# Falklands Diplomacy



## Colin1 (Feb 19, 2010)

_The Daily Telegraph_ 19 February 2010

Argentina is not exactly sabre-rattling in its imposition of a new permit system for all vessels travelling to and from the Falklands, but the increase in tension is palpable. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has good domestic political reasons for turning up the heat. Her government is unpopular, the economy is a mess and nothing unites Argentine opinion quite like the Falklands. The country's constitution states that the imposition of sovereignty on the British territory is a 'permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people'; an ambition given extra momentum by the estimated 60 billion barrels of oil lying beneath its territorial waters. Indeed, it was the imminent arrival of an oil drilling platform to start developing these reserves that was the spur for Argentina's truculent action.

The British government's low-key response has been sensible. There is nothing to be gained from embarking on a slanging match with Buenos Aires and we have the reassurance of knowing that we have a strong military presence in the area. A flight of Tornadoes is based on the islands while the offshore patrol vessel HMS Clyde is on permanent station and has been joined by the destroyer HMS York and a supply tanker.

As the island's oil wealth is exploited, diplomatic spats of this kind are likely to become more frequent. The Argentine government says it has no intention of proceeding by anything other than diplomatic means, which offers some comfort. Yet its insistence that it will take 'adequate measures' to halt the exploration is peturbing. That is why our military presence there is so important - and also why the forthcoming defence review must not fall into the trap of thinking that all future conflicts will be anti-insurrection campaigns, fought primarily by soldiers on dry land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 19, 2010)

Once again Argentina shows that it never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity (to paraphrase 

Support and engineering services for a large. deep water, off shore oil industry could be a real boon to Argentina's economy ... instead they put "conditions" on access and try to settle political agendas.

Their loss.  Margaret didn't send the troops to Goose Green just to piss the advantage away.

No offense intended to my Argentine friends on this board.

Chairs,

MM


----------



## Maximowitz (Feb 19, 2010)

Most British people didn't even know the Falkland Islands _existed_ until they were invaded. And even then they thought they were off the coast of Cornwall.....


.....if we invaded the Faroe Islands do you think the Danish would notice or know where they were?


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 19, 2010)

Maximowitz said:


> Most British people didn't even know the Falkland Islands _existed_ until they were invaded. And even then they thought they were off the coast of Cornwall.....
> 
> 
> .....if we invaded the Faroe Islands do you think the Danish would notice or know where they were?


That's just Scilly... (I'll get my coat)

if we're going to nark the Danes, I suggest we invade Greenland, lots of potential there when global warming melts all the ice. We could install Bikerbabe as our puppet governor

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Waynos (Feb 19, 2010)

Maximowitz said:


> Most British people didn't even know the Falkland Islands _existed_ until they were invaded. And even then they thought they were off the coast of Cornwall.....



I disagree Max, most people thought they were off the coast of Scotland 

Or is it a North /South thing?

Colin, the Tornadoes were replaced by Typhoons last year


----------



## Glider (Feb 19, 2010)

Lets hope that cool heads prevail


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 19, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Colin, the Tornadoes were replaced by Typhoons last year


I'll talk to my man on Canary Wharf...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 19, 2010)

If oil wasn't in the picture, I figure the odds of cool heads prevailing are good. However. ..


----------



## Maximowitz (Feb 20, 2010)

timshatz said:


> If oil wasn't in the picture, I figure the odds of cool heads prevailing are good. However. ..



Unfortunately due to the recession a Task Force is out of the question this time. HM Goverment will instead challenge Argentina to best out of three at Grand Theft Auto to decide the matter.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 20, 2010)

Dont the brits maintain a bigger military presence on the islands than they did in '82? I wonder if plans are afoot to reinforce the garrison in a more timely way than occurred the last time this sort of crisis developed


----------



## Glider (Feb 20, 2010)

In 1982 basically all we had were 32 marines and an ice patrol vessel which didn't anything bigger than a 20mm, plus the airfield couldn't take aircraft bugger than a lightly loaded C130.
Now we have 1000 troops on the island with Rapier and radar warning, a type 42 close by and a fishery vessel full time. Most importantly the airfield is in the International class cabable of taking anything including the C17 so reinforcements can be flown in almost immediately and a small number of Typhoons are based there

All the clever money would say that a nuclear sub is on the way if not already there


----------



## RabidAlien (Feb 20, 2010)

Heh. If tensions are running high, you can bet there's been a sub poking holes in the ocean ever since someone first scowled in England's direction.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 20, 2010)

That would be a yuppers.


