StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-07-29 10:47am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Barnett Cocks, British political writer (1907-)

Argentina is Basically Trying to Starve the Falklanders Out

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 1 of 2
 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Chirios
PostPosted: 2012-03-01 07:11pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2010-07-09 12:27am
Posts: 502
Seriously, what in the almight fuck is going on?

Quote:
Argentina leader Fernandez seeks Falklands flight link

President Fernandez says the UK's refusal to negotiate sovereignty is "incomprehensible"
Continue reading the main story
Falklands tensions

Competing claims
Tensions alive in Buenos Aires
Life on the islands
Falklanders confident about future
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez says she wants to renegotiate an agreement with the UK on flights to the Falkland Islands from South America.

The islands are currently served by weekly flights from Chile.

But Ms Fernandez said she wanted the air link to be operated by Argentina's state-owned airline direct from Buenos Aires.

In response, the UK government said any discussions on flights were a matter for the Falkland Islands government.

But the Foreign Office said it expected Argentina to honour its commitments under a 1999 agreement allowing flights from Chile.

In recent months Argentina has stepped up its territorial claim to the Falklands, which it calls the Malvinas.

President Fernandez was speaking in a state-of-the-nation address to the Argentine parliament.

Blockade fear
She repeated her demand that the UK enter negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands, and again accused Britain of "militarising" the South Atlantic.

And she said she had asked her foreign minister to renegotiate the 1999 agreement with Britain allowing flights from Chile to the Falklands.

"We want flights to the islands from mainland Argentina - Buenos Aires - operated by our flag-carrier, Aerolineas Argentinas," she said.

There have been concerns in the Falklands that Argentina might block the flights operated by Chilean airline LAN, which are the islands' only air link with South America.

"The weekly flight to and from Chile is a well-established route, and is valued greatly by the Falkland Islanders, including the Chilean community and others," a UK Foreign Office spokeswoman told the BBC.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

President Fernandez's current policy of seeking to isolate and dictate to the Falkland Islanders is indefensible and will not succeed”

UK Foreign Office
"It would be deeply disappointing and utterly unjustifiable if Argentina put pressure on this flight to be suspended".

The spokeswoman added that if Argentina wanted to promote air links between the continent and the islands, it should reconsider a ban on charter flights through its airspace.

"President Fernandez's current policy of seeking to isolate and dictate to the Falkland Islanders - from the harassment of fishing vessels to the closure of shipping ports - is indefensible and will not succeed," she said.

Rising tension
Argentina has stepped up diplomatic pressure on Britain to negotiate over the Falklands in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, which falls next month.

Earlier this week two cruise ships were turned back from an Argentine port after visiting the Falklands, and Argentina's industry minister urged Argentine companies to stop buying goods from Britain.

The UK says it will not discuss sovereignty as long as the Falkland Islanders wished to remain British.

Tension over the islands has been inflamed by offshore oil exploration by British companies, something Argentina sees as an attempt to "steal" natural resources.

Critics in Argentina have accused Ms Fernandez of using the dispute to distract attention from domestic problems, including high inflation.

On 2 April, both nations will mark the 30th anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War, which began with an Argentine invasion of the islands and ended in victory for a British task force sent to recover them.



Gotta wonder if there's no redress in international law to deal with this.
   Profile |  

Sea Skimmer
PostPosted: 2012-03-01 07:21pm 

Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate


Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Posts: 35320
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Potentially a case could be brought in the world trade organization, but the British are more likely to just wait for Argentina to get screwed over by its own inflationary problems which are a major factor in why Fernandez is playing this up right now. One can more then slightly make the connection to the 1982 invasion having taken place in the as a attempted distraction from Argentinian internal political problems too. Opposition to her is mounting on this point because not everyone in Argentina is a mindless idiot.
   Profile |  

Juubi Karakuchi
PostPosted: 2012-03-01 07:53pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2007-08-17 02:54pm
Posts: 258
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Potentially a case could be brought in the world trade organization, but the British are more likely to just wait for Argentina to get screwed over by its own inflationary problems which are a major factor in why Fernandez is playing this up right now. One can more then slightly make the connection to the 1982 invasion having taken place in the as a attempted distraction from Argentinian internal political problems too. Opposition to her is mounting on this point because not everyone in Argentina is a mindless idiot.


http://www.economist.com/node/21548242

Quote:
Don’t lie to me, Argentina
Why we are removing a figure from our indicators page
Feb 25th 2012 | from the print edition

..

