Is it actually Russia that is imposing more and more costs?

[fathertime]

Good day to you, Fathertime
 

Buenas Tardes Msmobyone! 

Now, I know you are losing the plot..  the islands were mostly unihabited. FACT.. The UK's claim long predate's Argentina's existence as an entity.

Mostly uninhabited means they were partially inhabited.  Even now the islands are mostly uninhabited...a couple 1000 people isn't very many.  When 2000 people would potentially have control of 60 billion barrels of oil there is something wacky about that...although I hold that it is the UK that a fix on that particular resource.

OK, based on your 'rationale' we should be sanctioning the USA, the traditional sea-faring nations -Spain, France, Portugal and the UK...Tibet for the Golden Horde..

Well the USA and other nation are not going to be sanctioned at this time, but when you consider the great wealth certain nations have obtained, in part because of the colonization and reaping of resources it does seem pretty hypocritical to jump up and down and apply sanctions and threaten war over these things. 




There is no ultimate right for the UK to have effective control over the islands.  As long as the UK is willing to fight for them, they can keep them entirely as their own entity, and be the benefactor of it's resources.  It will continue to create rancor in the region, and there may come a day of reckoning for the greed displayed.  A sharing of revenues from the resources would suffice in my opinion, but that doesn't appear on the table at this time.


Fathertime! 

[msmobyone]

Mostly uninhabited means they were partially inhabited.  Even now the islands are mostly uninhabited...a couple 1000 people isn't very many.  When 2000 people would potentially have control of 60 billion barrels of oil there is something wacky about that...although I hold that it is the UK that a fix on that particular resource.

)  You keep on missing the POINT ... From WHERE were these people ?  France, UK, Spain...  ANSWER .. they are anglo-saxons on the  Falklands ..  they WANT to be BRITISH dependants... the 'oil / gas' is just the latest 'byatch' from a nation that didn't exists while the limeys were populating the island. The4 islands were NOT populated when discovered by successive Europeans ...

Well the USA and other nation are not going to be sanctioned at this time, but when you consider the great wealth certain nations have obtained, in part because of the colonization and reaping of resources it does seem pretty hypocritical to jump up and down and apply sanctions and threaten war over these things. 

Is it not correct and just to 'threaten' when one rogue nation decides to re-write borders in the late 20 th / 21st C using military might ? Otherwise, Europe will return to it's old ways and constant wars.

There is no ultimate right for the UK to have effective control over the islands.  As long as the UK is willing to fight for them, they can keep them entirely as their own entity, and be the benefactor of it's resources.  It will continue to create rancor in the region, and there may come a day of reckoning for the greed displayed.  A sharing of revenues from the resources would suffice in my opinion, but that doesn't appear on the table at this time.


Fathertime!

Is this the ranting of an irrational poster or someone who likes to argue for the sake of it .. I'm just not sure.

The UK are PROTECTING the islanders - who have repeatedly voiced their preference - based on their lineage - which is NOT Argentine..

Based on your analogies.. Kaliningrad should be handed back to to Poland or Germany ..

[Boethius]

Based on your analogies.. Kaliningrad should be handed back to to Poland or
Germany ..

Not quite, as the majority population of Kaliningrad is ethnically Russian.  Most of the Caucasus, however, . . .

[msmobyone]

Not quite, as the majority population of Kaliningrad is ethnically Russian.  Most of the Caucaus, however, . . .

EXACTLY, right....Kaliningrad is only 'ethnically Russian' as a result of post WWII ethnic cleansing ..

''wiki warning ''

By the end of the war, Königsberg was heavily damaged by Allied bombing in 1944 and during its siege in 1945. The city was captured and annexed by the Soviet Union. Its German population was expelled, and the city was repopulated with Russians and others from the Soviet Union. Briefly Russified as Kyonigsberg (Кёнигсберг), it was renamed "Kaliningrad" in 1946 in honour of Soviet leader Mikhail Kalinin. It is now the capital of Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast, an area completely cut off by land from the rest of Russia.

[Boethius]

But aren't the Falklands ethnically majority British?

[msmobyone]

But aren't the Falklands ethnically majority British?

The difference being the Brits didn't try to ethically cleanse the islands and call a  'referendum' a la Junta of '82...

The USSR kicked out the majority Germanic population from K'grad...

[Faux Pas]

Argentina has a rightful claim to the area but not the ability to enforce it. 


