This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Tensions Escalate With Argentina 29 Years After Falklands War
As the Duke of Cambridge is due to be deployed to the British territory south of Argentina, the tensions are rising within Falkland Island waters as the Argentinians board Spanish fishing vessels as President Cristina Kirchner has adopted a steadily more belligerent stance towards Britain’s South Atlantic possessions.. The Telegraph is this evening reporting that 29 years on from the last major tensions, Argentina has launched a naval campaign to isolate the Falkland Islands that has seen it detain Spanish fishing vessels on suspicion of breaking the country’s “blockade” of the seas around the British territories. Are we really starting to see escalations in global geopolitical tensions? Our recent discussion of the Black Swan of Cairo perhaps points to this not being as surprising as one might believe. Perhaps more worryingly, Argentina’s claim over the Falklands was backed by a newly formed block of South American and Caribbean countries, CELAC, on Saturday with unanimous approval.
From The Telegraph: Argentina launches naval campaign to isolate Falkland Islands
Argentine patrol vessels have boarded 12 Spanish boats, operating under fishing licences issued by the Falkland Islands, for operating “illegally” in disputed waters in recent weeks.
Argentine patrol commanders carrying out interceptions near the South American coast told Spanish captains they were in violation of Argentina’s “legal” blockade of sea channels to the Falklands.
The warning has been backed up in a letter to Aetinape, the Spanish fishing vessels association from the Argentine embassy in Madrid warning boats in the area that “Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime spaces are an integral part of the Argentine territory.”
The confrontation strategy targetting foreign boats marks an escalation of tensions in seas that Duke of Cambridge, a Flight Lieutenant with the RAF, is set to patrol during a tour of duty last year.
The Duke is to be deployed to the Falklands next February as part of a routine training duties. Commanders would face the dilemma of despatching the Royal to take part in an operations to monitor or contain the Argentine challenge.
President Cristina Kirchner has adopted a steadily more beligerent stance towards Britain’s South Atlantic possessions.
A newly formed gathering of South American nations meeting in Venezeula backed Argentina’s sovereignty demands at the weekend.
Argentina’s claim over the Falklands was backed by a newly formed block of South American and Caribbean countries, CELAC, on Saturday with unanimous approval. Mrs Kirchner used the last UN General Assembly meeting to put Argentina’s claims of sovereignty over the Falklands on a par with Palestinian claims to statehood.
But it is the Falklands economic lifeline that has been most affected by Argentinian manoeuvrings.
It announced permits were required by all ships using Argentine waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, all of which are UK controlled.
Argentina declared vessels were “operating illegally” in the South Atlantic if they did not request permission to enter Argentine waters. The authorities declared their willingness “to put an end to all those illegal fishing activities”.
The vessels, from Galicia, were boarded as they were making their way across the huge Rio de la Plata estuary, which separates Argentina and Uruguay, before off-loading their catches in Montevideo, Uruguay.
Mrs Kirchner, 58, has also threatened to suspend a vital Falklands air link — the only one off the islands — which was established in a 1999 deal between the UK and Argentina unless Britain entered into talks leading to sovereignty negotiations.
A Foreign Office spokesman said Britain had lodged an official complaint about the Argentine action. “We are aware that Argentina has recently challenged vessels transiting between the Falklands and the port of Montevideo,” the spokesman said. “The UK has protested to Argentina. We consider that it is not compliant with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."
Mike Summers, a member of the Falkland Islands legislative assembly, said Argentina was trying to cut the Islands off from the South American mainland. “The Falkland Islands Government has no doubt about its right to issue licenses to foreign companies to fish in its waters,” he said. “There have been other difficulties in recent months with Falklands flagged vessels seeking to use South American ports; Argentina seeks to prevail on its neighbours to implement its foreign policy for it, by denying access to their ports for vessels doing business in the Falklands.”
UPDATE: a simple yet frustrating mathematical error has been corrected - it is 29 years since the Falklands War NOT 19 years - our apologies. (h/t Mark S)
»
- 17671 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The Falklands are much beter defended than they were before the last war. The Argentinians would struggle to even get to the islands in one piece nevermind take them over.
“There have been other difficulties in recent months with Falklands flagged vessels seeking to use South American ports; Argentina seeks to prevail on its neighbours to implement its foreign policy for it, by denying access to their ports for vessels doing business in the Falklands.”
