MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK most powerful attack submarine HMS Astute officially commissioned
The UK’s most powerful attack submarine, HMS Astute, was welcomed into the Royal Navy on Friday. In a Commissioning ceremony overseen by the boat's patron the Duchess of Cornwall, Astute officially became 'Her Majesty's Ship'. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLook at that!! Beautiful, isn't she? Nearly as long as a football pitch. Undetectable. Torpedos faster than anything even the Americans have. And there are going to be seven. Astute, Ambush, Artful, Audacious, Agamemnon, Anson and Ajax. Should be commissioned on an annual basis, starting NOW! Ambush is already fitting out.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0British bangers and Weetabix. The breakfast of champions.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0This sub can sit at the bottom of the English Channel and monitor sea traffic in New York - Britsh engineering at its best.
Getting ready for the ideotic and nationalistic posts of the resident bitter Argentines that lurk in these waters.
I wouldn't call her “ beautifull”.... But she's surely an expensive lady:-)
Aug 28th, 2010 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Watch out for the russians!
Aug 28th, 2010 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7969017/Russian-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html
Marco proves his thickness once again. The UK knows what the Russians are up to and vice versa.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At least we don't have to watch out for Argentina and their patrol boats. Like Sam Moody said they are a minor irritation.
Looking forward to a RNS next week to say drilling for the flow test is underway! Keep drilling boys :-)
Watch out for the frenchies... and rocks too!
Aug 28th, 2010 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2039528/HMS-Superb-nuclear-submarine-damaged-in-Red-Sea-crash.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2039528/HMS-Superb-nuclear-submarine-damaged-in-Red-Sea-crash.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2039528/HMS-Superb-nuclear-submarine-damaged-in-Red-Sea-crash.html
Well, well, well. What do you know? Virtually all Margo's spam comments have been “disappeared”.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, Margo, can you not do better than a 10-year old report, a report about a boat since decommissioned and a report about the French not knowing where they were going? Of course, the Le Triomphant class isn't as advanced as the Vanguard class. And nowhere near the Astute class.
As far as the Russians are concerned, who cares? What a terrific idea to try to get a recording of a Vanguard class propellor noise. Just before they're replaced!
Ahh ok, this one is a few days old welshi 61
Aug 28th, 2010 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain must to invest in large numbers of cheaper warships if the “dangerously weak” Royal Navy is to guarantee the country's maritime security, an academic paper has said”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7956549/Royal-Navy-underfunding-has-left-it-inadequate-for-vital-tasks-report-finds.html
Margo. Why do you care? Britain already has two warships in the Falklands and that is more than your collection of boats can handle.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let them get the propellor noise, i believe the Astute has the same propellor technology, all they'll find is an Astute.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing I worry about that those sailors are so dumb that they may crash with a whale.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0marco very silly, you have no defence again this ship. thats why you cannot condemm it, and we know you admire it, sadly even the Americans are jelous i am told, these ships can fire a cruise missile from 3,000 miles away and land on the flight deck of the argentina carrier in port, now that is some power, the royal navy can be as far as 3,000 miles and it can still sink every argentin ship, THAT IS POWER
Aug 28th, 2010 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and that is BRITISH POWER, from a navy that you all think is finnished,
as you history books tells you, if you ever bother to read them,
british is best, up the falklands
Margo. Your concern is noted. Whales do have a habit of rubbing themselves against ships to get rid of irritants. So they're brighter than the French because they know that something's there. But let's do a little comparison, eh? Official record length of a blue whale - 33.58 metres, Astute - 97 metres. Official record weight - 172 metric tons, Astute 7,800 metric tons. Like HMS Astute would notice.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please keep sending more nuclear subs to Malvinas and keep drilling. The more you do it the more UK looks like a big bully in front of the whole world that know supports Argentina's cause more than ever before.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks.
Oh Marco. You are so dim that you take thing at face value and cannot analyse the discourse of the media. The Telegraph will paint a picture that recognising that it is the most read periodical in the officer class, they know this and so does the government.
