BS: Falklands 'militarisation'

Subject: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:45 PM

Is Argentina barking mad? It invaded the Falkands (unsuccessfully) before. It has been winding up the rhetoric for several years now. It has been trying to increase its military capacity generally - looking for all the world like planning another invasion. It has been trying to advance a blockade of the Falklands.

And when the UK replaces one ship out there with a more modern one it accuses us of militarisation?

Does it imagine that the UK plans to invade Argentina? Is that why it pretends that there is a British nuclear submarine there? What does it think one would be useful for? Yomping across swamps to displace invading land forces from Argentina, or reducing Argentina to a sheet of glowing glass that would be ever so useful to us (not) if we invaded Argentina which we don't want to do? The only possible advantage might be to shut Bozo up about the local meat, but I can't see even Argentinians gong that far for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM

I heard last week that Argentina was upset that most of their fish moved into the territorial waters of the Falklands part of the year and that their fishermen had little to catch until the schools returned. If true, that is an odd reason to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM

The last Falklands invasion led to bored troops offering to help dig out the Snow Squall - the last clipper ship built in Maine. It now rests in various museums around the state.
Hardly seems worth the price of a man's life though.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:07 PM

The first war was just a training exercise set up by Betty and Sofie as something for the sillybuggers to play at. Practice makes perfect, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:14 PM

Ah yes, one of Margaret Thatchers greatest moments. Had the Falklands war not happened, it is quite possible that Shirley Williams could have become prime minister of the United Kingdom, Christ that thought is enough to keep anyone up all night.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:25 PM

Long past time that the Brits gave up the Malvinas, as they were forced to do with most of their "Empire."
Take those English sheepherders home!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:44 PM

The people there want to be part of the commonwealth and it's Beth's duty to accomodate them, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:01 PM

It should be returned to Argentina, like most of the Empire, we stole it.

This just about says it all.

http://100777.com/node/161

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:08 PM

Are you aware that the Argentine "rent a mob" that is seen on news broadcasts is mostly Indians from the north of Argentina who are paid by Kirshner's government, as they were to vote for Kirshner in the last election. They are out there every day in one of the daily demos you can see around the centre of BA.

The normal people of Argentina care nothing for Las Malvinas.

Had a wonderful Bife Chorizo in our local Argentine restaurant this evening!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:26 PM

It's about all about pride-history, oil and mineral potential, or about sheep and a handfull of subsidized isolated people in a barren land, who strayed there and stayed there. Take your pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM

Long past time that the Brits gave up the Malvinas, as they were forced to do with most of their "Empire."
We should give it back on the same day that the USA returns Texas and California to Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM

Mexico??? What about all of NA and SA to the native Peoples? Far more legit claim. What about Britain before Big Willy?

Silly shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:06 PM

Canada should invade St. Pierre & Miquelon to "take back" what France "stole" from us .... !

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:11 PM

meself... hahahahahaa... good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM

The Falklands were empty and barren before England went there. Emphasis on "empty".

Argentina's only claim to them is to expand its colonies. A bad claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:46 PM

Oh, maybe it has something to do with the three British firms there to drill for oil north of the Falkland Islands. There is fuck all empty and barren about that. Maybe you meant to say "empty barrels" Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:50 PM

Oil? Well, there ya go eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:50 PM

So? If the Argentinians threaten to invade to seize oil (oh, hang on, have I not heard this before?)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: ollaimh
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:16 PM

as usual tricky dicky has an ethnocentric view of anything inperial. if you actually read the history of the region there was an argintine colony on the island that was militarily removed by a french expidition. the argintines were the first long term colony. the french gave their rights to britain by treaty. so the inperial powers are claiming right of conquest. not acceptable in any civilized form of international law.

however the islanders have rights. they are so few they could be easily compensated.

the french did attempt a colony, from st malo. they gave the name of that town to the argintines. prior to that there was another name.the french colony was a failure.

thatcher surviving on a wave of militatistic jingoism was the greater tragedy. she started the massive debt problems(only paid for by scottish oil revenues--trading britians future for a foolish neo con dream that went bankrupt), and of course she introduced torture and the end of the right to the presumprion of innocence.i would have taken anyone over mad maggie.

in canada we traded any claim to st pierre and miquelon in return for the french surrendering their already established treaty rights to the use of the south and west coast of new foundland for fishing bases, and other resource exploitation--without limit. we got much the better of the deal. without that treaty the french would have a cliam on almost all the grand banks oil. as it is they have a right to less than twenty percent. we got such a good deal because in the mid twentieth century france was disinterested in new foundland. if we had to negotiate that now it would be quite different. as it is it's a lovely day trip over to pierre.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:45 PM

1690 & Captain John Strong named Falkland Strait and the Islands

1764 & Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the Islands Iles Malouines

"as usual tricky dicky has an ethnocentric view of anything inperial. if you actually read the history of the region there was an argintine colony on the island that was militarily removed by a french expidition. the argintines were the first long term colony. the french gave their rights to britain by treaty. so the inperial powers are claiming right of conquest. not acceptable in any civilized form of international law."

