It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chupa101
Its not Imperialist to keep them as part of Britain. We won them fair and square. That's how countries are made, people fight and whoever wins keeps the land.

(Also Chavez has nothing that can be any real threat to UK firepower.)


I am not a military expert, but those who are, have expressed their belief that Chavez, with his improved military equipment, could make things quite difficult for the UK.

Chavez recently spend $3 Billion to upgrade his forces and now has a group of 30 Venezuelan pilots who were trained in Russia to fly a squadron of 24 Sukhoi SU-30 multi-role fighters. Chavez has also bought 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and negotiated to set up a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He has reportedly ordered nine Russian diesel submarines, including the cruise missile-carrying 677E Amur-class vessel. Again. I am not an expert, but you can find quite a number of individuals with good credentials that are experts on military capabilities, and they indicate that the UK would have serious difficulty if they had to go it alone in the near future as the British Military is currently in a weakened state.

As for your comment that countries grow when they win wars, That is ancient history. In the modern world territory is negotiated. They did it after WWI, WWII and so on. In the case of the Falklands there is a very long, and quite clear record, of Britain Negotiating for the eventual return of the islands to Argentina. Diplomacy is how territory is decided. It wont happen any time soon to be sure, but negotiation is how things happen in civilized nations. Britain did not go to war to claim new territory, it responded to a threat to lands it has colonized. There is a huge difference. As for the colony, see the UN for the current status on that. It is listed for Decolonization.




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
For anyone who might have missed it, this segment of Robert Newman's "History of Oil" is a rather pointed illustration of what's going on:


If you haven't seen the whole thing, I advise that you watch it. It's amusing as hell and full of good info: History of Oil



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil123

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I don't know why we've still got the falklands anyway, there's really no reason for them to be british territory. Hopefully we can soon divest ourselves of these relics of the imperial past and come to peace with our place in the world.

Because the people who live on the Islands want to remain British simple as that really.


Yeah so do the people in Northern Ireland but London doesn't care what they want, hence the choreographing of the so called peace process. They made it difficult for people to vote, and even claimed "technicalities" to stop people from voting (I know, I was stopped from voting amongst a LOT of people who registered this complaint with their political party).

Voting in the UK doesn't matter. Its all "rigged". I know from my experience with it.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Stinknugget
 


What on earth has Northern Ireland got to do with this thread?

The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain in the British Union and will remain to do so as long as they wish.

As much as I would like to discuss Northern Ireland and The Irish situation with you I suggest you leave that for another thread.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
American Black Propaganda against Chavez right? - you mean to tell me that any american newspaper is going to print the truth about Chavez? gimme a freaking break... I suppose you all pull the party line and think Chavez has to be removed...haha jesus what has this place come to



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   
The Falklands needs to be understood on several different levels.

We need to understand that we are where we are, using historical events as justification for further conflict is perpetuating the circle of violence and confrontation.

To simplify the current situation:
The current population is British and wish to stay British.
Britain will never disown it's own and will always do everything within it's power to defend itself, it's subject's and it's territorries.
Any attempt by Argentina or a United South America will be resisted with all the might the UK has.
Britain would win, regardless of number of casualties on both sides.

Chavez is currently sabre rattling.
Galtieri was merely doing that initially but got taken in by public opinion and made the mistake of invading The Falklands, I sincerely hope we do not see a repeat.

Thatcher, who was in great domestic trouble and looked to be in danger of losing the next election, acted as any British PM would have done and chose to fight the invasion.
The UK was always going to win any war due to the superiority of our armed services.
However, as a good politician always does, she then chose to manipulate the situation, use the vast propoganda machine which was at her disposal, (the British media), and use the upsurge in patriotism that always follows the start of any war, to ensure her re-election.
Thatcher was a totally unscrupulous politician who would resort to any tactics to further her own, and that of her backers and string pullers, aims.

That is a brief summarisation of the current situation and The Falklands War. (In reality it was more of a conflict than a war)

Now question why Britain will continue to resist any attempt to take these islands.
As stated previously, it is the wish of the current inhabitants to remain British.
Britain will never cease to defend that.

