MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK committed to strong naval presence around the Falkland Islands
A senior Royal Navy officer stressed that the new British government remains committed to keeping a strong naval presence around the Falkland Islands, reports the Portsmouth press. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA small article in a local newspaper (The Portsmouth News) is set to attract extensive debate I suspect. I hope the author knows, he'll be chuffed :-)
Jun 15th, 2010 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In a speech to the ship's company on the Type 42 destroyer's flight deck, he praised their work of the past seven months, 8,000 miles from Portsmouth.”
Jun 15th, 2010 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is right 8000 miles away from home, this is not UK nor Europe, Malvinas is part of South America and mainland Argentina, 300 miles away. No bullet or brute force will solve this old dispute.
Strange, I suspect that that is the only way it could be resolved. Negotiations aren't an option, because there is nothing to negotiate.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0And there are other British Overseas Territories that are closer than 8000 miles.
British Overseas Territories is a more political correct name to cover up what really is : an old colony of an ancient empire.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas is part of South America and mainland Argentina, 300 miles away.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 05:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0It might as well be 3ft away it aint yours
Well, you know what the old saying is Marco ... “ The sun never sets on the British ..... Overseas Territories”
Jun 15th, 2010 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nearly all of our Overseas Territories are now self governing and if it wasn't for the beligerence of certain nations, Spain and Argentina, two of those may have been granted independence by now.
And that's the reality ... it's Argentina that's keeping the Falkland Islands British. Ain't that ironic?
“No bullet or brute force will solve this old dispute”
Jun 15th, 2010 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes exactly. You Argies put that to the test in 1982. The Falkland Islanders don't want to be Argentine. Time to get over it!
As for an “old colony of an ancient empire”. Funny how ever ex-British colony which requested independence has been granted it. Most more than 40 years ago. I'm afraid, your assertion doesn't match up with the facts.
I implore Marco to offer a comprehensive definition of why the 13 remaining overseas territories with their own constitutions elected governments and full domestic and to a certain degree foreign policy making powers, are somehow colonies? Other than some unfortunate pre dis-positioned bias and dislike of anything not Argentine or Latin American? I don't expect miracles.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or is the term “colony” only applicable in cases of land that Argentina wants?
El malvinense RC escribio:I implore Marco to offer a comprehensive definition of why the 13 remaining overseas territories with their own constitutions elected governments and full domestic and to a certain degree foreign policy making powers, are somehow colonies? Other than some unfortunate pre dis-positioned bias and dislike of anything not Argentine or Latin American? I don't expect miracles.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or is the term “colony” only applicable in cases of land that Argentina wants?
Is very simple RC, malvinas has no importance by itself, is mor or less to say, michelon island is for canada. Those islands has no proyection.
Are irrelevants, that is the reason no body cares.
But look at the Enciclopedia britannica, what is the importance of malvinas, is the proyecction on Antartica.
So if the malvinenses are smart, and sign a treaty with Argentina, in which they give up any base for any extracontinental power, you may get a deal, meanwhile, Argentina is rigth in not trusting the brits.
Today is malvinas, tomorrow may be Patagonia then Antartica.
So is up to you malvinense, to start thinking what you can do about that.
Meanwhile will continuo the ever increasing pressure, until whe oust the brits and any extracontinental powers from the South Atlantic and we ARE GOING TO WIN.
WE ARE DETERMINE TO DO THAT, with oR WITHOUT robison and the queen.
Meanwhile gb is BANKRUPT!!
Yeah!!! their public debt will eat them! LOL
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is very sad. Argentina risks more than it knows . I don't think it people would be prepared to reap the whirlwind of escalation they seems to want to provoke. It seems Argentina is heading to a worse case of 1982 all over again. It is foolish to make things worse. Harsh words lead to harsh actions. This is not the way for a better, happier future.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Friendship & cooperation, sharing and sharing alike... cordial relations. Good deeds for one another. Trust & caring for one another. This is what's needed in this world, not petty nationalism.
Hopefully, a successful UNASUR will allowmore people to comprehend that nationalism is less important than the common good of nations and the common good of nations is in the better interest of their country rather selfish interests; I think this is what EU members have begun to understand a little. If we can all understand this & work together then there is hope one day we can really make the UN work as it should all the time, and not just some of the time. Let people set aside national greed for the greater good of all, big and small and themselves. Nationalism causes war. We should have learnt by now to avoid it.
I think JL had it right:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Me? I could not agree more with Juan.