----------



## shadow81 (Feb 23, 2010)

Dear Friends:
It`s very, very sad our position about this affair. Through the years, we see our "most experienced people" speaking about "las Malvinas son Argentinas", but, really... How we can espect do something about taht far and almost forgotten land if our goverment ignores the needs of the people here, at the continent? You go to hospital and doctor are in strike. Teachers are almost beggers. Our president, Cris, only think about Louis Vuitton purses. 
I`m feel shame bros. 
I was an infantrymen at `82. My rifle was a Mauser 1898. 
Don´t reach the first line, but our unit spend all the misery you can image.
I ALWAYS respect Uk. And still do.
If our politician are "Incompetentes",nobody than us has the blame.
Greetins, to all my new forum friends.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 23, 2010)

shadow81 said:


> Dear Friends:
> It`s very, very sad our position about this affair. Through the years, we see our "most experienced people" speaking about "las Malvinas son Argentinas", but, really... How we can espect do something about taht far and almost forgotten land if our goverment ignores the needs of the people here, at the continent? You go to hospital and doctor are in strike. Teachers are almost beggers. Our president, Cris, only think about Louis Vuitton purses.
> I`m feel shame bros.
> I was an infantrymen at `82. My rifle was a Mauser 1898.
> ...



Welcome aboard Shadow. 

I've heard from more than one source that the intent of the Govt is to distract the public from their economic woes by throwing the Falklands/Malvinas out there. From what I've read, Kircher is over her head in the economy (a lot of leaders with no business experience are but mix that with a left leaning political ideology and you have a big problem) and things are not getting any better (they seem to be up here but it is more of a head fake). On the good side, maybe she'll get tossed in the next election/

As for carrying a bolt action rifle in an automatic war, whoever sent you out armed like that oughta be thrown in jail. Too much distance between the officers who are in charge and the guys on the ground usually leads to stuff like that. Criminal.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 23, 2010)

That's a very disturbing post, Shadow. I am sorry that things are so bad in Argentina. Why is that? Your country is blessed with resources, is it not? In the late 1800's it was generally thought that Argentina was going to explode into great wealth and influence in the 20th century. Instead it constantly struggles with corruption and social-financial instability. A deep water off shore oil industry could be a great benefit and yet *ownership* is all the government can think of...?
Doesn't look good - again.

MM


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

shadow81 said:


> Dear Friends:
> It`s very, very sad our position about this affair. Through the years, we see our "most experienced people" speaking about "las Malvinas son Argentinas", but, really... How we can espect do something about taht far and almost forgotten land if our goverment ignores the needs of the people here, at the continent? You go to hospital and doctor are in strike. Teachers are almost beggers. Our president, Cris, only think about Louis Vuitton purses.
> I`m feel shame bros.
> I was an infantrymen at `82. My rifle was a Mauser 1898.
> ...



Welcome Shadow.

good luck to you:

Latin America backs Argentina as Britain begins Falklands oil quest - contains video

.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2010)

> Dear Friends:
> It`s very, very sad our position about this affair. Through the years, we see our "most experienced people" speaking about "las Malvinas son Argentinas", but, really... How we can espect do something about taht far and almost forgotten land if our goverment ignores the needs of the people here, at the continent? You go to hospital and doctor are in strike. Teachers are almost beggers. Our president, Cris, only think about Louis Vuitton purses.
> I`m feel shame bros.
> I was an infantrymen at `82. My rifle was a Mauser 1898.
> ...



I dont know in what kind of bolivian slum you live but trying to undermine our country in a foreing forum seem to me like the most low and inexcusable behavior ever.

Im my province the hospital works, my pather father is a retired teacher, technical and one of the most succesful and respected members of the neirgbourhood.

No unit was ever deployed to the islands with bolt action Mausers in 1982, so stop wiriting lies and stop playing being argentine cuz you arent, the thing you are is a ****ing troll.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 23, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> I dont know in what kind of bolivian slum you live...


