MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argos warned by Argentina to abstain from drilling in the Falklands or…
Argos Resources the latest company to announce it will begin oil exploration operations offshore the Falkland Islands was sent a letter by the Argentine embassy in London warning it “to abstain” from such activities otherwise “it will face legal actions”, according to reports in the Buenos Aires press. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCheeky sods! There's no legal action available to them as the company is acting perfectly legally, as are the FIG and HM Government in the UK.
Jul 13th, 2010 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A little bull and bluster because the news flow has slowed I suspect.
this guy like all of Argentina is full of white flags, he is talking rubbish, just throwing bud to the wind, and sees what comes back, but i do think its about time the British government got of its fat back side and put a stop to this crap once and for all, the government has only to tell the world that from now on, all British companies are free to drill in the Falklands, without argentine permission, and if Argentina interferes with or attempts try try and stop any ship from going to the Falklands, then this could be seen as a possible act of war, and the royal navy and royal air force will attack and sink any argentine vessels found in Falklands waters or the 200 mile exclusion zone, and then see what response you get from Argentina, don’t these stupid people understand that if you push someone into a corner, it must either run, or fight, now if they think in their wildest dreams that the British will run away, then I say push them out, but if you know they will fight, then I would stop pushing them into that corner,,
Jul 13th, 2010 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, I see it now. A show trial in Argentina with the company tried 'in absentia' resulting in another (another?) victory over the piratical forces of Britain.
Jul 14th, 2010 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Coyuple of questions:-
a) are the Argentine people really this gullible?
b) does Argentina enjoy making itself a laughing stock?
Funny really.
Briton - I have to disagree. We are not in a corner. This is just wind and water from the Argentine Government. Elsewhere life goes on and they can be ignored.
May be worth picking up some of these shares after the dust from the IPO has settled. This area has been drilled before so it may be a case of the second mouse getting the cheese.
Jul 14th, 2010 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine leadership are so thick that the will now call for a boycott of a certain British catelogue shop!
I wonder if our Latin friends will get that gag?
Jul 14th, 2010 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“illegal and illegitimate” - Really? Which international court has made this ruling? Oh yes...there has been no such ruling.
Jul 14th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“a United Nations resolution urging sovereignty negotiations by both sides.” erh...really? a UN resolution?
With regard to unilateral actions - Argentina made such a unilateral action when it made stealing the Falkands as part of its constitution. They then had the nerve to call out the Falklands, when they later wrote a new constitution, as acting unilaterally.
2 briton. I agree with Hoytred. This is not the moment to be taking unilateral military action. After all, if the Argentines sent similar warnings to the other companies and no attention was paid, why pay more attention now? However, I do think that this is a moment to increase British military forces in the South Atlantic.
Jul 14th, 2010 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the basis that Argentina is threatening British companies operating in British Overseas territorial waters, increasing the Typhoon force to 8 aircraft plus a second tanker aircraft and a couple of Nimrods would give the best chance of early detection and deterrence in the EEZ. An increase in the naval component would also be wise, to ensure that a warship could reach any area of interference within a reasonable time.
On past occasions, Britain has offered Argentina the option of the matter being placed before the ICJ. On each occasion, Argentina has declined. But does Britain or the Falkland Islands need Argentina's acquiescence before going to the ICJ?
harrier - yup, we tried that too. It takes two to tango at the ICJ, Argentina refused to participate over Sth Goeorgia so the court wouldn't make a decision!
Jul 14th, 2010 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Adding more aircraft to the area would be an appropriate show of force, though the aircraft currently stationed there are more than enough to sink any incoming ships or destroy any aircraft.
Jul 14th, 2010 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've picked and paid for my barrel of oil. What's my collection number and what collection point should I go to in order to pick up my purchase?
Jul 14th, 2010 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0zethe. Could I ask you to consider the combat radius of the Typhoon? See
Jul 14th, 2010 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
Please remember that gunfire and missiles have been known to miss. and a lo-lo-lo mission profile does not have the range to reach the edge of the EEZ and return.
Note the worth of the Nimrods in directing the Typhoons.
“Please remember that gunfire and missiles have been known to miss. and a lo-lo-lo mission profile does not have the range to reach the edge of the EEZ and return.”
Jul 14th, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because it has to? How long does a ship take to go the 200 miles to the islands? How many times do you think a RAF fighter is going to miss?
If an argentine ship enters the region it would be sunk, if not by aircraft then by the destroyer or even the sub in the area.
And yes Nimrods would help but as there is no military build up in argentina there is no need for them now. Unlike 1982 we keep an eye on them now, if they were to start prepairing for a fight we would probably give them more equipment.
Hoytred and harrier61
Jul 14th, 2010 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you may well be right, but i think you understand that shakes will do anything to upset the apple cart,
but at this moment in time, the British through carrier [ark royal] i believe has just been refitted and is being sent on training exercises,
i just thought that i may be a good idea, for the British government, to sent the fleet down south, to do their training, and pop into the Falklands, i think this would do two things
1, show that the British are around, and showing the flag
2, make the Argentineans look silly, watching the fleet without hindrance
showing the flag, ect.
just an idea, [have you seen the new plane [TARANIS] ON SHOW YESTERDAY
12 zethe. Please let us approach this realistically. This is not the days of kick the tyres, swing the prop and away into the blue yonder. Britain will not fly, say, two Typhoons 150 miles out into the EEZ and promptly sink the first Argentine vessel they see. It is true that, solely on a weight basis, each Typhoon could carry 13 Harpoon anti-ship missiles but, realistically, would probably be limited to 4 with the other hard points used for air-to-air missiles. This is the sole offensive/defensive capability as, in the event of a credible threat, the other two Typhoons would undoubtedly be flying CAP missions.
Jul 15th, 2010 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0To the best of my current information, the current on-station warship is a frigate, HMS Portland, not a destroyer. But that is a small point. Think back to that family whose yacht was hit by an iceberg and was sinking. How long did it take HMS Clyde to get there? I think it was something like 11-12 hours. No point in mentioning the sub because we don't KNOW it's there.
Now, the Nimrods have extended range and can carry not only air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles but also bombs, torpedos and depth charges. Bit like a frigate in the air, but quicker.
As for the comments from Hoytred, it does seem that Ark Royal is currently leading AURIGA, the main RN training deployment of 2010, and by this time should have joined with the Amphibious Task Group somewhere in the Western Atlantic. That'll be HMS Ark Royal, Ocean, Albion, Liverpool and Sutherland plus RFAs and a couple of US vessels. Would be nice to pop up in the South Atlantic.
As for the TARANIS. Yes, I have seen it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taranis_(UAV)
“Typhoons 150 miles out into the EEZ and promptly sink the first Argentine vessel they see”
Jul 15th, 2010 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0An invasion fleet would consist of 4 or more ships for landing troops and air support. If they was invading it would be quite obvious. They would be given warning and if they would not turn around then they would be sunk. I know the capabilities of the Nimrod but the Typhoon's CAN do the job which is why they were placed there.
It would take the ships hours to land. Two typhoons with four missiles each(the other two would be on anti air), one is going to hit. They could do a couple dozen runs before the ships hit the shore. There is no way the typhoons would not get a shot in, the RAF are bloody good pilots.
All the typhoons would have to do is sink one ship, the loss of life from the landing craft would make all the others turn tail.
As for our carriers they are little as as good as glorified landing ships with no sea harriers. We desperatly need our new ones with some new jets. The harriers while being great, are becoming a relic.
Well, I commend your faith in our Armed Forces irrespective of the equipment available, so we'll say no more on that.
Jul 15th, 2010 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0But I did mention AURIGA. And the link-up with the Amphibious Task Group. The Air Squadrons in the Task Groups are 814,815 and 857 naval air squadrons and 1(F) Squadron - Joint Force Harrier.
