MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil extends sovereignty over undersea continental shelf
Brazil expanded the offshore area where drilling for crude or prospecting for minerals requires government authorization as it seeks to increase control over natural resources. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGood for them, f--k the UN they're useless.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Worth bearing in mind that it has NO effect in international law unless and until the UN approves it.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I totally agree with Fernando. As the US ignores the UN, Brazil should do the same thing. Matter of fact, all nations should ignore the UN..they are indeed d useless. International law? LAUGH.....get real, it's freaking bogus.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that he is at it, why don't Lula just extends Brazil's sovereignty all the way to 37th parallel north, encompassing islands, territories and all?
Sep 07th, 2010 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well if we took your advice and ignored the UN , then in your own words you have no complaint againt the falklands HAVE YOU lol
Sep 07th, 2010 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How long you think South America will wait on the UN? We'll just sit back and wait until all UN officials are done playing with their balls, right?
Sep 08th, 2010 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go fire on a Brazilian Navy ship and see what happens.
6.- Why you have the special needs to fix all with war...!!!
Sep 08th, 2010 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don´t use your brain even once in your lives....
Nobody can take what belong to other... so if FI belong to their inhabitants ...you can take them....
UN is good when it is useful to my goals, but when it doesn't ist´s a crap ...!!! Very straight deal.
This explain why your Gvt.'s have not honored thier sings(treaty, I mean).
“Go fire on a Brazilian Navy ship and see what happens.”
Sep 08th, 2010 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then who would we sell our old ships to?!
@6. Except under orders, the Royal Navy does not fire on non-belligerent naval vessels of other countries.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, if the Brazilian Navy is stupid enough to become belligerent, it will meet the same fate as the Argentine Navy.
They'll sit in port?
Sep 08th, 2010 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0argis are very quick to tell us to fight others,,or others to fight us, and in the meantime what will the argentinian navy be doing ????
Sep 08th, 2010 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Supporting Brazil and blockading ships going to Malvinas, what else???
Sep 09th, 2010 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Blockading ships going to the islands? The eurofighters on the islands would have fun with your ships.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually I was referring to what we're doing right now, blockading ships going to the islands. In addition I would imagine Argentina would aid Brazil in any way possible.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0But Twinky tells us that Argentina is not blockading the Falkland Islands. It is only “Denying Access to its Infrastructure”.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A blockade would, of course, be illegal. Any vessel attempting to deny right of passage in international, or indeed in territorial, waters would be in breach of international law. (UNCLOS)
I have little doubt that the Royal Navy would begin by warning such belligerent vessels off. It would then seek instructions from London. Negation of a belligerent threat by surface, sub-surface and/or air assets would be an obvious response.
“Actually I was referring to what we're doing right now, blockading ships going to the islands.”
Sep 09th, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But you aren't. Ships still arrive at the islands.
100% correct Zethee, they arrive no problems.No Blockade we know of?
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He just makes up random rubbish that has no fact behind it all the time, then shys away or blames you for ranting when you prove him wrong.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's quite fuuny really.
In one topic he went on about how the islands were a colony and the colonial age is dead, then towards the end of the post claimed that because argentina maintains the most bases and people(or colonys) that they have the biggest claim to it.
To antarctica* i ment.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Ships still arrive at the islands.”
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And even if you read here on mercopress idiotic comments from Argies ...“Supporting Brazil and blockading ships going to Malvinas, what else???”
Laugh, as if Brazilians really care about helping Argies with their silly problems or blockading the islands that belongs to one of the their best trading partners when it comes to Navy ships. Get real Argies, UNASUR is full hot air talk behind close doors, while in reality everybody there defends their own interests...LAUGH.
I didn't realise just how much Brazil buys from us untill i googled it, there main surface fleet is british built.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, Some of the bombs used by argentines planes that sunk our ships were british built also.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 04:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You people are so stupid it's actually exhausting.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The blockade affects ships related only to the oil exploration traveling from ports in Argentina to Malvinas. Though I suspect if the number of ships reaching the islands were to decrease you wouldn't admit it. And no, Argentina does not base its sovereignty claim on Antarctica on the number of bases it has there, you just picked one thing from a list and took it out of context.