Aug 28th, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pity you are so jelous that the UK is upgrading her military. Any country that cares for its servicemen will upgrade the kit. Why you harp on about the doom of the UK and the UK forces you ignore all of the developments that the UK is making for the future.
There is Astute and her sisters.
The F35 (the stealth replacement to the Harrier) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
The F35 will be the last piloted fighter/bomber to be comissioned by the UK. The next peice of the future can be found with Taranis which will make its first flight next year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
Before attempting to paint a picture about the demise of the UK military then compare this to your canoes and catapults.
Enjoy your new patrol boats and 1960s designed Russian helicopters. I am sure they make you feel very masculine.
We've had a lot of technological break throughs in the last few years. The army is developing “invisible” tanks and a early type of “shield” which would make heavy armored tanks history. As well as the other things beef mentioned.
Aug 29th, 2010 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0And theres the carriers.
Beef and zethe, We are not jealous of your weapons nor we fear them. Remember with prehistorics weapons we sent many of your incredible ships to the botton of the ocean and severely damaged many more, to the point that almost you were defeated. But this is not what matters, wars are wrong and doesn't acomplished anything, only pain to all families of dead and injured. Argentina is committed to recover the islands with diplomacy and we have the support of the whole region and many more countries around the world.So keep sending more ships and drilling dry holes around our islands, it only helps Argentina's cause.
Aug 29th, 2010 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marco. I think the words you are looking for is “gesture of support”. This is not lost on your leadership as they have realized that words count for nothing.
Aug 29th, 2010 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0An American rig that can port in Brazil if it wishes. That is the kind of support that counts.
Who else of any note supports your delusions? China, they may massage you verbally but where are the fruits of their support, certainly not in any writs or minutes of meetings.
Keep up with the delusions, you are good entertainment.
17 Marco: We went through this before, your equipment druning the war was as new as ours, some of it newer.
Aug 29th, 2010 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Marco, do some research, your planes were newer, your guns just as new as ours. You even had some of our ships (Type 42 destroyer) and your aircraft carrier was an ex-British one.
Aug 29th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2)
Would these “prehistoric weapons” be the French-made missiles that had only been in service anywhere at all for three years?
Aug 29th, 2010 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0typical MARCO if they won, they had the best, if they lose, it was everybody else’s fault except theirs, instead of being friendly they irritate like bloody cockroaches, they never learn, the military is for DEFENCE only, against stupid little irritants like Argentina, and one day you will push the WRONG button, and ??????????
Aug 30th, 2010 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0end of problem, next quango marco
Briton, join Justin and go watch Disney channel.
Aug 30th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0yes marco what can we watch today, how to rule the world by Argentina, how to cheat at football with Mara Donna, how to lose at football, , yellow brick road perhaps, hide and seek with the argies navy,
Aug 30th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no Marco we will stay with the real world and leave you and your friends to live in fantasy land,
You can watch in Discovery the end of the old broke useless british empire.
Aug 30th, 2010 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TROUBL IS YOU ARE THINK OF ESPANIA.
Aug 30th, 2010 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the British empire was the best, the biggest, and was turned into a commonwealth of free nations, unlike Argentina, the British by the way
BUILT YOUR RAILWAYS so stop complaining if they are running late .
@briton
Aug 30th, 2010 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And we built your tallest and modern building in UK and your point is?
Canary Wharf London
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
One Park West Liverpool
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
Citigroup Centre, London
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
40 Bank Street
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
Wood Wharf Tower
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
25 Bank Street
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
North Quay
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
etc.
Tallest, yes, but modern? lol it's decades old. Even built is a stretch, was built by british people, an argie designed it. Probably same way the railways were built in Agentina to be honest.
Aug 30th, 2010 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Astute.
Aug 31st, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was a small difference between the Argentine carrier and the British ones. The British ones stayed and did their duty, defeating the Argy air forces with only 28 aircraft, whilst the Argentine carrier ran away.
Only one of the reasons that the “old, broke” British whipped the Argentine cur back to its kennel.
it's clear Argentina would take years to get this kind of technolofy this is why a nuclear defence program will be a better road to liberate Islas Malvinas from occupation, we must follow Israel, Pakistan and Indian footsteps.
