Argentina to blockade Falkland waters in dispute over oil rights

reply to post by tristar

In case you didn't know allready - Argentina is a N.A.T.O ally. - just thought I'd point that out.

Originally posted by NightFlyer96
reply to post by tristar

 

In case you didn't know allready - Argentina is a N.A.T.O ally. - just thought I'd point that out.

Seems to me that someone forgot to inform N.A.T.O

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

reply to post by tristar


In 1998, Argentina was designated a major ally by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Read more: Argentina Politics, government, and taxation , Information about Politics, government, and taxation in Argentina www.nationsencyclopedia.com...

Originally posted by NightFlyer96
reply to post by tristar

 

In 1998, Argentina was designated a major ally by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Read more: Argentina Politics, government, and taxation , Information about Politics, government, and taxation in Argentina www.nationsencyclopedia.com...

Seems to me your missing the point here,

N.A.T.O. Members

N.A.T.O. Partners

edit:

"We are fully aware", he continued, "that there is no such thing as observer status in NATO and that by the simple logic of geography, we shall never be able to become a member of a North Atlantic organization. We should like, however, to institute a system of ongoing cooperation and consultation with NATO. It is in our common interests. The Atlantic is an indivisible expanse; its security is equally indivisible."

N.A.T.O > Argentine

[edit on 17-2-2010 by tristar]

reply to post by tristar


I never said Argentina was a NATO member - I said we were an ally. And if I'm missing the point - what is it?

Sounds like Argentina is looking to have their ass handed to them again. Argentina would be smart to leave well enough alone before Britain decides it wants to start reacquiring parts of the empire.

Argentina was designated a 'Major non-NATO ally'. America won't get involved in this at all if it escelates into war. I do believe Venezuela is a good friend of Argentina, I wonder if they would get involved to aid Argentina. Well I better stop there I don't wanna start sounding crazy. LOL

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


What do you mean "re- aquireing it's empire" we were never part of Brittain

The posters saying Britain will hand Argentina a good whacking and will then go on to retake ex-colonies are dreaming. The Argentinians have timed it well. The UK cannot afford anything, yet alone another war.

Originally posted by rizla
The posters saying Britain will hand Argentina a good whacking and will then go on to retake ex-colonies are dreaming. The Argentinians have timed it well. The UK cannot afford anything, yet alone another war.

What better time to have one to distract people from that very thing? And this whole Iraq inquiry business. And Greece and the EU and Gordon Browns popularity being the way it is?

Have you forgotten that His majesty Prince William is stationed in the Falklands? He was just down here in Australia. What better way to complete his tour of the colonies than a military entanglement with the Argentinians?

Strangely enough, the international law regarding this situation came up in the Sea Shepherd thread the other day.
From the low water mark out to 12 nautical miles is a coastal country's territorial waters, in which they can do pretty much what they like. For a further 12nm is a contiguous zone in which they can restrict shipping. For a further 200nm they have exclusive economic rights, but all vessals have the right of "innocent passage", which means just sailing along, not hanging around being a threat to security nor fishing. Also, a country has the exclusive rights to exploit the seabed of its continental shelf out to a distance of not more than 100nm beyond where the depth reaches 2500 metres.
So, Argentina has no right to impose permits on shipping to the Falklands. Interesting tho, because if there's only 300 miles between the 2, then there is a 100 mile wide bit of sea which is legally "exclusive" to both, which is an oxymoron. Depending on the depth of the continental shelf, it could be that each have an exclusive right to the seabed right up to each other's territorial waters!
In a purely legal framework then, it would seem that some kind of negotiation would have to be in order. Practically tho, there is no way on this earth that the UK govt is going to give up what might turn out to be half again as much oil & gas as the North Sea fields. Not even if we have to station the bulk of our armed forces down there, foment war between Chile & Argentina &/or fire cruise missiles into Buenos Aires.
The real shame is that the Conservative Party are about to take control of the UK once again. Oh, they really did well for us out of the North Sea didn't they? NOT! They'll contract out to US interests again, shortsightedly staring at the bottom line today, whilst ignoring the benefits that could be had tomorrow & the problems that will be had tomorrow. Just like last time. Wankers!

You know it;s coming, another ship sunk by an exocet missle or current equivalent. The NWO seriously wants to see south america divided and brought to heel. THe could end badly for the Argentines, they're still trying to recover economically. Perhaps there is a way they can SHARE the oil? C'mon UN, if you;re worth anything broker a deal here before someone gets shot.

Originally posted by rizla
The posters saying Britain will hand Argentina a good whacking and will then go on to retake ex-colonies are dreaming. The Argentinians have timed it well. The UK cannot afford anything, yet alone another war.

Seriously don't underestimate us.

We might be living under the spectrum of idiotic, naive, greedy or inept government , but the UK army is one of the best trained armies in the world.

