United Americas vs UK: Brazil attacks UN over Falklands stand-off

[acosta]

Brazil attacks UN over Falklands stand-off
Philippe Naughton and Francis Elliott

(Jeremy Cresswell)

The Ocean Guardian oil rig has started drilling

President Lula da Silva of Brazil today attacked the UN for failing to act on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and claimed its reticence was down to Britain's seat on the Security Council.

Speaking at the end of a regional summit in Mexico Mr Lula criticised the UN for not pushing more forcefully to reopen the debate.

His intervention came ahead of a meeting later today between Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, and the Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana.

"Our attitude is one of solidarity with Argentina," Mr Lula said. "What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for England to be in the Malvinas? What is the explanation for the United Nations never having that decision?
Related Links
Oil exploration opens up old wounds
Escalating Falklands oil dispute goes to UN

“Could it be because the UK is a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council where they can do everything and the others nothing? It is not possible that Argentina is not the owner while England is, despite being 14,000km away."

At the Rio Group summit in Mexico yesterday, Buenos Aires won unprecedented support from other Latin American states for its demand that the UK stop drilling for oil in waters near the islands.

The row was sparked by the arrival of the offshore oil rig Ocean Guardian, which began drilling 60 miles north of the islands after Argentina announced new shipping controls. Britain and Argentina fought a two-month war over the islands in 1982.

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.

Argentina scored a diplomatic coup at the Rio Group summit in Cancun when 32 Latin American and Caribbean leaders backed their "legitimate rights" in the sovereignty row with Great Britain.

Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan President, used a television address to reiterate his support, bellowing: “Give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, Queen of England.”

But it was the backing of countries such as Chile and Brazil — which is itself pressing for permanent Security Council membership — that will be of most concern.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Argentina’s President, said that Britain had broken a UN resolution forbidding unilateral development in disputed waters. She accused Britain of double standards in its pursuit of the islands’ natural resources but ruled out any military engagement or attempt to block shipping.

British officials said that Gordon Brown and Mr Miliband would wait for the outcome of events at the UN before deciding how to respond. Diplomats in Latin America believe that President Kirchner is using the issue for domestic purposes. “This is principally a PR campaign, not a serious legal or diplomatic effort,” said one.

The US offered Britain only tepid support. The State Department said that it took no position on the sovereignty claims of either country.

White House officials contacted by The Times would not be quoted on the dispute — not for fear of being drawn into a diplomatic showdown but because, as one admitted, it had barely registered as a concern for the Administration. A generation ago President Reagan was slow to back publicly Britain’s efforts to recapture the islands, but US intelligence proved critical to British military success.

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

this time Argentina is totally backed up, who's going to win Falklands(Malvinas)?

[Ordie]

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

this time Argentina is totally backed up, who's going to win Falklands(Malvinas)?

Status quo

Democratic nations rarely engage military conflict with each other.

[Billy No Mates]

this time Argentina is totally backed up, who's going to win Falklands(Malvinas)?

There isn't going to be a fight,but IF the sh!t were really to hit the fan i think we would soon see that talk is cheap,holding hands in Cancun is one thing commiting military resources to a campaign that gains you nothing but puts you up against an opponent that has proven itself fairly capable is quite another .

[MG 3]

Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan President, used a television address to reiterate his support, bellowing: “Give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, Queen of England.”

The Queen is in deep **** now.

[armored_diplomacy]

If moral support could be turned into bullets, Argentina would have won the war in 1982.
This is a good and nice gesture (and quite interesting this time since many former-British colonies / territories are included in that group of countries), but nothing else.

[martinexsquaddie]

which just goes to show aouth americans would rather support a south american facist than the rule of law .
did'nt work out too well in 1982
exactly how many wars have the argentine military won in the last 50 years? against people who were armed and not tied up?

[Climber]

which just goes to show aouth americans would rather support a south american facist than the rule of law .
did'nt work out too well in 1982
exactly how many wars have the argentine military won in the last 50 years? against people who were armed and not tied up?

What Fascist? What rule of law?

And what exactly have to do the fact that Argentine haven't fought a war in the last 50 years other that the 1982 idiocy with anything? That the UK fought various of them and are big mean machos? what's your point?

Argentina is going or the diplomatic pressure to open negotiations, how can anybody wouldn't agree that's the good and only way?

[martinexsquaddie]

theres nothing to negotiate about.
falkland islanders who live there and have lived there for 170 years don't want to be argentinian if they change there mind we'll call you end of discussion

[UltimaRatio]

Argentina is going or the diplomatic pressure to open negotiations, how can anybody wouldn't agree that's the good and only way?

Kirchner's motives are clear as day. She is just making a distraction from the disaster she cooked up in the finances of her country. Making **** up does not entitle her to negotiate anything with anybody.

[DPM_Sheep]

Interesting how many countries suddenly give a toss now there is oil involved...

[Nansouty]

Hmmm, cooler heads will prevail this time, so there won't be a war...



theres nothing to negotiate about.
falkland islanders who live there and have lived there for 170 years don't want to be argentinian if they change there mind we'll call you end of discussion

I don't think it's the islands themselves' status the matter now, but rather the offshore resources in their exclusive economical zone, and their exploitation. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I can't trace the post, but a british MP.neter explained te Argentinian government had unwiitingly denounced, in a bout of nationalistic fevera few years ago, a diplomatic agreement on shared exploitation. I guess they are right now trying to correct it, and I must say they seem to be doing a good job of it collecting international support. Getting the regional powerhouse, Brazil, on board is a telling blow, as Brazil has a lot of say in international matters in South America, and alot of shared interests with other western powers. I mey once again be wrong, but I think refusing to discuss the matter may prove an untenable position for Britain. How much support Buenos Aires would keep in such talks, and what they'd bring about, is a different matter altogether.

[CMNot]

The beautiful thing about talking is that you can do it forever. Hopefully, we won't talk to them - mainly because there is absolutely nothing to talk about.

Personally speaking, the rhetoric could do with being increased as could the tensions. 2 months from election time, and 3-4 months before a strategic spending review. This plays out perfectly for HM forces. Kirchner is even dumber than I thought she was. Should have waited one year, but it's too late now.


If moral support could be turned into bullets, Argentina would have won the war in 1982.

What, the moral support of the people of the islands? Oh no, they don't figure in this...

[szr]

Chavez, Morales and Castro get a lot of attention but when is Looney Lula going to get the pariah status he's been working so hard for?

[Old_Boy_Steve]

If moral support could be turned into bullets, Argentina would have won the war in 1982.

That's just utter bunkum. I struggle to take this 'United Americas' seriously when they are still incapable of acknowledging the United Kingdom, let alone Great Britain. And HM the Queen isn't the Queen of England or 'Mrs Queen' either.

[Niall]

Most south american leaders are pretty thick if they still refer to the UK as England. Perhaps the thought of oil has clouded their thoughts.

[Billy No Mates]

That's just utter bunkum. I struggle to take this 'United Americas' seriously when they are still incapable of acknowledging the United Kingdom, let alone Great Britain. And HM the Queen isn't the Queen of England or 'Mrs Queen' either.

I think armored diplomacy was just expressing the same,thoughts on the matter as you and me that talk is cheap and when the summit is over and they have all stopped slapping each other on the back everyone else will lose intrest and the whole issue will ultimately be sorted out(or not sorted out) by the UK and Argentina .