As usual olliamh you are totally wrong.

First to settle the French on East Falkland in 1764
Next the British on West Falkland in 1765
Oh and by the way it was the Americans (USA) that kicked the Argentines off the islands in 1831 and declared the islands to be uninhabited and free of all governance
1832 Argentine founded a penal colony that lasted from November 1832 until January 1833 when the British requested that the Argentines military garrison leave, they complied with this request
From 1833 Britain established a firm and fixed colony on the Falklands

You should read the history of one Luis Vernet.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:51 PM

Okay, let's put the world back to its pre-1833 borders - that should make everyone happy ....

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Dead Horse
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:15 AM

The Argie govt is making as much out of this as it can, to avoid their voters (snigger) thinking about stuff closer to home.
Thats pretty much what Thatcher did too, come to think of it.
So long as the Septics keep their 'holier than thou' noses out of it I dont think the Argie military will be so foolish to ask for a re-match.
If, on the other hand, stupid comments from uninformed idiots like Sean Penn make the Hunta think they might just get away with it, then its 'game on'.
Result - more dead peasants and more medals all round for the Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:21 AM

History is an interesting study, but no reason to impose an unwanted regime on people.
The people there now are as entitled to self determination as anyone else.
Like the people of Scotland, Ulster, Gibralter, etc., they are welcome to leave whenever they wish, but not against their will.
The same for Texas, California, etc.?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 07:16 AM

Had a wonderful Argentine steak last night, served by an Argentine who not surprisingly hates Kirshner!!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 AM

ollaimh -

While your comments on St. Pierre and Miquelon are partially true, it is more complex, as France and Canada marine claims did go to an international court in 1992. (See below and attachment)

I believe Canada (via England-UK), could have made a claim for these Islands after the close of WW2, since I recall France's goverment sided with Germany in the war effort. But, Canada, being nice folks (I also suspect it may have been internally more complex that this, as Canada has a significant French-speaking population), did not do that :).

""The quarter-century dispute was resolved in 1992 by an international court of arbitration. According to the board's decision, France received an economic zone within a 24-mile limit off St. Pierre and Miquelon, as well as a 10-.5 mile-wide corridor running south 200 miles towards international waters. The resulting economic zone, measuring only 3,607 square nautical miles, was much smaller than France had claimed, and providing accordingly access to much less fish. According to the arbitration decision, France would have to negotiate with Canada for access to fish outside its zone.""
International court

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:42 AM

I think the Argentine claim is pretty groundless. Saying they're on the same Continental Shelf that Argentina is on is pretty dumb too - so is Peru, but they don't want that.

All that said, I said to my wife in 1982, if 'we' had offered every Falkland Islander £1,000,000 and a Spanish dictionary then listened for complaints, we would have been deafened by silence.

Lets be honest, we're there to keep our hat in the ring for oil and mineral wealth locally and Antarctica.

And Yes, I've been there - several times. I didn't find the Bennies particularly friendly towards the people who were ensuring their freedom to have English as their first language.

I'm so glad I'm not a politician because I CAN say 'I really don't give a shit'.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM

Chile to the rescue

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 11:02 AM

When your country is in the economic shit and the crimes of past governments cloud your political issues, it is always nice to distract your people with jingoistic blame game at another country.

If the Falklanders were to have a referendum and want to become The Malvinas, then fine but I have yet to see the day.

If we are being colonialist, then surely Argentina are being wannabe colonialist? The last time I looked, The Falklands were surrounded by sea. It is as much Argentina as half of Scotland is geology wise America.

Reagan sat on the fence the last time Argentina played silly buggers. Wonder what the present (just about British) President will do?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: pdq
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM

"We should give it back on the same day that the USA returns Texas and California to Mexico."

"The people there now are as entitled to self determination as anyone else....(t)he same for Texas, California, etc.?

People should read a lot more about the aquisition of California, New Mexico Territory and Texas by the United States. Once Spain went home in 1821, several areas that Spain forced to become part of Mexico revolted against the tyranical government centered in Mexico City. Many people know that Texas was an independent country from 1835-1846 and that its people voted to join the US (twice, actually), but how many people know that Yucatan was an independent country for a while or that and area the size of Texas, just to the south, also demanded independence?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:00 PM

"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

In this case, I think the quotation from Tacitus applies to Argentina.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:05 PM

Course, ya have to wonder why Argentina would want to have what I think is the UK's single carrier in the south Atlantic way far from home.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:40 PM

"If we are being colonialist, then surely Argentina are being wannabe colonialist?" More than wannabe I should think. The Falklands are islands colonised by English speakers whilst Argentina is an area of South America colonised by Spanish speakers. Surely after such a long period of being there the Falklanders have as much right to self determination as any other people? As much right as the Argentinians themselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:34 PM

The Mercosur group of nations; Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina have agreed to close its ports to ships flying the flag of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
Peru seems likely to join them shortly. Chile supports the Argentina claim to the Malvinas ("state policy," but special relationship to UK noted).
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela says "his country would fight alongside Argentina in face of any conflict with the UK."

