Falklands mark II

by keenobserver1 Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.

Looks like this could become quite interesting!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16286134

by Shirina Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:01 am

Good luck with that demand c**p, Argentina. Why in hell do you think that the submarine service is called The Silent Service?

HAHA! I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the original "demand" from Argentina. The whole point of putting nukes on a submarine is so no one knows where they are! Otherwise you can just carry them around on a much cheaper destroyer or frigate and have them watched 24/7 via satellite. Not that Argentina has spy satellites, but other nations do, and some of those nations would just love to turn over satellite data to Argentina if it meant getting at the West.

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:32 pm

The current sabre-rattling on the part of Argentina and Whitehall respectively is alarmingly childlike. It's obvious that each party has an interest in diverting public attention away from Domestic difficulties.

Señora Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has local problems with galloping inflation, and David Cameron .... must wonder why he ever bothered with the PM job.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:03 pm

" and David Cameron .... must wonder why he ever bothered with the PM job. "

I imagine that it was for the same reason that small cruel boys like to pull the wings off harmless insects..... Shocked

by ROB Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:06 pm

Whitehall gots them some SSNs and SSBNs to rattle. Argentina ain't got none of neither. Done.

by witchfinder Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:18 pm

Lying in various shipyards accross Glasgow and elsewhere are the sections of what would be two of the most sophisticated and technicaly advanced aircraft carriers in the world, and probably the largest outside of the US navy.

The coalition government has stated that one of the two carriers may never enter service in the Royal Navy, and work on the other has slowed to save money, there will be no avalable aircraft to deploy on the new carrier until 4 years after estimated completion.

The new carrier to be commissioned will be capable of carrying 40 aircraft, but will carry just six by 2020 rising to 12 by 2023.

We are currently in a period where for the first time, the Royal Navy is without any aircraft carriers since they were invented around the time of the First World War.

Whilst the economy slumps and young men are collecting their dole cheques, there is work which could be done, employing people, boosting the economy, building something and putting tax into the treasurey.

We are a laughing stock

by Stox 16 Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:34 am

witchfinder wrote:Lying in various shipyards accross Glasgow and elsewhere are the sections of what would be two of the most sophisticated and technicaly advanced aircraft carriers in the world, and probably the largest outside of the US navy.

The coalition government has stated that one of the two carriers may never enter service in the Royal Navy, and work on the other has slowed to save money, there will be no avalable aircraft to deploy on the new carrier until 4 years after estimated completion.

The new carrier to be commissioned will be capable of carrying 40 aircraft, but will carry just six by 2020 rising to 12 by 2023.

We are currently in a period where for the first time, the Royal Navy is without any aircraft carriers since they were invented around the time of the First World War.

Whilst the economy slumps and young men are collecting their dole cheques, there is work which could be done, employing people, boosting the economy, building something and putting tax into the treasurey.

We are a laughing stock

witchy
I have to agree, thanks to Cameron and the Tory party we have just become the laughing stock of Europe on the economic front...the Tory party are far to happy to pay dole cheques rather than collect tax from workers....utter madness

by ROB Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:17 am

Argentina ain't got no Queen, neither! Rattle on, empty saber scabbard, rattle on. And y’all need to quickly bid y’all’s coalition government “buenos noches”, perhaps by booking third class passage for each of the rascals on a slow boat to Buenos Aires.

by Stox 16 Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:20 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Argentina ain't got no Queen, neither! Rattle on, empty saber scabbard, rattle on. And y’all need to quickly bid y’all’s coalition government “buenos noches”, perhaps by booking third class passage for each of the rascals on a slow boat to Buenos Aires.

Hi Rock
your dead right in saying its just empty saber rattling. with our government trying in vain to use this to cover up there economy

by witchfinder Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:09 am

In 1982, 258 British servicemen lost their lives defending one of the most fundamental principles known to man, and one of the cornerstone principles of the United Nations - THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.

As we approach the 30th anniversary of the conflict, there are some whisperings in the UK about negotiating with the Argentinians over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, this in my my view is not only treachery, but its an insult to both the servicemen who lost their lives and a slap in the face of democracy.

The town of Fortune in Newfoundland, Canada is only around 15 miles from the French territory of St Pierre & Miquelon, a group of islands visible from the Canadian coast but owned, run and governed from France, but who cares ? ...... no one.

Could the United States claim sovereignty over the former British colony of The Bahamas because they are thousands of miles from Britain, yey just over 50 miles from the coast of Florida.