[Nepeccel]

Exactly, theses are just words at the end of the day. Didn't Chavez promise a war with Columbia last year? Unless I've been a bit thick, it hasn't happened.

I keep thinking there must be some sort of action that can be taken that would stop the whole debate on the Falklands issue completely. Like a vote for the islanders for what country they want to be part of and then a binding UN thingy majig that imposes sanctions on any country that disputes it? Then all this chest thumping would disappear and oil could be drilled in peace, bringing wealth to the islands.
Sadly, however, we don't live in a perfect world so my thoughts would never work!

[LineDoggie]

Hey UK, Willing to Volunteer with My M1A and help y'all. you know where to find me.

[LineDoggie]

Argentinas claim on the island is a 1494 Papal Decree splitting the New World between Spain and Portugal.

It didnt impress then or now

[martinexsquaddie]

kircher shot herself in the foot there was a deal on the table they walked away from it and decided to ramp up the pressure. Unfortnatly they have no pressure to ramp up just words. Back tracking now involves a lot of humble pie which was completely unecessary UK goverments postion has not changed one iota. maybe with a change of argie goverment there might be someone a tad smarter who might attempt to build bridges with the islanders and the UK goverment. rather than make a lot of noise it can't possibly back up

[martinexsquaddie]

line doggie we'd only steal your m1 can't have rebillious colonyists armed:)
can't see any other south american state getting involved militairly and argentina's military is broke and likely to remain broke until Argentina gets an economy

[Royal]

I mey once again be wrong, but I think refusing to discuss the matter may prove an untenable position for Britain. How much support Buenos Aires would keep in such talks, and what they'd bring about, is a different matter altogether.

There is nothing to talk about. Savoie is not going to be handed back to Italy, Calais is not going to be British and the Falklands are not going to be Argentine unless the residents want it. And they don't.

Kirchner, Chavez and Lula are all trying to distract from their domestic chaos - Gordon Brown could probably do with a nice easy, popular, winable war too.

[kamaz]

I dont understand what case Argentina has at all. The islands were never part of modern Argentina, at many points in time up to 4 different nations claimed the islands as 'theirs'. The local islanders do not want to be part of Argentina, but part of UK (overwhelmingly).

what is the legal case here? I dont think there is any.

btw, Brazil isnt that stupid to go to war on someone else's behalf. Chavez is a court jester, if that wasnt already known. There wont be any war, at least a war that Argentina can win.

[Nansouty]

There is nothing to talk about. Savoie is not going to be handed back to Italy, Calais is not going to be British and the Falklands are not going to be Argentine unless the residents want it. And they don't.

Kirchner, Chavez and Lula are all trying to distract from their domestic chaos - Gordon Brown could probably do with a nice easy, popular, winable war too.

You might have added my native Bordeaux to the list, as it was the capital of the duchy of Aquitany under the Plantagenets p-)

This said, I agree with you : there is no question the Falklands will be returned to Argentina. I'm seeing the current claims as the opening moves of a bargain for the offshore mining rights there, and Argentina trying to get a slice of the pie. Whether they're entitled to it, or whether they'll get anything, I don't know. But at any rate getting Lula onboard was a brilliant diplomatic move that gives them a bit of leverage. What it will bring them in the end's anyone's guess...

[armored_diplomacy]

Let´s see:


theres nothing to negotiate about.
falkland islanders who live there and have lived there for 170 years don't want to be argentinian if they change there mind we'll call you end of discussion

Sir, I start to believe that you have serious issues. Unless there´s a war already being fought down there, I don´t see what you mean. I´m sorry to tell you that all your Islands-related posts have a paranoic style.



What, the moral support of the people of the islands? Oh no, they don't figure in this...

Seriuosly, what are you talking about, Sir? didn´t you see my point? allow me to re-phrase it: I was trying to say that all we´ve got on these affairs is nothing but moral support and nice words; when there was a fight, nothing else came (It doesn´t mean that I want a fight now nor that we´re lookinng for military allies nor ... whatever you think I said. BTW: did I mention the islanders?). So, if all the moral support we´ve got from SA could count as belic material, we would´ve being fully supplied
(it´s an Ironic remark, used in this sense:

Main Entry: iron·ic
****unciation: \ˌī-ˈrä-nik also i-ˈrä-\
Variant(s): also iron·i·cal \-ni-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1576
1 : relating to, containing, or constituting irony <an ironic remark> <an ironic coincidence>
2 : given to irony <an ironic sense of humor>
(from Webster´s online)



And HM the Queen isn't the Queen of England or 'Mrs Queen' either.

(Good for Her but ... why did you quoted me?)

[knowitall]

"but I think refusing to discuss the matter may prove an untenable position for Britain."

or what, Hans Brix will write us a strongly worded letter?

it would make sense to do a deal with argentina for logistical reasons but its possible to exploit the oil without them

[California Joe]

Seriously, why should anyone be remotely concerned with taking this exercise in self fellating seriously? It's the worst kind of political misdirection.

However, if this circle jerk gets to the point where they decide to kick off hostilities, DW58 can start a brand new thread to go with the original. Chock full o' Paras and Bootnecks. Win for Milphotos.

[happyslapper]

Whether they're entitled to it, or whether they'll get anything, I don't know. But at any rate getting Lula onboard was a brilliant diplomatic move that gives them a bit of leverage. What it will bring them in the end's anyone's guess...

You seem to think this is something new. It's not.

South America acts as a bloc on everything these days. It's part of their holy quest to become 'serious'.
Lula has backed Argentina all along, not at any depth, but the diplomatic equivelant of ''yeah, I s'pose, whatever I guess...''.

Argentina will get nothing. They have nothing to baragain with, and have no legal advantage.

[happyslapper]

I keep thinking there must be some sort of action that can be taken that would stop the whole debate on the Falklands issue completely. Like a vote for the islanders for what country they want to be part of and then a binding UN thingy majig that imposes sanctions on any country that disputes it?

It's already well known that the Islanders are completely in favour of British citizenship. But Argentina doesn't care.
They say that self-determination doesn't apply because ''they are a transplanted poulation''. They know damn well that it applies regardless, and that the current islanders can draw a direct lineage to pre-1833, making them, as a unit-population ratio, the oldest non-naive community in the Americas. But they just sweep it under the carpet and invent a lie...

[Stolly]

You might have added my native Bordeaux to the list, as it was the capital of the duchy of Aquitany under the Plantagenets p-)

This said, I agree with you : there is no question the Falklands will be returned to Argentina. I'm seeing the current claims as the opening moves of a bargain for the offshore mining rights there, and Argentina trying to get a slice of the pie. Whether they're entitled to it, or whether they'll get anything, I don't know. But at any rate getting Lula onboard was a brilliant diplomatic move that gives them a bit of leverage. What it will bring them in the end's anyone's guess...

And Lula's leverage over the UK is ?

The opening moves of their drilling rights negotiation was their withdrawal from a deal to share the proceeds from the drilling rights. Smart move.

Anyway its all academic. Argentina still hasn't figured out its the Falkand Islanders they need to be negotiating with, presumably because they are busy pretending they don't exist.

