Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 298): I guess serving on active duty in Afghanistan or flying SAR missions in some truly terrible weather to save lives doesn't count as an 'honest day's work' in your view.

I've heard about that stuff, I've always thought those have been just publicity stunts where they have never been put into actually risky situations that regular people handle on routine, maybe I was wrong then, whatever.

If Prince Harry did indeed was treated more or less as equal to others and went to same situations with them then that's some respectful proper work, but did it really go that way or was it just another publicity stunt comparable to Putin flying firefighting airplane in Russia to stop forest fires? That one I found truly laughable.

[Edited 2013-03-13 15:46:29]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 300): I've heard about that stuff, I've always thought those have been just publicity stunts where they have never been put into actually risky situations that regular people handle on routine, maybe I was wrong then, whatever.

Then you haven't read news at all.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 301): Then you haven't read news at all.

Nah, I read important news and doings of celebrities and royal family members do not count as those for me. Besides, knowing the quality of journalism nowadays half of the stuff in those stories might be exaggerated rubbish anyway.

[Edited 2013-03-13 15:49:21]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 302): Nah, I read important news and doings of celebrities and royal family members do not count as those for me.

What, important news such as perhaps the war in Afghanistan, or participation in search and rescue missions flying helicopters and saving real lives? Seems like pretty valid news to me, and it involves royals. The same royals who have 'never done a proper day's work in their lives' according to you. Like it or not, these people are significant, whether or not you agree with the principle of a monarchy.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 303): What, important news such as perhaps the war in Afghanistan, or participation in search and rescue missions flying helicopters and saving real lives? Seems like pretty valid news to me, and it involves royals

These news about royal family members fighting in Afghanistan tend to be centered around them, not around the bigger operations that they are part of, only the latter interests me, not the one individual doing his duty among many others around him.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 294): That is true and that is all Argentina wants. That is why they don't care what people of Falklands think about this situation.

Well maybe you can now ask the Pope to pray for our speedy downfall.   

What you say about the oil is silly based on how long the row has existed. But in either event the reasons are of little consequence. Argentina I agree must slack off from the islanders. Just because Argentines are denied self-determination, does not mean it should do the same.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 300): I've heard about that stuff, I've always thought those have been just publicity stunts where they have never been put into actually risky situations that regular people handle on routine, maybe I was wrong then, whatever.

You were indeed wrong, it's no stunt and they are not isolated cases within the Royal family. On topic actually the Duke of York, second son of the Queen and then second in line to the thrown, was on active service in the Falklands War flying Seakings, despite attempts by the 'top brass' at the admiralty to have him removed from active combat.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 300): If Prince Harry did indeed was treated more or less as equal to others and went to same situations with them then that's some respectful proper work,

Completely as an equal, and with a media blackout for the security of his entire unit. There was outcry when one of the British newspapers posted details of his deployment.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 302): Nah, I read important news and doings of celebrities and royal family members do not count as those for me.

Best stick to commenting on what you are aware of then.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 302): knowing the quality of journalism nowadays half of the stuff in those stories might be exaggerated rubbish anyway.

That much is true of many media outlets.


Dan  

Quoting pvjin (Reply 300):

Not forgetting HRH prince Andrew, who flew helicopters during the 1982 conflict, and I believe on more than one occasion his task when flying was to be a decoy for Exocet missiles. The royal family and politicians wanted him removed danger, but he point blankly refused to leave iirc

He remained in the navy and even ran a ship aground!

I could probably name a few politicians who have done less "real world" work than some royals.

Quoting Derico (Reply 305): What you say about the oil is silly based on how long the row has existed.

   Absolutely.

Quoting Derico (Reply 305): Argentina I agree must slack off from the islanders.

Also a very sensible view - anything else will prove totally counter-productive.

Quoting Derico (Reply 305): Just because Argentines are denied self-determination

How do you mean?