The truth of the matter is that geography is pretty much irelevant, its actualy people that matter, not geography, and the people of St Pierre & Miquelon wish to be French, the people of the Bahamas do not want to be American, they are Bahamians, and the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British.

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:08 pm

"the people of the Bahamas do not want to be American, they are Bahamians"

Possibly not, but when you are there it is very similar to being in Florida. There is a place called British Virgin Islands, and another nearby called the US Virgin Islands. Few holidaymakers could tell them apart.

by ROB Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:38 pm

witchfinder wrote:
In 1982, 258 British servicemen lost their lives defending one of the most fundamental principles known to man, and one of the cornerstone principles of the United Nations - THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.

Within my lifetime, your United Kingdom has consistently defended the unalienable human right to self determination throughout the world. In the Falklands War, you did it alone, by choice. Each of the two hundred fifty-eight heroes who gave their lives defending what’s right should be remembered and honored.

CNN was just getting started, and provided pretty much 24 hour coverage of the war. We (several fellow Americans and I) saw in almost real time footage of several tragedies, including the Exocet attack on HMS Sheffield. We cried then, we cry now.

witchfinder wrote:
As we approach the 30th anniversary of the conflict, there are some whisperings in the UK about negotiating with the Argentinians over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, this in my my view is not only treachery, but its an insult to both the servicemen who lost their lives and a slap in the face of democracy.

Well said.

witchfinder wrote:
The town of Fortune in Newfoundland, Canada is only around 15 miles from the French territory of St Pierre & Miquelon, a group of islands visible from the Canadian coast but owned, run and governed from France, but who cares ? ...... no one.

Could the United States claim sovereignty over the former British colony of The Bahamas because they are thousands of miles from Britain, yey just over 50 miles from the coast of Florida.

The truth of the matter is that geography is pretty much irelevant, its actualy people that matter, not geography, and the people of St Pierre & Miquelon wish to be French, the people of the Bahamas do not want to be American, they are Bahamians, and the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British.

Excellent examples and an excellent point. Bahamians are also very British, and proud of it.

by bambu Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:24 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Shirina wrote:
Hopefully the president would back Britain's play. Lord knows, Britain has been backing our play for the last 10 years!

He would certainly lose a few votes if he didn’t back y’all’s play, Keen, including one that I can guarantee personally. As Shirina said, y’all have backed us straight up since 11 September 2001.

God Save The Queen! Yeah, I said it!

Not forgetting The Battle Hymn of The Republic sung in St Paul's Cathedral;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmpo0csiIMs
Battle Hymn of the Republic - London 2001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5vGho1fEw4
911 Memorial St Pauls London US Anthem

God save the Queen! indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIp4pY7kx_s
God Save The Queen - Hayley Westenra (Royal Variety Performance 2011)

In this case Princess Anne [she's really nice]...the Queen's daughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkof1LXib1s
God Save The Queen

The very young Queen, on horseback, as the national anthem is played.

by bambu Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:36 am

oftenwrong wrote:"The Australian navy plans to recruit up to 1,000 Royal Navy sailors facing redundancy under the Government’s defence cuts."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8979283/Australian-Navy-eyes-British-sailors-facing-axe-in-defence-cuts.html

#####

Britain is drowning in debt...so cuts have to be made in spending.
'Austerity program'.

by bambu Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:54 am

witchfinder wrote:Lying in various shipyards accross Glasgow and elsewhere are the sections of what would be two of the most sophisticated and technicaly advanced aircraft carriers in the world, and probably the largest outside of the US navy.

The coalition government has stated that one of the two carriers may never enter service in the Royal Navy, and work on the other has slowed to save money, there will be no avalable aircraft to deploy on the new carrier until 4 years after estimated completion.

The new carrier to be commissioned will be capable of carrying 40 aircraft, but will carry just six by 2020 rising to 12 by 2023.

We are currently in a period where for the first time, the Royal Navy is without any aircraft carriers since they were invented around the time of the First World War.

Whilst the economy slumps and young men are collecting their dole cheques, there is work which could be done, employing people, boosting the economy, building something and putting tax into the treasurey.

We are a laughing stock

No laughing stock, just short of cash at the moment, GFC and the world has changed forever.

