PM Cameron accuses Argentina of colonialism and protectionism ahead of G20
British Prime Minister David Cameron has fired a broadside at Argentina ahead of the opening of the G20 summit in Mexico, accusing the country of colonialism over the Falklands and protectionism in world trade.
The PM said he would use the opportunity presented by the G20 summit to tell Argentine president Cristina Fernandez to her face that she should listen to the people of the Falklands when they say they want to remain British.
He also singled out Argentina for criticism for protectionist trade measures which he identified as one of the five key threats to the world economy.
Relations between Britain and Argentina are in the deep freeze after Buenos Aires tried to use the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict to revive its sovereignty claim over the Malvinas.
In a TV interview recorded ahead of the opening session of the G20 summit at which he expects to encounter the Argentine leader, PM Cameron said: “The Falkland Islanders have decided to have a referendum. They are going to ask a very simple question of whether they want to continue with the status quo or whether they want to change.
”The message to Argentina is very clear - listen to what the people of the Falkland Islands want. We should all believe in this day and age in self-determination, not colonialism.“
Asked if he would pass this message directly to Cristina Fernandez, PM Cameron said: ”Absolutely.”
Cameron is expected to exchange a few words with the Argentine president as the G20 leaders gather for the opening session, but there will be no formal bilateral talks between the UK and Argentina, according to Foreign Office sources.
Britain has rejected calls from Argentina, made by the Argentine president to the UN decolonisation committee last week, for direct talks to discuss the future of the Falklands.
Cameron has said that the UK position is that as long as the Falkland Islanders prefer to remain British and wish no sovereignty talks with Argentina, London will support that position. If Islanders with to establish a dialogue on the issue with Argentina, UK will equally support them.
However the UK and the Falklands are willing to discuss with Argentina issues of common interest such as fisheries, oil and communications.
In a speech to a business audience in summit venue Los Cabos, Mexico, PM Cameron said that G20 countries should be setting an example to the rest of the world by avoiding protectionism, but said Argentina had failed to do so. He cited the case of the nationalisation earlier this year of oil company YPF, which is largely owned by Spanish firm Repsol.
Suggested Stories
-
May 17th 2013
Argentina’s ‘autarkic project’ worsens bilateral relations and multiplies problems
-
May 17th 2013
Argentine whitewash bill turning into ugly electoral debate
-
May 14th 2013
New WTO chief says it’s time for ‘modulating’ ambition and pushing protectionism back
-
May 14th 2013
Argentine inflation controversy: court vindicates private stats agencies
256 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
One is saying that the wishes of the islanders and the other just want to talk about the facts and not the wishes.
deaf cameron, you don't want to see what the facts show you.
the end of this will be just the same as before, the islanders will have no fresh eggs for breakfast, and they will have to travel to London to go to University and so for the big medical reasons.
no fresh eggs, never...
UK is a complete rogue and derelict on this matter.
Usually, the pyromaniac goes unburned. It is the victims of his deliberate conflagrations who suffer.
The UK banking system is directly responsible for the crisis in many other countries. And they did this due to years and years of UK malfeasance and lax regulation.
But eventually, the pyro is caught, or immolates himself in one of his future acts.
Never underestimate Cristina.
I know you are under a lot of pressure but please make sure not to leave your girl behind in a bar/cantina again.
It does not matter what CFKC wants, she will never get the Falklands and all the faithful followers will be disappointed again because nothing has changed and nothing will change. CFKC is all fur coat and no knickers.
www.daylife.com/photo/02Xe72Ff6Ib9B?__site=daylife&q=David+Cameron
“But seriously I do understand the issue with the Malvinas. Let's discuss over country supper soon”
“I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we're definitely in this together! Speech of your life? Yes he Cam”.
I think today's silly fantasy is that they believe Argentina is as powerful and intimidating as China. Erm....no. It isn't. As powerful and intimidating as a Chinese takeaway, maybe. Even then it's a close run thing.
www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html#
“He must have been speaking about the UK, as he certainly must be fulfilling hist duties.”
He raises a good point: He plays hardball with Argentina on the Falklands. Fine. I can understand that (although a G20 meeting seems a very gauche occasion since it is not a geopolitical gathering, but solely economic). It is unbecoming behavior by the UK to bring such an issue at this venue.
But assuming it isn't... then he goes to a business summit and makes a significant commentary on Argentina's economy.
Some time later in another conference, he makes mention of YPF
The question thus raised: is he the prime minister of the UK or Argentina?
If I was a British electorate, I would request him to worry about the UK just a bit more.
“Some time later in another conference, he makes mention of YPF
The question thus raised: is he the prime minister of the UK or Argentina?” Yes... because this is a forum on the state of the world economy, and any nation that is threatening international interests by privatising foreign owned businesses is a threat and needs to be addressed.
The situation in the world is changing rapidly, do not forget during WWII Argentina was able to feed both sides, including the British that end up owing Argentina so much money without liquidity that they have to repay with the complete railroad system they used to own in that country.... and the Argentinians accepted the deal against their favor... If any conflict of that nature occurred again, the British are more in a position to engage in war, and Argentina is more in a position to produce food... much needed now than back then.
You clearly don't understand what as been happening in the world banking system if you believe the UK banking system is directly responsible for the current economic crisis - so i'd love to hear you try and explain it rather than just plonk your belief as a statement on this thread. Go on - have a go.