Actually the grandparents (Prince Philipp and the Queen) were both in the military in WW2 as well. Prince Philipp worked his way up as a career naval officer and took part in several naval battles. After WW2 he commanded a destroyer and some people say that, if he hadn´t married the Princess and had to resign his commission when she became Queen, he would have reached senior rank, possibly as an admiral.
The Queen joined the ATS (Auxillary Territorial Service, the female branch of the British Army back then) against her parent´s wishes when she turned 18 in 1945 and became a truck driver mechanic. Back then women were not allowed in combat duty.

Jan

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 307): He remained in the navy and even ran a ship aground!

Perhaps that's why Charles ran one of the BAe 146s aground up in Scotand - make sure his little Brother didn't get one up on him  

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 307): I could probably name a few politicians who have done less "real world" work than some royals.

  


Dan  

Quoting aloges (Reply 255): I was actually trying to convey that I had nice things to say about Buenos Aires...

Can we see a trip report maybe? 

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 259): Falkland Islands will remain British, and that's all. ----> Over. ----> End of Transmission. ----> No signal........ ( Just static noise ).-

Stop with that attitude. it´s precisely what limits any sort of valuable discussion.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 262): Stop all diplomatic relations, stop providing fuel for FdK, and hopefully the population will wake up and smell the coffee about their own country going down the toilet, instead of some rocks in the South Atlantic.

Quoting GDB (Reply 279): Go on, show us where any UK member on the thread has advocated military action?

I don´t think that the UK stopping diplomatic relations with Argentina will affect them in any way. as for advocates of military action:

Quoting GDB (Reply 122): Failing that, take action against Argentina flagged vessels wherever possible

Quoting MarkusMUC (Reply 155): It's time for the UK to "Show force"

ç Quoting pvjin (Reply 283): Why not just send all the 2,841 (according wiki) people living in Falklands to the UK and declare whole place as a nature conservation area under international ownership.

Because they don´t want to. Please be serious.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 288): Who said forcibly? If you give each of them a million pounds or so as an exchange I'm pretty damn sure pretty much all of them would be happy and willingly move away. At least personally I would surely take a million or two and live happy life in some tropical warm Caribbean island instead of the icy stuff they get in Falklands.

Again. Stop with the jesting and please contribute something serious.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 291): Potentially lots of oil.

There´s not really much. And the amounts that there are, will make it very expensive to produce, given the availability of oil in other regions of the world. The Malvinenses keep thinking they´ll become somehow like the Norwegians but it won´t happen anytime soon. They will be better off exploiting their marine resources.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 294): That is true and that is all Argentina wants. That is why they don't care what people of Falklands think about this situation.

Argentina is self suffiicent in oil. They are not interested in the one in the Malvinas. They have no way of getting it out of the ocean depths either. Oil is not the reason for their position.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): So to summarize this thread, 1. Argentinians are incompetent people 2. Argentinians are extremely dumb for choosing the current government. 3. Argentina is a stupid third-world country that has no future whatsoever. 4. Argentinians are terrorists. 5. Spanish speakers (and specifically Argentinians) should not be allowed to say Las Malvinas, because its offensive against the British. 6. Argentinians are hopeless 7. Argentinians who believe the Falklands should belong to Argentina have absolutely nothing between their ears. 8. Argentinians are usually proud of their country, and that's terribly bad. Only British people are allowed to be proud of their country. 9. The British should teach Argentinians about their country, because Argentinians obviously have no idea about their country.

1. The attitude of some in this discussion, does point out to this belief. Specially Dano1977 who has actually called them "dumb"
2. See above.
3. See above
4. OA260 and RomeoBravo have referred to them as such.
5. See GDB, OA260 and a few others
6. That one, as such, I have not heard.
7, 8 and 9 Not really. Although it may be perceived as such, I choose the benefit of the doubt.

My position in this entire matter is the same as Mariner´s. So I won´t expand on it.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): Stop with that attitude. it´s precisely what limits any sort of valuable discussion.

   Agree. Antagonising each other is not going to help us here at all.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): Oil is not the reason for their position.

I honestly don't think it's a significant motivation on either side. It's been overblown in the press really.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): My position in this entire matter is the same as Mariner´s. So I won´t expand on it.