IMAGINE a world without statistics. Governments would fumble in the dark, investors would waste money and electorates would struggle to hold their political leaders to account. This is why The Economist publishes more than 1,000 figures each week, on matters such as output, prices and jobs, from a host of countries. We cannot be sure that all these figures are trustworthy. Statistical offices vary in their technical sophistication and ability to resist political pressure. China’s numbers, for example, can be dodgy; Greece underreported its deficit, with disastrous consequences. But on the whole government statisticians arrive at their figures in good faith.

There is one glaring exception. Since 2007 Argentina’s government has published inflation figures that almost nobody believes. These show prices as having risen by between 5% and 11% a year. Independent economists, provincial statistical offices and surveys of inflation expectations have all put the rate at more than double the official number (see article). The government has often granted unions pay rises of that order.

What seems to have started as a desire to avoid bad headlines in a country with a history of hyperinflation has led to the debasement of INDEC, once one of Latin America’s best statistical offices. Its premises are now plastered with posters supporting the president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Independent-minded staff were replaced by self-described “Cristinistas”. In an extraordinary abuse of power by a democratic government, independent economists have been forced to stop publishing their own estimates of inflation by fines and threats of prosecution. Misreported prices have cheated holders of inflation-linked bonds out of billions of dollars.

We see no prospect of a speedy return to credible numbers. The trade secretary, Guillermo Moreno, who led the assault on INDEC, is still one of the president’s closest advisers. The IMF has “noted” that Argentina is failing in its obligation to provide it with reliable figures, and made recommendations and set deadlines for it to improve. However, when Argentina ignores it, the fund merely wrings its hands, laments the “absence of progress”—and feebly sets a new deadline.

In 2010 we added a precautionary footnote to our statistical tables. From this week, we have decided to drop INDEC’s figures entirely. We are tired of being an unwilling party to what appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive voters and swindle investors. For Argentine consumer-price data we will look instead to PriceStats, an inflation specialist, which produces figures for 19 countries that are published by State Street, a financial services firm. Had we switched to one of the provincial statistical offices still generating reliable figures, we fear it would have come under government pressure. One of the country’s best independent analysts made us a generous—and brave—offer of its data against legal advice and on condition that we conceal the source and lightly disguise the numbers. That might have generated confusion.

PriceStats is based in the United States, beyond the Argentine government’s reach. The oodles of online prices on which its index is based are tamper-proof. Argentina will no doubt say that it measures consumption by the rich rather than the poor, who may not shop online. But PriceStats’ methods are based on solid, peer-reviewed research and have proved an impressive match for (dependable) official figures in countries such as Brazil and Venezuela.

We hope that we can soon revert to an official consumer-price index for Argentina. That would require INDEC to be run by independent statisticians working unhindered. Until then, readers are better served by a credible unofficial figure than a bogus official one.

CORRECTION: This article originally described State Street as an "investment bank". A "financial services firm" is a more accurate description of what it does. This was changed on February 24th.


If this is to be believed, the situation in Argentina is pretty much what I suspected it to be. Kirchener is grandstanding to divert public attention from the economy, and making herself and her country look like a pack of idiots in the process. It would certainly explain why so few governments are showing Argentina any support beyond back-rubbing gestures like Mercosur banning Falklands-flagged ships (considering how easy it is for a ship to change flags).
   Profile |  

CJvR
PostPosted: 2012-03-01 08:31pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Posts: 2923
Location: K.P.E.V. 1
Would have worked better if they had played that card before the recent isolation, embargo & blockade policy. The Falklanders are hardly in a very trusting mood vs Argentina these days.
   Profile |  

Atlan
PostPosted: 2012-03-02 04:22pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2002-11-30 10:39pm
Posts: 593
CJvR wrote:
Would have worked better if they had played that card before the recent isolation, embargo & blockade policy. The Falklanders are hardly in a very trusting mood vs Argentina these days.

