• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Argentina wastes money on lawyers

Information Analyst

Penultimate Amazing
Information Analyst
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
10,099
Location
Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
BBC News: Argentina launches lawsuit against Falkland oil drillers

"Argentina has begun legal proceedings against three British and two US companies for drilling oil near the Falkland Islands.

Daniel Filmus, Argentina's minister for the islands - called the Malvinas locally - announced the case in London.

The companies involved are Falkland Oil and Gas, Premier Oil, Rockhopper, Edison International and Noble Energy."
 
Information Analyst said:
BBC News: Argentina launches lawsuit against Falkland oil drillers

"Argentina has begun legal proceedings against three British and two US companies for drilling oil near the Falkland Islands.

Daniel Filmus, Argentina's minister for the islands - called the Malvinas locally - announced the case in London.

The companies involved are Falkland Oil and Gas, Premier Oil, Rockhopper, Edison International and Noble Energy."
Click to expand...

Note to Argentina: You and UK fought a war over who owns the Falklands after you invaded. You lost. No other country reconginzes you have any rights to the Falklands or it's territorail waters. Give it up.
 
dudalb said:
Note to Argentina: You and UK fought a war over who owns the Falklands after you invaded. You lost. No other country reconginzes you have any rights to the Falklands or it's territorail waters. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not entirely true:
_______________________________________________________
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits.[96] China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan.[97] Conversely, Taiwan acknowledges British sovereignty and ignores Argentina's sovereignty claim.[98]
...

The United States and the European Union recognise the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#International_and_regional_views
______________________________________________________
 
Giz said:
Unfortunately, not entirely true:
_______________________________________________________
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits.[96] China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan.[97] Conversely, Taiwan acknowledges British sovereignty and ignores Argentina's sovereignty claim.[98]
...

The United States and the European Union recognise the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#International_and_regional_views
______________________________________________________
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.
 
So, the Argentines tell lies and the other Latin / South American nations are happy to go long for the ride.

Who saw that coming?

Pretty much everybody.

Just don't forget: the people who live there are not interested in Argentine rule.
 
Argentina's (though it wasn't even Argentina at time time) period of "rule" followed occupation of a sort by France, Britain and Spain, though they were all pretty wishy-washy. Britain did leave a plaque saying "This is ours" more or less. The joke is that the proto-Argentina subsequently occupied Patagonia, so here's the deal - they hand back Patagonia to the Patagonians and we'll discuss The Falklands. Y'know, show goodwill and all.

Probably some current scandal in Argentinian politics needs a smokescreen ...
 
Yeah, the money isn't considered a waste as it's for domestic consumption.
 
The people of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain British . It won't matter in the long run though,Brazil has passed Britain economically and this trend looks set to continue with other large south american nations.
The fact is the British people don't have the stomach for a long drawn out war with Argentina. Those who think Britain could win a major years long conflict with tens of thousands of British dead are living in the past. As soon as British dead hit 2,000 or so the incumbent prime minister would be toppled and peace terms,favorable to Argentina,would be made. What the islanders want would not matter.
Polls consistently show that young Argentinians,indeed Argentinians of all ages,are mostly in favour of taking the Falklands and are as a nation prepared to accept heavy losses. Its seen as a point of national pride. While u.k polls show a desire to protect the islands their is no desire to do so at the cost of a major drawn out war. Then there is the British political elite. Men and women with no stomach for a second Falklands war and who have practically ran down the u.k armed forces-at a time of Argentinian expansion and military modernization.
Out of three British vs Argentina wars,,two ended in the utter crushing of the British armies . I think the u.k political establishment would throw in the towal before risking a third defeat.
 
skeptichaggis said:
The people of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain British . It won't matter in the long run though,Brazil has passed Britain economically and this trend looks set to continue with other large south american nations.
The fact is the British people don't have the stomach for a long drawn out war with Argentina. Those who think Britain could win a major years long conflict with tens of thousands of British dead are living in the past. As soon as British dead hit 2,000 or so the incumbent prime minister would be toppled and peace terms,favorable to Argentina,would be made. What the islanders want would not matter.
Polls consistently show that young Argentinians,indeed Argentinians of all ages,are mostly in favour of taking the Falklands and are as a nation prepared to accept heavy losses. Its seen as a point of national pride. While u.k polls show a desire to protect the islands their is no desire to do so at the cost of a major drawn out war. Then there is the British political elite. Men and women with no stomach for a second Falklands war and who have practically ran down the u.k armed forces-at a time of Argentinian expansion and military modernization.
Out of three British vs Argentina wars,,two ended in the utter crushing of the British armies . I think the u.k political establishment would throw in the towal before risking a third defeat.
Click to expand...
There’s no chance of a drawn out war (and little chance of any war).

Either the UK is on the ball when the Argentinians set sail, and the Argentinian flotilla ceases to float, or the Argentinians succeed in a surprise coup de main and leave the UK unable to project enough power to retake the islands.
 
I think it is worth pointing out that the lawyers are British, so its not like the UK isn't being compensated. Somewhat indirectly, mind you.
 
Giz said:
There’s no chance of a drawn out war (and little chance of any war).

Either the UK is on the ball when the Argentinians set sail, and the Argentinian flotilla ceases to float, or the Argentinians succeed in a surprise coup de main and leave the UK unable to project enough power to retake the islands.
Click to expand...

