Falkland Islands if history was to repeat itself ?

[Vankleek Hill Seagull]

Try reading Ghost Force by Patrick Robinson

This book actually sets out the proposition of Argentina invading the Falkland Islands again and the reason behind it. Not a bad read and I personally think quite accurate given the current state of affairs going on in the world at present.

 

[Dr Q]

they have been test drilling for oil down there and have proved there is loads of the stuff there. problem is its not very cost effective or viable to get out. as it would be very expensive to obtain the rig and position it. then the oil needs taking to a land mass. and the falklands aint that big. and not many people live there. also the whole inferstructre of the island is very dated and over run. i know i have spent most of the last 3 years electrically testing it. sewage, water, electricity etc everything is struggling to cope with its already rapidly expired, expanding life.
but as oil prices keep rising everywhere then extracting it from the falklands will become more and more attractive, hence the share prices shooting up so much.

They have yet to prove ANY oil resources in the Falklands region. Six wells were drilled north of the islands in the very late 90's, of which very, very minor indications of oil and gas were found, but nothing to suggest commercial quantities exist there (I believe another is to be drilled fairly soon). Funnily enough, the hype over the Falklands is coming from the British Geological Survey (who are in part responsible for the advertisment and sale of exploration licenses in the area) and what are relatively minor oil companies (in the overall scheme of things) that are trying to raise their share price by hyping the potential of their licenses. That said, the geological conditions are favourable for oil/gas accumulations, and it is belived that the previously drilled wells were someway off off where the potential really lies. They will find oil there, but a new North Sea it won't be.

 

[User removed 4]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past

Jump to content Jump to site navigation [0] Jump to search [4] Terms and conditions [8]
Sign in Register Text largersmaller


UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty Minister met junta envoy in Switzerland, official war history reveals

Richard Norton-Taylor and Rob Evans

The Guardian, Tuesday June 28 2005

Margaret Thatcher's government offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falkland islands at a clandestine meeting with a senior Argentinian official less than two years before the invasion of the British territory, it is revealed today.
Colleagues of the British minister involved set up a diversionary cover story to explain his absence, saying he was off to Switzerland to do a little painting with his wife.

The secret meeting is disclosed in the official history of the Falklands by Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, University of London.

He reveals that in June 1980, the Foreign Office drew up a proposal, approved by the cabinet's defence committee, whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.

The British and Argentinian flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the islands. British administration would continue with a view to guaranteeing the islanders and their descendants "uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life".

The driving force behind the plan was the Foreign Office minister Nicholas Ridley.

He proposed a secret meeting with his Argentinian opposite number, Comodoro Cavandoli, in Venice in September 1980. He would be accompanied by his wife, ostensibly on a private holiday.

However, Lord Carrington, the foreign secretary, was worried about the choice of venue. "Why Venice?" he asked. "It all looks very hole in the corner."

Eventually, a Swiss location was chosen - the Hotel du Lac, situated in the picturesque lakeside village of Coppet, about 10 miles from Geneva.

The government invented a cover story - that "Mr Ridley's visit to Geneva with his wife is private, for a short holiday break, and that he hopes to do a little watercolour painting".

Mr Ridley had already agreed the sale of Lynx helicopters and naval missiles to Argentina and he and Mr Cavandoli seemed to enjoy a mutually warm relationship. Their meetings in Switzerland appeared to go well - certainly, Mr Ridley thought so - and they met again in New York soon afterwards.

However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders. Suspicion about the government's long-term intentions grew, fuelling opposition among both Conservative and Labour MPs to any such deal.

Sir Lawrence also reveals how the Thatcher government came under unrelenting pressure from Washington to agree a ceasefire after the Argentinian invasion and before the islands had been recaptured.

Lady Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan were engaged in heated exchanges as Washington's concern about its relations with South American countries led to strong pressure on Britain to come to a deal with the Argentinian junta.