Fair enough, and at least you state your views in a civilised manner - it's appreciated. If there really has been even half of the insulting referred to in Camilo's list then it's a pity, but I would suggest that it might partly be an issue of not always being able to draw the line between banter and genuine sentiment.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): There´s not really much. And the amounts that there are, will make it very expensive to produce, given the availability of oil in other regions of the world.

You don't know how much there is oil. I read some news that says there may be as much oil as in the North Sea.

It may be expensive to produce, but I am quite sure there are companies that are ready to take those risks. Who says it has to be a British company that drills the oil? It could be a Brazilian one or something like that. I think UK only wants that some of the money from oil drilling stays in Falklands. They are not going to drill oil from there, it wouldn't be wise, because transporting oil from Falklands to UK in a ship could take a month or two, which doesn't sound a very good business. I may be wrong though.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): Argentina is self suffiicent in oil. They are not interested in the one in the Malvinas. They have no way of getting it out of the ocean depths either. Oil is not the reason for their position.

So what? Yes they are interested in that oil. There is oil in the Arctic Ocean and many countries are fighting for that. It definitely won't be the easiest place to drill oil, not even in the future. I am trying to say that Argentina won't give up those oil fields for free. It is all about technology, if they don't have it now, they may have it in the future. Oil is one of the reasons why Argentina wants Falklands. Second reason is that their president wants more support, unfortulately for her, she will never get Falklands from UK.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 313): You don't know how much there is oil.

Yes I do.

"Geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the seabed surrounding the islands.[126] However, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement;[127] Falklands Oil and Gas Limited then signed an agreement with BHP Billiton to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves.[128] Due to the difficult climatic conditions of the southern seas exploitation will be difficult, though economically viable; the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is also hampering progress.[129]

In February 2010 exploratory drilling for oil was begun by Desire Petroleum,[130] but the results from the first test well were disappointing.[131] Two months later, on 6 May 2010, Rockhopper Exploration announced that "it may have struck oil".[132] Subsequent tests showed it to be a commercially viable find; an appraisal project was launched and on 14 September 2011 Rockhopper Exploration announced that plans were under way for oil production to commence in 2016, through the use of floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) technology.[133]"

Quoting finnishway (Reply 313): It could be a Brazilian one or something like that.

It won´t be a Brazilian one, as there is only one, PETROBRAS, and they won´t exploit anything that has to do with the Malvinas. Another one? Maybe. Good luck doing deep sea extraction. Remember the BP oil disaster?

Quoting finnishway (Reply 313): So what? Yes they are interested in that oil.

They are not. In rethoric maybe. But they can´t even get the oil out of their land based field called "Vaca Muerta." How on earth are they going to undergo deep sea exploration? No oil company in the world will get close to them after their Repsol stunt.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 313): It is all about technology, if they don't have it now, they may have it in the future.

PETROBRAS discovered its huge off-shore deep sea field 5 years ago, and they still have not been able to get a single drop out of it. How long do you think it´ll take Argentina? Again, they are not even able to get the oil out of their land based fields.

And you just gave one reason why it is in the interest of the Malvinenses to cooperate in some way with Argentina. The cost of bringing that oil they have (when they are able to extract it) to market, will make it uncomptetitive given how things are now. No South American nation will let oil tankers to and from Malvinas to stop at their ports. Except maybe for Chile. But I doubt that.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 307): he royal family and politicians wanted him removed danger, but he point blankly refused to leave iirc

Actually, the reports were that Maggie asked the Queen if Andrew should have been removed from his unit, Her Majesty was shocked at even suggesting it.
Luckily the armed forces were not burdened with Maggie's idiot Son.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): I don´t think that the UK stopping diplomatic relations with Argentina will affect them in any way. as for advocates of military action:

Funny how you do not quote the whole part of what you attribute to me ,as advocating military action, since doing so would clearly indicate that I was citing possible trade retribution, nothing else, against Argentina's illegal blockade actions. Given their conduct in trade, not just involving the UK either, it would be as much as they deserve.
And they call the UK 'Pirates'.
But what you did serves as a useful reminder, since it is very much like the current Argentine government, disingenuous, highly selective with facts, a tendency to wildly exaggerate and just be plain dishonest.