We've always had a history of not having all the right equipment and getting the job done
Jul 15th, 2010 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They're used to it!
the trouble with the argies, is that they cant be trusted,
Jul 15th, 2010 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what if [scenario] late one stormy night, a little ship/sub, lands/stops, just of shore , and lands a few argentine special forces, they move close to the RAF airbase, and rest, the following night , they proceed to attach explosive to the sides of the aircraft,, a short time later, when no one expected it, the planes go bang, and a few, helicopters,, the balloon goes up, the UK sends forces, the navy ship Portland is 500 miles north,
the argentines land a few men, say 200, to cause havoc with the British troops, while the rest of argies troops start to land, heads to the town, takes prisoners, demands the military give up or else,????
a dream perhaps,,,1, is the military on the Falklands ready, on high alert, or lax, as they don’t expect any trouble
2, how long would it take the Portland to return to the islands,,3, how long for British reinforces to et their,4, is this at all possible that the argies could do such a thing,,, as they can never be trusted, and are always looking to embarrass the British, if this coupe happened, would the military surrender in the face of hostage taking, a dream, or possible reality.
When they created the base they did so with the only intention of keeping the argies out. All of these things would have been taken into account.
Jul 15th, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Military bases dont sleep. I'd expect that the base has 2000 personell stationed there because it would be very hard for them to land any more than 200 special forces using subs. They have enough men to beat a special forces unit.
It would be suicide for them to assualt a British base with 10 times less men, no artillery or air support. All of which the base has. Also our troops are better trained.
We now “keep and eye” on them, that would probably include an m15 team in Argentina to let London know if there is a military build up.
2000 troops is also a very good number of people to have to hold the airfield for much needed transport planes carrying more troops.
Think is back!
Jul 16th, 2010 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0As some of you maybe noticed, I have been gone for some days………
My account was closed, under false pretences, by some overzealous employees that thought it was shrewd to silence a dissident voice..................
Fortunately, after a very positive mail exchange and a telephonic conversation with the Editor of MercoPress (-: a pleasure to have made your acquaintance Mr. G. M. :-) my account has been restored with all honours and privileges.........
My respect for this News Agency has grown considerably after their internal handling of my “exclusion”, even if we evidently stand on opposite sides of the political spectre.
They definitely provide a valuable source of information on interesting subjects from an underreported region of our planet.........
About this specific article:
Lads...lads....
I fancy the militaristic angle it has taken..........
I think “Malvinas Fortress” should be reinforced in any possible way....
You can not trust the Argentineans..... No way......
Remember that the Iraqi WMD’s have never been found!.....
And Osama is still at large........
Imagine a “Jumbo Jet” loaded with Nerve Gas and Anthrax hitting the tower at Ross Road!
Better safe than sorry!
Meh, it's well defended enough.
Jul 16th, 2010 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0zethe. I wonder where you get the figure of 2000 troops from. The total deployment is about 500 personnel made up of a roulement infantry company, an engineer squadron, a signals unit, a logistics group and supporting services. Obviously, the RAF and RN have additional personnel but these are unlikely to consist of a further 1500 combat troops.
Jul 16th, 2010 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is why, with the belligerent neighbour around, I feel it appropriate to increase the aerial and naval resources.
I note briton's dream, or possibly nightmare. There are documented instances of sneaky Argentine incursions before the 1982 invasion. Recent aerial views of RAF Mount Pleasant showed no Typhoons on the ground. This would suggest that they were either in the air on patrol or, in common with normal RAF practice, in underground hardened shelters. Not easy to attack such shelters with the RAF Regiment in place.
Think. In view of your past behaviour, I do not find your return welcome. BUT, in the interests of fainess, I can accept it. However, I will have little hesitation in making my own representations to the MercoPress management if you choose to indulge in similar off-topic inanities as those in the past. I have no time or patience for comments composed mostly of links, or those including links to youtube.
(21) Zethe
Jul 16th, 2010 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A young brilliant military analyst like you has surely taken in consideration that a theoretical terrorist attack utilizing chemical and biological agents as described at (20) must be stopped long before it reaches its target.
The only solution is a massive escalation in military expenditure.
No question about it!
Just imagine a greasy Afghani flying a little sneaky plane at night spraying a nasty cocktail of scrapie and foot and mouth over the innocent herds of Malvinas.
Those sheep deserve protection!
They need radars!
They need automated surface to air missile batteries!
They need auto destruction belts!
How would a“massive escalation in military expenditure” Help stop a terrorist chemical attack?
Jul 16th, 2010 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have anti air in the form of four eurofighters and ground based anti air systems.
Harrier. The islands have 500 british army combat troops, plus other personell which makes up for a very large ammount of the british army. Logistics is huge. But all British army personell are combat ready them all going through basic training.
”The station, home to between 1,000 and 2,000 British military personnel, is located about 30 miles (48 km) miles southwest of Stanley—the capital of the Falklands“
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant
”strong military presence remains on the islands, with more than 1,000 troops stationed there. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant
To put it in a few words, we're fed up with British bullying and Gunboat Diplomacy.
Jul 16th, 2010 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps it was good for Victorian times when more than 70% of the worldmap was painted pink, but not now lads.
Why don't you drill in Chinese waters?
Be good.
British bullying ?
Jul 16th, 2010 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You argies dont do too bad on that score
(25) Argie
Jul 16th, 2010 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our objective is clear:
To get the governments of our three good neighbors to “Stand by Us” politically by refusing to facilitate, participate or cooperate in any “Malvinas” related business.....
No access to any South American ports or airports to “Malvinas” transports.
Full Stop.
Humanitarian emergencies would, of course, be an exception, but companies involved will be fully billed afterwards....
The economical loss of this “marginal business” is negligible for Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, but the political value of such gesture for Argentina and the rest of South America would be enormous.
We Stand United and it ain’t costing us nothing.
Argie - we wouldn't dream of drilling in another nation''s waters ... which is why we restrict ourselves to drilling in British waters :-)
Jul 16th, 2010 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Contested British waters......
Jul 16th, 2010 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Contested.....
“Our objective is clear:”
Jul 16th, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The they are quite clear. clearly not working.
Contested? But it's no competition ... hadn't you noticed Think?
Jul 16th, 2010 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And we're not contesting the waters, after all, we have no doubt about our sovereignty, etc, etc ... :-)
Doesn't a contest require you to have some form of competition?
Jul 16th, 2010 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:P
Argentina took at stand after the Falkland's war: “We lost but we will make their life miserable”. They've been doing that by blockading the islands and isolating them, exception England. They're pressuring Latin-Americans’ countries by not allowing any commerce and the use of ports by air or sea.
Jul 16th, 2010 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the whole reason WHY you will never get the Falklands, is you attitude stated above, the only interest of the British is to defend our territory, but no mention of attacking Argentina, but you lot on the other hand, every other post is attacking the Falklands, or nuking every one, with anthrax or other violent means that will kill innocent people, with a nation like that next door, no wonder they wish to remain British, as for uniting the big 3 as you say, first of you need trust, [you have none] you can attack them a lot easier than you can the Falklands, [and they know it] you have and still do have claims on their territory, so Argentina, if you wish them to help you. then you would have to give up all territorial claims against them, this, you will not do] so where does that leave you, exactly where you are now, nowhere, alone and looking silly in the eyes of the free world, [next question]
Jul 16th, 2010 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 033 Liberty: Yeah thats the plan, but is it working? No.
Jul 16th, 2010 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for uniting the “big three”. Having someone SAY they support you and them actually support you in a literal action is a world of difference.
Plus, we've got allies. Ones we've actually earned the trust of.