Yes,only I could imagine Cameron and co or adenoid ed would be capable of sending any taskforce to Finland by accident. Then nick clegg could take over and say to argentinia"the Falklands,of course you can have them,here take wales as well".
Joking aside I will be very surprised if argentinia does not get there way sooner or later without resorting to war.
As much as I hated Maggie(I'm Scottish)at least she had a bit of grit.
 
skeptichaggis said:
The people of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain British . It won't matter in the long run though,Brazil has passed Britain economically and this trend looks set to continue with other large south american nations.
The fact is the British people don't have the stomach for a long drawn out war with Argentina. Those who think Britain could win a major years long conflict with tens of thousands of British dead are living in the past. As soon as British dead hit 2,000 or so the incumbent prime minister would be toppled and peace terms,favorable to Argentina,would be made. What the islanders want would not matter.
Polls consistently show that young Argentinians,indeed Argentinians of all ages,are mostly in favour of taking the Falklands and are as a nation prepared to accept heavy losses. Its seen as a point of national pride. While u.k polls show a desire to protect the islands their is no desire to do so at the cost of a major drawn out war. Then there is the British political elite. Men and women with no stomach for a second Falklands war and who have practically ran down the u.k armed forces-at a time of Argentinian expansion and military modernization.Out of three British vs Argentina wars,,two ended in the utter crushing of the British armies . I think the u.k political establishment would throw in the towal before risking a third defeat.
Click to expand...

What President Cristina *Fernandez de Kardashian needs to realize "guns before butter" is only feasible if you can afford butter in the first place.
 
The Argentinian armed forces are not a major threat to the Falklands in their current state with much of their equipment in a poor state of repair (the ARA Santísima Trinidad sank at port for example) and, I believe, in 2013 the entire Argentinian navy spent less time deployed at sea than any one typical Royal Navy ship. Even with increased spending, it will take them some time to regenerate the capability needed. In the meantime, I have no doubt that the British armed forces and security services will be keeping an eye on things.
 
How would this 'long drawn out war' work then? Would Argentina build masses of landing craft and try to storm ashore like D-Day?
Walking on to undefended islands was one thing, to try and take them against the current garrison is something else.

There is a garrison of around 1200 personnel made up of an infantry company, engineer squadron, signals unit and logistics group. Also a Rapier AA Missile Battery is deployed.

There is a joint services group made up of RN and RAF sigint and EW groups.

The RAF has 4 Typhoon fighters a Voyager KC2 Tanker, Hercules for resupply and maritime patrol and a flight of Sea Kings.

There is now a dedicated RN Port facility with a permanent River Class Patrol Vessel, rotating Destroyer Patrol, the Arctic Patrol ship and an RFA supply ship.

If it looks like trouble is brewing the Joint Rapid reaction force cxan have the Spearhead Elements deployed very quickly.
Special Forces (SAS or SBS), and either a light infantry battalion or a commando group with two frigates or destroyers, an attack submarine and a support ship of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Following that, if required is the 'First Echelon, a Maritime Task Group of major warships, Mine Countermeasures Group and Amphibious Task Group which can deploy A Joint Landing Force drawn from either 3 Commando Brigade or 16 Air Assault Brigade.

Following this a Second Echelon may be deployed, with further major naval units and ground forces from 1st (UK) Armoured Division and 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division.

Make no mistake the UK Armed Forces are still substantial, well trained, well equipped and very experienced, along with the US Forces they have more actual experience in foreign deployment and in battle than just about everyone else put together.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How would this 'long drawn out war' work then? Would Argentina build masses of landing craft and try to storm ashore like D-Day?
Walking on to undefended islands was one thing, to try and take them against the current garrison is something else.

There is a garrison of around 1200 personnel made up of an infantry company, engineer squadron, signals unit and logistics group. Also a Rapier AA Missile Battery is deployed.

There is a joint services group made up of RN and RAF sigint and EW groups.

The RAF has 4 Typhoon fighters a Voyager KC2 Tanker, Hercules for resupply and maritime patrol and a flight of Sea Kings.

There is now a dedicated RN Port facility with a permanent River Class Patrol Vessel, rotating Destroyer Patrol, the Arctic Patrol ship and an RFA supply ship.

If it looks like trouble is brewing the Joint Rapid reaction force cxan have the Spearhead Elements deployed very quickly.
Special Forces (SAS or SBS), and either a light infantry battalion or a commando group with two frigates or destroyers, an attack submarine and a support ship of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Following that, if required is the 'First Echelon, a Maritime Task Group of major warships, Mine Countermeasures Group and Amphibious Task Group which can deploy A Joint Landing Force drawn from either 3 Commando Brigade or 16 Air Assault Brigade.

Following this a Second Echelon may be deployed, with further major naval units and ground forces from 1st (UK) Armoured Division and 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division.

Make no mistake the UK Armed Forces are still substantial, well trained, well equipped and very experienced, along with the US Forces they have more actual experience in foreign deployment and in battle than just about everyone else put together.
Click to expand...

Not Australia. Basically everything you've done in the last 15 years other than Lybia has involved our armed forces too, particularly the RAAF and SASR.
 
Indeed Australia have very effective modern armed forces.
My point being, when it comes to defending the Falklands the UK Forces are in a far better position today than they were in the 80s. Back then everything was tasked with various NATO roles, working as part of an integrated force.
Now they are tasked with overseas intervention.
 
Argentina isn't stupid enough to attempt an invasion. Their troops would be destroyed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom