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

reply to post by PrecogPsychicSensitive


yes i agree,we took australia and killed the natives,we even occupy ireland to this day,we should just leave any country we have ever colonised.
thanks for that.will start packing in the morning.
btw some native american guys were wondering when you are planning on returning the millions of ancestors you murdered with sabre rifle and small pox blankets.
better to be quiet and appear a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt...moron

reply to post by vipertruck99



Great....just great. I'm gonna pack my case right now.......where do I go...

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Kornets are highly advanced anti-tank missiles which can carried by troops.Hamas does not have them.

Df-21 is a quasi ballistic anti-missile which has a MARV warhead.Excellent for getting through anti-missile defences of the Destroyers and super carriers with a range of 1500 km. Df-21 will turn the british surface navy into practice targets.No aircraft needed for taking out the Destroyer.The 1500 km carrier killer will suffice.

edit on 9-2-2012 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2012 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)

You're a bit retarded aren't you?

Since when did we need tanks in the Falklands exactly and for what purpose?

Tell me sir, what makes you think China would sell Argentina the Dong-Feng 21D or why you are so sure it could take out a Type45 destroyer?

A type45 is not an aircraft carrier... it is considerably faster & smaller vessel and even smaller on radar/inferred with its stealth technology's, the missile has only ever been tested on carrier sized objects, speed & manoeuvrability, which makes a massive, massive difference when you consider the Df-21D is blinded from its target upon re-entry at hypersonic speeds

I wonder if you're aware the DF-21D (ASBM) requires the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites to operate also?

Do you so passionately hate the UK you dropped all rationality at home today?

What makes you think china is about to sell its most advanced & prized missile to a skint broke Argentina along with a brand new satellite to operate it?

I highly doubt China is going to sell ANY of its 60-80 "so very few" Df-21Ds, which is not a major threat to the type45s, with a little bit of tweaking the Sea Viper system it is more than capable of undertaking such a role. Whether the Aster 30 is the right sort of munition for that role is a different question, but the system has got the capability, It’s got the range and it’s got the ability to adapt very very quickly and very very easily to that role.

Argentina will be sold if anything at all, an obsolete missile system, not a prized possession of the Chinese military, thats just not going to happen under any circumstances, they will likely be offered out of date obsolete Soviet missiles, and try to apply Soviet type of saturation attack with them, where you get 20, 30, 40 plus missiles being fired at you at once

And even then, The Type-45 would be able to engage all those targets near-simultaneously, and could also apply the same volley attack technique with its PAAMS firstly with its long range Aster 30 missiles and secondly with its close range Aster 15s to engage the Df-21D "should" by some miracle China sell a tiny handful to Argentina of course, i honestly would have a LARGE wager on the Df-21D not being able to hit a small and fast vessel such as a type45

There is absolutely no evidence the DF-21D can' target & hit a Type45s or any ship smaller then a slow oil tanker, it would need a sustained test and evaluation program no matter what technology it used. I, for one, am unaware of China undertaking any such extensive test program.

Lets put some of this into perspective. I know that some aaspects of the 'Great Game' were not exactly nice, but then the times were very different to today. If it were not for colonialism, then a great part of the world today would still be very much in the 'Dark Ages' and the world as such would only exist of Europe, North Africa, Middle East and parts of Asia.

I would also like to point out, that there are still many countries that have 'land assets' well outside of their Home Waters or are occupied territories, which include: UK, US, China, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Turkey/Greece, Denmark, Israel, Russia - Quite a few of which are disputed and are still being fought over.

At least we have a bit of humility and culture. No wonder they want to stay part of Britain

Originally posted by oghamxx
My oh my how times change

From the US Marine Corps Command and Staff College 4 May 1987 as posted on
www.globalsecurity.org...


DOUBTS BY BOTH SIDES
Both British and Argentine politicians expressed doubts
about the legitimacy of their respective cases during the first
few decades of the 20th century.
1. A memorandum published by an official of the British
Foreign Office's Research Department in 1910, for example,
lent a great deal of credence to the standing Argentine
position. It indicated concern over the fact that the
sovereignty issue had not been resolved in the 1771 peace
declarations and allowed that there probably was some truth
to the Argentine claim of the secret agreement that was
allegedly made prior to the signing of those declarations.
The head of the Foreign Office's American Department stated
that from reading the memorandum it was "difficult to avoid
the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is
not altogether unjustified and that our action has been
somewhat high-handed."(21) Twenty-six years later, the
Foreign Office addressed the subject again. In 1936 the
head of the British Foreign Office's American department in
1936 stated that "it is therefore not easy to explain our
possession without showing ourselves up as international
bandits."(22)
2. In 1927, after examining the British position on the
sovereignty issue, Argentina's foreign minister concluded
that it was "exceedingly strong."(23)