34 briton:
Jul 16th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the whole reason WHY you will never get the Falklands, is you attitude stated above”
I think you are miss understanding my statement. Argentina is taking the stand of: “We lost but we will make their life miserable”. I don't agree with them one bit. I despise that country for what they really are, bullies !!...They use their territory and population to intimidate a small country like Uruguay. The people and government of that small country have a low level of knowledge of how Argentina manipulates them. For decades they have been drilled to believe that anglo saxon people are the invaders. They don't realize that the real invaders are across the rivers and up north.
i agree with you liberty, Argentina will use anyone or anything to get their own way, this is something even brazil must learn, just because they are moving forward, and getting respect from the world, they cannot just ignore Argentina, and backing them against us, will only backfire on them, do they or you or any other south American country in the sights of Argentina really believe that if this country get them all to fight against us and kicks us out, you are all going to be friends, think again] with the british out of the south Atlantic, it will never happen]
Jul 16th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then Argentina will no doubt be the military powerbase, and how long do you think it will take them to turn on you lot, it does not matter if you like the brits or not, we are without doubt stopping Argentina from exerting her power, i do not trust them, and neither should any south American country, whilst Argentina is looking for wealth and power she remains a danger to any weak power, that’s my opinion, i could be wrong, , things change all the time, this year Argentina wants peace, but what abt next year,
Remember we are cutting back, they may just be waiting for that chance,,
37 briton:
Jul 16th, 2010 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are very few people that realizes in Uruguay and the rest of South America how dangerous Argentina is. History is the best witness of her ambitions, her ties with Nazi Germany. Argentina fights over territory, against Chile, Uruguay and of course the undeclared war over the Falklands. People in this side of the world never had to fight a World War. In many ways they're very naive. They don't understand that Argentina has serious ties with Chavez and they share the same ambitions of being a world's power.
I've said this elsewhere but it bears repeating.
Jul 17th, 2010 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0What Uruguay needs is a nice overseas friend. A friend she can trade with without reference to those nasty big neighbours. A technologically-advanced friend would be good.
Of course, “friend” might like some naval and aviation facilities. But naval and aviation facilities employ lots of local people and provide extra markets. Uruguay might be a little unpopular with big neighbours for a while, but the presence of its technologically-advanced friends would make them think twice.
It's worth a try! Reach out.....we'll be there!!!
Uruguay would be best served letting the US navy build a base in it's territory. I'm sure they'd jump at the opportunity.
Jul 17th, 2010 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why not a German Base?
Jul 17th, 2010 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why not a German Base?
Jul 17th, 2010 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why not, what with the many decendants from club ODESSA in south america, language should not be an obstacle
Because germnany's navy is not a blue water navy and has no need for a base there.
Jul 17th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The US navy is all over the world. They have like 400 bases around the world already.
Don't need any more American bases. But Uruguay would be handy for a couple of LARGE British carriers.
Jul 17th, 2010 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't need it mate. We've got enough bases scattered around the oceans. Plus we just don't have the funding or manpower at the moment. Army is being cut 20,000 men due to recession.
Jul 17th, 2010 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We would refuse it. America on the otherhand would LOVE to have another base in south america.
Our carriers are small also. Even the new ones being built arent as large as the USN ones.
Don't be daft. The SDR has only just started. The Army's current active strength is 113,970 Regular and 33,130 Territorial Army. There is no report of a 20,000 man cut.
Jul 17th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't mention a base. I said naval and aviation facilities. Uruguayan facilities would reduce the gap between the FI and Ascension Island.
It is considered desirable by the US CNO to have ourt new carriers available. Don't mistake size for capability. Each one will, effectively, be the same as the 3 carriers we sent to the Falklands in '82.
Quite wrong. The forces are being cut to help with our debts. The navy will the the only of the three of the forces to escape the cuts. If the airforce gets the cuts we will not get our f35's. If the army recieves the cuts we will loose 20,000 personell. They need the f-35's to use on the new carriers. Cancelling the carriers now would not save them any money. It's not hard to see where the cuts will come from.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The airforce will not have as manyof the f35's we wanted.
In terms of Aircraft carriers size IS capability. The new carriers will have two times the capability of the old carriers, not three. The old carriers carry 20 aircraft. the new ones 40. Americas carriers carry 90.
As for getting more bases, with the cuts the military are thinking about withdrawing from Germany and cyprus. The last thing they need is more commitments.
if i am correct our carriers will just be slightly smaller than the largest American carrier, ours will be approx 60-66,000 tons.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0this puts us in 2nd place, the others are the American 40,50, tons,
and the French,, if you look at a picture between the yanks and the ark royal, its really tiny, but the comparison between the big two is small, i have seen a print of the 4 together, i have this saved, really interesting, ,also the impotents of the south Atlantic doorway, is important to us now,
but very very important to us and the yanks, and the rest of the world in the future, that’s why the south Atlantic is the only place on earth, the yanks don’t have a base, but of course if requested the British would let them use ours, as proved in Gibraltar and Cyprus, go and look at a map,
4 ways out of the uk, to the rest of the world,
1, north Atlantic /Russia /barring straits to pacific
2, north west passage/Canada, uses the Bering straights
3, Mediterranean through the Suez canal
4, south Atlantic, turn left -or right into the open waters ,
the first two can be shut by Russia, I don’t think its big enough to get big ships through,
the Suez can be closed either end,
[yes] the panama canal, but this can be shut,
now look at the south Atlantic, look at the British, remember some facilities are hush/hush, uk-ascension isle-ST, Helena. Falklands, British all the way, to my knowledge their is no other foreign power that has a base down the west side of Africa, or the east side of south America, that’s why the yanks would jump at the chance, and why the British would be more stupid the than the japs were at pearl,, to give it up, plus all the wealth/minerals, ect ect that is down their, including the south pole,
[only if im correct] ????
I agree. I don't think we should give up those bases. But we might have to. I also think pulling from germany is utterly silly. As a nation i just feel they they've proved that they aren't trustworthy.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the American carriers. They are 90 to 100 tons. The french carrier is absolutely useless and spends most of it's time in dock being repaied.
Aye i agree with us allowing the US to use our bases if they wanted. They also allow us to use bases when we require them.
“the first two can be shut by Russia, I don’t think its big enough to get big ships through,”
Doubt it. Since the end of the cold war the Russian navy is barely capable of patrolling it's own waters.
, thanks
Jul 18th, 2010 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0i did mean to say 1000, tons for the yanks, that’s what i meant 2nd place,
depending how you look at it, its not the British military that’s cutting back, and reducing us to a banana state, once again its the corrupt politicians, no one cars, i post many things on military sites, over time,
at the end of the day, after all said and done, you must prioritise things, and the first thing the British government is supposed to do, is protect the British people, land, territory,, but with our corrupt governments, we have the money, [really] but they are giving it to others before there own country, they keep our membership fees, and the other billions ready for there masters in Europe, take this money back and we could double the military outlay, we give billions to our masters, people always say, how good Europe is for us, my answer to that has always been the same,
their is nothing, nothing, that the Europeans can give us, that our own government cant,
and if our own government cant or wont, then there is something very badly wrong,, with our government, , that’s what i think, it hurts to see all that have gone before, destroyed by modern corruption, what a dammed insult to the millions that have died
We don't give the EU that much money to be honest. Through mismanagment we put ourselves in a rubbish situation. We will just have to pay the money back. Loosing 20,000 troops isn't as bad as it sounds. After we've paid it back we can get 20,000 more personell back within a year of two as combat troops are easy to recruit. We don't NEED the 100,000+ we have at the moment. Our maximum force projection capability is just under 50,000 men for an invasion force and as a sustained force about 17,000 max.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Equipment is being prioritized because it takes billions and serveral years to field new aircraft carriers or aircraft.
Europe is very likely going to become the united states of europe over the next 100 years and the UK has either one of two privilages. We will either be a leading part within this new superpower state(unlikely i think, to be honest) or a very close ally to both of the worlds two superpowers.