South American solidarity on the matter soon may be expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:44 PM

Hmmm... maybe a cash deal? Similar to as proposed above but with cempensation for the British fish and minerals? Or some sharing of the fish and minerals? Then again, we are talking Brits here... the deal would have to be sweet. Not likely???

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM

£176billion in oil revenues to the Government and that is just what is round the Falklands. But the Argentines do not just claim the Falkland Islands some 400 kilometres from their shore they also claim South Georgia at 1350 kilometres and the South Sandwich and South Chatham Islands some 2650 kilometres from their shores. As far as the Argentines are concerned it is all about oil.

The importance of the Falklands is that it provides a good base to support operations from, politically stable and well outside the corruption of Argentina and the grasping hands of the Kirchner Family, worth $2.3 million dollars when they went into politics they are now billionaires. Since the mid 1990's the oil & gas industry has specialised in extracting oil and gas from harsh and remote locations.

Britain should back the islanders to the hilt - the Argentines did all the negotiating they wanted to in 1982 and it did not pan out too well for them.

Mind you anything that twat Sean Penn supports has got to be suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM

Surely meant "twit" as a twat is useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFSsJE2UhIU

Let's have a laugh at the cow!!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 06:58 PM

When your country is in the economic shit and the crimes of past governments cloud your political issues, it is always nice to distract your people with jingoistic blame game at another country.

Was Ian thinking of Argentina or Britain therre? Or both.

One thing that gets ignored is that there are far more people of British origin in Argentina than there are in these islands, and from all I've heard there was no question of them being harassed by other Argentine people even during the war. For that matter there are far more people of Argentine origin in Britain than there are islanders.

It's pretty ridiculous that there can't be a deal,under which the islanders can't have dual citizenship, or a right to whichever nationality they wish, as in Northern Ireland over the years. And full freedom of travel between the islands and the mainland. Historically there used to be very good relations between Britain and Argentina on most things - it was thought at one time Argentina might even apply to join the British Empire (as it then was) as an independent dominion.

The war was a desperate effort by the generals and Margaret Thatcher to hold on to power. It only worked for the latter. Without it she'd pretty surely have been chucked out at the next election - replaced by Michael Foot, maybe with Shirley Williams as his coalition partner...

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 07:02 PM

Chile does not in fact support an Argentinian claim to the Falklands, but an Argentinian claim to "negotiations" - or is it "discussions".

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:41 AM

Argentine

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:45 AM

Argentinian. "Argentine" is a nasty neologism. And if you look back to that Argentinian newspaper article, even it says "Argentinian".

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:49 AM

"For that matter there are far more people of Argentine origin in Britain than there are islanders"

So are you kind of saying that the right to self determination does not count if your territory's community happens to be small in number? Seemingly very few people on the Falklands want to be Argentinian and in fact most will be bitterly opposed to it. Why should they, many of whom have been there for generations, be forced to be something they don't want to be? I know that it is an overseas territory so Britain takes care of defence and foreign affairs for them but does that mean we'd have the moral right to ride roughshod over their democratic wishes? Surely if it came to it there may be some way for the UK to give up some of its rights to the resources in the seas there in favour of Argentina without affecting the islanders current status and their rights to self determination which should always be sacrosanct. At least in my opinion!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:40 AM

McGrath of Harlow makes a good point and it wasn't wasted on me when I wrote my comment about invoking jingoism. Th*tcher rode an election on the conflict.

That said, the people of The Falklands are a UK protectorate, wish to be so and had no wish to be part of the junta running Argentina at the time. Hence, we were obliged to protect them, and in that sense, I hope our army protect North Lincolnshire if the Vikings start landing again.

Difficult for me, because although Th*tcher saw it as a political gift, although the sinking of The Belgrano and her explicit instructions make her a valid war criminal, although war is stupid if it can be avoided... I still agree with our protecting our people and their wishes.

So we have a Crown Prince spending part of his military career there. Search and rescue is a vital civil as well as a military role, and it's nice to see it given a high public profile, such as the celebrity fascination with royalty is.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:37 AM

Argentine is the correct word - ask any Anglo Argentine.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:40 AM

And as my wife went to Northlands School in BA, I am inclined to believe her!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:41 AM

Bonzo, this is the link you required regarding the vicar.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-probe-suspicious-vicarage-death-013519420.html

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 05:49 AM

What????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 06:25 AM

ya have to wonder why Argentina would want to have what I think is the UK's single carrier in the south Atlantic way far from home.
Britain has not got a single carrier now.
It is just a destroyer on station there now.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM

I think 999 was referring to the Falklands as 'The UK's single carrier', no?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 09:16 AM

Britain's claim on the Falklands is the same as Argentina's claim to the territory it occupies.