With "these days" meaning "since 1982", right?
   Profile |  

Pendleton
PostPosted: 2012-03-03 06:44am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-03-17 03:36pm
Posts: 163
   Profile |  

Elfdart
PostPosted: 2012-03-04 01:29am 

The Anti-Shep


Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Posts: 9525
Location: "Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn. ''
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Potentially a case could be brought in the world trade organization, but the British are more likely to just wait for Argentina to get screwed over by its own inflationary problems which are a major factor in why Fernandez is playing this up right now. One can more then slightly make the connection to the 1982 invasion having taken place in the as a attempted distraction from Argentinian internal political problems too. Opposition to her is mounting on this point because not everyone in Argentina is a mindless idiot.


Britain's economy is in a bigger toilet than Argentina's: 8.4% unemployment vs 6.7%. If anyone is trying to milk the Falklands for political gain it's Cameron.

Juubi Karakuchi wrote:
http://www.economist.com/node/21548242

Quote:
In 2010 we added a precautionary footnote to our statistical tables. From this week, we have decided to drop INDEC’s figures entirely. We are tired of being an unwilling party to what appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive voters and swindle investors. For Argentine consumer-price data we will look instead to PriceStats, an inflation specialist, which produces figures for 19 countries that are published by State Street, a financial services firm. Had we switched to one of the provincial statistical offices still generating reliable figures, we fear it would have come under government pressure. One of the country’s best independent analysts made us a generous—and brave—offer of its data against legal advice and on condition that we conceal the source and lightly disguise the numbers. That might have generated confusion.

PriceStats is based in the United States, beyond the Argentine government’s reach. The oodles of online prices on which its index is based are tamper-proof. Argentina will no doubt say that it measures consumption by the rich rather than the poor, who may not shop online. But PriceStats’ methods are based on solid, peer-reviewed research and have proved an impressive match for (dependable) official figures in countries such as Brazil and Venezuela.

We hope that we can soon revert to an official consumer-price index for Argentina. That would require INDEC to be run by independent statisticians working unhindered. Until then, readers are better served by a credible unofficial figure than a bogus official one.

CORRECTION: This article originally described State Street as an "investment bank". A "financial services firm" is a more accurate description of what it does. This was changed on February 24th.


If this is to be believed, the situation in Argentina is pretty much what I suspected it to be. Kirchener is grandstanding to divert public attention from the economy, and making herself and her country look like a pack of idiots in the process. It would certainly explain why so few governments are showing Argentina any support beyond back-rubbing gestures like Mercosur banning Falklands-flagged ships (considering how easy it is for a ship to change flags).



But it is not to be believed since reading the Economist on the subject of CFK gives me a good idea of what it must have been like reading the Hearst press on the subject of FDR: "OH NOES! Her grip on the country is slipping away and she might..." What, exactly?

Kirchener just got re-elected a few months ago with a 70% majority and her country's economy has improved steadily ever since her husband told the IMF to go die in a fire. Cameron couldn't pull 70% in two elections and the UK's economy is stagnant. If anyone needs a distraction from domestic problems it's Cameron, The Economist, Newscorp and the other Tory hacks who only wish they could go back to the summer of 82 -the last time the Conservatives accomplished much of anything.

So Argentina is still sore over the Falklands and they use any handy excuse to whine for domestic consumption about the British presence there, and every once in a while resorts to petty mischief. You know, kinda like how Washington is still ass-hurt over losing Cuba (including an equally hare-brained invasion) and never passes up a chance to screw with that country, which Uncle Sam has considered his rightful property since the mid-1800s. Get back to me when Argentine-backed thugs start blowing up jetliners the way Bosch and Carriles did.

Oh, and the idea of using an American-based firm (because Americans never bullshit about financial statistics :wanker: ) to crank out numbers about Argentina -and only Argentina because they alone monkey with official stats- is a joke. I thought I was reading the Onion!


Chirios wrote:
Seriously, what in the almight fuck is going on?

Gotta wonder if there's no redress in international law to deal with this.


Of course! Just ask the Cubans how well it worked when they complained about American efforts to isolate them.
   Profile |  

TC27
PostPosted: 2012-03-06 09:36am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-03-24 04:56pm
Posts: 125
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Dont know what to think abou the above post.

