Seems the poor lady has cancer so I suppose this topic will be quiet for a while.

That is 2 presidents of S. American countries with cancer; hope the conspiracy theories do not start up.

A few submarines patrolling the area (to which the Argentines don't have much of a solution to counter) and beefed up SAM defenses in the island would do the job to deter another invasion. I think Britain should also take diplomatic initiatives by persuading Brazil and Chile to remain neutral in the dispute, as both countries have little to gain from a new conflict.

I can feel with her. Had the same experience in 1988. On holidays to Istanbul, Cairo and Alexandria realized that I had got "it". On return I went to the doctor and then had tests carried out in the University Hospital and so was put onto the B-1 list. The Shamans told me "well, you ..... ehhhhmmm, you have quite good chances" . I decided to pick up those "chances" and up to now nicely survived. I in the meantime had to start eating onions, had to quit car-driving, had to bury my older brother (who had the same illness), had to change my lifestyle, had to reduce weight (reduce consumption of sweets). All in all, life goes on and you still can enjoy life, but it is a bit of a challenge.

Presidents with cancer ? The one of el Salvador, José Napoleon Duarte, comes to mind, who heavily fought against it, and had numerous chemo-therapies but in the end lost against the illness. It was exactly in the time of and after my surgery when I personally simply was full of fears, and his fate moved me to tears.

In short, Mrs Kirchner has my sympathies.

Wollishofener, best wishes for continued surviving

Curious...why did you have to start eating onions?

The second president I was thinking about is Chavez.

About "hope the conspiracy theories do not start up" - I thought I was joking!!

But no Chavez has jumped in the ring;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rs-cancer.html


p.s. seems there are more than 2; Chavez, Kirchner, Paraguay's Fernando Lugo, Brazil's Dilma Rousseff and former Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have all been diagnosed recently with cancer

Argentina's policy is a good one.

Ultimately, maintaining a colony 10,000 km away from the UK is simply makes no economic sense. The future of the falklands/malvinas is inextricably linked to south america, much as Hong Kong's is linked to China.

If there is no wish to return the islands to their owners (and it is clear that Argentina is no China), it should be clear that there will be economic consequences.

Nobody likes a leech.

About "If there is no wish to return the islands to their owner"??

Argentina was never the owner of these islands! They were uninhabited until 1690 when there was an English landing & the islands became British.
When do you think Argentina became the owner?

There is no comparison with HongKong & China. Honkong clearly belonged to China & was used by Britain under an Agreement that eventually ran out.

Exactly. Argentina has no legitimate claim over the islands. The whole argument of proximity is lunacy. The islands are British, inhabited by Brits and have been defended by Brits against aggressors. The British didn't take the islands forcibly from any native people or other colonial powers, they were uninhabited.

End of argument really.

Sure.

Hong Kong citizens didn't care to join China either, but realpolitik (and Chinese military and political might) prevailed.

This isn't about the democratic wishes of 2,000 sheepherders. Its about what the UK can get away with.

Whereas the air link between the Falklands and Argentina is essential for the well-being of the population, the air link to the UK (if it exists), while nice, is not so essential. Simple economics.

Spain was the owner of the islands from the 18th century, until Argentine independence. And Argentina, from the 1820's, until the UK seized the islands in 1833 from a nascent, and weak, Argentina.

The UK will have to understand that if it truly wants to hold on to the islands, there will be a price to pay.

The Argies have been doing this for years, i have done 2 tours of duties in the Falklands one in 2004 and one in 2006 and we regulary saw them patrolling and it was common to find Agie special forces equipment washed up on the beach.
The locals do not want the Brits to leave, if it was not for the Service personnel who are on duty there the local economy would not survive and there would be a huge lose in jobs in the locals

And I will add, that even from a military standpoint, the islands are undefendable for a country that is 10,000 km away, and with an economy the size of the UKs.

Again, simple economics.

If this is something you truly want to hold on to, you're going to have to pay the piper.

The Japanese already demonstrated, some 60 years ago, that the British Empire, with outposts half way around the world from the metropolis, was simply unsustainable.

Since then, the British Empire has continuously shrunk, and I'm afraid the last remaining outposts, which you are hanging on to by your fingertips, are bound to go the same way.

This is about economics. Not flag waving and patriotism.

Yes GB did such a bad job "undefending" these islands last time :-)

I tell you what we can make a deal, ALL non-indigenous people leave Argentina and hand it back to the "rightful owners" (the natives) and GB can hand the Falklands back to the new non-European leaders of Argentina, then everyone is happy.

And while we are at it all people must return to their country of ethnic origin I will book my flight to India as an ethnic Aryan immediatly

BTW isnt Kirchener a Germanic name?

I would say that since Argentina is a smaller country in relation to Brazil and given Argentina's proximity to it, it really doesn't make a lot of sense not to merge them, especially considering Brazil's GDP and growth.

From a river transportation perspective it also makes sense for Brazil. For Argentina too since trade would become a lot easier for them too.

It wouldn't be the 1st country to have two languages either. Even China has different ones.

Ethnically it will also make sense since Brazil has a more authentic and indigenous population than Argentina (predominantly foreign white people from Europe who immigrated -mainly to Buenos Aires- during the last 2 centuries).

Hanging onto past glories won't prevent future defeats.

The UK did marvelously against China during the opium wars too. I doubt they would do so well today. I think you'll find Whitehall agrees with my assessment.

And I highly doubt they will do well against anything that isn't a third-world nation, which Argentina, together with the rest of region, is quickly leaving behind.

A properly armed (exocets, anyone?) Argentina can more than handle a medium-power 10,000 km away.

There is certainly a trend towards greater integration in the region, MERCOSUR and CELAC are proof of this, as are the coordinated foreign policy stances (much like the EU has done for decades) that are taking hold.

The falklands/malvinas position is but one issue on which they are standing common ground.

I don't see why Argentina should have to be absorbed by Brazil though. Particularly when it is growing more quickly than them (9.2% last year).

No one would say it would
You really have a skewed view on history picking the Opium wars if they could be given that name, and as for Whitehall agreeing with your obviously inflated idea of your own military knowledge, when was the last time they called you to ask your opinion, Never? OK moving on
The British armed forces are capable of more than you realise but I will leave you living in your ignorance.
As for your last comment, having lost friends to Exocets in the last war I would advise you not to make such flippant comments and whatever you say Argentina would lose, end of story

Furthermore, this is not an argument about "indigenous" and non "indigenous" people.

After centuries of european presence in the western hemisphere, I believe it's fair to say they have a right to stay. As much a right to stay as Salman Rushdie, Michael Portillo, or Prince Philip have the right to remain in the UK. The world has seen population movements from the dawn of time.

I don't believe the Argentine government is advocating the expulsion of the 2,000 British emigrants in the islands.

What they are advocating is for the right to govern the islands. Which frankly makes economic sense.

Why should anyone other than the inhabitants have a right to govern the islands?

Tom

Thye should have a referendum on the island. Let the inhabitants choose what they want.

I have doubts about the purported right to govern their islands Falkland islanders enjoy today, considering it remains a British colony (ie. no parliamentary representation).

There's a reason why it continues to be on the UN's list of territories to be decolonized.