However there is a certain amount of gratification to be gleaned from the fact that Argentines believe it was the UK that screwed them over in this matter.
You really don't get it do you. You are so completely brainwashed you aren't listening.
The British people will support the islanders no matter what it takes. Last time it took 255 lives...a massive price in Britain. It is in our hearts and minds.
You will never steal the islands against the wishes of the islanders. No matter what the cost.
You can lie about 1833 all you want. Some may believe your lies. We simply don't care.
There is no political, military or economic manoeuvre that Argentina can do that Britain can't counter.
best regards
I am a part of the British electorat, and I can tell you that the PM does'nt spend a lot of his time thinking about the Falklands - over here, in the UK, Cameron and the rest of HMG are more concerned about the euro crises.
On the contrary I wish he would spend more time rebutting your countries lies, threats and distortions.
Argentina's wingeing about not being allowed to steal land from us is not a major issue on the news - and only gets mentioned infrequently when CFK does something really outrageous.
You would be better served by CFK if she left the Flaklanders alone and got on with trying to sort out Argetina's problems.
You're not going to get anything from us. You are totally impotent to force the issue. The C24 is seen as a sick joke made up of anti western nations We can block anything in the security council. An invasion would be problematical.
You're wasting your time.
So... they then turn to 'debt'. Because people are willing to lend the UK money for national infrastructure and development at low rates they seem to think that this is a bad thing. They then compare it to Argentina, whose banking system is so utterly repellant that the president is dipping into the central bank currency reserves like it's her personal account. There isn't another institution outside of Venezuela who would lend to Argentina and they only did it to raid their own central bank.
Then some Arg-toerag says 'One is saying that the wishes of the islanders and the other just want to talk about the facts and not the wishes.' which is a misrepresentation of reality. The Argentinians wanted to use deception by not discussing the facts, or even talking to the islanders, whereas the UK discusses the verifiable objective historical facts and the wishes of the islanders.
I seriously worry about the Argentine educational system, it's clearly a bag'o'shite producing nothing useful.
see former colonizers do play a role in anti colonization by preventing it :)
the Falkland is the islanders home as much as Argentina is the Argentinians home.
No - you're just going mad
Britain responsible for the economic crisis, I think not. The main crisis is the eurozone and britain is not part of it. The initial failure was the american market, not the british. Britain's rating is AAA whilst Argentina is B.. this tells you who the Rogue is.
DC tells it like it is. Colonisation is the part of the past not the present and Argentina's behaviour is not going to help it one little bit to acquire the falklands as this matter is in the hands of the islanders. Swivell on it !
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18496985
As for the usual foolish Argentinian posters on this site, you never fail to embarass yourselves and your nation with your outrageous and untruthful and ignorant comments on the subject of the rights of the Falklanders to determine their future without a colonialist Argentina contstantly trying to harrass them.
The sad thing for Argentina is that people like our Argentine posters here such as hipolyte, TTT, Marcos Alejandro, XavierV run their country. Little wonder it faces constant economic challenges with such poor governance.
after the group photo the RG President was the first to leave - as quickly as she could. she stood right near the end of a row so she could make an exit ASAP.
Are you saying that it would be impossible to keep hens in the Falklands to provide eggs ?
Problem solved, by people who run their country better than Argentina ever will theirs with their Hitler-inherited Peronism.
If Argentina stops the flights from Chile, the Islanders will get flights from somewhere else, and Chile will loose the £millions of revenue they get from the Islands. Someone else will get the money instead.
Problem solved. However, Chile is a well run country and I suspect they are not stupid enough to allow Argentina to dictate to them, and loose the income from the Falkland Islands.
Though, Argentina being such good friends, will compensate Chile for any money they loose from the FIs.
Oh by the way, seeing as you South American countries are so good to each other, how is the Argentine -backed Bolivian land grab from Chile going?
Dont forget Arg. KEEP BARKING we all know thats all you have and will ever have, :)
beg doggie beg, hey ive found something Arg are good at.
KFC & Hysterical Hector have been hurling personal insults for months.
Lessons in diplomatic language from Argentines are like lessons in safety at sea from Captain Bonzo.
The Argentines attempts at diplomacy are inherited from Adolf Hitler via Peronism.
You're a bit late to the party if you believe that was a revolutionary statement to make on these forums.
Asking us to look at a world map makes you sound a bit daft.
If they best argument that you can raise is geographic proximity (completely irrelevant in international law) and the Chagos islanders (reminds me of playground arguments), you really should give up.
# 47 Let's see, let a minute of a Chilean skin: one side is Argentina, with its 40 million inhabitants with which to strengthen economic and political ties. On the other hand 3 000 squatters on an island in Argentina. Poof! Resolved: We opted for the Islanders pay off more than we get along with the Argentine!.
As you knows nothing about foreign policy living the illusion that Chile will be his defense attorney when clearly that for reasons of territorial integrity is in the best interest of Chile to maintain optimal relations with Argentina and not 3 thousand unhappy usurpers without nation and no right to it..
If you're so concerned about who the islands belong to, why do you live in an economic sh!thole where poverty is rife, inflation is apparently unchecked even with attempts to peg your paper to the dollar, and growth is fictitious. You might want to worry about your own starving native children first.
Indigenous Peoples’ rights
Concerns remained at the failure to implement the 2006 national emergency law which temporarily suspends the execution of eviction orders or the removal of Indigenous communities from traditional lands until an appropriate nationwide survey has been carried out.