Three cheers for Chavez's S American alliance...


----------



## shadow81 (Feb 24, 2010)

Timshatz:
thanks for your reply. sometimes is hard o talk about this, specially here in thiscountry, where thegood intention are mixed whith bad. 
Keep in touch.
i was at Washintong in 1997. ¡And spend almost 8 hours at National Air and Space Museum! When i die, please buried me there.
Greetings


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2010)

I dont understand why Argentinians should feel shame for the war in '82? I think their leaders were mistaken, and they led their country poorly, but for the country as a whole there was no shame. The courage and effectiveness of the air services during the campaign was a surprise to the English in that war. and anyone who knows just how tough the battle at Goose Green really was would never saythe Argentiniians had anythng to be ashamed about.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 26, 2010)

Nicely said parsifal, and I agree.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 26, 2010)

Parsifal you are right. The SHAME is the long history of "disappearances" that was going on. This current saber rattle is just a diversion by a weak government that clearly thinks the people are getting restless. Well - maybe the people should get restless.

MM


----------



## Glider (Feb 26, 2010)

Parsifal
Excellent post


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 26, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> I dont know in what kind of bolivian slum you live but trying to undermine our country in a foreing forum seem to me like the most low and inexcusable behavior ever.
> 
> Im my province the hospital works, my pather father is a retired teacher, technical and one of the most succesful and respected members of the neirgbourhood.
> 
> No unit was ever deployed to the islands with bolt action Mausers in 1982, so stop wiriting lies and stop playing being argentine cuz you arent, the thing you are is a ****ing troll.



CB, that was uncalled for. You are banned for 7 days. Insult a member in those terms again and I'll make it permanent.


----------



## ccheese (Feb 26, 2010)

Good move, Matt..... Now, if this discussion is to continue, let cooler heads prevail.

Charles


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2010)

I think he reacted badly to the inaccuracies and national slurs impied in his compatriots previous post. Doesnt excuse or justify CBs reaction however. 

So what is the latest development in this matter. I have not heard anything for a week or more


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Feb 27, 2010)

Any new information on this story ?


Wheels


----------



## Clave (Feb 28, 2010)

The news seems to be mostly oil-related: BBC News - Falkland Islands: Oil boom or no oil boom?

I hope there's no trouble - I have made a lot friends from Argentina, most especially on deviantART...


----------



## Butters (Feb 28, 2010)

Nothing is going to happen because the Argentinians have no effective means of making anything happen. Nor do they have a legal leg to stand. Their sovereignty claim is absurdly weak, both in historical terms, and demographically.

Much sound and fury signifying nothing...

JL


----------



## timshatz (Feb 28, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I think he reacted badly to the inaccuracies and national slurs impied in his compatriots previous post. Doesnt excuse or justify CBs reaction however.
> 
> So what is the latest development in this matter. I have not heard anything for a week or more



I agree with ya'. He reacted to the post on the heavy side. But, CB usually has very level headed posts. It's kinda tough to react to a family quarrell (both are Argentinian and the details of a war that is still very much in living memory are painful). I agree wiith the ban (and it is a hard call) but the two of them should deal with this off the board. CB isn't a bad guy and a good poster on the board. 

It's just something we oughta keep in the back of our minds.

As for the Argie/Brit dispute, think it's going to take some time.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 28, 2010)

Butters said:


> Nothing is going to happen because the Argentinians have no effective means of making anything happen. Nor do they have a legal leg to stand. Their sovereignty claim is absurdly weak, both in historical terms, and demographically.
> 
> Much sound and fury signifying nothing...
> 
> JL



Agree with the military aspect of it. Historical, dunno. Demographically, no chance. Logistacally and geographically, they have something. 

It would probably work out best for all if some agreement is made to share the profits. Otherwise, the long term ramificaitions of the situation are not good. With this situations as well as others that may not be on our radar.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 6, 2010)

A journalist's viewpoint...