As has been stated by other post's; it is also thought that there is a substantial amount of oil underneath The Failklands.
Additionally there is the little matter of mineral wealth and Antarctica.
To have a claim on Antarctica below the 60th parralel, it is necessary for a nation to have a territory facing Antarctica below the 50th parralel and the size of the claim is dependant on the size of the territory.
At present Argentina's claim is proportional to the part of Tierra Del Fuego that is Argentinian.
The British claim is proportional to the territory below the 60th parralel between South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands and The Falklands Islands; a significant land mass and considerably larger than Argentina's.
upload.wikimedia.org...
As a brief aside, consider why in 1985 Britain created the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Territory? These islands had previously been Falkland Island Dependancies. Maybe Britain was getting ready to concede it's right's to one of these territories and it was an act of potential damage limitation.
The Antarctic Treaty currently ensures miminam extraction of mineral deposits from Antarctica but imagine a world effected by climate change, or war or simply lack of alternative sources.
Or maybe if we developed the technology that could ensure extraction whilst maintaining the environment.
I am certain that in the event of any of those scenario's then we would progress with mineral extraction, regardless of Antarctic Treaty.
Imagine the wealth at the dispersal of those countries with claims?

As stated before, Chavez is probably only sabre rattling.
I fail to understand why Chavez is portrayed as some sort of devil and genuinely believe that he poses no threat to the UK or the US.
However, I find it interesting that with all the talk of NWO and the North American Union, that Chavez should be broaching the subject of something akin to a South American Union.


[edit on 9-9-2007 by Freeborn]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
The mentioned link between Northern Ireland and the Falklands is clear. In Both cases the English transplanted a population, which is quite common when seeking to maintain a long term hold on an area. If a vote in Ireland were to be taken by only those who were NOT from English origin, as to whether or not they wished Independence, it would hold more credibility. Clearly, the transplanted population has a different agenda. The influx of English population is the main sore spot for many in Ireland. Along with the English came a religious conflict which continues to be troublesome.

In this thread, people have mentioned that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British. It would be more correct to state, that the current islanders, *which the British put there*, wish to remain British. The UK, since the initial invasion of the Falklands when they forcefully removed the Argentinians living there at gunpoint, have prohibited any Argentinian from living on the islands.

Many forget that Thacher, just two years prior to the war, tried to promote the negotiated handback agreement to the islanders and she thoroughly botched the mission. The Argies had been yanked around for decades and this was one more straw that denied their sovereign rights. Birtian had agreed to build an airport for the Islanders, to demonstrate how stronger connections to the mainland would improve their lives. But the British failed to follow through. It was the Argentinians who built, and paid for, the airport, and indeed the islanders lives have improved significantly due to improved transportation.

Chavez is simply stating that he would add his forces against any nation that utilizes military action upon his neighbors in South America. Diplomacy should be used not gunships.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil123
The geographical proximity to Argentina has nothing to do with it, if we use that logic Britain should be in charge of France after all it's only 20 miles away. As for nothing been more British than living in Britain, well not all British people want to live on the mainland


It has everything to do with it. Those islands quite clearly are not part of the British Isles so why do we own them?

The Islands aren't part of Venezuela or Argentina, so why do they claim them?

twisted logic my friend. The people are British, and it DOES have strategic value. I don't get what Chavez is saying, we already have small naval contingent there along with an airbase and a defence force. Why would we send an entire fleet down there unless it was being threatened?

Besides, I'm pretty sure the Americans will jump at the opportunity to pulverise Venezuela if they start attacking allied forces. It would be tricky for the British to launch attacks on venezuela due to the logistics, so we'd get America do to it for us.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Keep in mind, that both before, and after the Falklands conflict, the US has called for resumed negotiations for the eventual hand back of the Islands to Argentina. You can read the record of the statements made in the UN.