[BloodyTalon]

It's already well known that the Islanders are completely in favour of British citizenship. But Argentina doesn't care.
They say that self-determination doesn't apply because ''they are a transplanted poulation''. They know damn well that it applies regardless, and that the current islanders can draw a direct lineage to pre-1833, making them, as a unit-population ratio, the oldest non-naive community in the Americas. But they just sweep it under the carpet and invent a lie...
Wait; a Latin American with a white majority is arguing that the population of the Falklands shouldn't have a say in the issue cuz they're non-natives? rofl rofl rofl Oh God, that' just cute! If I was Gordon Brown and I heard that I would let the Argies know they can have the Falklands back once 99% of their population deports and they hand their sovereignty over to the few remaining natives left.

[happyslapper]

Wait; a Latin American with a white majority is arguing that the population of the Falklands shouldn't have a say in the issue cuz they're non-natives? rofl rofl rofl Oh God, that' just cute! If I was Gordon Brown and I heard that I would let the Argies know they can have the Falklands back once 99% of their population deports and they hand their sovereignty over to the few remaining natives left.

Plus the Falkland Islanders have the benefit of living in a land that had no natives, rather than the continental method of simply butchering the natives.

[Ordie]

And Lula's leverage over the UK is ?.

Football Players

[3rdMillhouse]

Im with the UK on this one, the Falklands belong to England.

[Parx400]

And Lula's leverage over the UK is ?

The opening moves of their drilling rights negotiation was their withdrawal from a deal to share the proceeds from the drilling rights. Smart move.

Anyway its all academic. Argentina still hasn't figured out its the Falkand Islanders they need to be negotiating with, presumably because they are busy pretending they don't exist.


They dont care about they people on the island. They would force them all to move to the UK. They want to oil and gas around the islands. As said before the island belong to the UK, end of story.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Im with the UK on this one, the Falklands belong to England.Yeah I concur, the Falklands should belong to England.

[happyslapper]

Im with the UK on this one, the Falklands belong to England.

cough cough cough


They dont care about they people on the island. They would force them all to move to the UK. They want to oil and gas around the islands. As said before the island belong to the UK, end of story.

To be honest, I don't even think they're fussed about the resources. They're not that practical.

It's a simple popularity move.

They also have made it clear that they would not expel the islanders (I believe the islanders are still entitled to Argentine citizenship, though not a single one has ever taken it). The Argentine idea instead is this...

They class the Falklands as being part of Tierra del Fuego Province, which means that when they say ''the islanders will have full democratic rights in Argentina, they will be part of our democracy, yada yada yada...''
they actually mean:
''we will use superior numbers of ultra nationalisic mainlanders [Tierra del Fuegans are even more nationalist than the average Argentine] in order to subjugate them and make their votes negligible... such is the weakness of a representative democracy''

Funny how something theoretically good can be used as such a sadistic facade.

As Shakespeare said; ''mishapen chaos of well-seeming forms''

[Climber]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain


It's time to talk about the Falklands

Britain should stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and start discussing Falkland sovereignty with Argentina




http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/30/1246361288719/grace.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/grace-livingstone)


Grace Livingstone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/grace-livingstone)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Thursday 25 February 2010 14.00 GMT



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/2/25/1267105337595/The-Union-Jack-waves-19-M-001.jpg A union flag waves over Stanley, Falklands. Photograph: Daniel Garcia/AFP/***** Images

"We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands," said Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8949784) this week. But official papers show that, for more than a century, the Foreign Office has had qualms about the merits of Britain's claim to the Falklands.
In 1910, a 17,000-word memo was commissioned by the Foreign Office to look at the historical dispute over sovereignty. The study highlighted many weaknesses in the British case and can be seen as our equivalent of the Pentagon Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), the leaked study of US policy in Vietnam.
The holes in the British case shocked many officials in Whitehall. The head of the Foreign Office's American department, Gerald Spicer, wrote: "From a perusal of this memo it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed."
An assistant secretary in the same department wrote: "The only question is who did have the best claim at the time when we finally annexed the islands. I think undoubtedly the United Province of Buenos Aires." And the British ambassador in Argentina, Sir Malcolm Robertson, wrote in 1927: "I must confess that, until I received that memorandum myself a few weeks ago, I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours."
The study was regarded as so explosive that the British government withdrew it from public view during the Falklands war, but it's now available in the National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/).
No one really knows who first discovered the Falklands. Pro-Argentine academics suggest Italian-born explorer Amerigo Vespucci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci), discovered the islands as early as 1501; pro-British historians make the case for the English explorers John Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Davis_%28English_explorer%29) (1592) and Sir Richard Hawkins (http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/sir-richard-hawkins.htm) (1594), while many scholars say the only conclusively documented discovery was by the Dutchman Sebald de Weert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebald_de_Weert) in 1600. All agree that what is now known as East Falkland was first settled by the French in 1764. The French ceded control of the island to Spain in 1767.
A year after the French landed, the British established a settlement at Port Egmont on West Falkland, but abandoned the territory in 1774. Spain maintained a presence on the Falklands until 1811. The newly independent United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_South_America) (which included Argentina) believed that Spanish possessions should revert to them and in 1820 sent a ship to the abandoned Falklands. In 1829, Argentina appointed a governor. The British then sent two warships to the Falklands and struck the Argentine flag. Argentina, impoverished and divided, did not have the means to resist.
The British case, in recent times, has focused on its peaceful occupation of the islands for the last 177 years and the self-determination of the Falkland islanders. Argentina maintains that the islands were illegally annexed by Britain in 1833 and remain to this day a colony, an anachronism in the 21st century. A 1965 United Nations resolution (http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html) backs, to some extent, the Argentine position by ruling that the principle of decolonisation applies to the Falklands.
This week the 32 nations of Latin America unanimously backed Argentina in the recent dispute over oil because for most developing nations it is a simple question of colonialism. Britain may not have formally colonized much of Latin America, but as the world's preeminent power in the 19th century, its bankers and merchants had a stranglehold on the new nations' economies. In 1824, George Canning wrote of Latin American independence: "Spanish America is free, and if we do not mismanage our affairs sadly, she is English."
For a colonial power in the 19th century, the Falklands offered not only fishing and whaling opportunities, but a strategic port in the Atlantic, a base from which to suppress piracy or police the trade of rival powers and a key outpost en route to the Pacific and Antarctic.
Today the territory holds a similar strategic value and has the added bonus of oil. Britain and Argentina have been aware of hydrocarbon deposits around the Falklands for decades and diplomatic spats over oil-exploration predate the 1982 Falklands war.
Is it not time for Britain to stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and heed the call of the United Nations to discuss the question of sovereignty with Argentina?

[happyslapper]

It's not Richard Gott, the soviet spy again is it?

Oh no, some other blindly socialist arse-wipe writing for a blindly socialist newspaper. What is it with these people who say things just because they think they're required to out of some kind of political partisanship?!
There's nothing left-wing about Argentina's claim. In fact, someone mentioned the word ''fascist'' earlier...

[Climber]

theres nothing to negotiate about.
falkland islanders who live there and have lived there for 170 years don't want to be argentinian if they change there mind we'll call you end of discussion

Since when "England" cares about what the poeple wants?


Kirchner's motives are clear as day. She is just making a distraction from the disaster she cooked up in the finances of her country. Making **** up does not entitle her to negotiate anything with anybody.

Are you Argentine?




Im with the UK on this one, the Falklands belong to England.

LOL

Just explain to me why?

[Climber]

It's not Richard Gott, the soviet spy again is it?

Oh no, some other blindly socialist arse-wipe writing for a blindly socialist newspaper. What is it with these people who say things just because they think they're required to out of some kind of political partisanship?!
There's nothing left-wing about Argentina's claim. In fact, someone mentioned the word ''fascist'' earlier...

