VnomadThe UK has more right to the Falklands than the Argentines do to Argentina. Next.
Please examine the context before you quote a post. That statement was with regard to South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
VnomadDASs not comparable to Spectra
Raccelite not founded :diablo:
Leaving aside the DASS vs SPECTRA argument, the chart doesn’t compare the systems listed. The MICA-EM for example isn’t ‘comparable’ to the AMRAAM, but they’re both there. Basic Reccelite functionality has already been demonstrated on the Eurofighter. I believe a fuller integration is ongoing as a part of the P1E upgrade.
VnomadRafale and Eurofighter, competences compared.
ELINT : DASS
IMINT: Reccelite
VnomadPerhaps i should have made it clearer that in my opinion the current agro and tearing up of the agreement lies squarly with the kirchiners politics.
While I can’t dismiss that point of view out of hand, it must be pointed out that the Kirchiners didn’t create the dispute. Its still got as much support from the Argentinian public as the defence of the Falklands has in UK, if not more. The South American nations as well as several Caribbean nations also appear to be solidly behind Argentina. The fact that the issue was apparently on the backburner cannot be interpreted as an ad hoc acceptance by Argentina of the status quo as a permanent solution to the dispute.
VnomadCompletely different situation, The Outer Space Treaty forbids any nation from claiming any celestial body. Congress passed a resolution ( can’t remember if was before or after Apollo 11) stating that the planting of the American flag was ” a symbolic statement of pride in our accomplishment and is not a claim of sovereignty” or something like that!
US of course has no claim to sovereignty over the moon, that wasn’t my assertion at all. It was with regard to how justifiable British claims over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are, no more than that of various countries (including Argentina) over Antarctica (where the Americans were arguably the first to land).
VnomadPlease remind me how much money the UK governments have given in Overseas Aid to India since 1982, and how you intend to pay the UK taxpayers it all back? If it meant the politicians would stop giving our money away, I’d be the first to recommend pulling back to our borders.
Unfortunately some of us have the strange belief that giving money to ungrateful, unfriendly people is better than supporting our own homeless and sick.
Have A Nice Day.
You are familiar with the history of the subcontinent aren’t you? The remittances from the East India Company equaled about a quarter of Britain’s GDP in the 19th century. Historic treasures looted from the country still lie in British museums with the prospect of return being ‘non-negotiable’.
The British people (rightfully) take great pride in their history, but its not surprising to see that still plenty of resentment over that period as well. Even if I don’t share the sentiment, I can understand how someone reading about the hero’s welcome General Dyer received on his return home or any of Churchill’s racist rants, would look forward to Britain’s waning influence in the world. Britain has contributed what… $5-10 billion (?) over the last thirty years. Not quite enough to buy everyone’s gratitude.
VnomadAlthough waiting until 2007 to cancel makes me think that it was the kirchiners politics rather than any real disagreement over the deal that saw it scrapped.
Possibly. Or the UK may have been in the midst of granting a major license, or maybe Argentina spent the intervening years lobbying Britain for greater adherence to the agreement. Probably best to get all the facts before arriving at a firm opinion with regard to the cancellation of the agreement.
VnomadAnd they stuck a flag on it 😀
What’s Argentinas reasoning? They’re hundreds of miles away!
Closer than the UK, but yes. Granted. So neither country has any real justifiable claim to the islands (at least no more than the US has to the moon :D). Which is why I propose using it as a bargaining chip, which the UK can grant to Argentina in return for concessions during negotiations – as long as well… negotiations take place.
VnomadWould you believe I ook thefalklands oil agreement argentina cancelled 2007 bbc link off the open web page
falklands oil agreement argentina cancelled 2007 bbcshould be first hit
Found it. Thanks.
.
.
.
From the second link on the search page –
Mr Timmerman has accused the United Kingdom of reneging on a 1995 agreement that the two countries would work together on offshore exploration in the South Atlantic, the UK having later unilaterally issued licences to drill in Falklands’ waters. Argentina responded in 2007 by withdrawing from that agreement and Mr Timmerman has now committed the Argentine Republic to pursuing all aspects of Falklands oil exploration in the courts, both domestic and foreign.
http://www.mobbly.com/politics/falklands-oil-exploration-comes-under-argentinian-pressure.html
Not sure how black and white the issue was.
VnomadAh quick google and lo it was 2007 it was scrapped
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501693.
Not an overly reliable source i know.
Dead link. 🙁
VnomadBritain discovered them, completely un inhabited.
The Americans landed on the moon, found it completely uninhabited.
VnomadIt was torn up by the Kirchiners as a preliminary to the current bout of protests, but yes this was probably the best solution available (at this time).
Do you have a link or something? I’d like to know more but google just spouts a ton of unrelated information.
VnomadIf it’s just a semantic argument, then why does Argentina demand it?
Answer, their bruised pride demands it (and their greed for the mineral rights).
Maybe so. And you can choose to ignore them if you like. Nowhere does it say that Falklands has to be a part of South America. They can continue being an archipelago in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
You are asking for shared sovereignty because Argentina wants it, not because the people of the Falklands want it. This is nothing like India.
And how would you describe the basis of British sovereignty over the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands?
VnomadYour argument carries no weight. You’re basically trying to say that the Falklands should be independent, but they already have that choice. They want to be a part of Britain! NOBODY IS FORCING THEM TO DO ANYTHING! The only ones trying are the Argentinians.
Argentina isn’t invading the islands, today or anytime in the foreseeable future. So if you’re content with the current state of affairs, no reason to get riled up about it.
And how Argentina can claim to have any kind of moral high ground is just a joke. Even now, the media in Argentina is only allowed to print what the government dictates!
I for one said nothing about Argentina having the moral high ground. My point was that Britain (like most countries) has had no qualms in abandoning principled stands when national interests were at stake. So maintaining a rigid position here (and this goes for Argentina as well) doesn’t serve the larger interests of both the UK and the Falkland Islands. As long as the population isn’t under threat of eviction, or being forced to speak Spanish, or being governed from Buenos Aires, negotiation shouldn’t be off the table.
As for our treatment of the Chargos islanders, we do have much to answer for. No country is perfect however, and Argentina should be aware of this more than most!
This isn’t the British Raj we’re talking about that you can dismiss it as history. The Chagos Islanders are still fighting for the right to return home as of today. The courts of United Kingdom have ruled in their favour and still been thwarted by the govt’s use of the ‘royal prerogative’ as well as by designating othe islands are a marine reserve in 2010 (thereby barring the population from return).
You can’t just say we’ll do the right thing here but the wrong thing there because we’re not perfect.
VnomadTo be fair relations did improve and a lot of progress was made such as a mineral sharing arrangement, it is only in recent years that relations have deteriorated.
I was not aware of that. But if a mineral sharing arrangement was viable, that bodes well for a pragmatic solution to the dispute.
Yes Diego garcia is a blemish on the UKs record, but perhaps stands as an example as to why even a few thousand peoples rights are important.
But its not over as yet. How can you consign it to history records?
The Trouble is there is no acceptable comprimise (at this time)
The argentinians (constitutionally) will not accept anything but soverengty of the islands so they are not negotiating in good faith,
Britain cannot enter into negotiations because unless the islanders request it. So Britain cannot negotiate in good faith.
Share sovereignty. As long as the islands have autonomy, its mostly a question of semantics anyway.
After all, when India became a republic in 1950, the basic premise of Commonwealth of Nations was altered to allow its continued membership as well as that of other nations on the same path. I’m sure allowances can be made here as well.
Sign In