Double the military outlay? We give europe like 100 million, max. This gives us free trade which is accountable for billions. We spend like 60 billion a year on our armed forces.
EU commitment among other things is a safeguard from another world war. None of us want a repeat of that mess.
Yeah mate you are in the mess and you will not pay back in 1 years to stop your debt burn else will require several years and the external debt will takes generation to be repaid.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cuts, cuts and don’t cats will be rquired.
So you will be a little kitty (miau miau) in a world of tigers.
Don't wet yourself Nico. It's hardly a mess if we can still afford two new massive carriers, the most expensive fighter jet in the world, new subs and new destroyers.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@47 zethe. Where are you getting your assumptions/figures? Quote a credible source. In assessing tonnage, I hope you are using the same measures. The QEII class will be 65,600 metric whilst the Nimitz class are measured in long tons. And the QEII class can carry 50+ aircraft at full war load. As for use of bases, did you know that the Americans initially refused permission for the UK to use Ascension in 1982. It took a call from Maggie to Ron for us to get on to our own territory. Don't trust the Americans.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@48 briton. Slight problem. Saint Helena has no military facilities. It certainly has no airfield. One was planned in 2005 but no construction has started. Ascension to Saint Helena takes 2 days on the RMS Saint Helena. A warship might be quicker but not an RFA.
@51 zethe. You seem to be something of a Europhile whilst I never cease to press for the UK's secession. As I press for increases in the size and capabilities of the RN and RAF. And the EU costs the UK £65 billion per year. Not negligible as it amounts to around £1,000 for every man, woman and child, working or not.
Unfortunately, some people fail to look to history. In 1939/40, we sent 316,000 men to Europe. Nobody was really ready. Our defences were parlous, although not as bad as they are now. Germany went through Western Europe like a hot knife through butter. Europe is no protection. They'll still be talking about it and hoping we and the Americans will make the difference. And with the Tunnel, the Channel will not be the barrier that stopped the Germans.
The UK must wake up. We are not American and we are most certainly not European in the EU sense. There is nothing that we have now, apart from hundreds of directives and regulations, that we would not have without the EU. And we'd be £65 billion a year better off.
“@47 zethe. Where are you getting your assumptions/figures? ”
Jul 18th, 2010 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The royal navy website.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/facts-and-figures/
If you wish to get into all the weight differences. Our new carriers are 65,000 metric or tons 72,000 short tons. An american carrier is 100,000 long tons or 110,000 short tons.
Ours will house 40 aircraft, and theirs house 90. Our crew 1,500. Theirs almost 5000. There's a huge difference in capability. Personally i think they should have spent a little more and made them to american specs. Or even just paid for one of theirs im sure they'd sell us one they have like six sitting in dock.
As for my predictions on the budget/personell cuts:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/facts-and-figures/
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/facts-and-figures/
I never realised the EU cost us that much. They want to use our carriers in their Eu fleet. If it costs us that much i'd have shot with them i've always prefered the USA over europe. I also believe that in the event of a big war, America would be much more willing to help us over europe. And they have the capability to actually help.
All the military bluster in these comments about South Atlantic oil exploration is mind-blowing. I can't believe you people have the chutzpah to call the Argentines bullies while you publish your wet dreams about aircraft carriers, fighter planes and all varieties of big guns. Can you not see the obvious contradiction in this behavoir? Perhaps your minds are just a bit clouded by the greed that comes with salivating over the oodles of oil that you expect to extract and ship back to Britain. Reading your comments makes me feel dirty, like I've stumbled into a pit of war mongers who need a little more raping before they proceed with their pillage. Nonetheless, I have a serious question if there is one of you out there whose head isn't so full of avarice that thinking is possible: The Argentine position today, as I understand it, is that Las Malvinas are a colony of Great Britain and that there is backing from the UN and the OAS to compel Britain to enter into negotiations to de-colonialize. The British position is that the Falklands are independent (or at least in the process of becoming independent) and that status trumps any resolution or recommendation regarding de-colonialization. If we assume the British position is correct, why should Britain be entitled anything with regard to the extraction of natural resources around the islands? I have read in the British press that there is an expectation that hundreds of millions of pounds will accrue to the UK treasury from royalties on this oil. Should this happen, I would think there would be no defense against the charge that Falkland Islands independence was just a legal ruse to cover up more colonial sacking of the south by the mighty military bullies of the north.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0polacandino: We aren't ashamed of our armed forces, infact most British people are proud of our lads out there. Over the last 400 years they've given us every reason to be proud of them. I understand this is different in your nation.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Someone once said to obtain peace you have to prepair for war.
You are slightly right. There is backing from the OAS in argentina's favor.
Argentina gaining soveriginity is not decolonisation. It would infact be colonisation. The only way to decolonise the islands would be for them to go independant. The only reason they can't go independant is because they require our military to defend against argentina.
As for the oil. agains another misunderstanding. The oil is the islanders. it was commissioned by the islanders and they will be the ones who benefit the most. Thats not to say that the UK won't enjoy having a steady source of oil for the next 100 or so years.
The UK will make a lot through the industry it will create because the islanders will require our help in setting up the oil business. Argentina has seen to it that latin america will not participate in the business. So the UK will.
As for being bullies thats a bit rich coming from you guys.
(56) Polarcandino
Jul 18th, 2010 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Welcome.
Clear, unambiguous and well-formulated entry from the “Northern Side”!
But don’t expect much sympathy from the “war mongerers”.
Intelligence makes them anxious.
Hope you will find the time to write a bit in here.
You are sorely needed!
Respectfully
Think
Intelligence makes them anxious.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and you think are the antidote
(56) Polarcandino
Jul 18th, 2010 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ask:
Why should Britain be entitled anything with regard to the extraction of natural resources around the islands?
I say:
The 2450 settlers in Malvinas are the handy excuse for British control over the South Atlantic.
Remember that Britain is also claiming many other uninhabited Islands in the area and then............ Antarctica.
We Argentineans are talking to a “British Brick Wall” ... We know it.
They have possession and military might.
We have diplomacy and a deep feeling that their intransigent position will finally backfire.
In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you aint got diplomacy
60 Think: Even if the islanders were not there we would not be relinquishing the islands to you.
Jul 18th, 2010 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We empasise the self determination point because currently that is the only point which matters. If they were not there that would not mean that the islands belong to you.
As a democracy we would be more than willing to allow the islanders to go independant and give them that territory. But democracy is only applicable in argentina when it suits your needs.
@polacandino(56): I agree. Military bluster is not the way forward
Jul 18th, 2010 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The way forward for me is for peoples of the world to extend the hand of friendship, to cooperate, help one another, and enjoy one another's similarities in terms of hopes & wishes and to celebrate differences of culture, history & language. If there are issues between peoples, then peaceful ways should be found to resolve them amicably, so all are satisfied
With reference to the current Falklands/Malvinas situation, the text of General Assembly resolution 2065(XX) confirms resolution 1514(XV) applies, namely:
”Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)“
but also recognises AR disputes sovereignty with the UK, i.e.:
”Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands”
The issues being the Islanders have exercised their right to self-determination under resolution 1514(XV):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514
& have expressed their democratic wish to remain British
Both AR & the UK are compelled by the UN to decolonise the Falklands/Malvinas according to resolution 1514(XV) by resolution 2065(XV)
Specifically, the UK & AR are invited to: ”...proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions & objectives of the Charter of the United Nations & of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) & the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”
The AR currently refuses to implement 1514
63: although i agree with your oppinion that peace should be an acceptable option. History proves that this is not possible without military domance.
Jul 19th, 2010 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The two longest periods of “world” peace in history have been through military domance. Mainly Pax Romana, Pax Britannica and to a lesser extent Pax Europaea after the world war.
it is unfortunate but thats just reality.
