Argentina claims the Falklands again.

[atg]

I don't believe I suggested doing anything about the nationality of the islands themselves, I was speaking about the prime reason the Argentans are now, all these years later, starting a furrow again: the oil. Work out my deal with that, the Britons on the Falklands get to continue hapily hoisting Her Majesty's Union Jack over their homes, the oil gets distributed in a way that satisfies the jingioistic pride of both nations without starting another shooting war, and both states stand to turn a tidy sum over and above the oil simply on the ticket take from the regularly recurring Argentina Vs. UK Oil Games.

Wow. So we should just let a potential major part of the economies of two nations, of approximately 100 million people be decided by 22 men kicking a football around for 90 minutes. That is so much better.

You sir, are an idiot.

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't believe I suggested doing anything about the nationality of the islands themselves, I was speaking about the prime reason the Argentans are now, all these years later, starting a furrow again: the oil. Work out my deal with that, the Britons on the Falklands get to continue hapily hoisting Her Majesty's Union Jack over their homes, the oil gets distributed in a way that satisfies the jingioistic pride of both nations without starting another shooting war, and both states stand to turn a tidy sum over and above the oil simply on the ticket take from the regularly recurring Argentina Vs. UK Oil Games.

And why should the Brits allow that when its their oil to begin with? what you are not seeing here is that they don't have to do anything with the Argies if they don't want to.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I don't believe I suggested doing anything about the nationality of the islands themselves, I was speaking about the prime reason the Argentans are now, all these years later, starting a furrow again: the oil. Work out my deal with that, the Britons on the Falklands get to continue hapily hoisting Her Majesty's Union Jack over their homes, the oil gets distributed in a way that satisfies the jingioistic pride of both nations without starting another shooting war, and both states stand to turn a tidy sum over and above the oil simply on the ticket take from the regularly recurring Argentina Vs. UK Oil Games.

Why? There was a deal that split any oil revenues 50/50 between Britain and Argentina. The Argentinians canceled it and now they're whining about the situation that they more or less directly caused. I've got no sympathy.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I don't believe I suggested doing anything about the nationality of the islands themselves, I was speaking about the prime reason the Argentans are now, all these years later, starting a furrow again: the oil. Work out my deal with that, the Britons on the Falklands get to continue hapily hoisting Her Majesty's Union Jack over their homes, the oil gets distributed in a way that satisfies the jingioistic pride of both nations without starting another shooting war, and both states stand to turn a tidy sum over and above the oil simply on the ticket take from the regularly recurring Argentina Vs. UK Oil Games.

Why? There was a deal that split any oil revenues 50/50 between Britain and Argentina. The Argentinians canceled it and now they're whining about the situation that they more or less directly caused. I've got no sympathy.

Wow, that was retarded. A 50/50 split and they ignored it?

Yeah, morons.

[[R_H]]

US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, last night to intervene in the dispute, a move Britain adamantly opposes.

“The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening,” Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, said after meeting Mr Ban in New York. “We have asked the Secretary-General, within the framework of his good offices, to stress to Britain the need to abstain from further unilateral acts.”

A top UN aide acknowledged, however, that Mr Ban would not be able to mediate because of Britain’s opposition.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, said: “As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands’ territory.”

Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan’s support for Britain in 1982 “irked a lot of people in Latin America”.

The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region”, he said.

British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute, but indicated that any American support for mediated negotiations would not be well received. It was “up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not”, one official said.

Britain has boosted the islands’ defences since the conflict, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said last night. “We have built a massive runway. We have emplaced forces on the ground, we have sophisticated early warning systems. It is a different package. To compare the way we dealt with the issues in 1982 with today is nonsense,” he said.

Brazil attacks UN over Falklands stand-off

President Lula da Silva of Brazil today attacked the UN for failing to act on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and claimed its reticence was down to Britain's seat on the Security Council.

Speaking at the end of a regional summit in Mexico Mr Lula criticised the UN for not pushing more forcefully to reopen the debate.

His intervention came ahead of a meeting later today between Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, and the Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana.

