Hugo Chavez demands Queen returns Falkland Islands to Argentina

reply to post by Bahb3


Brazil has one of the worlds largest renewable resources, generating about 43%t of its power from renewable energy source far, above anything the Uk will achieve in the next few decades on their current path. Brazil is not hurting for oil by any means and they sell off much of their domestic production. Close to 20% of their domestic automobile fuel comes from renewable sources and Brazil is currently the only country in the world where biofuel programmes are energetically viable. They are also not so foolish to begin engaging in nuclear war over a minor territorial dispute.

Armageddon will not start so easily and anyone who uses nukes first in such a minor dispute, will ultimately lose in the long run due to world condemnation. EMP is a side effect of a nuclear weapon, and is quite minor in comparison to the explosive force. Designing a nuclear device for use as an EMP without turning the area into slag is another matter entirely. There are far better was of generating a powerful EMP without resorting to nuclear bombs.

Argentina hit by 6.3 magnitude earthquake after Haiti and Venezuela & Chile's 8.8


Ohhhh God.....

The conspiracy theorists are about to have a feild day!

Here we go again,

reply to post by Terapin


i believe the british have such a device, "The E Bomb" EMP bomb, designed around the coldwar era, it was suppost to be used as/in the first wave off a retaliation strike, (followed by the bombing of millitary targets & radar) there was decussion of it being used in Iraq also,

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


There was also another 5.2 Earthquake off the coast of Japan today. It seems that the bell is ringing.

As for large EMPs, yep they exist, and not all of them are nuclear based. You can build a purely electronic EMP that is quite powerful. Massive cascading ultra capacitors for example. Using an EMP is only be good for the short term however, as replacement forces can be moved in to replace any that lose capability from such a strike.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

There was also another 5.2 Earthquake off the coast of Japan today. It seems that the bell is ringing.

As for large EMPs, yep they exist, and not all of them are nuclear based. You can build a purely electronic EMP that is quite powerful. Massive cascading ultra capacitors for example. Using an EMP is only be good for the short term however, as replacement forces can be moved in to replace any that lose capability from such a strike.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Terapin]

i Thought the japan one was 7.0

Yep i do remember reading up on this many years back with a full design layout, if i remember rightly they are charged like batterys and release hundreds of times that, i cant seem to find anything on it at the minite to back that up.

And yes its short term, but anything in that EMP radius, connected to the mains is permanently dead, rendering the enemy without any form of coms/power, it will spreads koas down the ranks and intern cannot move there peices across the board, a highly effective first wave attck.


Back on Topic: anybody have any new Info/Developments in the row?

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


EMPs do not destroy all electronic equipment. Diesel engines and cars that do not have electronic ignition will still work. Integrated circuits are very susceptible to EMP destruction if they are not shielded. Modern military equipment is shielded for just this reason, particularlyJet fighters. An EMP in a small fishing boat could cause quite a surprise however.

Chavez keeps mentioning his modern Russian made fast attack jet fighters, but he would have to base them in Argentina first, as they do not have the range to fly all the way to the Falklands and back from Venezuela. They are quite capable jets however. It is seriously doubtful that he would ever do such a thing unless a war had already broken out, which is very unlikely.

Originally posted by infinite

Chavez insulted the Queen.

I like it when people insult the queen... The word "queen" itself should only be used as a name for men who dress as women... Monarchies are just silly.

The Falklands should have some kind of referendum to decide if they want to be a part of an illegitimate monarchy or declare sovereignty.

reply to post by daeoeste


Colonies, which the Falklands technically are, can not so easily simply declare independent sovereignty. They need permission from the Queen and Parliament in this case, and that is unlikely. If they were 100% independent their finances would be quite different. Their sale of Wool and Fishing rights would not support their economy without outside British support. Their lifestyle is supported by British taxpayer funding to the tune of millions per year in military aid which has a significant effect on the local economy, and who would provide their security if not for the British armed services? If Oil comes into the picture, the UK is even less likely to consider giving that revenue and resource up to an independent Falklands nation. They want payback on their expensive investment.

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter

Those islands are British. You may come from the sort of place that turns its back on its dependents but thats not how we do it here in the UK.

Isnt the end of that sentence "At least not as long as they have resources we want."

And mind you, I am not picking on the UK particularly, but lets get real, what nation anywhere acts because it cares about people, even its own people? Its all about resources and revenue baby.

Originally posted by daeoeste

Originally posted by infinite

Chavez insulted the Queen.

I like it when people insult the queen... The word "queen" itself should only be used as a name for men who dress as women... Monarchies are just silly.

The Falklands should have some kind of referendum to decide if they want to be a part of an illegitimate monarchy or declare sovereignty.

