South American Trading Block (Mercosur) Agree to Block British Soverign Flagged Vessels into their P

reply to post by morefiber


So one of your two examples to prove the English are all bad/evil warmongers is a war (100 years war) between 2 French Houses fighting each other for the French throne. Any other battles around the world you want to blame on the English?

What strikes me as deeply odd is how some back the notion that Argentina is not a nation made up of European colonists, and that for Argentina to try and acquire new lands via military and aggressive means is not imperialistic.

Very odd indeed.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Never said the English were evil, and never said the Argentines were right. What's odd to me is how riled up people can get over such a godforsaken place.

The hundred years war was fought mainly by English and Welshmen against the French, and fought mainly on French soil. The Plantagenets and their descendants were nominally French, and may have had what was considered a legitimate claim to their lands in France, but to characterize the 100 years war some type of French on French violence is a little off.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by morefiber

 

Any other battles around the world you want to blame on the English?


Well, I wasn't going to go there, but since you ask. The Opium wars would be my best example of the British being greedy war mongers. Can't say we were any better on that old issue though, going in for sloppy seconds after the shooting was over.

reply to post by Twiptwop


Not entirely true, the monarch has considerable power, balanced by the fact that most of those powers would be over turned if a monarch chose to make use of them.

Well, 15 minutes and no one has taken a shot. Maybe I was wrong about you people.
Have a Merry Christmas!, try not to nuke anyone until the new year.

reply to post by morefiber

To be honest, when you look at what an inhospitable and remote heap of cold windy rocks the Falkland Islands are, I'm surprised any of them actually want to stay there. I'm sure we have plenty of offshore islands around the UK that the people could resettle to and be far better off. I don't think it has anything to do with the islands or islanders. After all, the British government didn't seem to care a damn about the rights of the Chagos islanders. No, this is about oil, and therefore, money, the only thing Tories have ever cared about.

Well this thread got out of hand

I don't think the UK would ever nuke Buenos Aires, that's just ridiculous, the world would be outraged by such an act, and personally neither do i think the Agies would be so stupid to try anything again, at least not for the foreseeable future, unless it had support from Brazil/others, in fact NOW is probably the best time to take another shot at taking our Islands by force as after 2015 the Royal Navy floats out its brand new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers with the new JSF, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on board, this would make it next to impossible for them and any other South American allies

Few pics

Artists impression of one of the new carriers alongside an old Illustrious class


Complete


Construction pics
www.zimbio.com...



But anyway.......... Quickly about the nuke incident


Margaret Thatcher... Threatened to nuke Buenos Aires

Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made Exocet missile during the Falklands war by threatening to launch a nuclear warhead against Buenos Aires,

It was more of a threat to obtain the missile numbers from the French PM, whether she would have done it or not remains another question all together, it just goes to show how hard we would fight in all areas when it concerns our own people & land,

Lets move on to why i don't think the Argies will try anything or even with the like of back up from Brazil its still a slim chance of winning for the pathetic loud mouthed South American union, that is not to say it wouldn't come at a huge cost tho...

Even if Argentina acquired more of the of the French made ship killers or any other for that matter, the Royal Navy's shield so to speak is a hell of alot better then it was in the 1982 conflict, it is state of the art today, with the new 1 billion a piece type 45 destroyers being more then capable to pick them up and destroy them, in fact there so good they could pick up - up to 300 targets at the same time from up to 250 miles away and destroy them, the Royal Navy now has "many" type 45 destroyers in operation

New Type 45s



Obviously the the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers are not ready until 2015, but that's not really of any concern when you have two unsinkable aircraft carriers in the region such as Falklands its self and the Ascension Island to the north, which is an absolute fortress to be honest, the island base monitors everything in the North & South Atlantic, which would be handy should Brazil join the fight and sail out of port,

en.wikipedia.org...




So in my honest opinion nothing will come of it, they don't have a political leg to stand on, and there forces would be marching to certain suicide by land sea & air, even if Brazil/others wanted to get involved there is no way they would get a fully functional Navy down south to help the Argies, with the likes of the Royal Navy's state of the art Nuclear powered subs stalking such as the Astute Class Submarines & Trident Class Subs, they would get picked apart, the Astute Class Subs is the best in the world,




RAF Ascension Island could also be used to deploy the brand new Stealth Drone bombers Taranis to attack mainland Airbases in both Argentina & Brazil/other, also the RAF Ascension is a joint USAF base, there is alot of hardware on that Island, and like last time, the US would offer the UK Hardware if needed,

Taranis


Let her carry on being a [snip] about it, its just hot air & no doubt to get another term in office

Originally posted by CountOfMonteCristo
reply to post by morefiber

 

To be honest, when you look at what an inhospitable and remote heap of cold windy rocks the Falkland Islands are, I'm surprised any of them actually want to stay there. I'm sure we have plenty of offshore islands around the UK that the people could resettle to and be far better off. I don't think it has anything to do with the islands or islanders. After all, the British government didn't seem to care a damn about the rights of the Chagos islanders. No, this is about oil, and therefore, money, the only thing Tories have ever cared about.