"....said Argentina was trying to cut the Islands off from the South American mainland."
From Argentina's perspective, war is not required. If all the other countries in the region agree with them and align against England, just what is the Royal Navy going to do about it? Force all these South American countries to open their ports to foreign vessels and grant landing rights to Falklanders? Declare war on South America? HaHa.
Had they tried this approach last time, it may have worked even when England was stronger, and South America weaker. Make no mistake, however. There will be many more disputres and conflicts around the globe over these natural resources. It's really just the first inning of a long ballgame.
can you build / buy warhips with QE?
Well, they built and sailed the QE I and the QE II, didn't they?
nothing to do with the reclaimation of chavez's gold, i'm sure! those oldidorks think it all belongs to them! NOT!!!!
The last time around, the Argentine military junta (murderous slimeballs that make both Bush and Obama look like saints) started the war to save their collective ass. Instead it saved Maggie Thatcher's (who was also in deep political doo-doo) ass.
If Kirchner starts another war, it will probably save Cameron's unpopularly austere political ass. In the unlikely event that the UK can't win by itself, the Canucks and Ozzies will help them. In the alternate universe where that's not enough, Obama will send half the troops he just pulled out of Iraq.
This is a Hail Mary pass by the Argentine government, just like it was last time. It won't work any better, but just like last time, it will kill innocent people, in or out of uniform.
As for the Duke of Cambridge, princes lead their troops in battle. Sometimes they don't come back. It's part of the family business. He has a younger brother. His dad has several younger brothers, one of whom was a combat pilot in the last Falklands war. Life happens.
isn't there a dude who posts here, who lives in chile? or did live in chile?
DoChenRollingBearing...I think he is in Peru. It would be nice to get some South American perspective. From the info in the article, it sounds like a much wider support group for Argentina. I don't know much about the Falklands, but I can clearly see they are much closer to SA than to Europe. If they are essentially cut off from the mainland, I would guess life would become much more difficult and expensive.
DoChen lives in the USA, but I am here in Peru on a visit. New Peruvian President Ollanta may bloviate about this, but Peru would be just be another vote at the UN, nada mas.
I have not seen the local news yet, but in general Peruvians could care less about what happens outside of Peru. Maybe there will be some stern tough talk, but Peru will do squat. How can it do anything?
Argentina has another issue to watch out for, just like last time. CHILE helped out the UK, very quietly (as did the US, also quietly). And Chile´s army is very well trained, they could roll right through through Peru and then Ecuador no problem. Could a fairly small Chile beat Argentina if it came to that? Yes, no question about it.
Speaking of Peru, looks like President Humala, Ollanta is his first name, has his hands full with another problem dear to the hearts of ZH.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/peru-mining-protests-state-of-emergency_n_1128729.html
Yes, true, my mistake. Ollanta Humala is correct.
I just took a break for dinner with the local news channel on. Zip, zero nada about Argentina vs. UK. The ONLY news is about the mining controversy in Cajamarca (Newmont and Buenaventura want to start a BIG mine, but that looks like it would destroy at least two scenic lakes, besides, those two companies have been irresponsible in the past, lots of pollution, etc.).
The only other one at the table with me then was my 23 yr. old nephew. He did not even KNOW about the UK / Argentina war. He opined (OK, he´s 23) that Peru would do zip for Argentina.
Anyone junking me tell me where I´m wrong, or STJunkU!
You need to talk with the people over 40, the ones born in the 60's...argentinians recognize that Peru supported them not only with good intentions but also with Mirage aircraft, missiles and pilots: http://en.mercopress.com/2010/03/24/peru-made-available-mirage-aircraft-missiles-and-pilots-in-falklands-82-conflict
Testimony of Peruvian Air Force Commander, General Hernán Boluarte, before a (then) Peruvian Senate investigation committee, 23 December 1991:
In April 1982 when the Malvinas conflict erupts, there's interest by Argentina in acquiring air assets, so they engage in unofficial negotiations with the Peruvian Government to see if they could purchase some aircraft. The Prime Minister asked me if it was possible to deliver some aircraft to the Argentines, so I told him we could deliver up to ten planes, as long as replacements were included in the negotiations that were taking place (with France) for the procurement of new assets (Mirage 2000). He accepted and thus contract Júpiter II, with provision for ten extra aircraft, came in to play.(Peru was already negotiating with AMD-BA of France the purchase of 16 new Mirage 2000 multi-role fighters by early 1982 (Júpiter I contract))
We delivered the aircraft to the Argentines and they paid for them. We sold them at 5 million dollars each, that is 50 million dollars for the whole package. I must stress out that the very same aircraft were worth 2 million dollars each 15 years ago - they were 15 year-old used airframes. It was a business transaction, they were not given away for free; instead, it was a profitable situation for our country, given the fact that we had to pay originally 2 million (dollars) for those planes and, after 15 years, we were selling them at 5.
