Falkland Islands: Government rules out protection law
 

I firmly believe in the rights of the Falklands islanders to self determine if they wish to remain a part of Great Britain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16811050

This seems ripe for old Hugo Chavez to make an attempt at indirectly poking at the US, by helping against the Brits. (America will always help Britain, rightfully so, we love you guys.)

Kinda like how Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and Russia.

Whatever the Falklanders want, they deserve. But the UN has proven time and time again how inept they are at protecting people, just ask the Serbians.

Kudos to mother Britain for doing it herself.

As stated in another thread, HMS Dauntless is on her way down to the Falklands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...auntless-1.jpg

As proven by Belize and Falklands, the good ol' U.S. of A. has a none-interventionist policy with regard to South America. This obviously doesn't apply to the rest of the world, nor to Central America. :o

Not to say we will not jump in if Venezuela sees this as a chance to expand it's influence using the Falklands and Argentina as a catalyst.

Perhaps they fire on British ships. America will help, because Britain is in our good old boys club along with France and Germany.

I was simply speculating in my previous post and this one. Simply throwing out consequences, and theories.:)

I hope she has a stock of missiles :DL

*sigh* Yes, let's hope that they have remembered that small concern. :damn:

Is that why the invasion of Grenada still went ahead with Ronnie assuring Maggie that it wouldn't be invading and upsetting the British?

Better hope they don't have anti ship missiles. Oh wait...

They been had them. They did a good number on you guys in '82 with them.

Maybe send a carrier too? 5000 troops as well. You might find yourself with some new South American real estate.


Or you can just Nuke Argentina. Show off them muscles!:salute:

(god bless mother Britain) NUKE EM!!oneeleven!11

ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!!

http://insovietbritannia.comoj.com/s...lBritannia.jpg

some more background info, taken from http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneu...l-integration/


"Time to end support for foreign regional integration?"

Past development:
"On Tuesday [18.12.2011], the South American countries banded together in support of Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, a democratic and self-governing British territory in the South Atlantic. This move formalises a trend, which began last year, whereby South American countries reject British naval vessels from entering their ports, citing British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as the reason for the refusal. For example, Uruguay denied the British destroyer, HMS Gloucester, access to Montevideo harbour in 2010; while, earlier this year, Brazil did the same in relation to the British corvette, HMS Clyde, which was prevented from cruising into the port of Rio de Janeiro
...
What is significant about this latest Falklands spat is the way in which it is becoming regionalised. The South American countries have started to band together to support Argentina. More significantly, rather than Argentina, another South American country – Uruguay – proposed the closure of South America’s Atlantic ports not only to British warships, but also to merchant vessels registered in the Falklands. This move was then supported by the whole of the ‘Southern Common Market’. From this moment on, all British warships and merchant vessels flying the flag of the Falkland Islands will no longer be welcome in ports belonging to the Atlantic-facing trade bloc, which includes four countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay), and several observers.
...
In some ways, though, the closure of South America’s Atlantic ports does not matter very much. There are only twenty-five vessels in the Falklands’ merchant marine; the Royal Navy’s warships do not need to berth in South America’s Atlantic ports, for Britain has the logistical wherewithal to support them almost anywhere with its auxiliary fleet (as well as at the naval station in the Falklands at Mare Harbour); and vessels flying Britain’s merchant ensign will still be welcome (Uruguay went out of its way to assert that its support for Argentina is not an anti-British commercial drive).

Author's opinion:
Europeans often give support to regional organisations on other continents, which are often likened to the European Union itself.

Europeans frequently support the African Union, the Southern Common Market and the Association of South-east Asian Nations, among other organisations that are less well-known.

The European Union should end its policy of trying to build up foreign regional organisations. On the contrary, it should actively seek to prevent their crystallisation. After all, ‘divide and rule’ is perhaps the primary rule of all politics.
...
What would happen in twenty or thirty years from now, should the European Union wish to promote a particular policy on another continent – in Africa, in Central Asia, in South America or even South-east Asia – only to find itself blocked by some newly-empowered regional organisation? Or worse, what would happen if those foreign organisations sought to use their collective power to impose their own policies on Europeans?"

You got to love geostrategy :-)

[khm] Bosnians actually [khm]

But other than that, the UN made a total mockery of themselves in that war

RULE BRITANNIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWz9MrHskk

You are 10 years old? For sure, you have the mind of a 10 years old...

Hey there Marcantilan - how's the book translation to English going?

I think he's taking the mick...well...I hope he is anyway... :doh:

What is Kerchners strange sudden obsession with the Malvinas anyway, I mean it's been thirty years of the status quo with some occasional upsets but nothing like the movements we're seeing now.
And they just had to pick the spawn of Maggie to be in power at the time.

Ah well, all hot air I imagine from both sides.

Well, probably the South Atlantic Islands issue is the only (lonely) national cause here in Argentine.

In the last 30 years, local governments used lot of "tactics" to try to resume negotiations over the islands: from sending TV sets, Teddy Bears and nice letters in the ´90s (it doesn´t work) to the new "hard" position. This new "hard" position is really not new, but had 8 years since its inception.

From my point of view, the new approach is working: new voices (US, LA countries, China) are supporting the negotiations over the islands, which is the first goal of Argentina.

In the other hand, don´t have a doubt that the Islands thing is in right now in the top of the government agenda, just to hide some economic problems.

I think the same is happening in the other side of the Atlantic.

In any case, I don´t think this barking could end in a war. Argentina is not willing to initiate it (doesn´t have the hardware also...) and not even a single airplane was deployed south to "counter-balance". I think is time to honour the dead of 1982 (from both sides), no to creating new widows and orphans.

Regards!

Hello Mr. Berbunch,

Submitted the book to an English publisher (to read it in spanish, translate and publish it in UK). I am waiting for an answer.

Did you read this chapter (via Google translator)?: http://translate.google.com/translat...8.html&act=url

Regards!

Is the Tierra del Fuego (Beagle Channel) ownership dispute mostly settled in Argentina or is that included in the "South Atlantic Islands Issue"?
:hmmm:

That one (ownership of Beagle Channel and islands Picton, Nueva and Lennox) was settled in the eighties (to Chile). Later, in the `90s, Argentina and Chile settled the other big boundaries problem, on Laguna del Desierto (to Argentina).

In non-argentine circles I`d prefer to name the islands the "South Atlantic Islands" and the war the "South Atlantic War". I don´t like to use the name "Falkland" for the islands and, surely, the name "Malvinas" is viewed as a provocation sometimes.

I could use Falkvinas or Malklands :hmmm: ....