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.

 

Argentina fury at UK bid for Falkland seas

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Is there any part of the world that has not be "Claimed" by a European Country at 1 time or another?


Terapin thinks that Argentina's claim is legit so be it, I think UK Claim is legit.

When there is no oil or other mineral resource and its back to sheep and penguin farming - no one will give a toss.

All treaties are based on to sides agreeing as soon as 1 disagres theres a choice war or accept it. Courts can rule and papers can be served but as we found in Iraq if someone wants something they will fight for it.

And several billion pounds worth of oil will be fought over. Unfortunately Argentina does't have the capabilites to hit England so even with history they aint going to win.




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   
IMO another war with Argentina would be totally different, since now South America is more united than ever, and they have crazy Chavez on their side. If Argentina goes to war with the UK, I'm almost sure that other countries in South America will join with Argentina this time, and this wouldn't be good news for the UK, since they are already in Iraq. It's going to be pretty tough supporting two wars at the same time for the UK, even if they have support from the US and Australia.

That's just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by your_evidence
 


But any war in the Falkands would be fought mainy with sea and air power
Something we arent really using in Iraq.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
A war with Argentina would be quite simple. We do what should have done 25 years ago. Use the nuclear deterrent


What use is having submarines armed with nuclear missiles if we not going to threaten using them them against aggressors? Surely that's the point in having them: don't hit us cos we can hit you back a lot harder



(Okay, seriously, we wouldn't nuke Buenos Aires, and the Argentinians know that, and trade sanctions would probably work just as well: I doubt it'd take much to turn around their recent economic growth. A world ban on soya product perhaps? )



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Thatcher knew what she/it was all about when she sent the 'Task Force' down there in 1982.
The big petrolium companies had advised her of the potential around the islands.
Plus, she an election coming up!
Argentina was in turmoil financially, the 'Junta' needed a diversion from their own problems of locals wondering where their relatives had dissapeared too. Plus all petrolium products were having to be imported.
The army of occupation the Argentinians sent were conscripted lawers, architechts, etc, not soldiers, (apart from the officers and a handfull of NCO's.) They did not really want to be there.
When they learned that a 'task force' of volunteer, fully trained marine commandos, paratroopers, SAS, and all the resulting hardeware used in violent conflict were decending down upon them, they wanted no part of it.
The only real resistance was from the airforce using French missiles.

Of course it was for oil and no doubt it will be again. Argentina should not rattle it's rusty dented sabre. They should 'invest' some military money in shares in the oil companies that will exploit the islands and back away from the rhetoric of violence. IMO the Argentinean people will most certainly want none of this to be revisited!



[edit on 24-9-2007 by Havalon]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by your_evidence
 


Please note ATS member nefermore's reply to being questioned about Britain's ability to cope with a united South American threat to The Falklands in another thread, (it may indeed be beneficial to review the whole thread).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IMO, if South America were ever to unite against Britain, then if required, I think various other countries would provide significant support to Britain.
No matter which way it's viewed, Britain will win.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Freeborn]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


If Chevaz was involve himself in this then I think he would be buying into a whole pack of hurt. Bush just want's one good reason to go kick his butt. Britain is his ally, pick on them, you pick on me!




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Havalon
 


I think he invariably would get involved somehow. He's already spoken about the issue, saying that the islands should be given to Argentina (though I don't know what he wants to do with the islanders themselves...).

It's very likely that the US would get involved in this case, which would either allow them to get rid of Chavez or force him to back down.

Also, remember that things have changed since 1982. There's a permanent UK garrison on the islands (not just a handful of Royal Marines as there were back then), complete with an airbase and the latest fighters/anti-aircraft missiles and a naval patrol. It would be difficult for Argentina to make preparations for an invasion or attack without the garrison noticing and pre-empting it.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
What a lot of people forget is that in ´82 nobody knew where the falklands where. A lot stil dont.

I remember, when i was a kid, reading the diary of Adrian Mole aged 13 and 3/4 (remember it anyone:puz
..its says something like

"Awoke today only to here on the radio that Argentina has invaded the Falklands, i ran into my dads bedroom, woke him up and told him. He shouted "bloody hell" jumped out pf bed and started dressing. I asked him why, and he said.."the Falklands..they´re only 18 miles from bloody Scotland"..

And such was the realidad for many people.

Margret Thatcher (the woman who stopped the daily FREE bottle of milk that children of 5,6 and 7 years old received in school as a health aid, to save money) was about to be voted out of office, when, like a gift from the gods, arose the Falklands issue, and every politician knows that a little sabre rattling and a good military victory wins votes.