Alexander Haig, the US secretary of state, proposed a ceasefire with an international peacekeeping force, including US troops. Lady Thatcher told Reagan in a telephone call at the end of May 1982 that Britain could not contemplate a ceasefire before Argentina withdrew from the Falklands.

According to Sir Lawrence, she asked Reagan: "How would the Americans react if Alaska were invaded and, as the invaders were being thrown out, there were calls for the Americans to withdraw?" She is said to have been "dismayed" by Reagan's attitude and wanted him to know just how "upset" she was.

Washington pointed out that the US had secretly supplied Britain's special forces with communications satellites and ammunition. But Lady Thatcher was adamant. "We have lost a lot of blood, and it's the best blood," she told Sir Nicholas Henderson, Britain's ambassador to the US, on an open line. "Do they not realise," she added, "that it is an issue of principle? We cannot surrender principles for expediency."

Meanwhile, France from the start proved to be Britain's staunchest ally.

staunchest ally ? france ? they sold them f***ing exocets during the war !!

 

[User removed 4]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past

Jump to content Jump to site navigation [0] Jump to search [4] Terms and conditions [8]
Sign in Register Text largersmaller


UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty Minister met junta envoy in Switzerland, official war history reveals

Richard Norton-Taylor and Rob Evans

The Guardian, Tuesday June 28 2005

Margaret Thatcher's government offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falkland islands at a clandestine meeting with a senior Argentinian official less than two years before the invasion of the British territory, it is revealed today.
Colleagues of the British minister involved set up a diversionary cover story to explain his absence, saying he was off to Switzerland to do a little painting with his wife.

The secret meeting is disclosed in the official history of the Falklands by Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, University of London.

He reveals that in June 1980, the Foreign Office drew up a proposal, approved by the cabinet's defence committee, whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.

The British and Argentinian flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the islands. British administration would continue with a view to guaranteeing the islanders and their descendants "uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life".

The driving force behind the plan was the Foreign Office minister Nicholas Ridley.

He proposed a secret meeting with his Argentinian opposite number, Comodoro Cavandoli, in Venice in September 1980. He would be accompanied by his wife, ostensibly on a private holiday.

However, Lord Carrington, the foreign secretary, was worried about the choice of venue. "Why Venice?" he asked. "It all looks very hole in the corner."

Eventually, a Swiss location was chosen - the Hotel du Lac, situated in the picturesque lakeside village of Coppet, about 10 miles from Geneva.

The government invented a cover story - that "Mr Ridley's visit to Geneva with his wife is private, for a short holiday break, and that he hopes to do a little watercolour painting".

Mr Ridley had already agreed the sale of Lynx helicopters and naval missiles to Argentina and he and Mr Cavandoli seemed to enjoy a mutually warm relationship. Their meetings in Switzerland appeared to go well - certainly, Mr Ridley thought so - and they met again in New York soon afterwards.

However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders. Suspicion about the government's long-term intentions grew, fuelling opposition among both Conservative and Labour MPs to any such deal.

Sir Lawrence also reveals how the Thatcher government came under unrelenting pressure from Washington to agree a ceasefire after the Argentinian invasion and before the islands had been recaptured.

Lady Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan were engaged in heated exchanges as Washington's concern about its relations with South American countries led to strong pressure on Britain to come to a deal with the Argentinian junta.

Alexander Haig, the US secretary of state, proposed a ceasefire with an international peacekeeping force, including US troops. Lady Thatcher told Reagan in a telephone call at the end of May 1982 that Britain could not contemplate a ceasefire before Argentina withdrew from the Falklands.

According to Sir Lawrence, she asked Reagan: "How would the Americans react if Alaska were invaded and, as the invaders were being thrown out, there were calls for the Americans to withdraw?" She is said to have been "dismayed" by Reagan's attitude and wanted him to know just how "upset" she was.

Washington pointed out that the US had secretly supplied Britain's special forces with communications satellites and ammunition. But Lady Thatcher was adamant. "We have lost a lot of blood, and it's the best blood," she told Sir Nicholas Henderson, Britain's ambassador to the US, on an open line. "Do they not realise," she added, "that it is an issue of principle? We cannot surrender principles for expediency."