In November, 400 police officers violently dispersed members of the Toba Qom Indigenous community who had mounted a roadblock in protest at plans to build a university on traditional lands. The police also burned down the community’s temporary homes. At least one police officer and one member of the Indigenous community were killed.
Right to health – land and environment
An NGO report published in early 2010 identified 120 land-ownership and environment-related conflicts in the Chaco area of northern Argentina, affecting over half a million people, mainly from peasant and Indigenous communities.
Despite growing evidence of the negative impact on health of chemicals used on soya and rice plantations in several northern provinces, by the end of the year no systematic epidemiological study or investigation had been initiated to evaluate the extent and gravity of the problem.
International justice
In September, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of the extradition of Sergio Galvarino Apablaza Guerra to Chile where he faced charges in connection with the murder of Senator Jaime Guzmán and the kidnapping of Cristián Edwards in 1991. However, in October, a federal judge closed the case for his extradition after the National Commission for Refugees granted him refugee status.
No, Cameron's doing the right thing (I never thought I'd say that) to ignore the idiots. Their irrational squealing doesn't warrant any response. I only come here and read their comments for a laugh. Seriously, the lunacy of some malvinists arguments occasionally take my breath away, and often make me laugh out loud. I sometimes respond, but I know there isn't any point. As we saw in 1982, ultimately there's only one language they understand.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyPC0SD0PGw
Argentina cant talk on such matters and has carried out much worse since then may i refer you to a little war Argentina had with it self on the following link
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/argentina.htm
more commonly known as the dirty way that didn't involve 2000 people, 10000 but up to and beyond 30000 people. and that's before you get started on the Falklands war. The Falkland war which may i add you lost. im sure you will claim that it was a military dictatorship not Argentina. but if your disregarding that part of your history then you must also disregard every event leading up to becoming a dictatorship including your original claim on Falklands. you claim to have changed since 1983 that Argentina war Reborn in 1983. fresh start and it was working well till you started to dig up the past. your claim ended in 1833,1850,1982 and 1983 how many more times would you like us Brits to bury it?
but lucky us brits saved you from you from your dirty war and gave you the courage to stand up. and yes a thank you would be great. feel free any time you like....... im listening
You're one of the worst trolls we've had on here so far and that's with some stiff competition.
but we will see how the referendum turns out next year never say never. they could see your really nice guys between now and then but i doubt it some how lol
Agreed, this highlighted the great weaknesses in the Euro zone, but this again, is by no fault of the UK. Your comments are biased, and ill-based.
Against this, the United Kingdom is a long-standing, never-conquered democracy, a powerful member of the United Nations, a permanent member of the security council, an EU member, a NATO member, a Commonwealth member and a respected member of the international community.
Despite many attacks on the UK by terrorists et al over the years, including the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister, the UK did not give in to terrorists and those using force to achieve their aims. We never give in and we never give up.
The Falkland Islands is an overseas territory of the UK, and this will remain so. Perhaps it is time to incorporate the Falklands into the United Kingdom itself (as an autonomous entity), and remove any doubt that Argentina may have as to our position, or that of our British Citizens in residence there.
One begins to experience serious fatigue listening to the 'macho-moaning' emanating from Queen Christina and Lapdog Timerman. It is only a matter of time before they fade into irrelevance with this broken record.
The wise thing to do (explains why they haven't done it!), would have been to woo the islanders ... but that would have required patience, something Argentina is short of, along with food, jobs, diplomacy, as well as foresight and hindsight.
Argentina is an aggressor. It knows no other way, and cannot demonstrate otherwise.
I could guess at the question. Whatever the wording.
Do you wish to become part of the Argentine state? That is really all it is about.
Whatever they decide should be final. If they wish this, then that's their business
#48
Tipsy Think - In English this means a drunk||||
The Faroe Islands (administered by Denmark) are closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina. The Faroe Islands are rich in oil and gas.
0.7% of the population of the Faroe islands are British. Little more than double the Argentines in the FI's.
Denmark and the UK have an excellent relationship and Britain respects the Faroe islanders right to Self-Determination.
Why in 700 years of Danish rule have Britain only got 0.7% of the population, Think!!!, when they are so close to Britain..!
Jeez you are a moron.
NB In the UK the only people that care about Scottish independence are the Scots - let them get on with their vote.
Of course the humour in the vote will be if the Shetland islands wish to remain part of the UK
Sorry, you've lost me again. What is this reference to facebook - never used it or twitter.
I think anyone with half a brain could answer that one about why only 10 Argies are in the Falklands.
Would the Falklanders welcome people who had forceably taken over their land, and tried to impose their way of life upon them -I don't think so.
What would the Argies do to make a living ? You tell me.
Bye the way, what has a proposed Scottish referendum got to do with anything on this thread. You make it sound as if the whole of the country is desperate for this to happen so we can all shout “Freedom” as in the crap film “Braveheart”
By your comments, you appear to assume that Scotland cannot wait for the chance to vote off “the English yoke of oppression” Ballocks.
It's the political classes who keep hammering the point - the average “Jock” -such as I- is fed up with the whole thing.
The UK is an omelette and impossible to change back into its constituent eggs.
The only thing we may agree on is to get rid of the current Tory government which no one in Scotland voted for.
Argentina didn't exist, the war was against the Spanish. Idiot.