What are we going to win? We tried that 25 years ago and look what happened we ended up with much bigger human losses, the thing is the UK have much more superior army/navy, last time they didnt take any notice of the Malvinas, now they do.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our dept is not much close behing at 50% of our gdp. We have lots of problems in our country that are more important than a group of islands, like poverty that needs fixing.
Our ancestors are from Span and Italy, we are colonials. We should not stoop and take this attitude with the Malvinas, they have lived there a long time. It does not matter (right or wrong) what happened 100s of years ago, it matters what happens now, the islanders wishes must be respected just as any other country.
Perhaps everyone could be satisfied if they lived the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 011 Domingo, very nice song, but you don't have the faintest idea about what happens here. It is not about nationalism at all!!!
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think jorge ;-)
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Diego.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent comment, sir. Pity some of your compatriots don't have the same level of intelligence and common sense.
For me, it seems that it is all about nationalism & disrespect for the principles of the UN Charter & the solemn promise of resolution 1514(XV). What I do know is that nationalism on all sides could create another war which will be much more destructive and cause much more despair and grief than the last.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It saddens me greatly that there are a 910 good Argentine & British people who died, who should be alive today living their lives in peace & happiness with their own children. Mothers & fathers lost sons. Wives husbands, children fathers & friends lost friends. They were robbed of their futures by collective stupidity in allowing differences to descend into war Then there are the terribly injured & traumatised. British & Argentines must give up their quarrelling & fighting make friendship & cooperation their over-riding aim. Never again.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them
I hope things work out happily & for the best for both Argies & Brits & Islanders.
Peace bro.
Diego & Domingo.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank younfor restoring my faith. It is good to know that the majority of Argentines are honest and rationale people who want to have a friendly relationship with the Islanders. There is much to be gained, both culturally and economically by working together on a number of projects, but especially the emerging hydrocarbon industry in the Islands. It is a pity that some of your racist and nationalist countrymen who peruse these boards take the opposing view (but that is democracy and freedom of speach which Argentines died and fought for when desiring the Junta). I hope your politicians stop playing the “Malvinas Card” in their political games as it looks like it will cost them politically and prevent Argentina from a ripe business opportunity!
17 Domingo, claiming land is not nationalism!!! What kind of book did tell you that? It is argentine people right!!!!!!! Although some don't like it, majority do!!!!
Jun 15th, 2010 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jorgy boy - far too many exclamation marks and you are still rattling on about spurious rights that Argentina has never managed to exercise ..... go to the corner and put on the pointy hat with the big D on it ...
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred, la tenés adentro!!!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jerry#13
Jun 16th, 2010 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may be different from yours
Seems to be that Glenn can’t get his “old rig” repaired in Brazil.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falklands and BP where cars:
In the case of the Islands they fervently explain:
Is a British Wauxhall not an Opel !
In the case of BP they vehemently declare:
It’s an Opel not a British Wauxhall !
Same car under the Bonnet.
Think is showing a dramatic lack of thought, repetition does not guarantee that people will listen ... ask the Kirchners :-)
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just face it ...
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Be it Football, Tennis, Polo, Croquet or Politics.........
We play the Masters own games.
We play after the Masters own rules.
We give the Masters a run for their money.
More repetition ... no new thoughts the, Think?
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shhhhhhhh........
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm Thinking
Estevarse is your Brain still working on friction? Obviously you haven't been rubbing the balloon hard enough, do try and come up with something meanignful, UK isn't Bankrupt BTW ;)
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0RC, I nknow that for an ignorant like you is difficult to ask anything intelligent, but you are rigth, uk is not bankrupt, REALLY IS UNDERGROUND!!!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, did exercise your little brain and read something simple like the encyclopedia brit or you still think we are going to let the brits come by quiettly?
Seem that all the losses the brits had in the Malvinas war and Agfanistan an Irak did not teach them anything, may be you need some more!
may be you need some more
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe, but I wager it wont be the Argies doing the teaching after the last beatening you took
The UE takes off Great Britain for Falkland
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The president of the delegation for the Relationships with the countries of the European Parliament's Mercosur affirmed that the inclusion of the islands like territory of overseas of Great Britain is not supported by the block. The president of the delegation for the Relationships with the countries of the European Parliament's Mercosur, Luis Yáñez Barnuevo, affirmed that the inclusion of the islands Malvinas like territory of overseas of Great Britain is not a political decision adopted by the European Union.