Just need enough missiles and bombs to fire and turn Buenos Aires into rubble.
...the Falkland Islands having been evacuated first.
This firing single bullets at invading Argy troops is not the way to win wars anymore.
Tokyo was fire-bombed and Dresden bombed...the war was eventually won.
Cut the snake off at the head...attack Bueonos Aires...see how the People like that.
Madame El Presidente wants to watch out she doesn't get her hair set on fire.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/4077559/US-firms-1bn-for-Falklands-oil.html

US firm's £1bn for Falklands oil

AN AMERICAN energy giant with links to the Pentagon is poised to spend at least £1billion on the British oil rush in the FALKLANDS.

A deal would transform the political stand-off between Downing Street and Argentina over the future of the islands.

Four execs from Houston-based Anadarko flew to Port Stanley last week to meet with Rockhopper, a UK explorer that's struck 700 million barrels of "black gold" off the Falklands' north coast.

The private jet landed Wednesday and parked at the military airbase.

Sources claim Anadarko made a provisional offer to invest in Rockhopper's mammoth discovery and develop it.

One told The Sun: "A deal has been tabled.

"Anadarko has got approval to do this from the highest levels in the US".

by astra Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:12 pm

US firm's £1bn for Falklands oil

Bambu, I do not know where or how old you are, so excuse me if I am shwing your grandmother how to suck eggs Embarassed

Way back in the 70s, when North Sea Oil and Gas were first being exploited, the Americans used the same ploy to placate the mandarins in the embrionic EU. It did not take long for BOTH to make huge gains and UK citizen apparently no better off! Evil or Very Mad

SO it looks like we are now starting round two. Ding Ding

"Anadarko has got approval to do this from the highest levels in the

US".

This upsets me! Who called them (the Americans) and what has the Preseyedint got to do with British policy?

by bambu Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:08 am

astra wrote:
US firm's £1bn for Falklands oil

Bambu, I do not know where or how old you are, so excuse me if I am shwing your grandmother how to suck eggs

Way back in the 70s, when North Sea Oil and Gas were first being exploited, the Americans used the same ploy to placate the mandarins in the embrionic EU. It did not take long for BOTH to make huge gains and UK citizen apparently no better off!

SO it looks like we are now starting round two. Ding Ding

"Anadarko has got approval to do this from the highest levels in the
US".

This upsets me! Who called them (the Americans) and what has the Preseyedint got to do with British policy?

Sydney Australia, age 65.

It's not the 70's anymore.

This looks to me like a US Britain joint venture.
Maybe Britain needs the American co to "invest in Rockhopper's mammoth discovery and develop it."

Think Cameron and co are not stoopid...oil is cash in the bank once it's sold to America.

The President will have everything to do with British policy if Argentina, back by Chavez et al invade the Falklands.

by bambu Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:25 am

keenobserver1 wrote:A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.

Looks like this could become quite interesting!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16286134

No worries...boot all the "Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay" soccer players out of Britain, bye bye!,
Ban all imports from those countries, and stop giving them one cent in aid.
Kick the ambassadors out of Britain, and their London luxury homes, bye bye!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2079628/Britain-STILL-giving-foreign-aid-Brazil--richer-are.html

It's nuts! Britain is STILL giving aid to Brazil - even though it's richer than we areMillions handed over in development

#####

Give them nothing!
...not even the time of day!

Close the UK embassy in Uruguay and the other countries of the Mercosur, and tell them all to get lost.

http://ukinuruguay.fco.gov.uk/en/

by astra Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:29 am

oil is cash in the bank once it's sold to America

.

Hello Bambu Hope you are well.

The North Sea Oil is exploited by the Americans, on VERY favourable terms - for them! The excuse being that it is expensive to harvest. The dribble of cash that gets to the bank of England or wherever has been wasted paying the jobless their money since the industry was closed by Thatcher. She could not even have contemplated puting so many people on unemployment benefit if that pot of gold was not there at her disposal. I do not see cameron being any more sensible with this pot - saying it turns out! This time I think it will go right over the population's heads and into foreign, offshore bank accounts. Have you got a spare room? This country is finished.

by bambu Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:49 pm

astra wrote:
oil is cash in the bank once it's sold to America
.

Hello Bambu Hope you are well.

The North Sea Oil is exploited by the Americans, on VERY favourable terms - for them! The excuse being that it is expensive to harvest. The dribble of cash that gets to the bank of England or wherever has been wasted paying the jobless their money since the industry was closed by Thatcher. She could not even have contemplated puting so many people on unemployment benefit if that pot of gold was not there at her disposal. I do not see cameron being any more sensible with this pot - saying it turns out! This time I think it will go right over the population's heads and into foreign, offshore bank accounts. Have you got a spare room? This country is finished.