Either way I assume you ignored the history of the Falklands in that piece?
“.....do not forget during WWII Argentina was able to feed both sides, ”
Really? Please elaborate on how exactly Argentina shipped foodstuffs to the axis powers...
You have a very argentinian knowledge of history.
Plus, I love Timmerman's comments about Britain bringing the Falklands at G20...it is very funny how Argentina holds Britain up to high morale and diplomacy standards, but does not apply the same standards to itself. You have to love Argentina hypocrisy!
Jun 19th, 2012 - 11:57 am
I think you are wrong about the number of Argentines on the Falklands, there are 29 according to the last census available.
Between 1833 and 1982, there was no impediment for Argentines to settle on the Islands, the truth is that none of us wanted to. If we had we could have been the majority in the referendum next year. Too bad, it's our own fault, nobody else's.
For once in our lives lets accept that there really isn't a “bad foreign bogey-man” trying to shaft Argentina, our own home grown Kretina and Máximo and La Cámpora are doing a really good job without interference from anyone.
Sh!t troll is sh!t.
I assume there is one but I can't see it.
@6 Is this your new, bitter, twisted, racist line, toby jug? Do you actually “know” anything about banking or economics, or are just going to borrow the CFK pamphlet on the subject?
@11 Ahah, the CFK line of meaningless drivel!
@15 Let me get down to your level. Me British taxpayer. Me no care how much money spent to keep Falklands as they are. Continental HK unsustainable. Lack of knowledge on part of retarded chimp!
@18 YOU are. But at least you arfe getting more courteous. Only two sentences. Next steps are: one sentence; then one word; then...........
@26 Would you like someone to give you a list of meetings at which argieland has “unbecomingly” mentioned the “issue” of the Falkland Islands? Cameron is concerned about the UK. Specifically, its Falkland Islands territory. And anything he does to kick argieland's butt is fine by us!
@42 And who would believe HIM? Is he not Portuguese?
@48 Don't know. WE tend to have BRITISH Prime Ministers.
@52 Please if any have doubts what belongs to who just get world map and see how far Hawaii is from United States. Fortunately, no people of Chagos Islands. Just ex-slaves become contract workers for Mauritian company. Responsibility of Mauritius.
@56 Whoops. “Loosing” it. Best interest of Chile is for argieland to “disappear”. Poof! Or should that be “Boom!”
@63 Independent Scotland = more money for England, Wales and Northern Ireland = Scotland at argie third world level.
@66 Why? YOU wouldn't understand it!
@71 Because the Islanders don't like shitty scum and argies are, generally, shitty scum? Just a thought.
@77 You are welcome to South America. The Falklands aren't South American. Get it yet?
@82 Yeah, so? Britain mounted a military invasion of a Spanish territory. Britain was at war with Spain. What's your point?
@88 You're starting to get there. Britain was fighting Spain. Argies didn't exist. And so?
The islands would happily be part of south america but you take every opportunity to exclude them. Why is that? Because they are of English rather than Spanish origin?
One must also assume from your ravings that you are unhappy about French Guiana too. Are you leading the protests about that?
On 3 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one, and for the administration to leave the islands... It is obvious there were argies there before UK placed 2000 ppl to leave there... people that now proclaim self determination?! WTF??!!
Are you claiming that those that moved to the Falklands in 1833 are still alive and feeling very British today?
I notice you fail to comment on French Guiana. Should the Falklands become a county of the UK to shut you up?
During the period of World War II, Argentina was ruled by a series of nationalist governments and dictatorial military juntas. Neutralist feelings prevailed in the military, which saw the war as a potential source of economic benefit for the country, by exporting supplies and agricultural products to both sides of the conflict. The government of Edelmiro Julián Farrell eventually caved in to international pressure, and Argentina joined other Latin American countries and declared war on Germany and Japan, one month before the war was over (27 March 1945).
More than 750 Argentine volunteers fought in the British, South African and Canadian Air Forces, mainly in the 164 Argentine-British RAF squadron, which saw action in Northern France and Belgium. Nearly 4,000 Argentine volunteers fought on the Allied side.
“Please if any doubts who they belong to just get a world map and see how far they are from UK and How close to Argentina...”
Chile, Paraguay, Brasil and Uruguay are even closer to Argentina - should they keep their armed forced on alert.
There is little to discuss. Argentina ceded the Falkland Islands to Britain in the 1850 peace treaty and Argentine presidents and vice presidents confirmed this later on.
It has been their MO for centuries: they attack a nation and then claim they did not attack that nation:
- Iraq, they claim they attacked the regime, not the population.
- Libya, they claim they attacked the regime, not the population.
- The invasions of Buenos Aires, they claim they attack the Spanish, when there was likely not a SINGLE SPANISH NATIVE IN THE CRIOLLO CIVILIAN POPULATION OF BUENOS AIRES, which bore not just the brunt, but the entirety of the attacks. There were no Spanish forces defending the town.
It is all about semantics with them. This is when a lesson close to home comes in handy:
Remember the terrorist attacks on London by Al Qaeda? Well, Al Qaeda made it clear their attack was directed at the UK government's policy in the Middle East, not at the people.
I wonder if the British even realized that is exactly how they have justified so many of their attacks on civilians for many, many years. I would wager not, they are brainwashed by agitprop into believing they are the good guys therefore they can do no wrong.