If you think because Brazil purchased armament from the UK they won't use it against the UK, you're even dumber than I thought.
I don't spend every minute of my day stuck to the computer waiting to read your replies, I have a life.
F_A is so stupid, it's pointless.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0One of the points that Argentina uses to support its claim to a piece of Antarctica is the number of bases it has. Conveniently forgetting that it had to be persuaded to take over a British base as its first base. Conveniently forgetting that Argentina's claim came 34 years after Britain's.
The important thing about that part of Brazil's surface fleet built by Britain is that Britain knows the capabilities, and weaknesses, of those vessels. Apart from the old French aircraft carrier, the most capable vessels they have are Type 21 frigates. After Britain got rid of her cheap Type 21 frigates, it moved on to the Type 22 frigate and is now on the Type 23.
Of course, no-one spends the day hunched over their computer, but F_A has a LIFE! Does that mean it's the day to see his probation officer or just that he needs to nip down to the pharmacy for his medication?
22 Kate, i know argentina was a very big british buyer. We even tried to sell the harrier to them but they said it was no good, bit ironic really.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The blockade affects ships related only to the oil exploration traveling from ports in Argentina to Malvinas”
Thats what you said, but ok. It only effects the ships going to and from the falklands regarding oil...which are none.
Sorry, what have you blocked? Nothing.
“If you think because Brazil purchased armament from the UK they won't use it against the UK, you're even dumber than I thought.”
Aye, they could try, the ships are good but not as good as the ones we are using, and they are using old weapons. Our anti ship missile has almost double the range of the one they use.
Not to mention our fleet has three carriers(if needed) and double the surface fleet, and sub fleet, is the main reason the brazilian navy wouldn't attack ours.
Oh I see, so the oil exploration is NOT being conducted within the EEZ around Malvinas and is NOT based out of Malvinas either. NOWHERE near Malvinas EEZ and NOTHING to do with Malvinas, not even the ships providing support for the operation go to Malvinas.. anytime they need something they go aaaaaaaaaaaaall the way back to the UK and come right back.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess I was wrong all along!!
You're always wrong, dipstick. You were whelped wrong.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What´s all this non-sense about navy fleets, blockades and attacks? Are you guys into some kind of stupid online war strategy game or what?
Sep 12th, 2010 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody´s going to wage war on anyone in the Atlantic.
England cannot wage war by themselves anymore, their political leaders are so vanilla today they can´t even convince students in a London University pottery. Besides being broke to the bones right now, it will be too costly for England to wage war on any country in the world. Everytime England engages in a conflict they lose more than they win, it´s like they love to hit themselves in the head with a hammer. The last great war they “won” and paraded around as “victors” but ended up financially broken, lost their entire empire and said goodbye to most of their influence abroad.
With all due respect for my latinamerican friends, what´s Brazil or Argentina going to do? Lose the few aircraft carriers they got in the first minutes of a war against a fifth generation army, with a legendary military tradition and armed forces in full readiness as they continually train in real war scenarios, along their american buddies invading banana and oil countries around the world? their army is capable of taking down any russian, chinesse or american aircraft in a snap.
Besides, the south american´s weaponry, aircrafts, vessels and airfighters, they all came at tremendous costs to their already poor populations, they spent billions of dollars much needed to spend in social programs, education and health care.
Give me a break guys. Let talk some sense.
careful Brazil anything over the magical 400km mark and Argentina may claim it as an integral part of the Republic, that it has suddenly remembered as inhereting from Spain.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fernando you pretty dim in the brain cell dept if you think that fleets of ships are required to service one rig, no the gear is just shoved on the 3-4 regular ships that travel between Chile and Uruguay, they even stick some on the LAN flight.
And you don't think a major logistic operation in a harsh environment wouldn't have set up a forward logistic base in the islands?
