More Bad News for Russia

[Chelseaboy]

Here's a thing.

Not so long ago the Russian leadership was saying the UK is a little island no-one cares about...there's that Russian arrogance again.

Nowadays, UK toilet paper is worth more than the Russian Ruble.; ))))))))))

And we won't be needing to eat dirt either 

[Brasscasing]

Overall, if The United Kingdom can still hold claim to Islands 12,000 kms from home and restrict new inhabitants (to ensure they retain control)...then other nations might feel that they can take similar stands now and 100 years in the future it will be accepted, sorta like the Falklands.  Of course it just so happens there is at least 10 billion in oil The United Kingdom will benefit from, and Argentina will not:  It is almost humorous how selective people's outrage and sense of what is right/wrong is.   


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/the-falkland-islands-brace-for-oil-wealth


Fathertime!

You maybe should have read that first link I provided instead of defaulting straight to the Argentine side of the conflict. Reading the link would have clarified such things as government and immigration for you.

The Falklands are a protectorate of the UK. However, they maintain their own government and have their own Constitution. Immigration and/or visa control is not controlled by the UK but by the local government and yes they do have a restrictive immigration policy.

It was only after the Argentine invasion were the Falkland Islands inhabitants allowed offered full UK citizenship (including now EU passport) and British Overseas Territory Citizen passport status. Which, of course, most of the inhabitants have taken advantage of. Again, Argentina opening Pandora's box.

The Falklands are economically self sufficient except for defense. They neither pay tax to the UK, nor receive any government funds from the UK.

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/the-constitution/

Good for the UK and Falklands if there's oil. More power to'em. Pay for some of the damage the Argies caused leaving their smashed military equipment laying about.

Brass

[Shadow]

Here's a thing.

Not so long ago the Russian leadership was saying the UK is a little island no-one cares about...there's that Russian arrogance again.

Nowadays, UK toilet paper is worth more than the Russian Ruble.; ))))))))))

And we won't be needing to eat dirt either 

Who owns Chealsea?

[Anotherkiwi]

Who owns Chelsea?

The area or the football club?  No matter - it's the same answer! 

[fathertime]

That's the second time you've mentioned UK military superiority. You do realize that the it was the Argentines who invaded and tried to militarily seize the island by force in 1982, yes?

Yes, the United Kingdom DOES have military superiority, although it took them a minute to bring in the resources...  That fact doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Argentinians went after them anyway.. 

You maybe should have read that first link I provided instead of defaulting straight to the Argentine side of the conflict. Reading the link would have clarified such things as government and immigration for you.
 

Brass

What makes you think that I didn't read your link? I actually read it before you posted it.  The link I provided explained BOTH sides of the conflict, not just The United Kingdom's.  Did you not notice that minor detail?   Finances wasn't a major reason for the conflict in 1982, but if indeed the area has 60 billion barrels of oil, all that wealth should NOT be benefiting strictly the UK.   

At the end of the day it's what the Falklanders have chosen that counts though. The rest, as they say, is history.

Brass

It appears you are saying that the people residing on the area should be the ones that have the last word.  Right?  If indeed that is your position, then I'd like to hear how we (the USA and the UK) were able to justify the forced relocation and takeover of  these people.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians

 
My position remains that we can't be putting demands on other nations (like Russia) given how filthy our own hands have been. If the Russians wind up sending arms to Argentina, it would be interesting to see how/if they are used.  Not that I have anything against the people of the Falklands who seem nice enough, but I do have a problem with certain European nations pillaging resources and benefiting from the aftermath of the ridiculous colonization they embarked on. 


Fathertime! 

[JayH]

You maybe should have read that first link I provided instead of defaulting straight to the Argentine side of the conflict.

BC--he does not do democracy or democratic process very well!! Incapable of reading links--especially those that contradict his pre-conceived set in concrete "opinions" !!

A  couple of things have come up in thread-- "who owns Chelsea"?  ---  I would widen sanctions to fix that!!

Second one is so called deal on aircraft for food--  I would place sanctions on anyone dealing with Soviet Russia-- and go a step further--physically prevent it happening.
That would "fix"  a few countries thinking!!
The basis--applying enough non-violent pressure on Russia may prevent a  shooting war on the highest plain--if there is a choice- it is clear what is preferable.