Erm I would classify the above as nonsense:
1, The war of independence for "Argentina" took place between 1810 and 1816. Prior to 1810 there was no such country as Argentina therefore there cannot be anything unresolved with Argentina since 1771. Total nonsense.
2. There was a country called Spain that occupied the area now called Argentina. Spain, France and Britain had a few skirmishes around that part of the world for about 70 years. The independence of Argentina from Spain did not include the Falklands! That was an Argentinian imperialist claim that came later along with its claim for parts of Antartica despite Chile being nearer but hey,......
3. NOBODY lived in the Falklands before the French, British and Portugeuse discovered it. NB it is arguable who discovered them but it wasn't Spain and the only tenuous claim by Argentina would be through its link with Spain from which it wanted seperation in 1810!!!! I mean come on !!!!!
4. The British occupied the Falklands BEFORE Argentina existed.

"The Malvinas" is a calling cry by weak government to a brainwashed electorate.

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Soshh

 

Organisation
No. 1435 Flight – 4 Eurofighter Typhoons
No. 1312 Flight – 1 Vickers VC10, 1 Hercules C3
No. 1564 Flight – 2 Sea King HAR3s.

thats it. A few Buk-m1s and Tor m1s will do. Also Chinese and russians could provide Kh-55 longe range cruise missiles to Argentina. China needs to recoup investment that British and USa ruined in Africa. Best time now.They should help stretch England and help in the Argentine Reconquesta.

Viva la Malvinas!!Viva la Argentina!!

edit on 9-2-2012 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)

He certainly has it all figured out this one, he's probably so stupid he's interpreting this as a compliment right now


Ok so lets say Argentina added the 1970s Buk-m1s? to its shopping list, I'll take them out With A, Taranis stealth bombers? or B tomahawk as with there rest of the awesome 1970s Chinese/Russian crap you listed, you really are enjoying this huh?

Oh and by the way i hope you are not in anyway under the impression thats all we have, more... thats all we need

reply to post by yorkshirelad


With respect what I hear you saying is that you do not recognized long established international law to wit;

www.globalsecurity.org...

CHAPTER SEVEN
ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND OPINIONS
THE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Legal scholars in the international community have
traditionally recognized five modes of acquiring territory.
These are: cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and
prescription.
(1)
Cession is defined as "title derived from another state by
the transfer of sovereignty by the owner state to another
state." It may result from the outcome of war, a gift, sale, or
an exchange. It can only be effected by treaty between the
ceding and acquiring states and normally requires that the new
owner possess or occupy the territory. It is essential that
cession occur with "the full consent of the governments
concerned."
(2)
Occupation is "the act of appropriation of territory which
is not at the time under the sovereignty of another state." It
requires both possession and administration, implying the need
for the presence of a settlement and a formal act of proclamation
by the occupier to confirm his intent to keep the territory under
his sovereignty. An uninhabited island not part of any state
would be an example of a territory liable for occupation by
another country. Abandonment by the occupying state would make
it vulnerable for occupation by another.

(3)
Accretion refers to "an increase in existing land masses by
new geological changes, such as the formation of a new island in
a river." This type of acquisition does not apply in the case of
the Islands.
(4)
Subjugation refers to firmly established conquest followed
by formal annexation. It occurs only after an end to a state of
war or hostilities.
(5)
Prescription is "the acquisition of sovereignty over a
territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of
sovereignty over it during such period as is necessary to
create.... the general conviction that the present condition of
things is in conformity with international order." No rule
defines the length of time necessary to create title by
prescription. Uti possidetis is a principle related to
prescription which has been adopted by Spanish-American republics
to assert sovereignty over territories which at one time formed a
part of the Spanish Colonial Empire. After winning independence
from Spain, Argentina used this principle to defend her avowed
"inheritance" of the Islands.(6)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

During Spanish rule of South and Central America the Falklands were administered by the Governor of Buenos Aires. IMO, and that of others much better versed in International Law, Argentina had every right to claim the Falklands.

What I find very interesting is that I have read, possibly in the above link, that there are 2 copies of the agreement (treaty?) , possibly the in one in which Spain allowed the British colonists to return to one Falkland port in 1771(?). The British copy allegedly makes no mention of Spain retaining sovereignty while the Spanish copy alleged;y does. Damn scribes!

I have also read that China favors the Argentine claim. This is understandable considering their issue with Taiwan which issue, IMO, has little in common with the Falklands dispute.

reply to post by oghamxx


Regardless of what was or was not agreed nearly 250 years ago when the islands were uninhabited, none of it has any relevance now to the future of the islands and the people who have been the sole permanent and civilian inhabitants and have been for quite some time now and who have expressed their inalienable Right to Self-Determination and wish to remain British.