Peru represented the Argentinian diplomacy in London during those days
And I still remember long lines of young peruvians lining up outside the Argentinian Embassy in Lima offering their services to be enlisted an go fighting against the british: http://portal.redargentina.com/foros/nunca-olviden-que-peru-les-ayudo-en-las-malvinas
It was about 1982 when that little go around broke into war. I think the Arges got a few good hits in sinking the Sheffield and others. While the RAF Harriers did very good work along with the ground forces.
At the time when I learned that the Argentine commander with the last of his military on the ground decided to parley instead of fighting a inferior in numbers force I believe he saved many lives.
At first glance, I see this as a Spanish issue. Let the Spaniards bring the warships to enforce right of passage in international waters. However, I have a sneaking suspect that the British would not mind another go around with the Falklands.
This is not 1982 anymore. The old Arrow Frigates and other ships are likely as not to be retired. If there is a fight, it's going to be faster and day/night 24/7 with technology we did not have in '82
I believe the UK Submarine forces with their very special torpedoes and other goodies will make short work of the Naval and fixed land assets of the Arges soon enough.
Ugh.
You do know that the Falklands has been the only hot war EVER to deploy nuclear submarines, right? And that there was a huge spankfest with Washington over not using it because it would give Soviet observers (read: submarines) in the area valuable combat data, right?
She is the only ship ever to have been sunk in anger by a nuclear-powered submarine[1] and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri by the Pakistani Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
~~ Snark of the article: Cameron won't be saved by some jingoism, I'm afraid we've used that all up in Afgan / Iraq. Plus, its merely misdirection - wrong Pole2, the Artic is where it is hotting up ~ anyone seen whose been claiming which part of the seabed recently?
Am I the only one who finds reading your long winded nonsensical posts tedious?
Just asking. Have you heard this before?
Can't you tighten this shit up and just lay it out CLEARLY in under 50 words?
Hmm.
Woof. Woof. WOOF-WOOF-WOOF! Wooof. Arrrrwoooool. Pant-pant-pant.
There, put it in language you can understand.
"Use of Stupid", happy to provide translation for the non-humans amongst us. Come at me boy, I'm armed with a frisbie!
p.s. No junks from me, I'm happy to play a bit of rough n tumble with a canine, 40,000 years of co-partnership is something I respect.
Thats funny! Nuclear Submarines! What is a Stirling engine for $1,000 Alex.
You do know that the Falklands has been the only hot war EVER to deploy nuclear submarines, right?
That's not exactly true. The USS Florida (SSBN-728/SSGN-728) recently (19 March 2011) participated in Operation Odyssey Dawn where she launched 93 Tomahawk cruise missles against Libyan targets.
Er, re-read what you wrote.
Launching tomahawks from nuclear subs against passive targets really doesn't count as a "hot" war. You know, "hot" being usually defined as "where the other side can actually fire back and there's some danger". You're referring to "shooting ducks in a barrel". If we counted that, then well... heck. Steven Seagal movies count.
Errrr. Maybe you should re-read what you wrote. Now you're going to redefine hot for us. Oh, brother!
ZH ban this person, please!
Stop it. Your going to discourage the Argies from trying. Where's the fun in that.
Go home England. They are waiting for you.
England? It's called the 'UK' you spanner. Obviously you've read up on the situation. Nob.
Perhaps not for very long, though. How much longer are Scotland and Wales going to remain subservient to the Orwellian police state centered on London?
For as long as Scottish elected officials run significant parts of the government and civil service, I guess.
*Haggis or FREEEEEEEEEEDOM*
And maybe the USA will become Azatlan, Idahovia and the Newt Ginrich Republic. Your point about future predictions being what, exactly?
Balmoral.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8521736/How-the-Qu...
Given the largest land owner in Scotland is the Queen1, I'm guessing there's a fairly high chance of total separation being very slim. As for Wales... right. Get back to me on that one when you've seen a weekend at a major town over there. Segregation would require military intervention within five months due to poverty, rioting and lack of breweries.