Thatcher used the Falklands war, which ONLY cost around 150 british lives with about 300 wounded, as an election tool, which won her 4 more years as prime minister.

As the head of the naval task force wrote afterwards explaining the battle of Goose Green, one of the worst battles of the conflict, he explained to london that the battle would´nt be necessary as the Paras could by pass the positions during the night unseen and move on directly to Stanley, but London (READ - Thatcher) has said that ALL ENEMY FORCES WHERE TO BE ENGAGED AND NEUTRALISED.

Why engage the enemy, when a top level man who knows the score and listens to the men on the ground says you dont have to waste lives ?

WHY - because EVERY DEAD ARGIE WAS WORTH HUNDREDS OF VOTES.

And now 25 years later, with the dead heroes like H JONES and SIMON WESTON,and even the battles except by those who fought them forgotten, the Falklands are ,once again, a blot on the landscape, a part of the empire that the kids todays dont know about.

To sum up, its NOT about sovereignty, its not about who owns what, its about whos the cock of the playground, as they say in Britain.
The UK, back in ´82 hadnt had a war since the disasters of Aden etc in the 50´s and the Falklands where simply a way of showing the world Britans military capacity...its all about showing that you "cant mess with the UK"




[edit on 24-9-2007 by andy1972]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Keep in mind that Argentina has not indicated any plan for a military response to British actions. They merely stated that they consider any British attempt to claim even more of their territory as aggressive. The area that the UK wishes to claim, includes area that already belongs to Argentina. I am not talking about the Falklands, but off shore territory, based on the UN Convention on the Continental Shelf, from 1958. This type of territorial right is extended to every coastal nation, and this current attempt by Britain to claim even more area, overlaps territory that according to established, and accepted international law, belongs to Argentina.

Britain has stated that they will present their desire to extend their territorial claims in the area, to the UN for consideration. The UN has stated that they will make no binding decision so long as there is an ownership dispute over the Falklands. Britain knows that without UN approval, any claim they make has no legal standing,

If military action were to occur it would be far more deadly than the previous conflict and that is something everyone wishes to avoid, (other than Chavez perhaps.) In the end, the UK would achieve a military victory, but it would not be a cake walk, and many on both sides would die, including civilian islanders. Civilised nations negotiate, and that is the goal of all parties involved, and why Britain has indicated that they will approach the UN about the matter.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
It's just really too bad. I like Britain very much, their socialism notwithstanding and I like Argentina a lot, their facism notwithstanding. I know a solution! Make them both states of the United States of America! That'll do it.
they're political opposition L/R will balance out nicely. And we'd be on our way to a purely Yankee Doodle Dandy form of Globalization. (No, Mexico is not up to standard.) We could use some states further afield for vacationing in-country and etc. I'm ready to go explore the Pampas.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
HUMANUNNAKI - If indeed you are human.

Are you full of it boy.Since when has Argentina has a facist government, military junta yes, corrupt politians, without doubt.

Extreme poverty, probabley the worst armed forces in latin america and an overwieght drug addicted footballer who was once the best in the world (at using his hands), yes i refer to Diego Armando Maradonna.

WHY ON EARTH do you think that the UK would WANT to be another state of a country that has so many social problems.
As for Argentina you can have it, now the U.S is clamping down on the border with Mexico you´ll need a new influx of slave labour and underpaid housemaids without labor contracts or work permits from somewhere for rich middleaged Americans to sexually harrass or threaten with deportation if they dont have sex with them.

The UK has always been and always will be a proud nation. Once we were the rulers of more than one quarter of the known world.
Yes, we aswell, have exploited others countries for their natural resources, we brought civilisation to the "darker continents" with the sword and the flame.
We have aswell our national shame, we didnt always. if harldy, treat the good people of the empire with respect.
We have killed, sometimes massacred without remorse.

Still, as for your little idea..NEVER would the UK want to be anything other than a soveriegn kingdom.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE..or in your case if you still have your "british nanny", get her to wake you with an EARL GREY TEA, its the only piece of the UK you´ll ever have



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by humanunnaki
 


Better Idea, why doesn't America surrender to Britain. (It used to be British!) It could only improve their current world standing!







posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by your_evidence
 


I would be surprised if all of S. America joins Argentina on this. But maybe Venezuela will and some dark part of my psyche hopes that they do. It might be a nice opportunity to unseat another evil dictator. Personally even if all of South America fought for this, I suspect they would lose. The U.S. by our unconstitutional NATO endeavor is obligated to help defend UK territory. Put a carrier group or two down there and the war is over.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I am not sure why so many keep talking about a military scenario in this situation. It is highly unlikely to happen. Argentina never mentioned a military response and other than Chavez, all the discussion from both nations has been about peaceful UN Negotiations.