The UK is in difficult economic waters (Argentiana is however in some respects a complete basket case) like most of the Western world and no doubt Cameron may not be as popular as Kircher possibly is.

However is abundantly clear that it is Kircher and her government who are stirring thing up...trying to blame on David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch is laughable.

Argentina is military incapable of taking the Islands so at least there wont be another war.
   Profile |  

folti78
PostPosted: 2012-03-06 11:27am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2008-11-08 05:32pm
Posts: 417
Location: Hungary, under a rock.
The "Argentinian miracle" under the Kirchers largely based on resource exporting and undervalued peso with a side order of government spending. This worked, after a fashion until the 2008 recession, when demand for Argentinian resources slumped, especially in Brasilia their biggest trading partner.

Argentina failed to come back to the global bonds market ever since their default, so they can't get loans from anyone, except Venezuela. To counter this, Kircher tried some unorthodox* economic policies, like unilaterally nationalizing the pension funds in 2008 and tapping into the central bank's foreign currency reserve in 2010 (firing the bank's president in a controversial way, when he opposed the move). The last one resulted in another capital flight from the country(anecdotal info from 2011 autumn: even common people try to exchange most of their pesos to dollars regularly).

While some of their statistics might look better than the UK's, their economy is more vulnerable to the fluctuating demand and monetary isolation. Think of it as Russia Jr, without nukes and better weather.

* read: it'll scare away possible foreign investors and lenders really fast.
   Profile |  

Elfdart
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 09:26am 

The Anti-Shep


Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Posts: 9525
Location: "Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn. ''
folti78 wrote:
The "Argentinian miracle" under the Kirchers largely based on resource exporting and undervalued peso with a side order of government spending. This worked, after a fashion until the 2008 recession, when demand for Argentinian resources slumped, especially in Brasilia their biggest trading partner.


Then explain why Argentina's unemployment rate is not only substantially lower than Britain's, but has been falling since the 2008 crash. If their policies were so bad wouldn't it be going up or at least stalling?

Quote:
Argentina failed to come back to the global bonds market ever since their default, so they can't get loans from anyone, except Venezuela. To counter this, Kircher tried some unorthodox* economic policies, like unilaterally nationalizing the pension funds in 2008 and tapping into the central bank's foreign currency reserve in 2010 (firing the bank's president in a controversial way, when he opposed the move). The last one resulted in another capital flight from the country(anecdotal info from 2011 autumn: even common people try to exchange most of their pesos to dollars regularly).

While some of their statistics might look better than the UK's, their economy is more vulnerable to the fluctuating demand and monetary isolation. Think of it as Russia Jr, without nukes and better weather.

* read: it'll scare away possible foreign investors and lenders really fast.


And in spite of all that pearl-clutching the economy in Argentina is still doing pretty good. It looks like the country can get along just fine without the banksters running the show.
   Profile |  

CJvR
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 12:33pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Posts: 2923
Location: K.P.E.V. 1
folti78 wrote:
While some of their statistics might look better than the UK's, their economy is more vulnerable to the fluctuating demand and monetary isolation.
Well it helps that they can make up whatever statistics they want...
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/09/arg ... lve-months
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 12:44pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21029
Elfdart wrote:
folti78 wrote:
The "Argentinian miracle" under the Kirchers largely based on resource exporting and undervalued peso with a side order of government spending. This worked, after a fashion until the 2008 recession, when demand for Argentinian resources slumped, especially in Brasilia their biggest trading partner.
Then explain why Argentina's unemployment rate is not only substantially lower than Britain's, but has been falling since the 2008 crash. If their policies were so bad wouldn't it be going up or at least stalling?
Which measure do the Argentines use for unemployment? U3 or U6? One of the others?

A decline in U6 is nearly always a sign of a healthy economy- more of the people who want full-time gainful employment getting it.

A decline in U3 can mean a healthy economy (and more full-time employment). But it can also mean that one full-time job is being farmed out to two 'part-time' temps who don't get the benefits and make less total than the guy who was doing all the work in the first place did. Or that people are getting so discouraged about finding a job at all.