And yet there are vocal pro-independence movements in both Scotland and Wales, particularly the former.
And the breakup of the USSR was considered "fantasy" just a handful of years before it happened by all "credible" observers and analysts.
Oops, your normalcy bias is showing!
Nope, merely studied a thousand years of English history.
Yes, it could break up: however, that would include the dissolution of the English state. (Woo-har!)
p.s.
The UK is very, very, very tiny1. Like an entire State in the US or Russia.
I actually do expect, and look forward to, the USA breaking up into several or many different independent states over the next decade, a la the USSR.
Here's a book you might like:
Modern tech interpretation of the break up of the UK, Europe etc using democratic non-hierarchally organised units. Don't say I don't bat for the right team. Hint: it is why everyone is a bit worried about twitter.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Model-Army-Adam-Roberts/dp/0575083603
Thanks for the reference!
I'm in Texas -here is the dilemna -do I want to live under a country dominated by Zionsit jews in new York -or Mexican cartel drug dealers when texas goes back to mexico? Tough question. Since I was born in Iowa, I could always move back North and see who is running that country.
England was a real country. The UK is a BS, PC, police state, welfare version of wankerville.
Oil
Remember, Argentina doesn't have nukes and England does...in other words, "Charlie don't surf!"
Note-to-self:
Start new company tomorrow called Rent-A-Nuke.
Call Bebe and negotiate a deal for inventory.
Talk in terms of gold, not fiatcons.
End-of-note-to-self.
Fido, if you're going to snarl at a person, don't go slinking off and whine in the same thread. Stop licking your balls and come play frisbee where you started it.
Woof?
Are you an Israeli?
No but I figure if Glenn can do it so can I!
Oh snap!
Just let the Brits drop a nuclear bomb in this hemisphere and see what happens. Their nuclear arsenal is about as valuable as tits on a bull in this situation. Remind me again...how many nukes did we use against Charlie? And, who won that little conflict? How many against Afghanistan?
Russia - and then China - had nuke(s) back in the Korean and Vietnam wars. None of the Mercosur nations do. Not that the UK would need to use them, or be crazy enough to.
The UK can wreck Buenos Aires with the conventionally armed cruise missiles from just one of its nuclear subs, never mind the rest of the British submarine fleet. If you're Argentina, why risk your power stations, factories and damns? You'll be back in the stone age, and every one of your people will be picking through the trash for a living, not just the poorest 10% of them.
The 'combined military might' of South America wouldn't be able to do jack shit about it apart from watch their antiquated ships get sunk.
They certainly couldn't mount some kind of punitive naval expedition to the UK, they don't have the replenishment capability or training. They're fancy coastguards with 50 year old vessels and huge capability gaps.
1 nuclear sub = no more Argentine economy for the next 20 years.
Many people her claim to have swallowed the red pill, but they they still fall for the biggest lie of all. THE NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. Never happened. Never will. Radiation from so called depleted uranium weapoins is quite real and deadly. USA has been engaging in this "nuclear war" for awhile now. But your nuclear bombs (explosions) are all hoax and scam.
Correct. UK would win, hardly a contest.
Regardless of win or lose.. The one thing you can guarantee about the peoples of the British Isles is that they dont need much of an excuse to have a fight. In fact the only thing that rivals their love of beer is their love for a good old scrap.
Yeah, baby! Shock & Awe! Can I be "embeded"?
Seriously, I have no argument with what UK could do militarily. I do question the wisdom of it, and how the escalation will turn against them in the eye of the world....and especially SA.
Talk of nuclear bombs and leveling Buenos Aires would be portrayed as little more than jingoistic chest thumping in a matter that continues to fester.
As someone with little more than a passing interest and no dog in the hunt, I claim no special knowledge of the situation. However, that this piece of geography is once again in the news means things are far from 'settled'. A look at the map really makes it hard for the UK to claim much other than it's our because we claimed it years ago. In these days of renouncing colonialism, mustering internatioanl sympathy and support will not be easy for the Brits.
Wouldn't be more appropriate if
Evita don't surf!
The Argentines don't have a prayer of moving on the Falklands. It's all about subs. British subs can keep all Argentine vessels off the islands indefinitely. And while we're at it how do the people of the Falklands feel about going to Argentina. Not too happy I suspect. And while Argentina is claiming lands that they feel belong to them how about the indigenous tribes of Argentina? Shouldn't they get their lands back?
