Venezuela threatens Britain over Falklands as its president vows to side with Argentina

reply to post by gabrielxxx


Ok you seem to be an educated person. What I do not see is any evidence of any Argentinians actually living there. So as you seem so reasonable and intelligent, how can you expect a race of people that have been living on those Islands for multiple generations to give up their own Goverence to Argentina? No Argentinians have ever lived or proven to have lived on the Islands and the current people who live there now have a right to decide their own fate.

Why cannot Argentina just accept that the Island is well outside of its territorial waters and has its own Government who do not wish to be part of Argentina.

If you are basing your claim to Argentina based on the Oceianic plates then why isn't Chilie claiming the land as their land mass is actually closer than Argentinas to the Islands?

reply to post by gabrielxxx


So the brits lost in argentina.Impressive. The brits will never learn that violence does not help.

reply to post by michael1983l


Yes Michael, the spanish guys have a higher right to claim the islands. Argentina was part of the Virreynato del Rio de la Plata. Tordesillas agreement... And like i told you, we have two invasions of the continent before the invasion of the islands.
We were part of Spain, not UK...
The 90% of Argentinean are ppl it's from Europe, and more than the 70% are from Spain and Italy. And we consider Spain like our mother land, like the USA with UK.
But we independence from Spain , but never from UK.... They kept the islands...they didnt respect the Monroe Doctrin... Legally they are the agressors...
They are the imperialist... we are a colony that want to be free. We dont want english ships in our seas fishing and taking our oil....
Cause Britain give permison to countries like Japan to come here to fishing...
We live in XX! century mate, we dont have a queen??? hehehe! and we dont have colonies or nothing like that...
I think its time to understand that the UK dont have nothing to do here.

Some of the comments here are shocking. Im irish and my father and grandfather both fought against british occupation of Ireland. They have done it the world over laying claim to land that's not theirs. Even now my country is divided because of the Brits. Argentina are right to tell the Brits to go # themselves. All Britain is, is USA's lapdog!

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

we are one of the very few still with a triple AAA Credit rating right?

Personally I hate rating agencies. I think they are the current economic cancer that is threatening a lot of world economies. To me, it's beyond belief how an agency (connotation on "agency") says "it's like this" and everyone acts on it, even more if you consider how catastrophic some of their claims and ratings have been.

But I wouldn't feel much safe if I was brit... France was laughing at other european countries until it got served it's fair share.

I just stated that because recently there have been some concerning news regarding UK, like the debt record...

Its at no extra cost to protect the people in the Falklands its routeen based on the MOD's budget and has been for many years, cuts have been made elsewhere to adjust in these economically hard times, its only at a cost when we have to send another task force down there and start firing off the rounds at invaders

Yes, but like I answered to another post, I think the whole problem is around the fact the UK thinks it needs a strong military presence there.

You can lower the impact of said costs in your military budget... But if you didn't send any warships at all, you would be saving even more money, and not just accepting it as an inevitable cost, or making a routine out of it.

They'd need to spam out hundreds of amphibious assault crafts while Astute & Trafalgar class nuclear subs stalk, because lets face it, they would certainly not be getting anything on the island by air that's for sure, at least not in numbers that would be considered an effective fighting force

I don't want to seem like I'm spiliting hairs just to make a point, but to me that doesn't make sense.

If they are not a threat in terms of military power, then why send stuff like nuclear submarines, and the latest destroyers? Why not deploy there, permanently, the destroyers that are usually in that area as routine, and use the new destroyers for...whatever?

Argentina is seeing this as an "aggression"(lack of better word), to the point where other South American leaders start taking sides. I take what they say (especially Chavez) with 2 tons of salt on top of it, but it does show a new concern that we haven't seen for at least a decade.

i wish they would just shut up tbh and respect the wishes of the Falklands islanders to remain British, simple

Its international law... they have every right to determine there own future

International law has shown itself futile, especially during the last decade. The UN, who supposedly are in charge of enforcing it, simply don't give a crap or are unable to do anything against those who disrespect it.

The matter of fact is that, if it was an easy to solve problem, it would be solved by now.

Originally posted by Tifozi

The UK isn't the only country with energy contracts in South America, but as far as I know, it's the only one sending destroyers and nuclear submarines to a territory that is sensitive to that sort of thing.

