Falklands: RAF sends jets and enraged Argentina

[elrafaargentino]

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/jet-fighter-planes/raf-typhoon-jet-fighter.jpg
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2648901/Argie-fury-at-jets-on-Falklands.html

RAF chiefs have enraged Argentina by sending four of their most sophisticated superjets to the Falklands.

The £60million Typhoons are already posted on the South Atlantic isles after slipping out of the UK last week.

They are now the most sophisticated war jets in the southern hemisphere. Argentina, who went to war with us in 1982 over the Falklands, is understood to have made a formal protest.

The Typhoon can be used as a fighter and a bomber. It flies at twice the speed of sound and is far more manoeuvrable than the Tornado it replaces.

Its missile system even knows the target the pilot is looking at using helmet sensors. A senior RAF source said: "The Argentines are unhappy but it's our duty to provide the best possible defence of the Falklands."
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.urgente24.com/index.php?&id=ver&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=129370&cHash=2a38616c25

Gran Bretaña protege el petróleo en Malvinas y envía 4 super jets de combate

Los comandantes de la Royal Air Force británica (RAF) enviaron cuatro superjets de alta sofisticación a las Islas Malvinas, en el Atlántico Sur, de las que Argentina reclama la soberanía, en un acto calificado de “provocación” por la prensa de Gran Bretaña. Evidentemente, los ingleses buscan proteger las prospecciones de petróleo, que iniciarán en febrero del 2010


CIUDAD DE BUENOS AIRES (Urgente24) - Los comandantes de la Royal Air Force británica (RAF) enviaron cuatro superjets de alta sofisticación a las Islas Malvinas, en el Atlántico Sur, de las que Argentina reclama la soberanía, en un acto calificado de “provocación” por la prensa de Gran Bretaña.

Según informó hoy el tabloide inglés The Sun, los cuatro superjets Typhoons valuados en US$ 100 millones cada uno, ya se encuentran en las islas del Atlántico Sur, tras haber abandonado en secreto una base militar de Inglaterra la semana pasada.

“Son los jets de guerra más sofisticados en el hemisferio sur. Argentina, que se enfrentó en una guerra con nosotros en 1982 por las Falklands, habría presentado una queja formal”, agregó el tabloide.

Los Typhoon, que viajan al doble de la velocidad del sonido y que superan en tecnología a los jet Tornado, pueden ser utilizados como “guerreros” o “bombarderos”. Su sistema de misiles puede incluso detectar los blancos de ataque que mira el piloto, a través de sensores de alta sofisticación en el casco que éste lleva puesto.

“Los argentinos están disconformes, pero es nuestra responsabilidad proveer de la mejor defensa posible para las Falklands” (las Islas Malvinas), destacó al Sun una alta fuente de la RAF.

Aparentemente, el traslado de las aeronaves hacia el archipiélago se realizó de manera secreta por parte de la RAF. Los aviones están valuados en US$ 100 millones.

Gran Bretaña y Argentina se enfrentaron entre el 2 de abril y el 14 de junio de 1982 en la Guerra de las Malvinas o Guerra del Atlántico Sur, por la soberanía de esos archipiélagos australes, tomados por la fuerza en 1833 y dominados desde entonces por el Reino Unido.

Proteger el petróleo (oil)
El traslado de los aviones podría tener que ver con una intención de los británicos de proteger la prospección petrolera que piensan llevar a cabo en el año 2010.

La empresa de exploración petrolera Desire Petroleum anunció que tiene previsto iniciar el febrero próximo perforaciones en aguas circundantes a las Islas Malvinas, lo que es fuertemente rechazado por el gobierno argentino.

La firma intercambió una carta de intención con la empresa contratista de plataformas petroleras Diamond Offshore Drilling del Reino Unido -que posee una de las mayores unidades de perforación mar adentro en el mundo- para que se encargue del trabajo en un mínimo de cuatro pozos en la cuenca de las Malvinas.

La plataforma de perforación requerida para esta tarea, llamada "Ocean Guardian", se encuentra actualmente en el Mar del Norte y tras completar un programa de trabajos en astillero se movilizará en noviembre del 2009 y llegará al Atlántico Sur en febrero de 2010.

En un comunicado de prensa, la empresa Desire afirmó que "con una plataforma de exploración activa en la cuenca de Malvinas del norte, la compañía debe esmerarse en perforar el mayor número posible de pozos de forma de poner a prueba todo el potencial de esta área de muy buenas perspectivas".

"El directorio de Desire está encantado de poder informar que se ha asegurado una plataforma exploratoria para la perforación en nuestro inventario de perspectivas en las Malvinas. Comenzaremos nuestra actividad a principios del 2010 con la intención de explorar tantas opciones como sean posibles, maximizando de esa forma nuestras oportunidades de éxito", señaló el presidente de Desire, Stephen Phipps.

Por su parte, la directora del Departamento de Recursos Minerales del gobierno británico de las Malvinas, Phyl Rendeel, dijo que "el anuncio es una excelente noticia para las islas", teniendo en cuenta que "permitirán descubrir si efectivamente existen volúmenes comerciales de petróleo y gas natural en el área".

"El programa de exploración programado no requerirá de ninguna infraestructura nueva y el Departamento de Recursos Minerales está ansioso y pronto para ayuda a Desire Petroleum con su campaña de perforación", informó.

¿Problemas?

La exploración podría, sin embargo, jugar en contra del desenvolvimiento de las islas y de su población, máxime si la Argentina resuelve poner fin a la autorización a que aviones comerciales de una compañía chilena cubran la ruta entre Punta Arenas y Puerto Stanley (Argentino), sobrevolando más de 700 kilómetros del espacio aéreo argentino.

De esa forma el gobierno kelper no tendría otra alternativa que volver a comunicar las Malvinas a través de vuelos con punto de partida en la isla de Ascención, tal como aconteció en los primeros tiempos de la finalización del conflicto bélico del Atlantico Sur.

Cabe recordar que durante el gobierno del ex presidente Néstor Kirchner se puso fin a la vigencia del Acta de Cooperación de Nueva York suscripta en 1996, que pretendió abrir una zona de complementación de esfuerzos argentino-británicos sobre el ángulo sudoeste de las islas Malvinas orientados a la búsqueda de hidrocarburos.

De cualquier forma esa acta nunca llegó a madurar en nada concreto porque el gobierno kelper siempre se empecinó en poner en marcha actos unilaterales de pretendida soberanía desconociendo un litigio que fue causante en 1982 de casi 1.000 muertos del Reino Unido y la Argentina y que llevó a que la Royal Navy perdiera más de 40.000 toneladas de buques que fueron hundidos en aguas del Atlántico Sur (Antrim, Antelope, Ardent, Sheffield, Sir Galahad, Sir Tristán, Atlantic Conveyor).

Además resultaron severamente averiadas otras embarcaciones como las fragatas Argonaut, Brilliant y Broadsword, en tanto que el portaviones Invencible fue retirado del teatro de operaciones sin reconocer la existencia de daños que hicieran imposible la continuidad de sus servicios.

En tanto la Argentina sufrió la resonante pérdida del hundimiento del crucero “General Belgrano”, que se llevó la vida de 323 tripulantes, cuyos restos jamás fueron ubicados, además del submarino San Luis, que fue averiado en las ilsas Georgias, en el puerto de Gritviken, donde hoy funciona una base meteorológica británica pero que hasta 1982 en realidad sólo persistían los restos de una ex base ballenera que estaba en tránsito de ser desmantelada.

[elrafaargentino]

Why Brown wants to cause problems now? Is it only for oil or he want to look away to something else while something happens in England?

[decim]

Exercise.

[worlds beyond]

hmmmm, and only a few days ago there were news reports of a major Oil field find near Falkalnds. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

[jiffy]

hmmmm, and only a few days ago there were news reports of a major Oil field find near Falkalnds. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

Spot on

[ginge51]

Another 'over exasperation' on this forum.

[decim]

Few days ago?

June 1977 - Continuation of UK-Argentina Dispute over Sovereignty - The Shackleton Report -Visit of British Team for Negotiations

The long-standing dispute between Britain and Argentina concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (known to Argentina as Las Malvinas) continued during the period 1973–77, relations deteriorating particularly at the end of 1975 when the UK announced its intention to send a mission headed by Lord Shackleton (a former Labour cabinet minister) to carry out an economic survey of the islands. This led to an Argentinian request in January 1976 for the withdrawal of the British ambassador in Buenos Aires, and later to an incident in the South Atlantic where an Argentinian naval vessel fired across the bows of a British survey ship unconnected with the Shackleton mission.

The Shackleton report, published in July 1976, said that in view of economic stagnation and the decline in population in the islands, co-operation with Argentina was necessary to develop fish, hydrocarbon and other resources. Although there was little response from Argentina at the time
http://www.keesings.com/search?kssp_selected_tab=article&kssp_a_id=28405n01flk


Falkland Oil and Gas Limited (FOGL) ended unchanged on the day to stand at 85.00.
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=4260&source=3


Prospect of oil wealth could transform Falkland economy
Posted : Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:16:01 GMT
As Britain, and the Falkland Islands, commemorate the 25th anniversary of the "liberation" of the islands, oil exploration firms believe they could be on the verge of striking lucky.

Britain, which stopped economic aid to the Falklands in 1992, says the islands are now self-sufficient in all areas except defence
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/72626.html


Drilling for oil to start in Falkland Islands

By Jasper Copping
Published: 12:01AM GMT 09 Mar 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581211/Drilling-for-oil-to-start-in-Falkland-Islands.html


hmmmm, and only a few days ago there were news reports of a major Oil field find near Falkalnds. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

[worlds beyond]

Hi Decim,
yes, there has been oil there for a long while.. but nothing previously found/drilled on this scale apparently... yes, the article I read was from last week, re: new oil resources...and Falklands becoming a "significant" oil producer...


From The Times September 11, 2009

"Desire Petroleum aims to tap Falklands wells

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor


Penguins draw tourists to the Falklands, but oil companies are more interested in the vast reserves under the sea.

Hopes that the Falkland Islands could become a significant oil producer were boosted yesterday afteDesire Petroleum, a British company, unveiled plans to launch a large drilling programme there next year.

Desire said that it will drill up to eight offshore wells starting in February, marking the first time that any company has drilled for oil in the Falklands in more than a decade.

The company said that it had reached a deal with Diamond Offshore Drilling, a supplier of rigs and equipment, to drill at least four wells, with an option to drill a further four.

Stephen Phipps, the chairman of Desire, said that the company had secured an oilrig called the Ocean Guardian, which is at present operating in the North Sea. It will take more than two months to tow it to the south Atlantic after the journey begins in November. Conditions in the area where Desire is exploring for oil, which lies about 140km north of the Falklands, are similar to those in the North Sea, with fairly shallow water depths of at most 600m and reasonable weather conditions.

Related Links
North Sea oil exploration suffering as banks refuse to lend
Oil boom fuels mystery of the missing island
A spokesman said that the company, which has spent the past few years collecting seismic and electromagnetic data to determine the area’s geology, estimates it could hold about 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.


After the announcement by Desire, which is listed on AIM, its shares soared by 25p, or almost 40 per cent, to 90p.

No drilling has been carried out in the Falklands since 1998, when Shell and Lasmo drilled six wells in a nearby area. Oil was discovered in all but one of them — where gas was found instead — but the following year the global price of crude collapsed, undermining the commercial logic of developing oilfields in such a remote area.

Building the pipelines and other facilities necessary to tranform the Falklands into a significant oil exporter would cost many billions of pounds. However, vast reserves are thought to lie in the South Atlantic that could eventually justify the expense. A study by the British Geological Society suggested that up to 60 billion barrels of oil could lie beneath the seas to the north of the Falklands — a similar-sized deposit to the North Sea.

Other companies, such as Falkland Oil and Gas and Borders & Southern, are prospecting in another region that lies to the south of the islands in deeper and more challenging water up to 1,200m deep. They have yet to reveal any firm plans for drilling, which would require a more sophisticated vessel.

Phyl Rendell, director of the Falkland Islands Government Oil and Minerals Department, said the announcement by Desire was “excellent news” for the Falklands. A spokesman said that Desire would ship a full set of spares and replacement parts to the Falklands before drilling begins to minimise any delays in the event of technical problems. Desire did not say how much it was paying for the rig, but it is contracted to another company for $290,000 (£174,000) per day. It is thought that the Ocean Guardian could later be contracted to other companies operating in the region, such as Rockhopper.

Azfar Shaukat, director of oil and gas consulting with Mott Macdonald, the engineering company, said it was feasible that the Falklands could become a big oil-producing region, although it would probably need help from other countries, such as Brazil.

However, continued political tension persist over the Falklands, with Argentina still having territorial claims over the islands, which led to the conflict in 1982.

Other companies are interested in the oil riches of the South Atlantic. A consortium including Repsol of Spain, Petrobras of Brazil and BP-controlled Pan American Energy is also drawing up plans to drill in international waters to the west of the Falklands.

Opec holds steady

Oil prices were steady just below $70 yesterday after Opec, the oil producers’ cartel, decided to keep production levels unchanged amid mounting evidence of a global economic recovery (Robin Pagnamenta writes).

The cost of a barrel of Brent crude was up 8 cents at $69.61 after the 12 Opec member states, which together pump one third of the world’s oil, decided to leave production quotas unchanged at about 25 million barrels per day.

Ali al-Naimi, the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, said that prices were being driven by economic recovery. The International Energy Agency said that global demand would reach half a million barrels per day higher than previously expected this year and in 2010 because of recovering demand in America and Asia."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6829829.ece

[elrafaargentino]

England is violating the UN resolution, which urges the parties to the dispute over sovereignty in the "Question of the Malvinas Islands":
http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5jPdkwQfA6LciSC1vkNOYjyCZtx2g

[decim]

This is good news for Britain & British Falkland Islanders.

[hagbard_celine]

"Desire Petroleum aims to tap Falklands wells

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor


Penguins draw tourists to the Falklands, but oil companies are more interested in the vast reserves under the sea.