''UK placed 2000 ppl to leave there''
What does that mean, exactly? There are people living here today whose ancestors were part of Vernet's settlement. How were they placed by the UK? There are people born here whose parents came from Chile or St Helena, and people who applied for a job advertised by FIG, and stayed here because they wanted to.
How were any of us 'placed' by the UK?
Explain how that works, please, because I can't see it.
Based on your appraisal of French Guiana you'd be happy if the Falklands became another county of the UK to solve this problem?
I like the way you judge what is acceptable and not acceptable to an Argentine mind - as if that was relevant to anyone else.
In 1833, the majority of the people that were in the Falklands at the time decided, under British urging, to remain under British sovereignty. A sovereignty that had already existed for 68 years, notwithstanding illegal argie squatters. Are you stupid enough to think that having “an” argie on the Islands gives argieland sovereignty? By the way, I'd like to see you put 2,000 people plus the crew aboard a brig-sloop. HMS Clio was 100 foot long, 31 foot wide and 14 foot high. She had a complement, i.e. crew, of 115. Now go out into the playground and try to cram 2, 115 people into that space!
More to the point, before you come on here and start arguing the toss, it would be helpful if you got some factual history. Not the garbage put out by argieland's “education” system.
FACTS:
1690 First landing.
1765 Sovereignty established.
1770 Spain attempts to claim sovereignty. And fails.
1771 Britain re-occupies settlements.
1776 Britain evacuates settlements to concentrate on American Revolutionary War.
1828 Vernet establishes a commercial business with British permission.
1831 United States removes most “settlers” after Vernet descends to piracy.
1833 Britain returns to re-establish itself. Penal garrison required to leave. 4 “settlers” decide to leave. After being paid their wages, in silver, by the British, 20 settlers opt to remain under British sovereignty.
That's the HISTORY!
we have not attacked Argentina. we attempted to invade the Spanish colony located in the south Atlantic in part for there support of Napoleon, who may i add the British defeated . nether the less it was not know and accepted Argentina existence during that time
the falklands do not need to be know by other south american country as they are reprisented in foreign affairs by the UK government. the Falklands is generally not seen as a colony. former colony yes now they are seen as territory's. our homes are our castles. you would fight for your home country, the Falkland islanders will fight for theirs and the people in UK will fight for our territory, for the principle of self-determination
“The islands are South Americans and belong to South American. full stop”
hahaha
your right they belong to south america and they are in the south american Continent how every like a number of islands in they south Atlantic they belong to UK
im fairly certain that the Falklands has now and in the past had a fairly mixed populations genetically that have all came to the decision Argentina cant be trusted, as is the general belief in the UK
as for the Chagos Islands, personally i see it a little odd but we cant change the past. and of course Argentina has done a lot worse more recent then that. namely the dirty war and the invasion of 1982
Reyvolution keep up the failing
“Now let South Americans have South America and manage their land and richness for them”
And therein, in your simple statement is the issue of the piece.
The falkland Islanders ARE South American. They are every bit as South American as 90% of all the other South Americans...i.e. ethnic Europeans who have moved to the South American landmass sometime in the past 200 years.
What you mean is leave South America to the hispanics. An extraordinarily racist and colonialistic view.
The Falkland Islands are a de facto independant territory in South America, who rely on defence from the UK due to the racist aggression of their neighbours.
Sadly, you cannot distinguish between South America and Latin America.
Just to be clear The British fought the Argentine government (in effect) in the early19th C?
The indigenous of Patagonia were colonized in the late 19thC by the same (in effect) Argentine state?
Whats your view on colonialism?
Too late for that I fear, you Spanish squatters killed most of them. I suppose you could do the right thing and give the few remaining their land back, and bog off back to Spain, or wherever you originated.
Maybe they didn't murder enough natives to be entitled to be a separate nation like Argentina?
Why don't you stop guessing and stick to facts?
I've been to South America four times. Lots of people I know have been there more often than that. You don't know anything apart from your own ignorant assumptions.
Your only argument seems to be that you should have the Falklands because you want them.
I asked you a question, and you didn't answer. How did the UK place us in the Falkland Islands?
And I can tell what we are if not a colony; we are a British Overseas Territory. we are not controlled by anyone except our own government, and we are not isolated.
I forgot to target the rest of the response(33) more accuratly at the Malvinistas.
However, I think they should get the message.
@99 TTT - here we go again - are you now going to start bleating about how beastly we were to the Germans (yyaaawwnnn) in WW2. That will really advance your cause when talking to us. Not.
By the way- hav'nt you also attacked or invaded other people's land repeatedly, killing civilains in the process - remember the War of the triple alliance? Lots of civilians died there.
Was it all Lopez's fault? Or is it just that war is a dirty, murderous business, that is best avoided.
@ Alexi - I still think we need to be a bit more forceful. The tactic of “the big lie” is Argentina's amin weapon. Only by repeatedly ramming home the point that they are indeed lying, backed by evidence, will we be able to silence them. Unless they go for the war option.......
@82 - why are you dragging up a minor campaign from the Napoleonic wars? Unless you want us to use it to justify a claim against BA (basically we had troops on your land so we can claim it- that what you keep doing about the falklands is'nt it, referring to the military garrison in 1832-33)?
Most people over here have'nt even heard of the invasion of BA because it is considered such an insignificant event in such a big war......
You were a Spanish colony, were'nt you........................