Everything else is smoke in mirrors and totally irrelevant.

reply to post by Freeborn

Any relevance now or whenever is IMO a matter to be determined not by us on ATS but rather by the likes of the World Court or some such body. IF they were to determine the UK recognized Spanish sovereignty AND Argentina inherited sovereignty upon independence from Spain AND the UK did not rule undisputed for some ill defined 'long' period of time AND.......AND...... then .....................

It simply is not going to reach that point. If both sides are so cocksure of their arguments it would have been resolved by some international dispute resolution body 60+ years ago.

reply to post by oghamxx


Of course it's not up to us here on ATS, but we can discuss it if we choose to, that's the whole point of ATS.
Reasoned and respectful debate on any of the subjects covered in the Forums etc and in accordance with the sites T&C.

I don't think for one minute that anything I discuss here will have any impact out there in the 'real' world.
But if we can help shed a little light and understanding amongst ourselves about these topics and each other along the way then that's fine with me.

Personally, I think people's right to self-determination takes priority but hey, that's just my humble opinion and that means absolutely nothing in the grander scheme of things.

reply to post by Freeborn

While I agree that self determination should prevail I do not trust ANY court to so rule. If it was truly available there would be no United States. Our courts have ruled that our Constitution is NOT a contract. If it were it would be null and void. I doubt that Scotland and Wales realize how fortunate they are to have the opportunity for independence.

The Falklands issue is dear to me as I have visited and enjoyed both countries many times. I love them both and for entirely different reasons. I fear the day when my passport revealing that I had visited the 'enemy' resulted in discrimination.

reply to post by oghamxx


If Kirchner had agreed to the UK's very generous offer of an equal partnership in the Oil field development then closer relations between all parties would have been one of the natural outcomes.
Who knows what might have then happenned in a few years time.

She let personal ambition take precedent over national interest and the only people who will miss out will be the Argentinian people and that is unforgiveable.

The Islanders Right to Self-Determination will always be respected, and defended if necessary, by the UK, regardless of what anyone else may decide.
It would be political suicide for any political leader to do otherwise at present and for the foreseeable future.

Every time Kirchner et al, spout out their rhetoric, it just hardens the Islanders and the UKs resolve even more. All she is interested in is a dubious short-term gain for her political career, certainly not for Argentinas sake.

BTW: Her latest rant is about being called a 'Bitch' by a local rag called the Penguin News .......... She is pathetic.

reply to post by Kromed


First off, Ireland is part of the BRITISH ISLES.

Your cowardly 1916 rising was only successful because all of the REAL MEN in Ireland were fighting in the trenches of WW1 and it was at this time the cowards back home decided to have their pathetic little rebellion.

Our government, the British government has always said, as soon as the MAJORITY in NI want to be part of the Republic of Ireland they will allow it to do so, but it isn't going to happen because the VAST majority of people living here want to remain British, we ARE BRITISH and always have been...with people like you is it any wonder people think Irish are thick??

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Flavian

 

Yes what happens in India is bad and evil.I do not endorse the evil which the govt and mafia do.But it is the result of mass theft of gold,silver,diamonds,gems,luxuries from India by the British monarchy thugs and the Rothschilds for hundreds of years which impoverished the best nation on earth.

Wow, how do you argue against this sort of ignorance?

So the caste system in India, honour killings and mutilating kids for extra cash begging are all because Britain ruled India in the past?

How about the fact Britain also built the infrastructure in India?

I am not arguing some terrible things have happened throughout history by occupying powers. To try and blame all your own social problems on us though is beyond ridiculous - it isn't even worthy of further discussion to be honest.

Originally posted by Freeborn

It's a bit like saying as assessment on Hawaii statehood in 1910 would still be relevant today.

Interesting you mentioned Hawaii.....

en.wikipedia.org...

The President and Congress apologized for stealing it.


what the heck happened that got President Clinton and Congress to officially apologize for STEALING Hawaii??

England should be apologizing for stealing Diego Garcia, killing those peoples dogs, and kicking them off their own island.

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!

Please post your comment to the Irish who are living on occupied land in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Hypocrite.

reply to post by michael1983l


The Venezuelan people are not interested in war with anyone it is their brainwashed elite that thiks it has any real chance in such an scenario.The most people I know here thinks their elite is as mad as hell. Our incomes monthly are becoming to nothing. The inflation is realy here out of control. If this year isn't a change I'll return to europe. It will be cold there very cold...

reply to post by N1thNa1ath


hermano!!! Saludos desde UK con corazon Venezolano!


How cool to have Latinos here talking about our issues! Thats the only thing I thank Chavez, putting us on a map!