"Our attitude is one of solidarity with Argentina," Mr Lula said. "What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for England to be in the Malvinas? What is the explanation for the United Nations never having that decision? “Could it be because the UK is a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council where they can do everything and the others nothing? It is not possible that Argentina is not the owner while England is, despite being 14,000km away."

At the Rio Group summit in Mexico yesterday, Buenos Aires won unprecedented support from other Latin American states for its demand that the UK stop drilling for oil in waters near the islands.

The row was sparked by the arrival of the offshore oil rig Ocean Guardian, which began drilling 60 miles north of the islands after Argentina announced new shipping controls. Britain and Argentina fought a two-month war over the islands in 1982.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, insisted yesterday that the exploration was fully within international law although ministers admit privately that the UK has been preparing for a diplomatic confrontation with Argentina for months.

Argentina scored a diplomatic coup at the Rio Group summit in Cancun when 32 Latin American and Caribbean leaders backed their "legitimate rights" in the sovereignty row with Great Britain.

Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan President, used a television address to reiterate his support, bellowing: “Give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, Queen of England.”

But it was the backing of countries such as Chile and Brazil — which is itself pressing for permanent Security Council membership — that will be of most concern.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Argentina’s President, said that Britain had broken a UN resolution forbidding unilateral development in disputed waters. She accused Britain of double standards in its pursuit of the islands’ natural resources but ruled out any military engagement or attempt to block shipping.

British officials said that Gordon Brown and Mr Miliband would wait for the outcome of events at the UN before deciding how to respond. Diplomats in Latin America believe that President Kirchner is using the issue for domestic purposes. “This is principally a PR campaign, not a serious legal or diplomatic effort,” said one.

The US offered Britain only tepid support. The State Department said that it took no position on the sovereignty claims of either country.

White House officials contacted by The Times would not be quoted on the dispute — not for fear of being drawn into a diplomatic showdown but because, as one admitted, it had barely registered as a concern for the Administration. A generation ago President Reagan was slow to back publicly Britain’s efforts to recapture the islands, but US intelligence proved critical to British military success.

Argentinians invade Falkland Islands website

Argentinian hackers yesterday raised their national flag over the Falkland Islands' Penguin News - a temporary occupation in which they laid out their case for sovereignty over the South Atlantic paradise island group.The invaders' bullet-point list of claims - backed by an rousing audio recording of the March of the Malvinas - suggested the islands are Argentinian because "they were inherited from Spain and its Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata" and "because Argentina is the closest country".

These old chestnuts are, of course, completely at odds with the British position, which states that Las Malvinas are actually the Falkland Islands because we say so.

The hack comes as Britain and Argentina indulge in light sabre-rattling over the arrival of an oil rig which is set to exploit the liquid riches beyond the wildest dreams of avarice which lie beneath the remote outpost of Empire.

The Daily Mail explains that Buenos Aires "threatened to ban British companies with any links with the oil venture from the mainland, and has insisted that all ships travelling between Argentina and the Falklands must seek permission".

However, the Brit cruise liner Star Princess departed the Argentinian capital without hindrance, bearing 2,600 passengers set to step ashore at Port Stanley tomorrow "as one of the highlights of their South American cruise".*

Penguin News, meanwhile, had this morning lowered the Argentinian flag and was gamely battling on, despite the risk of sinking under an excess of bandwidth.

Navy intercepts Argentinian warship
near British waters

Destroyer HMS York spotted the vessel around ten miles inside the disputed “oil zone” around the South Atlantic islands.

The British crew had to radio the Argentinian ship, a smaller corvette named ARA Drummond, to demand that it change its course. Sources told The Sun that the ship made an “innocent navigational blunder” and were embarrassed about the mistake.

It is believed that the Drummond was spotted sailing alongside a French fleet before it broke away and headed for the disputed zone.

Under international law, the 15 miles of sea surrounding the Falklands are officially British waters.

The ship was spotted around 65 miles from the islands, in an area of sea called the “conservation zone”.

It is in this zone that the oil exploration is taking place. It is not illegal for Argentinian ships to enter it but the incident has heightened tensions.

A spokesman for the MoD played down the incident, insisting that the radio communication had been “friendly”.