It was during the meeting, of scarce thirty minutes that it maintained together with their colleagues of the referred parliamentary group that he/she presides over and the members of the commission of External Relationships of the low Camera, in which was analyzed the possibilities and the form that he/she should have the commercial agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur (that took new mettles in the Summit of both regional blocks, of Madrid).
As it was indicated, in the encounter the restriction was not approached to the imports to the Argentina.
Consulted on the question Malvinas for the president of the commission of External Relationships, Alfredo Atanasof, Yáñez it pointed out that the topic was not well tried by the Argentinean means and it clarified that in fact the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't include to the islands Malvinas like overseas territory.“ According to the Spanish legislator, truly the topic comes from 1973 when Great Britain incorporates to the European Union. But it is a problem between the United Kingdom and the Argentina and he/she added that the question Malvinas like overseas territory is not a politics of the European Union.” At the same time, it put as example the litigation for the Crag of Gibraltar that you/they maintain Spain with Great Britain, when it pointed out that it is an own problem between Spain and the United Kingdom. Gibraltar is a British colony in the floor o
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge: you are Really a TEACHER. It distinguishes clearly that to defend the dignity and the integrity of a nation, he/she doesn't have anything to do with the nationalism.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The bomb of the eneorme deficit publishes it began with Greece, Hungary, Spain, and of course England this in the list……!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like how jorge always links that link.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British debt is about 60% GDP. Last i checked Argentina was over the 60% GDP mark too.
Yep we are skint
Jun 16th, 2010 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argies want the Falklands so bad it hurts
They cant have them
Priceless
There are some things money cant buy :-)
Raul:
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For me, your comment at 31 was completely unintelligible. I can only assume that, at some point, you learned English but badly or you are using some sort of translator. This is unfortunate as I am sure we would all like to know what you are talking about.
However, in guessing what you are saying, Luis Yáñez Barnuevo is not the European Commission or the European Parliament. He is a delegate despatched on a trade mission.
In essence, what is the relevance of the comments of a Spanish politician?
Harrier61
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you, to answer and my English excuse, I am learning.
With regard to the comment it is that I affirm: that the inclusion of the islands like territory of overseas of Great Britain is not supported by the block. The European Union doesn't endorse the overseas territories of anyone of its members.
It put as example the litigation for the Crag of Gibraltar that you/they maintain Spain with Great Britain, when it pointed out that it is an own problem between Spain and the United Kingdom. Gibraltar is a British colony in the floor of the European Union for ende the Islas Malvinas or Falklands they should be treated as a colony.
With regard to the comment:
@12 Diego. Excellent comment, Mister. Have pity of some of their countrymen they don't make the same intelligence level and common sense.
To agree with you, it doesn't mean to be but or less intelligent than Harrier61. He/she simply has a different opinion that the other ones. There are British Islanders of the Falklands that want that you retaure the sovereignty Argentina on the islands, but they say it in silence for fear and fear for reprisals on the part of their same authorities since they observe that the cause of the Argentineans on Malvinas is Very Fair, and however it doesn't mean that they don't make intelligence neither common sense.
With respect, thank you.
Raul, the European Union recognises the Falkland Islands as a British OTC. This was confirmed AGAIN by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed by all 27 Member states so your assertion that the “block” does not support “the inclusion of the islands like territory of overseas of Great Britain” is simply untrue.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Congratulations. I understood much more of your comment that time, except toward the end. The concept that you must understand is that the world has moved on. The only valid principle in sovereignty is now self-determination. The people of the Falkland Islands and the people of Gibraltar have both made it unequivocally clear that they intend to remain British Overseas Territories. Both do this, I suggest, because they are close to other nations that want to claim the territories as their own. Britain is committed to the freedom of both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar and will stand between them and Argentina or Spain as appropriate.
It has to be said that both Argentina and Spain, both supposedly democratic countries, are attempting to override the democratically-expressed wishes of the Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians. The only force involved has been the various attempts of the Argentine and Spanish governments to force a resolution to their liking.
I was lead to believe that Spain has pretty much given up on getting sovereignty and is now playing nice with Gibraltar
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0(40) zethe
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You choosed your words carefully...
You was lead to believe.... By whom?
For your info, a link to the official Spanish position.
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20090722/moratinos-reitera-que-soberania-gibraltar-irrenunciable-pero-que-hay-una-nueva-politica/286022.shtml
Good that Nick Clegg speaks “perfect” spanish.