 

I don't get you here FT, what rightful claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? Proximity? If proximity was a rightful claim the entire world would be under one nation now. Everything is close to something, yanno?

[Anotherkiwi]

I don't get you here FT, what rightful claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? Proximity? If proximity was a rightful claim the entire world would be under one nation now. Everything is close to something, yanno?

Except us, Hawaii, Guam, Mauritius, the Seychelles ... and a fair few others scattered around the oceans.

[southernX]

Except us, Hawaii, Guam, Mauritius, the Seychelles ... and a fair few others scattered around the oceans.

AK ,  lol your close to ''us'' , maybe australia should anexxe you guys , lol

given the number of kiwis here, it might be a long term mutual beneficial strategy for both of us lol

SX

[AkMike]

By this demented train of thought, Alaska should annex Siberia then Japan and China.. 

[southernX]

mike , maybe putin is thinking of a new version of global monopoly, land on it and steal it , not buy it

SX

[AkMike]

Maybe. That makes more sense then attacking w/o any reason.

[AC]

mike , maybe putin is thinking of a new version of global monopoly, land on it and steal it , not buy it

SX

Let him try to land on Poland and get the full force of the USA and NATO up his rear-end as he makes tail.

[fathertime]

)  You keep on missing the POINT ... From WHERE were these people ?  France, UK, Spain...  ANSWER .. they are anglo-saxons on the  Falklands ..  they WANT to be BRITISH dependants... the 'oil / gas' is just the latest 'byatch' from a nation that didn't exists while the limeys were populating the island. The4 islands were NOT populated when discovered by successive Europeans ...

Is it not correct and just to 'threaten' when one rogue nation decides to re-write borders in the late 20 th / 21st C using military might ? Otherwise, Europe will return to it's old ways and constant wars.

It is obvious what the people on the islands want NOW....UK has stacked the island that way.  How about we find another small island close to the UK and plop a few hundred Argentinians on it.  If they vote to be an 'Argentinian' possession then, that vote has to be respected.  Right? ...and a little later if we find 60billion barrels of oil then the UK does not get any benefit from it, except a little extra pollution in the general area. 


The point being that nations like the UK are still benefiting (somewhat unjustly) from these little sparsely populated outposts they set up.  There are dual claims to the islands and I don't see one as any greater than the other.   If UK is going to take such a hard line with these faraway islands then they deserve some pushback and to be called out as Russia did recently.   

Is this the ranting of an irrational poster or someone who likes to argue for the sake of it .. I'm just not sure.

The UK are PROTECTING the islanders - who have repeatedly voiced their preference - based on their lineage - which is NOT Argentine..

Based on your analogies.. Kaliningrad should be handed back to to Poland or Germany ..

What is all this moaning about 'irrational poster' and 'arguments'?...I though we were discussing a point, not making a big argument.  If you don't want to discuss that point, it is ok, but it is not a requirement that everybody agree with your viewpoint about the UK's colonization of the world in the past. 




Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

I don't get you here FT, what rightful claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? Proximity? If proximity was a rightful claim the entire world would be under one nation now. Everything is close to something, yanno?

The Argentinian claim is not based solely on proximity, although the UK being 8000 miles away doesn't benefit their cause.  When I said "rightful claim" that is not to say they are the only one with a claim, but that their claim is not to be discounted or brushed off as being without merit, as has been the case. 


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

Is this another cost Russia is imposing on the West or would they have further armed Iran anyway?


http://news.yahoo.com/iran-expects-delivery-russian-missiles-085655813.html


Fathertime! 

[pokerintherear]

Is this another cost Russia is imposing on the West or would they have further armed Iran anyway?


http://news.yahoo.com/iran-expects-delivery-russian-missiles-085655813.html


Fathertime!

You do understand what all of this is leading to?

[AC]

You do understand what all of this is leading to?

Yes.  When the USA has a real President in 2017 and Putin's many bluffs are called the USA will get to test out some new advanced weapons systems and the Russian military will be decimated.

[Faux Pas]

Except us, Hawaii, Guam, Mauritius, the Seychelles ... and a fair few others scattered around the oceans.

Shame on me for not recognizing your little island nation  but wait, you're still close enough to someone that might want to claim it. Your probably just not big enough

[msmobyone]

It is obvious what the people on the islands want NOW....UK has stacked the island that way. 

))

STILL not read up on the island's history, I see. Tell us - please - the basis of Argentina's 'claim'...