[fathertime]

I see comrade fathertime is still not letting facts get in the way of his anti-western rants.

Now it's the turn of lil' ole UK,which still includes Scotland by the way,to feel his ire.

I see you have commenced 'label time' rather than address the actual issue regarding the Falklands or Russia potentially arming the Argentinians. 


 I thought it would have been great if Scotland left the kingdom, but they choose not to, but not by much...but I don't really care very much either way...if they wind up a disgruntled people then it is not a good thing. 


Fathertime!   

[Chelseaboy]

Shadow,

               The Russian Roman Abramovich,no fan of Putin by the way,owns the football club Chelsea.

It's amazing the amount of wealthy Russians who prefer to live in insignificant England ( London is full of them) rather than the paradise that is  Russia isn't it ?

[fathertime]

BC--he does not do democracy or democratic process very well!! Incapable of reading links--especially those that contradict his pre-conceived set in concrete "opinions" !!

 

I read links usually, but I don't find the links you blabber about to be worthwhile.  In the case of Brasscassing, his link was fine. 

Second one is so called deal on aircraft for food-- I would place sanctions on anyone dealing with Soviet Russia-- and go a step further--physically prevent it happening.
That would "fix"  a few countries thinking!!
The basis--applying enough non-violent pressure on Russia may prevent a  shooting war on the highest plain--if there is a choice- it is clear what is preferable.

Interesting, those Australian sanctions will just devastate Argentina (or other Nations) I'm sure!   


Fathertime! 

[Photo Guy]

My position remains that we can't be putting demands on other nations (like Russia) given how filthy our own hands have been. If the Russians wind up sending arms to Argentina, it would be interesting to see how/if they are used.  Not that I have anything against the people of the Falklands who seem nice enough, but I do have a problem with certain European nations pillaging resources and benefiting from the aftermath of the ridiculous colonization they embarked on. 
Fathertime!

This is faulty logic, that makes the point that past mistakes somehow should keep the world from pursuing peace and fairness in our present time. I think the Vietnam War was a stupid move on our part. So? That means we should look the other way, when Russia encourages mayhem and bloodshed in Ukraine? Let's admit it, Putin has a huge problem with Ukraine becoming a trading partner with the EU and with Ukraine becoming a successful democracy. Admit it. That's why the semi-covert Russian military operation in Ukraine, along with outright fire from Russian positions just on the other side of the eastern Ukrainian border. 'little green men', etc. Admit it.

[AC]

Shadow,

               The Russian Roman Abramovich, no fan of Putin by the way, owns the football club Chelsea.

It's amazing the amount of wealthy Russians who prefer to live in insignificant England ( London is full of them) rather than the paradise that is Russia isn't it ?

 

[Shadow]

Shadow,

               The Russian Roman Abramovich,no fan of Putin by the way,owns the football club Chelsea.

It's amazing the amount of wealthy Russians who prefer to live in insignificant England ( London is full of them) rather than the paradise that is  Russia isn't it ?

His current relaitonship with Putin is a lot better since he paid some due taxes.
IT ia oretty amazing that England sells their citizenship for 500.000 Pound, thus giving Russians a free ticket in to a european passport and hustle-free moving of finances. Almnost what they are used to in Russia, pay and all issues are solved.
How is the agenda of Cameron, as I heard a lot of russians found it worth the 5000 quid to book half an hour with him. Just to make a selfie.

[fathertime]

This is faulty logic, that makes the point that past mistakes somehow should keep the world from pursuing peace and fairness in our present time. I think the Vietnam War was a stupid move on our part. So? That means we should look the other way, when Russia encourages mayhem and bloodshed in Ukraine? Let's admit it, Putin has a huge problem with Ukraine becoming a trading partner with the EU and with Ukraine becoming a successful democracy. Admit it. That's why the semi-covert Russian military operation in Ukraine, along with outright fire from Russian positions just on the other side of the eastern Ukrainian border. 'little green men', etc. Admit it.

Hey Photoguy,  I'm not on the same page as the people denying Russian involvement, so for me there is nothing to admit....