Please explain to me because I can't understand, who is a fascist?

[happyslapper]

Since when "England" cares about what the poeple wants?


Since ''England'' and Argentina signed the United Nations Charter.



The Purposes of the United Nations are:


To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: 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 and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, ***, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

[kamaz]

can someone please explain to me what right or historical claim Argentina has to the islands? I'm not a Brit or Argentine, I have no stake in either. But I did some reading on the history of the islands and cant finda any reasonable claim by Argentina to the islands. What legal or historical claims do they have?

[happyslapper]

Please explain to me because I can't understand, who is a fascist?


A fascist is a person who seeks to centralise at the expense of individual or collective freedom. A corporatist, if you will.

You could Google it if you like.

[3rdMillhouse]

Just explain to me why?

Because they got the bigger stick, and whoever's got the bigger sticks lays the rules.

[martinexsquaddie]

Unfortunatly that article was written by a leftie who got turned down for a job by the bbc as he took cash off the kgb. Nice try

[wildcat]

Argentina has no claim whats so ever to the falkland, they were never inhabited by them as a nation, nor did they settle them, the islands are 300 miles away from Argentina. Brazil should keep their noses out of this business, has nothing to do with them, nothing at all. Seem like they are just jealous of the oil finds, it about the oil.

[happyslapper]

Kamaz,

because...

a) they're closer
b) they're on the same continental shelf
c) the pope (in 1493!) said that the entire world would be divided between Spain and Portugal (pretty much)
d) they think they 'inherited' the islands from Spain.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

For a colonial power in the 19th century, the Falklands offered not only fishing and whaling opportunities, but a strategic port in the Atlantic, a base from which to suppress piracy or police the trade of rival powers and a key outpost en route to the Pacific and Antarctic.Jeez a bit of homework would have been in order for Grace Livingstone as there was no exploitation of fish stocks in the area until well into the 20th century, even C. Salvesen thought fish stocks in the area were of no real commercial value at the time and they never missed a trick. If anything the UK never really had more than mild interest in commercial activities in the Falklands it was hardly thought of as anything more than a way station for many years. It was South Georgia that was the industrial hub.

[Climber]

Since ''England'' and Argentina signed the United Nations Charter.

Well, let me tell you that they forgot one or twice about that


A fascist is a person who seeks to centralise at the expense of individual or collective freedom. A corporatist, if you will.

You could Google it if you like.

Oh God, are you serious?

Do you understand the difference between WHO and WHAT, right?...... right?

Let's try again, WHO is a fascist?


Because they got the bigger stick, and whoever's got the bigger sticks lays the rules.


LOL, you can't be serious...you sure could be very happy on jail


Unfortunatly that article was written by a leftie who got turned down for a job by the bbc as he took cash off the kgb. Nice try

Lefties, righties, who cares....


Kamaz,

because...

a) they're closer
b) they're on the same continental shelf
c) the pope (in 1493!) said that the entire world would be divided between Spain and Portugal (pretty much)
d) they think they 'inherited' the islands from Spain.

well explained, that's an intelligent post.

[3rdMillhouse]

Argentina has no claim whats so ever to the falkland, they were never inhabited by them as a nation, nor did they settle them, the islands are 300 miles away from Argentina. Brazil should keep their noses out of this business, has nothing to do with them, nothing at all. Seem like they are just jealous of the oil finds, it about the oil.

I agree, but this medling of ours has nothing to do with oil, it's got everything to do with the leftist scum that our dear drunken bastard in the presidency has decided to fill with the ministry of foreign affairs.

[happyslapper]

By all means, if you're dissatisfied with my explanation, expand on it. In a nutshell, what I posted is the Argentine claim.

WHO is a fascist? You want me to list them? Names and addresses?

I gave you a definition, perhaps you coud fill in the gaps.

Do you actually have an opinion, or are you just going to get irate and post vague yet intrigueingly out-of-touch sentances?

[kamaz]

this whole mess reminds me of a scene from 3 Amigos, with Kouchner, Chavez and Lula as the 3 Amigos.. facing off the ugly western gringo 'El Guapo"

a plethora..

[California Joe]

Since when "England" cares about what the poeple wants?



Are you Argentine?





LOL

Just explain to me why?


Well, let me tell you that they forgot one or twice about that



Oh God, are you serious?

Do you understand the difference between WHO and WHAT, right?...... right?

Let's try again, WHO is a fascist?




LOL, you can't be serious...you sure could be very happy on jail



Lefties, righties, who cares....



well explained, that's an intelligent post.

So far you haven't contributed a f*cking thing to this thread other than snide comments and ignorance. If you have an opinion with some sort of coherent message then please post it. If not, STFU.

[Old_Boy_Steve]

I, for one, hope the UK Gov doesn't stoop to pick up the toy which is forever being thrown from Argentina's proverbial pram.

[wildcat]

Kamaz,

because...

a) they're closer
b) they're on the same continental shelf


some of that logic I cannot accept.

There are many islands, including the UK that are on continental shelfs and close to other nations, but remain sovereign, not that other nations have not tried to change that. UK is only 21 miles from france. maybe they should give up the UK to france, even though like Argentina they lost the battle to claim the island (uk, and for Argentina the Falkland Islands).

Argentina should and brazil STFU, and stop crying over something that has no historical claim to. Argentina did not become a sovereign nation until 1810, if any nation has a claim to the falklands it would be the Falklands french, who established first on the island in 1764, but lost this too. In 1776 the UK laid claim to the islands. Argentina however did have a few years of a settlement, but it was destroyed by the united states in 1833, Britain returned and established the island, the previous settles were allowed to stay and became founders of todays current population. and seeing that the population of the falklands are independent territory, it is the people of the falklands under UN Resolution decide who they want to stay with, as voted by the falkland population in a referendum.

favorite war


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ktBQ51iGWw

[happyslapper]

some of that logic I cannot accept.

Good.


There are many islands, including the UK that are on continental shelfs and close to other nations, but remain sovereign, not that other nations have not tried to change that. UK is only 21 miles from france.

maybe they should give up the UK to france, even though like Argentina they lost the battle to claim the island (uk, and for Argentina the Falkland Islands).

Argentina should and brazil STFU, and stop crying over something that has no historical claim to. Argentina did not become a sovereign nation until 1810, if any nation has a claim to the falklands it would be the Falklands french, who established first on the island in 1764, but lost this too. In 1776 the UK laid claim to the islands. Argentina however did have a few years of a settlement, but it was destroyed by the united states in 1833, Britain returned and established the island, the previous settles were allowed to stay and became founders of todays current population. and seeing that the population of the falklands are independent territory, it is the people of the falklands under UN Resolution decide who they want to stay with, as voted by the falkland population in a referendum.

You got some of your dates wrong, but yes - you've got the gist.

[wildcat]

I agree, but this medling of ours has nothing to do with oil, it's got everything to do with the leftist scum that our dear drunken bastard in the presidency has decided to fill with the ministry of foreign affairs.

uncle joe rules from the bar, the bar at the UN, the bar at the House and the bar across the road from the white house. Our presidency really has no clue on anything other than trying to be popular, they are in way over their heads with pretty much everything. They should of studied before the exam.

[Climber]

OK, OK. I will get my ass out of the threads linked with the Islands.

