Alonso Quijano
New Member
oil that disgusting!
I'll buy an electric car!
I'll buy an electric car!
Argentinian blockade of the falklands
- Thread starter jaffo4011
- Start date
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I suppose they could take it up with the United Kingdom via the UN, however i'm not sure how far they'd get.A lot has been mentioned about possible oil of the Falklands, now here in the States, there is now occurring, a huge oil spill of the Gulf of Mexico, which threatens to destroy the wild life around the coast. Now let’s say that there is oil around the Falkland’s, and while the drilling begins there is a huge oil spill that reaches the shore of Argentina………….Could Argentina sue England?
lol.
They don't go far enough between recharges and if you drive it often you'll destroy the batteries rather quickly relative to how far you can drive a car between engine rebuilds.
Would it not be more practical for the future interactions between England and Argentina. for both of them now just to sit down aroung a table with a couple of beers, and agree on a meaningful agreement of sharing in any of the 'off shore' oil resources.A lot has been mentioned about possible oil of the Falklands, now here in the States, there is now occurring, a huge oil spill of the Gulf of Mexico, which threatens to destroy the wild life around the coast. Now let’s say that there is oil around the Falkland’s, and while the drilling begins there is a huge oil spill that reaches the shore of Argentina………….Could Argentina sue England?
Personably myself I believe the Falklands belongs to the Falklanders/England.
But, if England and Argentina could share in the development costs off these 'off shore' oil deposits, and have similar sharing off the profits, all the talk of another invasion would vanish overnight.
Maybe it could be that Argentina would finish up with only 5% of these revenues.
This would sate Argentina's pride, Argentina is an economic basket case and needs cash urgently, for England it should be cheaper to offer to share the 'off shore' oil revenues with Argentina, then spend $X millions on enhancing military options to deal with the 'concern' of facing any future military threats in the Falkland area.
Unlikely, but they could expect that whatever company is doing the drilling to pay the cleanup costs as BP will have to do with the current spill.A lot has been mentioned about possible oil of the Falklands, now here in the States, there is now occurring, a huge oil spill of the Gulf of Mexico, which threatens to destroy the wild life around the coast. Now let’s say that there is oil around the Falkland’s, and while the drilling begins there is a huge oil spill that reaches the shore of Argentina………….Could Argentina sue England?
The Argentinian claim/threat has been around longer than the oil, simply giving them some of the revenue would not help, for all the UK knows that money could go straight into funding new fighter jets that'd make it easier for that 5% share go up to 100% share in future when the British are relaxing their garrison. Alternatively it'd make a greater case for the Argentinians claim, because it could be argued that it is tacit acknowledgement of Argentina's right to the islands.Would it not be more practical for the future interactions between England and Argentina. for both of them now just to sit down aroung a table with a couple of beers, and agree on a meaningful agreement of sharing in any of the 'off shore' oil resources.
Personably myself I believe the Falklands belongs to the Falklanders/England.
But, if England and Argentina could share in the development costs off these 'off shore' oil deposits, and have similar sharing off the profits, all the talk of another invasion would vanish overnight.
Maybe it could be that Argentina would finish up with only 5% of these revenues.
This would sate Argentina's pride, Argentina is an economic basket case and needs cash urgently, for England it should be cheaper to offer to share the 'off shore' oil revenues with Argentina, then spend $X millions on enhancing military options to deal with the 'concern' of facing any future military threats in the Falkland area.
The only way it'd work is if in return for the oil share, Argentina publicly and legally renounces its claim on the Falklands.
And the idea behind the oil revenues means that the Falklands will pay for it's own defence once the money starts rolling in, so it won't cost the UK anything and giving up some revenue just means less profit.
Alonso Quijano
New Member
lol.
They don't go far enough between recharges and if you drive it often you'll destroy the batteries rather quickly relative to how far you can drive a car between engine rebuilds.[/QUOTE]
for that reason and because of the crisis, I have not bought ...
But I Have in mind for the future, When These cars are better, put in my garden A Few solar panels and plug in the car free of charge Each Day.
:rel
They don't go far enough between recharges and if you drive it often you'll destroy the batteries rather quickly relative to how far you can drive a car between engine rebuilds.[/QUOTE]
for that reason and because of the crisis, I have not bought ...
But I Have in mind for the future, When These cars are better, put in my garden A Few solar panels and plug in the car free of charge Each Day.
:rel
John Sansom
New Member
Interesting, indeed....if a find is verified. In that case, I rather suspect there'll be thunderous rhetoric followed by some over-the-horizon pop-ups courtesy of the Argentine navy. Close-in fly-bys might also be in order.
Somehow, though, I feel it unlikely that anybody will pull a trigger.