Hopes that the Falkland Islands could become a significant oil producer were boosted yesterday afteDesire Petroleum, a British company, unveiled plans to launch a large drilling programme there next year.



Of course! That's why the war happened in the first place.:eek::(

See this thread: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82618

Act 2 coming up?:rolleyes::(

[worlds beyond]

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

Ministry of Defence steps up surveillance of Argentinian navy as tensions escalate over black gold

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent


Thursday, 18 February 2010


The Falkland Islands may soon be the scene for a dispute over oil



The British military and the Foreign Office are stepping up surveillance of Argentinian naval action following the threat from Buenos Aires to blockade the Falkland Islands.


The imminent arrival of a British company’s oil rig in the area is an immediate source of friction between the two countries, which has reignited 28 years after the war with the discovery of rich petroleum and gas reserves around the islands.

The Argentinian government has declared that it was taking control of all shipping between its coastline and the disputed islands it calls Islas Malvinas and the adjoining South Georgia, a claim promptly rejected by the UK.

Related articles
Kim Sengupta: From sheep-shearers to would-be sheikhs
Britain 'maintaining' Falklands defences
Stuart Wallace: We watch Argentina's behaviour with bemusement
Search the news archive for more stories
Buenos Aires has demanded that the Falklands should suspend oil exploration on the seabed, which is estimated to contain 60 billion barrels of oil

– indicating that it has reserves on the scale of the North Sea. Last week Argentina detained a supply ship, the Thor Leader, which was transporting pipes to the islands from an Argentinian port.

The oil rig, the Ocean Guardian, is said to have been “buzzed” by Argentinian warplanes on its way to the South Atlantic, although other reports say that it may have been coastguard aircraft which was involved. Anibal Fernandez, the chef de cabinet in Buenos Aireas, said: “Any boat that wants to travel between ports on the Argentinian mainland to the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands? must first ask for permission from the Argentinian government.”

Following the 1982 war, an “economic zone” of 200 nautical miles was established around the Falklands. British military and diplomatic sources have stated that any attempt by the Argentinians to stop the rig in these waters would be in breach of international law.

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.

The Parliamentary all-party group on the Falklands yesterday called for Argentina’s ambassador in London to be censured over the actions of his government. The secretary of the group, the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, said: “Any attempt by Argentina to claim any sort of rights of sovereignty over the region is something we should take very seriously. I don’t think we should appease Buenos Aires – we found out last time what happens when we do that.”

Another member of the group, his fellow Tory MP Sir Nicholas Winterton, said: “They are trying to impede the economic progress of the Falkland Islands, because of course the encouragement of hydrocarbon exploration in the area is am important part of achieving a sustainable future for the islands.”

It is widely accepted the that Argentinian military does not have the capabilities to carry out another invasion of the islands, which are, in any case, far better defended now than they were three decades ago.

However, harassment of supply ships and the refusal to let them use Argentinian ports for supplies would significantly add to the cost for oil companies and, some analysts believe, this could be a tool to force the UK and the Falkland Islands to come to a deal with Buenos Aires.

There is also apprehension among some in Argentina that the situation may lead to the rejuvenation of the extreme right-wing in the country, which had been dormant since the fall of the military dictatorship.

Frederico Thomsen, a political analyst in Buenos Aires, said: “For centuries the Falklands were about some sheep, penguins and fish – and even so, we had a war. Should someone find ‘black gold’, things will get uncomfortable and nationalists will be stirred.”


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/falkland-islands-first-it-was-sovereignty-now-its-oil-1903003.html

[anthony1965]

Couldn't Britain and Argentina share the oil reserves? :)

[worlds beyond]

Couldn't Britain and Argentina share the oil reserves? :)

they could, but you can bet they won't.

As with everything, used with common sense and respect for the Earth, there is enough for everyone. If the whole world shared all resources between all the people, we'd all be living in a much safer, better and peaceful place.

[the apprentice]

If we were to have another war with Argentina over the islands we would not be able to do it today, all our forces are deployed elsewhere and they will by now have more than enough missiles to take out all shipping that enters the beach areas, we would need US help.

[marpat]

If we were to have another war with Argentina over the islands we would not be able to do it today, all our forces are deployed elsewhere and they will by now have more than enough missiles to take out all shipping that enters the beach areas, we would need US help.

Wrong. It is well defended. Dont forget that Argentina is pretty broke as well. The US owes us as well after we got involved in their wars. Last time we also had the alliance of Chile, who are not on good terms with Argentina.

[entrangermercenary]

If we were to have another war with Argentina over the islands we would not be able to do it today, all our forces are deployed elsewhere and they will by now have more than enough missiles to take out all shipping that enters the beach areas, we would need US help.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/6474887/Three-British-soldiers-shot-in-the-Falkland-Islands.html


If the Argentinians think this is a good time to restart a conflict and fancy there chances because we are involved in Afghan they are mistaken.
It wont take long to beef up the Garrison and these will be with battle hardened troops .

Again conscript v volunteer will come into play, and like I said most British front line troops have seen combat.

So seeing as you have the T-shirt you must of served in the Falklands !!!

[ben black]

Do not forget the last time the UK and Argentina went to war over the Falklands was at a time when Thatchers popularity was at its lowest.

The war and ensuing media propaganda boosted her popularity and the term "Iron Lady" stuck. Thatcher then used this popularity to go to war with the miners and thier unions. Without the war she wouldn't have stood a chance.

Maybe this is the last roll of Browns dice - his chance to show that he can lead? Win a short battle and use that as a springboard to try and win the election?

Plus the oil....

[anthony1965]

Do not forget the last time the UK and Argentina went to war over the Falklands was at a time when Thatchers popularity was at its lowest.

The war and ensuing media propaganda boosted her popularity and the term "Iron Lady" stuck. Thatcher then used this popularity to go to war with the miners and thier unions. Without the war she wouldn't have stood a chance.

Maybe this is the last roll of Browns dice - his chance to show that he can lead? Win a short battle and use that as a springboard to try and win the election?

Plus the oil....

But would they win?

If there are large oil reserves just off the Argentine coast, then Argentina will be motivated to build up its military to get the islands. And this time, they may have the backing of the Argentine people. Last time round many of the argentine soldiers were poorly equipped and poorly motivated conscripts. Nearly all Argentinians from my experience believe that the islands should belong to Argentina. Britain is not the only country in need of fresh income.

And the British military is already stretched by other engagements. How does the Royal Navy compare to 1982? And the RAF? Can Britain count on US support again? Or Chilean support?

Look at the Falkland islands on a map and see who has the strategic advantage in a new confrontation, which could of course be triggered by Argentina whenever it wanted. they could get in the first strike.

Was the first Falklands War encouraged by the Thatcher goverment, similar to the way the Americans encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait.

http://www.falklands.info/history/82timeline.html

Note that Britain supposedly didn't take the Argentine threats seriously despite warnings from British Intelligence. The Royal Marine presence was not remotely capable of dealing with any potential invasion. It looks very much like Argentina was goaded into the invasion to provide Maggie Thatcher with the military victory that won her the election.

Prior to the Falklands, Britain was reeling from mass unemployment and Thatcher was hated by many voters. She used the Falklands war to save her skin.

But the soldiers, sailors and airmen on both sides paid the price in lives, bodies and minds. No doubt that the Falklands War was an amazing success from a British military perspective, but to pul of the same trick twice is asking for trouble.

Share the oil and avoid conflict.

[anthony1965]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/6474887/Three-British-soldiers-shot-in-the-Falkland-Islands.html


If the Argentinians think this is a good time to restart a conflict and fancy there chances because we are involved in Afghan they are mistaken.
It wont take long to beef up the Garrison and these will be with battle hardened troops .

Again conscript v volunteer will come into play, and like I said most British front line troops have seen combat.

So seeing as you have the T-shirt you must of served in the Falklands !!!

The Argentines abolished conscription a few years back.

[decim]

Bring back 1982?
papa benny & the jetZ are stirring the pot again.

The Falklands War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War) started on Friday, 2 April 1982 with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

28 May 1982: Vatican CEO Pope John Paul II becomes first pontiff to visit Britain in an attempt to negotiate. (http://www.popejohnpaulii.org.uk/)

Pope to visit Britain in 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8271556.stm)

The last papal visit was in May 1982

Pope Benedict XVI is to visit Britain in 2010, the BBC has learned.

[entrangermercenary]

The Argentines abolished conscription a few years back.

Yes they have :o

Still are you saying that the Argentinians are capable of taking the Uk forces on in the falklands ??

I think 1 para, 42 cdo and the Gurkha's would inflict enuff damage if they decided to invade again.

Do you not think the MOD hasnt plans already in place for deployment, and fuck nows what they have said to the Argentinians behind the scenes either.
I would think a few subs will already being sent down there to back up the ones that are there.

Yes its a long way, they thought that last time as well !!!

Sharing it would be the ideal scenario, maybe the Uk will demand that they forever give up any idea of owning the Falklands for a slice of the oil revenue ?? !!

[decim]

Looks like a blockade is on the cards.

On Wednesday (http://momento24.com/en/2010/02/18/england-is-closely-monitoring-the-issue-of-the-malvinas/), British government stated that “they are following closely” the Falkland Islands situation after Argentine government announced it would take “appropriate measures” to prevent the British oil exploration in the archipelago.

British Foreign and Commonwealth Minister Chris Bryant said: “We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the islands and we are clear that the Falkland Islands Government has right to develop oil industry in its waters.

He added that “We are closely monitoring the situation but we will not respond to every event in Argentina.”

Bryant also stated that “We continue to focus on supporting the government of the Falklands to develop legitimate activities in their territory.”

The hydrocarbon potential in the basin of the Falklands is one of the points of greatest conflict in the dispute over sovereignty.

Argentine Deputy Foreign Minister Victorio Taccetta had accused Britain of “exploits natural resources of Argentina unilaterally and illegitimately. So, the country must take appropriate measures to defend their interests and rights peacefully.

One measure was the decree signed by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, demanded ‘prior permission to ships bound for the Falklands through which it will make more difficult oil exploration in the islands’.

[anthony1965]

Yes they have :o

Still are you saying that the Argentinians are capable of taking the Uk forces on in the falklands ??

I think 1 para, 42 cdo and the Gurkha's would inflict enuff damage if they decided to invade again.

Do you not think the MOD hasnt plans already in place for deployment, and fuck nows what they have said to the Argentinians behind the scenes either.
I would think a few subs will already being sent down there to back up the ones that are there.

Yes its a long way, they thought that last time as well !!!

Sharing it would be the ideal scenario, maybe the Uk will demand that they forever give up any idea of owning the Falklands for a slice of the oil revenue ?? !!

I'm not saying that Argentina would win, but I don't think it would be as easy as last time round.

As I wrote in my other post, the British solidiers on the ground did an amazing job in military terms, but I think the Falklands War was a setup to give Thatcher a boost. If they'd reacted more firmly earlier on in the crisis, then Argentina would have thought twice. As I said, to think that a handful of Royal Marines in Stanley could stop an invasion was ridiculous.

"Britain was initially taken by surprise by the Argentine attack on the South Atlantic islands, despite repeated warnings by Royal Navy captain Nicholas Barker and others. Barker believed that the intention expressed in Defence Secretary John Nott's 1981 review to withdraw the Royal Navy ship HMS Endurance, Britain's only naval presence in the South Atlantic, sent a signal to the Argentines that Britain was unwilling, and would soon be unable, to defend her territories and subjects in the Falklands."

The Junta in Argentina back then were a bunch of murderous Nazis, but they were deemed fit to hold the World Cup in 1978. This time round I think the advantages would all be with Argentina. If Britain beefs up its military presence in the Falklands it will cost money and commit soldiers who are needed elsewhere. The British armed forces are stretched. Can the nation afford the defences that would be necessary?

Take a good look at the map and ask yourself whether Argentina will sit back forever and let Britain pump the oil out of the offshore fields. The Falklands (Malvinas) is one issue that unites pretty much all Argentinians.

http://www.naturalist.co.uk/maps/Falklands.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457033/html/nn2page1.stm

[mr fiddler]

Our boys need to get in there and protect our oil reserves.

Britain keeps the oil, the Argies can have the world cup.

sounds fair to me

[the apprentice]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/6474887/Three-British-soldiers-shot-in-the-Falkland-Islands.html


If the Argentinians think this is a good time to restart a conflict and fancy there chances because we are involved in Afghan they are mistaken.
It wont take long to beef up the Garrison and these will be with battle hardened troops .

Again conscript v volunteer will come into play, and like I said most British front line troops have seen combat.

So seeing as you have the T-shirt you must of served in the Falklands !!!

I didn't actually fight in the war, I missed it because I was still in training, but the regiment only just managed it, the argentinians were predominantly untrained and very young conscripts and not really up to the job, but had they been trained as well as our guys we would have lost.

I have been there however before all the new runway etc, living in floating ex prison barge blocks, bloody awfull place, we went fishing with hand grenades one day :D,

[bigscotsman]

Our boys need to get in there and protect our oil reserves.

Britain keeps the oil, the Argies can have the world cup.

sounds fair to me

our boys? you been reading the sun, you must mean the banker's boys


if the government actually cared about them defending our values they'd be on the fucking borders and making sure the deluge of migrants through the channel tunnel was stopped.

[marpat]

I didn't actually fight in the war, I missed it because I was still in training, but the regiment only just managed it, the argentinians were predominantly untrained and very young conscripts and not really up to the job, but had they been trained as well as our guys we would have lost.

I have been there however before all the new runway etc, living in floating ex prison barge blocks, bloody awfull place, we went fishing with hand grenades one day :D,

And I have been there after it was all built up.

Not all units came across conscripts. Conscripted units were often led by career officers and NCO's who punished soldiers sternly for failure. I have even read accounts of conscripts fighting to the bitter end as well.

[marpat]

our boys? you been reading the sun, you must mean the banker's boys


if the government actually cared about them defending our values they'd be on the fucking borders and making sure the deluge of migrants through the channel tunnel was stopped.