He said: “We can confirm that on 28 January this year during rough weather and at night, HMS YORK and an Argentine ship were operating in the same locality in international waters around 50 miles from Falkland Island Territorial Waters. After a friendly dialogue by radio they each continued with their own exercises.”

On Wednesday the MoD said that HMS York would remain the area around the islands. A British submarine has also been dispatched to the Falklands to patrol the area.

Argentina has since protested to the UN about the British oil exploration. Its foreign minister is due to meet Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

[ShadowDragon8685]

... Washington decided not to back the Brits if this goes south?

*sigh*

If Obama has one problem, he tries too much to be a mediator and a "meet in the middle" type.

It's gotten him several gigantic dildo-shaped torpedos stamped with a big red elephant straight up his ass during the year we've just had, and it's shaping up to be more of the same now.


Taking no action/stance is in fact, an action/stance to be taken, and while at times it may be the right stance, this is not one of them.

Pissing off one of our few true, blue allies by refusing to just out and say "the Falklands are British, yo."? I'm starting to think that President Obama's as afraid of unilateral, decisive action as Bush was unafraid of it. This isn't even a hard call, I'd think, just come out and say that the Falklands are British, and if the Argentinans try to take it by force, the UK will have the backing of the US.

If I thought he had a cynical, Chicagoan bone in his body, I'd start to think he was holding off on declaring for the British until the British decided to give the US a sweet deal on the oil under the islands, but frankly this just looks like another patented Obama Middle-Road Stance.

[K. A. Pital]

... Washington decided not to back the Brits if this goes south?

*sigh*

If Obama has one problem, he tries too much to be a mediator and a "meet in the middle" type.

Why should he back the British in their local wars? Because the British back the US in it's local wars? "You back my wars and I back yours"? What if Obama doesn't give a crap about U.S. wars, what if he doesn't want to start any new wars and what if he certainly doesn't want to get involved in any possible conflicts by the British? Is he still stupid?

Why?

Pissing off one of our few true, blue allies

I think refusing to back up someone's territorial claims is not a big deal. It's not like it will make Britain angry and it will... do what? Severe ties with the USA and badly damage it's own economy?

The only fallout is the British no longer backing U.S. wars. But hey, perhaps that's for the best. Will make the USA a little less prone to invading nations, perhaps. Heh.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Why should he back the British in their local wars? Because the British back the US in it's local wars? "You back my wars and I back yours"? What if Obama doesn't give a crap about U.S. wars, what if he doesn't want to start any new wars and what if he certainly doesn't want to get involved in any possible conflicts by the British? Is he still stupid?

Why?

Simple: in this atmosphere we have so little goodwill that any which might be generated in Latin America by saying "I don't have a dog in this fight" will be more than negated by the increased piss-offedness of the UK.

Frankly, it comes up to an entirely cynical question of "what have they done for us lately?" Frankly, Latin America doesn't export much to us we can't get elsewhere except violence, drugs and blood money. So we might not have banannas in the wintertime, big deal; worse comes to worse we can just get the Canadians to import them for us. Whereas the UK has had our back for a long damn time, and even as they get more and more angry at the Bushian Escapades and the Republican Recession, they still stick with us.

When you're short on allies, snubbing the one you still have is a pretty stupid blunder. So, yes. He would be stupid, especially as refusing to back the british makes the Argentians more likely to try something. Certainly they can't take the Islands as they're currently defended, but a strike on the oil wells wouldn't be out of the question - or more likely, just doing something annoying that would shut down the operation's functionality without actually shooting or blowing something up. The British wouldn't open fire first, since they know it would cost them all credibility in the scenario, but we're Yankees. shooting first, shooting later, shooting some more for good measure then extracting information from the corpses with our CSI teams is practically our SOP by this point. Frankly, after the last administration, nobody wants to piss off the USA who doesn't actually want a war with us, because we're so prone to flying off the handle.

Hence, if we declare Britain to be our dog in that fight, the Argentinans will bitch, moan, and do nothing at all of consequence.

I think refusing to back up someone's territorial claims is not a big deal. It's not like it will make Britain angry and it will... do what? Severe ties with the USA and badly damage it's own economy?