Meanwhile, France from the start proved to be Britain's staunchest ally.

i dont see your point ? sure she was willing to talk about soverignty which in my opinion is wrong, but wasnt willing to have the issue dictated to her, so i think stewards point still stands.

 

[Dandyman]

And the Roland SAM system and the Super Etendards. Not sure about the description of the French though!

The quote is from the article rather than me but as far as I understand it the French "failed" to tell the Argies how to prime the ordanance properly and thus the air raids on the fleet were far less deadly than they would otherwise have been.

 

[Dandyman]

i dont see your point ? sure she was willing to talk about soverignty which in my opinion is wrong, but wasnt willing to have the issue dictated to her, so i think stewards point still stands.

The point is that Thatcher warmed up the diplomatic relationship with the Junta, which had been very frosty under Callaghan, discussed sovereignty, changed the nationality laws which adversely affected the Kelpers, withdrew the Endurance patrol ship and gave every sign that the UK was desperate to give the islands away.

 

[User removed 4]

The point is that Thatcher warmed up the diplomatic relationship with the Junta, which had been very frosty under Callaghan, discussed sovereignty, changed the nationality laws which adversely affected the Kelpers, withdrew the Endurance patrol ship and gave every sign that the UK was desperate to give the islands away.

we will have to agree to disagree then.

 

[graz126]

They have yet to prove ANY oil resources in the Falklands region. Six wells were drilled north of the islands in the very late 90's, of which very, very minor indications of oil and gas were found, but nothing to suggest commercial quantities exist there (I believe another is to be drilled fairly soon). Funnily enough, the hype over the Falklands is coming from the British Geological Survey (who are in part responsible for the advertisment and sale of exploration licenses in the area) and what are relatively minor oil companies (in the overall scheme of things) that are trying to raise their share price by hyping the potential of their licenses. That said, the geological conditions are favourable for oil/gas accumulations, and it is belived that the previously drilled wells were someway off off where the potential really lies. They will find oil there, but a new North Sea it won't be.

over thew last coule of years test holes have been drilled and the oil companies involved claim to be sure of millions of barrels worth. so much so that the local newpaper down there, the penguin news have reported on this on a few occasions. i have the copies of the paper here with me. apparently they have bought a rig but are in a cue waiting for it and its services to arrive down there. which may take years.

 

[glasfryn]

and you really believe that? there are people on here who hate thatcher and i can understand to a certain extent their reasons for doing so , but your statement is just childish.

Do you honestly believe that other than than that reason I gave she would give a fig I doubt that she like others had to be reminded where the Falklands were and if you want further evidence then look at the son,pure unadulterated greed and before you post about her being a tory yes I hate them ......but if she had been a Labour politician I would be just as critical as I am about Labour politicians now.
You see I am a socialist which means I support those who are best for the majority ..........................and I have voted tory before for that reason.

 

[User removed 4]

Do you honestly believe that other than than that reason I gave she would give a fig I doubt that she like others had to be reminded where the Falklands were and if you want further evidence then look at the son,pure unadulterated greed and before you post about her being a tory yes I hate them ......but if she had been a Labour politician I would be just as critical as I am about Labour politicians now.
You see I am a socialist which means I support those who are best for the majority ..........................and I have voted tory before for that reason.

yes i do.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

yes i do.

you need to take a long hard look at yourself son........

 

[User removed 4]

you need to take a long hard look at yourself son........

 

[User removed 4]

you need to take a long hard look at yourself son........

think you need to check who your calling son, pal

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The Falklands are better off financially now than they were 25 years ago. Revenues are now generated by tourism and fishing.

Yeah, RIGHT

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The Falklands now have a modern military airport at Mount Pleasant , a new hospital and there are tourists stopping off during cruises to take in the views and wildlife (penguins). Before the war a part of the islands income was derived from the sale of postage stamps via the Crown Agents.