@The zethe, Briton, stick up your junta
Jul 19th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are alone mates USA doesn’t want to jeopardize her relation with southern neighbours.
Your thought about US as an ally of you is the more stupid thing I have ever heard.
As I said before US have not special relation or friendship or special alliance with anyone just a temporary share of Interest.
As you can see here in an article of the clever an influential Doug Bandow (specialist in foreign policy and special assistant to President Reagan, editor of the Inquiry, National Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times.)
http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/02/the-problem-with-alliances-britain-and-the-falklands/
So don’t count on facilities or carriers that you don’t have.
@zethe
“As a democracy we would be more than willing to allow the islanders to go independant and give them that territory”
Glad to hear that so the separatist Islamic Groups and others will have not troubles to set their own independent nation within UK when we’ll start to support them for their self-determination right.
So Tablighi Jamaat followers we The Argies are with you to support your dream of an independent nation in UK.
Do you accept Paypal Donation mates?
Usual crap from NicoDIN .. the link is getting old now (Febuary) and the comments all support the British case.
Jul 19th, 2010 - 05:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0All the rest is b*ll*cks .. you support our islamists, we'll support what remains of your indigenous population .. fair enough?
Douglas (Doug) Bandow (born ca. 1954) is a former columnist with Copley News Service and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He resigned from Cato in 2005 due a scandal involving payments for columns from lobbyist Jack Abramoff
Jul 19th, 2010 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0(65) Nicodin
Jul 19th, 2010 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank's for the link to Mr Bandow, very interesting and very usefull...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11656
Bandow resigned from Cato on December 15, 2005, after admitting he accepted payments from Abramoff — in return for publishing articles favorable to Abramoff's clients over a period of approximately ten years. He has referred to these activities as “a lapse of judgment,” saying that he accepted payments for “between 12 and 24 articles” over a period of years. He stepped down after BusinessWeek Online contacted the Cato Institute to probe news of possible payments. He typically received on the order of $2,000 per article
Jul 19th, 2010 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think :)
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let’s remember the old good days of UKay by watching and hearing what their are good at...
Some music from Sussex and Manchester.
Song inspired on some fellow poster’s life here : )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
Inspired on some special relationship with US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
Inspired on how would be Briton’s life in UK if they mess up with us this time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
And of course we can always meet Britons at the “Cemetery gates”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
A dreaded sunny day so I meet you at the Cemetery gates...
@ Hoytred
Do it no problem mate you can start right here with your donation I hope that you would be as generous as us with the communities that want self-determination in UKI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkvPnjb9hs
@ 69 stick up your junta
That absolutely cannot be possible mate because according with “fredbdc Yank”, “Nicholas Yank”, “stick up your junta”, “JustinKuntz” among others, the only corrupts in the world are us and in US there is not corruption at all. You don’t trust the pure Americans? Hey mate where is going to end western civilization?
So please let us enjoy the first place on this please It not fair that you want to compete with this too.
Shame on you mate
56 - polacandino: The preamble to the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 states that, “all peoples have the right to self-determination and by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development and may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit and international law;” (based on the preamble to the UN Charter).
Jul 19th, 2010 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands Constitution was amended in 2008 and both the UK's and the Falkland Islands' Governments anticipated the discovery of oil when its terms were being drafted and agreed.
Amongst other important isues (namely the right to self-detremination), this gives the Falkland Islands Government the right to dispose of its natural resources, eg, oil. It can be anticipated that the UK will benefit from any commercial exploitation of oil in the Falklands area, given that it is likely that commercial agreements will be reached with UK companies. However, any decisions regarding the Falkland Islands' natural resources will be made by the Falkland Islanders themselves and not by the UK.
@nicotine
Jul 19th, 2010 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we should donate to the charity that helps you
http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=1891&gclid=CIuoiIzG96ICFYKY2AodHGU0jQ
@polacandino
Jul 19th, 2010 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are incorrect if you assume that revenues from oil will belong to the UK treasury. Any revenue belongs to the Falkland Islands Government, which is free to do with it as it wishes.
I have no time for the warmongers but for all the pious commentors from the usual suspects, the usual rhetoric heard from the Argentine side is why Argentine should resort to the use of armed force. Remember that prior to 1982 the British had virtually zero presence in the islands, the current military set up is there in a purely defensive posture and the “warmongers” were talking about a response to Argentine aggression, not the promotion of pre-emptive action.
The Falkland Islanders are a people who have lived there for nearly 2 centuries, to dismiss them as mere settlers with no rights because Argentina chose to dispute sovereignty in the 20th Century is to promote a position based on racism. It is racism because it seeks to portray a people as mere chattels with no human rights and who do not enjoy the right to decide their own future in the land of their birth. Use the same language to describe Argentines in their own land, when in most cases they are on 3rd/4th generation immigrants and have shorter roots in Argentina, and that serves to illustrate why.
Now revenue may accrue to the UK through UK companies, that will only happen because Argentina has chosen to tear up agreements that guaranteed the participation of Argentine companies and Argentina has chosen to try an economic blockade. That Argentina will miss out, is a misfortune of their own making for narrow political gain in the short term.
Britain may claim islands in the South Atlantic, well they were there first. What gives Argentina a right to subsequently claim them for no other reason than they have cast covetous eyes?
Why is it then you're only too anxious to promote Argentine colonialism?
“Your thought about US as an ally of you is the more stupid thing I have ever heard.
Jul 19th, 2010 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I said before US have not special relation or friendship or special alliance with anyone just a temporary share of Interest.”
Rather than the biast words from media why don't you show me the proof in real actions where this is true? They've always helped us. Again, actions are different from words. On paper and in politics the US and UK differ a lot. When it comes down to real actual action it's a different story. The last falklands incident they did not want to become inlovled much like they are now, But when it came down to it? They offered to lend us an entire fleet.
Americans in general would be more willing to go to war to help the UK out than any other nation. Most polls have shown they prefer us to any other nation.
The term “special relationship” is not something just made up. The US and UK share more military intellegence than any other nation, it's unparallelled. This has been a secret since the second world war which was only declassified a few years ago when canada and australia joined the agreement.
“Glad to hear that so the separatist Islamic Groups and others will have not troubles to set their own independent nation within UK when we’ll start to support them for their self-determination right.”
They have the right to choose their government, it's called voting. thats self determination. The islanders are entitled to choose their own government and they chose the UK. Get it?
Self determination is in essence the right of choise.
@polacandino
Jul 19th, 2010 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have to agree with a number of the sentiments in the comments following those that you made at 56.
Let me start with zethe at 57. At the outset he said “Someone once said to obtain peace you have to prepair for war.” It is universally believed to be based on a quotation from Roman military writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus: Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. But to be more up-to-date, Si vis pacem para pactum is the motto of the Royal Navy. If you want peace, prepare for war.
This is set against a historical background of Argentina and its predecessors attempting to seize the Islands, either when Britain was concerned elsewhere, as in the 18th and 19th centuries, or by sneak attack and invasion, as in 1982. I understand that it came as something of a surprise to the Argentine invasion forces in '82 that they were not welcomed as “liberators”. The way in which the Islanders were then treated was reminiscent of the German invasion of the Channel Islands in 1940. A remarkable difference was that there are no reports that the Germans found it appropriate to fill local toilets, bathtubs, beds and furniture with human excrement. Argentina will not get the chance to do the same again.
The Argentine position that you quote is, basically, wrong. The Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory. But Argentines quote it ad nauseum to justify their own attempted imperialist colonialism.
Domingo, PomInOz and JustinKuntz have given fairly complete and accurate resumes, to which I would only add this. Quite early on, the Falkland Islands expressed a desire to make a greater contribution to the costs of their defence than was then possible. And I understand that there is an agreement in place to share any oil revenues. But you must bear in mind that Britain has supported the Islanders with billions of pounds and, at this time, it is Argentina that is attempting to interfere with development and freedom.