On the other hand, that link is a year old.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try this one instead:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/18/spanish-maritime-guidelines-acknowledge-british-gibraltar-territorial-waters
“ ...retaure the sovereignty Argentina on the islands,...”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nope, can't get a return if you never had it in the first place!
Ok, bit of a challenge, can anyone tell me WHEN Argentina actually had de facto control (for more than 2 months) of the Falkland islands?
Trick question, obviously.
I assume you're not including 1982?
Jun 18th, 2010 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 041 Think: negotiations started in 2006 between Spain, Gibraltar and the UK, ending some restrictions and dealing with disputes in some specific areas such as air movements, customs procedures, telecommunications, pensions and cultural exchange.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(45) zethe
Jun 18th, 2010 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't you think I can read that information in Spanish?
All what you say is true but the official Spanish position is unchanged:
Their Sovereignty is non-renounceable.
Spain and Gibraltar are not relevant to this article. What is relevant is the UK statement of a strong naval presence around the Falkland Islands. Everyone is aware of the visible Royal Navy presence. What about the invisible, sub-surface RN presence? How many? What total capabilities? Past experience says one torpedo = one light cruiser. South American encroachment on the EEZ invites action. ARA Drummond has already found UK response. Note that UK response is reactive, not proactive.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For all of you; “Interpreters of International Law”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is a balanced analysis of a “Real International Lawyer”
Biography: http://www.internationallawoffice.com/directory/Biography.aspx?g=841614fb-2130-46e4-8a55-6078a950a59d
Complete article:
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/directory/Biography.aspx?g=841614fb-2130-46e4-8a55-6078a950a59d
Mr. David Moss,
The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the first article of both the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held that this right is ’irreproachable’.
However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.
To begin with, the precise scope of the right and the definition of ’peoples’ is a developing legal area. In the past, indigenous peoples in island states such as Nauru (population of 12,000) and Tuvalu (population of 11,000) have been recognized as exercising a bona fide right of self-determination. However, the population of the Falkland Islands is only 3,000 and Argentina would likely contend that the right to self-determine does not apply because the islanders are descendants of British settlers. This raises the issue of what are the limits of the right to self-determination. For example, would the UK argument hold true if the population of Jersey voted to become independent of the UK or part of France?
These issues are likely to come under the microscope again when the ICJ issues its advisory opinion on Kosovo. Argentina and the UK have both put in written submissions to the ICJ in the Kosovo case, which centers on a dispute over the status of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Predictably, Argentina emphasized the importance of territorial integrity and the UK emphasized the right of self-determination.
Starting to repeat yourself again Think - as I've said elsewhere, ”one lawyer does not an argument make! You do seem to do this when you can't actually think of a real response to the particular thread.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0harier, of course I'm not including 1982 - they were only there for 2 months. No?
As for this thread, Spain is getting nowhere as is Argentina. Gibraltar is just a little further down the road towards independence and they are in a far better situation and therefore likely to take it.
I post the same in different threads because:
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Many of you ask constantly: How can these Argentineans ignore self-determination? Where are their arguments?
Were are they!
Where!!!
Well I serve them to you.
British arguments, from a British lawyer.
Would anybody care to answer with other than evasive questions?
One lawyer .. ONE ! Think ... you need to think. It's not as though that lawyer actually says ANYTHING ..... well that's a lawyer for you :-)
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think interestingly quotes a lawyer. Amazingly, this lawyer's solution is a compromise.For anyone with the least knowledge of lawyers in civil litigation, compromise is the ideal solution. It tends to embody lawyers in the compromise so that there are endless years of legal discussion about what certain words in the agreement “really” mean. Loads of money for lawyers, irrespective of their nationality.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how many have gone on to read the comments from the readers. Mr Moss doesn't seem to get a lot of support for his views, rather the contrary, and it must be expected that a fair percentage of the readers will be lawyers themselves. Whatever any lawyer says the real test is in front of a court. Why doesn't Argentina take its case to the ICJ?
But here's another matter. I suggest that the UN Secretary General has given Argentina his answer to their approaches.
pacific.scoop.co.nz/2010/05/non-self-governing-territories/
www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=15238&edition=1274263200
The problem for Argentina in using the 'who are “the people”' argument is that there were no indigenous people when the Islands were settled. Whoever lived there at any time, French, British, Spanish, were colonists. Clearly, those with most right to be considered to be “the people” are those that have lived there, in terms of generations, the longest. In order, France - 3 yrs, Britain - 5 yrs, Spain - 44 yrs, United Provinces - 2 yrs, USA - 2 mths, Argentina - 2 mths, Britain - 99 yrs, Argentina - 2 mths, Britain - 28 yrs.