Watching US employment statistics dance around has taught me to be wary about this. I don't see why I should trust the Argentines any more than anyone else.
   Profile |  

Stas Bush
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 01:35pm 

Glamorous Commie


Joined: 2003-02-26 12:39pm
Posts: 17117
Location: 差不多先生
Argentina's post-collapse history has been nothing glamorous, anyway. However, if they have serious economic problems, so does the UK. In fact, for a First World nation the UK's problems are quite typical, and so are the problems for Argentina, which is a Third World state.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 03:45pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
If both countries are doing poorly economically, that does not in and of itself imply anything about which of the two governments is using this to distract the voting public; or for that matter, whether both governments are doing so. It's pretty much bullshit either way. So, just saying "the UK economy is doing poorly too" doesn't prove that Argentina isn't sabre-rattling for political reasons, nor does Argentina's sabre rattling prove that the UK isn't also guilty of it.

Anyway, given that the UK is currently in control of the islands and won the last engagement, it doesn't make sense to assume that they are the ones who started the sabre rattling this time around, since if Argentina wasn't doing anything it would be a pretty meaningless (not to mention self-damaging) move to make. Then again, politicians do some stupid shit every now and then.
   Profile |  

folti78
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 05:24pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2008-11-08 05:32pm
Posts: 417
Location: Hungary, under a rock.
Elfdart wrote:
folti78 wrote:
The "Argentinian miracle" under the Kirchers largely based on resource exporting and undervalued peso with a side order of government spending. This worked, after a fashion until the 2008 recession, when demand for Argentinian resources slumped, especially in Brasilia their biggest trading partner.


Then explain why Argentina's unemployment rate is not only substantially lower than Britain's, but has been falling since the 2008 crash. If their policies were so bad wouldn't it be going up or at least stalling?
Lower unemployment does not equals healthy economy. Communist Hungary had nearly 0% unemployment*, but it's economy still fell behind as the 1970s dragged on and it had to take IMF loans to prevent it's bankruptcy in 1981. Then it had to cook books every year to get the next loan until it became unsustainable and in 1988 the damned thing started to fell. Creative accounting by the ruling circle trying to paint a better outlook is another possible reason, as mentioned by CJvR.

Quote:
Quote:
Argentina failed to come back to the global bonds market ever since their default, so they can't get loans from anyone, except Venezuela. To counter this, Kircher tried some unorthodox* economic policies, like unilaterally nationalizing the pension funds in 2008 and tapping into the central bank's foreign currency reserve in 2010 (firing the bank's president in a controversial way, when he opposed the move). The last one resulted in another capital flight from the country(anecdotal info from 2011 autumn: even common people try to exchange most of their pesos to dollars regularly).

While some of their statistics might look better than the UK's, their economy is more vulnerable to the fluctuating demand and monetary isolation. Think of it as Russia Jr, without nukes and better weather.

* read: it'll scare away possible foreign investors and lenders really fast.


And in spite of all that pearl-clutching the economy in Argentina is still doing pretty good. It looks like the country can get along just fine without the banksters running the show.
As far as their governments statistics say, yeah. But it doesn't mean their real economic outlook is good, even for the near future. In countries with healthy economies the government won't just nationalize a whole sectors or taps into the supposedly independent central bank's currency reserves. Also you don't have capital flight and rising black market.

If you want another example, here's Hungary. By some measures, we are doing well, with lower government debt (~80% of GDP) than most of the core EU, with some economic growth in last year. But it doesn't meant that the economy is healthy (in reality it's staggering from capital flight and oligarchic lawmaking added to the fallout of the 2008 recession), the government is nearly bankrupt, with some parts like healthcare and mass transit being on the verge of collapse. The idiots in power try to cover it up with nationalistic propaganda and purged state and mostly subdued private media.

* employment were mandatory or you went to the slammer. This only hid the unemployment problem in a really expensive way, while shooting efficiency and workplace morale on the foot.
   Profile |  

Elfdart
PostPosted: 2012-03-11 03:39am 

The Anti-Shep


Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Posts: 9525
Location: "Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn. ''
Lord Zentei wrote:
If both countries are doing poorly economically, that does not in and of itself imply anything about which of the two governments is using this to distract the voting public; or for that matter, whether both governments are doing so. It's pretty much bullshit either way. So, just saying "the UK economy is doing poorly too" doesn't prove that Argentina isn't sabre-rattling for political reasons, nor does Argentina's sabre rattling prove that the UK isn't also guilty of it.