Another intelligent yankee!
Jul 19th, 2010 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11656
76 Think:
Jul 19th, 2010 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The former established a settlement in 1828, which was attacked by U.S. warships after a seal-hunting dispute. The British returned in 1833 in force and re-established control. So who ”owns“ the island?
The proper answer is: who cares?”
One more time your quote is based on the personal, unilateral opinion of some former diplomat under Reagan's administration....Who cares?..obviously the Falklanders do, they already stated that they don't want to have the Argentinean yoke around their necks. What is your opinion ?
a yank showing lack of judgement
Jul 19th, 2010 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm
Argie #25 why should we bother?
Jul 19th, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Far more convenient to drill on dry land in Mongolia!!
highly profitable too, made me a few bob already!!
Argie #25. Why should we drill in Chinese waters when we can drill in our own. You know, the ones around the BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORY of the FALKLAND ISLANDS.
Jul 19th, 2010 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL You guys are awsome! talking about wars, carriers, alliances with Uruguay, Brazil, etc. You are a bunch of big talking mouths!!!
Jul 19th, 2010 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are growing and growing, reducing our ratio between debt GDP and public debt and you are not doing that, future will tell!
Oh Jorge, when does Argentina intend to repay the debts it defaulted on?
Jul 19th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'nuff said
56 polacandino (#)
Jul 19th, 2010 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Argentine position today, as I understand it, is that Las Malvinas are a colony of Great Britain and that there is backing from the UN and the OAS to compel Britain to enter into negotiations to de-colonialize.”
Polacandino,
Handing the Falklands over to Argentina without the Islanders' consent is not decolonisation. The UNGA does not have the power to compel any state to do anything. Its resolutions are not binding in international law. Whether the OAS has the power to compel Argentina to do anything, I don't know. It certainly has no power to compel the UK, as the UK is not a member.
”The British position is that the Falklands are independent (or at least in the process of becoming independent) and that status trumps any resolution or recommendation regarding de-colonialization.”
Resolution 1541(XV) provided for 3 methods of decolonisation:
independence,
integration with another state (with the consent of the population)
free association with another state (with the consent of the population)
Resolution 2625(XXV) added a fourth method of decolonisation to the above three:
the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
The British position is that its overseas territories are already decolonised under this fourth provision.
well enough said, when the big guys talk,
Jul 19th, 2010 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the little guys like Argentina has not say, will never have a say,
so you just sit back and through mud from your armchair, that’s as far as you will ever get,
and remember the Ghurkha, he has just cut the head of a Taliban chief, like i said before , a fantastic deterrent for ant argies who thinks differently lol
(82) JustinKuntz
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As FT.com is a “paying service” I copied and pasted it just for you
Argentina ‘delighted’ over debt swap success
By Jude Webber / Financial Times
June 23 2010
Argentina said on Wednesday it had turned the page on its default, with a debt swap that secured the backing of the holders of 66% of the $18.3bn it owed to outstanding creditors, in spite of tumultuous market conditions.
Argentina’s economy minister, said the higher-than-expected turnout meant a total of 92.4% of the nearly $100bn on which the country defaulted in 2001 has been restructured after including the results of an earlier swap in 2005.
“Argentina stuck to its guns and we managed to do it – we are delighted,” he said.
Argentina believes that the 92.4% acceptance level is enough to head off any further legal challenges from the now much-reduced group of “holdout” creditors, which includes so-called vulture funds that have vowed to fight on.
They are expected to step up their campaigns by going after government officials on corruption charges, as well as seeking to foreclose on $350m in assets for which they have won favorable court rulings.
Mr Boudou was unconcerned. The swap, he said, was intended to isolate the vulture funds, not draw them in.
“If 92.4% of the other creditors accepted the proposal, this means they are acting in bad faith,” he said.
The swap results mean Argentina will have paid $25 for every $100 of defaulted debt; a punishing “haircut” for creditors that many thought Argentina could not pull off.
He said the offer was a vindication of the economic policies Argentina had pursued since 2003 under the presidency of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner and was a “rational” policy in line with Argentina’s ability to pay.
Argentina repaid $25 for every $100 it borrowed, so when do you plan on repaying your debts? Perhaps we should default, except we never have.
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0some more of Jude Webbers work
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/author/judewebber/
give it back to the people that you stole it off,
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(86)Justin
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's paid
It's business
End of story.....
It wasn't paid,
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It wasn't business
And however much Argentina would like it, it isn't over yet
Who would lend money to Argentina again? Hardly a worthwhile investment, if the business is successful it will be nationalised for a fraction of what its worth. If it doesn't work out, they don't repay.
I like this one from Jude
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For a government bent on growth, Argentina’s lack of long-term energy policy – which results every winter in gas cuts for factories as supplies are earmarked for households - is incomprehensible.
It’s hard to get concrete figures as the issue is so sensitive for the government (which, as every year, is now denying there is any problem with gas supplies). Media reports talk of as many as 300 big industrial clients nationwide – 130 in metropolitan Buenos Aires and 170 in the rest of the country – which are now expected to be without gas until Saturday.
Factories have been suffering gas cuts since late May but the situation has worsened as temperatures have dropped in recent days, and many clients are only now receiving the minimum necessary so as not to have to switch off machinery and furnaces.
(90) JustinKuntz
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina plans to issue $2bn in new debt bonds by November.
70% pre-bought by Venezuela.
That incidentally:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/07/15/venezuela-oil-reserves-could-double-saudi-arabia-says-us-assessment
go webber go
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jude Webber
Jude Webber joined the FT in 2007 as correspondent for Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay after 15 years working for Reuters in UK, Spain, Ireland, Italy and Peru.
Argentina in sticky spot over pensions bill
July 14th, 2010 9:40pmby Jude Webber | Share
Argentina apparently just can’t help trying to live beyond its means.
The opposition moved closer this week to bringing a bill before Congress to hike state pensions, putting the government of President Cristina Fernández in a sticky spot. more
Argentina: China’s new Africa?
July 14th, 2010 6:14pmby Jude Webber | Share
Being a commodity-hungry emerging power with plenty of cash can be a frustrating occupation sometimes. The goods are out there, the price is right, but getting hold of the stuff (be it oil, copper, wheat…) can be a drag. That’s why China has been building railways in Africa since the 1970s. Now it’s decided to do the same in Latin America. more
Energy shortages could put brakes on Argentina’s growth
July 13th, 2010 6:15pmby Jude Webber | Share
For a government bent on growth, Argentina’s lack of long-term energy policy – which results every winter in gas cuts for factories as supplies are earmarked for households - is incomprehensible.
It’s hard to get concrete figures as the issue is so sensitive for the government (which, as every year, is now denying there is any problem with gas supplies). Media reports talk of as many as 300 big industrial clients nationwide – 130 in metropolitan Buenos Aires and 170 in the rest of the country – which are now expected to be without gas until Saturday. more
Codelco chief promises reform of ‘paternalist’ culture
July 12th, 2010 6:30pmby Jude Webber | Share
When Diego Hernández, the copper industry’s “man of the year”, moved two months ago from BHP Billiton, the international mining group, to the presidency of Chile’s Codelco, there was a lot of talk he would have trouble handling its powerful unions after suggestions that the newl
(93)Stick
Jul 19th, 2010 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the idea boy........
We “the Newthinkers” in Argentina read and analyze our critics and enemies.
That's the only way to find out what its wrong and correct it in our favor.
Not like certain others, just looking at their belly-button and admiring how perfect it is ;-)
We “the Newthinkers” in Argentina read and analyze our critics and enemies.
