Најстарија етничка група на Малвинима су Пингвини. Незна се тачно кад су населили острва. Иначе  и оваца и британаца има не више од 5.000 глава, више је овчијих него британских. А сад колико је ногу нека госн. *********** израчуна и онда каже ко има право на суверенитет над острвима



Edit by Lightsoft:    

Ma divna naucno-argumentovana diskusija, toliko napredna da ode u off. Koji je naravno, obrisan. 

Vracajte se na temu. 

Ovo apsolutno spada u domen "posle bitke svi su generali"...ali nije lose da oni koji misle da su Englezi uhvatili boga direktno za muda i da su supersila do jaja, pogledaju  

Royal Navy's Falklands ship turned away by Brazil

The Royal Navy's Falkland Islands protection ship has been turned away from docking in Rio de Janeiro in an indication that Brazil's new government could back Argentine claims to the islands.



Despite continuing tensions with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, the Navy had until now enjoyed cordial relations with its Brazilian equivalent.

But last week, within days of the former left-wing guerilla Dilma Rousseff succeeding Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as Brazil's president, HMS Clyde was refused permission to stop in Rio.

Miss Rousseff is due to visit Argentina at the end of this month, in her first international trip, with closer trade relations between South American countries due to be discussed.

The decision to block the Royal Navy ship from docking "satisfied" the government of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Buenos Aires, according to the Argentine newspaper Clarin.

HMS Clyde was forced to re-route and instead dock later in Chile, where the Royal Navy still enjoys good relations.

It is the first time that Brazil has refused permission for a British ship to dock in such circumstances and the decision appears to be a clear indication that Miss Rousseff wanted to send a message to Britain and Argentina over the Falklands.

Mark Jones, of the department of political science at Rice University in Texas, said the decision by Brazil suggested that relations with Britain could suffer as Miss Rousseff "plays the anti-colonial card" to satisfy left-wing factions of her Workers' Party.

Miss Rousseff is viewed as a leader who will have to offer greater concessions to the grass roots of her party than her predecessor Mr Lula, who enjoyed popularity ratings of more than 80 per cent.

In the past, Uruguay, Argentina's much smaller neighbour, has twice stopped British ships mooring in Montevideo to show solidarity with Buenos Aires.

On the last occasion HMS Gloucester, a type 42 destroyer, was banned from entering Montevideo in September 2010 for supplies and fuel despite having been authorised to do so days before.

President Kirchner has tried a number of tactics to make it more difficult for the Royal Navy to operate in the waters around the Falklands.

One decree demands that all ships travelling to or from the Falklands through Argentine waters must request prior permission from the country's coastguard.

Argentina has repeatedly attacked Britain's refusal to discuss the sovereignty of the islands with Jorge Arguello, its ambassador to the UN, recently questioning whether Britain deserved its seat on the UN Security Council.

HMS Clyde is an offshore patrol vessel that is permanently deployed to the South Atlantic with a change of crew every six months.

In May last year it was involved in the rescue of a British family whose yacht was in danger of sinking 1,000 miles east of the Falklands.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "We can confirm that HMS Clyde had planned to make a routine port stop in Rio de Janeiro in early January.

"Brazil did not grant diplomatic clearance this time. We respect Brazil's right to make such a decision. We have a close relationship with Brazil.

"The UK-Brazil defence cooperation treaty signed last September is a good example of our current strong links."

Izvor: telegraph.co.uk

Argentinci nisu bili u stanju da sacuvaju ostrva pod nosom a Englezi prevalili maltene po zemaljske kugle i oterali ih u PM. Toliko o tome

а јбг...али зато енглези нису успели да сачувају метро...отишао у пм

Ne bi Mrgi bio Mrgi 

Inace, metroi su kvarljiva roba, cak su se Rusi u to uverili 

Ti, naravno, shvatas da je od tada proslo 30 godina 

The truth is we couldn't defend anything further than the other side of the Channel

Less than a month ago President Obama left these shores after a highly successful State visit that appeared to leave the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and America in better shape than it had been for years.

And yet only last week, the United States was not only signing a declaration calling for Britain and Argentina to begin negotiations over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, but also providing an uncomfortable clue as to their preferred outcome.

They referred to the islands by their Argentinian name, the Malvinas. This doesn’t really leave too much doubt about which way the wind may be blowing, does it?



As one of those intimately involved in the successful retaking of the Falkland Islands in 1982 – indeed today is the 29th anniversary of their liberation at the end of the war – this marked shift in the American position sets all sorts of alarm bells ringing.

Indeed, if I was the Prime Minister I’d be on the first plane to Washington and asking my old table-tennis partner: ‘Hang on a minute; we’re your closest ally – what the hell’s going on?’ 
 
It really is that serious. For without American support, the Falklands, the reclaiming of which cost 253 brave British lives, are now perilously close to being indefensible.

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope’s warning yesterday that Britain does not even have enough ships to continue even the small operation in Libya, highlights the weakened state in which defence cuts have left our navy; a position from which we are incapable of defending our territory in the south Atlantic.




