# Current situation in the S.Atlantic.



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dear all, re the current situation in the S.Atlantic, is Hilary Clinton helping matters by referring to the Falklands as the Malvinas? Does her use of language imply a change in US policy to this area?.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Dear all, re the current situation in the S.Atlantic, is Hilary Clinton helping matters by referring to the Falklands as the Malvinas? Does her use of language imply a change in US policy to this area?.


No change in U.S. policy is implied by Sec. Clinton's use of the term Malvinas. It's just a sop to the Argentines. There won't be any change in U.S. support for Britains claim to the islands. What's going on is just minor distracting stuff of no importance whatsoever. The Argentines are complaining about the islands again. What else is new?


----------



## jeffreyc (Apr 8, 2010)

Regillus said:


> The Argentines are complaining about the islands again. What else is new?


Oil finds are whats new !


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hilary Clinton referred to a solution to the situation being through negotiation. Negotiation on what basis? Either the Falklands are British, or they're not. What room is there for negotiation?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> What room is there for negotiation?


None when there's this great big Destroyer sitting provocativly in the bay of Port Stanley and he who would be King moving in.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Hilary Clinton referred to a solution to the situation being through negotiation. Negotiation on what basis? Either the Falklands are British, or they're not. What room is there for negotiation?


Maybe we should compare and contrast Argentina's claim with the PLO's claim to Palestine??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jeffreyc said:


> Oil finds are whats new !


Some one finds oil or starts an orange plantation in a Hell Hole and suddenly the Hell Hole looks pretty good!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> None when there's this great big Destroyer sitting provocativly in the bay of Port Stanley and he who would be King moving in.


Except that there's been a destroyer, a frigate, a patrol vessel, and a SSN at Port Stanley, or thereabouts, since the last unpleasantness was resolved in 1982. So replacing HMS Montrose with HMS Dauntless is hardly a provocation, unless you want it to be! Oh, and a squadron of Typhoons, and about 1200 RAF, Army and RM personnel. So why the objection to "militarisation" of the S.Atlantic now? Apart from Argentina's recession and the oil around the Falklands, of course.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Maybe we should compare and contrast Argentina's claim with the PLO's claim to Palestine??


Please do, and tell me what you find. 
Argentina renounced any claim to the Falklands by the Arana-Southern Treaty, also called the  Convention of Settlement, which was ratified in Buenos Aires on 15 May 1850, and by which Argentina confirmed that the Falklands were legitimately British, just in case self-determination isn't a sufficient claim.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Please do, and tell me what you find.


Just checking.

I hadn't found any either.

Not until they start launching rockets into population centers or turning their children into bombs anyway...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just checking.
> 
> I hadn't found any either.
> 
> Not until they start launching rockets into population centers or turning their children into bombs anyway...


The major difference, I guess, is that they have Argentine to live in.

I don't think turning children into bombs is a national pastime in Palestine either. Nothing remotely like trick or treating in the US.

As for launching rockets into population centers, that seems to fairly common practice (not exclusively an Arab thing) these days.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Hilary Clinton referred to a solution to the situation being through negotiation. Negotiation on what basis? Either the Falklands are British, or they're not. What room is there for negotiation?


If she's not negotiating, what's her job? If she has no limelight, she can't prove to be a viable candidate in 2016......She's doing everything she can to make herself visible for the next few years. Take any media attention she steals with a grain of salt. The US/UK relationship is not going to be broken by the likes of Argentina..... When it comes down to it, there's much more advantage to the US backing UK in ANY fight.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

IIRC, there was some comment from Obama in the last few months describing _France_ as the USA's closest ally. That's a slap in the face to the UK for sure, especially considering how France has butted heads with us in the past. Also factor in the recent story of how the US Navy had to be convinced to let the UK join the recent Iranian taskforce (as was France), and with this verbal maneuver by Hillary it seems that the current administration is straining to publicly distance itself from the UK.

Shame, really. It used to amuse me that the nations that physically bordered us were never as close as Britain.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Nothing's going to happen in the Falklands. It's just a sideshow. The real deal is what happens next with regard to Syria. Are we going in? It's starting to look like it. Preparatory planning is underway.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Dear all, re the current situation in the S.Atlantic, is Hilary Clinton helping matters by referring to the Falklands as the Malvinas? Does her use of language imply a change in US policy to this area?.


To be honest, It doesn't surprise me in the least. Reagan refused to help us in 82 and carried on arms dealing with the Junta, and France carried on selling missiles to them.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Maybe we should compare and contrast Argentina's claim with the PLO's claim to Palestine??


Very different, in that Palestinians have always lived in the Holy Land. But when Britain settled the Falklands, it was uninhabited i.e. there were no Spanish South Americans living there. And Argentina didn't even exist as a state.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Argentina's claim is effectively based on the fact that Spain had a claim to the Falklands in the 18th century. However, Spain had renounced it's claim by Treaty in the 1780's, so there was no actual claim to inherit.
If one accepts Argentina's claim as valid, then Argentina should also be claiming Uruguay and Paraguay, as they were also part of the Viceroyalty of La Plata, and Chile should be able to claim southern Tierra del Fuego, and Peru should be able to claim Bolivia and northern Chile, as being the successor to the Viceroyalty of Peru. and Venezuela should be able to claim Colombia and Ecuador as being the Viceroyalty of New Granada. Then Spain could claim Puerto Rica, and Florida, Mexico could claim Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and California, France could claim Louisiana, etc etc.


----------