Jul 19th, 2010 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the only way to find out what its wrong and correct it in our favor
you have got your work cut out then
”Not like certain others, just looking at their belly-button and admiring how perfect it is ;-)”
Jul 19th, 2010 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0chutzpah (uncountable)
1. (slang) Nearly arrogant courage; utter audacity, effrontery or impudence; supreme self-confidence; exaggerated self-opinion;
Think, who spends most of his time spouting propaganda about Argentina, the dictionary definition of Chutzpah. Unlike Think I will criticise my Government when its wrong, Think defends it no matter what it does and defends racism.
:-) Sure.....
Jul 19th, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0think,The patron saint of lost causes
Jul 20th, 2010 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 085 Think & the arentinean gang:
Jul 20th, 2010 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your arrogance and lopsided view of your country is almost unique. It's very sad to read your biased comments based in info. provided and authorized by the KK's. Inflation is out of control, the peso is devaluating almost everyday. Oh well, you know the misery that affects your country as well as I do. Keep dreaming of being a world power; your country will never get out of the 3er world and Uruguay is just behind yours.
Liberty. The best thing for you and all sensible people to do is to ignore Think & the argentinean gang. I know that it is always tempting to try to correct their perverted perceptions, but it is too late. The brain-scrubbing has gone on for too long. But the rest of us can have intelligent debates while we wait for Argentina to implode because of the inability of its inhabitants to live in the current reality.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like certain others, just looking at their belly-button and admiring how perfect it is ;-)
Jul 20th, 2010 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Liberty
Jul 20th, 2010 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is Uruguay mate? Or you are talking about our province in la banda oriental that has a capital called Montevideo?
@4stick up your junta
“we should donate to the charity that helps you”
That its not fair mate you know that you are the first in list.
@ briton
Ghurkhas? You can even spell well Gurkhas mate?
Well they seem to be a little bit shocked about Malvinas war but anyway where are their rights of self-determination to be British citizens?. Your govt. refused to allow them to enter into UK.
Good people you are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZVGKgvtRl8
Well here my offer to Gurkhas if you this time fight against the British and you win you can keep the Islanders properties and make Malvinas your new Home. Health care service, education, etc. paying for us plus a life pension for your services.
@ For economist dummies here.
Argentina is growing fast again may be 7% (or more) this years after paying external debt and the creation of special fund, Argentina has now more reserves in its central bank.
New % growth will represent 36bn expansion of its GDP while UK hardly will expand 19bn ( If not collapses first).
We’re fine, thanks for your concern mates.
MIF or FMI as we call is waiting for you.
Welcome to the 3er world and glad you joint the special club of the Bananas Republics.
After all is where you belong.
: )
“but anyway where are their rights of self-determination to be British citizens?. Your govt. refused to allow them to enter into UK.”
Jul 20th, 2010 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First of all, gurkhas are not british citizens. Their government see's to their right of self determination. Second. They have been allowed to become British citizens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3110530/Gurkhas-win-High-Court-battle-to-stay-in-the-UK.html
They fight for us and are very loyal :). They also have their own land.
You didn't pay external debt Nico. You've only just came out of default.
As FT.com is a “paying service” I copied and pasted it just for you guys...
Jul 20th, 2010 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina ‘delighted’ over debt swap success
By Jude Webber / Financial Times
June 23 2010
Argentina said on Wednesday it had turned the page on its default, with a debt swap that secured the backing of the holders of 66% of the $18.3bn it owed to outstanding creditors, in spite of tumultuous market conditions.
Argentina’s economy minister, said the higher-than-expected turnout meant a total of 92.4% of the nearly $100bn on which the country defaulted in 2001 has been restructured after including the results of an earlier swap in 2005.
“Argentina stuck to its guns and we managed to do it – we are delighted,” he said.
Argentina believes that the 92.4% acceptance level is enough to head off any further legal challenges from the now much-reduced group of “holdout” creditors, which includes so-called vulture funds that have vowed to fight on.
They are expected to step up their campaigns by going after government officials on corruption charges, as well as seeking to foreclose on $350m in assets for which they have won favorable court rulings.
Mr Boudou was unconcerned. The swap, he said, was intended to isolate the vulture funds, not draw them in.
“If 92.4% of the other creditors accepted the proposal, this means they are acting in bad faith,” he said.
The swap results mean Argentina will have paid $25 for every $100 of defaulted debt; a punishing “haircut” for creditors that many thought Argentina could not pull off.
He said the offer was a vindication of the economic policies Argentina had pursued since 2003 under the presidency of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner and was a “rational” policy in line with Argentina’s ability to pay.
@zethe
Jul 20th, 2010 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You didn't pay external debt Nico. You've only just came out of default”
To come out of default you have to pay the debt mate. Do you know other way.
But let me tell you future mate when you cannot afford to pay your debts.
That by the way your debts are so huge especially for a little country without resources like yours.
More than 10 trillions $174,167 per capita how are you going to pay that? And you have to pay also your Public debt or Internal debt lets say another 1.4 trillions.
Do you know Africa standards of living? No? Well in the next years you will have the same standards at home I mean UKI.
This is a real problem no mate?
An you need to import food, oil, etc to survive um...
Imagine for a country like Argentina rich in resources that was very, very painful what will be for UKI.
We can live on our own mean and without importing but you don’t.
Such a mess hey!
So let me use my creativity (No much I have to recognize) for your charity next advertising “Save a Briton, potatoes and carrots in the basket down here please”
“Malvinas Argentinas Argies put your Beef or Asado in the fridge please, a free photo with the Queen for every donation”
You keep saying our finances are messed up. Argentina has JUST came out of default. default occurs when a debtor has not met his or her legal obligations according to the debt contract. Argentina has started to begin paying it's debts. The UK is not even close to defaulting.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keep saying we can not afford to pay our debts. Which is wrong. Again you constantly focus on the size of the united kingdom rather than the size of our economy. We can pay our debts because we have the economy to pay for it. You keep saying we are poor.
News flash for you Nicodin: London($669 billion) makes more DOUBLE the money your entire nation does per year($310.1 billion).
@105
Jul 20th, 2010 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“More than 10 trillions $174,167 per capita how are you going to pay that? And you have to pay also your Public debt or Internal debt lets say another 1.4 trillions.”
Well, I can pay my shout. Can you pay yours?
Quick Nicotine pop the question to Think,and have a wonderful time
Jul 20th, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125563769653488249.html
Reading the posts of the few hard core argentineans in this forum makes me laugh. Their quotes and patriotism are pathetic; loaded with fake illusions reminder of Nazi Argentina during Peron’s days. Its' very sad to read the postings of how this 3er world country dreams of better days. Their economy is not getting ahead, its hanging by a thread. Default is being controlled by the same people that got them in trouble. Argentina’s energy supplies are running low, only have natural gas for another 7 years. No wonder they're desperate to grab Falkland's natural reserves. This link is in Spanish (I couldn't find it in English) and explains the energy crisis that this 3er world country faces in the short term.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.ieco.clarin.com/economia/Reservas-Argentina-mitad-alcanzan-anos_0_150900013.html
@zethe
Jul 20th, 2010 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You live in an imaginary world mate nothing of this goes to UK citizens else to foreigner bankers they don’t even pay tax over this amount is just thin air and there are the master or the creation of you huge external debt.
If I open a Financial Office in Canary Warf and start to borrow money from China and lending to my self in Argentina while wining some fees in the process that also will go to my pocket, of course. This will have the same impact to UK that your city now into your GDP.
You will get nothing and that operations would be part of your external debt and if I don’t pay back you will suffer the consequences and not me, because if I’m lucky I will get a bailout from your govt. with taxpayer money. You have done and you are doing this right now.
And if I’m not lucky enough I will call the Financial Times and tell them that I’m going to bankruptcy and your govt. will be so scare that they will nationalize me (are you getting the picture here?).