The received political wisdom runs counter to this, of course. Westminster-based  politicians will say that whoever controls the islands’ Mount Pleasant Airbase controls the Falklands and that with up to 1,000 RAF  personnel stationed there and a further 500-1,000 Army troops garrisoned nearby,  Mount Pleasant is firmly in British hands and staying that way.

Well, I wish I shared their confidence. Because what the politicians won’t tell you is that Mount Pleasant was, until recently, equipped with only four ageing and ineffective Tornados – the same attack aircraft that have made such heavy weather recently of providing air support in Libya. When they were needed at short notice, only three of the RAF’s 135 aircraft were ready for action.

Apparently these Tornadoes have now been replaced by four Typhoons, about which there have been many rumours of too few trained pilots, inadequate spares and poor ability in aerial combat. Neither type of aircraft has any anti-ship weapons systems, which would be vital against any invasion by sea.

Central to long-term plans for the defence of the Falklands is the idea that if attacked, Mount Pleasant could be rapidly reinforced by air. Unfortunately, any swift operation could take out the runways by lunchtime and air reinforcement would have nowhere to land. I’d like to know what our Government is planning to do about that.

Without aircraft carriers (today HMS Illustrious is our only remaining carrier, and she has no fixed-wing aircraft, which are much faster than other planes) it was always going to be pretty difficult, but without the Americans it would be nigh on impossible.

Despite much talk of sharing resources, I can’t see the French handing over the keys to one of their carriers so we can fight another war in the South Atlantic.

In 1982, the American base on Ascension Island – handily placed mid-way between Britain and the Falklands – was vital to the British Task Force. The fact it was made available to us may well have earned the American defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger, his honorary knighthood. Then again, his ability to quietly supply us with Sidewinder missiles might have helped, too.

All that came about while the United States, under President Reagan, was officially adopting a neutral stance over the Falkland Islands. But if the Americans are now supporting Argentina’s claim of sovereignty, then clearly we wouldn’t be able to rely on their help again.

So why has the American position shifted so far that it was prepared to sign this highly controversial declaration over the islands’ future sovereignty at last week’s meeting of the Organisation of American States?

Well, one answer is that it actually hasn’t shifted that much. In 1982 there was widespread American support for Argentina’s sovereignty claim to the Falklands, particularly from the State Department. It’s only thanks to Weinberger, the special bond between Reagan and Thatcher and, indeed, the successful outcome, that this now gets overlooked.



But the other explanation for America’s warming towards Argentina is a more familiar one: oil.

There are believed to be huge reserves of oil and gas under that part of the South Atlantic and America’s oil industry would dearly love to play a significant part in its extraction.

The only way it can do this profitably, however, is if there is political stability in the area which would allow some of America’s biggest oil companies to invest billions of dollars in long-term infrastructure.

Someone at the State Department clearly believes that this sort of long term stability can best be brought about if the disputed sovereignty of the Falklands is settled in favour of Argentina.

You can see the economic logic – oil profits flow into the Argentine coffers, bringing prosperity and political stability to a key country in what is already one of the fastest developing regions of the world. America just wants a slice of that action.

However, there remains one rather big problem. The Falklands are British, their inhabitants want to stay British and too many good men lost their lives expecting they would stay British forever.

Now, it’s just possible that the Government has quietly decided, for both political and economic reasons, that the Falklands are no longer worth fighting for. If that’s the case, I can promise David Cameron one thing: he will lose the next election.

Far more likely an explanation is that the Government is sleep-walking towards disaster.


Long way off: HMS Elizabeth, the Navy's newest aircraft carrier is not due for service until 2020 at the earliest

In its haste to save money by scrapping our aircraft carriers, mothballing our Harriers and chopping up Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft into tiny pieces, it seemed to be sustained by a  vague hope that we could  muddle through until the new super-carriers were built, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35C aircraft planes were ready and the British economy had dramatically improved.

But HMS Elizabeth, the new aircraft carrier, isn’t due into service until 2020 at the earliest, while the F35 planes won’t be in action until at least 2023. Also, there are the logistical and operational problems encountered since the Strategic Defence and Security Review was published just eight months ago. The problems the RAF has had honouring the PM’s pledge to provide air support in Libya are surely just warnings of worse to come.

And yet Britain – and its far-flung interests – is somehow supposed to get through another nine-plus years of this.

As things currently stand, we’d have serious trouble defending anything much further than  the other side of the English Channel.

So as he prepares to fly to Washington, I hope David Cameron finds a moment to reflect on the damage his Government’s cuts have done in just nine months to Britain’s military capability.

Twenty-nine years ago today, we re-claimed the Falklands for Britain in one of the most remarkable campaigns since the Second World War. The simple truth is without aircraft carriers and without the Americans, we would not have any hope of doing the same again today.

Izvor: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2003263/Falkland-Islands-Britain-defend-English-Channel.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vidis Maradicu...nijedna imperija ne traje vecno  ...a posebno ne traje vecno kad sjebe vojsku u stilu Sutanovca