They Allready have,

99.9% said we want to remain british,

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Just keep in mind that a very special exclusion policy of immigration, that is in place on no other British territory, set up the situation on the Falklands for exactly that purpose. That 99+% . . . They are simply a deliberately selected population. You will not find such a selected population anywhere else in the British territories. Kinda weakens the validity of having such a vote when you stack the deck.

If I rounded up all the Hindus in the UK and asked them wether or not they would like to see a well educated brown skin asian race Hindu member of Parliament, or a white protestant member of Parliament, which way do you think they would vote? Would such a vote that excludes everyone else have any merit?

The UK led the committee which wrote the rules for the UN when it comes to such "self determination," and according to the rules the UK wrote and approved, such a vote is invalid.

Britain could greatly improve their stance if they would end the artificial exclusion policy and slowly allow the same immigration policies they have in the UK and their other territories.

I really don't see Argentina's claim of the Falkland Islands to be that substantial, ...

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

The First Sightings

The Falkland Islands were first sighted by English navigator John Davis of 'Desire' in 1592. They were then identified by another English navigator Sir Richard Hawkins in 1594 who named them 'Hawkins Maydenlande' after himself and Queen Elizabeth.
******SKIP******
The First Landings

The first recorded landing on the Falkland Islands occurred in 1690, and was made at Bold Cove near Port Howard on West Falkland to replenish the water supplies of British ship 'Welfare' commanded by John Strong, who named the stretch of water between West and East Falkland 'Falkland Sound' after Lord Falkland, who was a financial supporter of Strong's voyage, Treasurer to the Navy and shortly to become First Lord of the Admiralty.

The discovery by Captain Strong of a large, fox-like animal, which he named the warrah, raises the possibility that the Falkland Islands had previously been discovered by Indians from South America who brought a domesticated fox with them for hunting purposes

So, apparently there wasn't any people living in/on the Falkland Islands when they were first discovered.

And then the French were the first to actually colonize the Falklands, ...

Part 2 - Fort St. Louis and Port Egmont

The party landed in Berkeley Sound, at what was to become Fort St. Louis settlement. Dom Pernety, the priest accompanying the expedition, chronicled events. After construction of a fort (of earth and peat sods) and an apartment house, Bougainville and Pernety returned to France in April 1764 leaving 28 settlers behind. Bougainville returned to the Islands in January 1765 with a further 53 settlers. The third visit of Bougainville's ship 'Eagle' at the beginning of 1766 brought more people and stores, but Bougainville himself did not accompany the ship, as he had been instructed by the French King Louis XV to travel to Madrid.

And then it was Argentina's turn to make a grab for the Falklands, ...

Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur

In 1823 Argentina granted a concession of land on East Falkland to Frenchman Louis Vernet, who had arrived in Buenos Aries in 1816, and his Argentine partner, patriot Jorge Pacheco. Vernet believed it would be profitable to exploit the wild cattle teeming on uninhabited East Falkland. Vernet and Pacheco then brought into the partnership Robert Schofield, a Montevideo merchant of British origin, and Pablo Areguati, a retired Argentine captain of militia, who successfully petitioned the Argentine government to be appointed Commandant of Port Soledad.. In February 1824 an expedition led by Areguati arrived on East Falkland
******SKIP******
By the end of 1825 Vernet had formed a new company with family and friends, but not Pacheco or Areguati who appear to have become disillusioned with the enterprise. By now Vernet was aware of the British claim to the Falkland Islands, and in January 1826 before sailing he took his Argentine grant to the British Consulate where it received theirstamp.

And then the British come back to "reclaim" the Falklands, ...

The British Reoccupation

In December 1832 the British returned to the Falkland Islands, concerned by the unlawful activities of the Americans and by the Argentine assertions of sovereignty. On 20 December 1832 they posted a notice of possession at Port Egmont, and on 2 January 1833 they arrived at Port Louis. They found 20 settlers of various nationalities living in squalid conditions, while American, British and French sealing vessels took advantage of the absence of authority. The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag.

So, Argentina had only tried to actually excersize any kind of control or colonization of the Falklands fro 1825 to 1832.

Kind of a moot point when the British have now been in control of the islands since 1832!

[edit on 2/27/2010 by Keyhole]

You leave a great deal of history and important information out of your brief proclamation of the Falklands History. Like the fact that in the Nootka Conventions of 1790 where Britain ceded all previous sovereignty to the Falklands without conditions. Or the fact that Argentina legally acquired the territory from Spain under a internationally recognized rule of law. Or that Britain entered into a Trade and Friendship deal with Argentina where they specifically recognize Argentinian sovereignty over the Islands. Or that the British took the islands back with an overwhelming force which was against recognized principals of international law.