Chavez did not threaten to attack British forces and makes no claim to the Islands. He simply stated, that if such an event as the previous conflict were to take place, he would add his forces to assist Argentina.
Further, Legally, the Islands do indeed belong to Argentina and they have never relinquished that status. It was taken from them by force and that is where the conflict begins. The British government has a long history of planning an eventual handback. The UN commission on decolonization routinely puts fourth the call for resumed negotiations. Remember, that the UK is a significant member of the UN, and helped to create the rules and reasons followed by the commission on decolonization.

[edit on 9/9/07 by Terapin]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


I remember The Falklands War vividly. It was my first expereince of Britain at war. I know people who fought in the war.
In light of how The Falklands War was justified and continues to be packaged, it is irrelevant what the UN or the US wish, Britain will not hand over The Falklands for ar least another generation or two.
It would be political suicide for any party to agree to.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I totally agree with you Freeborn. Nothing of consequence will happen so long as personal memories of the conflict remain. In time, things will smooth over.

It should be noted that the UK has invested heavily in Argentina and continues to built good will there. The only remaining thorn that could pose further problems, is the issue of natural resource exploitation. With the UK set to drain off all the oil near the islands, tension has increased. Argentina refused to become minor partners in this venture, as it ignores their desires for return of sovereignty. It remains a sticky wicket.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I don't know why we've still got the falklands anyway, there's really no reason for them to be british territory. Hopefully we can soon divest ourselves of these relics of the imperial past and come to peace with our place in the world.


Because they were bought and paid for, that's why. You don't just give up something just because it's inconvienant. If he wants it back so badly, PAY FOR IT! Negotiate! Why must everyone bow to this school-yard bully. Refuse to buy his oil and wares and he won't be the hero he is now because he'll have less money to buy his weapons and bribe countries. Yes, China may pick up the slack, but let them. Their oil is dirty and needs major refining. If China wants it, let them.

We have to stop supporting our enemies economically...



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Actually...I'd like to know how it can be proven that the islands are argentinian since there is no evidence of thier being there, infact if there was they were removed by the french.

This arguement has been done death in many many threads and frankly Mr Chavez is simply picking a fight with the entire western world, if he wants to evict several hundred people from an island which frankly is legally and morally a british overseas territory then I suggest that he be careful who he picks fights with. We may not be the ruler of the seas but we do have some very powerful friends....I wonder how he would feel if a NATO task force was to sudenly appear off the coast of south america?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Actually...I'd like to know how it can be proven that the islands are argentinian since there is no evidence of thier being there, infact if there was they were removed by the french.

I urge you to do more research on the subject before you make blanket statements that do not reflect the evidence. It is well documented that the British colonised the islands by force and removed all the Argentinians living there to Montivideo. There is a very clear trail of documented evidence that has been verified. Even the British government does not deny this, and has been involved in negotiations for the eventual hand back of the Falklands to Argentina. It wont happen any time soon though. Give it a few generations.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
I urge you to do more research on the subject before you make blanket statements that do not reflect the evidence. It is well documented that the British colonised the islands by force and removed all the Argentinians living there to Montivideo. There is a very clear trail of documented evidence that has been verified. Even the British government does not deny this, and has been involved in negotiations for the eventual hand back of the Falklands to Argentina. It wont happen any time soon though. Give it a few generations.

No, the french were first:

[qoute]
The islands were first settled by France, in 1764, when she established a colony at Port Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast. 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 denomination.

en.wikipedia.org...
So not really....

Also unfortunatly (for the argentinians) the people living there wish to live there, and quite frankly unless you start making a case against pretty much every population (considering how many times land has been taken and retaken.) in the world.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Again, I urge you to do the research and not to simply skim over the subject.

If you look you will see that Britain ceded all rights of the Falklands, without proviso, to Spain. When Argentina gained Independence, the Falklands were recognised as their territory due to the well established principal of Uti Possidetis Juris. Spain endorsed this new ownership and Britain congratulated Argentina on it's Independence and specifically mentioned their sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1825 England signs with Argentina a Treaty of Friendship and Trade in which, among many things, she implicitly recognizes Argentina’s territory. When the British invaded the islands in 1833 there were indeed Argentinian civilians living there as well as an Argentinian garrison. The British forced the inhabitants from the islands at gunpoint.