I guess the European descendants in Argentina want the islands back from the Europeans.
Let's remember we saw this all play out 30 years ago -- wait, don't tell me -- oh yeah, on that SNL sketch about the Earl of Sandwich, and Lord & Lady Douchebag.
I guess Kirchner wants to distract attention from her gross mismanagement. When are these commies going to stop with their stupid policies... ?? Argentina could be a POWERHOUSE, now it is a sidenote.
I posted some substantial comments above, but this story deserves on more.
ROFL.
I thought you all knew ZH's most prevalent lesson; you only own what you can physically possess. Two words: Trafalgar and Astute, the Argentinians can never possess these islands without open sea lanes and that will never happen.
And, bingo!
Trident is the only reason (apart from the CoL, but hey) that we have a permanent seat on the Council. Whatever the cost, it will be kept, merely to keep interests and power structures going along the status quo. There's a 0% chance of it not being renewed, even if we've only got 3 subs (or is that 2? or 4?) wandering around.
M.A.D. doctrine (as Israel knows) is only fully effective if the retaliatory strike can be given ab nihilum.
(Et possidebunt illam onocrotalus et ericius et ibis et corvus habitabunt in ea et extendetur super eam mensura ut redigatur ad nihilum et perpendiculum in desolatione)
Romanes eunt domus!
Yeah, and I got the ending wrong to nihilium as well. *shame face* was typing too fast. Should be nihiliorum. Bugger.
Actually, I think you were originally correct: ad nihilum.
Now, go write it 100 times. And don't do it again!
;-)
Actually, I was going for the genative "From nothings" (ab ovo) i.e. post first multiple strikes you're hitting back simply as revenge / retalliation (mostly the point of nuclear powered submarines). I'd have gone for an ablative absolute (Having been [brought to] nothing), but quite frankly would have to look it up.
Umm, thanks UOW for agreeing with me for whats its worth but Trafalgar and Astute class are both attack subs not carrying the Trident system.. Thought you should know what with the name and all..
I was moving the point onto why the Telegraph would mention the Falklands and so on. They tend to foreshadow up and coming DoD political battles. i.e. When Trident comes up, the Falklands will probably be referenced (& the jolly good show that our nuclear subs did, glossing over which ones weren't carrying nukes, if we say "nuclear submarine" we mean the 'engine / powersystem', not the payload, but publically the link is strong ~ as noted by the stirling engine comment above, I feel). So yes, noted - should have been clearer.
It isn't like the Telegraph would be so crass to print the real reason, which is as stated: UN veto & world stage importance.
Cristina Kirchner looks like a Playboy centerfold from the early 70's who's had way too much plastic surgery. Someone may want to tell President Bimbo, err Kirchner, that she ought to buy a navy, and an air force, before she decides to re-fight the Falklands War.
president kirchner? i think i have heard enough...........
don't cry for me
Money is tight. Everybody needs a distraction. Everybody needs oil. Britain and Argentina should make a deal. I suspect they are being manipulated by folks who would profit from a fight.
The curious think is that Argentinian newspaper show nothing. No news at all. Boca Juniors is the champion in soccer. Another policeman shot down by thieves. Cristina's inauguration with or without the vice president. Check lanacion.com, clarin.com or, if you don't understand spanish, buenosairesherald.com.
It is obvious, you don't have to be a military intelligence expert to know that Argentina cannot fight a war against UK. It was not possible in 82 with reasonably equiped and trained army. I is less possiblenow, when they have human rights offices into anphibious comandos training camps to receive grievance from GI about excesses in training, and have officers that have to pay for their own ammunition if they want to train.
The real issue is more about internal politics. They don't care about external affairs. If not, they could not have the clown they have as a foreing affairs minister, Mr Timerman. Last year, as an example there was an issue with a US Army plane that was seized by Argentinian customs that took out of the front pages internal corruption scandals. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/58963/us-%E2%80%98not-cooperating-with-the-investigation%E2%80%99-timerman
They overspent, even after the default in 2001 and now, with declining agricultural prices, and no access to credit markets they have to either inflate (they are doing at 20 -25% per year) or adjust (they are doing too).
Looks like they are teasing the big boy, so when they react they can cry foul. Why? Because that would be a good issue to cover economic problems in the internal front. Would they dare to involve the country into another war? I doubt it.