How about we find another small island close to the UK and plop a few hundred Argentinians on it.  If they vote to be an 'Argentinian' possession then, that vote has to be respected.  Right? ...and a little later if we find 60billion barrels of oil then the UK does not get any benefit from it, except a little extra pollution in the general area. 

You may be confusing the removal of the indiginous population of the Crimea by the Russian Empire and twice breaking treaties...

You 'analogy' sucks as:
1/ it bases the premise of the UK's claim to knowing - 180 years ago - that the islands might possess oil / gas

2/ when the Argentine's invaded - Costas Mendez - the then Foreign Minister - proposed a 'vote' on sovereignty - based on the recently planted population.

True and just claims are based on historical presence... Argentina was not EVER 'present' save for the 3 months occupation in '82....

The point being that nations like the UK are still benefiting (somewhat unjustly) from these little sparsely populated outposts they set up.

  'unjust'.. 'benefit' .. generations chose to toil on these often inhospitable islands and if they 'benefit' from some profitable finds of oil/ gas - 'well done' to their ancestors....

There are dual claims to the islands and I don't see one as any greater than the other. 

Luckily, for the islanders  - your ' support ' for a bogus 'claim' is as weakly 'fought' as the campaign to 'profit' from something to which Argentines were sent to die for by an unpopular Junta..

If UK is going to take such a hard line with these faraway islands then they deserve some pushback and to be called out as Russia did recently.   

You miss the most important point , here.. The UK didn't take a 'hard' line ...  people died to restore the right of the islanders to choose their destiny.

In the case of Crimea.. the planted ones - who's previous leaders removed the indigious population - 'voted' after a military take-over by a nation that had agreed the terms of a recent - 20 yr old - treaty that stated Crimea was  part of Ukraine - promising to protect that nation's integrity - while it became at Nuclear non-proliferation state... 

What is all this moaning about 'irrational poster' and 'arguments'?...I though we were discussing a point, not making a big argument.  If you don't want to discuss that point, it is ok, but it is not a requirement that everybody agree with your viewpoint about the UK's colonization of the world in the past. 

'Irrational' - refers to 'colonisation' - as if the UK ethnically cleansed unpopulated islands - and predilection to repeat the proposterous and inaccurate - with a tendancy to bizarre analogies to 'prove' a point...

[fathertime]

))

STILL not read up on the island's history, I see. Tell us - please - the basis of Argentina's 'claim'...


 

 YOU are free to do some additional reading on the subject  After reading a few resources, I've concluded that Argentina has just as much a rightful claim to the islands as the UK.  They are not fighting about it out of the blue. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute


Back when the UK and other nations were colonizing the world they created a lot of outposts, most of which are gone today.  In the case of the Falklands, 8000 miles away and sparsely populated and stacked with Brits, it continues to seem to me that allowing for dual sovereignty would have solved this problem.  Since there are potentially billions of barrels of oil in the region, and Argentina was fighting over the islands well before this was known, it goes to show their basis is elsewhere.  If the UK and it's companies are the only beneficiary's of the wealth in the region it will be rightfully seen as another example of pillaging worldwide resources to benefit the few.  The resource revenues should be shared, as should the costs.  Completely dismissing the Argentinian claims will continue to create resentment, and rightfully so. 


Here is a little piece on the subject and the final paragraph says it all:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/2012/feb/02/who-first-owned-falkland-islands
In truth, both sides have some substantial points, enough to keep diplomats busy and the military planners anxious – both sides are weaker militarily than they were. But whichever country wins the latest Battle of the Falklands, the lawyers always win.


 

[msmobyone]

 YOU are free to do some additional reading on the subject  After reading a few resources, I've concluded that Argentina has just as much a rightful claim to the islands as the UK. 

'Resources' ..You mean like someone's blog or Wiki - which by concept tries to be 'unbiased' ?

I repeat - please tell us the basis of Argentina's 'rightful claim' ..

Back when the UK and other nations were colonizing the world they created a lot of outposts, most of which are gone today.  In the case of the Falklands, 8000 miles away and sparsely populated and stacked with Brits

))  This is the sort of comment that makes your contention risible.. 'stacked' with Brits... You DO realise the island is only  'stacked' because of the military personnel necessary to 'dissuade' the Argentines from further attempts at occupation?!

 Prior to the military Junta's diversionary attempt at gaining popularity most people had never heard of the islands.

it continues to seem to me that allowing for dual sovereignty would have solved this problem.