These and several other points are important enough that they should not be ignored. Pay close attention to the fact that you are getting your data from a source that has a definite bias and deliberately leaves out information that would contradict their claims. It is always best to avoid such position papers and to instead seek independent sources. That source has been proven to be less than scholarly and quite misleading.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Terapin]

Click here for more information.

Right now Britain would win a conflict against a South American coalition. Though Brazil is building up its armed forces so in the future maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if American companies win some contracts in the Falklands which would pretty much mean Britain keeping sovereignty for the forseeable future.

reply to post by Terapin


I really enjoy reading your perspective on things.

I hope that you understand my knee-jerk reaction towards monarchies being strongly driven by a desire for the small gal(guy) to stick up for his(her) rights against a *queen*---------

Originally posted by daeoeste

The word "queen" itself should only be used as a name for men who dress as women...

In this spirit...

Originally posted by The Founding Fathers...in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They should rebel if they feel the need to. After stating a formal declaration of their own grievances, as a matter of course.(And out of pity for the inbred tyrants public image)

Originally posted by Terapin
Colonies, which the Falklands technically are, can not so easily simply declare independent sovereignty. They need permission from the Queen and Parliament in this case, and that is unlikely.

We did it. Right here in the country that I am communicating to you from. Do you think that N.A.T.O. would give up this microcosmic egg surrounded by scavengers at the risk of the wider conflict(brushfire) that a heavy handed response would entail?

This is some high stakes intrigue, methinks. I really wonder at what kind of silent backroom deals are being done right now.




[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]

[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]

Ok, lets puts some cards on the table shall we and look behind the scenes in other news as to what interconnections are playing out

The Argentine Gov appointed Barclays (a British bank and touted enemy state) to manage their $63 debt swap, Barclays also have a share of Falklands oil.

This has caused issues in Argentina where a notable human rights group are pressing a criminal complaint against the Argentine Gov.

Linky

Note they are openly human rights lawyers, but have stated they will accept the rule of law should the ruling against them and now the US is looking at disclosing evidence of previous Argentine human rights abuses.

Linky

Come on, Argentina has gone to Britain to help sort out their debt crisis using the claim of the Falklands as leverage, which some lawyers founds out about and are trying to use the leverage of legal action against the Argentine Gov to get the info they seek, in return the US is willing to disclose their knowledge of human rights abuses to satiate that group.

*IF* Britain was against the Argentina then it would be easy to create the economic situation to crash the country, like similar institutions have done with Greece.. Except the leverage is the Argentine claim on the Falklands, which I am sure the British gov wants to resolve..

So both countries get what they want out of the deal, the Argentine economy does not crash, Britain maintains claim of the Falklands and I would suspect all the talk of the UN/Hilary Clinton meeting to discuss this will end up with Argentina accepting the original offer of a share of the oil.

Argentina also lacks the skill, cash and equipment to investigate their own oil potential, obviously with a joint Argentine/British venture this would enable Argentina to piggy back the venture to investigate their own waters..

Hence the Barclays/Desire petroleum link..

So this would be a win win win for all concerned.. Political points scoring on both sides has given both leaders the look and feel of sticking up for their country..

The only sad part I have got out of this is the knowledge that a lot more people than I thought are happy to see Brits/South Americans die for what is a non issue.

We live in a sad world when people talk about turning a nation to glass.. and an even sadder world that some actually want to see men women and children die/be brutalised/tortured to satisfy there dislike for a person based on the passport they hold.

Edit to add:I will freely admit that I got caught up in the begining with talk of "defending" the Islanders against aggression.. And the Barclays link had me stumped for a few days until info that the US was looking into sharing info with the Argentine gov gave me an, oh I see what is going on moment..

[edit on 28/2/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Wow. There is even more to this when you look at this newer thread by ModernAcademia that could use some more attention...The rabbit holes go deeper and deeper...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]

chavez is a right nob head the uk would smash his country up quicktime

[edit on 28-2-2010 by uk_truth_seeker]

Originally posted by Bahb3
Brazil could help. They could fire an EMP over the Island (they have Nukes) which would destroy all electronics in the area.. Radar and ships,not to mention communications...gone.

Then it would be a cakewalk for Argentina....and Brazil just might help for a piece of the oil riches there.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Bahb3]

Brazil already has huge oil reserves and found a lot more last months .
As a Brazilian I would prefer to invade Argentina instead to fight a war against England.
We always received more respect from the UK than from "nuestros Hermanos Argentinos".
South America has many countries and It is like Europe in terms of allies and enemies.
If Argentine was the France for example , Brazil would be the Germany .We are not the same and we don´t even speak the same language.
Los macaquitos will not help anyone.
We will use our big armed forces "the 8th of the world" just to self defense .
Actually there is not even a single mention about the Falklands issue
in the news over here, at least not recently .