Las Malvinas.

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 4:16pm

Jawgap wrote: »

WTF???

According to the UN UNSC Resolution 505 passed on 26 May 1982? Did I just lose 18 years.....?

UNGA Resolution is 62 years old - is that the one being referred to? It's to do with "Threats to the political independence and territorial integrity of China and to the peace of the Far East, resulting from Soviet violations of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of 14 August 1945 and from Soviet violations of the Charter of the United Nations."

ok ... let me google that for you.

Resolution 505 2065.

...UN agenda since 1965. Resolution 2065 states that they are a remnant from colonial days. Resolution 2065 and subsequent resolutions call on the UK and Argentina to negotiate a solution.

bumper234 · 03-04-2014 4:28pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

ok ... let me google that for you.

Resolution 505 2065.

...UN agenda since 1965. Resolution 2065 states that they are a remnant from colonial days. Resolution 2065 and subsequent resolutions call on the UK and Argentina to negotiate a solution.

They had a solution.

The people of the Falkland islands were given a choice as to which country they wanted to be part of, they chose the UK and that should be the end of it.

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 4:38pm

bumper234 wrote: »

They had a solution.

The people of the Falkland islands were given a choice as to which country they wanted to be part of, they chose the UK and that should be the end of it.

Should be the end of it from 1 point of view.

Crimea came up with a solution too. Fine and dandy from Putins view.

Self determination is a great old tool when its used right.

In this case 2500 people are determining the outcome of a disagreement that involves the foreign relations of 100,000,000+ people.

....rather than the 100,000,000 themselves, as requested by the UN.

bumper234 · 03-04-2014 5:12pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Should be the end of it from 1 point of view.

Crimea came up with a solution too. Fine and dandy from Putins view.

Self determination is a great old tool when its used right.

In this case 2500 people are determining the outcome of a disagreement that involves the foreign relations of 100,000,000+ people.

....rather than the 100,000,000 themselves, as requested by the UN.

But it DIRECTLY involves the 2500 whereas the 100,000,000 don't really care.

Jawgap · 03-04-2014 5:14pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

ok ... let me google that for you.

Resolution 505 2065.

...UN agenda since 1965. Resolution 2065 states that they are a remnant from colonial days. Resolution 2065 and subsequent resolutions call on the UK and Argentina to negotiate a solution.

Another shift in position!!!

You posted up 505 now you post up 2065!!! And try to make out that you didn't make another mistake!!!

You're gas.....

Jawgap · 03-04-2014 5:38pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Should be the end of it from 1 point of view.

Crimea came up with a solution too. Fine and dandy from Putins view.

Self determination is a great old tool when its used right.

In this case 2500 people are determining the outcome of a disagreement that involves the foreign relations of 100,000,000+ people.

....rather than the 100,000,000 themselves, as requested by the UN.

So the whole of the UK should vote on the question of Scottish independence????

Is that your idea of self-determination?

What about the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Should both the UK and Ireland vote on whether there should be a united Ireland???

As I said - you're a gas man.......I'm quite glad I came back to this thread.......

Busted Flat. · 03-04-2014 5:56pm

Finding partners is proving difficult in Las Malvinas.

A lack of infrastructure, needed for the import of exploration equipment, is another impediment. The FIG would prefer to develop a deepwater port for this purpose, but wants the oil companies to pay for it—something the firms will balk at until it is clear how much oil they can get. In the meantime, a temporary dock facility—a 400-foot by 100-foot barge—is expected soon to connect to Stanley’s shorefront through a series of causeways.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGAQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fblogs%2Famericasview%2F2014%2F02%2Foil-and-gas-falklands&ei=lJE9U8ytA8Od7QbF8IBY&usg=AFQjCNENsWr0M4ffQpUqFO4p-9s-hXb6fA&bvm=bv.63934634,d.ZGU

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 7:47pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Another shift in position!!!

You posted up 505 now you post up 2065!!! And try to make out that you didn't make another mistake!!!

You're gas.....

It matters now that I made a typing error ?

One has to ask at this point ..... why exactly are typing errors being discussed.

