Argentina to blockade Falkland waters in dispute over oil rights

I don't think this is anything to do with oil but the Argentine Pres chooses this opportunistic time to bluster because of the oil rig moving in.
The Birthday girl herself President Cristina Elizabet Fernández de Kirchner (Born February 19th 1953) made this statement below in 2008.

In April 2008, on the 26th anniversary of the Falklands War, Kirchner stepped up Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands. She called Argentina's rights to the islands "inalienable".
"With faith in God, and with the work that we all have to do to build a country that is strong and respected around the world, so that our voice is heard in all International forums, and we can denounce the shameful presence of a colonial enclave in the 21st century"

Source Wikipedia

It seems she is after some power and glory either at home or in South America and by taking/capturing/invading the Falklands she will achieve it. Today it's called sabre rattling in 1930's Britain people like her were called Tubthumpers.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by StevenDye

 

I'm not British, I'm American. I can honestly say that the USA will not take sides on this because Argentina is designated 'a major non-NATO ally'. ...

America may not want to, but she may not have a choice if she wishes the UK to remain in Afghanistan. Theres alot of men equipment and money going into Afghanistan that may need to be relocated to the Falklands if problems should arise, unless support is received from elsewhere.

To have to pack up, ship to the Falklands, switch all the camo back to woodland, fight a war...then switch the all the camo back to desert and return to Afghanistan... is a HUGE feat which we probably couldn't manage.

reply to post by 3DPrisoner


Well using terms like "raping South America" does kinda paint a clear picture in my mind of how I interpreted your words, if it was not your intention to paint the Brits that way then I appologies for my heavy handed response.

I was trying to point out the British rule as it was in other parts of South America (tho in no way has been perfect) has not caused consternation or alarm.

Be honest now, if the US had an ex-colony next to Venezuela, one that the US was still training up the officers of the local defense force etc what would the situation be like there now??

Would it be stable enough to be the center of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)?

Please take a look a the Guyana defense force, it has 3 planes and 3 helicopters, which does not show a war like state of affairs with either bordering nations yet there are border disputes with Chavez, and even then it does not look like a military zone filled with military "advisors"

What I am trying to say is that the British footprint on South America is not viewed as an aggressive one outside Argentina, or there would be many other issues in and around both Guyana and Belize..

So I do not see the parallels between the British behaviour in the Falklands and Israels behaviour in Palestine..

As I mentioned above, what issues in South America aside from the Falklands do you feel the South American nations feel Britain is responsible for or are in your eyes like Israels treatment of Palestine.

Argentina's population isn't too keen about this, reading the opinions of newspapers, many see it as a last throw of a dying government. Poverty, unemployment and corruption are widespread in Argentina.

From a Congressmen, Argentina's spokesmen on the Falklands;

"We have no money and no soldiers. You can't beat the United Kingdom with bows and arrows."

"It would be a military disaster," agreed Eduardo Diez, from the Centre for Argentine-American dialogue. "Would we send people without arms, without weapons?"

reply to post by infinite


She would have done better to enter into dialogue, and made a big deal about that, it would have provided her some success, unless Gordo was being a git and wanting it all for himself and his banker mates.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


We offered to share the oil profit, many years ago. Argentina agreed, but then pulled out of talks when she was elected President. As some citizens of Argentina, and politicians, stated; Britain has been more than willing to share potential economic wealth from the islands.

The military conversations are interesting and deeply fascinating. Argentina knows Britain is fighting a war in Afghanistan and made substantial budget cuts, but so has Argentina. Far more draconian.

Drilling starts next week. If Argentina tries to block shipping or drilling, the navy and airforce are now starting patrols.

reply to post by infinite


All very risky business.. lets hope she is not silly enough to commit Argentina to any drastic action.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Judging by the response, the Argentinian government is pretty much terrified we've sent the Navy out for dip in the sea.

reply to post by infinite


I would be concerned at any nation sitting off my coast with the capability of dropping a cruise missile on my head..

