[TorrKing]

This is pure speculation, but is it likely that the Argentinians would consider invading the Falklands again if the UK gets all bogged up in Iran?

Would they have the military strenght to do it?

The reason why I am thinking of it is because of the oil and gas in the region and seeming bitterness over the defeat. link

[Twilight]

I doubt it. Neither country has the heavy lift capability any longer*, and if the place was a new North Sea, it would have been a new North Sea already. The biggest thing going for it is fishery licenses. That's the only thing actually making big money. The oil and gas rumoured to exist there was always little more than an additional justification for treating the islands as home territory. In fact I would say it's half the basis.

* Don't forget the UK of 1982 was ready to fight WW3 at a moment's notice. That's how it assembled a force like that in 5 weeks. Today the UK couldn't assemble a force a third of the size in 5 months. Unlike the post- Cold War policy of the US, it scrapped most of that equipment without replacing any of it.

[Rafa]

This is pure speculation, but is it likely that the Argentinians would consider invading the Falklands again if the UK gets all bogged up in Iran?

Not now.
They will use diplomatic fight instead.

But they will never stop struggling for them.

Latin America is in the process of uniting, it will become a big and powerfull federation, with a big and powerfull economy, with a common currency, energetically auto-sustainable, and with a big and powerful army.
Then, they UK will give back the Falklands, just like they did for Hongkong to China;
And the USA will also withdraw their troops from Guantanamo bay and Puerto Rico.

It will take some time, maybe 10 years, maybe 20 years, maybe 30 years, but it will happen; so there is no need to go to war, just wait long enough.

[nth]

I thought the French stop selling their missiles to Argentina. Have they resume?
I don't believe Argentina has upgraded their military. The lack of weapons will prevent them from attacking. If they do have advance weapons, then I will think differently.

[Twilight]

there is no need to go to war, just wait long enough.

I would agree completely with that. Gradually Western influence will roll back the same way direct Western administration was rolled back in the 1960s. The economic necessity will disappear.

[Rafa]

I thought the French stop selling their missiles to Argentina. Have they resume?
I don't believe Argentina has upgraded their military. The lack of weapons will prevent them from attacking. If they do have advance weapons, then I will think differently.

There is tendency in this forum (maybe it is an US cultural thing?) to think only in terms of military hardware only (with the implicit thought that it is to actually use it).

Politics don't reduce to war only; and war is not only about weapons, and weapons don't always need to be actually used to be usefull.

Just because Argentina could have good cruise missiles isn't enough to have a war with UK over the Falklands; it also require a stupid government (like the stupid fascist dictatorship that launched it 25 years ago).
Current argentinian government is not stupid; they are actually quite smart, and were able to recover the country from a very bad conomic situation, give the finger to IMF and strategically side with Venezuela and the emerging latinamerican block.

Geopolitics is much more than just a mere contability of ammunitions stocks; it involves things like energy networks, ressources availability, social stability (or unstability), global public opinion, geography (distances and kind of ground), diplomatic alliances.
Argentina, like latin America in general, is in a quite good (and improving) geopolitical position.
The geopolitical position of the UK is not so good, and it is getting worse.

Ressorting to war is actually a symptom of weakness, of great weakness; that means you failed to reach your goal by all other means.
When the argentinian dictatorship ressorted to war 25 years ago, it was, indeed, because they failed in everything, economically, socially, internatioanlly, and used war as a last ressort to win something; they failed too and their weak position just broke, the dictatorship collapsed.

Argentina, now, has better possibilities to get back the islands trough diplomatic and economic means than militarly; so it is irrelevant to know how good or how bad the argentinian navy is; Argentina won't use war, because Argentina don't need it, they are in a strong position.

Just like China did about HongKong and Macao; China could have easily invaded those two cities; but it was a better strategy to use diplomacy and economic pressure.

[nth]

Just like China did about HongKong and Macao; China could have easily invaded those two cities; but it was a better strategy to use diplomacy and economic pressure.

I never said they will attack GBR. It is not even an option if they don't have the military.

On another note, China did not have to use force due to Hong Kong and Macao were being given back to China without China having to apply any political power. GBR and Portugal had no intention of keeping these city states. They are tied in both economics and resources like water and other stuff to China. It makes no sense to try to make a stand and violate international treaty for it, especially GBR who is a power house in global trade and politics due to their adherence to the law. They signed a treaty to attain Hong Kong and that treaty propel them to give it back, so they gave it back.

[nth]

And the USA will also withdraw their troops from Guantanamo bay and Puerto Rico.

It will take some time, maybe 10 years, maybe 20 years, maybe 30 years, but it will happen; so there is no need to go to war, just wait long enough.