What I continue to hold is that the Western powers (and many posters here) are quick to look the other way(or excuse) our own transgressions, while continuing to reap the rewards from them...and then we jump up and down when a rival power makes similar moves.   I understand that is how the world works nowadays, but I'm still going to speak my piece on it!


Fathertime! 

[Shadow]

This is faulty logic, that makes the point that past mistakes somehow should keep the world from pursuing peace and fairness in our present time. I think the Vietnam War was a stupid move on our part. So? That means we should look the other way, when Russia encourages mayhem and bloodshed in Ukraine? Let's admit it, Putin has a huge problem with Ukraine becoming a trading partner with the EU and with Ukraine becoming a successful democracy. Admit it. That's why the semi-covert Russian military operation in Ukraine, along with outright fire from Russian positions just on the other side of the eastern Ukrainian border. 'little green men', etc. Admit it.

Admjit it. the EU had a huge problem with Ukraine being a succesful democraqcy and denying a trade agreement. That is why the semi-covert coup in Ukraine, along with the Russian reaction to it.

[Chelseaboy]

Shadow,

               As long as you have enough money Cameron doesn't mind who he poses for selfies with,same as it ever was with the in the investment bankers pockets Tory party..greed is good is their motto,never mind the 4 million poor who get left behind and need to use food banks provided by charity organizations .

[jone]

Admjit it. the EU had a huge problem with Ukraine being a succesful democraqcy and denying a trade agreement. That is why the semi-covert coup in Ukraine, along with the Russian reaction to it.

Tell us all again, Shadow!

How was it a covert coup?  We're flapping our ears, waiting to hear.  Just so you remember, the Russians were actually negotiating between the Rada and the EuroMaidan activists and had already decided to support the activists with a new election scheduled for December.  When Yanukovich saw the handwriting on the wall, he fled.  That, too, was encouraged by the Russians - they even assisted him when he went to Kharkiv and then on to Rostov. 

You have labeled this a semi-covert coup, but failed to respect that the Crimean parliament was overtaken by men with guns and forced to render a new government.  Funny, I can't seem to remember the guns inside the Rada.

I guess my memory of events is significantly different than yours.

[Shadow]

Tell us all again, Shadow!

How was it a covert coup?  We're flapping our ears, waiting to hear.  Just so you remember, the Russians were actually negotiating between the Rada and the EuroMaidan activists and had already decided to support the activists with a new election scheduled for December.  When Yanukovich saw the handwriting on the wall, he fled.  That, too, was encouraged by the Russians - they even assisted him when he went to Kharkiv and then on to Rostov. 

You have labeled this a semi-covert coup, but failed to respect that the Crimean parliament was overtaken by men with guns and forced to render a new government.  Funny, I can't seem to remember the guns inside the Rada.

I guess my memory of events is significantly different than yours.

Indeed you are probably getting the first symptoms of old age.
Or propaganda, whatever you wish it to be.

[Shadow]

Shadow,

               As long as you have enough money Cameron doesn't mind who he poses for selfies with,same as it ever was with the in the investment bankers pockets Tory party..greed is good is their motto,never mind the 4 million poor who get left behind and need to use food banks provided by charity organizations .

Well as long as you believe to be free to choose such governments, all is well.

[Brasscasing]

Yes, the United Kingdom DOES have military superiority, although it took them a minute to bring in the resources...  That fact doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Argentinians went after them anyway..

My point being that military superiority (or a stronger nation) should not be held responsible for employing said military superiority (within reason) to defend themselves or those they have agreed to protect if attacked.

In other words; you mentioned "the reason The United Kingdom still has control of these island is their military superiority." This is a misleading statement. The reason the Falklands remains a protectorate of the UK is because the Falkland government has chosen to be a protectorate of the UK. The UK's military superiority has nothing to do with it.

  What makes you think that I didn't read your link? I actually read it before you posted it.  The link I provided explained BOTH sides of the conflict, not just The United Kingdom's.  Did you not notice that minor detail?   Finances wasn't a major reason for the conflict in 1982, but if indeed the area has 60 billion barrels of oil, all that wealth should NOT be benefiting strictly the UK.   