Australia is fast going the same way.
An older man said to me last year; "We've seen the best of it"...he's correct.
Only thing that will save it is if the People wake up before next year's election and boot the federal govt out.

I believe Cameron is wiser than you give him credit for.

Britain has no spare money much to develop the Falklands oil? [this is a massive oil deposit].
It's a long way from London

by astra Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:41 am

[this is a massive oil deposit].

Thank you Bambu.

Nothing is being said here about the size of the oil field. In fact it was said not so long ago that it was a small field that may not be profitable to exploit at today's prices. So, is being played down.

Why does distance mean so much to the British Government, yet nothing to the Americans, who are already half and three quarters the way round the planet?

by bambu Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:32 am

Astra,

I'm well thanx, full of Easter eggs and Hot Cross buns. Smile

Huge oilfields apparently;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9076530/Falklands-oilfields-could-yield-176bn-tax-windfall.html

Falklands oilfields could yield $176bn tax windfall

The Falkland Islands stand to benefit from an enormous $176bn (£111.7bn) tax windfall from oil and gas exploration, according to a major new report.

...within the 200-mile exclusion zone set up during the 1980s Falklands War to mark the boundaries of British territory.

A group of UK-listed companies is involved in exploring four major prospects this year, with the largest, Loligo, potentially holding more than 4.7bn barrels of oil. By comparison Catcher, the biggest discovery in the North Sea of the past 11 years, is believed to hold only 300m barrels.

by ROB Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:18 am

Do y'all really believe it's about oil rather than the right to self determination? I mean, come on, would you rather be under British oversight or Argentinean tyranny?

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:10 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Do y'all really believe it's about oil rather than the right to self determination? I mean, come on, would you rather be under British oversight or Argentinean tyranny?

Since 1974, EVERYTHING has been "all about Oil" because every Country in the World operates its transport system with the internal combustion engine. Unless measures are taken to maintain a sufficient supply of carburant, we go back to the horse-and-cart economy. That tends to keep the topic quite near the top of the mind, well ahead of abstract concepts like self-determination.

by bambu Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:51 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Do y'all really believe it's about oil rather than the right to self determination? I mean, come on, would you rather be under British oversight or Argentinean tyranny?

The oil could be why Argentina is now keen to invade the Falklands, again...and why it all of a sudden has many loving friends in South America.

Sean Penn did himself no favours by attacking Britain as he did.

by ROB Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:16 pm

Self determination is a reality to Brits and Americans. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I'm well aware of the jump in crude prices that began in 1974, the year that regular went from $0.28.9 to 0.55.9 per gallon. Damn near broke my already broke posterior. But we, y'all and us, set ourselves up for the takedown decades before when we chose to depend on crude forever.

Then Texas crude, Pennsylvania crude, California crude, etc., started drying up, and rather than developing new technology, we chose to go get crude from Saudi Arabia et al., and that was that.

Meanwhile, Falkland Islanders just want to be left the blippity-blip alone. "Don't cry for me, Argentina", and I won't, Sister Eva.

by bambu Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:28 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Self determination is a reality to Brits and Americans. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I'm well aware of the jump in crude prices that began in 1974, the year that regular went from $0.28.9 to 0.55.9 per gallon. Damn near broke my already broke posterior. But we, y'all and us, set ourselves up for the takedown decades before when we chose to depend on crude forever.

Then Texas crude, Pennsylvania crude, California crude, etc., started drying up, and rather than developing new technology, we chose to go get crude from Saudi Arabia et al., and that was that.

Meanwhile, Falkland Islanders just want to be left the blippity-blip alone. "Don't cry for me, Argentina", and I won't, Sister Eva.

Argentina wants to invade the Falkland Islands, boot the Islanders out, and make the Islands part of Argentina.
It's tried to take them by force once already.

If the Islanders want to be left in peace, there might have to be another war.

" Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Chairman Mao

by witchfinder Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:08 pm

Actualy it is now acknowledged that not only will Argentina not attempt to invade the islands, but that they are almost certainly now incapable of doing so due to years of defence cuts and economic woes.

The latin American neighbours of Argentina are not enthusiastic at getting too involved in the dispute, at a recent 30th aniverssary commemoration in Argentina, invited diplomats and government officials from south American nations were all too busy or had prior engagements, no one was available to attend.

As far as self determination and rights and freedoms are concerned, there are other disputes in south and central America and the Caribbean which involve the United Kingdom.

On the fringe of the Caribbean, Venezuela has a long standing territorial dispute with the former British territory of Guyanna, this puts Guyanna in a unique and difficult position within the Union of South American States.