The Special Relationship is now starting to seem very one-sided
*by Con Coughlin*
_The Daily Telegraph_ 6th March 2010

_Hilary Clinton's intervention over the Falklands shows that US will side with Argentina_

In times of trouble, it is always reassuring to think that we can count on Washington's support to get us out of a fix. OK, so the Americans have an irritating habit of turning up late and then claiming all the glory, as was the case in the two world wars. But even today, in the killing fields of southern Afghanistan, the arrival of 30,000 US Marines three years ago after British troops first deployed to the region has immeasurably improved our chances of defeating the Taliban, as I discovered during my visit to Camp Bastion last week.

It is mainly to guarantee American support for our freedoms that, alone among the major European powers, Britain has little hesitation in signing up to fight America's wars. In the past decade, more than 500 of our personnel have sacrificed their lives and thousands more suffered serious injuries, in wars that were primarily of Washington's making. From the moment Tony Blair declared that we would stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with Washington in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, Britain has committed its troops to places where other European powers fear to tread.

In late 2001, the role played by British special forces was central to the success of the campaign against the Taliban. Two years later, an entire British division was committed to the war against Saddam Hussein. Today, Britain is the only European power prepared to contribute significant numbers of combat troops to what is supposed to be a NATO-led campaign to bring stability to the region.

The argument advanced by successive British governments to justify this commitment is that in return for supporting the US in its hour of need, we can expect the same in return: that if Canary Wharf and Whitehall had been attacked by airliners commandeered by al-Q'aeda, instead of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, Washington would have rushed to our support. Yet after this week's unwelcome and unnecessary intervention by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, in the latest spat over the Falkland Islands, one begins to wonder just how committed the Americans would be if Britain were to find itself seriously threatened. Would Washington be prepared to commit its military might to defend our interests or would it simply confine its response to firing a few barrages of cruise missiles?

It was not that long ago that Washington was viscerally opposed to protecting any of Britain's interests. The formation of the League of Nations at the end of WWI, with its commitment to guaranteeing the political and territorial independence of all states, was Woodrow Wilson's way of undermining the British Empire, while Britain's status as a world power to rival America finally ended with the humiliation of Suez. Relations between the two countries have since improved - only as long as everyone accepts that it is Washington, not London, that calls the shots.

Even then, there have been occasions when it was unclear that Washington's support was guaranteed. Although Margaret Thatcher eventually won Ronald Reagan's support for Britain's liberation of the Falkland Islands in 1982, the Americans were at first reluctant to back a campaign that had echoes of past imperial adventures and which they feared might damage their own interests in Latin America. As John Nott, the Defence Secretary at the time wrote, the Americans 'were very, very far from being on our side'.

Those sentiments were much in evidence this week, when Mrs Clinton took it upon herself to break off from a five-day tour of Latin America to try to ease the tensions that have once more arisen between Buenos Aires and London, this time over drilling rights in the South Atlantic. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the Argentinian President and her husband (and predecessor) Nestor, are known as the Clintons of South America, because of their love of the high life and their Left-leaning agenda. While Mrs Clinton was no doubt made to feel very much at home in such a convivial environment, that does not excuse her support for Mrs Kirchner's suggestion that the Falklands issue be referred to the UN's decolonisation committee.

This might be a legitimate course of action if the overwhelming majority of Falkland Islanders had decided that they no longer wanted to be British but this is not the case. The inhabitants are immensely proud of their British heritage and have no desire to become Argentine citizens.

It has been suggested that the reason the Obama administration is proving reluctant to back Britain's case is anger at our disclosure of sensitive intelligence files relating to the former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohammed and the release last year of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, who continues to defy the predictions of Scottish physicians that he had only months to live.

But I believe that this explanation is a red herring. A more likely explanation is that President Obama and his advisors find it incomprehensible that, in the 21st century, Britain continues to maintain its sovereignty over a remote group of islands that lie thousands of miles from its shores. And I fear that far from supporting their traditional ally, they will lend their support to any initiative that brings British influence in the South Atlantic to an end.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 6, 2010)

Hello guys, nice to nice you again.

I am sorry Matt if I overreacted, but I have my serious doubts about the user "shadows81" I am pretty sure he *is not* argentine not even wrnting from Argentina. If you had some tool to do IP search you should comfirm that.

Now, this topic definately is not my favorite but since I been thrown into because other member I think I could comment 2 or 3 things.