When does the Guantanamo Bay lease expire? Oh wait, never. This is plain stupidity. In order for Cuba to get rid of US troops on its soil, they had to sign a treaty that gives this piece of land to US navy forever. Then, any treaty signed by US after that point always included a clause that makes sure this treaty cannot be overturned due to treaty law. At some point, the world have to accept that unequal treaties must not be enforceable in World Court.


Puerto Rico wants independence? I never knew that. The last election they voted against statehood, so they can keep their special status and get special economic priviledges. If they want independence, they need to do a better job to get their voices heard.

[SILENTTODD]

I for one never understood why the Brits just didn’t buy out the residents of the Falklands and presented the islands as a good will present to Argentina. Some arrangement probably would have been possible for them to remain as British nationals under Argentineans rule of the islands.

In any case it would have been many times less expensive in terms and Pounds and Lives. I know over a thousand were killed between the Brits and the Argentineans. And for what? Rocky islands you can only raise sheep and goats on?

[thylacine]

I think the retaking of the Falklands by Argentina would be the least of our worries if there is a US war with Iran. How many other rivalries, border disagreements, tribal/race/religious hatred hotspots are there in the world? US/NATO overcommitment and overspending on Afghanistan and the ME may well take the lid off a whole host of expected and unexpected pots, that are quietly simmering away.

Nth Korea-South Korea-Japan
China-Taiwan
Sri Lanka
India-Pakistan
Large swathes of Africa
etc etc

[HonestPessimist]

No, I don't think so. Argentina doesn't have the ball to take on the still crusty, cranky British Empire. Then again, the old British bulldog have gone spineless when Iran took 15 British military personnel hostages and resorted to surrender-monkey diplomatic negotiations.

[Rafa]

When does the Guantanamo Bay lease expire?

There is no lease.
Before 1959 the USA has a lease, but it had been imposed to cubans, in a way similar to how the US imposes things on Irak.
Cubans just don't recognize any legityimity on it, and as soon as 1959 (when, for the first time, there was a cuban government truly independent from the USA) Cuba just denounced that treaty and reclaimed the land back; since then Cuba refuses to receive any payment, so there is no lease.
The USA recognize it is cuban land, they know cuban government doesen't want them there, but they still don't leave (just for political reasons).
From the cuban point of vue (and it is seen the same by latinamericans) it is an illegal military occupation; there is no treaty to sign, just for the aliens to leave.

Legally there is no doubt at all: the land is cuban, the cuban autorities can (and actually do, year after year), tell the aliens to leave.
But the aliens have big weapons and just don't want to leave (probably some kind of psychological compensation from being unable to oust Castro); going to open war won't be in the best interest of Cuba, so cubans just wait.
The US government has made the big mistake of making that base into a concentration and torture camp, and now there are, inside of the USA as well as worldwide, much moe voices asking for it to be closed.

Puerto Rico wants independence?

A lot of them want it.
They are constantly harassed by the FBI, jailed, even murdered.

An interesting thing: portoricans have to pay taxes to the US, but they don't have representativity; wasn't that the reason behind the Boston tea party?

If they want independence, they need to do a better job to get their voices heard.

You will of course never heard those voices in the media controled by the colonial power.
But those voices do exist.

[nth]

Rafa,

Cuba did sign a treaty. It was forced upon them. World history has a long line of treaties like these. Some people coined them "unequal treaties."

International law states this treaty is still in effect and will always be in effect, period. That was why I was ranting against the international community for having no backbones on this. Cuba's best chance is to recognize the treaty and then confront the US for violating the treaty in Security Council. As US cannot veto or vote in the Security Council as they are not allow to do that if they are part of the conflict in question. Another route is to go through ICJ, where US did not sign the treaty, but ICJ claims binding even to non members.

Puerto Rico do vote and get representation. They voted against being a state three times, so they don't have full representation, but they still vote for President and for members in the House who are non voting members, until now, they are allow to vote, but not allow to change the outcome. (WTF?)

Also, they do not pay Federal income taxes and get Federal subsidies. So, they get more money then they pay back to US federal. I think you have not really look into the details.

It is funny how I get info about other places wanting independence in US but not Puerto Rico. Texas, Hawaii, Samoa are just some that I have heard where groups exist wanting to be independence.

I will be for their independence.

[Rafa]

It is funny how I get info about other places wanting independence in US but not Puerto Rico. Texas, Hawaii, Samoa are just some that I have heard where groups exist wanting to be independence.

You can start here: http://www.independencia.net/

Note that the very fact that the economy is made dependent on US government "help" is a mean of control used by the US to make it hard for Puerto Rico to gain independence; also the way the political sysem is modelled on US bipartidism makes it very hard to have a real democracy showing what the people actually want (just as in the US; there are two parties, with almost the same policies, with only cosmetic differences, and that bars the way to any other dissenting voice).