As an explanation of why I ask these questions, it is because living here I can understand what Argentines think and feel about the subject, and that I find amusing and sad that no one can debate this in an intelligent and sensible manner, all I see is macho stuff about how they will kick Argentine asses again and that kind of things.

I lived the war while living in Buenos Aires, I remember how most of the people I know thought how stupid the war was. Not that I think that all wars are stupid. Since that I served in 2 armies, one that treated like a **** because I was a Jew, and then I fought while serving in the IDF in SL. I can sadly say that I can't stand when people treat combat in a slightly way. I always debate military stuff in the forums, I get carried away a lot of times, but I try to talk about war with respect. I think every war veteran thinks and feel the same. Or I am wrong?

Into the Island matter, I just can say that the UN resolutions backs Argentina when asking to discuss the sovereignty of the Islands. I think that it would be reasonable for both countries to try to settle things on the matter. as was explained before Argentina's rights could be debatable, but the UK's ones, others than possession of the Islands, can also put on doubt.

[Dercius]

Malvinas are part of the UK period.
Argentinian goverment can cry a river, and they are going to get nothing. They have no iron, no political leverage and no high moral ground to get anything out of this from UK.
What is Argentina´s Gov gonna do?? send the few Pucaras and Skyhawks they have left?? they tried that with bigger numbers back in 82 and ......... well you know the rest.
Just my 2 cents

[AROUETLJ]

If anyone should have any say in the matter, it's not Argentina, or perhaps even the UK, but the Falkand Islanders themselves. Like the Gibraltarians, I think they've made it clear enough that the want to keep their British passports, and that they want their country to remain British. How any world leader could masquerade behind the anti-colonialism, when it's based on the right to self-determination, as enshrined by the UN bla bla ****ing bla, is beyond me. Because the Islanders have spoken out time and again, and unequivocally.

[gaz]

Just explain to me why?

Self-determination.

[wildcat]

Into the Island matter, I just can say that the UN resolutions backs Argentina when asking to discuss the sovereignty of the Islands. I think that it would be reasonable for both countries to try to settle things on the matter. as was explained before Argentina's rights could be debatable, but the UK's ones, others than possession of the Islands, can also put on doubt.

please explain why Argentina should get the falkland Islands, explain this claim, and what rights they have.


Argentina also claims part of Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Antarctica)

[happyslapper]

OK, OK. I will get my ass out of the threads linked with the Islands.

As an explanation of why I ask these questions, it is because living here I can understand what Argentines think and feel about the subject, and that I find amusing and sad that no one can debate this in an intelligent and sensible manner, all I see is macho stuff about how they will kick Argentine asses again and that kind of things.

What do you expect from a ''military enthusiasts'' forum? To be fair, the Falklands 25 thread is treated with utmost respect, and is populated by veterans of that war. It's human nature to want to fight, and to regret it afterwards.

However, if you want a serious and intelligent debate on the sovereignty, i'll PM you a link to another forum on request (i'm unwilling to post the link openly).



Into the Island matter, I just can say that the UN resolutions backs Argentina when asking to discuss the sovereignty of the Islands. I think that it would be reasonable for both countries to try to settle things on the matter. as was explained before Argentina's rights could be debatable, but the UK's ones, others than possession of the Islands, can also put on doubt.

The UN does not back Argentina in any way. The last time it mentioned the islands (in 2008) was to re-affirm the universal right to self-determination. The only time it has ever urged anything, was before the war when it asked Britain and Argentina to expedite the discussions of that time. Obviously, that process ceased with the war.

Everyone wants a lasting settlement. This has been offered numerous times by the UK (e.g. 3 seperate occasions of offering a binding case at the ICJ), and on the odd occasion by Argentina. However, the UK has no choice but to refuse to discuss sovereignty when Argentina a) refuses to recognise the human-rights of the islanders, and b) will not accept anything less than full sovereignty.

Demanding capitulation is not negotiaton.

[armored_diplomacy]

Argentina also claims part of Antarctica[/URL]

As well as Chile and Britain

[kamaz]

I think this latest fiasco is just a general trend of S American countries to start their own grown up 'club'. Just yesteday they formed their own union outside of OAS, excluding those pesky gringos, US and Canada (those colonialist Canadians had it coming!)

this is just another example of teaming up as the 3 Amigos wearing their big poncho hats, and staring down the gringo. Very cute.

[Climber]

please explain why Argentina should get the falkland Islands, explain this claim, and what rights they have.


Argentina also claims part of Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Antarctica)

As I said Argentina rights are doubtful, and UK's, other than the possession, also are doubtful. If the islanders would like to be independent, that would be another history and I will agree with that.

Argentina claims on antarctica are based on the fact that the Andes continue trough the drake into the antarctic peninsula. I am not particularly in agreement with any claim on Antarctica, nor the USA, Russia or no other country.


What do you expect from a ''military enthusiasts'' forum? To be fair, the Falklands 25 thread is treated with utmost respect, and is populated by veterans of that war. It's human nature to want to fight, and to regret it afterwards.

However, if you want a serious and intelligent debate on the sovereignty, i'll PM you a link to another forum on request (i'm unwilling to post the link openly).



The UN does not back Argentina in any way. The last time it mentioned the islands (in 2008) was to re-affirm the universal right to self-determination. The only time it has ever urged anything, was before the war when it asked Britain and Argentina to expedite the discussions of that time. Obviously, that process ceased with the war.

Everyone wants a lasting settlement. This has been offered numerous times by the UK (e.g. 3 seperate occasions of offering a binding case at the ICJ), and on the odd occasion by Argentina. However, the UK has no choice but to refuse to discuss sovereignty when Argentina a) refuses to recognise the human-rights of the islanders, and b) will not accept anything less than full sovereignty.



Demanding capitulation is not negotiaton.There is a big difference on being a "big mouth macho" on the "internetz" than being a soldier in actual combat. I wouldn't hesitate to serve again on duty for my country and my comrades, that's Israel and the IDF, but I wouldn't be particularly excited about it. But that's just me. I actually wouldn't discuss this subject if I didn't find such situation.
I like respect but I have to concede that I can be carried away sometimes too.


About the UN, there are UN resolution's calling for negotiations, and also a resolution from the decolonization committee, those not back Argentina position, just call for negotiations.

And I agree capitulation is not an option, for either side.

[happyslapper]

Argentina claims on antarctica are based on the fact that the Andes continue trough the drake into the antarctic peninsula. I am not particularly in agreement with any claim on Antarctica, nor the USA, Russia or no other country.

Would it interest you to know that the Scottish Highlands continue into the central USA?


About the UN, there are UN resolution's calling for negotiations, and also a resolution from the decolonization committee, those not back Argentina position, just call for negotiations.

And I agree capitulation is not an option, for either side.

On this, I really couldn't say it better than my friend Ernie did earlier this week:

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

This is just some example of Argentina's 'House of Cards' over which it lies and deceives to the International Community.

It is obvious that it also has co-conspirators in the latino area of influence no doubt for their own purposes of sham solidarity.

We also now see the Rio Group being transformed into a regional self interest group excluding the USA and Canada (The dreaded double dealing Anglo-Saxons no doubt) but it remains to be seen in the long term whether they can actually hold it all together without eventually falling out big time over their individual interests.

Resolution 31/49 which is constantly referred to by Argentina in response to any action regarding the Falkland Islands with which it does not concur was actually referring to a situation of negotiation that existed before the 1982 conflict which fatally terminated those particular negotiations for good.