Seems to be the same old story, Falklands (Britain) - 1 (Won), Argentina - 0 (Lost).
For those who have doubts, watch the documentary “Falklands: The Islanders' War”. The approach of Argentina at that time was reminiscent of Nazi occupation.
No, Think, you paste your new best-friend lawyer story into multiple threads because you want to be annoying and have too much time on your hands.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This sentence alone is enough to call the whole piece into question: “For example, would the UK argument hold true if the population of Jersey voted to become independent of the UK or part of France?”
The States of Jersey are not now and have never been part of the UK.
You've got your answer, “Think”, from the Secretary General of the United Nations and from me. Accept the inevitable. Come out of the closet and be a man (?).
Jun 19th, 2010 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyt, until now you the only that answered the central point that still is:
Jun 19th, 2010 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The precise scope of the right and the definition of ’peoples’ is a developing legal area.
This raises the issue of what are the limits of the right to self-determination.”
Limits? Why should there be any limts? It's people that are important, not countries!
Jun 19th, 2010 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Self determination” and “peoples” may have different definitions, but in the case of non self governing territories covered by resolutions 1514 and 1541, of which the Falkland Islands is one, it's crystal clear who the “peoples” of those territories are and exactly what form of self determination applies. Read the resolutions!
Jun 19th, 2010 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(56)Hoyt
Jun 19th, 2010 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Must be evening at your place and Royal Ale flowing in quantities :-)
You sound like an anarchist!
Enyoy
it's quite pointless to try define self determination to people who dont believe in it, at the end of the day the only way they could take the islands is by force, and we would absolutely destroy them.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yup. What would government-manipulated Argentines know about self-determination?
Jun 19th, 2010 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ay’up, lads
Jun 19th, 2010 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BP Spill Blame Obama!
America betrays BP and UK attacking a sound Company!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/06/post.html
“ ... You sound like an anarchist...”
Jun 20th, 2010 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yup :-)
My old job found me a little difficult to handle. I suspect it came from years of trying to teach coppers to look at things from both sides. A frustrating task. I was also an honorary Catalan for a while - nearly married into them!
As for the ale, it was Chang and I blame my neighbours including Deep Sea Diver.
(62) Hoyt
Jun 20th, 2010 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Both sides?
You mean “Your side - or - the motorway”?
We fully understand your frustration in Argentinistan.
Been there – Done that
And remember:
Mind your livers and don’t stand on the drain covers!
... the drain covers are more life threatening!
Jun 20th, 2010 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still?
Jun 20th, 2010 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Geeeeee.....
Things do not change so fast in Pat.
Do they?
... now what were we saying about 'change' :-)
Jun 20th, 2010 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean the old joke?
Jun 20th, 2010 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Q. How many bennies does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Change? Who needs change?
Is “Islanders” too long a word for you to use?
Jun 20th, 2010 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps Islander1 could tell us how they feel about the term?
Breaking News Lads!
Jun 20th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reuters UK 20/06/10: Up to 100.000 Barrels a day!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416392020100620
Internal BP document: Up to 100.000 Barrels a day!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416392020100620
Perspective!
Jun 20th, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quote from S&A Research, A USA company.....
”It's a horrible accident, but you don't really have to clean up the entire Gulf of Mexico.The Gulf of Mexico is huge, covering 615,000 square miles and containing 660 quadrillion gallons of water. Compare this to the amount of oil Deepwater Horizon has been leaking. Most estimates are in the 12,000-20,000 barrels per day range, so let's take the high end and also assume that this continues until mid-August, meaning four months since the accident.
Let's also assume that the cap captures no oil (the latest reports are that it may be capturing most of the oil, but let's be conservative). 20,000 barrels/day x 120 days x 42 gallons/barrel = 100.8 million gallons of oil released. 100.8 million divided by 660 quadrillion is one gallon of oil for every 6.6 billion gallons of water in the Gulf. That's the equivalent of roughly one-millionth of an ounce of oil in a typical bathtub full of water.“
It has happened before, and it wasn't the end of the world. ”PeMex's Ixtoc oil well [1979] was far worse than the Deepwater Horizon well: 140 million gallons of oil poured out of the Mexican well… After four months, an oil slick had covered about half of Texas's 370-mile gulf shoreline, devastating tourism.“
It's nothing compared to Kuwait. During the first Gulf War, 10 times as much oil spilled into the Persian Gulf, which is one-sixth the size of the Gulf of Mexico. And what were the long-term consequences? A 1993 UNESCO study reported ”little“ long-term damage was done to the environment. ”Half the oil evaporated, a million barrels were recovered and 2 million to 3 million barrels washed ashore, mainly in Saudi Arabia,” he said.