Further to the north, Guatamala has a territorial dispute with the former overseas territory of Belize, this has resulted in close millitary ties with the former colony and a permanent deployment of British forces in the country.

Further to the Guyanna and Belize examples, there are other British overseas territories, independent former territories and autonomous self governing dependencies in the Carabbean which sit around the same table as Argentina, and so any latin American / Caribbean opposition to the British stance will never be unanimous or without dissent.

The only issue I personaly have is that if self determination is the ultimate right of the Falkland Islanders, then why was it not the same for the people who were evicted by the British government from Diego Garcia. ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:41 pm

" if self determination is the ultimate right of the Falkland Islanders, then why was it not the same for the people who were evicted by the British government from Diego Garcia. ?"

I'll finish that sentence for you if I may. Witchy.

.... so that the US Air Force could have a base in the Indian Ocean."

The difference with the Falklands is that nobody wanted it in 1982, when the population was largely sheep and Penguins, while the inhabitants were scratching a living as employees of the Coalite Company http://www.fihplc.com/companyprofile/index.php?section=1&sub=2 . Neither Britain, Nor the US, not Chile, and not especially the Argentinians.

In December 1981, General Leopoldo Galtieri seized the Presidency of Argentina by means of a coup that ousted General Roberto Viola. Part of his plan to cement that position included a revival of the ancient claim of soveriegnty over the Falklands, which he thought could be achieved at little cost. Britain had announced its intention of scrapping its only Antarctic vessel, and was in any case a long way away.

Subsequent events are well chronicled, but the "Falklanders" now are not the same people that Mrs. Thatcher "liberated" thirty years ago. Civilians are of course greatly out-numbered by Military there. Like Diego Garcia.

by oftenwrong Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:42 pm

It was snowing there today in a biting wind. Sure you want to go?

by tlttf Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:15 am

Argentinas one purpose in life is to make British politicians look competent. This kind of sums up two different attitudes to democracy and Britain's version is winning hands down.

News > UK > UK Politics
Argentina pulls out of meeting to discuss Falkands because representatives from the islands would be present

Argentina's foreign minister has turned down the offer of talks with William Hague over the future of the Falklands, after the Foreign Secretary insisted that islanders should also be present.

Representatives of the Falkland Islands government were flying to London this weekend to tell Hector Timerman that Buenos Aires should respect islanders' rights and leave them in peace.

But Mr Timerman, who had initially asked for a one-to-one meeting with the Foreign Secretary, last night said he would not accept the offer of a meeting involving the Port Stanley government, which Argentina does not recognise as legitimate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/argentina-pulls-out-of-meeting-to-discuss-falkands-because-representatives-from-the-islands-would-be-present-8476338.html

by ROB Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:51 am

tlttf wrote:
Argentina pulls out of meeting to discuss Falkands because representatives from the islands would be present

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/argentina-pulls-out-of-meeting-to-discuss-falkands-because-representatives-from-the-islands-would-be-present-8476338.html

Argentina’s “government” can pull out of the continent as far as I’m concerned. About all they are good for is hiding old Nazi mass murderers.

by tlttf Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:32 pm

Agree Rock, simply highlighting the difference between democracy and their version of it.

by blueturando Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:25 pm

It is well known that Argentine goverments pull out the ' Falklands Card' when they are struggling domestically and lagging behind in the polls. It happened in 1982 and it's happening again now.

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:30 pm

"...when they are struggling domestically and lagging behind in the polls..."

Yes, true.

Rather like the Tories, who always turn to benefit claimants or public servants when they wish to create a diversion, or otherwise need to create a scare story to mask their multitude of shortcomings...

by skwalker1964 Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:10 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:"...when they are struggling domestically and lagging behind in the polls..."

Yes, true.

Rather like the Tories, who always turn to benefit claimants or public servants when they wish to create a diversion, or otherwise need to create a scare story to mask their multitude of shortcomings...

Give the Tories just a bit of credit, Phil. Think Mali - they're just as capable of looking at military action in foreign fields for their diversions as the Argentines are. Very Happy

by blueturando Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:15 pm

Think Mali, think EU referendum.....Politicians are trained in these diversion tactics.

Perhaps Cameron has been taking advice from Jo Moore on what is a good day to bury bad news?

by ROB Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:59 pm

SAS taught SEAL Team 6. Why don’t y’all just send the teachers over to Argentina and… naw, that would be too much like right.

by Sponsored content

Falklands mark II

Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II

Re: Falklands mark II