Aug 31st, 2010 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How would nuking the islands place them in argentinian hands?
Aug 31st, 2010 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina should go ahead and get a nuclear defence program. In 1982, Argentina hadn't ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean)and Britain could have used nuclear weapons, but didn't because there was no nuclear threat.
Aug 31st, 2010 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, if Argentina obtains a nuclear defence program, Britain will be free to use its nuclear weapons.
@Conqueror
Aug 31st, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“On the other hand, if Argentina obtains a nuclear defence program, Britain will be free to use its nuclear weapons.”
And in that case we will cook Malvinas, England, Wales and Scotland like the Yanks have done with the Japs but we more hot power.
Unfortunately maps will have to be re printed but this time without large Island in the Northern Sea and Malvinas.
None in the world will save of that my friend even Uncle Sam.
Now that the Argentine posters have lost the argument they talk about a nuclear weapons! This is how idiotic this forum is becoming. OK then develop a bomb but then try to secure a method of delivery? Steam power won't work boys.
Aug 31st, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As the Argentine government cannot afford to pay it's current Army or look after veterans then it is clear that their military spending will be focused on four poxy patrol boats and some Russian helicopters which were designed in the 1960s.
Grow up!
The only fallout in the islands will be the oil from the Sea Lion well test!
33 NicoDin: And in that case we will cook Malvinas, England, Wales and Scotland like the Yanks have done with the Japs but we more hot power.
Aug 31st, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With imaginary weapons launched from imaginary subs.
#31 no people no self determination, unless UK desides to change the rules once again, we did it to 30.000 Argentines 3000 pirats should be no problem.
Sep 01st, 2010 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0There's the thing avargas, the 30,000 Argentines were supposed to be being protected by the Argentine government (rather than being killed by them).
Sep 01st, 2010 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 3,000 Falkland Islanders are being protected (by the terms of the treaty between FIG and the UK) by a government that takes treaties that it signs seriously, rather than ignoring them when it's politically expedient.
Rufus, what he's saying is that if his nation will kill 30,000 of it's own people, they would have no trouble nuking the islands.
Sep 01st, 2010 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His own stupidity speaks for itself really, nothing i can say will make him look any more stupid or braindead than he's already made him self look.
gassy doesn't live in the real world. He's a psychotic hate fanatic. Maybe he hasn't noticed the UK and USA reaction to unstable countries developing WMD. He's even proud of killing 30,000 of his own people. How is he different from Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam Hussein or the Iranian Islamic fanatics?
Sep 01st, 2010 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror, the funnest part about his message is that if argentina was to build and launch nukes at the falklands, it would kill the 3000 residents, yes. Then the nuclear pollution would drift into argentina and south america killing tens of millions of there own people.
Sep 01st, 2010 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But let us consider. Britain has the knowledge and ability to build underground bunkers/shelters for 3000 people. Does Argentina have the knowledge or ability to build bunkers/shelters for 40,000,000 people. Don't think so!
Sep 01st, 2010 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If people like gassy got a nuke we wouldnt need to, they are more likely to blow themselves up in a feat of glorious stupidity.
Sep 01st, 2010 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Advocating the use of nuclear weapons by Argentina on the falklands just goes to show avargas2001's mental age.
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets ignore the billions of £/$ Argentina would have to find to build nuclear weapons, and the billions of £/$ it would then have to find to build delivery systems for those weapons, not to mention the billions of £/$ they would then need to find to then build them in such quantities as to match the nuclear arsenal of the UK, no lets not ask avargas2001 where all this money is coming from.
No instead let us ask avargas2001 what he thinks the consequences for Argentina would be? Does he believe there would be no response from Britain? Does he believe NATO would stand quietly to one side and ignore the purpose of the Alliance, that an attack on one is an attack on all? Does he not think that such an ill thought out, ill considered strategy would lead to nothing more than nuclear Armaggedon for Argentina?
avargas2001 you world view is quite frankly staggeringly simplistic, and one would hope not an indicator of the Argentine education system as a whole.