I'm not saying that the UK doesn't have the right to be there, or that they are making an offensive move. I just believe it's utterly unnecessary.

Current British policy revolves around deterring a second invasion. If this was entirely unnecessary then we would not bother.

Why isn't a solution similar to Hong Kong being pursued?

Because the Falklands aren't Hong Kong and the circumstances are completely different.

And 0,5% looks really tiny. But you should use more often the real numbers that are represented by the 0,5%.

Actually it is far more important to place such things into context and not blow them out of proportion.

Seeing as Argentina was invaded by the Spanish 300 years I would argue most of your ruling classes are from Spanish stock, this is a bit rich. The Falklands have been British for a couple of hundred years. The people who live their wish to remain British. There are no Argentines there. So its all a bit moot is you ask me.

As for war, We've done this once already, before there was any mention of oil. Quite frankly, if Argentina and Venezuela want to go to war with us over this, we will oblige them. Just remember, last time we had to get there on cruise ships and pedalos. We arrived on the 21st May 1982 and had won the war by the 14th June 1982. So, if they want some...come and get some.

At least it will be a real war and not one of these moody occupations thats going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why mention Nukes, we wouldn't need nukes for this.

Originally posted by Kromed
Some of the comments here are shocking. Im irish and my father and grandfather both fought against british occupation of Ireland. They have done it the world over laying claim to land that's not theirs. Even now my country is divided because of the Brits. Argentina are right to tell the Brits to go ---- themselves. All Britain is, is USA's lapdog!

Didn't we just bail Ireland out with £7bn?

Also the Falklands have nothing to do with Irish history.

--

If you want to pick and squabble about political history, would you like me to dredge up some of the Irish who worked for the Nazi's?

reply to post by gabrielxxx


Right the colonisation of the Falklands was in the past, not much point disputing how it was colonised now. The real question is what do you do with the actual inhabitants of the island, they are self governed so they will not hand the islands to you. Will you advokate taking the Islands by force then instead, even though no Argentianians have ever lived there, only Spanish of which you may or may not be a decendant of.

What about the UN's rule of right to self determination, does that not count in this instance?

The only argument you seem to have is that the Spanish were on the Island for a short period before the British. But the British have been living there 250 years out of its 300 year history.

Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than it does to Uraguy.

Under what international law do 'sighting', 'landing' or 'being around' establish sovereignty? There is a claimed sighting of the Falklands by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502

If so then all of north America belongs to the descendants of the Norse/Vikings for L'Anse aux Meadows Newfoundland about 1000 AD,

Would anyone care to comment on number 9 of 1771 below taken from www.naval-history.net... Please visit the site for details.

Summary of Early Falklands History

1. 1592 - British sighting by Capt Davis
2. 1600 - Plotted by Dutchman Sebald de Weert
3. 1690 - British landing by Capt Strong
4. 1764 - First French settlement by de Bougainville
5. 1765 - British landing by Capt Byron
7. 1767 - French settlement handed over to Spanish control
8. 1770 - Spain expelled British colonists
9. 1771 - Britain allowed to return, but Spain reserved right to sovereignty
10. 1774 - British colony abandoned
11. 1820 - Recently-independent Argentina took possession
12. 1831 - US declared the island "free of government"
13. 1833 - Britain took possession from Argentina
14. 1842 - Britain declared colonial administration

_____________________________________________

Per www.sipri.org... I think the UK military budget in constant US dollars is about 7 times than of Argentina and Venezuela combined.

reply to post by mkgandhas


Sorry to have to say this and it will probably get deleted (and me into trouble) but you sir are a WUM and a cock of the highest order.

Sooner you get binned the better.

Originally posted by Tifozi

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Tifozi

History hasn't made the effort to teach that lesson, UK itself was a victim of such teachings, from the US example to Hong Kong.

Why isn't a solution similar to Hong Kong being pursued?
.

Quotes not working wtf?