Jun 19th, 2012 - 03:25 pm
I find it quite difficult to understand your posts, but as I understand you are surprised that there are so few Argentines living on the Islands. I must say that 29 (not 10) are pretty few as Argentina is a neighbour. WE have had about 143 years of unimpeded immigration during which time Argenines could have gone to live in the Islands, but we did not. If we had it would be us doing the self determination bit, but WE DIDN'T, we f*cked up, it is OUR OWN FAULT.
If you want an insight into the Faroes then watch Whale Wars - On Viking Shores
A bit like what happens in the Falklands is really none of yours.
Truth hurts doesn,t it????????????????????
What's next, are we going to claim the Faroes as well?
Well I suppose they do have a GDP per capita slightly higher than the Falklands, so I suppose that's a valid reason for making a claim.
Total, we'll only piss off Denmark, which is a poroto beside UK!!!
I'll give you a clue. In the link that you so kindly provided, if you look just before the “.html” suffix, you'll find it says “history3”. This is a dead giveaway as it indicates TWO (2) preceding pages. I notice that you didn't respond intelligibly or intelligently to anything else I put forward, so you're obviously a drooling retard.
@113 As Idlehands and shb have pointed out, the Faroe Islands are Danish. That is they belong to Denmark. I thought I'd put it both ways in case you have trouble with words. As the Faroe Islands are only 160 miles from the UK but are 660 miles from Denmark, are you suggesting that we “acquire” them under the well-known argie principle of “they are closer to us than to you”. Did you notice that, like the Falkland Islands, they are self-governing? In fact, the Faroe Islands stands in much the same relation to Denmark as the Falkland Islands do to the UK. Perhaps you meant either the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands? I don't believe a decision has yet been made as to whether these two island groups are part of Scotland. And if the UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland) says they aren't, what's little Scotland going to do about it? And, by the way, who says little Scotland with its 5 million people is going to split away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland with their 57 million and become a viable, independent country. If you read up on Haggis Salmond's plans, you'll see he doesn't have a clue. Like he thinks he can get a ready-made army, navy and air force by taking 9% of the UK's. The man is as demented as CFK. Even if the UK were foolish enough to agree (We won't), he'd get the crap. The soldiers with no rifles. The aircraft with one wing. The ships with a hole in the bottom!
Very well put. This is how I see it also. I have very little hispanic blood (one Portuguese great-great-grandmother) but am nevertheless a South American. Descendents of Scandinavian, Russian, Polish, German, British and other non-hispanic nationalities are just as South American as anyone else of European descent.
I think you never hear about the British invasions of Buenos Aires simply because you lost. You can't stand losing, so you bury it under the great triumphs of South Africa, Australia, and the march on Washington DC in 1812.
The Brits simply do not accept that their army was routed twice by rag-tag civilian militia (no Spanish army there).
Thanks for making a good point. The UK respects the Faroe Islands, leaves them alone and respects their choice.
Which is EXACTLY what Argentina needs to do with the Falkland islands as opposed to its childish attempts to oppress and colonise islands that clearly to anyone who isn't a retard belong to the people of the Falkland islands.
Its a nice thought to know the UK can easily overpower Argentina and protect the Falkland's people from the corrupt, lying bully that is Argentina.
comparable to Argentine territory's such as terra del fuego
or British territory of isle of wight with a few minor differences
also similar to the channel islands or isle of man and just as ready to be defended for your information
we though a war over the islands we sent troops 8000+ miles to defend the rights of this islands and are prepared to do so from now until forever more. its in our blood and or national memory. should the political party's decide that Argentina should have the Falklands they would be chaos and then a change of government. the blood has been split now. so no change Argentina sorry find another distraction
Argentina has much to thank Britain for: a war which led to her independence. Furthermore, some of the British, and Irish, prisoners-of-war from 1806 and 1807 decided to stay and took part in fighting the Spanish military machine elsewhere in South America, securing the independence also of Chile, Peru and Ecuador.
and in 1982, by defeating the Junta we once again freed Argentina.
The Faroes do have oil, to about the same extent as the Falklands, in that it is being explored.
I don't think there is any bi-polarity with regard to the referenda of the Falklands and Scotland.
Complete and utter lies, end of story.
You sir, are a liar, and an ignoble, pathetic human being.
insulting me won't change anything ! READ IT FOR YOURSELF ..
en.mercopress.com/2006/08/12/buenos-aires-celebrates-routing-of-british-invasion
We except our history maybe you should except yours and move on.
well, from 1807-1807 they live whit us-
How many kids you think they have in 180 years?
I was thinking, if Malvinas is a country...why no grow like a counrty?
WHY IS LIKE A BRITISH COUNTRY CLUB ?
In 180 YEARS ONLY 1000 families?
Any neighbour in LATAM is biggest than this.....
Even Hurlingham CC has more affiliate people than they are. Even british one´s ;)
Well , I think they are british, but the land is our land....regards!
You are a Turnip……….
1) The Faroe Islands are NOT rich in oil and gas…….
2) Britain DOES NOT respects the Faroe islanders nor Denmark nor Iceland nor anybody else if money is involved.
Example A: Rockall: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall.
Example B: Cod wars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_wars
Camerons bipolarity which makes him the first British Prime Minister in 300 years to allow the Scottish the right to vote on independence.