Actually that would be a police job and now we have open border with Europe there is nothing we can do legally to stop people enetring from France. They know that, thats why they help them on their way, to stop their country getting filled with all the dregs

[kodiak]

If it's about oil, can anyone really say the UK element of the Anglo-American establishment would let Argentina have so much as a sniff? Given that our troops are fighting a "war on terror" that's actually an occupation mission in strategically sensitive regions in terms of nailing down natural resources for the future... No way, Jose.

[worlds beyond]

...to stop their country getting filled with all the dregs

Is that really how you view your fellow human beings?
What makes you so sure you will not be in their shoes next time around??

[rydeon]

Trust me this is a good thing.

It sends a clear message to the Argentines that the UK is not going to be caught with its pants down like it was in 1982.

[entrangermercenary]

I'm not saying that Argentina would win, but I don't think it would be as easy as last time round.

As I wrote in my other post, the British solidiers on the ground did an amazing job in military terms, but I think the Falklands War was a setup to give Thatcher a boost. If they'd reacted more firmly earlier on in the crisis, then Argentina would have thought twice. As I said, to think that a handful of Royal Marines in Stanley could stop an invasion was ridiculous.

"Britain was initially taken by surprise by the Argentine attack on the South Atlantic islands, despite repeated warnings by Royal Navy captain Nicholas Barker and others. Barker believed that the intention expressed in Defence Secretary John Nott's 1981 review to withdraw the Royal Navy ship HMS Endurance, Britain's only naval presence in the South Atlantic, sent a signal to the Argentines that Britain was unwilling, and would soon be unable, to defend her territories and subjects in the Falklands."

The Junta in Argentina back then were a bunch of murderous Nazis, but they were deemed fit to hold the World Cup in 1978. This time round I think the advantages would all be with Argentina. If Britain beefs up its military presence in the Falklands it will cost money and commit soldiers who are needed elsewhere. The British armed forces are stretched. Can the nation afford the defences that would be necessary?

Take a good look at the map and ask yourself whether Argentina will sit back forever and let Britain pump the oil out of the offshore fields. The Falklands (Malvinas) is one issue that unites pretty much all Argentinians.

http://www.naturalist.co.uk/maps/Falklands.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457033/html/nn2page1.stm


The Argentinians can be united all they like as in the last conflict.... it got them no where !!!!
Hey all we will have to do is ask our American allies to let HAARP rip at Buenos aires and that should settle that would it not.??

[eternal wheel]

Hey all we will have to do is ask our American allies to let HAARP rip at Buenos aires and that should settle that would it not.??

:D:D:D:D:rolleyes:

[marpat]

The Argentinians can be united all they like as in the last conflict.... it got them no where !!!!
Hey all we will have to do is ask our American allies to let HAARP rip at Buenos aires and that should settle that would it not.??

A few subs or ships with cruise missiles would make a nice mess of the capital and their air bases as well

[icarus]

this is gonna be interesting. there they are fully committed fighting USraela's wars, and this flares up again

i guess a few hospitals will just have to shut down so we can send the heroes down there again

[guuna]

Why Brown wants to cause problems now? Is it only for oil or he want to look away to something else while something happens in England?

Most likely he wants to draw attention away from economic problems back in the UK and like Thatcher in '82 may boost his popularity in a jingoistic fashion by a 'pariotic' war.

[guuna]

A few subs or ships with cruise missiles would make a nice mess of the capital and their air bases as well

Very dangerous thinking.

In all honesty the UK is currently in no position to fight a war, the realityof the situation is that it's hands would be tied by the EU, can't see Argentina's historical allies within the EU Like Spain and Italy giving the UK an easy time on this.

[marpat]

Most likely he wants to draw attention away from economic problems back in the UK and like Thatcher in '82 may boost his popularity in a jingoistic fashion by a 'pariotic' war.

That wont happen. I think most of the public are a bit fed up with the current conflicts and if labour take us into another one it will fuck them right up.

[whiterain]

Trust me this is a good thing.

It sends a clear message to the Argentines that the UK is not going to be caught with its pants down like it was in 1982.

you a fan of the pre emptive strike option too?

when has british imperialist warmongering ever been a good thing?

[clint_giles]

this might be nothing more then the uk shoreing up the southern part of america

getting ready for when northcom takes over

[dreamweaver]

That wont happen. I think most of the public are a bit fed up with the current conflicts and if labour take us into another one it will fuck them right up.

I would have thought most of the military are fed up with them too!

[lackingsleep]

Very dangerous thinking.

In all honesty the UK is currently in no position to fight a war, the realityof the situation is that it's hands would be tied by the EU, can't see Argentina's historical allies within the EU Like Spain and Italy giving the UK an easy time on this.

We were in the EU in 1982 as well. UK sovereignty of the Falklands is fully established and internationally recognised. The Spaniards and Italians cannot side with the Argentinians if they are aggressors against the territory of a fellow EU state. End of.

Let's face it the argentinians are not in any state to fight a war either. Their army is greatly reduced since 1982. The Falklands is well defended by and defences can be rapidly bolstered using the rapid reaction force, bringing the total forces that can be deployed to the Falklands within a week to roughly half the size of the entire Argentine army. Better trained, better equipped and battle-hardened in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The Argentinians won't try it on again.

But setting aside the potential for full-scale military conflict which is minimal you have to wonder at the wisdom of pumping all that oil out and shipping it away from under the Argentinians noses. The way forward is to seek ways in which the region can benefit from the oil wealth. How that would happen I don't know but surely there has to be some middle ground.

[guuna]

We were in the EU in 1982 as well. UK sovereignty of the Falklands is fully established and internationally recognised. The Spaniards and Italians cannot side with the Argentinians if they are aggressors against the territory of a fellow EU state. End of.

Let's face it the argentinians are not in any state to fight a war either. Their army is greatly reduced since 1982. The Falklands is well defended by and defences can be rapidly bolstered using the rapid reaction force, bringing the total forces that can be deployed to the Falklands within a week to roughly half the size of the entire Argentine army. Better trained, better equipped and battle-hardened in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The Argentinians won't try it on again.

But setting aside the potential for full-scale military conflict which is minimal you have to wonder at the wisdom of pumping all that oil out and shipping it away from under the Argentinians noses. The way forward is to seek ways in which the region can benefit from the oil wealth. How that would happen I don't know but surely there has to be some middle ground.

mm...ok what you say is true, but let me reiterate and clarify a few points.

British forces are at utter and total full stretch at the moment, so deploying those combat proven veterans will be out of the question.

Even if they were deployed, Afghanistan and Iraq may prove to be totally different fields of operations( a switch from couter-insurgency to state-on state warfare) with completely different climatic conditions and equiptment contingencies.

Also the EU as it existed in 1982 (largely an economic grouping) bears hardly any resemblence to what it has become today, a facist political superstate in the making.

For these reasons, I think any war is highly unlikely, of course there may be sabre-rattling coming from both sides but neither is likely to take any steps that would lead to war.

perhaps if free energy were to become available and the oil cartels stopped surpressing energy saving inventions ( i believe there have been many) we would never land up in these 'oil wars' situations.

[lackingsleep]

mm...ok what you say is true, but let me reiterate and clarify a few points.

British forces are at utter and total full stretch at the moment, so deploying those combat proven veterans will be out of the question.



Forces are obviously stretched but rapid deployment is not out of the question. The JRRF is in fact only one brigade below strength and has combat groups at extreme high readiness ready for deployment at any time. In fact it's designed to cope with another Falklands-type scenario. The Argentinians know this and with a much smaller army focused on peace support missions they are not positioned to go to war over the Falklands.

But if it did happen there is no way the Italians or Spanish could prevent the UK reacting. And IMO there's no way we wouldn't react. The public might not have much appetite for Afghanistan but they would be far more supportive of a Falklands war.

[guuna]

Forces are obviously stretched but rapid deployment is not out of the question. The JRRF is in fact only one brigade below strength and has combat groups at extreme high readiness ready for deployment at any time. In fact it's designed to cope with another Falklands-type scenario. The Argentinians know this and with a much smaller army focused on peace support missions they are not positioned to go to war over the Falklands.

But if it did happen there is no way the Italians or Spanish could prevent the UK reacting. And IMO there's no way we wouldn't react. The public might not have much appetite for Afghanistan but they would be far more supportive of a Falklands war.

That is the problem... we should never let ourselves be manipulated into any war, no matter how much it is spun. I can just see the Sun dusting off it's old headlines like 'stick it up your Junta'.

In any case, I am lead to understand that some of the companies vying for drilling rights in the Islands' waters are Spanish and German, so Eu member states.

I would hope that the British public would not fall for any such manipulation, no matter how much it's tarted up by jingoistic propaganda.

Happily, lackingsleep, there is very little real prospect of any war or round two, and for that we can be grateful and there won't be any troops sent needlessly to their deaths to satisfy the hubris of any career politician (yes, i'm looking at you Mr Bliar.)

[marpat]

you a fan of the pre emptive strike option too?

when has british imperialist warmongering ever been a good thing?

Are we any different from the Argies who want to take the islands away from the people who inhabit it? do they ahve some special right to be able to attack those islands by force? no, they dont and they are no better

Who said anything about pre-emptive strike. They are bullding up defences, which is a totally different thing

If Britain is ruling those islands and the Argies start sabre rattling then who is the real warmonger? you fail to conceal your hatred of Britain.

[dreamweaver]

We were in the EU in 1982 as well.

But they were still maintaining the pretence that it was purely an economic union in those days.

Not that I'm aware of the EU having any powers yet to prevent Britain defending its territories. I'm just pointing out that the EEC (as it was called then) was quite a different beast to the EU of today.

[cpfc12]

I would have thought most of the military are fed up with them too!

Nah not the young ones joining, they want to play toy soldiers

[marpat]

Nah not the young ones joining, they want to play toy soldiers

How derogatory. I think it is common in a lot of men to want to undergo something as a right of passage into manhood and the army looks like a way for them to do that. You claim they want to play soldiers but the truth is that in a short time they will be battle hardened men. Maybe you should go and tell them that to their face, what could a young kid do to you?

[worlds beyond]

How derogatory. I think it is common in a lot of men to want to undergo something as a right of passage into manhood and the army looks like a way for them to do that. You claim they want to play soldiers but the truth is that in a short time they will be battle hardened men. Maybe you should go and tell them that to their face, what could a young kid do to you?



there is nothing at all 'manly' about murdering or maiming, be it under the guise of 'national interests' or otherwise.

... as for "battle-hardened men"?? you really should have a chat with a relative of mine, who spent 30+ years in British Military at senior level.

[entrangermercenary]

there is nothing at all 'manly' about murdering or maiming, be it under the guise of 'national interests' or otherwise.

... as for "battle-hardened men"?? you really should have a chat with a relative of mine, who spent 30+ years in British Military at senior level.

Senior level wtf has that got to do with battle hardened men then ???

[worlds beyond]

Senior level wtf has that got to do with battle hardened men then ???

To clarify, he ended career at senior level. He started out front line. And at senior level, had more "blood on his hands" so to speak, and more knowledge of things happening behind the propoganda/spin given to troops, as well as public.

There is nothing to be proud of about "serving your country" via the military.

[marpat]

there is nothing at all 'manly' about murdering or maiming, be it under the guise of 'national interests' or otherwise.

... as for "battle-hardened men"?? you really should have a chat with a relative of mine, who spent 30+ years in British Military at senior level.

So if they kill somebody shooting at them then they are murdering?

I suppose you think the Afghan are dead manly when they use roadside bombs though

Is your relative a rupert perhaps.

[marpat]

To clarify, he ended career at senior level. He started out front line. And at senior level, had more "blood on his hands" so to speak, and more knowledge of things happening behind the propoganda/spin given to troops, as well as public.

There is nothing to be proud of about "serving your country" via the military.

And did he say that or is it your thoughts

At least he was happy enough to go the distance to get his pension though

What do you mean by senior level, a high ranking officer, like a colonel or general or something?

[entrangermercenary]

To clarify, he ended career at senior level. He started out front line. And at senior level, had more "blood on his hands" so to speak, and more knowledge of things happening behind the propoganda/spin given to troops, as well as public.

There is nothing to be proud of about "serving your country" via the military.

Just as well you were not around in 1939 then or as they say we would all be speaking German. :mad: :mad: :mad:

What a load of wank

Im still asking what has it got to do with battle hardened troops. If you have had a few tours and have been in combat conditions for months at a time you are battle hardened. Its a statement of truth , not fucking pie in the sky !!!

Of course shit happens behind the scenes, dont you think soldiers know that ffs. It aint a big secret deals get done :rolleyes:

[worlds beyond]

And did he say that or is it your thoughts

At least he was happy enough to go the distance to get his pension though

What do you mean by senior level, a high ranking officer, like a colonel or general or something?


his thoughts, his words. He only started talking about it a few years ago.
No, not as high level as that, but enough to be informed about some of the "truths" which were hidden.

[worlds beyond]

Just as well you were not around in 1939 then or as they say we would all be speaking German. :mad: :mad: :mad:

What a load of wank

Im still asking what has it got to do with battle hardened troops. If you have had a few tours and have been in combat conditions for months at a time you are battle hardened. Its a statement of truth , not fucking pie in the sky !!!

Of course shit happens behind the scenes, dont you think soldiers know that ffs. It aint a big secret deals get done :rolleyes:



how eloquent. not to mention predictable.


Am not here to sideline thread into a different debate... so, back to the OP issue.

[entrangermercenary]

how eloquent. not to mention predictable.


Am not here to sideline thread into a different debate... so, back to the OP issue.

What you onabout. Were we not talking about battle hardend troops ?? Did you not bring the behind the scenes shit up ??

Do you really not think that the troops don't know whats going on. Does it annoy you that they love it !!! Ask yourself why do people join. ??

People who have joined since the gulf war know there is a huge chance they will be in combat at some time in there early military service. Eh you dont train for a year or so then think yep lets go on barrack guard duty ffs :rolleyes:

You said High ranking or did I get that wrong. Captain or major and anything below isnt high ranking !!!