There have been no sovereignty negotiations since then nor will there be unless requested by the inhabitants of the Islands.

Therefore this resolution refers to past and terminated negotiations which are no longer relevant to the present situation for a number of reasons.

There are two key phrases in this resolution, one is :

"Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty"

the other is :

"while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions; "

There is no longer any such process in existence.

Specifically this resolution was referring to negotiations taking place at that time. So these caveats are simply irrelevant in today's situation because there have been no negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty. for about thirty years.

We should also remind ourselves why those negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty. ceased at that time (1960's, 70's,).

a) Argentina refused to negotiate concerning the dispute over sovereignty. but preferred to limit the negotiations only to when the Islands would handed to them and nothing else. This effectively terminated productive discussion.

b) Argentina carried out a Military expedition against against the Falklands in 1982 in contravention of 31/49 effectively ending negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty. for good.

Argentina's actions since have been no better they have continued to contravene various UN Resolutions whilst at the same time attempting to deceive the world that they are in fact the ones in compliance with the UN and not the UK.

Argentina's Unilateral Modifications to 31/49 for instance can also be enumerated for example:-

1994 Transitional Clause to their constitution.

Firstly:-

La Nación Argentina ratifica su legítima e imprescriptible soberanía sobre las
islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos e
insulares correspondientes, por ser parte integrante del territorio nacional.
La recuperación de dichos territorios y el ejercicio pleno de la soberanía,
respetando el modo de vida de sus habitantes, y conforme a los principios del Derecho
Internacional, constituyen un objetivo permanente e irrenunciable del pueblo argentino.

This permanent and unwavering goal written in to its constitution effectively makes it illegal for Argentina to enter into any negotiations regarding the sovereignty of the Falklands that does not have the predetermined outcome of a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina.

One could surely describe this as a 'terminal' modification to the situation under 31/49 and is in direct contravention of the UN invitation to have negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the problem within the terms of the UN Charter and Resolutions.

Secondly:-

Argentina has refused to re-instate the status quo ante the 1982 conflict in the sense that it imposes, in conspiracy with its neighbours, restrictions on access to and from the islands and seeks to put abroad the view that it is entitled to control such access and have this accepted as a normal situation rather than a modification to normality.

Thirdly:-

Banning of charter flights that overfly Argentine (and supposed) Argentine territory to and from the Falklands. Putting restrictions of flights that pass over their EEZ from Brasil to the Falklands. (This is illegal in international law.) Designed to damage the Falklands communications and economy.

Fourthly:-

Passing legislation on fisheries, oil and other commercial activities connected to the Islands designed to damage the Falkland's economy and restrict their economic development. Again in contravention of the UN Charter and Resolutions which requires that the interests of the inhabitants and the commercial development of territories that have not yet achieved a full measure of self-government are a priority.

Fifthly:-

Placing restrictions on shipping to the Islands and purporting to have authority over access to territory over which it has no legal or de-facto control and of which the UN recognises the UK to be the Administering Power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the Resolution which they purport the UK is in breach of.

Judge for yourselves who is in breach in fact.

UN Resolutions

Resolution 31/49

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

1 December 1976

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Recalling its resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965 and 3160 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973,

Bearing in mind the paragraphs related to this question contained in the Political Declaration adopted by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, and in the Political Declaration adopted by the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo from 16 to 19 August 1976,

Having regard to the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory,

1. Approves the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory;

2. Expresses its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the well-being of the populations of the islands;

3. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty, as requested in General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII);

4. Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;

56. Requests both Governments to report to the Secretary-General and to the General Assembly as soon as possible on the results of the negotiations.

Source: www.un.org/documents (http://www.un.org/documents) (Courtesy of Falkland Islands Web Portal)

[SDL]

The people of the Falklands want to be British. End of discussion.... or it should be.

If they want to be anything else...then they have every right to switch allegiances... but they want to be British.

[dttk0009]

The only way that Argentina will get the Falklands is through an invasion. If they can't win, they can't have it. Seems pretty simple to me. Assuming that they manage to take over the island, it would seriously harm their relations with a plethora of western nations, and that could have a much more dire end result for Argenina, especially economically.

[BloodyTalon]

As I said Argentina rights are doubtful, and UK's, other than the possession, also are doubtful. If the islanders would like to be independent, that would be another history and I will agree with that.

How is the UK claim "doubtful"? The island has been British longer than it has been Argentinian and, most importantly, the islanders identify themselves as British citizens. All Argentina has is nothing but nationalist chest beating and an ancient Papal decree that wouldn't even apply in the situation unless Argentina was planning on relinquishing its sovereignty back to Spain.

The Falklands are British territory, no exceptions, and unless Kirchner wants to know what it was like to be Generalissimo Galtieri and more, it will remain British territory until the islanders decide otherwise.

[martinexsquaddie]

classic :)
Hugo Rifkind of the Times:
I’m not crying for Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner

This idea that Argentina owns the Falklands is bonkers

What I’d really like, before this all goes any farther, is for Argentina to explain where the hell it is coming from with all this “Malvinas” business. Because from up here, frankly, their claim on the Falkland Islands looks downright stupid. From down there, I can only imagine that it doesn’t. Only, I can’t figure out why this would be. And I’ve asked around, and nobody else seems to know, either.

Is it just because they’re next door? We’ve got France next door. You’ve got Brazil next door. Are these also problems worth whining about to the UN?

Or is it because, for a brief period about 200 years ago, you owned them? Oh guys, trust me, you don’t want to get us started on the stuff we briefly owned about 200 years ago. By that logic, we still own Canada. We almost own America.

Indeed, we made a decent stab at owning you. But we gave up on that sort of thing, quite famously, because the people who lived in all these places didn’t fancy it. A bit like the people on the Falkland Islands don’t fancy being owned by you.

“Aha!” you might say, in your weirdly accented Spanish. “But those people don’t count, for they are not indigenous.” Well, true. But neither is anybody. Certainly not you. I mean, if there was anybody in Stanley 7,000 years ago, then they weren’t light-skinned and called things like Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, were they? Honestly, where do you people get off calling us colonialists? Generally speaking, we gave our empire back. You moved to yours, and then basically killed everybody. Forgive me, but I just don’t see how this puts you in a morally superior position.

I don’t mean to sound overly jingoistic, here. We’re pretty good at unpatriotic self-loathing, us Brits. Remember, we invented the BBC. Guilt is pretty much our default diplomatic position, these days. We tiptoe meekly around, still worrying that a third of the world hates us for drawing up their lethally impractical borders on the back of napkins, and that another third does for getting them hooked on opium.

We didn’t make a fuss about Hong Kong. We blush when the Greeks go on about the Elgin Marbles, even if we don’t let on. Any day now, we’ll probably start apologising for railways and penicillin. But we’re OK with the Falkland Islands. They don’t make us feel guilty at all. Not even the teeniest bit. So please, Argentina, do explain. Why should we cry for you?

[lunte]

Everybody wants the Falklands now - could it have something to do with oil...?
Lets just leave it to the Falklanders to decide. They sure deserve a bit of wealth living on those god forsaken islands. Maybe they should become independent. Now that's a thought...

[Ghelp]

Exactly, theses are just words at the end of the day. Didn't Chavez promise a war with Columbia last year? Unless I've been a bit thick, it hasn't happened.