What is hilarious is that the posters who support the Argentine position on the Falklands think 2 things:
1) the Scottish want independence
2) the English want to stop them
It is more than possible (and judging by recent polls, highly likely) that the reverse is true. The English would actually like to get rid of them.
With regards the Faroes, suggest you look at the oil exploration there, Britain has never claimed them, never will, because geographical proximity is the argument of retards.
However, as I stated earlier, Alex Salmond is basing his Scottish independence economics on North Sea oil...very little of it would he receive if the Orkney and Shetland islands remained in the Union.
An interesting thought, but the themes run true:
The Faroes are Danish as long as they want to be, and independence is theirs to choose.
Scotland is part of the UK as long as its people want to be, and indepence is theirs to choose.
The Shetland and Orkneys are part of the UK and independence or being part of Scotland is theirs to choose.
The Falkland islands are a British overseas territory, and independence, union with Argentina or the status quo is theirs to choose.
THE UNEQUIVOCAL RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.
History is irrelevant, 1833 (even if the Argie lies were true) irrelevant, Act of Union, irrelevant, 1982 irrelevant. Chagos irrelevant.
SELF DETERMINATION..
Are you an imbecile so verily, or are you simply a sequacious charlatan? How about I provide you some UK history as expounded by the University of Tehran... No problem, correct?
The British did squat in the independence war. Their conflict with Spain was absolutely irrelevant in fostering already separatist sentiments in the new world, and Spain's armies in South America remained completely unscathed by the British. And certainly, the British did nothing to abet or foment the development (nor was it incumbent upon them to do so).
Secondly, it is yet another inverecund canard to claim it was any prisoners of wars that single-handedly determined the success of the later campaigns in South America. The vast majority of the troops Argentina sent across the Andes were Argentines, and also exiled Chileans. Similarly in campaigns mounted elsewhere.
I don't see the resemblance between the modern day Central American flags, of the Paraguayan, Uruguayan flags, and the British flag. Ocularly inspect the FIRST Chilean and Peruvian flags... You would assume if Britain was so preponderant in the era it would have inspired some manifestation of influence.
And it is an irrefragable fact the financing of such wars befell upon Argentina, which by 1830 was bankrupt from the emprise.
As for 1982, as I have said many times prior, the Falklands War was symptomatic of a falling regime, and not the trigger of a falling regime. A three year old child is aware that biting your tongue results in pain, not the reverse.
You do not accept history, as you feel the exigent need to confabulate, embellish in the extreme, and outright lie to the point of denying the sacrifices made by Argentines towards their own and others' independence.
There's a monument in Mendoza to acknowledge her role in the fighting. You insult us.
Thank you for your rabid anti-scottish sentiments.
By the way, Shetlands and Orkneys are part of Scotland - not England.
I presume Cornwall will be allowed a vote to see if they want to stay part of England
As to giving us the crap ships. I think you will find that your D45's were built on the Clyde and the latest carriers are being built at Rosyth - in Fife.
I believe these places are both in Scotland. We know how to build ships.
The UK's nuclear deterrent is based in Faslane/Coulport, where in England is that. The Subs training is carried out in the Firth of Clyde ”the Perishers) and off the Isle of Skye. Live bombing ranges at Cape Wrath and Tain.
We can always send the nuclear subs. south and you can station them in the Thames. I sure you would be delighted to have the nuclear bomb dump on your premises also.
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with the subject.
I heard on the news that CFK had tried to give Mr. Cameron a letter stating her case. He refused to accept it -politely ? No doubt more to follow.
You are clearly suffering from some sort of mental retardation. Your posts are best ignored.
@125 Let's see whether I can understand you. ............................................... No, just meaningless, unintelligible drivel. Please notice that it says at the top “Comments must be in English.” That means the language. It doesn't mean “string a number of English words together and hope they make sense”.
@128 And your PROOF? British soldiers have always been greatly valued. As they know how to fight. Unlike Spaniards, Italians, argies.
@130 British people don't rut like Hispanics. British people are RESPONSIBLE. When contemplating children, they prefer to think about whether they have resources to bring the children up properly. By contrast, argies! Legs open, bent over all the time. And that's just the “males”. Oh, and your land? So come take it. Oh, we know how that works, don't we?
@131 How are you doing, Sprout? (We HATE Brussels)
You're getting funnier. Or more desperate. But you've been at this for some time now. You ain't winning. So why not admit it. One Briton is worth TEN of YOU. You hide away down in the backshit (That's the argie version of backwoods) and make up your (t)witty comments. I wonder if you've ever considered having a conversation on an adult level? But then you don't “do” adult, do you? Could that be because you don't have the intellectual depth? Very good at one-liners and links. Not so good at constructive discussion. How you doing, THUG?
Half of the soldiers fighting for Latin American freedom were British even if TIT doesnt acknowledge it. Chiles flagship is always called Almirante Cochrane,There are statues in Venezuela off all places to honour British troops who helped liberate South America .Where did El Libertador have political asylum until he was ready to put his plans in action.
TIT has a typical 'small penis' compensation syndrome and is not worth while wasting time on.
'irrefragable' ?? I've just worked out who you remind me of;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08
You bugle...more royalist than king !
There is no any people who named British,in the history , present time..won't be in the future time..
You are English ..or...Scots...or ..Welsh...or...N.Irish...just that..
“Half the soldiers...”
Sure they were Stratehiccups.
When you prove this unequivocally, I will desist from reminding you that I kept your whole family's bellies full in WWII.