Got to get the popcorn ready, this will be entertaining....
I have to get the intrade odds on this one.
Wait...I wonder if the combatants know what they'll be killing and dying for. Still trying to figure why send men to die so that the serial money molesters back home may steal and enrichen themselves without restraint or repurcussion.
In 2010, oil was discovered offshore the Falklands. See Rockhopper Exploration, listed on the LSE-AIM. The size of the reserves is currently being evaluated. I'm sure Argentina wants a taste of that oil.
Argentina is just taking back what Imperialist Britain stole from them. Good for them. Of course they're overmatched, but they gave them the middle finger a few years ago and defaulted (something no one else is smart enough to do), and now once again they're trying to take back what was stolen from them in another big middle finger to the British Empire.
Fuck the British Empire, and no, that doesn't mean English people, as the two are completely different.
Now if only America could give them some breathing room by bringing down the Inter-Alpha group by pushing the fraud back onto themselves with Glass-Steagall.
The British Empire has much bigger things to worry about, but once again we should soon see that indeed, unlike what the dumbasses think, the empire is still in business.
Fuck you Queeny.
Glass-Steagall
Hey Lyndon, your crazy is showing .... again.
taking back?
stole?
idiotic
This war would be far easier for the UK now than it was in the 80s. In the 80s the UK didn't have cruise missiles, couldn't launch Apache attack helicopters from HMS Ocean, didn't have battle hardened troops from Afghanistan, didn't have the amphibious capability that have now, didn't have the missile defense they have now, didn't have typhoons based on the islands. The one problem is that they decommisioned their Hariers.
Argentina on the other hand is far worse off now than they were in the 80s.
No contest.
Sorry to say that The Royal Airforce has some front line fighter jets stationed on the Islands. Something they did NOT have in 1982.
Simply put, the Argentine naval invasion force would be sunk in double quick time by a combination of nuclear attack submarines and royal airforce typhoon euro fighters using anti ship missiles. These forces are small, but they need not be big to inflict the damage necessary to turn back an invasion force.
Face it, the 1982 invasion went in against nothing but a token royal marine group. This time the aircraft and subs will be there and more than capable.
The people who live on the Islands have no desire to join the Argentine nation, their economy is now booming on fishing, sheep and tourism. The recent oil finds are sort of hit and miss. But most likely producable amounts will be discovered. Argentina's military is A-1 at the kidnapping, torture and murder of civilians, they proved that in their dirty war. Against Royal Marines and Paras, not to mention the Royal Navy limited as it is, they a worthless!
English Cunts! Fuck off out of Ireland too!
Hopefully they kill those sons of bitches who call themselves royalty.
Death to tyrants!
Who says that Argentina would have to fight a conventional war against the Brits? A few tons of nerve gas (courtesy of libya) let loose upwind from the falklands would depopulate the place plus take care of any lingering Brits nearby. Walk in, plant the flag, and start drilling. Fait accompli.
Obama should invade Argentina or something.
Why are the Brits so keen on those handsome Falkland sheep?
Strange.
the sheep are valuable as they are needed for ritual slaughtering during Eid Al Adha that now takes place all over England. This is the holiday that has replaced christmas and easter there.
Hope those Argentinian bastards finally get something right and teach the queen a lesson.
When the EU, USA, Australia and Canada collapse, along with China, who will be left standing with little ro no debt, natural resources and strong domestic demand? South America. You can expect to see this part of the continent arising in the future and if they dont stupidly blow the opportunity by tearing at each others throats like they have done historically, South America will be the dominant power of the world in 20 years. A least, that is my view.
thank you for letting me join this site, i really like it.
well, they got their butts kicked really bad last time so i dont see the english any weaker
militarily today. they should just do the jersey thing and forget about it. the english will probably
occupy the whole country this time ala nato's middle east/africa situation.
To the victor goes the cloven hooves
SP500 monthly chart remains bearish and USDX weekly remains bullish, so it’s only a matter of time until the market makes its move.
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com
How many Harriers does the Fuerza Aerea Argentina have? Don't tell me they forgot to buy some!
I love reading telegraph, but you have to realise it is not the paper to take too seriously.
GH A-share Mkt Summary, APRIL 17
http://www.cnhedge.com/thread-3887-1-1.html
http://www.jinrongbaike.com/