As for the US having to join Britain if a conflict were to arise because they are both members of NATO..... NATO has often avoided getting involved in the wars of its members. NATO didn't join the UK in the Falklands. NATO didn't join the US in Vietnam. NATO didn't join France in Algeria.  NATO did make a statement about the 1982 Falklands Conflict. The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Luxembourg on 17th and 18th May 1982 and condemned the aggression as follows

"They call for a continuation of the efforts to achieve a satisfactory negotiated settlement in accordance with this Resolution in its entirety."
NATO members must also follow the Charter of the UN to seek a peaceful resolution of conflicts. Article 5 of the NATO alliance does indeed state that members should undertake to assist in military matters when another NATO member is attacked, but Article 6 clearly states that this is only relavent to areas NORTH of the Tropic of Cancer. The Falklands are outside that area and thus do not apply to any NATO military assistance.

In addition the Inter-American Treaty on Mutual Assistance specifically requires the US to assist Argentina. In the '82 Falklands conflict, the US violated this treaty and probably would again. The US has a long history of violating treaties with a number of nations and has even violated NATO's charter. United States actively violated international law in relation to the Kosovo crisis and in clear violation of the U.N. Charter it signed in 1945. The entire Falklands sovereignty issue that we have today arises from the US violating the Monroe Doctrine in 1831. Any US assistance in any future Falklands conflict would also be a violation of the Monroe doctrine. But we all know that GW Bush does not care about the law, nor about what is right.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I know if a war kicks in, the UK are favorites to win. As i stated before, it wouldn't be good news though for the UK and any of it's allies, economically speak that is. Being in two wars at the same time is extremely expensive, as it is expensive for any country to be in Iraq right this instant.

Just take a look at this.
www.nationalpriorities.org...

That said, S.America is more united these days, so there's a chance they will unite if a war kicks in.

Either way, IF a war comes up and IF the UK wins. I am almost certain it will not be the same war as it was 25 years ago.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
My invitation to Argentina and England is sincere.
Military junta = fascism. England is our country's
elderly decrepit mother. We are here for her and
will take her in no matter what. She'll have to shed
her class system like an old sofa (Queenie et al),
of course. Argentina is racially one of the countries
most similar to our own. A soulmate country
(except for the soccer madness). They'll have to
switch to English and take up Baseball, etc, of
course. Maybe Canada can join up, too. They are
way too few for that big cold house. They're not
doing well. Look at their roads system. Pathetic.
Australia and NZ? Way down there all alone with
Asia looming over them like a vulture waiting to munch their liwer. Andrew, don't insult me. Of course I'm not human.


[edit on 26-9-2007 by humanunnaki]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
There will be no war for the foreseeable future.

There will be endless rounds of claims and counter claims which will continue to distract the general public.
In the meantime we will gradually start extracting the mineral wealth from around The Falklands.

In time The Falklands War will become just a memory for a few or will be overshadowed by other wars and conflicts.
Then, and only then, will Britain contemplate negotiating sovereignty and by the time they come to any possible agreement we will have tied up mineral rights.

Chavez can wave his sword in the air as much as he wants.
Argentina do not wish another war, they know only too well what the outcome would be and have no desire for further armed conflict.

As for the suggestion that the UK become part of the US

I think not

According to quite a few ATS'ers the UK actually still runs the US through The Federal Reserve Bank etc, so I think if you start to behave yourselves and stop acting like precocious, spoilt teenagers we may actually allow you to join our Commonwealth Of Nations.

"The Commonwealth is an international organization through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds cooperate within a framework of common values and goals, outlined in the Singapore Declaration. These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace."

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
As long as a country recognizes a "royal" class however old or new (dictatorships, etc), even one touted to be powerless and for show only then that country is not a true democracy! Down with "Royalty and their "noble" servants" everywhere! Erase it once and for all!!! We Americans bend our knee to no "man"!

[edit on 27-9-2007 by humanunnaki]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by humanunnaki
 


Ha Ha Ha,
Elizabeth is a woman, or maybe even a Reptilian according to some people.

Your response is so predictable.
OK for you, an American, to propose something so ridiculous as The UK becoming part of the USA but, horror upon horror's, someone dared to retort with an equally ridiculous proposal and you become so indignant.
Ha Ha Ha.
No offence intended, but lighten up a bit.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join