Which is why they are at best, viewed with caution and distrust by even their neighbours, No one trusts them, other nations and international bodies alike, for their petulance, childishness, lack of good faith and lack of logic.
It does not need me to point this out, as mentioned before and you did not quote, not all Argentine governments since the 1982 war have been like this.

The UK can deal, within set terms in regards to the status of the islands, rationally with Argentine governments, not this bunch though. And not just the UK finds this.
Meanwhile, the domestic economic situation there worsens, CFK and her govt. main response is to blatantly lie about economic indicators, threaten the press who don't unquestionably support them, small wonder they seek distractions to make a fuss about.

Democracy,

People have voted

Let them be

Most Argentinians who are shouting, never seen the place, what do they need it for? Gold rush?

Let people choose, Hong Kong went back to China but people had the choice to keep the British citizenship.....

Besides, probably many Argentinians from mainland would love to have UK or US passport, just look at the lines at embassies for a stupid visa.

At least they won a Pope, damn you, UK  

Quoting GDB (Reply 315): Funny how you do not quote the whole part of what you attribute to me ,as advocating military action, since doing so would clearly indicate that I was citing possible trade retribution, nothing else,

This is what you said:

Quoting GDB (Reply 122): Failing that, take action against Argentina flagged vessels wherever possible

How exactly do you take action against a flagged vessel at sea? With a rubber dingy and one guy yelling Stop! ? Even you will admit you need some sort of authority to do that. And that authority is usually a naval force. So don´t go accusing me of misquoting statements.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 317): How exactly do you take action against a flagged vessel at sea? With a rubber dingy and one guy yelling Stop! ? Even you will admit you need some sort of authority to do that. And that authority is usually a naval force. So don´t go accusing me of misquoting statements.

Taking action - confronting or boarding a vessel illegally (and intentionally) within the Falkland's waters does not compare to the suggestion of attacking Buenos Aries, which I believe was the catalyst for this direction of the discussion.

Such action is carried out day in and day out by various forces around the world - the offending vessel will be warned at first, then if necessarily boarded from a launch, by varying degrees of force should it be called for, but generally it's fishing boats netting illegally and situations requiring force are extremely rare. In fact knowing a number of people who do this for a living, 99% of the time it's all peaceful - the 1% is pretty much accounted for by the waters around Somalia or other less secure regions, and drug/immigrant runners. Occurrences are so rare actually that UK vessels are often invited to patrol regions like the Caribbean, in order to train by intercepting drugs smugglers heading for the US.

The term 'military action' however is something very different from 'action' and generally associated with active combat - i.e. warfare and opening fire on somebody.


Dan  

Quoting AR385 (Reply 314): Yes I do.

Sorry mate, you don't.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 314): They are not. In rethoric maybe. But they can´t even get the oil out of their land based field called "Vaca Muerta." How on earth are they going to undergo deep sea exploration? No oil company in the world will get close to them after their Repsol stunt.

So you are trying to say that it is impossible to drill oil from the sea areas around Falklands? Many people probably doubt a man would ever get to the Moon. Nowadays many people probably doubt a man will ever get to the Mars. These things are all about technology. If we can get to the Moon and in the future to the Mars we definitely can drill oil from sea around Falklands.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 314): PETROBRAS discovered its huge off-shore deep sea field 5 years ago, and they still have not been able to get a single drop out of it. How long do you think it´ll take Argentina?

Five years is not a very long time. We may not drill oil from the Arctic Ocean before 2040, so I would't be worried about 5 years of Brazilian failures.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 314): No South American nation will let oil tankers to and from Malvinas to stop at their ports. Except maybe for Chile. But I doubt that.

Why should they? Ascension and Africa are much nicer places.

How do you even know where that oil would be going or where the oil companies are from? This is - again - about technology. You can build a ship that can go fast and travel long distances without refueling.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 267): They got the Pope, now they can forget Falklands.

But he's not even Argentine he's an Italian born in Argentina.

Part 2 now available here:

Falkland Islands Sovereignty Referendum Part 2 (by wilco737 Mar 14 2013 in Non Aviation)

This thread will be locked.