[worlds beyond]

What you onabout. Were we not talking about battle hardend troops ?? Did you not bring the behind the scenes shit up ??

Do you really not think that the troops don't know whats going on. Does it annoy you that they love it !!! Ask yourself why do people join. ??

People who have joined since the gulf war know there is a huge chance they will be in combat at some time in there early military service. Eh you dont train for a year or so then think yep lets go on barrack guard duty ffs :rolleyes:

You said High ranking or did I get that wrong. Captain or major and anything below isnt high ranking !!!




I said "senior level", and simply said he wasn't Colonel or General. I am aware of the correct titles and ranks.


ok, we obviously have very different views, and I don't wish to derail the thread, nor enter into a battle with you, so let's agree to differ. There's no point wasting time or energy with getting antsy or personal over an issue we simply have opposite views on.

[the apprentice]

The shils are getting us all to look south west when we really should be looking south east.

[entrangermercenary]

I said "senior level", and simply said he wasn't Colonel or General. I am aware of the correct titles and ranks.


ok, we obviously have very different views, and I don't wish to derail the thread, nor enter into a battle with you, so let's agree to differ. There's no point wasting time or energy with getting antsy or personal over an issue we simply have opposite views on.

Why not Im battle hardened :p ;)

[entrangermercenary]

The shils are getting us all to look south west when we really should be looking south east.

Is that your input then ??

[marpat]

his thoughts, his words. He only started talking about it a few years ago.
No, not as high level as that, but enough to be informed about some of the "truths" which were hidden.

So what rank did he finish at?

[dynamicwiseman]

I hope this spill the end of the New labour government and the destruction of "Great" Britain.

The day this island is sunk like Atlantis is the day i rejoice. :)

[cpfc12]

How derogatory. I think it is common in a lot of men to want to undergo something as a right of passage into manhood and the army looks like a way for them to do that. You claim they want to play soldiers but the truth is that in a short time they will be battle hardened men. Maybe you should go and tell them that to their face, what could a young kid do to you?

Not really, most of them are mates my age, even one or two of my cousins ... they don't really care, just want to have a go at one of the big guns and somehow gain respect. Part of me doesn't blame them, if everytime you open up the papers, and you are faced with some sort of "blitz time" frenzy, and something that seems more glorious than tescos and xfactor.
Its like modern warfare 2 but real :)

[marpat]

Not really, most of them are mates my age, even one or two of my cousins ... they don't really care, just want to have a go at one of the big guns and somehow gain respect. Part of me doesn't blame them, if everytime you open up the papers, and you are faced with some sort of "blitz time" frenzy, and something that seems more glorious than tescos and xfactor.
Its like modern warfare 2 but real :)

Its not like a game at all. No respawn in real life.

[cpfc12]

Its not like a game at all. No respawn in real life.

Tell that to them, not me

[cpfc12]

But cmon when you have adverts (ironically the forum haven't commented on) decipting the army as being a game, and then the use of UAV drone bombers with xbox controllers, its giving out a certain message. Its desensitisation* to the fullest

[marpat]

Tell that to them, not me

I think they already realise that.

[marpat]

But cmon when you have adverts (ironically the forum haven't commented on) decipting the army as being a game, and then the use of UAV drone bombers with xbox controllers, its giving out a certain message. Its desensitisation* to the fullest

Well they have to use some sort of controller and why not use something that can be bought over the counter for very littel rather than having a design team come up with a new and expensive controller.

Can you point me to an advert that makes the army look like a game

[concordewarrior]

Old Maggie is still alive she can advise what to do on the Falklands.

I'd say to the Brits send these Eurofighters/Typhoons and scare the hell out of the Argentinians!

:D

Go UK! :)

[cpfc12]

Well they have to use some sort of controller and why not use something that can be bought over the counter for very littel rather than having a design team come up with a new and expensive controller.

Can you point me to an advert that makes the army look like a game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR4eqrgMrz0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFCrQbxv7P0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoPsPl9Uns&feature=related

Remember marpat im speaking about people my age, people i am mates with, i was even booked for an appointment at an army recruitment office, sudden change of events meant i didn't enlist. I can't speak about life on the frontline (no shit) but i can certainly talk about why people my age group are joining in their droves.

[cpfc12]

Further information
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6207420.html?sid=6207420&part=rss&subj=6207420

[orage]

I sense a bit nostalgic British colonial pride in this thread.

"Our boys..."

So there may be a bit of oil around the Maldives, but don't you think strategic control of Antarctica is the real price? And then there's the old Nazi connection with Argentina and Paraguay.

http://greyfalcon.us/restored/THE%20PHOENIX%20RISES.htm

[informationx]

Lets hope the people of both countrys dont get dragged into a power profit game of old mens greed.

If they want the fucking oil, let them duke it out between themselves.

[dynamicwiseman]

All this from people who think they are awake. "our boys" lol they are NWO boys doing their bidding for the petrochemical companies.

The English Empire... Argentina is the new India lol.

[guuna]

All this from people who think they are awake. "our boys" lol they are NWO boys doing their bidding for the petrochemical companies.

The English Empire... Argentina is the new India lol.

seriously worrying.

some people would seem to think that Afganistan and Iraq wars are 'wrong', and yet somehow round 2 in the Falklands would somehow be patriotic and good.

No war is ever right or justified, don't lets fall for that shit again please.

[guuna]

Well they have to use some sort of controller and why not use something that can be bought over the counter for very littel rather than having a design team come up with a new and expensive controller.

Can you point me to an advert that makes the army look like a game

The current crop of recruitment adds for the military playing on T.V certainly glamorize the lifestyle where you can step on a landmine or get shredded by machinegun fire.

Ironically there are ads stating how dangerous smoking and consuming alcohol are, and what bastards girls boyfriends can be for beating them up (fabian agenda.), yet no mention is made in the military recruitment ads about the possibility of treading on a landmine. MOD double standards.

[hagbard_celine]

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



It was always oil.:(

To this day we see the 1982 conflict in very simplistic terms: that is was an act of redemption and justice. Argentina stole the islands illegally and we went in to take them back, and to free the Falklander people who wanted to remain British. This all sounds very noble:rolleyes:, but since when has the govt ever done anything for the good of the people?:eek:

I think Margaret Thatcher was so stupid she actually believed her own propaganda on that war, but Gordon Brown won't!

[wakeup2nwo]

is this all part of TPTB agenda of going to war with every country that doesn't want a new world order? like Argentina and Cuba ect..?

[decim]

No oil back when..

The English navigator (http://www.falklandislands.com/contents/view/137/about-falklands/history/falklands-history-&-culture), John Davis, aboard the "Desire" made the first confirmed sighting of the Islands in 1592. Today the Falkland Island flag and Coat-of-Arms depict the sailing ship "Desire" along with the legend "Desire the Right". The first landing is attributed to the British Captain, John Strong, in 1690 at Bold Cove, Port Howard on West Falkland.

It was always oil.:(

[decim]

A drilling we will go..

Published 20 February, 2010, 08:14

Edited 20 February, 2010, 14:40

Tensions are mounting over British plans to start oil production near the Falkland Islands. London says drilling will start on Sunday despite Argentina's vehement opposition.

The disputed archipelago is a particularly sore topic for Buenos Aires, after a war was fought for it in the 1980s.

It has been 28 years since British forces swept in to take back the Falkland Islands following an Argentinean invasion. And although nearly 3 decades have passed, the UK once again finds itself at loggerheads with Argentina, with the South American country threatening to stop a British oil rig drilling in disputed waters off the Falklands.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-02-20/britain-falkland-islands-argentina.html

[entrangermercenary]

A drilling we will go..

Published 20 February, 2010, 08:14

Edited 20 February, 2010, 14:40

Tensions are mounting over British plans to start oil production near the Falkland Islands. London says drilling will start on Sunday despite Argentina's vehement opposition.

The disputed archipelago is a particularly sore topic for Buenos Aires, after a war was fought for it in the 1980s.

It has been 28 years since British forces swept in to take back the Falkland Islands following an Argentinean invasion. And although nearly 3 decades have passed, the UK once again finds itself at loggerheads with Argentina, with the South American country threatening to stop a British oil rig drilling in disputed waters off the Falklands.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-02-20/britain-falkland-islands-argentina.html

We shall see how serious this is by the Argentinian actions with regards to this platform. Will they let it drill or take it out !!!

I would think some of Armour group may well be helping with security of the platform with ex boat squadron doing the protection ;)

[decim]

They would be foolish to attempt taking lives or sabotaging property...

Argentina has said it wants dialogue with the UK in the row over planned British oil drilling around the Falkland Islands.

Deputy Foreign Minister Victorio Taccetti added that Argentina could do little beyond the new controls it had imposed on shipping to the islands.

The UK has said the oil exploration conforms to international law.

An oil rig from the UK has arrived in the Falklands' waters, with drilling due to begin on Sunday.

Earlier this week, Argentina announced that special permits would be required by all ships heading from its ports or through its waters to the Falklands.

Buenos Aires is also hoping its neighbouring countries will co-operate to impose South America-wide restrictions.

Mr Taccetti said: "We are trying to convince the British that it is in their interest to negotiate with Argentina.

"This is not an escalation, this is just something that we have to do in order to protect our rights - because we consider that this exploration and eventual exploitation of our natural resources is illegal."

He said Argentina would use "all the legal means to restrict the access to the islands from the continent", but added: "I don't think we can go much further."

Geologists say there could be rich energy reserves in the ocean bed surrounding the British Overseas Territory of the Falklands.

But Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas.

'Properly protected'

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said all British oil exploration in the area is "completely in accordance with international law".

The rig, the Ocean Guardian, has been travelling from Invergordon in the Cromarty Firth since November.

Owner Desire Petroleum said its rig "has not gone anywhere near Argentine waters", and it had therefore not sought permission from the Argentine government.

The rig will be tethered about 60 miles off the islands over the weekend before drilling begins on Sunday.

The Falklands Legislative Assembly said that Argentina's bid to disrupt oil exploration was "no surprise" but "nonetheless disappointing".

The statement added that "all the supplies the industry needs are located here in the islands" and drilling would begin as planned next week, "weather permitting".

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said the government has "made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland islanders are properly protected".

Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, before a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel.

Last year, Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands - all UK territories.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN next week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8525734.stm

We shall see how serious this is by the Argentinian actions with regards to this platform. Will they let it drill or take it out !!!

I would think some of Armour group may well be helping with security of the platform with ex boat squadron doing the protection ;)

[jiffy]

Just wait until Russia, Canada and Norway fight over the Arctic:eek:

I do find it interesting how some people have chosen or simple ignorant to the fact that Thatcher escalated the war by sinking the "Belgrano" which was not only outside the exclution zone but steaming away from it.

It just so happened that at that time we had riots on on our streets and 1 in 10 unemployed.

Once the "nationalist" flag was risen as can be seen on here ATM this was all forgot....the fog of War came down...Oh the joys of the ignorant!!:rolleyes:

[jiffy]

is this all part of TPTB agenda of going to war with every country that doesn't want a new world order? like Argentina and Cuba ect..?


As always you see things that many others miss;)

[entrangermercenary]

Just wait until Russia, Canada and Norway fight over the Arctic:eek:

I do find it interesting how some people have chosen or simple ignorant to the fact that Thatcher escalated the war by sinking the "Belgrano" which was not only outside the exclution zone but steaming away from it.

It just so happened that at that time we had riots on on our streets and 1 in 10 unemployed.

Once the "nationalist" flag was risen as can be seen on here ATM this was all forgot....the fog of War came down...Oh the joys of the ignorant!!:rolleyes:


Are you just plain stupid. ?? It was a war and it didnt matter what fucking way the BELGRANO was sailing at the time it was torpedoed . It was deemed a threat to British shipping. Ever heard of a dogleg ?? Ships will often change course only to change course again.

Funny you should do some research on the subject and see the Argentinian governments perspective on it, and how they agreed later on it was a legitimate target.

Once the nationalist flag was risen :confused: Well if you dont like the Uk go away and live in a cave somewhere in Europe. Do you pay taxes ??

[bealert]

Are you just plain stupid. ?? It was a war and it didnt matter what fucking way the BELGRANO was sailing at the time it was torpedoed . It was deemed a threat to British shipping. Ever heard of a dogleg ?? Ships will often change course only to change course again.

Funny you should do some research on the subject and see the Argentinian governments perspective on it, and how they agreed later on it was a legitimate target.

Once the nationalist flag was risen :confused: Well if you dont like the Uk go away and live in a cave somewhere in Europe. Do you pay taxes ??
It was out side the exclusion zone set by the British ..you cant have a exclusion zone and then attack a ship outside it..sailing further away from it ..what's the point of having it. Did you just make up the dog leg stuff ? its not very convincing im afraid

[entrangermercenary]

It was out side the exclusion zone set by the British ..you cant have a exclusion zone and then attack a ship outside it..sailing further away from it ..what's the point of having it. Did you just make up the dog leg stuff ? its not very convincing im afraid

Well actually m8 the 200mile exclusion zone was for civilian shipping. When you are at war there is no exclusion zone for enemy combatants :rolleyes:
Next !!!

Ps HURRY up its half time :)

[rydeon]

It was out side the exclusion zone set by the British ..you cant have a exclusion zone and then attack a ship outside it..sailing further away from it ..what's the point of having it. Did you just make up the dog leg stuff ? its not very convincing im afraid

In war the rule book goes out the window. Exclusion zone? That's a formality to keep the UN and rule-book types calm.

If you want to cry about the lives lost on the Belgrano go right ahead. Storming a marine barracks to shoot potential sleeping soldiers is a bit brutal as well. It didn't work though as they'd already evacuated and looked on as they did so.

Also the Brits gave the Argies umpteen chances to withdraw while the task-force sailed closer and closer.
Each time the arrogance of the junta showed no bounds and they suffered the consequences.

The fact is that oil and gas belongs to the UK, not Argentina, or would you have the lives lost in 1982 be all in vain?
We can all assume zero-point energy is around the corner but if it isn't it's handy to have something tangible and doable.