Yes and most of the same ass clowns attacking the UK also were on the side of Venezuela.FARC terrorist receive support from Chavez.There aims are to over throw the Colombian government and establish a Communist utopia.Ecuador and Nicaragua soon started massing as well.Nicaragua by the sea and Ecuador via land.

http://www.youtube.com/v/a2RYpTbje7w

[Old_Boy_Steve]

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3499/falklands2.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/falklands2.jpg/)

..................

[CMNot]

So, Ban Ki Whom has noted the Argies concern.

Good start to their UN diplomacy mission p-)

[Eoin666]

Can someone list the 32 Caribbean and S.American countries that unanimously backed Argentina? Venezuela , Bolivia, Brazil etc we could expect, but now Chile is siding with Argentina.

And what Caribbean countries? Guyana, Trinidad etc who both have had Chavez making claims on them, you'd think they certainly wouldn't side against the Brit's.

If Argentina gains concessions on the Falklands now, watch Venezuela's claims in the region.

Nice to read we also received 'tacit' lukewarm support from the US.......great.

We really are on our own by the looks of it, perhaps we need to reassess our relationships with some nations over there

[Ordie]

We really are on our own by the looks of it, perhaps we need to reassess our relationships with some nations over there

Whatever resolution is not binding and all politics is local.

This is true for both President Fernandez and Prime Minister Gordon Brown who are going through political troubles and unpopularity.

UK and USA diplomatic involvement in Latin America has been absent for the past two decades, while China and Brazil has been growing. Latin American and Commonwealth Countries in the Americas probably feel confident enough to stand up to the UK without consequences. Or use it to obtain more concessions from the UK.

[Breerman]

If anyone should have any say in the matter, it's not Argentina, or perhaps even the UK, but the Falkand Islanders themselves. Like the Gibraltarians, I think they've made it clear enough that the want to keep their British passports, and that they want their country to remain British. How any world leader could masquerade behind the anti-colonialism, when it's based on the right to self-determination, as enshrined by the UN bla bla ****ing bla, is beyond me. Because the Islanders have spoken out time and again, and unequivocally.
Have Argentinians been allowed to move to the Falklands?

[Ordie]

Have Argentinians been allowed to move to the Falklands?

Yes

Argentines do live on the islands along with Uruguayans and Chileans.

However, the majority of Argentines are urbanites living within Buenos Aires and rarely consider moving to the provences.

[Mastermind]

If...and this is not such a "Big" if...huge oil reserves are found in and near the Falklands, I would take best there will be a shooting war, or at the very least a covert series of bloody operations to destroy and impede the recovery of those resources. It's one thing to have a casual interest in some sheep grazing turf...quite another to have five trillion dollars worth of oil in your back yard you have been denied any right to.

[Silver Etherium]

I'm personally not seeing the Argentinian claim to the island, or the resources within the islands territorial waters as being remotely arguable.

The brief period of control of the Islands by the Argentinians was predated by other brief periods of control by numerous other parties, followed by a over a century and a half of consistent British rule. Nobody in the world today has been alive when the Argentinians controlled the islands. Nobody in the world today has in their youth, met and elderly person who was alive when the Argentinians controlled the island. Furthermore, the islands were completely uninhabited when the first settlements arrived. So nobody can really claim to have a long term historical claim to the island...aside from the British.

Though this is less strong compared to the fact that the current residents, who have more history on the island than any other group in recorded history, are the one's who want to stay within the British Commonwealth.


Though it's interesting that Argentina is dismissing the islanders rights for self determination based on their non native nature...when the majority of the Argentinian population has the exact same non native origins.

[Ordie]

If...and this is not such a "Big" if...huge oil reserves are found in and near the Falklands, I would take best there will be a shooting war, or at the very least a covert series of bloody operations to destroy and impede the recovery of those resources. It's one thing to have a casual interest in some sheep grazing turf...quite another to have five trillion dollars worth of oil in your back yard you have been denied any right to.

The North Sea has oil and it's shared with many nations, yet we don't see any headlines of a shooting war.

[Billy No Mates]

The North Sea has oil and it's shared with many nations, yet we don't see any headlines of a shooting war.

Maybe its not about the oil now and they really really care about the islands,which why Mrs Kirchener repudiated the agreement to share resources with the UK,though a cynic might think she wants the whole lot rather than a mere share,all or nothing i suppose .

[martinexsquaddie]

So far 2 litres of oil have been recovered maybe we should post it to kircher

[Ordie]

Maybe its not about the oil now and they really really care about the islands,which why Mrs Kirchener repudiated the agreement to share resources with the UK,though a cynic might think she wants the whole lot rather than a mere share,all or nothing i suppose .

It's local politics in Buenos Aires and in London.

Both leaders have low popularity ratings.
Both are subject to elections the near future.
Both are seeking a diversion.

The press are out doing each other with a grabbing headline to sell papers.

And the war-**** junkies are salivating with a prospect of a new war.

Sorry to disappiont everyone, nothing is going to happen except that both leaders will be booted out of office.

[ronnieraygun]

It's local politics in Buenos Aires and in London.

Both leaders have low popularity ratings.
Both are subject to elections the near future.
Both are seeking a diversion.

The press are out doing each other with a grabbing headline to sell papers.

And the war-**** junkies are salivating with a prospect of a new war.

Sorry to disappiont everyone, nothing is going to happen except that both leaders will be booted out of office.

x100. -Glad to tune in to the Ordie channel, where **** gets set straight.

[acosta]

yeah, ordie channel, nice one.

by the way, i don't think GB has the guts of MT. so UK will surrender somewhat on the oil exploration.

[Billy No Mates]

yeah, ordie channel, nice one.

by the way, i don't think GB has the guts of MT. so UK will surrender somewhat on the oil exploration.

We already had,but that was not good enough for her,all this aggro is completely unnecessary .

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

yeah, ordie channel, nice one.

by the way, i don't think GB has the guts of MT. so UK will surrender somewhat on the oil exploration.Highly unlikely as even a leftwing UK govt would get all jingoistic over Gibraltar or the Falklands and since its unlikely the Liberals will get in I see nobody bending in the wind in the near future.

[CMNot]

That's another good point.

The RN in particular could do with this fire being stoked for longer in the event of a hung parliament and the Liberals getting some say on Gov't spending. Whereby they'll slash the MoD budget and invest heavily in trees, pixies, cuddle blankets and maintaining Liebours 'equality' (catch all folks) policies.

[Bandeirante]

After reviewing the issue regarding the Falkland Islands, His Excellency the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil expressed the support of his Government to the Argentine Republic, reaffirming his belief that the negotiations in progress will yield satisfactory results within a brief amount of time 1982, 2010

[Connaught Ranger]

After reviewing the issue regarding the Falkland Islands, His Excellency the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil expressed the support of his Government to the Argentine Republic, reaffirming his belief that the negotiations in progress will yield satisfactory results within a brief amount of time 1982, 2010

Which to a British Falkland Islander = Jack Sh+t!woot

[SHAM]

After reviewing the issue regarding the Falkland Islands, His Excellency the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil expressed the support of his Government to the Argentine Republic, reaffirming his belief that the negotiations in progress will yield satisfactory results within a brief amount of time 1982, 2010

Dont you mean Loo-Loo?