And in that case I will open another office in Caiman Island or Panama, and a new branch in UK and the game will goes on an on, etc.
Can you see who and how is generated your GDP and debts?
And again your external debt plus your internal debt is 11.400 trillions 6 times your entire GDP.
Argentina cans pays 4 times its external debt with its GDP right now but on the contrary UK would need 6 years to pay this debt. And I’m not counting other liabilities because your debts will be even bigger.
The size of your economy is irrelevant to the size of your debt, is like a man with family earning 50K/year with a debt of $300K which increase faster due to interest rates and the guy continue borrowing to keep his style of life. Yeas the guy an UK are near to default.
Typical British life always living in denial and with their head into a box while their life is sadly ruined by their greedy elite.
Sad very, sad indeed...
@harrier61
Sure mate its just U$s2.700 haha
How many pesos is that?
Jul 20th, 2010 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The TOTAL UK debt is near £5 trillion ($7.64 trillion) in which £1.5 trillion is involved With banks (RBS and Lloyds) which could turn into a healthy profit for the UK government. Also we are cutting many projects and policy's to pay for this. But hopefully this will be sorted by 2015 when the UK Deficit and borrowing will become £0. But for Argentina their economy is in ruins with inflation getting higher by the day, no wonder the argentine government is trying to turn the public view on the Falkland Islands sovereignty issue, in which they have no claim, looks like Argentina will always be a 3rd world country.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nico. You can bang on about how this debt all you like, You are not a financtual expert. Real experts still have the UK as a Tripple A credit rating. the highest of all ratings. These ratings are given by experts to nations in order to determine their ability to pay back debt.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The list is as follows:
AAA - UK
AA
A
A-
BBB+
BBB
BBB-
BB+
BB
BB-
B+
B Argentina.
B-
C++
C+
C
C-
D
E
F
S
The experts of the world, people who do this day and night and work with billions disagree with you.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/65788,business,us-and-uk-credit-rating-downgraded-by-chinese-
Jul 20th, 2010 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well here my offer to Gurkhas if you this time fight against the British and you win you can keep the Islanders properties and make Malvinas your new Home. Health care service, education, etc. paying for us plus a life pension for your services.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0stupid boy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you just shot down your own argument, silly billy,
@zethe
Jul 20th, 2010 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are not a financtual expert”
Compared with you I feel like George Soros and Jim Roger together
See what Jim the expert has to say about UK. UK is a disaster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnRZ95F8OB0
Enjoy you AAA you cannot eat with that mate.
@Astute
You’ve not honored your name my friend.
UK external debt is slightly bigger than U$s 10 trillions and wrongly you are measuring it in Pounds what is wrong because your pound devaluates and your external debt grows. Remember that external debt means that the currency of the loans fixed to foreigner currencies?
December 2008 figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnRZ95F8OB0
You External debt was more than 8.6 trillions.
On June 2009 more than a year ago your external debt was 9,088 trillions add the interest and the new borrowing and you are over 10 T US dollars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnRZ95F8OB0
Now to this add 1.4 t of your public debts and if you want to know the total bill you have to add future liabilities.
Voila to the end of this year you will owe to the world 12 trillions.
Good economy you have to me seem a debt maker and for you?
“a Chinese body has attempted to revolutionise the whole sector by summarily downgrading the US and Britain”. One chinese company downgrades the US and UK, while other companies value the UK as AAA. It's strange how that the Chinese company upgrades china when most other credit rating conpanys don't.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A chinese company downgrades europeian and american Credit ratings while Raising it's own? How unexpected!
Jul 20th, 2010 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it's not clear exactly how Dagong came to its conclusions, which widely counter the views held by established agencies Fitch, Moody's and S&P. ”
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/chinese-rating-agency-downgrades-uk-usa-germany-and-france/a414523
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/chinese-rating-agency-downgrades-uk-usa-germany-and-france/a414523
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/chinese-rating-agency-downgrades-uk-usa-germany-and-france/a414523
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/chinese-rating-agency-downgrades-uk-usa-germany-and-france/a414523
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/chinese-rating-agency-downgrades-uk-usa-germany-and-france/a414523
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/chinese-rating-agency-downgrades-uk-usa-germany-and-france/a414523
All western Creditors have The UK and US as tripple a status. Dagong(chinese) is the first and only non western creditor.
Our tripple a status is not sold as it was 10 years ago, but it's still tripple A in the real sence of things.
considering the west is suporting china, it can afford to rate its self at our expence,
Jul 20th, 2010 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@NicoDin Hmm.... a smart argentine (for once). There are a few things wrong with your statement. 1. By 2015 when the UK Deficit and borrowing will become £0 (hopefully) we can pay off all of our debts (in the long term I cba to go in detail) because our economy will grow and investors will feel more safe investing in the UK (knowing that there is no deficit in the economy and that the UK does not rely on others for borrowing money), so more money for the UK.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 02. My name is dedicated to this http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine?wasRedirected=true. I'm also not a military enthusiast but I take pride in my countries armed forces
3. This does not change the fact that the Falklands are British and always have and always will be.
It's not to our expense really. The established creditors still have us as tripple A status.
Jul 20th, 2010 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NicoDin:
Do you actually know what external debt is? Governments do not pay external debt out of taxes they recieve.
Our government has the 900 billion to pay back at which point it will invest in the economy, which in turn will reduce external debt.
@zethe, exactly
Jul 21st, 2010 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Astute & zethe
Jul 21st, 2010 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey mates your foreigner lenders are not from the west now else from China, Middle East, South America, etc.
So if China would want more interest on her lending you are cooked like a turkey on Christmas eve.
Also Chine is the mayor holder of US external debt around 1 trillion by now and Japan holds another similar steak and you also are holder of US treasures so anything affecting US will affect you do you get the idea?
“Do you actually know what external debt is?”
Yeap mate who seem to don’t know is you mate. External debt is any debt denominate in foreign currencies. And al govt. has to pay external debt if they are issuing treasures in the international market.
Now Mr. Zethe financial guru when you sale your Gilts in the international market, Who do you think is buying its an who do you think has the liability to pay it back?
Yeah! Mate your govt.
@Astute
Good plan but in reality doesn’t work simple as that my friend. You talk about reducing your deficit to 0 this mean cuts, cuts and more cuts plus rise taxation. But you have to be aware that in some regions UK estate intervention in the economy range from 50 to 60% of the GDP. And you have to know that taxation has a natural elasticity explained in the theory of the Laffer curve. So in some given point any rise in taxation would give 0 gain.
And by doing this you are not contributing to growth else to more recession.
So tell me who is going to invest in UK if its has high taxation and a flat grow?
Your economy surely will go to a stagnation style dilemma like Japan lets say 20 years of stagnation.
But don’t worry there is something even worst called Stagflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
The new government are not going to increase taxes due to plently of cuts, and 'efficiency savings', even if they did increase taxes it will not be by much, also like I said the UK debt is going to be paid in the “long term”. Also like I said investors will want to invest in the UK because of of no deficit, low (if any) inflation, unlike Argentina. Also very low interest rates(0.5%) and confidence that the country does not rely on others for money (all this by 2015 hopefully) so the economy can grow and eventually pay of the UK debts. Also the Falkland Islands will remain British.
Jul 21st, 2010 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Hey mates your foreigner lenders are not from the west now else from China, Middle East, South America, etc.”
Jul 21st, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like i just said. the only major non western lender is the chinese one.
All the major established ones, hold the UK and US as tripple A status.
you argentine defectors, you are cunning devils, harbouring thoughts of one day being British, wishing we would rescue you,, you love the British really, don’t deny it now, we know you care little for Argentina, and secretly yearn for us, mmmm
Jul 22nd, 2010 - 05:36 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!