I think a more logical question would be “Does he think?”.
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's up to you, of course, but I tend to look for gassy's comments to give me a good laugh - I imagine him shaking with rage, his face contorted in anger as he types his barely legible musings! Otherwise, I don't bother with him, let alone respond to any of the comments that he makes. It really would be too harsh on the Argentines to hold him up as a typical example of their kind!
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am against wars, however why is ok for UK to big the big bully to send nuclear subs to Argentina coast?. First they stole our islands, now they are trying to the same with our natural resources, what's next?. I guess if we alloud them to do that next time they will try to invade Buenos Aires again under the excuse that they set foot there for a few weeks in two occasions 200 hundreds years ago.
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British need to go home to Europe they don't belong in the southern hemisphere nor we belong to the northern one. We do not sail around their island trying to do the same.
Marco, firstly, the UK is not sending a nuclear sub to Argentina's coast. It usually has (although no one actually knows) a nuclear sub patrolling the South Atlantic to defend the Falkland Islands.
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Secondly, no one stole the Islands from Argentina. They were British before Argentina existed as a nation.
Thirdly, this being the case, they aren't Argentina's natural resources.
Fourthly, no, that is not what the UK does. It is, however, what Argentina does - invading the Falklands in 1982 after having set foot on the Falklands for a few months back in the 1830s.
Finally, if the descendants of the British living in the Falklands go back to the Northern hemispehere, do you agree that all descendants of the Spanish and the Potuguese living in South America should go back to Spain and Portugal? Otherwise it would be a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?!
Sigh, Marco. All of our subs are nuclear, that does not mean they have a nuclear weapon on the boat, it means the power it uses is nuclear.
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“invade Buenos Aires again under the excuse that they set foot there for a few weeks in two occasions 200 hundreds years ago”
You invaded the falklands under the excuse that you visited there 200 years ago, lol.
And while we're on the subject of 1833, the only “mainlanders” expelled when we returned was the military garrison. Much as we expelled the Argentine military occupiers/garrison in 1982.
Sep 02nd, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pominoz “do you agree that all descendants of the Spanish and the Potuguese living in South America should go back to Spain and Portugal?”
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0No comparisom whatsoever, we do not claim to be Spanish, portuguese or british like you do , all of us are Argentinians. And none of us claim any part of Argentina, South America, for the country of origin of our ancestors.
Zethe, I told you the war of 1982 was wrong, even if belong to Argentina. What was the excuse for the British to invade Buenos Aires in two occasions?, I already know all the british excuses for Malvinas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4779479.stm
No, Marco, the people are Falkland Islanders who wish the Islands to remain British, for now. The Islanders have British passports, because they are not an independent nation yet, mainly due to the fact that they need the support of a strong nation to defend them against Argentina. If and when the Islands become independent, they would then have Falkland Islands passports. But, as we know from some of the posters here, an independent Falkland Islands would still not be safe from Argentina, who wishes to swallow them regardless of their status.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 050 Marco “What was the excuse for the British to invade Buenos Aires in two occasions?”
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know about both occasions, wasn't aware there was more than one, but at the time of the attack I do know about there was no such nation as Argentina and Buenos Aires was still a part of the Spainish Empire, and as we were at war with Spain her holdings in South America were legitimate targets.
50 Marco:
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Back in those days we was constantly at war with spain. you are compairing actions from 200 years ago with todays ethics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11173266
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 050 Marco “What was the excuse for the British to invade Buenos Aires in two occasions?”
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Done some checking and the first invasion was in 1806 and the second in 1807. During this period there was no Argentina, it was the Vice Royalty of the Río de la Plata, a Spanish colony.
As Spain was an Allie of Napoleonic France at the time, and we were at war with both, Spains colony in South America was a legitimate target as previosly stated.
No excuse was needed, we were at war.