The excerpt I pasted from the link was relevant and in response to your comment here "Why does the United Kingdom and their transplanted citizens continue to control these disputed islands 1000's of miles from home but right off the coast of Argentina?  Argentina still claims the islands are their today, but doesn't have the military strength to enforce it."

It was not an explanation of any side of the argument. It was to correct your erroneous comment that 'military strength' or lack of same has something to do with Argentina's claims to the islands, it doesn't. The people of the Falklands have made their choice.

It appears you are saying that the people residing on the area should be the ones that have the last word.  Right?  If indeed that is your position, then I'd like to hear how we (the USA and the UK) were able to justify the forced relocation and takeover of  these people.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians

I'm saying nothing of the sort. These people (the Chagossians) may have a legitimate claim as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights seems to disagee.

However, to clarify, the islands (Falklands) were uninhabited when discovered by the Europeans (Spain, Portulgal, France take your pick they all seem to have claimed discovering at one time or another) there was no indigenous population to relocate.

My position remains that we can't be putting demands on other nations (like Russia) given how filthy our own hands have been. If the Russians wind up sending arms to Argentina, it would be interesting to see how/if they are used.  Not that I have anything against the people of the Falklands who seem nice enough, but I do have a problem with certain European nations pillaging resources and benefiting from the aftermath of the ridiculous colonization they embarked on. 

Well, let's assume that your argument had merit (I've just shown you it does not), do you believe that just because  illegal, immoral or just down right nasty actions  taken by nations/states/armies have been committed/perpetrated  throughout history, that our moral/legal authority to intervene in a clearly illegal action (Ukraine) by a rogue state (Russia) nowadays is abrogated? Your comments seem to support this stance.

Russia can send all the military surplus it wants to Argentina it doesn't matter. What matters is if the Argentine's use their new museum pieces to launch another illegal assault on a UK protectorate, right?

Otherwise, let Argentina pay to become Russia's junkyard makes no difference to me. 

Brass

[AC]

It seems to me that the British have a legitimate claim on the Falkland Islands since they have been there more than 100 years.  And it's a good thing that they do have military superiority because otherwise Argentina would have overthrown their rule.  Since the British claimed those islands over 100 years ago when nobody else lived there (if I understood what I read correctly) then I don't see how Argentina can claim them.  Finders keepers?

[fathertime]

 
Thank you for continuing to make your case. 

In other words; you mentioned "the reason The United Kingdom still has control of these island is their military superiority." This is a misleading statement. The reason the Falklands remains a protectorate of the UK is because the Falkland government has chosen to be a protectorate of the UK. The UK's military superiority has nothing to do with it.

The excerpt I pasted from the link was relevant and in response to your comment here "Why does the United Kingdom and their transplanted citizens continue to control these disputed islands 1000's of miles from home but right off the coast of Argentina?  Argentina still claims the islands are their today, but doesn't have the military strength to enforce it."

It was not an explanation of any side of the argument. It was to correct your erroneous comment that 'military strength' or lack of same has something to do with Argentina's claims to the islands, it doesn't. The people of the Falklands have made their choice.

 

The point I'm making is that the UK had the military strength to protect it's people...that is the main reason it still reigns....


--they were not the first to discover the islands
-- they are not located anywhere close to them geographically

I'm saying nothing of the sort. These people (the Chagossians) may have a legitimate claim as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights seems to disagee.

It is not 'unfortunate' that the EUROPEAN COURT ruled for a EUROPEAN country...it is not just bad luck it is intentional, and gives birth to cries of injustice, and double dealing.

 

Well, let's assume that your argument had merit (I've just shown you it does not), do you believe that just because  illegal, immoral or just down right nasty actions  taken by nations/states/armies have been committed/perpetrated  throughout history, that our moral/legal authority to intervene in a clearly illegal action (Ukraine) by a rogue state (Russia) nowadays is abrogated? Your comments seem to support this stance.

Russia can send all the military surplus it wants to Argentina it doesn't matter. What matters is if the Argentine's use their new museum pieces to launch another illegal assault on a UK protectorate, right?

Otherwise, let Argentina pay to become Russia's junkyard makes no difference to me. 