It might count as sabre-rattling if Argentina had a sabre to rattle, but they don't. The very idea that "OH NOES! They're trying to starve the Falklands into submission!" is absurd. This grand peur is mostly a figment in the minds of the sorts of people who read right-wing British papers as anything other than unintentional comedy.

The current government is made up of people who were vehemently opposed to the Junta that started the war in 1982, and is prosecuting members of that same gang of thugs. On top of that the foreign minister is the son of Jacobo Timerman, who was tortured by the Junta on the grounds that he and the rest of DA JOOOOOOOOZ! were plotting to set up a Zionist state in Patagonia. Does that seem like the sort of person who would want to pick up where Galtieri and his henchmen left off?

So politicians running for office feel the need to extend a middle finger to the UK in order to placate voters in right-wing parts of the country. Big fucking deal.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-11 04:25am 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
They're certainly not taking over from Galtieri et. al., but that doesn't mean that they can't make noises. This whole episode is nothing but a lot of posturing, and for Cameron too since he knows that Argentina isn't going to actually do anything military-wise. But that doesn't make it a good thing for a government to "extend a middle finger" to other countries over such issues to placate war hawks or anti <insert culture/region/whatever> groups; not in Argentina or the UK any more than elsewhere.
   Profile |  

CJvR
PostPosted: 2012-03-11 09:24am 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Posts: 2923
Location: K.P.E.V. 1
Elfdart wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
The current government is made up of people who were vehemently opposed to the Junta that started the war in 1982...
So? Just because they were opposed to the Junta domestic terror policy doesn't mean they have to be opposed to the Junta colonial expansion policy.
   Profile |  

Chirios
PostPosted: 2012-03-11 01:55pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2010-07-09 12:27am
Posts: 502
Lord Zentei wrote:
They're certainly not taking over from Galtieri et. al., but that doesn't mean that they can't make noises. This whole episode is nothing but a lot of posturing,


The current embargo that the Argentinians have organised across Latin America has led to food shortages all over the Falklands. It's a lot more than posturing.
   Profile |  

CJvR
PostPosted: 2012-03-16 09:07am 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Posts: 2923
Location: K.P.E.V. 1
Quote:
“We’re talking of defending our resources. When the big powers need resources, they go after them, not matter where. Malvinas must be seen as the defence of our fisheries, of our oil resources and of the environment” said the Argentine leader on a two day visit to neighbouring Chile where she arrived Thursday evening.

“Currently the world has 16 colonial enclaves of which ten belong to the UK. They are an anachronism and an affront to humanity”, added the Argentine president, who underlined that “in democracy is when solutions are found for differences”.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/16/mal ... ine-leader
Yeah, and when are you going to start respecting the Falklanders democratic rights?

As well as the latest display of Argentine friendship towards the Islanders...
Quote:
At a news conference in Buenos Aires, the minister called the exploration and drilling activities “illegal” and announced Argentina will bring civil and criminal charges to sanction the companies involved in any way in support of the Islands hydrocarbons industry.

“With these actions we assume the responsibility of defending Argentina's natural resources,” Timerman said. “The South Atlantic's oil and gas are property of the Argentine people.”

“Legislation in the world indicates that those who recommend investments must explain the risks of which each operation entails, and therefore must report that they are recommending illegal operations”, cautioned Timerman who went on to say that “We will warn all agents working on the stock market with the companies involved so that they publicize the dispute“.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/16/arg ... l-industry

I suspect the market have done that calculation and decided that it is far preferable to invest in a place ruled by law and under foreign threats than it is to invest in a place like Argentina whish is ruled by friends of Chavez, defaulted on it's loans and cant even be trusted to provide accurate economic statistics anymore. Why else would there be prospecting in Falklands waters but not in Argentinian waters? It is not as if all the potential oil and gas finds are within Falklands territory.
   Profile |  

Elfdart
PostPosted: 2012-03-16 02:42pm 

The Anti-Shep


Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Posts: 9525
Location: "Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn. ''
CJvR wrote:
I suspect the market have done that calculation and decided that it is far preferable to invest in a place ruled by law and under foreign threats than it is to invest in a place like Argentina whish is ruled by friends of Chavez, defaulted on it's loans and cant even be trusted to provide accurate economic statistics anymore. Why else would there be prospecting in Falklands waters but not in Argentinian waters? It is not as if all the potential oil and gas finds are within Falklands territory.