[nth]

You can start here: http://www.independencia.net/

Note that the very fact that the economy is made dependent on US government "help" is a mean of control used by the US to make it hard for Puerto Rico to gain independence; also the way the political sysem is modelled on US bipartidism makes it very hard to have a real democracy showing what the people actually want (just as in the US; there are two parties, with almost the same policies, with only cosmetic differences, and that bars the way to any other dissenting voice).

Thanks for that link. Yes, that link made me remember that I heard a US Congressman talked about how an independent Puerto Rico is better for US than its current status.

What is funny is how the group is advocating for more US aid and not anti US as you are framing the issue. They are so addicted to US.

Puerto Rico is not going to become an enemy of the United States because it obtains its sovereignty. In the long run, independence would be doing a favor to the American economy. In every instance that someone in Congress or in the executive branch comments on Puerto Rican independence, they make it quite clear that there will be considerable economic aid. And, why not? The U.S. sends financial aid to nearly every country in this hemisphere, and would continue to have many commercial and manufacturing ties with Puerto Rico. The island would continue to receive substantial investments comparable to those presently coming in. It is fair and in the best interests of both the United States and Puerto Rico.

[Madpaddy]

I don't see any possibility of a war between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands. There is quite a sizable military garrison there now 2000+ I think with combat aircraft. If the Argentines did attack again and overwhelmed this force then there is very little that Britain could do about it. Even in 1982, when as twilight said, the Brits were ready to fight WWIII, the war was a close run thing. By the time Port Stanley was surrounded, there was almost no small arms ammunition left in the British ships. They called the Argentines bluff and got them to surrender. The Royal Navy no longer has the ability to transport such a large force (14,000) n such a short time and the army is already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most they could do is lob off a few missiles from submarines.

[nth]

GBR can sink the Argentine Navy. Unless Argentines are able to get advance missile systems, they are out of range compare to the British Navy.

If they fight, it will be a political decision and not a military one. On paper, the British are way too superior, even with little ground forces.

[Oil-Finder]

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=53972

FOGL Uncovers 10 Billion Barrel Potential in Falklands
Falkland Oil and Gas Limited Thursday, December 13, 2007


Falkland Oil and Gas Limited (FOGL) reveals encouraging results from the controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) survey with positive CSEM anomalies indicating the possible presence of trapped hydrocarbons in excess of 10 billion barrels equivalent (mean, unrisked).

The CSEM survey was carried out on behalf of FOGL by Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping and was completed in August 2007. Over 750 km of CSEM data were acquired along seven lines, over a total of 12 prospects. This program exceeded FOGL's licence commitment to the Falkland Islands Government.

The most encouraging CSEM anomalies have been identified over the following seven prospects: Loligo, Garrodia, Nimrod, Caird, Toroa, Lutra and Undine. These prospects also benefit from seismically derived direct hydrocarbon indications. All of these features could contain large amounts of oil and gas, with individual prospects containing potential recoverable volumes (mean, unrisked resources) ranging up to 3.5 million barrels.

FOGL has focussed its work during the last year on a shortlist of ten prospects, which promise to offer the lowest exploration risk and largest resource volumes. This prospect inventory has the potential to hold, on a cumulative basis, in excess of 10 billion barrels oil equivalent (mean, unrisked resources). In addition, FOGL has identified over 90 other leads, which are not included in this estimate.

"We are delighted with the results of our 2007 exploration program," said FOGL CEO Tim Bushell. "We have now identified a number of prospects that are seismically well defined and also have positive CSEM evidence for the presence of trapped hydrocarbons. Furthermore, all of these prospects have substantial reserve potential.

"The results of the CSEM and 2D seismic infill surveys have reduced exploration risk and have considerably improved the chances of finding commercial quantities of oil and gas within our licences."

The results of the CSEM survey will be fully integrated with our existing work and with the recent 2D infill seismic to produce, a short list of the best prospects for drilling. This work will now be carried out in conjunction with our farm-in partner, BHP Billiton, who will take over operatorship of the licences from Jan. 1, 2008. Seabed coring and site surveys are expected to be carried out in 2008. BHP Billiton is currently reviewing a number of potential rig options and an update on this will be provided at a future point.

[Oil-Finder]

Initial measurements of all the waters around the Falkland Islands indicate as much as 60 billion barrels:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 65,00.html

60 billion barrels of oil lie under the ocean around the Falkland Islands, say experts . . .

[Twilight]

The Falklands have been a potential area of interest since the years of the North Sea exploration boom. Compare and contrast.