But british people have inhabited those islands for 200yrs, and the last conflict occured before the discovery of Oil, so absolutely not the case here, its about defending the right of those islander wish to remain british

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

The same could be said for those on the Chagos islands, but we (or our government) still kicked 'em off and, despite court rulings, still won't let them back, because America doesn't want a civilian population near it's airbase there, for which UK plc gets a fair amount of money each year, so we're playing a game of double standards to say the least.
Just because oil hadn't been discovered doesn't mean its presence wasn't already suspected due to geological and stratigraphical reasons.

I agree with you about the nuke business, that's just ridiculous.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


actually - oil was known about in 1976 , but its extent and scope for exploitation was vague

in the 70s harvestable krill was viewed as a more valuable rescource

Originally posted by CountOfMonteCristo
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

The same could be said for those on the Chagos islands, but we (or our government) still kicked 'em off and, despite court rulings, still won't let them back, because America doesn't want a civilian population near it's airbase there, for which UK plc gets a fair amount of money each year, so we're playing a game of double standards to say the least.
Just because oil hadn't been discovered doesn't mean its presence wasn't already suspected due to geological and stratigraphical reasons.

I agree with you about the nuke business, that's just ridiculous.

edit on 23-12-2011 by CountOfMonteCristo because: (no reason given)

I don't really know to much about the Chagos islands history and what went on, but yes from a quick read up it does appear to be double standards, but still, that doesn't really back any Argentinian claim up for the Falklands

The Falklands Island Oil is a new discovery and was suspected well after the 1982 conflict,

They have been a strategic Islands for a number of reason over the years Antarctic expeditions along with many other things, and yes there are British people living there to of course, that's the reason we have remain there ever since they was founded, but the point here is they have never belonged to Argentina, and there claim is no more solid then then the country to Hawaii claiming those islands simply because it is the closets to them, the Falklands are 400miles from Argentina, so way beyond its territorial waters to, and the fact they have been British ever before there was such a country called Argentina,

The ONLY reason Argentina decide to step up its rhetoric & actions is out of jealousy of the resources discovered there and them being close to the 350.000 barrels found which would turn the islands into a significant oil production centre,

As people have said time & time again in this thread, the British government offered a joint venture with Argentina to go on yet more oil expeditions in the region with a share of the ones discovered around the Falklands, to which they refused,

No doubt they acted shortly after this was put out

15 September 2011 Last updated at 02:05

Rockhopper optimism on Falklands oil development

The company, Rockhopper Exploration, said it expected to start pumping oil by 2016. It said it would need $2bn (£1.3bn) to develop the field. The search for oil off the Falklands has angered Argentina, which claims sovereignty over the islands it calls Las Malvinas. On Wednesday Rockhopper said it had found further oil in its Sea Lion prospect, where it announced substantial quantities in March. The company estimates there are 350m barrels of recoverable oil in the field it has been exploring - enough to turn the Falklands into a significant oil production centre. It said it expected production to peak at about 120,000 barrels per day in 2018. It has not said how it plans to fund development, though analysts say partnership with another oil company is a possibility.

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

I agree that Argentina has no rightful claim to the islands. I always thought it was something Argentinian governments brought up in order to deflect public attention from internal problems and government corruption issues.

However, given how little our governments care about working class people right here in England, I find it very hard indeed to believe that their concern over Falkland is entirely humanitarian.

It should also be considered by Buenos Aires that any oil production there could still mean a lot of employment for Argentinian citizens. Personally, I would rather see Falkland become an autonomous dependency under joint Anglo-Argentinian sovreignty, with London and Buenos Aires jointly giving protection and controlling external affairs, but the islanders themselves controlling internal matters, but I'm not sure that that will ever happen.

It is a fact of history that ironically the 1982 Argentinian invasion of The Falklands actually safeguarded the Islanders and The Falklands to remain British well into the future. The war brought them to the British peoples hearts and there is no British political party that would dare 'give them up' if they wanted to remain in power or credibility.

While we are on the subject of territory that are thousands of miles away from the Homeland, no-one ever questions the French who actually have far more Islands scattered throught the Pacific and Indian Oceans as well as the Southern Ocean, which incidently are also mostly uninhabited ........ Hipocrasy!

reply to post by Wotan


Yes, it would be a bit like Canada invading St. Pierre & Miquelon (a French territory just off Newfoundland).

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

actually - oil was known about in 1976 , but its extent and scope for exploitation was vague

in the 70s harvestable krill was viewed as a more valuable rescource

Do you have an article or anything? as far as i was aware, Oil wasn't suspected till the late 90s and it wasn't until the past few years it was actually discovered, I had a look and couldn't seem to find anything suggesting it was know in the 70s, i'm sure had that been the case they would have sent in surveyors & oil expeditions many years ago

Still, this is totally irrelevant unless they suspected it as far back as 200years ago, the Islands was used for stop of points for Antarctic expeditions, and before that stop of ports for exploration & naval vessel & also to exploit the seal fur trade, in fact the history of the Islands goes back at least five hundred years with explorations from the Spanish, French & British, and wasn't colonised until a couple of hundred years later (18th century) by the French & British Colonising both the East & West Island at the same time, it held many purposes over the years since it was founded,

An archipelago in the region of the Falkland Islands appeared on maps from the early 16th century, suggesting they may have been sighted by Ferdinand Magellan or another expedition of the 16th century. In 1519 or 1520, Esteban Gómez of the San Antonio, one of the captains in the expedition of Magellan,

Islands that may well have been the Falkland Islands are also shown on the maps of Piri Reis, a Turkish admiral of the period who drew remarkably accurate maps

In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."

France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French name

In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands. In 1766, France agreed to leave, and Spain agreed to reimburse Louis de Bougainville, who had established a settlement at his own expense. The Spaniards assumed control in 1767 and re-named Port St. Louis as Puerto Soledad. Meanwhile, the British presence in the west continued, until interrupted by Spain during the Falkland Crisis from 10 July 1770 to 22 January 1771. As a result of economic pressures stemming from the upcoming American War of Independence, Britain unilaterally chose to withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774.[1] On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.[2]

All of which could lay claim, none of those being Argentina

reply to post by CountOfMonteCristo


And Morocco wants these islands to be given back from Spain:-

www.disputedterritories.com...

reply to post by alldaylong

Some of the Moroccan claims might be a little more legitimate though, as might Spain's claim on Gibraltar, for that matter. Ultimately it should be for the people who live in these places to decide.

Originally posted by CountOfMonteCristo
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

I agree that Argentina has no rightful claim to the islands. I always thought it was something Argentinian governments brought up in order to deflect public attention from internal problems and government corruption issues.

However, given how little our governments care about working class people right here in England, I find it very hard indeed to believe that their concern over Falkland is entirely humanitarian.

It should also be considered by Buenos Aires that any oil production there could still mean a lot of employment for Argentinian citizens. Personally, I would rather see Falkland become an autonomous dependency under joint Anglo-Argentinian sovreignty, with London and Buenos Aires jointly giving protection and controlling external affairs, but the islanders themselves controlling internal matters, but I'm not sure that that will ever happen.

edit on 23-12-2011 by CountOfMonteCristo because: (no reason given)

Well i would probably agree with this, to a certain extent

I find it very hard indeed to believe that their concern over Falkland is entirely humanitarian.

Well not any more no, of course it wont be just a humanitarian concern, and here is why

The fact that it has been now 100% confirmed that there is indeed large Oil fields in the region, will no doubt mean the British Government will give the British Army more funding to protect the Islands, pre 1982 there was very little protection in place except a handful of marines, the military presents has been again stepped up after the Oil & Gas discovery, if the task force failed sent to take back the Island in 1982 fail, that was it... no more task forces /attempts would have been send to recapture the Islands if it was sunk & defeated,

I think the only thing the Oil discovery will do is we will see an even tougher stance should the Argies some how capture them again, the British Government/Army will no doubt throw everything they have at them this time, should they some how by miracle succeed,

It doesn't mean they still don't care about the population Living there, as 1982 was a sign we do care about there rights to remain British, and always will,

had they won in 1982, and they Argentinians discovered Oil & Gas reserve we may well be seeing Cameron causing a stink about the Islands

And as to the last part, i would rather see the Falkland islander determine there own future & rights with out British Or Argentinian interference, that is there right to do so, it is there island after all, but as of now they wish to remain British governed, as do the thousands & thousands of other small Islands all over the world wish to remain governed by there colonial [what's the word?]

And the last part...

Sure Argentina could have benefited massively from the Oil & Gas reserves in the Falklands with the creation of thousands of jobs that are much needed in there failing economy, and the development of a possible pipeline, all sorts of benefits to mainland/coast of Argentina, MUCH LIKE the Oil & Gas reserve shared with the British, Dutch & Norwegians in the North Sea, its such a shame they have turned it down really, Mrs Kerchner is unfortunately incredibly dumb

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by CountOfMonteCristo

 

And Morocco wants these islands to be given back from Spain:-

www.disputedterritories.com...

This is a great example of how & why the Falklands doesn't belong to Argentina

Spain stole the islands of Morocco & they are well within there territorial waters, the only problem being is they have Spainish nationals on them,

Argentina cannot claim any of those things

Double