You see the ironic fact is that Argentina has known for almost a year before the guardian arrived that drilling was going to happen, the gear and drill heads where shipped mid 2009, even the FIG had the courtesy to tell the Argentine government they intended to drill in 2008 no protest hmmm?
So why on earth when KK is flagging in the polls (coincidentally when the guardian arrives) does the Argie government start cranking up the old Nationalist machine?
“England cannot wage war by themselves anymore”
Sep 12th, 2010 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are only three nations in the world who can wage war in any part of the world, US, UK and france.
“Everytime England engages in a conflict they lose more than they win”
It's a common misconception that the empire broke because of ww1+2, but thats not the case, those wars defenantly speeded up the process but the world was changing and the empire's time was over all. If ww1+2 had not happened, there would still be no empire. The break up would have just taken possibly 20 to 50 more years.
Also, what wars have we ever “lost more than we gained”? I can think of few, England has been in more wars than any other nation in it's history and lost very few of them.
And then they say we're brain-washed
Sep 12th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See what we're dealing with Jose?
@28 Jose. If you want to talk sense, that'll be fine by the Brits and the Falklanders. No problem at all. Argentina, Brazil, South America is a different situation. All fuelled by Argentina of course. For your information, South America only has one aircraft carrier. The Clemenceau class, Sao Paulo. 24,200 tonnes. Roughly the same size as an Invincible-class carrier, of which Britain has 3. You are, of course, right about Britain's military capabilities and expertise. After all, in 1982, Britain downed 100 Argentine aircraft with NO air-to-air combat losses. Only had 28 combat aircraft in theatre ourselves.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But let us look wider. Who is attempting to impose economic sanctions on whom? Would that be Britain on Argentina? The Falkland Islands on Argentina? No to both of those. Argentina on the Falkland Islands? Yep. In total contravention of the UN Charter, Argentina is attempting to interfere with the economic development of the Islands by its inhabitants.
Does Argentina have any legitimate claim to the Islands? No. What they generally do is to twist or invent things to support their imperialist colonialist ambitions.
Let's be clear. Argentina has a total land area of 1,068,302 square miles. The Falkland Islands have a total land area of 4,700 square miles. Why would Argentina care about such a small area? I reckon it's fairly easy. For almost the first time in its short history, Argentina wanted something. Someone else told them they couldn't have it. If the subsequent Argentine attitude strikes you as being similar to childish tantrums, you wouldn't be wrong. Only consider its approach since 1982 when it got spanked. Instead of taking its claim to the one body that could give a definitive judgement, it has chosen to seek support ANYWHERE else. Effectively, “Look how big my gang is. Now give me what I want.”
Unfortunate that they've picked on the wrong people. Britain and the Falkland Islands will resist this bully to the death.
Zethee,
Sep 14th, 2010 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I beg to differ with you on some of your assertions:
“There are only three nations in the world who can wage war in any part of the world, US, UK and france.”
I don't think the UK and France are capable of waging war “in any part” of the world. They may be able to invade a small banana republic of two or three million peoples but not a normal size country.
The US is capable. They have military bases and presence all over the world, and unlike the venerable British Expeditionaries that are deployed in very small numbers around the world, the US has a huge, fully fledged standing army in readiness capable of nonchalantly taking down any threats and of “liberating” any country.
But Britain and France are not the world superpowers they once were and since they no longer control the world trade and finances as they did in their heyday, the shrinking size of their economies contrains their budgets and their ability to maintain large standing armies as they did in the past. Today they have to scramble to keep their financial numbers in good shape and their political and economic influence is ever more confined to their very borders, and even though their fine armies are some of the best in the world, their size is definitely a limiter in a world of new, vastly and ever more independent and better organized growing economies.
They might be able to take down some technologically inferior aircrafts and warships, but the technologic gap they once enjoyed against other countries has closed in and they wouldn´t be able to finish the job invading the country. Their military might is today more a persuasive form of what is was past times but time catches up with everyone and England and France or the US for the same matter, are no exception to the rule: sooner than later Brazil, China, and even Argentina will catch up with them.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!