who have posted here: I have requested Deltawhisky58 to correct the terms he used in his post #236, since I think that´s unnecessary rude. I have contacted him, but he has accused me of "continually posted veiled anti-British material for some considerable time which (he) find(s) highly offensive. (MY) posting on the Falklands topics has been inflammatory, aggressive and seriously irritating". I asked him to tell me what post was like that, but I didn´t get an answer.
That´s why I appeal to any British member here to tell me what part of any post that I wrote here is offensive or agressive or "anti-British", and I´ll edit / delete them (please use MP so thread is not derailed). Maybe I have being unaware of that content.
Then I´ll expect the same toward post # 236, or similars.
Thank you all.

Shouldn't you be eating beans?

[DeltaWhisky58]

You stated recently ... ...


cause even though I´m not a big fan of the UK, I have some respect for it, but that´s seems to be the perception that many people have about it. I even remember a British music video where T. Blair was depicted as G. Bush´s pet:

So you clearly are not exactly pro-British. I'm fully entitled to my very pro-British and fairly Anti-Argentine stance when related to Falkland Islands matters, your lot did invade our sovereign territory after al land directly cause the unnecessary and premature deaths of many hundreds of people as a result. I'd hardly say that using the term Bean Eaters is so insulting, what would you prefer I use, Spics, Daygos etc.?

You've already been crawling to the moderators and sent me a groveling PM - I'm not going to raise the white flag in case you make me lie down in the road at gunpoint and publish the photos all over the world media. Do me a favour, either put up or shut up.

For crying out loud, harden the fvck up you pathetic little man (assuming that you qualify) - if you can't take the heat then put me on ignore.

BTW, I wish to point out that other than with matters concerning The Falkland Islands and dependent territories, or the 1982 conflict, I have no problem with Argentina or her people whatsoever with one exception - if the cap fits, wear it!

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, DW.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Why thank you kind sir.

[scttgillies]

For the cry is no surrender and surrender we shall not with our hearts in hand and swords and shields we guard these falklands shores ..

Well said time traveller, you dont happen to have a falklandized version of the "Sash" do you?:grin::grin:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Permission for brief OT:

Fellow members who have posted here: I have requested Deltawhisky58 to correct the terms he used in his post #236, since I think that´s unnecessary rude. I have contacted him, but he has accused me of "continually posted veiled anti-British material for some considerable time which (he) find(s) highly offensive. (MY) posting on the Falklands topics has been inflammatory, aggressive and seriously irritating". I asked him to tell me what post was like that, but I didn´t get an answer.
That´s why I appeal to any British member here to tell me what part of any post that I wrote here is offensive or agressive or "anti-British", and I´ll edit / delete them (please use MP so thread is not derailed). Maybe I have being unaware of that content.
Then I´ll expect the same toward post # 236, or similars.
Thank you all.

Cry us a river you Argie tw@t :-)