I usually read some online UK newspaper, mostly to know about rugby and football scores, in this last days I was amazed by the level of histeria and if you allow me stupidity of some journalist.

If the British army has some decent intelligency ( and probably it has) they should no that there is no plans for war or any kind of agression towards the islands from here so I dont really understand the behavior of some "especialist".

I should clarify that with I am probably in the other corner both ideologycally and politically with Fernandez-Kirchner and I dont like a bit this kind of "blockade" wich is trying to test on british shipping, this in agaisnt the argentine tradition of being an friendly and open country. 

However as an argentine citizen I want to express my surprize, dis gust and repulsion after reading in the Telegraph and Daily News things like " Old plastic face" and " The Botox Evita", those kind of insults not only does not help any british or falklander cause in Argentina but also are completely unworthy for a source of information wich want to call himself "serious" and "reliable".


----------



## Butters (Mar 6, 2010)

<yawn> Clinton stages a patently transparent show to get the US and Kirchner a needed popularity boost among the resentful Latin Americans, the Brit gov plays its role and makes the obligatory squawks of wounded indignation, and everything carries on exactly as before...

Realpolitik soap opera 'intervention' 

JL


----------



## rochie (Mar 7, 2010)

welcome back Charles.
the newspapers seem to be making more of this story just to sell copies, seems to have disapeared from the tv news over the last few days !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> If you had some tool to do IP search you should comfirm that.



Actually we do have that capability, and it checks out. Just because someone is critical of their country does not make them any less of a countryman or a fake. NO country is perfect and that includes Argentina. 

I am an American and I am very vocal and critical of my country and its politics. Does that make me less of an American? No it makes me a realist...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 7, 2010)

I don't expect my views on the following to be popular here  but, I personally think that the "shut down" policy on political topics and posters that has taken hold on this site has been unfortunate (chilling). There are political topics that *should* be aired - climate change/carbon credits/cap and trade being the first of several that come to mind.

We live in a time where science and facts are being devalued - even as we speak it goes on. When science - both the hard data and the scientific method - no longer can be counted on, then mankind is adrift - and PC  - moving backwards instead of progressing forward.

*This site *more than most on the internet has a well understood code of engagement. The fact that the glue behind that code is MILITARY AIRCRAFT - products of facts and science - makes this society possible and civilized. *We all love planes.* - whatever else our differences.

So - when one (unknown) guy posts about the blight in his country and a (well known) member defends his country in reply, using rather 'colorful language' in the process. Surely that kind of thing is to be expected, it's healthy.

I agree that is possible for threads to go wildly spinning off into the depths ..... but then it's the Mods job to KILL the thread.
Not the individuals. Freedom to disagree is more important than freedom of speech. 

So - welcome back Charles Bronson  Now that you're 'communicado' once more, I would greatly appreciate answers to the following questions which the incident raised in my mind  

(1) Is the term "Bolivian slum" a generally accepted, commonly-used insult in Argentina? or did you invent the insult for the poster you suspect of being a Troll?

(2) Why Bolivia? Is Bolivia a kinda joke in S.America, or in Argentina, the way regions of the USA and Canada are the butt of jokes (unfairly so, but that's life, eh?)? What did Bolivia ever do to you, or Argentina, or both  ?

When I read your post those questions leaped out at me .... "hey, what's with Bolivia". Whereas, having read many of your posts and looked at attachments you provide, I knew you are (1) a proud Argentine, and (2) would be really pissed that a countryman (?) would be critical in an international forum. (Keep the dirty laundry at home)

But why "a Bolivian" slum? Are there slums in Argentina? Are the slums in Bolivia worse than the slums in Argentina?

Charles - these are serious questions that we/I need answers to. Please explain 

MM
Proud Canadian


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 7, 2010)

> Actually we do have that capability, and it checks out. Just because someone is critical of their country does not make them any less of a countryman or a fake. NO country is perfect and that includes Argentina.
> 
> I am an American and I am very vocal and critical of my country and its politics. Does that make me less of an American? No it makes me a realist...



Excuse me but what means " it Check out", was I right or wrong. NO country is perfect and that includes Argentina...well yes I knew that.