Also worth bearing in mind that one of the stupid justifications Argentina puts forward for its claim to the Falklands is that it “inherited” them from Spain. There was, and is, no legal principle of territorial “inheritance”.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LegionNi and Zethee, well whada'ya know! I never knew that - that the 2 failed “Brits Abroad” excursions to BA in the early 1800s were part of the Napoleonic Wars. I'd been reading the complaints from the Argentines here and thinking that it was the British being at their historical naughty best! Now I will know not to have any apologetic thoughts whatsoever. The buggers got what they deserved...oh, hang on, we lost, didn't we! Damn it!
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(57) PomInOz
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bloody oath! ....You lost indeed....... But it was against the numerically far superior treacherous Napoleonic elite forces based in Buenas Arias that cowardly ambushed the heroic British batallion who's only intention was to protect inocent Criollo civilian lives :-)
PS:
Anybody in here who knows why “ harrier61” needs to re-publishing his “best material” under the “Conqueror” nick?
Pom. The “excursions” in 1806 and 1807 were just that. Raids if you prefer.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you seriously think that an army and navy that beat the Napoleonic Empire would have been defeated by a mob of Spanish immigrants if they had been really trying?
The only reason the Americans won their Revolutionary War was that Britain was mostly concerned with Europe. America was seen as a sideshow.
@58. Assuming you're right, any reason why he/she shouldn't?
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 058, Think, yeah, bloody Spanish! I was going to say that you are a bit harsh with your use of the word “treacherous”, but they change sides nearly as much as the Italians! We can't keep up with which side they're on! Had to “google” “Criollo”, I'm afraid! Nice of you to say so, but we all know what the Brits were like back then...!
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 059, Conqueror, I know, I know, but...throw them a bone every now and again. Come on! It keeps them happy to think that they done well! If we keep spanking their butts without giving them any “mercy spankings” they spit their dummies out and don't come back to play - like Fernando_A!
By the way (and I suspect you know it), you might be pushing it a bit much to say that the American Revolutionary War was a sideshow! George III, between his madhouse episodes, didn't see it that way anyway! Sshhh, but don't tell anyone we lost. The “you-know-who”s might get ideas!!
“A second, better-resourced invasion followed in May 1807, under Lieutenant-General John Whitelock, attacking Buenos Aires in July. After a couple of days of intense street fighting, the British surrendered to an army it had considered no more than a rabble.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After losing more than half his force, the British signed a ceasefire on 7 July and left for home, where Whitelock was court-martialled and discharged.”
Well, like Pomi said “British being at their historical naughty best!”
So they failed in Buenos Aires and they said ”let's try to invade Malvinas, yes...those islands that we abandoned long time ago, nobody remembers that we signed Nootka conv. and Argentina enherited from Spain...should be easy, only a few hundreds of them live there and then will find some excuses to keep it like a colony....like for example, we left in 1776 a plaque over some rocks saying that we were here long time ago in fishing... and the story of lies continued until.......
(61) PomInOz
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Relax........... everybody knows that no “small coloured people” can ever win against the mighty Britsh...................
“Hundreds of years in the making, the British empire in Asia came tumbling down in roughly two months in late 1941 and early 1942, courtesy of a crushing military defeat at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army. ”
Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945
By Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper
62, Marco, I do hope that you understood that my comments were tongue-in-cheek! However, having not known the reason for the British attempted invasion of what was a Spanish colony until a few hours ago...BA was clearly a legitimate target. We came, we saw, we lost! And then we did it again...losing again! So what?! But that was mainland South America.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as the Falklands are concerned, Britain sighted them in that late 1500s, claimed them for the British Crown in the late 1600s and never relinquished sovereignty (or, at the very least, a dispute over sovereignty, ever since). So, to say that the British abandoned them is not true.
For the final time, the terms of the Nootka Conventions could not ever confer on Argentina any claims that Spain might have had over the Falklands. For one, the terms were repudiated by Spain shortly afterwards (and well before Argentina became a recognsied nation - and remember, Britain was one of the first to recognise your country), and for two, even if the first Covention was still alive, any claims by a third-party (such as...I don't know, say, Argentina!) in respect of the Falklands made the Convention null and void.