(also .... where did I try to make out that I didn't make a mistake ... I put up 505 scratched out followed by 2065.... seriously, what could be clearer than that)

Jawgap · 03-04-2014 8:01pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

It matters now that I made a typing error ?

One has to ask at this point ..... why exactly are typing errors being discussed.

(also .... where did I try to make out that I didn't make a mistake ... I put up 505 scratched out followed by 2065.... seriously, what could be clearer than that)

No, typing 504 or 506 or 550 is a typing error......

......typing 2505 is an error......

Typing a three digit number when YOU SAY you in fact meant to type a four digit number that bears no resemblance to what you typed is the sign of a something more than just an error......a knowledge deficiency....or something more pathological......

.........I suppose this latest 'error' is like saying a ship was sunk that wasn't even there or that cruise missiles are nuclear tipped when they haven't been for over 20 years.....

G'wan with you.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 8:04pm

Jawgap wrote: »

So the whole of the UK should vote on the question of Scottish independence????

Is that your idea of self-determination?

What about the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Should both the UK and Ireland vote on whether there should be a united Ireland???

As I said - you're a gas man.......I'm quite glad I came back to this thread.......

Well each case is debatable by its own merits.
In the case of Scotland you're dealing with a country and a people.

In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas you're dealing with a dependent territory, understood as being under only de facto British administration, and remaining on the UN decolonization list.

A disputed territory and people internationally recognized (by US, UN, EU) only as British, ..... nothing more.

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 8:07pm

Jawgap wrote: »

No, typing 504 or 506 or 550 is a typing error......

......typing 2505 is an error......

Typing a three digit number when YOU SAY you in fact meant to type a four digit number that bears no resemblance to what you typed is the sign of a something more than just an error......a knowledge deficiency....or something more pathological......

.........I suppose this latest 'error' is like saying a ship was sunk that wasn't even there or that cruise missiles are nuclear tipped when they haven't been for over 20 years.....

G'wan with you.....

Oh, beg your pardon, it was a four digit number error, rather than a three digit number error.

Thats me told.

Jawgap · 03-04-2014 8:16pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Well each case is debatable by its own merits.
In the case of Scotland you're dealing with a country and a people.

In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas you're dealing with a dependent territory, understood as being under only de facto British administration, and remaining on the UN decolonization list.

A disputed territory and people internationally recognized (by US, UN, EU) only as British, ..... nothing more.

Recognised by the UN?

Let me guess another typing error..........

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 8:27pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Recognised by the UN?

Let me guess another typing error..........

lol.

ok whats my hidden conspiracy this time.

Jawgap · 03-04-2014 8:33pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

lol.

ok whats my hidden conspiracy this time.

I don't know......a conspiracy against grammar, the English language, numeracy, literacy, logic......?????

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-04-2014 8:35pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't know......a conspiracy against grammar, the English language, numeracy, literacy, logic......?????

... he wrote with five question marks.

Lemming · 04-04-2014 12:40am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

... he wrote with five question marks.

And what's the difference if he uses one question mark or five to emphasis the question ??????????

ps. I used ten question marks to save you counting.

The Diabolical Monocle · 04-04-2014 1:30am

Lemming wrote: »

And what's the difference if he uses one question mark or five to emphasis the question ??????????

ps. I used ten question marks to save you counting.

yao_ming_meme_new_version_hd_by_guillersevilla-d3dwein.png

Lemming · 04-04-2014 1:42pm

Wow. Deep.

newbie2013 · 04-04-2014 2:15pm

I think if the **** hits the fan over across the water then the argies can rely on their friends in county mayo building boats named after their commander and chief of their navy once upon atime. Probably better equipped for the water than their own fleet lol

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBeyEFvNbNn8&ei=2K8-U8uKNrKv7AbQ8IGoAw&usg=AFQjCNEuBo-CTIzL5pmkFYVXM8xZBACjlA&bvm=bv.64125504,d.ZGU

The Diabolical Monocle · 05-04-2014 2:58pm

newbie2013 wrote: »

I think if the **** hits the fan over across the water then the argies can rely on their friends in county mayo building boats named after their commander and chief of their navy once upon atime. Probably better equipped for the water than their own fleet lol

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBeyEFvNbNn8&ei=2K8-U8uKNrKv7AbQ8IGoAw&usg=AFQjCNEuBo-CTIzL5pmkFYVXM8xZBACjlA&bvm=bv.64125504,d.ZGU

The Argentine fleet is not as god awful as you might wish.
A few decades ago they were operating an aircraft carrier.
Presently ... There's supposedly 4/5 new ocean capable opv's (similar size to forthcoming le samuel beckett ) on the way along with additions to the sizeable auxiliary fleet.
The recent unprecedented Arg military upgrade investment will add to this.
So no I don't think row building row boats is on the Argentine agenda.