Tho I still fail to understand why she could not have come to an arrangement, most Brits will support a war in defence of the Islanders not the oil.. and would be ok with sharing the oil..

Besides Gordo would be mauled if he didn't offer unconditional support of the people of the Islands, and back it up with action.. mere words are not good enough even if the MSM have spun this out of proportion.

reply to post by infinite

Yep infinite, Emagine one of these beauties pulling up along the argintine
shoreline and poping open its silo doors, Great big scary beast of a killing machine should keep the argintine navy securly tied up.. possible last words "Was that a ping"







[edit on 19-2-2010 by foxhoundone]

Rumours that Navy vessels have been put on stand-by.

And, I'm not talking about the vessels that are already in the Falklands. RAF bombers arrived today too.

I was unaware, that the Euro fighter, currently based at the Falklands, have limited stealth ability. Plus, stealth UAV's are stationed there too.

Originally posted by infinite
Rumours that Navy vessels have been put on stand-by.

And, I'm not talking about the vessels that are already in the Falklands. RAF bombers arrived today too.

I was unaware, that the Euro fighter, currently based at the Falklands, have limited stealth ability. Plus, stealth UAV's are stationed there too.

Do you mind if i ask what is your source because i am also following this closely. Thanks

Let's just hope the president doesn't do a very stupid and reggretable move by bombing bombing the oil rig. If the armed forces were in better shape I wouldn't be so scared

reply to post by NightFlyer96


In 2007, a memo travelled around the government of Argentina suggesting the Falklands were "undefended" because we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The British started to make preparations and military plans from 2007. The island defence is quite strong and can repeal a significant attack.

Well we probably wouldn't be able to attack and hold the islands, kirchner has destroyed the army so much only a miracle could save us if we went to war

Belize

Actually the Guatemalans were none to happy with the British control over Belize/British Honduras. Even after independence in 1981 the Guatemalans continued to launch border raids and incursions into Belize. A regimental sized task force consisting of a rotating infantry battalion, an SAS troop, an artillery battery, and an armored reconnaissance troop plus logistics, medical, and other support troops was stationed in country right up until the mid 1990s. There is still a company sized British Army Training Team attached to the Belize Defense Force.



Does anyone have a current ORBAT for the British garrison in the Falklands?

reply to post by NightFlyer96


Correct me if I am wrong, but many Argentinians have contacted the British media pointing out these devastating military cuts and the fear of the British taking a "first strike" against Argentina's inland bases.

Is this true or just paranoia?

Well the budget cuts are true but I don't know about the second part

Originally posted by ChrisF231

Belize

Actually the Guatemalans were none to happy with the British control over Belize/British Honduras. Even after independence in 1981 the Guatemalans continued to launch border raids and incursions into Belize. A regimental sized task force consisting of a rotating infantry battalion, an SAS troop, an artillery battery, and an armored reconnaissance troop plus logistics, medical, and other support troops was stationed in country right up until the mid 1990s. There is still a company sized British Army Training Team attached to the Belize Defense Force.



Does anyone have a current ORBAT for the British garrison in the Falklands?

Thanks, and I appreciate the comments but still the situation was not quite the rape and pillage of South America which was where my comments were aimed to rebuke..

Sorry I can't answer your question on the garrison.

[edit on 19/2/10 by thoughtsfull]

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by NightFlyer96

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but many Argentinians have contacted the British media pointing out these devastating military cuts and the fear of the British taking a "first strike" against Argentina's inland bases.

Is this true or just paranoia?

Given Blair & Brown's behaviour in the ME I might feel a little paranoid if I was an Argentine, how would they know the British population would not stand for a unprovoked pre-emptive strike against Argentina*

If this is true I can't help but feel this Gov really has damaged the British image abroad..

* caveat: I feel if Brown took such a course of action it would be political suicide