Because it's easier for an oil company to impose its will on a few thousand farmers and fishermen than a nation with many millions of people. No pesky environmental laws and a government back in London that you already own. If you should dump oil and toxic waste on your neighbors' shores, and that neighbor complains and demands restitution, you can count on your cronies in London (government and media) to gin up breathless agitprop about how Britain is under siege from the other side of the Atlantic.

Like when a BP rig spewed oil and other waste all over the Gulf Coast and the same British media that are currently getting the vapors over Argentina got their panties in a bunch because Obama (unlike the Cheney-Bush Junta) didn't immediately drop to his knees and start sucking oil company cock. Why, he even...

...criticized them! :shock:

Oh, and while we're on the subject of the rule of law, get back to me when UK war whores like Blair and Brown find themselves in the dock like Reynaldo Bignone.
   Profile |  

Kryten
PostPosted: 2012-03-16 03:58pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2009-10-22 03:54pm
Posts: 80
Location: Yorkshire
Elfdart wrote:
You can count on your cronies in London (government and media) to gin up breathless agitprop about how Britain is under siege from the other side of the Atlantic.

Do you seriously think that article gives a representative view? It lists criticism from;
    The Telegraph, a notoriously right-wing newspaper;
    Boris Johnson, a former writer for said paper, and infamous for his incredibly stupid statements on various matters;
    The Daily Fucking Mail;
    and a 'man on the street'
In other words, the same people who scream about 'anti-British sentiment' whenever basically anything happens.
   Profile |  

Elfdart
PostPosted: 2012-03-16 04:08pm 

The Anti-Shep


Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Posts: 9525
Location: "Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn. ''
How about this one from the Guardian?

Quote:
Has US bloodlust for BP gone too far?
The oil spill could be down to BP's failings, but bankruptcy would destroy livelihoods and pensions on both sides of the Atlantic

As each day goes by, the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico becomes more gruesome. Oil-drenched birds and turtles wash up along the shoreline, pristine beaches are polluted by balls of tar and an oily slick laps at Louisiana's ecologically fragile marshland. Understandably, Americans are livid. But has the bloodlust directed at BP gone too far?

Egged on by catch-all protest coalitions, a "seize BP" campaign is organising demonstrations in major cities calling on the US government to snatch the British company's US assets. A "boycott BP" action group advocates shunning BP service stations. Placards abound with slogans such as "God bless America – go to hell BP" and "BP – billionaire polluters". The wife and children of BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, are under police protection following threats.

Urged by political strategists to act more angrily, Barack Obama shed his uncharacteristic cool this week and declared that if it was up to him, BP's boss would be fired. The White House now wants BP to pay not only for cleaning up the Gulf, but also for the cost of jobs lost on 33 other oil rigs because of a government-imposed six-month moratorium on offshore drilling. And the US department of justice is threatening legal action to halt BP's dividend payouts to investors.

Anthony Weiner, a usually sensible Democratic congressman, declared: "Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum, they are not telling you the truth."

With something close to relish, financial pundits are mooting a BP bankruptcy. A New York Times columnist, Andrew Ross Sorkin, guessed that the cost of the gulf disaster could reach a staggering $40bn (£27bn), making corporate collapse a real possibility (calmer industry experts put the cost at $5bn to $15bn). A prominent, albeit retired, oil analyst, Matthew Simmons, has been touring television studios to declare that the oil spill was "entirely BP's fault" and that the company will be bust within months. Predictions of doom are self-perpetuating in business and BP's stock price has duly plummeted by 40%. The company's market value has fallen by nearly £50bn, even though BP makes a profit of more than £11bn annually.

Perhaps it's time, though, to pause for breath. It isn't yet clear exactly what happened on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the hours leading up the catastrophic fire on April 20 that sent the rig under water, killed 11 people and left BP's Macondo spewing oil. This accident may well be down to BP's failings – but shouldn't we wait until we know for sure before we become not only judges but executioners?