But finishing off the nuclear sub is.

Jawgap · 05-04-2014 3:56pm

To paraphrase that famous naval Irishman, Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, KT GCB OM DSO....

It takes three years to build a battleship, it takes three centuries to build a navy.

In a war situation with the UK if they were to sally, then the RN will need a few of these.....

bumper234 · 05-04-2014 4:19pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The Argentine fleet is not as god awful as you might wish.
A few decades ago they were operating an aircraft carrier.
Presently ... There's supposedly 4/5 new ocean capable opv's (similar size to forthcoming le samuel beckett ) on the way along with additions to the sizeable auxiliary fleet.
The recent unprecedented Arg military upgrade investment will add to this.
So no I don't think row building row boats is on the Argentine agenda.

But finishing off the nuclear sub is.

And in the mean time the British navy will have

HMS Illustrious

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06)

HMS Ocean

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)

HMS Queen Elizabeth

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08)

HMS Prince of Wales

That's just the aircraft carriers.

The Diabolical Monocle · 05-04-2014 6:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

To paraphrase that famous naval Irishman, Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, KT GCB OM DSO....

It takes three years to build a battleship, it takes three centuries to build a navy.

In a war situation with the UK if they were to sally, then the RN will need a few of these.....

Well, Im pretty sure our famous (?) Irish admiral may have taken those words back if he was around today.

(can you guess why. Hint:

its 238 years old and has many aircraft carriers

)

Not everything that happens in Argentina is to be taken in the context of Britain you know.

That mentality is common within the tabloids and their associated audience demographic.
Here however, we're more familiar with facts and the bigger relevant elements and questions.

Anyway, Argentina will be, and indeed now is, spending a whole heck of a lot more on defense than during the 90's and noughties.
Those years saw a massive decline, the policy now is for a very steep incline.

The budget from now on is supposedly to be based on (S.American) regional spending, which has seriously high rates of increase. Up to recently Argentine defense spending hovered around sub 1%. As of 2014 it jumped some 25%.

Some https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=1553 expect an almost doubling, from 4.7 billion to 8.3 billion dollars. With continual annual growth rate of 15% (from 2013).

(this goes back to the earlier point of exactly how much military equipment and personnel will be permanently stationed on the islands in 5 years time, (consider also that Arg pop grows by 1% annually))

So no, boats from Mayo are not the order of the day.

(bumper - from what I remember of your list some were either not built at this stage, others may be on their way to the scrap yard, those are helicopter carriers too innit)

bumper234 · 05-04-2014 6:17pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Well, Im pretty sure our famous (?) Irish admiral may have taken those words back if he was around today.

(can you guess why. Hint:
its 238 years old and has many aircraft carriers
)

Not everything that happens in Argentina is to be taken in the context of Britain you know.

That mentality is common within the tabloids and their associated audience demographic.
Here however, we're more familiar with facts and the bigger relevant elements and questions.

Anyway, Argentina will be, and indeed now is, spending a whole heck of a lot more on defense than during the 90's and noughties.
Those years saw a massive decline, the policy now is for a very steep incline.

The budget from now on is supposedly to be based on (S.American) regional spending, which has seriously high rates of increase. Up to recently Argentine defense spending hovered around sub 1%. As of 2014 it jumped some 25%.

Some https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=1553 expect an almost doubling, from 4.7 billion to 8.3 billion dollars.

So no, boats from Mayo are not the order of the day.

(bumper - from what I remember of your list some were either not built at this stage, others may be on their way to the scrap yard)

2 are in service and 2 are due (2016 and 2018 respectively) a bit much like the Argentine nuclear sub.