What we lack in weaponry (which has advanced since 1982) we make up in tactics, training and coordination.

Originally posted by disfugured
Good for Argentina for standing up against world powers like Britain!

Seems more and more countries are doing so and its nice to see.

So, you think it's nice that countries could go to war? The Argentinans aren't standing up for themselves, they are making a very big mistake.

No one #s with the UK's forces.

Originally posted by NightFlyer96
sure we want the islands to be ours but we don't want bloodshed over them.

Why do you want to force your government on a people that do not want it? To steal their land and homes? Truly odd. A bit evil in fact.

Wasn't it Argentina that went against the treaty between nations regarding Antarctica and tried to claim it? I think it was. Argentina seems to be a bit of bad neighbor, wanting to take land that is not theirs and claim control over waters that belong to another nation.

Is Argentina slowly developing into another country mad to take over the world. What is the thought process there? Or is this a pseudo-war between Spain and the UK playing out from past centuries? I don't think the mostly Spanish inhabitants there are natives to that land by any stretch. What hypocrisy.

Perhaps we in the US should invade Baja and build resorts for our elite and drill for oil offshore. Same thing. Good fishing too

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
C'mon UN, if you;re worth anything broker a deal here before someone gets shot.

It will be interesting to see how the sides spin this. How will Argentina justify wanting to occupy another nation and take over another nations waters and control them? So few people in such a large Nation and yet they need more, want more.

The UN Sorry but it's just a place where despots can send their relatives to siphon off money and line their pockets. It's not real. It never enforces anything. Nobody respects it. It may as well not exist. It is just a welfare program for rich folks illiterate children.

reply to post by NightFlyer96


It is re-assuring to see that most Argentinians can understand reason; no-one wants to see anymore deaths which is why we must all ensure that neither Kirchner or Brown contrive to turn this into a military situation.

But it is imperative to understand that the UK will NEVER enter into discussions on sovereignty as long as the islanders themselves wish to remain British and the memories of the 82 conflict are fresh in the memories of so many of the UK's population.

Whilst the UK maybe involved in Afghanistan at present it till has more than enough firepower to deal with any attack on UK interests.

I also understand that the UK has stated that any attack on The Falkland will be construed as an attack on the UK itself and therefore an act of war.
This means that mainland Argentina will be a target as well.
Something none of us want.

The UK has offered to share the profits of any oil deposits with Argentina yet Kirchner has refused to even discuss this.

Any blockade of Argentinian waters will only further antagonise the situation.
I just hope that Kirchner will not push us too far because of one thing be certain, the UK WILL retaliate!

Those of us who can remember the 82 conflict know that a negotiated peace is paramount and a key to this is understanding that the UK will not discuss sovereignty for another generation or two at least.

A further twist:

Falkland Islands: First it was sovereignty, now it's oil

They also pointed out that the Ocean Guardian was registered in the US and the detention of its crew would make Buenos Aires answerable for its action to Washington as well as Britain.

The British military maintains a force of 1,076 soldiers, and a small number of warplanes on the Falklands and there is a flotilla of ships offshore including, at present, the Type 42 frigate HMS York. The aircraft are on 15 minutes’ notice to fly.

A defence source said yesterday: “The Thor Leader was stopped at an Argentinian port. The rig will be sailing in international waters and any attempt to interfere with it would be in breach of international law and we have the forces available and ready in the region to address that problem if that is what the Government wants us to do.”

Earlier this week Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the head of the Royal Air Force, drew attention to the situation in the South Atlantic in a speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) referred to “ the increasingly tense situation around the Falkland Islands” to stress the need for maintaining air superiority.

Argentina would also be picking a fight with the US this time round as well. Any conspiracies for regime changes in S.America???

The world is a different place today than the last war with Britain over the Falkland Islands. Britain cannot endure the cost of a war in Argentina's front yard. Argentina is not a third world nation. It has a robust military and population to boot. The only thing stopping it from retaking the Islands is the USA, who will not get into the conflict except to say a few words about it in disapproval.

During the last war, the Argentine navy ran short on exocet missiles that France was sopposed to deliver just prior to the outbreak. The Argentine navy and air force were capable to do battle. The Argentines however gave in to pressure from other world powers and made peace. The dispute was left unresolved.

Does anyone think that Britain is willing to spend vast resources and wealth and send it's navy and air force all the way down to the coast of Argentina to wage a protracted war of attrition? This is Argentina's front door step. The Islands really belong to them and the Brits really should just give them up and leave them alone.

However, history says that British pride and honor will cause them to do just that and spend some blood and treasure to keep a few little islands from the Argentine nation. They will find today's world not so friendly for such endeavors.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I think you missed the point of what i was saying. And Antarctica is right next to us anyway. And we weren't the country that was founded against colonization but ended up stretching the width of a continent and invading tons of countries and having about 7 different terretories world wide