Of the 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon, only eight were BP employees. BP had a 65% share in the well, while a partner, Anadarko, had 25%. The rig was owned and operated by a US firm, Transocean. A failed blow-out preventer was made by another US firm, Cameron, while Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Dick Cheney, carried out cement work that was supposed to seal the well.

BP was calling the shots on the project – and it is tempting to rush to judgement on the British firm, given its dismal US record. Neglect and lax safety oversight caused an explosion at BP's Texas City oil refinery in 2005, killing 15 workers. The following year, poor maintenance prompted BP's pipelines in Alaska to spring a leak, sending oil gushing into the Arctic wilderness.

There have been allegations, as yet unproven, that BP was cutting corners on the Deepwater rig – perhaps by filling the well with unstable water, rather than drilling mud. Nevertheless, there are plenty of questions outstanding. Just this week, a US congressional committee asked Transocean to explain apparent poor staffing on the rig on the night of the gulf disaster. There were 18 employees on shift that evening, the lowest number in a fortnight of records, and there were no engineers, electricians, mechanics or subsea supervisors. BP isn't allowed to suggest that others might share responsibility – that amounts to "finger pointing", which prompts howls of political outrage.

Irrespective of liability, it is worth pondering whose interests a BP bankruptcy would serve. Although based in London, the company has been effectively Anglo-American since its 1998 merger with Amoco – it employs 80,300 people, of whom 29,000 are in the US. Some 40% of its shares are held in the UK, while 39% are held in the US. A collapse of BP would destroy livelihoods, damage pension funds and wipe out savings on both sides of the Atlantic. For critics of "big oil", that's hardly a cause for tears. But BP's failure wouldn't dent America's reliance on fossil fuels even slightly. Ironically, the real beneficiaries would be other big oil companies.

The US government isn't likely to let a Russian, Chinese or Middle Eastern buyer pick up the assets of a crippled BP. The richest, most likely buyer of valuable remnants would be ExxonMobil, which, lest we forget, is a company that defines hardline. Until very recently, Exxon spent millions funding groups that deny global warming. Of all the major energy companies, it has been the slowest to invest in renewable energy – in 2007, it made a profit of $40bn but put just $100m into a research project on wind, solar and green technology. And before the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Exxon was the worst oil-spiller in US history.

BP hasn't done itself many favours. Initially, the company woefully underestimated the scale of the spill. And BP's chief executive has produced a string of cringeworthy remarks. The company was ill-prepared for such an unprecedented disaster but has finally made some progress in plugging the leak. Yet BP has consistently promised to foot the bill for cleaning up the gulf and to meet all valid compensation claims.

Many will argue that BP deserves to die, and anger is entirely understandable. But critics should be careful what they wish for. America is a nation with a tradition of due process and everybody – even "big oil" – is entitled to a fair trial.

• This article was updated at 1pm on 10 June 2010

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.


While this article is more even-handed than what you'd read in the Times, Telegraph or Daily Mail, the headline itself was 100% pure pearl-clutching. "Bloodlust"? Get the fuck outta here![/brooklynn accent]
   Profile |  

Kryten
PostPosted: 2012-03-16 04:22pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2009-10-22 03:54pm
Posts: 80
Location: Yorkshire
Elfdart wrote:
How about this one from the Guardian?
...
The wife and children of BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, are under police protection following threats.

Death threats against people's family members sounds like 'bloodlust' to me.
   Profile |  

fordlltwm
PostPosted: 2012-03-16 08:30pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2012-01-17 01:22pm
Posts: 147
Location: North Wales, UK
Elfdart wrote:


Hang on, wasn't that an American Rig, crewed by Americans, owned by an American Company, that just happened to be working for BP at the time.
Transocean, the owners
Deepwater Horizon
So a total of 7 BP employees on the Rig caused it. Rather than than the lack of auto shutdown systems on the diesel generators.
"Had the engines been fitted with automatic combustion inlet shutdown valves, Pyroban kits, or executive gas detection systems that shutdown generator room HVAC systems automatically, the diesel engine ignition source could have been mitigated by breaking the fire triangle."

But they're not mandatory in US, so no one fits them. Apperently it's still BP's fault for the deepwater horizon spill :banghead:
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 1 of 2
 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

It is currently 2014-07-29 10:47am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: PKRudeBoy, Ralin and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group