The Falkland Islands

They are fine where they are, who the F*ck cares if America get shirty with the UK? It's been a British colony for over 100 years and if feels no reason to join Argentina as just another state and it doesn't feel the need to rub up and purr in Cameron's lap it is fine being a independent set of islands with no Overlord just run by people who know what's best. In fairness though to Argentina the islands are close to the mainland and Argentina gained independence before Britain seized the Falklands.

All in all people the islands only have oil and America is playing the "Really there's oil there?" card and when they are Argentine lands they will be seized and raped of their resources.


Living In the Valleys gyda sheep ;)
 
Yes, the US used the CIA to prop up their puppet dictators, not the army. Completely different things.
 
The invasion of 1982 was possible because of the military dictatorship that existed in Argentina at the time. This dictatorship hoped to divert attention from its human rights violations and economic woes with this campaign, a technique often used by less credible regimes.

As long as Argentina (and the UK!) maintains a healthy democracy, any similar incident is unlikely.
 
Falklands tension: Argentina turns away cruise ships

Two cruise ships carrying almost 3,000 passengers have been turned away from an Argentine port, apparently because they had visited the Falklands.

The Adonia and the Star Princess had arrived off Tierra Del Fuego, on the country's southern tip, on Monday but were prevented from docking in Ushuaia.

British diplomats in Argentina are trying to clarify what happened.

Tensions have risen recently, as the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war approaches.

Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas, but the UK has rejected calls for talks on the archipelago's sovereignty.

Around 3,000 people live on the islands, most of whom are British citizens.

The Adonia and the Star Princess, which are both operated by the Carnival Group, arrived off the port of Ushuaia on Monday morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17184955

This is just getting pathetic.
 
So, the cruise ship tourists will just spend their money somewhere else when the ships port outside Argentina... Another loss added to an already lost cause. :rolleyes:

If the islanders are happy to live as a British colony with a high degree of autonomy, that sort of settles it right there. No need to establish talks or negotiations on the subject.
 
Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas
Not only Argentina but the whole Spanish-speaking world plus Brasil and Portugal.
 
Not only Argentina but the whole Spanish-speaking world plus Brasil and Portugal.

I don't think the article was trying to say Argentina is the only country in the world to use the Spanish name for the islands, I think it was just trying to give a bit of background info, relax. :lol:
 
Yes, misleading background info.
 
Yes, misleading background info.

What's misleading about saying Argentina refers to the islands as the Malvinas? I think it's fairly obvious that all Spanish (and Portugese) speaking countries would use that name. I think someone needs a nap. :lol:
 
Maybe BBC was not trying to say it was not only Argentina who called it Malvinas but that is exactly what it said. Anyway all i did was to give some more complete background info than that from BBC in case somebody didnt know, so maybe it is you who need a big nap here. ;)
 
Maybe BBC was not trying to say it was not only Argentina who called it Malvinas but that is exactly what it said. Anyway all i did was to give some more complete background info than that from BBC in case somebody didnt know, so maybe it is you who need a big nap here. ;)

No, it said "Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas", please explain...

1. How this is saying only Argentina call them that name?
2. What would be the reason to add what other countries call them to that sentence?
 
All this bickering really is a shame, but I agree that in this instance the loss is to Ushuaia's tourism industry not the British government. Cruise liners will find other South American ports to dock in and passengers other towns in which to spend their money. The danger of this new law is that it puts the Falklander's supply links at risk and threatens to isolate an already isolated community further - which is, of course, the legislation's objective.
 
No, it said "Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas", please explain...

1. How this is saying only Argentina call them that name?
2. What would be the reason to add what other countries call them to that sentence?
The way the sentence is built "Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas" relates the fact of Argentina claiming ownership to the fact of calling it Malvinas. This way it seems Argentina is somewhat isolated or "crazy" on his claims even calling the islands in an "invented" way of his own. It is very misleading for anybody who knows nothing about the topic and only knows the islands for his english name, so most of the world. It is indeed a very subtle piece of journalism, which is the art of deceiving with the truth. :goodjob:

It would have been as easy and much more correct to say "...which are called Malvinas in Spanish"
 
The way the sentence is built "Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas" relates the fact of Argentina claiming ownership to the fact of calling it Malvinas. This way it seems Argentina is somewhat isolated or "crazy" on his claims even calling the islands in an "invented" way of his own. It is very misleading for anybody who knows nothing about the topic and only knows the islands for his english name, so most of the world. It is indeed a very subtle piece of journalism, which is the art of deceiving with the truth. :goodjob:

It would have been as easy and much more correct to say "...which are called Malvinas in Spanish"

I disagree, it seems pretty straightforward to me and I don't see it implying Argentina is alone in calling it the Malvinas.
 
Argentina planning a “nuclear powered” submarine with conventional weapons
Argentina is considering the development of “nuclear propulsion” for its diesel-engine submarines, according to Defence minister Arturo Puricelli. The initiative follows a request from President Cristina Fernandez and is closely linked to Brazil’s construction of a first nuclear powered submersible with French technology.

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/08/01...r-powered-submarine-with-conventional-weapons

Odd considering that they will go on to accuse Britain of militarising the South Atlantic for tabloid speculation that an SSN is on its way down. Also, trying to turn an SSK into an SSN? I don't envy them that task.
 
I think the Argentine claim re Britain militarising the South Atlantic was partly based on the suggestion that RN SSNs potentially carry nuclear weapons, was it not? But I agree that in the face of this development, any such criticism is a little hypocritical.
 
Chop sub in half and drop in reactor compartment.

End up with longer sub.
 
Not only Argentina but the whole Spanish-speaking world plus Brasil and Portugal.

What? I'm Portuguese and yes, we call those islands in Portuguese Malvinas (which I find somewhat confusing because it's very similar with the Maldives or Maldivas, even though they're nowhere even near each other on the map) but that's just linguistics, there's no political statement behind this.

And if we were ever required to state our opinion on the issue, I'm pretty sure we'd back the UK, not only because they're EU and NATO allies (which would be enough) but also because the English are our historical allies, they always helped us in defending our sovereignty against Castile/Spain and France and we always had their back (for example, we confiscated all German ships and declared war on Germany on WW1 just at their request even though we were on a really bad economical situation).

As for Brazil, they're free to do what they want, they'd probably vocally support Argentina just as to keep things down there between both of them nice and smooth, but it's not like they'd want to antagonize the British, they'd probably just do the same Portugal would do, say to his neighbor he thinks he's right and say he hopes things can be solved peacefully, and perhaps grab some popcorn to see them going at it if it ever comes to that again.
 
And if we were ever required to state our opinion on the issue, I'm pretty sure we'd back the UK, not only because they're EU and NATO allies (which would be enough) but also because the English are our historical allies, they always helped us in defending our sovereignty against Castile/Spain and France and we always had their back (for example, we confiscated all German ships and declared war on Germany on WW1 just at their request even though we were on a really bad economical situation).
The circumstances following Portugal's entry into the First World War would've been enough to torpedo any such good relationship between basically any other two countries in the world. It's almost surprising that some Portuguese still have good feelings towards Britain after that.
 
Top Bottom