Jawgap · 05-04-2014 7:46pm

In a country with an annualised inflation rate of somewhere between 44% and 55%, a 15% boost to the defence budget is either a cut in real terms! or if they want to sustain dollar spending, they'll need to boost they're pesos budget to account for its spiralling downward value.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 06-04-2014 1:10am

Jawgap wrote: »

In a country with an annualised inflation rate of somewhere between 44% and 55%, a 15% boost to the defence budget is either a cut in real terms! or if they want to sustain dollar spending, they'll need to boost they're pesos budget to account for its spiralling downward value.....

Regardless of Argentinas inflation problems the equipment is being purchased, the overall upgrade is being made, and its got a value of ~£3 billion pounds or whatever that is in dollars, Yen or Rubles.

Jawgap · 06-04-2014 7:47am

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Regardless of Argentinas inflation problems the equipment is being purchased, the overall upgrade is being made, and its got a value of ~£3 billion pounds or whatever that is in dollars, Yen or Rubles.

It's dollars and I know you'd like to wish away inflation but you can't. At the moment (today) it would cost the Argentinians 24 billion pesos to buy those $3 billion you mention they are going to spend 'upgrading'.

If they'd bought them 2 years ago on the 30 anniversary of the War they'd have cost them about 13 billion pesos and if they'd bought them 5 years ago they'd have 'only' cost 9 billion pesos.

And you reckon that spending more and more money to replace 40 year old airframes with 40 year old airframes that the Israelis decommissioned 20 years ago is an upgrade?

Incidentally, do you still they will actually get those Kfirs? It seems the J-79 engine that they use requires approval from the US before they are re-exported, and the US have indicated they are not minded to approve their re-export, so will they be buying 40 year old, engineless airframes?

The Diabolical Monocle · 06-04-2014 2:27pm

Jawgap wrote: »

It's dollars and I know you'd like to wish away inflation but you can't. At the moment (today) it would cost the Argentinians 24 billion pesos to buy those $3 billion you mention they are going to spend 'upgrading'.

If they'd bought them 2 years ago on the 30 anniversary of the War they'd have cost them about 13 billion pesos and if they'd bought them 5 years ago they'd have 'only' cost 9 billion pesos.

And you reckon that spending more and more money to replace 40 year old airframes with 40 year old airframes that the Israelis decommissioned 20 years ago is an upgrade?

Incidentally, do you still they will actually get those Kfirs? It seems the J-79 engine that they use requires approval from the US before they are re-exported, and the US have indicated they are not minded to approve their re-export, so will they be buying 40 year old, engineless airframes?

Put it in whatever currency terms you like.

Its an unprecedented upgrade. The end result, be it in pesos or euro is a huge refurbishment and upgrade program to the value, this year, of 3 billion pounds.

Market research analyst: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=1553

"In 2014 the defense budget is estimated to be US$4.7 billion and is expected to register a CAGR of 15.50% during the forecast period to reach US$8.3 billion by 2018."

(paid to professionally research this info and produce reports for sale)

Not 40 year old airframes from what I can tell, 40 years ago was just the first production, if Im right the airframes being will be 30 y.o and will be upgraded with present generation avionics.
Yes it is an upgrade and whats more its actually needed outside the sphere of anything to do with Britain, imagine that.

the US have indicated they are not minded to approve their re-export, so will they be buying 40 year old, engineless airframes?

That surprises me, thus far the official stance of the US has been to recognize no sovereignty of the islands... to recognize only de-facto British administration ...and to ask both countries to talk it out as per the UN's resolution.

Re: the engines, any source appreciated.

Lemming · 06-04-2014 2:51pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

That surprises me, thus far the official stance of the US has been to recognize no sovereignty of the islands... to recognize only de-facto British administration ...and to ask both countries to talk it out as per the UN's resolution.

In reality-speak; the US has no official position other than "not our problem", preferring not to be seen get involved but behind the scenes - as with last time out - they will quietly back the UK.

The Diabolical Monocle · 06-04-2014 2:59pm

Lemming wrote: »

In reality-speak; the US has no official position other than "not our problem", preferring not to be seen get involved but behind the scenes - as with last time out - they will quietly back the UK.

Any proof ?

Las Malvinas.

Comments