The only fallout is the British no longer backing U.S. wars. But hey, perhaps that's for the best. Will make the USA a little less prone to invading nations, perhaps. Heh.

Laugh it up, pal. As an American, I don't like the way we were prone to invading countries at the drop of an old grudge over the Bushian years either, but if you're going to war it's better to have allies than to not have them. Wouldn't be for my best; yours, maybe, but not mine, so I think you'll understand when I say that I place a higher priority on what's better for me and mine than that which is better for you and yours. Not like you'd place anyone else and theirs above you and yours.

[Bakustra]

What I got from Obama's decision is that he's trying to keep the rest of the world out of this dispute, since it really is a matter between Argentina and the UK. If the US joins in, that's pretty much carte blanche for any nation that wants to throw their flag into the ring. As things are, South America is supporting Argentina, and this isn't likely to convince them to back off, but if it keeps Central America, NATO, China, and Russia out of this dispute then I agree with Obama's decision.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Laugh it up, pal. As an American, I don't like the way we were prone to invading countries at the drop of an old grudge over the Bushian years either, but if you're going to war it's better to have allies than to not have them. Wouldn't be for my best; yours, maybe, but not mine, so I think you'll understand when I say that I place a higher priority on what's better for me and mine than that which is better for you and yours. Not like you'd place anyone else and theirs above you and yours.

It's precisely that sort of attitude that led to a number of conflicts the US got involved in. Irony much?

[Thanas]

Frankly, it comes up to an entirely cynical question of "what have they done for us lately?" Frankly, Latin America doesn't export much to us we can't get elsewhere except violence, drugs and blood money. So we might not have banannas in the wintertime, big deal; worse comes to worse we can just get the Canadians to import them for us. Whereas the UK has had our back for a long damn time, and even as they get more and more angry at the Bushian Escapades and the Republican Recession, they still stick with us.

Apparently, you do not know that a large volume of US trade comes from South America. Heck, Brazil alone is a bigger trading partner than the UK, UK exports and imports are about half of the Brazillian ones. You also seem to have missed that the Obama administration is trying to regain some goodwill in the region and that it tries to get closer economic ties there.

So you are oversimplifying the situation.

The British wouldn't open fire first, since they know it would cost them all credibility in the scenario, but we're Yankees. shooting first, shooting later, shooting some more for good measure then extracting information from the corpses with our CSI teams is practically our SOP by this point. Frankly, after the last administration, nobody wants to piss off the USA who doesn't actually want a war with us, because we're so prone to flying off the handle.

Stop wanking to the USA. It is tiresome and makes you look like a child. In case you are not noticing, the entire world is pretty much laughing at the stupidity of the americans at this point.

[K. A. Pital]

Frankly, it comes up to an entirely cynical question of "what have they done for us lately?"

Considering the US did so much shit to Latin America, unsurprising that you lost a lot of good will.

[Starglider]

The only fallout is the British no longer backing U.S. wars. But hey, perhaps that's for the best. Will make the USA a little less prone to invading nations, perhaps. Heh.

Not entirely true. If oil exploitation goes on under British control, it will be a friendly environment for US based oil companies. Furthermore the US will be able to buy the oil at reasonable prices and with little risk of supply interruption. South American countries, on the other hand, either permitt exploitation by their national oil companies only or impose harsh restrictions on multinationals, with a tendency to steal (nationalise) all their investments at the drop of a hat. Furthermore they have demonstrated a willingness to restrict oil deliveries to the US and artificially inflate oil prices as a means of exerting political pressure (or just grandstanding). Thus the US is better off if these fields are exploited under British supervision rather than under the control of the Argentinian government.

[aieeegrunt]

I'd love to see the Argies try something, they would definetly get their asses kicked.

[Darth Tanner]

Brazil alone is a bigger trading partner than the UK, UK exports and imports are about half of the Brazillian ones.

Whats your source on this? The sources I've googled show trade with the UK as being worth double Brazil and about eighteen times Argentina.

link

Ultimately Obama is very unlikely to get the USA involved now as it will achieve nothing but anger S. America. Argentina has no legal claim to the islands and US support would not change their belief to the contrary. If Argentina was desperate enough to start another round of military conflict over the islands Britain can kerb stomp them on her own now the islands have a proper garrison.