Whoops! Seems the Americans and the Iraqis can spill more than BP.
Anybody think someone from SA could make sense of that?
Jorrible accidente my Buttockos!
Jun 20th, 2010 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In Espanish we hav a sayinn:
If it could have been prevented it is no accident.
Si Señor
An oversight does not warrant that it was deliberate think.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is an accident, an incredibly stupid accident, granted. But still an accident.
Tell that to the american Lawyers!
Jun 21st, 2010 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What, that it was an accident? I don't think anyone will need to. It's clear to every sane person that it is in fact an accident.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course there will be repercussions. As there always is.
Or are you under the impression that this was an obvious and deliberate act. I suppose it was the British government?
Twink
Jun 21st, 2010 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be ridiculous. An American lawyer would file a complaint against you for breathing if he thought he could get away with it and had the chance to make money.
(74)Zethe
Jun 21st, 2010 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cant you read Señor?
Is my accent too difficult for you, Señor?
Which part is it you don´t understand Señor?
“If it could have been prevented it is no accident.”
I am under the impression that your paranoia impedes you to Think !
I just find the entire sentence invalid.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For example: The titanic. Most experts believe that if the titanic would have not turned and carried on straight through the iceberg that it would have not sunk, It could have been prevented . So was that then not a terrible accident?
Titanic was no accident, it could easily have been prevented.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0The arrogance of a British Captain that decided to ignore six Iceberg warnings before turning and the arrogance of the British White Star Line about their unsinkable ship caused the catastrophe .
I see now. You don't understand the definition of an accident.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects.
Prevention is not a defining matter in the use of the word accident. I believe you need to find an alternative word.
Americans know best!!!
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Accidents or Collisions?
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis reporting system (FARS), 37,261 deaths in the U.S. occurred due to car crashes in 2008.
Many people call them “accidents”, but really the correct term is “collisions” or “crashes”. In a vehicle collision someone was acting in a way that caused the crash to happen which could have been prevented had they acted differently. If it could have been prevented it is NO accident.
Source: http://www.drivingtips.org/
You can quote the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration all you like. I've just given you the definition from the dictionary. All car crashes are classed as collisions because until you have the evidence and it's gone to court it's not proven to be an accident or a crime.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After the court has decided if it is in fact an accident or not, it's reclassified.
Also, that depends what source you use. The World Health Organization use the term road traffic injury, while the U.S. Census Bureau uses the term motor vehicle accidents. The police in general use the word collision because they are in fact the ones investigating the situation.
All car crashes can be prevented, don't drive. Your logic fails.
Nou mi logics señor.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Plain ol' popular uisdom, gringo.
The Espanish old saying still goes:
If it could have been prevented it is no accident.
Comprende Amigo?
Wrong. The statement is not logical.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And under the definition of the oxford dictionary it is also false.
All of them are true gringo!
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If it could have been prevented it is no accident”.
“A dog at a flea circus is likely to steal the show.”
“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
“I'm serious; it was only a joke.”
“The deepest waters make the least noise.”
“After all is said and done, more is said than done.”
“One drop of ink may make a million think.”
All except the top one. You are wrong. You need to either learn the definition of the word accident or find a new word to suit your sentance.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ac·ci·dent
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.
1. an unforeseen event or one without an apparent cause
2. anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance; chance; fortune I met him by accident
3. a misfortune or mishap, esp one causing injury or death
4. (Philosophy / Logic) Also called adjunct Logic Philosophy a nonessential attribute or characteristic of something (as opposed to substance)
5. (Philosophy) Metaphysics a property as contrasted with the substance in which it inheres
6. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) Geology a surface irregularity in a natural formation, esp in a rock formation or a river system
No moral authority to change a very wise old Latino saying, cuate!
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If it could have been prevente it is no accidente”.
Well i suppose it's just as old and factually incorrect as the “Malvinas always argentine!” you guys always sprout.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I still fail to understand the reason why you argentines repeat the same stuff over and over again. Or how you expect anyone to take you seriously when half the stuff you(and your diplomats) come out with is just wrong.
“If it could have been prevented it is no accident”.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought you left Think .. did I think wrong Think?
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!