Unless of course an international media mogul gets hold of a few Exocets and Harpoons and fires them at the respective sides, making each believe it is under attack and can justifiably escalate. Lets just hope one plucky STD infested MI6 rogue can save us.Interesting, indeed....if a find is verified. In that case, I rather suspect there'll be thunderous rhetoric followed by some over-the-horizon pop-ups courtesy of the Argentine navy. Close-in fly-bys might also be in order.
Somehow, though, I feel it unlikely that anybody will pull a trigger.
....sorry got bored.
They seem fairly sure about the oil find, Desire were fairly candid with their lack of a find earlier in the year. Either that or someone at the top of one of the companies wants to sell a load of shares on the back of all the share price jumps for companies prospecting down there.
True but are France and Denmark trying to exploit the area around these islands with fishing and oil exploration? If they were, I don't think Canada or Sweden would be taking it so lightly either.
-----JT-----
Carrot Smack
New Member
Argentina will just get it's butt kicked again like they did in '82.
I may be American, but I can admit that British Marines > Everyone Else.
I may be American, but I can admit that British Marines > Everyone Else.
Yes we (Denmark) are. Granted, there's not all thaqt many fish in the Baltic, but there you go.
Anyway, a much more apt example would be Canada-Denmark and Hans Island in the Bering Strait.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hans Island is in the Nares Strait
The delineation of the waters around the Island is agreed upon - it's only the 1 x 1 km rock itself that is an issue. There was a technical delegation from Canada in Copenhagen a month ago on the issue.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Nares_strait_border_(Kennedy_channel).png
I bow to your greater wisdom.Hans Island is in the Nares Strait
The delineation of the waters around the Island is agreed upon - it's only the 1 x 1 km rock itself that is an issue. There was a technical delegation from Canada in Copenhagen a month ago on the issue.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Nares_strait_border_(Kennedy_channel).png
It did get kinda heated for a while though, and the local press certainly didn't hold back on the rhetoric.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Heh, the rah rah was mostly for the fun of it, I guess.
Probably. It did upset the OPVs deployment schedule though, since the had to send one all the way up the wrong side of Greenland. (The Thetis class normally only operates on the east coast.)
Serves them right for retiring the Aglek and Agpa before the Knud Rasmussen had finished working up.
Serves them right for retiring the Aglek and Agpa before the Knud Rasmussen had finished working up.
France has been exploiting the area around St Pierre & Miquelon for fishing for a few hundred years. It was the reason for settling the islands, & until the local cod fishery crashed, it was the foundation of the economy. The islands now live largely off French subsidies, but fish is still the main export.
Bornholm has an EEZ agreed with Sweden, Germany & Poland - all EU members, BTW. Fisheries & any undersea mineral discoveries are governed by treaties & EU agreements. There are no territorial disputes affecting it, & haven't been since 1814, IIRC. Sweden & Denmark last fought over it in 1658, when the Swedes took it, only to lose it to local rebels. The rebels then handed it back to Denmark, which has kept it ever since, with Sweden accepting it as Danish by the Treaty of Copenhagen in 1660.
Fishing was a major industry of Bornholm for the next 300 years, BTW, & I think it's still significant.
On Christmas Day 1941, a Free French destroyer sailed into Saint Pierre as the islanders were liberated from Vinchy French rule. The islanders chose by vote switching to the Free French.
At the time Frenklin D. Roosevelt was embarrassed by General DeGaule as the US had diplomatic relations with the Vinchy government. But as soon as DeGaule learned of the islanders fate, he dispatched the destroyer... The leader of the Free French did not know that these two islands were French...
This was just another interesting side chapter of WWII...
The tie in with the Falklands is to switch DeGaule with Thatcher... When Thatcher learned of the Kelpers fate, she dispatched a fleet of ships to liberate the kelpers...
At the time Frenklin D. Roosevelt was embarrassed by General DeGaule as the US had diplomatic relations with the Vinchy government. But as soon as DeGaule learned of the islanders fate, he dispatched the destroyer... The leader of the Free French did not know that these two islands were French...
This was just another interesting side chapter of WWII...
The tie in with the Falklands is to switch DeGaule with Thatcher... When Thatcher learned of the Kelpers fate, she dispatched a fleet of ships to liberate the kelpers...
Their fate (e.g. their protests against being deprived of full British citizenship by her government) was well-publicised in the British press in the two years before the invasion. She is known to have had briefings on that, their protests against the withdrawal of the ice patrol ship, & the Argentinean provocations (now known to have been intended to test British reactions) prior to invasion. She did not suddenly discover the Falklands in April 1982. She merely reappraised their importance to the standing of her government.
Argentinean point of view
Well I'm Argentinean and I was a child when the 1982 war took place so I only know what history books said and press etc.