Because we flat out stole that bit of land from the Chinese and its a stones throw from its coast well within its territorial waters, its there difference between a horse and a car here.. plus it wasn't worth losing alot of men over when we was clearly in the wrong, in those empire days it was dog eat dog there was no international laws at least not like there is today with the world watching & judging over you, when your parents aren't watching you misbehaved right? its no difference leaders are all human to and countrys & nations share there personality's to, everybody was at it empire building etc, it was you or them, those were just the times unfortunately, with the power/technology difference with nations today and that mentality of back then, there are a few nations who would be losing there country's right about now. times have changed,

edit on 7-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Kromed


You told the Brits to go # themselves and now look at you, crawling back asking for a bailout to stop you going bankrupt. That was a wise move wasn't it. Which other nations in the Union have recently had to ask anybody for a bailout? None. Although we have been a major source of bailout funds for our european partners.

Disputed.

The Argentinians claim in their 2007 pamphlets that the Falklands were discovered by one of the
ships in the expedition of Ferdinand Magellan in 1519-20, the first expedition to sail round the world.
1
That is not true . That claim is based on the theory that Estebão Gomes, the Portuguese pilot of the ship
San Antonio, who deserted the expedition in the Straits of Magellan, saw the Falklands before or after his
desertion. But none of the chroniclers aboard mentions any such discovery; all say the ship returned up the
coast, and there is not a shred of positive evidence to support that theory

www.britishempire.co.uk...

also

Twelve treaties were signed at Utrecht in 1713 between various European powers, notably the general
peace treaty often called “the Treaty of Utrecht”. None includes formal British recognition of Spain’s
possession of South America as claimed in the Argentine 2007 pamphlets (English p. 1, Spanish p. 3);
Britain merely promises assistance in returning Spanish possessions in America to their state in the time
of the death of Carlos II of Spain (which had sparked the War of the Spanish Succession). Like the treaty
of 1670, the Treaty of Utrecht refers to territories “possessed” by Spain – neither in 1670 nor in 1713 did
Spain possess the Falklands in any real sense except by the (invalid) “Treaty” of Tordesillas.
The Argentine 2007 pamphlets also claim that the Treaty of Utrecht gave Spain an “exclusive right to
sail in the waters of the South Atlantic.”
2
That is completely untrue; the treaty confirmed no such
exclusive right – Britain never accepted any restriction on the freedom of the seas, and retained St Helena
in the South Atlantic throughout the 18th century (and right up to today). Many British ships, particularly
from the East India Company, sailed in the South Atlantic on their way to India and elsewhere.

reply to post by Soshh

Current British policy revolves around deterring a second invasion. If this was entirely unnecessary then we would not bother.

Yes, because show of force has worked so well in world's history.

Because the Falklands aren't Hong Kong and the circumstances are completely different.

Really? I thought the Falklands were close to India.

Actually it is far more important to place such things into context and not blow them out of proportion.

Of course, who really cares where a few millions go...

Originally posted by oghamxx

Would anyone care to comment on number 9 of 1771 below taken from www.naval-history.net... Please visit the site for details.


9. 1771 - Britain allowed to return, but Spain reserved right to sovereignty

Sure:

On 10 June 1770, having discovered the British at Port Egmont, Spain attacked the establishment and
expelled the British garrison; Britain and Spain came close to war, which was in the end averted by an
agreement signed in January 1771 in which Port Egmont was restored to Britain.
The Argentine 2007 pamphlets say (English p. 1, Spanish p. 4) that the agreement contained:
… a Declaration by which Spain restored Port Egmont to the British in order to save the honour of
the King of England, making express reservation of its [= Spanish] sovereignty over the whole of
the Malvinas Islands, and also of an Acceptance of this Declaration in which Great Britain
remained silent as to the Spanish reservation of rights.
That is untrue. Such a reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770
during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of
Spain to those islands”,
4
but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the AngloSpanish agreement. The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated:

… that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his
Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise
to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called
Falkland’s Islands.

www.britishempire.co.uk...

and thus:

Moreover, not all Argentine historians believe that Britain made a secret
agreement to leave at the time of the 1771 agreement. Diego Luis Molinari says the British did say they
would leave – but did not say so in a ministerial capacity.
2
Professor Dolzer also agrees that “no legally
binding agreement was made”.
3
Britain did leave Port Egmont four years later in 1774, as an “economy measure” – Britain’s North
American colonies were showing signs of political unrest, and it was to redeploy Britain’s forces to
confront the American Revolution that the decision was taken to evacuate Port Egmont. Diego Luis
Molinari identifies this as the reason for Britain’s withdrawal.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


I wasn't comparing Hong Kong with the Falklands. They have nothing in common, from an economic point of view, to the humanitarian side of the issue.