Brass

 
1.  I don't believe you have made the argument I've made meritless...it is ridiculous to think the issue is so clear cut.
2.  Yes I do support the stance that  we have no authority to intervene in situations like Ukraine, because we are guilty of similar infractions for periods of 100's of years....it is 2015 now and Russia is doing the kinds of things we have already done...one big difference was Western Powers were not challenged, like we are now challenging Russia. 
3.  If the Argentinians vie for more control of resources (in and around the Falklands), and threaten with Russian weaponry I'd be Ok with that.  I see it as tit for tat....Although western powers may not see it that way, I speculate that many developing nations (former colonies) would see it that way too.


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

It seems to me that the British have a legitimate claim on the Falkland Islands since they have been there more than 100 years.  And it's a good thing that they do have military superiority because otherwise Argentina would have overthrown their rule.  Since the British claimed those islands over 100 years ago when nobody else lived there (if I understood what I read correctly) then I don't see how Argentina can claim them.  Finders keepers?

Well AC, the British actually weren't the first to 'discover' the islands...if we were to use the finders/keepers philosophy France would be owner...but you are correct regarding the military superiority aspect...it appears to me that Argentina should have some control of the resources, not some faraway island/kingdom with the best guns....The Argentinian shorelines/environment will be the first affected in case of mishap. 


Fathertime!   


Fathertime!     




Fathertime!   

[Brasscasing]

The point I'm making is that the UK had the military strength to protect it's people...that is the main reason it still reigns....

I take issue with use of the word "reign", otherwise your comment is accurate enough. Is this a problem for you?

--they were not the first to discover the islands
-- they are not located anywhere close to them geographically

1) Debatable.
2) Geography seems to be at issue with you. Do you believe that based on geography the Falklands Islands because it's situated close to the Argentine mainland is subject to an Argentine form of 'Manifest Destiny' or do you believe the duly elected government of the Falklands has a right to determine it's own future/alliances?

It is not 'unfortunate' that the EUROPEAN COURT ruled for a EUROPEAN country...it is not just bad luck it is intentional, and gives birth to cries of injustice, and double dealing.

I'm not familiar with the legal ins and outs of the petition or it's dismissal so I really couldn't comment further. You may be correct, however, over the years I've observed whenever a controversial decision's come down in any legal proceeding there are always those that will claim there was injustice done (usually the losing side  )

1.  I don't believe you have made the argument I've made meritless...it is ridiculous to think the issue is so clear cut.
2.  Yes I do support the stance that  we have no authority to intervene in situations like Ukraine, because we are guilty of similar infractions for periods of 100's of years....it is 2015 now and Russia is doing the kinds of things we have already done...one big difference was Western Powers were not challenged, like we are now challenging Russia. 
3.  If the Argentinians vie for more control of resources (in and around the Falklands), and threaten with Russian weaponry I'd be Ok with that.  I see it as tit for tat....Although western powers may not see it that way, I speculate that many developing nations (former colonies) would see it that way too.

1) I disagree. Applying the Chagossian situation to the Falkland's argument is faulty logic and my first line to you was the history is complicated, was it not?

2)You believe we (Nato, the west) should not intervene because of our own (societies) past actions, if I'm catching your drift. Yet at the same time you advocate (your para 3) perpetrating those same aggressive/illegal/criminal actions you've decided to condemn western/European nations for. Does this make sense to you?

3)"If the Argentinians vie for more control of resources (in and around the Falklands), and threaten with Russian weaponry I'd be Ok with that.  I see it as tit for tat....".

 I see. Will you also be O.K. with it when the UK/Nato or some other world power responds in kind and repels the Argentines...will it be "tit for tat" then or another example of western imperialist aggression?

Brass 

[AC]

Here's a thing.

Not so long ago the Russian leadership was saying the UK is a little island no-one cares about...there's that Russian arrogance again.

Nowadays, UK toilet paper is worth more than the Russian Ruble.; ))))))))))

And we won't be needing to eat dirt either 

I don't know about all that but the price of oil keeps dropping.  Down another 58 cents today. 

They better plant some more cabbage and potatoes over there in that dirt.

http://www.oil-price.net/

[sleepycat]

Since the Rouble is fast becoming worthless, their economy will probably be better off if they ditch the currency and move to a barter system.