[howie]

Interesting that JP Morgan are among the shareholders in the drilling companies.

Any oil found may 'belong to the UK' but the people of the UK won't see any benefit from it.

[jiffy]

Are you just plain stupid. ?? It was a war and it didnt matter what fucking way the BELGRANO was sailing at the time it was torpedoed . It was deemed a threat to British shipping. Ever heard of a dogleg ?? Ships will often change course only to change course again.

Funny you should do some research on the subject and see the Argentinian governments perspective on it, and how they agreed later on it was a legitimate target.

Once the nationalist flag was risen :confused: Well if you dont like the Uk go away and live in a cave somewhere in Europe. Do you pay taxes ??

So my Tax status gives me more or less legitimacy?

I don't like Nationalism, so I have to leave the UK and live in a cave, what a fitting dwelling for a football, tribal, Nationalist poorly read Goyim.

[jiffy]

Interesting that JP Morgan are among the shareholders in the drilling companies.

Any oil found may 'belong to the UK' but the people of the UK won't see any benefit from it.

Yes but all these war mongering nationalist ignoramus haven't worked that out yet.

IF these Island produced 60 billion barrels of oil and the oil companies were nationalized, then the national debt that you keep being told will take generations to pay off would easily be settled, with change to spare!!

[entrangermercenary]

So my Tax status gives me more or less legitimacy?

I don't like Nationalism, so I have to leave the UK and live in a cave, what a fitting dwelling for a football, tribal, Nationalist poorly read Goyim.

You have no argument. You didnt have a clue what the exclusion zone meant !! The Belgrano was part of a 2pronged attack on the Navy the other part was the aircraft carrier the 25de mayo. So the Belgrano was sunk, guess what the aircraft carrier and the other Argentinian ships fucked off back to port rapid and didnt come out to play again during the whole conflict.

Trouble is m8 I deal with the reality as it actually happens on the ground. Do you really think that each individual is going to see any of the oil wealth. Of course not ffs.

Yes , fuck off and live in a cave. Read all the books you like, you remind me of all these health and safety experts....They think they can put things into practice that practically don't work in the real world ;)

[freedom1st]

You have no argument. You didnt have a clue what the exclusion zone meant !! The Belgrano was part of a 2pronged attack on the Navy the other part was the aircraft carrier the 25de mayo. So the Belgrano was sunk, guess what the aircraft carrier and the other Argentinian ships fucked off back to port rapid and didnt come out to play again during the whole conflict.

Trouble is m8 I deal with the reality as it actually happens on the ground. Do you really think that each individual is going to see any of the oil wealth. Of course not ffs.
Yes , fuck off and live in a cave. Read all the books you like, you remind me of all these health and safety experts....They think they can put things into practice that practically don't work in the real world ;)


Now this really makes me laugh! You hear people say things like: 'well it's our oil' or 'we need the money from the oil'. There is no way on earth that a single person in the UK will benefit from any oil in the Falklands or anywhere else. Other than having to pay an arm and a leg for it.
NOTHING that the ptb obtain in the name of the British Empire ever finds it's way to the people. It never has and it never will.

[guuna]

It was always oil.:(

To this day we see the 1982 conflict in very simplistic terms: that is was an act of redemption and justice. Argentina stole the islands illegally and we went in to take them back, and to free the Falklander people who wanted to remain British. This all sounds very noble:rolleyes:, but since when has the govt ever done anything for the good of the people?:eek:

I think Margaret Thatcher was so stupid she actually believed her own propaganda on that war, but Gordon Brown won't!

There's an outside chance that Brown may attempt to use this as provocation for a war in an attempt to get himself re-elected by appealing to the Nationalistic ego of some of the electorate.

Also he may be able to cancel the election in a time of national crisis.

All of this is very unlikely of course, but who know?

[kaiser]

Is it me or has anybody wonderd if Brown (Gordon), would try improve his popularity and re-election prospects by possibly trying to do a "maggy" style falklands "defence" AKA Flaklands mk2?

[lightgiver]

Is it me or has anybody wonderd if Brown (Gordon), would try improve his popularity and re-election prospects by possibly trying to do a "maggy" style falklands "defence" AKA Flaklands mk2?

something is brewing for sure,supply's are running out :eek:;)

I am sure Britain could not afford another war.

Falklands Crisis Special

Argentina to blockade Falkland waters in dispute over oil rights.

UK ‘maintaining’ forces in Falklands.

Type 42 Destroyer on “routine” deployment.

Analysis: Shrinking Armed Forces would struggle with Falklands campaign.

“It’s the bitter truth: We couldn’t send a task force to the Falklands today”.

Royal Navy warships on standby over Falklands oil dispute.

Brown: We’ll defend the Falklands.

Naval Forces near or enroute to the South Atlantic(Source):

* HMS York (Type 42 destroyer)
* HMS Clyde (Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel)
* RFA Wave Ruler (Fleet Oiler)
* HMS Scott (Antarctic Survey Vessel)

http://newwars.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/sea-links-119/

[kaiser]

Umm, it all fits togethor aswell as lego!

[lightgiver]

Umm, it all fits togethor aswell as lego!

Of course,

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104682

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5343/xin21204060218514213044.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/i/xin21204060218514213044.jpg/)

looks like a done deal.

[jiffy]

Now this really makes me laugh! You hear people say things like: 'well it's our oil' or 'we need the money from the oil'. There is no way on earth that a single person in the UK will benefit from any oil in the Falklands or anywhere else. Other than having to pay an arm and a leg for it.
NOTHING that the ptb obtain in the name of the British Empire ever finds it's way to the people. It never has and it never will.

You also forgot the part where the TAX payer has to foot the colossal bill for a possible military campaign, all to defend Oil that the large corporations will largely profit from.

Same with the middle east, Tax payer pay the money for War mongers to play soldiers, while the oil fields get sold off to private companies.

Personally I would like to see the UK disband it's military, just leaving a small boarder guard. Sadly the football, Sun reading, nationalist would be screaming about us being invaded:rolleyes:

[guuna]

Of course,

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104682

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5343/xin21204060218514213044.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/i/xin21204060218514213044.jpg/)

looks like a done deal.

mmm... who is that hot chick Broon is canoodling with there?

[entrangermercenary]

You also forgot the part where the TAX payer has to foot the colossal bill for a possible military campaign, all to defend Oil that the large corporations will largely profit from.

Same with the middle east, Tax payer pay the money for War mongers to play soldiers, while the oil fields get sold off to private companies.

Personally I would like to see the UK disband it's military, just leaving a small boarder guard. Sadly the football, Sun reading, nationalist would be screaming about us being invaded:rolleyes:

When they nationalize all the oil companies we will all see the benefits of that wont we :rolleyes: Dont think you get it do you !!! Doesn't matter what happens with the oil private/nationalized we wont see any of the benefits .


So with your great intellectual thinking you would disband the military but keep a small border guard would you?? For what benefit :confused:

Lets just do the NWOs job eh, no countries , no borders,one people and one government. Ok comrade ;)

What was the old saying...reds under the bed :D

[dreamweaver]

Lets just do the NWOs job eh, no countries , no borders,one people and one government. Ok comrade ;)

What was the old saying...reds under the bed :D

Lenin had a better phrase to describe western lefties: "useful idiots". ;)

[wakeup2nwo]

When they nationalize all the oil companies we will all see the benefits of that wont we :rolleyes: Dont think you get it do you !!! Doesn't matter what happens with the oil private/nationalized we wont see any of the benefits .


So with your great intellectual thinking you would disband the military but keep a small border guard would you?? For what benefit :confused:

Lets just do the NWOs job eh, no countries , no borders,one people and one government. Ok comrade ;)

What was the old saying...reds under the bed :D

ive a blue peters badge waiting for the most obnoxious member.. your in 1st place! keep it up!

[jiffy]

When they nationalize all the oil companies we will all see the benefits of that wont we :rolleyes: Dont think you get it do you !!! Doesn't matter what happens with the oil private/nationalized we wont see any of the benefits .


So with your great intellectual thinking you would disband the military but keep a small border guard would you?? For what benefit :confused:

Lets just do the NWOs job eh, no countries , no borders,one people and one government. Ok comrade ;)

What was the old saying...reds under the bed :D


Maybe you should look at the countries who Oil companies are nationalized. Norway for example produced the equivalent amount of oil as we did during peak production.
They however used the Oil money to build infrastructure ect, they have assets directly attributed to Oil income totaling 250odd billion.....we have??

Chavez has used Oil money to provide heath and education for all of any age.

Yes I have no problem with a world without borders, one peoples, one government.

The only thing stopping this harmonious world is not only TPTB but YOU:rolleyes:

What you see as "red" I see as social justice.

I always amuse at people that like to pontificate about how they love their country, yet couldn't give a toss about there fellow man as long as they "perceive" they are getting somewhere...

Sadly there ignorant to the truth that that perception is false. they are in fact going backwards;)

The path to the truth and wisdom for some is impossible in this life time:cool:

[entrangermercenary]

Maybe you should look at the countries who Oil companies are nationalized. Norway for example produced the equivalent amount of oil as we did during peak production.
They however used the Oil money to build infrastructure ect, they have assets directly attributed to Oil income totaling 250odd billion.....we have??

Chavez has used Oil money to provide heath and education for all of any age.

Yes I have no problem with a world without borders, one peoples, one government.
The only thing stopping this harmonious world is not only TPTB but YOU:rolleyes:

What you see as "red" I see as social justice.

I always amuse at people that like to pontificate about how they love their country, yet couldn't give a toss about there fellow man as long as they "perceive" they are getting somewhere...

Sadly there ignorant to the truth that that perception is false. they are in fact going backwards;)

The path to the truth and wisdom for some is impossible in this life time:cool:

Well there we have it . in your own words. Sure you aint getting paid to come on here. Save up your pocket money, never mind a cave fuck off to Venezuela, a warm welcome will await you !!!!!!!!:D


I would love to see how it is going to be a harmonious world. Always some1 pulling the strings. Hard to deal with reality for some I guess . Always the ideal world just around the corner if only we could all come together.

Take a little trip to Africa and see how the tribes just get along fine with each other:rolleyes: How the one tribe will raid another for the cows.
Oh btw havnt read that in any book thats 1st hand experience :D

If we didnt spend fucking millions in overseas aid well hey would that not be a start. But fucking idiots like you would be happy that we live in shit the same as the people in certain parts of the world. Get real and stop living in FANTASY LAND :mad:

[lobsang]

In 1982 Argentina invaded a largely unprotected Island. This time the island is garrisoned and has an airstrip not to mention British subs in the area. This time Argentina would suffer heavily if they attempted to take the Falklands this time around. Last time is was easy this time it will hurt them if they tried, thats not to say they can't pull it off but I doubt they would be brave enough to try it.

[entrangermercenary]

ive a blue peters badge waiting for the most obnoxious member.. your in 1st place! keep it up!

You think a badge from a no mark like you would even get on the mantle piece :eek: :D No fucking chance m8 :p

[innerlight]

hmmmm, and only a few days ago there were news reports of a major Oil field find near Falkalnds. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

i remember Noam Chomsky reporting about these oil fields back in 2005. I want to say it's the last vast deposit of oil that British Petroleum and its cronies is hoping to cling on to for breath. Argentina (latin for "land of silver") has a long history of fighting the imperialist armies under the Roman banner. when someone bitches about the UK/US military exercises, it seems they understand why they are being targeted and what is truly behind the mask......

[bendoon]

Yes I have no problem with a world without borders, one peoples, one government.


Don't worry you may get your wish sooner than you think, George Soros, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller have been working to that end all their lives, they are knocking on a bit now and I'm sure they would like to see their dreams come to fruition before they depart.

The only thing stopping this harmonious world is not only TPTB but YOU

Yes, I'm sure if we just let another 20 million Muslims and Africans into the country, all wars would end within a year and everyone would just get on together.

[wakeup2nwo]

Don't worry you may get your wish sooner than you think, George Soros, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller have been working to that end all their lives, they are knocking on a bit now and I'm sure they would like to see their dreams come to fruition before they depart.



Yes, I'm sure if we just let another 20 million Muslims and Africans into the country, all wars would end within a year and everyone would just get on together.

TBTB have suppressed the Africans and arab nations for 100s of years, that's why theres war.. because theres no balance.. if we all are one then why are we divided? why are we so rich while they are so poor? because TPTB want it that way.. a peaceful one world government isnt impossible if good people want it and fight the bad. but we have to take out TPTB that rule with there evil ways.. we need to share wealth and its easily done with out the corruption.. take free energy, its possible but they dont want us to have it.. we are all suppressed by them, some more than others!

[stelios]

The sabre rattling by the Argies could actually be good for peace.
Because it will prevent Britain from invading Iran.
Ofcourse if Britain goes ahead with the USA and Israel and launches an attack on Iran then Argentina will have a clear road.

I personally sincerely believe the Falklands belongs to Britain.

Just look at the history.
Anyone who says that Argentina has any right over the Falklands does not know the background.
I hope the Labour government will stop taking orders from Israel by invading places and start defending our own.
I fear Gordon BrownStuff who is a rabid zionist supporter will make up excuses and abandon the Falklands and prefer to invade Iran.


.

[wakeup2nwo]

The sabre rattling by the Argies could actually be good for peace.
Because it will prevent Britain from invading Iran.
Ofcourse if Britain goes ahead with the USA and Israel and launches an attack on Iran then Argentina will have a clear road.

I personally sincerely believe the Falklands belongs to Britain.

Just look at the history.
Anyone who says that Argentina has any right over the Falklands does not know the background.
I hope the Labour government will stop taking orders from Israel by invading places and start defending our own.
I fear Gordon BrownStuff who is a rabid zionist supporter will make up excuses and abandon the Falklands and prefer to invade Iran.


.

is it about the island? or oil? they had no problems with Argentina until they wanted an oil rig in the water, not on the island! do we need the oil? and has anyone seen the Argentinian goverment saying they will take the island or declare war? or is it just propaganda to boost support to invade Argentina? like we see everyday about Iran and there "Nuclear weapons" and with sadam and his "weapons of mass destruction"? It sure seems that way to me!

and dont worry about troop numbers.. national service will be brought back.. all the young unemployed will have a job created in the armed forces.. it happened in the past, it will happen again if we go down this road..