Argentina had territory that was within it's legal sovereignty, taken by force and has never relinquished that sovereignty. The British government has on a number of occasions negotiated to return the Islands, much as they did with Honk Kong. Legally, in all sense of the word, Argentina has a solid claim and this is why the British government has kept the idea of a hand back on the table. This legal claim by Argentina is also why the UN and other international bodies continues to call for renewed negotiations.

As for the French... The subject of the islands initial discovery is still disputed by many. Some sources credit the Spaniards, the Dutch and the British with it. The  first name given to the islands was “Sanson” by Spanish sailors in 1520. In 1594 the British sail through the islands and name them “Hawkins Maiden Land” and, in 1600, the Dutch produce the first documented discovery of the islands naming them “Sebaldine Islands”. They begin to show up on Spanish and Portuguese navigation charts since mid sixteen century. The French were the first Europeans to settle there in 1764. in 1765, the British, unaware that the French were on another island, claimed the land and established a port the following year. In 1766 the French agreed to leave the islands and were compensated by Spain which also had a claim on the islands. The British left the islands in 1776. At the Nootka convensions of 1790, Britain ceded all rights, without proviso, to Spain.  The French were there for a very short time (two years at max) and never made an issue of ownership.

There is a good deal of incorrect information out there so make sure to double check sources. As with many topics, Wikipedia has a few items incorrect, and a few omissions, but in general is a good overview. It would be better still to look even deeper for more detailed and accurate information. There are a number of documents and treaties well worth reading for those interested in history. I mentioned several items worth looking at in an earlier post.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil123
 

Why isn't the situation like the condition of garment-workers in the U.S., when it was found that foreign workers would make clothing more cheaply, because 'the American people want cheap clothing?" You have mostly women without work which was necessary, according to statistics, to keep abreast of inflation. Now, if they were men who lost their jobs, and there was a military draft, they'd some or most of them be conscripts. Maybe the women who were also working would loose their jobs, so the only income would come from the conscripts. Now, since we don't consider the aforementioned a situation in a dictatorship, and the country was taken over by a foreign dictatorship, which wanted to conscript in order to cater to the 'whims and arrows of outrageous jingoist fortune', who would have the rights then? The Falklanders are not capable of defeating the Argentine armed Forces, and it seems a matter of rectitude that they should not be given up as easily as American garment-workers. If their value is in principle, not how much wool they furnish to GB, I think the islands should remain British until and if all agree they should or can separate, but fot the right reasons.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Just to add to the discussion...

Argentina has offered assurances that the Islanders could maintain their lifestyles and would not be forced to become Argentinian citizens, if a change in sovereignty came about. People would still own their homes and property, speak what ever language they choose, have a representative counsel, and play cricket for all Argentina cares. These assurances have been made publicly as well as in the UN. Cooperative negotiation is the only course in these matters and military action would not solve anything.

Chavez is not even part of the picture, other than the one in his own head.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


So if the islanders can maintain their current lifestyle and nothing will change, what would be the point of Argentina owning The Falklands?

Argentina has no moral claim on The Falklands and there is no way The UK will give up sovereignty for generations.

This is just smoke in mirrors.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
When the British invaded the islands in 1833 there were indeed Argentinian civilians living there as well as an Argentinian garrison. The British forced the inhabitants from the islands at gunpoint.

Actually the settlement was destroyed by an american warship thereby removing the government, britain stepped in and took the island back.....


There is a good deal of incorrect information out there so make sure to double check sources. As with many topics, Wikipedia has a few items incorrect, and a few omissions, but in general is a good overview. It would be better still to look even deeper for more detailed and accurate information. There are a number of documents and treaties well worth reading for those interested in history. I mentioned several items worth looking at in an earlier post.

There is also a lot you forget to mention, it was not a settlement, it was a penal colony....hardly natural inhabitants of the island. Still I dont see WHY argentina is making a fuss of it....its only two islands. Why are you so desperate to have it back?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join