Britain has offered to take the dispute to the ICJ on a number of occasions. Argentina has refused every time. If, as you think, Argentina has a good legal and historical claim to the Islands, why should this be? The reason is because the “facts” that Argentina believes backs up its claim are treaties like the Nootka Conventions, “facts” that any international lawyer laughs at.
(64) PomInOz
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May I suggest you check again your following postulate?:
“Britain has offered to take the dispute to the ICJ on a number of occasions”.
The British offer to take the dispute to the IJC was only for the other South Atlantic Islands; not for the Malvinas/Falklands.
My info is somewhere in the Mercopresss Archives...... As I remember it was quite authoritative. So much that Mr. Justin Kuntz didn´t care to answer :-)
63, Think, hang on a second; do give the Brits their due then; it was our finest hour. Come on, we were one country (albeit the then one and only superpower) against a pretty evil axis. The US had, by then, just joined us, but we did have our minds and our resources focused on other things. So, a tad bit harsh, I'd say...not that we would have won otherwise...I'm just saying that we had other priorities!
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your post at 65, well, I had thought that it was both the “question” of the Falklands and the other sub-Antarctic islands. I may be wrong and I'm quite happy to be corrected (alright, not that happy, but satisfied...will that do?!). I'll check and get back...
@64 Pom. Told you one of them would come up with the “inheritance” claim.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not in favour of giving the dumbos bones. Over time they have come up with every possible justification, lie and twisting of the facts. For so long as they were prepared to debate reasonably, they were reasonably shown that every single thing they came up with was wrong. They still won't accept it and go over the same ground time after time.
Just look at Twinky's latest effort and then take this quote:
”Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague (1947, 1948 and 1955); on each occasion Argentina declined.“
I think it reasonable to assume that the Falkland Island Dependencies included the Falkland Islands. Note that Argentina now claims South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as well as the Falklands. They could have got the whole thing mediated 50-odd years ago. But they declined. There could only be one reason. They know they have no case. And in front of the ICJ that would be proven.
Instead they ”stack the deck” in the UN Decolonisation Committee and try to sneak things that way. Argentines are good at lying, sneaking and stealing.
British empire site
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority”
@ think
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Japs and Argies had a bit in common and it wasnt that they got beaten by the Brits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_and_Japan
67, Conqueror, I know they twist and turn, but one hopes to keep them engaged in talking rather than anything else. As for getting their facts wrong, I'm just about to eat some humble pie, dangnamit! I hope when they are caught out with their lying bollocks (rather than stupid ignorance (like me now!)), they say so...Here goes...
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 065, Think, just checked. I'm having difficulty accessing the ICJ's records that far back, but I've managed to get hold of the 1955 submissions and...you're right! It was the Dependencies, not the Falklands themselves, that were submitted for a decision by the ICJ. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but the dates 1908 (provision of the British claims over South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, et al, to Argentina and Chile at their request - 20 years after the original British claims) and 1927 (first protest by Argentina) ring bells!
What can I say?! Got it wrong? Absolutely! Yikes!
Still, it does have a bearing on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The fact that Argentina is willing to lie through its teeth to claim the sub-Antarctic islands (over which we both know it has no historical claim whatsoever and so declines to submit to the ICJ) reflects on the veracity of Argentina's so-called claims over the Falkland Islands. The ICJ does take into account the character of the witnesses who appear before them!
In addition, I see no issue at all with taking the Falkland Islands claim to the ICJ. Come on. Let's do it!
The whole world supports Argentina in the Malvina's case, not even “your friend” of the north supports UK anymore. You will loose in the ICJ or any other organization that you wish to take our long dispute.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's do it!
Pom
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be fooled. Can you think of any reason for the Falkland Island Dependencies not to include the Falkland Islands.
Re Margo's ridiculous quotes from the British Empire site, I have been in touch with the owner of the site, Stephen Luscombe. Turns out he has been in the process of moving home (and country). He agreed with virtually every point I made about the “errors” on his site. So you can ignore anything Margo comes up with. It's usually crap wherever he gets it from. In the meantime, I have thought it right to give Mr Luscombe adequate time to settle into his new home and country before entering into a full-fledged conversation.