[jiffy]

Well there we have it . in your own words. Sure you aint getting paid to come on here. Save up your pocket money, never mind a cave fuck off to Venezuela, a warm welcome will await you !!!!!!!!:D


I would love to see how it is going to be a harmonious world. Always some1 pulling the strings. Hard to deal with reality for some I guess . Always the ideal world just around the corner if only we could all come together.

Take a little trip to Africa and see how the tribes just get along fine with each other:rolleyes: How the one tribe will raid another for the cows.
Oh btw havnt read that in any book thats 1st hand experience :D

If we didnt spend fucking millions in overseas aid well hey would that not be a start. But fucking idiots like you would be happy that we live in shit the same as the people in certain parts of the world. Get real and stop living in FANTASY LAND :mad:


How apt you should choose African. Who was it that impoverished it? Who was that split it up into what it is today?

Rather simplistic idea behind it....divide and conquer....it's working a treat on you;) shame you lack the wisdom to see it:rolleyes:

I do wish you would stop with the financial remarks...do I pay tax..save my pocket money. Starting to grind some what.

For the record Denmark appeals more;) I doubt you have been, my guess the only travelling you have done is in uniform..which my soon to be 50% Tax has paid for:mad:

[entrangermercenary]

How apt you should choose African. Who was it that impoverished it? Who was that split it up into what it is today?

Rather simplistic idea behind it....divide and conquer....it's working a treat on you;) shame you lack the wisdom to see it:rolleyes:

I do wish you would stop with the financial remarks...do I pay tax..save my pocket money. Starting to grind some what.

For the record Denmark appeals more;) I doubt you have been, my guess the only travelling you have done is in uniform..which my soon to be 50% Tax has paid for:mad:

So let me get this straight or have I missed something. African tribes did not fight each other, catch other members of rival tribes for slaves or steal land and what ever else they could before the whiteman came ???

Zimbabwe the garden of Africa. How long has Mugabe been in power know ?? Yep its all us colonial white mans fault Africa is why its like that. Fuck all to do with a real shity climate in some countries that devastate it by drought or famine or is that the colonials fault as well ???

So tell me what African countries have you visited just out of curiosity ??

Pmsl chose south America if you like and the Amazon. Whats left of the tribes still fight ya know if there land is trespassed on.


Ive travelled in uniform and out and at the last count it was 20plus countries visited, the top end of the 20s as well :p

Wow you are going to be on 50% tax. Firstly a free tip ...your accountant sucks get a new 1
2ndly Am I sposed to be impressed by that. Is that how you judge your successful life because you are in a top tax bracket. Grinds you about money does it. ??Well another solution if you are so bothered about your African brothers or any other Nationality you can give your huge fortune away to the needy then :rolleyes:

Another wealthy communist, great, sure the workers are proud of you ;)

[lightgiver]

How apt you should choose African. Who was it that impoverished it? Who was that split it up into what it is today?

Rather simplistic idea behind it....divide and conquer....it's working a treat on you;) shame you lack the wisdom to see it:rolleyes:

I do wish you would stop with the financial remarks...do I pay tax..save my pocket money. Starting to grind some what.

For the record Denmark appeals more;) I doubt you have been, my guess the only travelling you have done is in uniform..which my soon to be 50% Tax has paid for:mad:

You need to watch this video all the way through,;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-JCfZ0x25Q

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4909/thabombeki2.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/i/thabombeki2.jpg/)

[decim]

U.K. Will Take ‘Whatever Steps Necessary’ to Protect Falklands
February 22, 2010, 11:42 AM EST

By Thomas Penny

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. government said it will take “whatever steps are necessary” to protect the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands after drilling for oil started today in the face of Argentinian objections.

Defense Minister Bill Rammell said the U.K. is capable of defending the islands, which Argentina calls the Malvinas and invaded in 1982 before being forced out by British troops. The military presence on the islands is kept under constant review, Rammell said.

“We will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the Falkland Islands and our counterparts in Argentina are aware of that,” Rammell told lawmakers in the House of Commons today. “We remain determined that the wishes of the Falkland islanders are paramount.”

London-based Desire Petroleum Plc today started the first exploratory drilling in Falkland Island waters since 1998, it said in a statement. Companies such as Melbourne-based BHP Billiton Ltd. and Falkland Oil & Gas Ltd., based in London, also plan to start drilling.

Argentina, which summoned U.K. officials on Feb. 2 to protest drilling for oil near the islands, is driving up exploration costs for U.K. oil companies by forbidding vessels that stop in the Falklands from loading cargoes at its ports for the 8,000-mile (13,000-kilometer) return journey to Europe.

“I’m confident of our capability and ability to defend the Falkland Islands,” Rammell said.


--Editors: Eddie Buckle, Andrew Atkinson.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-22/u-k-will-take-whatever-steps-necessary-to-protect-falklands.html

[decim]

Feb. 22 2010 - 11:21 am

Argentina can’t scare us, say Falkland Islanders

Falkland Islanders were flying Union flags en masse over Stanley on Sunday as they met Argentina’s threats with a gritty defiance.

http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/files/2010/02/Falklands-300x187.jpg

By Tom Leonard in Port Stanley

With a British-owned oil rig preparing to drill 100 miles off the coast despite Argentina’s attempts to disrupt exploration efforts, the view of Bill Luxton, a member of the Falklands’ eight-strong ruling assembly, was that “we just need to put two fingers up to them and say get on with it”.

It was echoed by many across the South Atlantic islands. The 3,000-strong community is already proudly British – the phone boxes are the old red ones, the groceries are from Waitrose and many still refer to the UK as “home”. via Falkland Islands: Argentina can’t scare us, say islanders – Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/7287195/Falkland-Islands-Argentina-cant-scare-us-say-islanders.html).

The Falklands conflict may have given birth to Juan Luis Borges splendid aphorism, “A fight between two bald men over a comb”, but ask practically any Argentine and they’ll tell you different. “Los Malvinas son Argentinas!” (The Falklands belong to Argentina).

I’ve heard that shouted from the crowds in football stadiums, while they waved banners emblazoned with the slogan.

Speak to a more thoughtful Argentine constituent, and they will concede that yes, in 1982 Galtieri probably did start the conflict just to distract from the disastrous state of the economy. And that yes, the current president, the phenomenally unpopular Christina Kirchner, is probably stirring up trouble to distract from her own shortcomings.

But still they will tell you, the Falklands – or Malvinas in Argentine Espanol – belong to Argentina, always have done, always will. Never mind that the tiny archipelago has been in British hands since 1833.

It seems, certainly from this robustly patriotic article in the Torygraph, er, I mean Telegraph, that the 3000 strong population of the Falklands feel just as strongly that the sun should never set on their once forgotten little corner of the British empire. Red phone boxes and Waitrose indeed. They sound more English than the English, which I, a native of Christchurch, New Zealand can quite understand.

Mind you, the Argentines themselves can be accused of that same trait themselves, as I’ve chronicled here (http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/2009/06/15/an-anglophile%E2%80%99s-guide-to-buenos-aires/), and here (http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/2009/05/17/the-last-stages-of-anglophilia/). When they’re not damning the British as imperialists, the Argentine elite are togging up in tweeds and flannels and sending their children off to boarding schools with names like St Andrew and St George. I suppose you always resent most that which you envy.

As heavily defended as the Falklands are these days, an invasion attempt by the Argentine navy seems extremely unlikely. But the sabre rattling is amusing; at least at a distance – which practically everything is from these islands, 300 miles away from mainland South America.

http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/2010/02/22/argentina-cant-scare-us-say-falkland-islanders/

[jiffy]

So let me get this straight or have I missed something. African tribes did not fight each other, catch other members of rival tribes for slaves or steal land and what ever else they could before the whiteman came ???
The White man improved there plight??

Zimbabwe the garden of Africa. How long has Mugabe been in power know ?? Yep its all us colonial white mans fault Africa is why its like that. Fuck all to do with a real shity climate in some countries that devastate it by drought or famine or is that the colonials fault as well ???

Great choice...who knighted him?? who called Mandela a terrorist

So tell me what African countries have you visited just out of curiosity ??
Uganda, Kenya and South Africa

Pmsl chose south America if you like and the Amazon. Whats left of the tribes still fight ya know if there land is trespassed on.

:rolleyes:


Ive travelled in uniform and out and at the last count it was 20plus countries visited, the top end of the 20s as well :p

Shame it hasn't brought you wisdom

Wow you are going to be on 50% tax. Firstly a free tip ...your accountant sucks get a new 1
He is fine, I believe in paying Taxes, even if some of it goes to child raping murdering Soldiers

2ndly Am I sposed to be impressed by that. Is that how you judge your successful life because you are in a top tax bracket. Grinds you about money does it. ??Well another solution if you are so bothered about your African brothers or any other Nationality you can give your huge fortune away to the needy then :rolleyes:

Impress, NO, NO.......all I would have to do is willy wave and compare tattoos (if I had any)

Money has never been a measure of anything other than luck, luck where you were born, colour of your skin, parents, schooling, friends to name but a few.
Sadly you CHOOSE to miss the point, YOUR the one who measures people by income, it was YOU that asked if I paid Taxes. It was YOU that made the pointless comment regarding pocket money.


Another wealthy communist, great, sure the workers are proud of you
;)
Interesting if I answered no I don't pay Taxes it would of been, some derogative remark about communist sponger, if I do pay Tax I'm a wealthy communist.




I have no further desire to converse with yourself:p

[bendoon]

TBTB have suppressed the Africans and arab nations for 100s of years,

They have treated the British and Irish working classes like crap for a couple of thousand years or more.

[cpfc12]

They have treated the British and Irish working classes like crap for a couple of thousand years or more.

True talk

[entrangermercenary]

I have no further desire to converse with yourself:p

Thats it skulk off and read the book :rolleyes:

http://lettershometoyou.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/china-cultural-revolution-mao-little-red-book-beijing-1997.jpg

Just for you comrade ;)

http://www.whnpa.org/join/Boston-FlowerPower.jpg

[hagbard_celine]

No oil back when..

The English navigator (http://www.falklandislands.com/contents/view/137/about-falklands/history/falklands-history-&-culture), John Davis, aboard the "Desire" made the first confirmed sighting of the Islands in 1592. Today the Falkland Island flag and Coat-of-Arms depict the sailing ship "Desire" along with the legend "Desire the Right". The first landing is attributed to the British Captain, John Strong, in 1690 at Bold Cove, Port Howard on West Falkland.

If your point is that nobody knew about the oil field in those days; yes that's true. But do you think that's why the conflict goes no today? Sheer emotional attachment to land and people?:rolleyes: Get away!

It's sad because the Falklanders have named streets in Port Stanley after Margeret Thatcher and H Jones etc. But if the economic situation demanded it, the UK govt would sell those people down the toilet to Argentina in the blink of an eye!:eek::(

[hagbard_celine]

No oil back when..

The English navigator (http://www.falklandislands.com/contents/view/137/about-falklands/history/falklands-history-&-culture), John Davis, aboard the "Desire" made the first confirmed sighting of the Islands in 1592. Today the Falkland Island flag and Coat-of-Arms depict the sailing ship "Desire" along with the legend "Desire the Right". The first landing is attributed to the British Captain, John Strong, in 1690 at Bold Cove, Port Howard on West Falkland.

Why do you think 6 nations are quarrelling over Rockall, a tiny islet 80 feet high? Land and sovereignty?... Or the huge hatural gas reserves in the seabed below it?;)

[hagbard_celine]

Are you just plain stupid. ?? It was a war and it didnt matter what fucking way the BELGRANO was sailing at the time it was torpedoed . It was deemed a threat to British shipping. Ever heard of a dogleg ?? Ships will often change course only to change course again.

Funny you should do some research on the subject and see the Argentinian governments perspective on it, and how they agreed later on it was a legitimate target.

Once the nationalist flag was risen :confused: Well if you dont like the Uk go away and live in a cave somewhere in Europe. Do you pay taxes ??

I've never understood the fuss made over the sinking of the General Belgrano. Of course it was a legitimate target! Once you've made the decision to go and fight a war against somebody for a few barrels of oil it's hypocritical to shilly-shally over it. Either go in and slaughter every one of the subhuman motherfuckers you can target... or give up the war altogether and campaign for the Disclosure Project. Which is it to be, boys!?;):D

[hagbard_celine]

The fact is that oil and gas belongs to the UK, not Argentina, or would you have the lives lost in 1982 be all in vain?
We can all assume zero-point energy is around the corner but if it isn't it's handy to have something tangible and doable.

But Zero Point Energy is not around ther corner, it has already been discovered!:eek: The Bloody Illuminati bastards are keeping it under wraps! they're doing it to preserve their power; their power over us!:mad: Why should hundreds of men be killed for an obsolete Stone Age fuel source?:confused:

[hagbard_celine]

There's an outside chance that Brown may attempt to use this as provocation for a war in an attempt to get himself re-elected by appealing to the Nationalistic ego of some of the electorate.

Also he may be able to cancel the election in a time of national crisis.

All of this is very unlikely of course, but who know?

Why not? It worked for Thatcher.;)

The difference is that Brown is more wiley than Thatcher. He'll know that it's a scam.

[hagbard_celine]

Feb. 22 2010 - 11:21 am

Argentina can’t scare us, say Falkland Islanders

Falkland Islanders were flying Union flags en masse over Stanley on Sunday as they met Argentina’s threats with a gritty defiance.

http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/files/2010/02/Falklands-300x187.jpg

By Tom Leonard in Port Stanley

With a British-owned oil rig preparing to drill 100 miles off the coast despite Argentina’s attempts to disrupt exploration efforts, the view of Bill Luxton, a member of the Falklands’ eight-strong ruling assembly, was that “we just need to put two fingers up to them and say get on with it”.

It was echoed by many across the South Atlantic islands. The 3,000-strong community is already proudly British – the phone boxes are the old red ones, the groceries are from Waitrose and many still refer to the UK as “home”. via Falkland Islands: Argentina can’t scare us, say islanders – Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/7287195/Falkland-Islands-Argentina-cant-scare-us-say-islanders.html).

The Falklands conflict may have given birth to Juan Luis Borges splendid aphorism, “A fight between two bald men over a comb”, but ask practically any Argentine and they’ll tell you different. “Los Malvinas son Argentinas!” (The Falklands belong to Argentina).

I’ve heard that shouted from the crowds in football stadiums, while they waved banners emblazoned with the slogan.

Speak to a more thoughtful Argentine constituent, and they will concede that yes, in 1982 Galtieri probably did start the conflict just to distract from the disastrous state of the economy. And that yes, the current president, the phenomenally unpopular Christina Kirchner, is probably stirring up trouble to distract from her own shortcomings.

But still they will tell you, the Falklands – or Malvinas in Argentine Espanol – belong to Argentina, always have done, always will. Never mind that the tiny archipelago has been in British hands since 1833.

It seems, certainly from this robustly patriotic article in the Torygraph, er, I mean Telegraph, that the 3000 strong population of the Falklands feel just as strongly that the sun should never set on their once forgotten little corner of the British empire. Red phone boxes and Waitrose indeed. They sound more English than the English, which I, a native of Christchurch, New Zealand can quite understand.

Mind you, the Argentines themselves can be accused of that same trait themselves, as I’ve chronicled here (http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/2009/06/15/an-anglophile%E2%80%99s-guide-to-buenos-aires/), and here (http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/2009/05/17/the-last-stages-of-anglophilia/). When they’re not damning the British as imperialists, the Argentine elite are togging up in tweeds and flannels and sending their children off to boarding schools with names like St Andrew and St George. I suppose you always resent most that which you envy.

As heavily defended as the Falklands are these days, an invasion attempt by the Argentine navy seems extremely unlikely. But the sabre rattling is amusing; at least at a distance – which practically everything is from these islands, 300 miles away from mainland South America.

http://trueslant.com/scottyoung/2010/02/22/argentina-cant-scare-us-say-falkland-islanders/

If Argentina wants the Falklands then so long as the oil field production benefits "Big Petrola", the Western oil corporations, then the UK govt will sell them for pennies on the pound. The Argies will send a slave ship and cart all the people off the island and replace them with Argentinian settlers. The Japanese did that in the Pacific in the 1930's. And nobody in govt will give a shit!:rolleyes:

[entrangermercenary]

I've never understood the fuss made over the sinking of the General Belgrano. Of course it was a legitimate target! Once you've made the decision to go and fight a war against somebody for a few barrels of oil it's hypocritical to shilly-shally over it. Either go in and slaughter every one of the subhuman motherfuckers you can target... or give up the war altogether and campaign for the Disclosure Project. Which is it to be, boys!?;):D

:D Automatically promoted to General , has a good grasp of warfare :) With said position comes an unlimited supply of cider :eek: :cool:

[decim]

That's my point yes.

The Falklands are British & so are their resources, do you have a problem with property ownership or vehicles using fossil fuels?

The islanders can name the streets wtf they like it is their home.

Your just spouting more of the all too common horseshit mantra of the neo-left & 'others', 'Everything Britain does or was or is, is shit'. F.O.

Despite the many & varied problems in the UK, it is still a great place to live, relatively.

Self flagellation leave it for opus dei & shia.

I love petroleum products & this find in the Falklands will see the UK has a good supply, this is a bonus for the country. (or as a ______ would see it, evil imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, exploitation etc etc etc Yawn)

If your point is that nobody knew about the oil field in those days; yes that's true. But do you think that's why the conflict goes no today? Sheer emotional attachment to land and people?:rolleyes: Get away!

It's sad because the Falklanders have named streets in Port Stanley after Margeret Thatcher and H Jones etc. But if the economic situation demanded it, the UK govt would sell those people down the toilet to Argentina in the blink of an eye!:eek::(

[decim]

Rockall has F'..all to do with this OP.

I love natural gas also, it keeps my home warm & enables me to cook a smörgåsbord of delicious vittles.

Why do you think 6 nations are quarrelling over Rockall, a tiny islet 80 feet high? Land and sovereignty?... Or the huge hatural gas reserves in the seabed below it?;)

[decim]

Pure speculation (which happens to be what is going on in the British Falklands as we do) and historical reminiscence.
Since when did Japanese policy, diplomacy or economics correlate with or mirror British interests?

Does Japanese psychology apply to the British mindset? You are drawing comparisons where there are none & making future Nostradamus like predictions based on your own constructed fallacy from a position of ignorance.

If Argentina wants the Falklands then so long as the oil field production benefits "Big Petrola", the Western oil corporations, then the UK govt will sell them for pennies on the pound. The Argies will send a slave ship and cart all the people off the island and replace them with Argentinian settlers. The Japanese did that in the Pacific in the 1930's. And nobody in govt will give a shit!:rolleyes:

[decim]

Who does Argentina belong to? The Conquistadors? Arabs, Jews? or the indigenous Amerindians? Will they cease their occupation of the Amerindians lands?

Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina)

Ethnic groups

86.4% European (mostly Italian and Spanish), 8% Mestizo, 4% Arab and Jewish and East Asian, 1.6% Amerindian

What is the common denominator in South America?

http://www.get-the-skinny.com/blog//images/pope_grinch.jpg

And his zionista henchmen..

[Ian2day]

I spotted on the cover of the TVguide or something similer. A headline of "How do you solve a problem like Argentina". So they are either attempting to Psy-Op trigger someone with the headline. Or they are asking the general public to come up with the solution to the contrived crises.

[walsingham]

According the top brass in the Royal Navy we don't have the ships to mount another amphibious landing on the Falklands if the Argentines succeed in taking control over Stanley. One article said that we had 55 major warships in 1982 along with a strong merchant fleet which was vital to sail supplies and men down to the south Atlantic, today we have half the strength, an only seven destroyers with one of them not been commissioned. It would be right to say that our Fleet is very capable and as modern as the United States Fleet but it's downgrading due to poor Government has turned it into a coastal defence force rather than a blue water force that we expect of the Royal Navy, The National Institution. The Carrier force of two and another in reserve are apparently sitting in Portsmouth and Devonport with no aircraft on them after the decommissioning of the Harriers, adding further specialisation that another amphibious assault would have virtually no air-cover thus rendering any plans.

The Government has therefore decided that increasing our defenses are the only logical way to prevent the Argentines taking control. Member of the Special forces have been detached to the Falklands this week to prepare, organise and oversee the defenses. There have been rumours that the numbers of personal down in the South Atlantic is around 1,000 but how many of them are Bennies themselves as opposed to British Regulars is the question. It must be then the Governments plan of action to allow the islanders to take care of their own defences against the might of a South American giant.

If Gordon Brown thinks this dispute could win him votes at the next election then he is as blind as the reports say, another conflict in and around the Falklands could well spell the end of the Royal Navy for at least a decade, any future conflict would either see the Royal Navy sink to the bottom of the sea or Drake's spirit would have to reappear in the Navy's hour of need and lead the admirals and men to a victory. The overwhelming odds stacked against a Naval task force with no margin of error is enormous when considering Argentina has a healthy air-force and moderate Navy. The airbase on the Islands could very easily be put out of action with only four Typhoons patrolling the area and lack of air-cover could well turn into a disaster which in turn would make Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister since Anthony Eden and the shambles that was Suez.

It's time to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Americans have more than enough to continue over there and it's time to start defending the national interest both at home in making sure Northern Ireland remains safe - yet another car bomb last night - and the defence of the Falklands, These must be our two main priorities at this moment in time.

Only if we had a 'fleet' today, Kirchner and Chavez wouldn't dare open their mouths
http://img294.yfrog.com/img294/7643/gfleet.jpg

[bendoon]

I spotted on the cover of the TVguide or something similer. A headline of "How do you solve a problem like Argentina". So they are either attempting to Psy-Op trigger someone with the headline. Or they are asking the general public to come up with the solution to the contrived crises.

Yes it does seem like a case of Problem, reaction, solution to coin a phrase.

[entrangermercenary]

According the top brass in the Royal Navy we don't have the ships to mount another amphibious landing on the Falklands if the Argentines succeed in taking control over Stanley. One article said that we had 55 major warships in 1982 along with a strong merchant fleet which was vital to sail supplies and men down to the south Atlantic, today we have half the strength, an only seven destroyers with one of them not been commissioned. It would be right to say that our Fleet is very capable and as modern as the United States Fleet but it's downgrading due to poor Government has turned it into a coastal defence force rather than a blue water force that we expect of the Royal Navy, The National Institution. The Carrier force of two and another in reserve are apparently sitting in Portsmouth and Devonport with no aircraft on them after the decommissioning of the Harriers, adding further specialisation that another amphibious assault would have virtually no air-cover thus rendering any plans.

The Government has therefore decided that increasing our defenses are the only logical way to prevent the Argentines taking control. Member of the Special forces have been detached to the Falklands this week to prepare, organise and oversee the defenses. There have been rumours that the numbers of personal down in the South Atlantic is around 1,000 but how many of them are Bennies themselves as opposed to British Regulars is the question. It must be then the Governments plan of action to allow the islanders to take care of their own defences against the might of a South American giant.

If Gordon Brown thinks this dispute could win him votes at the next election then he is as blind as the reports say, another conflict in and around the Falklands could well spell the end of the Royal Navy for at least a decade, any future conflict would either see the Royal Navy sink to the bottom of the sea or Drake's spirit would have to reappear in the Navy's hour of need and lead the admirals and men to a victory. The overwhelming odds stacked against a Naval task force with no margin of error is enormous when considering Argentina has a healthy air-force and moderate Navy. The airbase on the Islands could very easily be put out of action with only four Typhoons patrolling the area and lack of air-cover could well turn into a disaster which in turn would make Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister since Anthony Eden and the shambles that was Suez.

It's time to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Americans have more than enough to continue over there and it's time to start defending the national interest both at home in making sure Northern Ireland remains safe - yet another car bomb last night - and the defence of the Falklands, These must be our two main priorities at this moment in time.

Only if we had a 'fleet' today, Kirchner and Chavez wouldn't dare open their mouths
http://img294.yfrog.com/img294/7643/gfleet.jpg

Gloomy picture you paint:eek: Think our submarine fleet may have a say in this. Depends on how far things escalate !!

Logistics on troop movement and ships, im sure the plan is all ready in place with regards to that.

Dont really understand why the Argentinians said anything. They should have just got on with the job at hand.

[karen3]

Chavez makes me feel sick; he doesn't give a shit about Argentina or the falklands, he just wants the chance to get his fat face on the television and score some points with the rest of latin america.

[stelios]

http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/02/mrs.-kirchner-approach-to-malvinas-issue-infuriates-jewish-community

Mrs. Kirchner's approach to the Falkland issue infuriates argentina's powerful Jewish community

Somehow i dont agree that Argentina's zionist lobby gives a damn about the Falklands. They want Britain to attack Iran and a war with argentina will prevent this from happening.
Hence Argentina's Zionists appear to be against the actions of Kirchner.

[entrangermercenary]

Chavez makes me feel sick; he doesn't give a shit about Argentina or the falklands, he just wants the chance to get his fat face on the television and score some points with the rest of latin america.

lol that good old pineapple head :eek:

[guuna]

Yes it does seem like a case of Problem, reaction, solution to coin a phrase.

Or perhaps PETROLIUM, reaction, solution.;)

[guuna]

Chavez makes me feel sick; he doesn't give a shit about Argentina or the falklands, he just wants the chance to get his fat face on the television and score some points with the rest of latin america.

Latin America.

Itself a colonialist construct.

Land stolen by the conquestadors and their allies upon the orders of the Vatican, native Amerindian cultures obliterated.

Chavez is no better than those he condemns.

[guuna]

http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/02/mrs.-kirchner-approach-to-malvinas-issue-infuriates-jewish-community

Mrs. Kirchner's approach to the Falkland issue infuriates argentina's powerful Jewish community

Somehow i dont agree that Argentina's zionist lobby gives a damn about the Falklands. They want Britain to attack Iran and a war with argentina will prevent this from happening.
Hence Argentina's Zionists appear to be against the actions of Kirchner.

Probably correct.

still, I think that there is very little real chance of any war in the South Atlantic this time round despite Chavez and others best efforts.

[stelios]

Probably correct.

still, I think that there is very little real chance of any war in the South Atlantic this time round despite Chavez and others best efforts.
While Britain is in Afghanistan and possibly Iran as well as Cyprus. Kosovo and other places i dont think we would be able to defend the Falklands.

Argentina will never get a better opportunity
Gordon BrownStuff is weak and certainly more likely to give the Falklands away.

[guuna]

While Britain is in Afghanistan and possibly Iran as well as Cyprus. Kosovo and other places i dont think we would be able to defend the Falklands.

Argentina will never get a better opportunity
Gordon BrownStuff is weak and certainly more likely to give the Falklands away.

It would appear that the Argentine military is now actually far weaker in real terms than it was in '82 under Genralo Galtieri and the Junta.

[hagbard_celine]

:D Automatically promoted to General , has a good grasp of warfare :) With said position comes an unlimited supply of cider :eek: :cool:

As you were, Soldier!:D It's a good job the Falklanders don't grow cider apples or I'd hire you myself to invade!

[hagbard_celine]

That's my point yes.

The Falklands are British & so are their resources, do you have a problem with property ownership or vehicles using fossil fuels?



The former no, the latter... definitely yes!

I love petroleum products & this find in the Falklands will see the UK has a good supply, this is a bonus for the country. (or as a ______ would see it, evil imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, exploitation etc etc etc Yawn)

Don't you realize?:confused: Petroleum products are an environmentally-harmful and expensive fuel source that only exists as a tool of human domination. It is obsolete, but we're being forced to continue to use them by this pathocratical New World Order!:eek: And I do think imperialism, colonialism, exploitation is evil (I don't include capitalism;)) But it's not Britain or America etc behind all that; it is the Illuminati.


The islanders can name the streets wtf they like it is their home.

I never said they couldn't. But by naming them after Thatcher they're putting a false hero on a pedastel. It shows a lack of understanding of their own predicament.

Your just spouting more of the all too common horseshit mantra of the neo-left & 'others', 'Everything Britain does or was or is, is shit'.

Now you're misrepresenting me:mad:. That's even worse than resorting to personal, childish abuse like here: F.O. When did I slag off Britain? When did I say anything leftist?:confused::p I didn't. It's the Illuminati who are to blame, not any country or people. As the Skeppers say, please read my posts more carefully.;)

[hagbard_celine]

Rockall has F'..all to do with this OP.

I love natural gas also, it keeps my home warm & enables me to cook a smörgåsbord of delicious vittles.

By all means, go on paying money for a Stone Age technology if you wish.:p:D

Rockall has everything to do with this OP because it's a direct parallel to the Falklands situation. Of course Rockall doesn't have a human population, but if it did they'd be treated just as badly as the Falklanders have been. In fact I've written a story about this very thing: http://hpanwo-bb.blogspot.com/2009/02/rockall-chapter-1.html

[hagbard_celine]

Pure speculation (which happens to be what is going on in the British Falklands as we do) and historical reminiscence.
Since when did Japanese policy, diplomacy or economics correlate with or mirror British interests?

Does Japanese psychology apply to the British mindset? You are drawing comparisons where there are none & making future Nostradamus like predictions based on your own constructed fallacy from a position of ignorance.

That's just one example. Do you want others: Diego Garcia, Laventa, Llyn Celyn... the list goes on. It's got nothing to do with national mindsets; it's about the Illuminati-occupied economic system.

[hagbard_celine]

.

The Government has therefore decided that increasing our defenses are the only logical way to prevent the Argentines taking control. Member of the Special forces have been detached to the Falklands this week to prepare, organise and oversee the defenses.

It's odd that they're telling us on the news.:confused: Normally they wouldn't give out such details. They did the same with Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan. Something strange is going on.

[hagbard_celine]

Or perhaps PETROLIUM, reaction, solution.;)

Good one!:cool::)

[jhado]

Rockall has everything to do with this OP because it's a direct parallel to the Falklands situation. Of course Rockall doesn't have a human population, but if it did they'd be treated just as badly as the Falklanders have been.

That's not a bad idea for a book...:)

I kept a book when , I was down the south-atlantic, in 1982.

I read it now, and realise, that even then ,we were all questioning 'why were we there?'

[hagbard_celine]

Rockall has everything to do with this OP because it's a direct parallel to the Falklands situation. Of course Rockall doesn't have a human population, but if it did they'd be treated just as badly as the Falklanders have been.

That's not a bad idea for a book...:)

I kept a book when , I was down the south-atlantic, in 1982.

I read it now, and realise, that even then ,we were all questioning 'why were we there?'

You can read the book if you like. It's now free online.:cool: If you do I hope you enjoy it.

It's always the case when these events break out: some of us believe the hype, but more and more of us don't.:cool:

[hagbard_celine]

Are you just plain stupid. ?? It was a war and it didnt matter what fucking way the BELGRANO was sailing at the time it was torpedoed . It was deemed a threat to British shipping. Ever heard of a dogleg ?? Ships will often change course only to change course again.


It's also worth bearing in mind that Argentina sunk 5 British ships!:eek: One of them was RFA Sir Galahad which had my ex-girlfriends brother on board. He is scarred by burns to this day:(. That's what happens when Big Petrola turns man-against-man and we've no right to complain unless we stand up to them and stop the New World Order:cool::).

Looking at purely practical reasons, HMS Conqueror had to attack the Belgrano when it did because the Argentine action group was about to pass over a very shallow patch of sea where submarines couldn't follow. There's a good book on this subject that has interviews with Cmdr Chris Reford-Brown of Conqueror and also Captain Hector Bonzo of the General Belgrano. I'm afraid its title escapes me:o.

[the apprentice]

It's also worth bearing in mind that Argentina sunk 5 British ships!:eek: One of them was RFA Sir Galahad which had my ex-girlfriends brother on board. He is scarred by burns to this day:(. That's what happens when Big Petrola turns man-against-man and we've no right to complain unless we stand up to them and stop the New World Order:cool::).

Looking at purely practical reasons, HMS Conqueror had to attack the Belgrano when it did because the Argentine action group was about to pass over a very shallow patch of sea where submarines couldn't follow. There's a good book on this subject that has interviews with Cmdr Chris Reford-Brown of Conqueror and also Captain Hector Bonzo of the General Belgrano. I'm afraid its title escapes me:o.

I had freinds that never retured from that hell hole, I myself have seen the aftermath of that war and the areas in question, but you are right Hagbard when you say its our fault for not standing up against these people, the Falklands today is as poor as it always was, and South Georgia well there is nothing there but elephant and leopard seal, snow and a rotting ex whaling station, its not worth the money we are all paying for its upkeep.

As entranger said the Belgrano was the main threat to our success in the South Atlantic, if she had got through the islands would now be in Argentine hands, we were at the end of our military limits and would not have won the war that is a certainty.

As far as the NWO is concerned I believe she is here, alive and kicking today and pushing the planets ability further down the well and we will all be drowing in the next decade or two, if you take stock of all that is happening and what the many experts are saying, it is quite obvious why this is happening, we are using up the worlds resources at an ever increasing rate, much faster than nature can replace them, some not in the next 200 million years, so its open season for what is left and who ever has the last bannana will be the one who dies last.

Us humans are great at using up but not giving anything back, that has only one ending if we stay on our present course.

[lackingsleep]

It's odd that they're telling us on the news.:confused: Normally they wouldn't give out such details. They did the same with Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan. Something strange is going on.

I don't think it's odd at all. It happened before in Kuwait in the 1990s. It's the 'we're coming to get you' message. It's not new. It's been done before.

As for special forces being there. Of course they are. The Argentines will know that. They'll also know that Britain has a massively enhanced surveillance capability compared to 1982 so will be amply pre-warned of any attack. They'll also know Britain will have submarines stationed in the S. Atlantic by now. Two types - one for hunting and destroying enemy shipping and one for precision strikes against land targets using conventional cruise missiles. They'll also know their land forces are not adequate to mount a conventional attack.

If there was another Falklands war, which there won't be, the Argentines know that the war at sea and in the air would be over almost before it started. It's a very different situation now - more focused on technology that Britain has and Argentina doesn't. It isn't about landing tens of thousands of infantry soldiers on the islands this time.

I'm not being nationalistic here - the very logistics of re-occupying the Falklands now make it impossible for the Argentinians to achieve today. The islands are amply defended and they know it.

[hagbard_celine]

I don't think it's odd at all. It happened before in Kuwait in the 1990s. It's the 'we're coming to get you' message. It's not new. It's been done before.

As for special forces being there. Of course they are. The Argentines will know that. They'll also know that Britain has a massively enhanced surveillance capability compared to 1982 so will be amply pre-warned of any attack. They'll also know Britain will have submarines stationed in the S. Atlantic by now. Two types - one for hunting and destroying enemy shipping and one for precision strikes against land targets using conventional cruise missiles. They'll also know their land forces are not adequate to mount a conventional attack.

If there was another Falklands war, which there won't be, the Argentines know that the war at sea and in the air would be over almost before it started. It's a very different situation now - more focused on technology that Britain has and Argentina doesn't. It isn't about landing tens of thousands of infantry soldiers on the islands this time.

I'm not being nationalistic here - the very logistics of re-occupying the Falklands now make it impossible for the Argentinians to achieve today. The islands are amply defended and they know it.

We'll have to differ on it being odd, the media has never before published such detailed reports on military operations before they're carried out. But you're right about the rest of it:cool:;). However I wouldn't rule out the possibility of military action here. We've seen in the past that policical manoeuvres often don't hold up to common sense. The smell of oil to the Illuminati-occupied authorities is like the smell of blood to a shark!:eek:

[hagbard_celine]

I had freinds that never retured from that hell hole, I myself have seen the aftermath of that war and the areas in question, but you are right Hagbard when you say its our fault for not standing up against these people, the Falklands today is as poor as it always was, and South Georgia well there is nothing there but elephant and leopard seal, snow and a rotting ex whaling station, its not worth the money we are all paying for its upkeep.

As entranger said the Belgrano was the main threat to our success in the South Atlantic, if she had got through the islands would now be in Argentine hands, we were at the end of our military limits and would not have won the war that is a certainty.

As far as the NWO is concerned I believe she is here, alive and kicking today and pushing the planets ability further down the well and we will all be drowing in the next decade or two, if you take stock of all that is happening and what the many experts are saying, it is quite obvious why this is happening, we are using up the worlds resources at an ever increasing rate, much faster than nature can replace them, some not in the next 200 million years, so its open season for what is left and who ever has the last bannana will be the one who dies last.

Us humans are great at using up but not giving anything back, that has only one ending if we stay on our present course.

Yes, but why do we do it?:confused: It's not natural for a living creature to destroy its own habitat, surely. I think it's because we're manipulated to do it by the Illuminati. There plan for the New World Order includes a vastly atrophied and distorted terrestrial environment.:(:eek:

As for winning the war in 1982 I use the word "success" in inverted commas. It's a war that need never have happened and should never have happened. The quest of Argentina to claim the Falklands against the will of their native inhabitants, and indeed the UK govt's own determination to stop them is based on the desire for an obsolete and harmful fuel source that we've been conned into using decades, even centuries after we could have given it up.

The former President of France Francois Mitterand said that Thatcher might have gone nuclear in that war. After the British ships were sunk she phoned him up and demanded intelligence on the Exocet missile and said that if he didn't supply it she would use nukes on the Argentine mainland. Thatcher has yet to try and sue Mitterand for that comment.;) But if the taskforce had been defeated by Argentina, would she have then gone on to use nukes anyway?

[hagbard_celine]

I don't think it's odd at all. It happened before in Kuwait in the 1990s. It's the 'we're coming to get you' message. It's not new. It's been done before.

As for special forces being there. Of course they are. The Argentines will know that. They'll also know that Britain has a massively enhanced surveillance capability compared to 1982 so will be amply pre-warned of any attack. They'll also know Britain will have submarines stationed in the S. Atlantic by now. Two types - one for hunting and destroying enemy shipping and one for precision strikes against land targets using conventional cruise missiles. They'll also know their land forces are not adequate to mount a conventional attack.

If there was another Falklands war, which there won't be, the Argentines know that the war at sea and in the air would be over almost before it started. It's a very different situation now - more focused on technology that Britain has and Argentina doesn't. It isn't about landing tens of thousands of infantry soldiers on the islands this time.

I'm not being nationalistic here - the very logistics of re-occupying the Falklands now make it impossible for the Argentinians to achieve today. The islands are amply defended and they know it.

Actually, LS, on reflection I take back some of what I said in my last reply to you. I'm not sure that Falklands War II would be such a turkey-shoot as you suggest. Technology is not the only factor in wafare. Germany lost WWII despite a significant technological advantage over the Allies, particulaly in the realms of its groundbreaking strategic weapons, the V1 and V2. Remember Argentina has a far shorter logistics train than the British. Also the British forces are already stretched fighting the Illuminati's other oil wars in the Middle East.

One this for sure, whoever won this hypothetical war would be as big losers as their enemyies because they'd have killed and been killed for a con.:mad::(

[elrafaargentino]

What's happens behind all of this? Since some months ago England began to send planes, ships and submarines ignoring UN ordinances that expressly prohibit conduct any activities in the area.

The media mock the argentines http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2895647/Royal-Navy-sends-Swiftsure-class-attack-submarine-to-Falkland-Islands -to-boost-security.html and continues even with provocation.

They do not mind the UN, international treaties and respect for other countries.

Security forces were dismantled in the 90s for U.S. orders by the "Consensus of Washington." Today there are just a couple of Super Etendard aircraft and A4 in activity. It is ridiculous to think in any war.

Probably the UN will not react and let they out all the oil they can. Chile surely will help them accomplish their mission.

It's another game in the New World Order.
-----------------------
¿Qué hay detrás de todo esto? Desde hace unos meses Inglaterrea comenzó a provocar enviando aviones, barcos y submarinos y omite las ordenanzas de la ONU que prohíben expresamente realizar cualquier tipo de actividades en la zona.

Los medios se burlan de los argentinos http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2895647/Royal-Navy-sends-Swiftsure-class-attack-submarine-to-Falkland-Islands-to-boost-security.html y continúan aún más con la provocación.

No les importa la ONU, los tratados internacionales ni el respeto a los otros países.

En cuanto a fuerzas de seguridad, fueron desmanteladas en los 90s por órdenes de Estados Unidos gracias al "Concenso de Washington". Hoy apenas existen un par de aviones Super Etendard y A4 en actividad. Es irrisorio pensar en algún conflicto bélico.

Muy probablemente la ONU no reaccione y permita sacar todo el petróleo que puedan. Y seguramente Chile los ayudará a cumplir con su misión.

Es otro juego del Nuevo Orden Mundial.

[hagbard_celine]

What's happens behind all of this? Since some months ago England began to send planes, ships and submarines ignoring UN ordinances that expressly prohibit conduct any activities in the area.

The media mock the argentines http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2895647/Royal-Navy-sends-Swiftsure-class-attack-submarine-to-Falkland-Islands -to-boost-security.html and continues even with provocation.

They do not mind the UN, international treaties and respect for other countries.

Security forces were dismantled in the 90s for U.S. orders by the "Consensus of Washington." Today there are just a couple of Super Etendard aircraft and A4 in activity. It is ridiculous to think in any war.

Probably the UN will not react and let they out all the oil they can. Chile surely will help them accomplish their mission.

It's another game in the New World Order.


It's that alright!:eek: The two countries may be rivals on one level, but at a higher level both the UK and Argentina are Illuminati-occupied.:( They may want to be at the top of the greasy pole, as David puts it, but they'll all bow to the high authority of the Serpent.:p