About our sovereignity claims they were well explained on post above, even the fact that the population we had up to 1853 that was expelled by the UK and the fact that they did not ask that people if they want to remain argentinean or not anyway.
The title of the thread is inaccurate, since this is far from a blockade but sort of noiusance from our part to the island and you bet we will keep doing it.
Our politician have many flaws, being corruption the worst of them but they are no stupid, the really stupid one was Gral Galtieri at 1982 and him and fellow men went through justice after that.
Today you will not able to find one single Argentinean folk who think that military force is the way to go to regain our right over the islands, neither you will find anyone ready to give up on those rights.
That is regarding any military capacities we have or will have in the future, which are really bad today at least for sea warfare.
While we are in the process of regain military strength is not to be aimed to the islands but because many years of corrupted and useless adminstrations led us to a weak state in that topic but we doing that because is our right as a Nation we are, but our budget still really low compared to our neighbours, let alone UK.
Those post about the Tronador and Grandicom rockets are biased to say the least, the tronador rocket it is vector prototype for a space vector to launch our satellites in the future and not a ballistic misile, even the whole project is being handled by a civilian institution, the grandicom rocket it is indeed a military project but aimed to regain know how and technical abilities we lost when the condor II project was canceled, we are even beginning to study the develpment of nuclear reactors to our ships and with nuclear techonology, trust me, we are good, but those projects are to push our technological limits and knowledge which is our right but doesn´t means we are getting ready to war, and we are not Pakistan, we are not willing to develop our military strenght at expense our people.
While the the issues around the oil, let alone sovereignity, really concern us and it will be that way for the next million years, a second war is not in our agend and will not be.
Believe me, this whole thread is pointless.
English is of course not my first languaje, hope I was clear enough
Jorge
Well I'm Argentinean and I was a child when the 1982 war took place so I only know what history books said and press etc.
About our sovereignity claims they were well explained on post above, even the fact that the population we had up to 1853 that was expelled by the UK and the fact that they did not ask that people if they want to remain argentinean or not anyway.
The title of the thread is inaccurate, since this is far from a blockade but sort of noiusance from our part to the island and you bet we will keep doing it.
Our politician have many flaws, being corruption the worst of them but they are no stupid, the really stupid one was Gral Galtieri at 1982 and him and fellow men went through justice after that.
Today you will not able to find one single Argentinean folk who think that military force is the way to go to regain our right over the islands, neither you will find anyone ready to give up on those rights.
That is regarding any military capacities we have or will have in the future, which are really bad today at least for sea warfare.
While we are in the process of regain military strength is not to be aimed to the islands but because many years of corrupted and useless adminstrations led us to a weak state in that topic but we doing that because is our right as a Nation we are, but our budget still really low compared to our neighbours, let alone UK.
Those post about the Tronador and Grandicom rockets are biased to say the least, the tronador rocket it is vector prototype for a space vector to launch our satellites in the future and not a ballistic misile, even the whole project is being handled by a civilian institution, the grandicom rocket it is indeed a military project but aimed to regain know how and technical abilities we lost when the condor II project was canceled, we are even beginning to study the develpment of nuclear reactors to our ships and with nuclear techonology, trust me, we are good, but those projects are to push our technological limits and knowledge which is our right but doesn´t means we are getting ready to war, and we are not Pakistan, we are not willing to develop our military strenght at expense our people.
While the the issues around the oil, let alone sovereignity, really concern us and it will be that way for the next million years, a second war is not in our agend and will not be.
Believe me, this whole thread is pointless.
English is of course not my first languaje, hope I was clear enough
Jorge
John Sansom
New Member
Thanks, Jorge, for the careful exposition of where the average Argentinian probably stands on this matter. While those on either side of the question can cite the structure of history to reinforce their arguments, I think something else may well be going on here....something that Argentinians are as well aware of as we Brits.
I, for instance, have never been to the Falklands (or Malvinas), but I have responded on at least one occasion to `the call of the colours and to the traditions I share with the Falklanders. During WWII I gazed with a child`s eyes on the ferocious beatings my country stood up under and the often extraordinary courage with which the average man, woman, and child struggled through each day. I have since met and come to know Shetlanders and Orkney residents and I cannot help but equate those experiences with perhaps an imagined call of the blood coming from the small, bleak isles in the South Atlantic..
It is this sort of thing. as much as rustled papers and sombre judicial tones of diplomacy, which impels me to stand for the Falkland Islanders....because I feel them to be my kin of longstanding and I can hear the seas upon their shores as well as I can hear the beat of the surf agains my current Nova Scotia home.
A little fanciful? Perhaps. But I rather think it's the sort of thing which plays an important part in the consideration many Brits give to the question.