> So - welcome back Charles Bronson Now that you're 'communicado' once more, I would greatly appreciate answers to the following questions which the incident raised in my mind
> 
> (1) Is the term "Bolivian slum" a generally accepted, commonly-used insult in Argentina? or did you invent the insult for the poster you suspect of being a Troll?



Is used as an insult in the football stadiums, ( soccer for you canadians) 



> (2) Why Bolivia? Is Bolivia a kinda joke in S.America, or in Argentina, the way regions of the USA and Canada are the butt of jokes (unfairly so, but that's life, eh?)? What did Bolivia ever do to you, or Argentina, or both ?



Refer to reply Numero uno.



> When I read your post those questions leaped out at me .... "hey, what's with Bolivia". Whereas, having read many of your posts and looked at attachments you provide, I knew you are (1) a proud Argentine, and (2) would be really pissed that a countryman (?) would be critical in an international forum. (Keep the dirty laundry at home)
> 
> But why "a Bolivian" slum? Are there slums in Argentina? Are the slums in Bolivia worse than the slums in Argentina?
> 
> ...



You are a fine observator, that is all I can answer to you.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 7, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> Excuse me but what means " it Check out", was I right or wrong.




You were wrong, CB. Welcome back.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2010)

Hi Mike

There was a ban on political threads because people could not remain detached and respect differing POVs. Its unfortunate, i enjoyed the political debates, but the place has far less political rants and schoolyard spats as a result of the changes.

The other rule that has existed in this place for a long time is that no-one, without exception, can cast slurs on the military service or make overtly personalised attacks. The rule is simple....keep the argument focussed on topic and avoid personal attacks, and you generally dont come unstuck.

I understand why CB went nuts about this guy. He was wrong, and whether it was deliberate or not, cast his country in a very unfortunate light. I understood all that, and sympathised with CB to that point. CB went wrong however when he became abusive and personalised the argument. he could have won his point simply by deconstructing this guys arguments in a cool and analytical manner. The guy was wrong on so many points it would have been easy for someone of CBs calibre to debunk his wild statements with ease. instead he chose to follow the pathway of the cheap shot, and as a result got shot down himself. 

Thats my take on this situation. I hope now we can get back on topic and put this spat behind us. Everyone should take a deep breath and step back.......


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 8, 2010)

Fair analysis, parsifal. I just wanted to get clear that "Bolivian slum" was a football taunt.  Back to job #1.

MM


----------



## timshatz (Mar 8, 2010)

Welcome back CB. Good to see your on the board again.

Does seem to have quieted down a bit between Britain and Argentina. Probably good news. Not happy Clinton stuck her nose in this one. We should stay out of it, for the time being. Not good to see either of our allies unhappy with each other but it is a verbal spat so far. As long as it stays that way, things should be ok. A lot of talk and some posturing so far. 

Blockade? What blockade? Hadn't heard about that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2010)

> I understand why CB went nuts about this guy. He was wrong, and whether it was deliberate or not, cast his country in a very unfortunate light. I understood all that, and sympathised with CB to that point. CB went wrong however when he became abusive and personalised the argument. he could have won his point simply by deconstructing this guys arguments in a cool and analytical manner. The guy was wrong on so many points it would have been easy for someone of CBs calibre to debunk his wild statements with ease. instead he chose to follow the pathway of the cheap shot, and as a result got shot down himself.



My dear Parsifal, like in real life I like to be cool and analitycal with people whom I had some apreciation, for the others I have no patiente to do that.




> You were wrong, CB. Welcome back.





> Welcome back CB. Good to see your on the board again



Thanks and thanks.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 9, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> for the others I have no patiente to do that.



Have a brother that is the same way. Always bouncing off the wall. And he's turning 50 this year!

I guess, at a certain point, you are what you are and you just try to avoid pissing off too many people.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 29, 2010)

BBC News - Falkland Islands oil disappoints for Desire Petroleum


----------



## timshatz (Mar 29, 2010)

HAH! That's the end of that!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 29, 2010)

Seems to me that the Islands plataform has not been so throughly inspected, it does not seem logical to arrive that conclusion so fast.

I might be overhyping my own country but I think it may be related with the argentine protest about the issue, you know, better say I know those bloody argies could be really anoyying.


----------