Possibly so, but it is not what the people who have lived there for many generations want .... and before Argentina existed .  You fail to grasp the concept of the right of self-determination, which the Argentines were quite happy to'adopt' - having militarily occupied the islands.

Since there are potentially billions of barrels of oil in the region, and Argentina was fighting over the islands well before this was known, it goes to show their basis is elsewhere.

THANK YOU... You have turned full circle. Argentina's 'claim' is based on proximity and having once been  Spanish colony - as were the islands. I have been consistently pointing out that the UK claim is based on having consistently had a presence there - long before the existence of Argentina.

 If the UK and it's companies are the only beneficiary's of the wealth in the region it will be rightfully seen as another example of pillaging worldwide resources to benefit the few.  The resource revenues should be shared, as should the costs.  Completely dismissing the Argentinian claims will continue to create resentment, and rightfully so. 

Once again, you ignore that what has been explained to you up thread..... In other words - I waste my time trying to patiently help a closed mind ...

DO tell us about these 'British companies' ?

Please let's go back to the subject of this thread and we can leave the matter of sovereignty - until the next time Argentina tries to conquer them - for that is the only scenario that might change the status of the islands  - especially having tried to take them by force.


I suggest that your dream of sharing the resources of the world is a fine concept .. and you would be better off protesting about nations that waste their resources and use their wealth to expand their borders....

[TomT]

^ I'm not surprised that you admire Mobiwan; you are like twins, separated at birth.

[msmobyone]

^ I'm not surprised that you admire Mobiwan; you are like twins, separated at birth.

)

Hello, TomT

You are most welcome to expand on the basis for your assertion.. do TRY and make it relevant - not 'personal' ...

[fathertime]

'Resources' ..You mean like someone's blog or Wiki - which by concept tries to be 'unbiased' ?

I repeat - please tell us the basis of Argentina's 'rightful claim' ..


  ))  This is the sort of comment that makes your contention risible.. 'stacked' with Brits... You DO realise the island is only  'stacked' because of the military personnel necessary to 'dissuade' the Argentines from further attempts at occupation?!

 Prior to the military Junta's diversionary attempt at gaining popularity most people had never heard of the islands.

Possibly so, but it is not what the people who have lived there for many generations want .... and before Argentina existed .  You fail to grasp the concept of the right of self-determination, which the Argentines were quite happy to'adopt' - having military occupied the islands.



THANK YOU... You have turned full circle. Argentina's 'claim' is based on proximity and having once been  Spanish colony - as were the islands. I have been consistently pointing out that the UK claim is based on having consistently had a presence there - long before the existence of Argentina.


Once again, you ignore that what has been explained to you up thread..... In other words - I waste my time trying to patiently help a closed mind ...

DO tell us about these 'British companies' ?

Please let's go back to the subject of this thread and we can leave the matter of sovereignty - until the next time Argentina tries to conquer them - for that is the only scenario that might change the status of the islands  - especially having tried to take them by force.


I suggest that your dream of sharing the resources of the world is a fine concept .. and you would be better off protesting about nations that waste their resources and use their wealth to expand their borders....

 There are dual claims to the islands.  I don't feel the need to regurgitate the Argentinian claim, aside from providing links which you aren't choosing to either read, or give any consideration to....a UN committee recently ruled in favor of Argentina, and discounted the British 'implanted population" and referendum *Final Link*.   Obviously the UK has had the more powerful military if not for that, they would not have the claim that has held out.  One reason why there is justifiable resentment/distrust in developing nations is precisely this sort of thing...a potential resource dominated by a powerful 1st world country far far from home.   I think Russia was right to call out this situation and expose a bit of British hypocrisy...I recognize the situations aren't analogous but they are in the same vein.    You may think my mind is closed on the subject, but based on what I've read of yours, I'm CERTAIN yours is.  If the UK wants to take a hard line like this they deserve to be called out, despite having to toe a delicate line due to the strength of the UK many of the South American nations agree with the Argentinian stance. 


Perhaps coincidentally the British are also claiming a sizable section of Antarctica based on their minor island 'possessions' i.e. The Falklands, which overlaps an earlier Argentinian claim...seems fair they are only about 10000 miles away from the Antarctic.    How many South American nations are making claims up in the Arctic circle?  ZERO of course. 


[size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica[/size]


[/size][size=78%]http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/tag/falklands-oil-gas/[/size] 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html




Fathertime!