[Starglider]

I'd love to see the Argies try something, they would definetly get their asses kicked.

Hundreds, possibly thousands of people would die. Most of the casualties would be civillians, military personnel who do not support with the invasion, or British citizens. The people who actually ordered the attack would deserve to be tried for war crimes, but I suspect they would escape without a scratch. Frankly if you want all those people to die just for your entertainment, you are a sick fuck.

[Thanas]

Brazil alone is a bigger trading partner than the UK, UK exports and imports are about half of the Brazillian ones.

Whats your source on this? The sources I've googled show trade with the UK as being worth double Brazil and about eighteen times Argentina.

link

Huh, I must have read that graph wrong. Conceded.

[Guardsman Bass]

To be fair to the US (from reading that article), it sounded more like they just don't want to be drawn into it at all, so while they refused to openly say "The Falklands are British", they also said "We're not getting involved" - which favors the British, seeing as how they are their islands and they have the upper hand.

If there ever was a Second Falklands War, I have no doubt they'd probably at least support the British forces there, lest they risk the Brits pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

Whats your source on this? The sources I've googled show trade with the UK as being worth double Brazil and about eighteen times Argentina.

That's what I found as well. The UK is the US's sixth largest trading partner, after the usual expected countries (Canada, Mexico, China, Japan) plus Germany, and that amount of trade this year, for example (US$97.2 billion) is nearly that of the two highest Latin American trade partners (Venezuela at US$56.9 billion and Brazil at US$54.1 billion) combined.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Frankly, it comes up to an entirely cynical question of "what have they done for us lately?"

Considering the US did so much shit to Latin America, unsurprising that you lost a lot of good will.

Glass houses, stones, Stas.


I'm not saying we haven't, in the past, given them reason to be annoyed with us, but frankly, for all the things he did wrong, backing our allies in the first Falklands war was the right move on Reagan's part.

You get the backs of your allies, unless you want them to leave your own back open.

This bullshit "we're not involved" crap is not going to make South America start vigorously fellating the good old red, white and blue. Maybe saying "the Argentinans have the proper claim to the Islands, and we'll back their claim" would, but even that is unlikely. And unless South America as a whole starts sucking red, swallowing white and spitting blue, it's not going to weigh in as worth the cost in goodwill from one of the few countries which still have goodwill towards us.

It's a simple cost-benefit analysis here. The only way to make Argentina love us would be if we sent our ultramodern armed forces to wipe the British off the Falklands so the Argentine flag can fly above it. Starting a shooting war with Canada, Mexico, the UK and the rest of the NATO countries, on the other hand, would be a monumentally, colossally retarded move to make; the level of stupidity involved in doing so would be more than George Dubyah could have pulled off whilst stoned out of his gourd.

If we pull this "we don't have a dog in this fight" crap, the Argentinas don't care since we're already in their dog house and they won't see a 'neutral' stance as being favorable to them. Wins us no points with them or with the rest of S. America. Whereas it does lose us points with the British. Meanwhile, saying "the UK has the proper claim here" makes us look like bullies and pisses off Argentina, but we're already in their dog house, there's not much more they can actually do to us. It makes the British happier, and the rest of the EU and NATO might pay lip service to it being none of our concern, but they won't do anything because if we back one of them when some upstart starts aiming guns enviously at one of their holdings, it means we'll likely back them if someone else starts eyeing up their holdings.

This middle road satisfies nobody except the ethicists who say we don't have any reason to be involved (they're wrong), and puts us in a worse position overall. The only people who profit from this situation are people like you who want to see the US in a worse position overall, and frankly I see no reason to satisfy your desire to see my country diminished.

[K. A. Pital]

That was a huge rant which hardly had a point, man.

If it could be summed up, it would look like:

Wins us no points with them or with the rest of S. America.

But what if it actually does? Perhaps you should wait and see for the international reaction other than just claiming South America does not give a shit whether you give verbal support to the UK or not (because let's be realistic, the support is a verbal matter only, with a 99% probability - no one is going to start a large shooting war, and the likelihood of a conflict is rather low).