As I said, I just wonder why the UK doesn't make an effort to go diplomatic and settle this with negotiations, instead of sending military presence.

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

I wasn't comparing Hong Kong with the Falklands. They have nothing in common, from an economic point of view, to the humanitarian side of the issue.

As I said, I just wonder why the UK doesn't make an effort to go diplomatic and settle this with negotiations, instead of sending military presence.

What you mean like offering joint resource rights and joint goverence?

Yeah been there done that, Kircher said no thank you.

reply to post by michael1983l


"What I do not see is any evidence of any Argentinians actually living there."

cause Argentineans are banned in the islands... They cant go to live there since 1833, when was occupied, and the ones were before on the islands were spanish not english...

"how can you expect a race of people that have been living on those Islands for multiple generations to give up their own Goverence to Argentina? "

Like i told you before there are only 700 kelpers living on the islands. The most of them come from different islands from the UK. They came to the islands because the UK pay them more than 3 thousands dollarsper month to stay there. Have you ever watch a video from the island? It's almost impossible live there... Like in the continent, the Patagonia is like the island, no trees, big desert, and winds over 80km/h. The Patagonia have 0.4 persons/ for square kilometer.... Thats almost nobody living in the half of europe.
So the ppl who goes to live to the islands stay for some seasons and get back to their homes.
I heard that there are only 50 families living perpetually on the islands...
You going to call 50 families a race of ppl???

"No Argentinians have ever lived or proven to have lived on the Islands and the current people who live there now have a right to decide their own fate."

Because like I told you, we were banned to go to the islands...

"Why cannot Argentina just accept that the Island is well outside of its territorial waters and has its own Government who do not wish to be part of Argentina. "

Bacause they are in our territorial waters, the territorials waters of argentina are very big, remember the Pampa? The pampa its well know for dont have mountains of any kind for more than 1000 miles in the continent... And you know that the sea is very similar to the continent, if you dont have mountains, you dont have big depths in the sea. So the island are in our territoral waters, the depth is less than 200 meteres... that make the islands parts of Argentina.

"If you are basing your claim to Argentina based on the Oceianic plates then why isn't Chilie claiming the land as their land mass is actually closer than Argentinas to the Islands? "

Chile it's on the other side of the continent.... Tierra del Fuego belongs to Argentina... And the chilenean waters extend only to Cabo de Hornos... The atlantic for argentina and the pacific for Chile... And if you look maps from that time you will reallize that all the south part of the continent belongs to Argentina. Chile owns to cabo de hornos since a decades ago...


The real problem here is that UK is using our territorial waters to extract oil and fish. And not only for them... cause they rent the sea to the japanese and koreans... and they are taking all... And our ppl from the continet its starting to feel the lack of fish... For example the "merluza" is forbidden to fish for argentinean ships to keep the specie alive.And the japaneses etc fish all they can...

reply to post by michael1983l


I have no idea. I'm not from Argentina, nor from the UK. There are issues that are impossible for me to understand, even with all the reading and knowing people from both countries.

But in a world where people continuously keep a situation like Israel-Palestine going, and on the world theater everyone says "calm down, let's work something out" in a scenario much harder to resolve...

...then how does the UK have the balls to say "we tried that, doesn't work"?

Work harder.

If this does turn out to be a whim by the Argentinean government and just has rhetoric support from other border-countries, then don't give it a second thought.

But what if something wrong happens? The UK will be portrayed as an aggressor. It was the UK who sent there their mighty ships. UK is putting it's own ships on another countries backyard, in a disputed island. If you take this discussion to negotiations table, that's where they will remain, and people who are affected by it just have to sit and wait until a common agrement surfaces.

...but when you put the issue on the table while sending a military presence because YOU(UK) believe it IS necessary (admitting aggression from Argentina), you are turning it into a military dispute, and usually, that's when things turn wrong.

And they have in the past.