72, Conqueror, re Margo, that's just him. I try to ignore him and then he posts stuff that one can't help having a go at! I think he does it deliberately!
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the FI Dependencies not including the Falkland Islands, it is true, I'm afraid. They were separated, administratively, some (many) years ago. It does appear that the ICJ cases were exclusively concerned with the dependencies - at the moment I have got hold of the 1955 case - I'm doing my best to get hold of the others - pray, Think, that you are right!! But, as I said before, the fact that the Argentine's claim them (the dependencies) has a massive bearing on their claim over the Falklands themselves. The Argentines know that their claim over the dependencies is rubbish, and yet they maintain it. Their maintaining of their “claim” to the dependencies thus diminishes their credibility in respect of their discredited claim to the Falkland Islands.
(70) PomInOz
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I assume you found this original document:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/9065.pdf?PHPSESSID=58e48b8d8d7f29e232b750d37e368b80
The author of this little book did also read the original ICJ documents and reached the same conclusion as you….:
The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: War and diplomacy
By Lawrence Freedman
“In 1947 and subsequently Britain had in fact offer to submit the dispute over the Dependencies, ALTHOUG NOT THE FALKLANDS THEMSELVES, to the court in the face of Argentine and Chilean encroachments, and in 1955 had even approached the court unilaterally on this matter”……..
Yup, that's the one! There's no record, as far as I can find it, of the two other occasions that the claims were submitted to the ICJ - although there were two other occasions when the UK unilaterally submitted the dependency claims to the ICJ.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I said, though, the fact that Argentina did not submit to the UK reference says a huge amount. To a certain extent, one of the reasons for this, as far as I can see from my reading of the 1955 account so far, is that Argentina did not want to have its claim to the Falklands judged in any way, shape or form. I'm not going to say that it is definitive, but it appears that Argentina dodged the case to dodge any conclusion over the Falklands proper. I'll keep on reading and get back to you all if I don't fall asleep beforehand!
One hopes to keep them engaged in reading rather than anything else :-)
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 076, Think, come up with your own funny comments! Or at least, as I've told Marco before, give credit to the author of the comments that you quasi-plagiarise!
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conkeror “ridiculous quotes from the British Empire site, I have been in touch with the owner of the site”
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Haaaaaaaa, I heard that before under a different name. Come on don't be afraid, and come out from hiding with your old name...
(78) Marco
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which of his many old names?
He used to call himself Agent0060....
He changed then to Harrier 61......
Suddenly he is also Conqueror.......
And Thypoon.....
Diferent names ........ same **** :-)
PominOz,
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ cases concerned the Falkland Islands Dependencies, what I think is telling is the case was dropped because Argentina indicated it would refuse to accept the judgement.
There was the option of an ICJ case for 1983 suggested by the British delegation in talks in New York in February 1982.
And of course there is nothing to stop Argentina submitting its claim to the ICJ for an opinion at any time. But hell will freeze over first.
Loads of arguements that are completely irrelivent while the population of the islands wish to be british.
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0200 years ago there were many cases for the islands, but this is not 200 years ago. No ammount of polital pressure will change our stance on this, we are willing to go to war and loose lives defending these people if need be, and we are capable enough to do it.
That is the harsh reality of the situation.
Think, He is not the only one doing that. I agree with you ”Diferent names ........ same **** :-) ”
Sep 03rd, 2010 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, I understand your frustration, not even British websites and news papers support the non sense colonial situation in Malvinas Argentinas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
That is the most accurate, objective article on Malvinas I have ever read.
Sep 04th, 2010 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think you'll find that the majority of the populaton of the united kingdom is more than willing to pay whatever it takes to defend those islands.
Sep 04th, 2010 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read the comments on your quoted artical.
Yea, same type of retrograde comments I read here, imperial pride.
Sep 04th, 2010 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Defending your people is not Imperial pride, it's just defending your people.
Sep 04th, 2010 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are not expanding our borders, we gave up imperial goals a long time ago, however as long as these people wish to remain british, they shall have our protection.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!