[Bandeirante]

Presidente General João Batista de Oliveira Figueiredo in 1982
Presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2010

[martinexsquaddie]

argentina can do jack.
Uk goverment isn't going to cave in no reason to. South america has'nt really got anything we need or want and can't or won't use force.

[timetraveller]

Oil clouds the judgments of those in Power because of there desire to profit from a natural resource ..

They are simply looking to for a 50/50 profit if there is Oil found and when was the last time did the argies ever did any Oil exploration of there coast or even near the vicinity of the Falklands ...

Far as am aware they haven't even botherd as such only because an Oil company is planned this ,,,,,,Oil compaines do this all the time check new area's even In Canada there is oppositiing to planned drilling for Gas which the area is known to be the start of the Best Salmon rivers in Canada ..

And if the UK wasn't even in Astan would this be ever such an issue .. I seriously doubt it

If was the Prime minister of the Uk i'd tell her straight ... Suck my boabie and Jog on

[Silver Etherium]

After reviewing the issue regarding the Falkland Islands, His Excellency the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil expressed the support of his Government to the Argentine Republic, reaffirming his belief that the negotiations in progress will yield satisfactory results within a brief amount of time 1982, 2010
Satisfactory results for the Argentinians are nothing less then them gaining complete control of the islands. Which is completely far fetched.

If you fail to take something by force in a sneak attack, don't ever expect it'll be handed over peacefully through negotiation.

[Ataman]

Most south american leaders are pretty thick if they still refer to the UK as England. Perhaps the thought of oil has clouded their thoughts.

So you know how Russians feel when the Soviet Union is called 'Russia' which is even more absurd.

Interesting issue with the Falklands, but I don't think there will be a new war in near future.

[Bandeirante]

We can compare the case of the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon with the Malvinas/Falkland Islands or Gibraltar in Spain, I am so glad that our old Portuguese Empire in Brazil was compact and our close islands were always safe. Anyway the balance of power will define the question. In ten, twenty, fifty years a small nuclear arsenal with ICBMs, two or three top nuclear submarines, two modern aircraft carriers, 50-100 last generation fighters on the table can be relevant. The Brazilian economy soon will be bigger than Germany. Anyway to develop an offshore industry in those cold waters (if there's real oil ?) will not be an easy task without the continental support from the Mercosul.
By the moment Gentleman, let's settle this dispute on the field with some football . The Cup is arriving and best of luck to everybody.

[coltfan111]

That's another good point.

The RN in particular could do with this fire being stoked for longer in the event of a hung parliament and the Liberals getting some say on Gov't spending. Whereby they'll slash the MoD budget and invest heavily in trees, pixies, cuddle blankets and maintaining Liebours 'equality' (catch all folks) policies.

........................................................This does make me feel rather violent.

The Falklands is ours, it's not going to change and I hope we get as much oil as we can.

[Silver Etherium]

We can compare the case of the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon with the Malvinas/Falkland IslandsHow are they remotely comparable? Hong Kong had been a historically Chinese controlled settlement for millenium. The Falklands was only ever in the possession of Argentinia for a messily four years. How does over two millennium compare to four years?



Anyway the balance of power will define the question. In ten, twenty, fifty years a small nuclear arsenal with ICBMs, two or three top nuclear submarines, two modern aircraft carriers, 50-100 last generation fighters on the table can be relevant. The Brazilian economy soon will be bigger than Germany. Anyway to develop an offshore industry in those cold waters (if there's real oil ?) will not be an easy task without the continental support from the Mercosul.
By the moment Gentleman, let's settle this dispute on the field with some football . The Cup is arriving and best of luck to everybody.
You know, if someone was suggesting that in the future they'd have enough bombs to take whatever parts of my country that they wanted by force, I'd very much appreciate that they drop all pretense of congeniality.

Though maybe this is just my ignorant opinion as a stupid Yankee.

[CMNot]

What the **** have Brazilians got to do with this?

I hope the DfID is cosying up to the Colombians and chucking some of their many billions their way.

[martinexsquaddie]

whatever yawn the idea that a combined south america could or would take the islands by force is laughable.
sod the rights of the inhabitants we will just use force.

its an argie president making a lot of noise and fellow politicians showing support against the gringo knowing it costs nothing and commits them to nothing as well.

[Niall]

If Argentina bring along their mates (Brazil and Venezuela) then it sure gives the UK the right to bring along its mates as well (USA and whichever European nation wants to test out hardware). But of course this is all lies as it will never get to that as we are all democracies here and there is a higher chance of Ireland rejoining the Union than two democracies declaring war.

[sasman73]

whatever yawn the idea that a combined south america could or would take the islands by force is laughable.


A united South America 'wet dream' of them against the UK isn't going to happen. The EU is duty bound to aid Britain if the Falklands are attacked.
http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/articles/2207-the-falklands-and-the-eu

It's why the Argies got all prissy when the Falklands were included as 'other territories' in this EU paper

[SHAM]

If Argentina bring along their mates (Brazil and Venezuela) then it sure gives the UK the right to bring along its mates as well (USA and whichever European nation wants to test out hardware). But of course this is all lies as it will never get to that as we are all democracies here and there is a higher chance of Ireland rejoining the Union than two democracies declaring war.

We cannot "rejoin" what we did not "join" in the first place.
However any invitations would be considered and then politely refused, and reciprocated with an offer for the Brits to join the Irish Isles:)
Have a nice day.

[Niall]

We cannot "rejoin" what we did not "join" in the first place.
However any invitations would be considered and then politely refused, and reciprocated with an offer for the Brits to join the Irish Isles:)
Have a nice day.


You fool I was using that as an example of what an unlikely event it is. Don't get so butthurt.

[SHAM]

You fool I was using that as an example of what an unlikely event it is. Don't get so butthurt.

Did you miss the little smiley face? dipshyte:)

[martinexsquaddie]

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Europe/UK/UK/IDC.htm#History
never say never sham :)

I love this sight always good for a wind up

[Niall]

Did you miss the little smiley face? dipshyte:)

Haha I saw the smileyface but didn't associate it with a jest, the have a nice day seemed too polite in my eyes as well!

[Eoin666]

If was the Prime minister of the Uk i'd tell her straight ... Suck my boabie and Jog on

rofl, although I doubt she'd get it......."suck your....boabie.....err"

[acosta]

A united South America 'wet dream' of them against the UK isn't going to happen. The EU is duty bound to aid Britain if the Falklands are attacked.
http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/articles/2207-the-falklands-and-the-eu

It's why the Argies got all prissy when the Falklands were included as 'other territories' in this EU paper

you cannot be so sure. keep in mind spain and portuguese might be tied to their latin bros. eu charter does't cover brotherhood.

[LineDoggie]

you cannot be so sure. keep in mind spain and portuguese might be tied to their latin bros. eu charter does't cover brotherhood.NATO does apply to Spain & Portugal, though it doesnt compel any member state to send forces.

A NATO member supporting a non NATO member in a conflict would seemingly be taken as treachery against an Ally, no?

[martinexsquaddie]

theres not going to be a war and even if brazil got its massive wet dream military why would they risk it in a war to invade an island of no intrest to them.
the argie president is trying to talk big

[ChrisBV]

“Could it be because the UK is a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council where they can do everything and the others nothing? It is not possible that Argentina is not the owner while England is, despite being 14,000km away."

... and that's the President of a democratic nation speaking. He's entirely missing the point.


A united South America 'wet dream' of them against the UK isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen back in '82, it sure as hell won't happen today.