Britain exists today only at Argentina's whim.
:)
After the occupation of Denmark bythw Germans the UK occupied the islands and left post VE day.
The Faroese enjoyed the autonomy granted to them bythw British hence their status similar to a UK self governing overseas territory.
The people of the Faroes remain grateful tithe UK and enjoy UK food such as Fish and Chips and Cadbury's Dairy Milk
See Wikipedia for more
@142 Did you give the food to us for free? So you were profiteering? You were making money out of the deaths of British and Commonwealth armed forces? argentine SCUM!
Did the “british” fighters fight in South America for free??
They were paid or allowed to maraud, something which surely came easy to them.
I put the example of Argentina allowing Britain to “exist” in such embellished and grandiloquent language, as a reference for your side to understand how ridiculous they sound when they claim Argentina owes its independence to Britain.
In fact, there is not even a comparison there. The influence of Argentina in WWII British food supplies was greater than Britain's influence in the Argentine war of independence.
I repeat, former argentine president Carlos Menen did the biggest mistake selling YPF and Aerolineas Argentinas to Spain, and to resume diplomatic relations with the UK...for what?
Argentina legally has rights to own YPF again. As long Carlos Slim, acquired 8.4% ( 228,000,000 US millons) of the Oil & Gas YPF SA means good business.
Assuming your premise (which I do not), eliminating England twice from the World cup in the last 20 years or so is more than enough than satisfy the “useful purpose” for a country clause...
Ask the French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, Irish, Scottish, Australians, Welsh, and about 80% of the rest of the world that are always in the gratitude of Argentina when we knock you out of World Cups in the knock-outs.
hahahahaha
change your tactic...
don't pretent an Argentine from US...
be a Scot / Welsh/N.Irish..of course first you have to search anythings from internet/media ...
What is that, CFK incoherently rambling and not able to deal with being put on the spot. Oh blow me over!
There you go Argies. Your president does not even have the skill to formulate an adequate reply when being called to account on an issue she apparently is passionate about. She could have said “Stop”, “Halt” or something similar in an Iberian dialect to try to wrestle control of the situation but she was unable to even do that.
A weak president for a weak nation.
Jun 19th, 2012 - 06:54 pm
Clyde. Seriously bloke, try to ignore conk. He hasn't taken his pills.
Incoherent ramblings from Argentinians trolls on the internet.
The British political elite previously regarded Argentina's claim on the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands and surrounding maritime spaces as a nuisance to be rebutted through diplomacy.
What if these direct confrontations by Argentina's leadership shift British defense policy to one of active military consideration of Argentina as the #1 enemy of the British state?
Argentina may well be biting off more than it can chew. Brazil might well conclude it would be too.
What then?
Jun 19th, 2012 - 09:28 pm
Another question might be, what if the FI chose by referendum to become Argentinian? Would Argentina and the chair of the C24 recognise the result then?
It is all academic and military force is not something anybody wants to consider. The positions will not change.
Thus, it leads to the question: Is Argentina intentionally provoking the British to take a hard line and if so, what is the end game?
not half lol were not that good .... yet
what our PM is stating is Argentina's desire to claim the Falklands would make the Falklands a colony of Argentina. so long as its present population does not want to be part of Argentina. and it is very understandable that they do not thanks to a conflict that happened on there island where they temporarily became a colony of Argentina
I wouldn't describe us as war mongering. as we are presently not at war
Uk doesn't have any problems we have no issue with the Falklands, argentina does we dont simple.
if your “What is that I smell? Is it -- the scent of national decline?” that can only be coming from around you and argentina and post 156 beef proves it
“A weak president for a weak nation.” here here
Jun 19th, 2012 - 09:36 pm
Don't flatter yourselves. When Argentina becomes a nuclear threat to the UK, the UK will become a nuclear threat to Argentina. That is the nature of nuclear detterence. We have a conventional detterent strategy for the Falkland Islands. True the UK could not mount a task force like they did in 1982 but so long as we can keep the Argentine military off our territory we won't have to.
Like we said, the British just want to be friends,
Please David, change the record, be more aggressive with them . [growl ]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I forggotty,
Yes the next conflict will be different,
Have you never heard of a con , entrapment , bluff ,
No obviously not .
Jun 19th, 2012 - 09:40 pm
What exactly is the link between the Chagosians and the Falkland Islands situation as engineered by Argentina? Apart from being an irrelevant points scoring excercise on the part of the Malvinistas.
I think there is no danger that Great Britain would nuclearise the area. The British respect the rules of war. Weapons of mass destruction can only be used when threatened or attacked by weapons of mass destruction. Argentina does not possess them nor would it be allowed to have them. In addition the effectiveness of the British weapons are designed to defeat the best technology of the Russians and Chinese. Thus why would Argentina risk so much to threaten the UK with nuclear attack with primitive first generation nuclear weapons?The Argentina nuclear threat is not credible. Absolute nonsense.
Thus the British would never use their nuclear weapons against Argentina or even conventional weapons.
Neither Argentinian nor British Leadership would ever countenance such a stupid escalation. Rather they shall restrict their disagree to a war of words and ideas. No more.
The only reason for the British to fight the Argentinians is if the Argentinians attack the British.
The defenses in the islands could down every aircraft and sink every ship you have a number of times over.
Just forget it and get used to sweeping the floor.
that it the point. Forgetit86 wants us all to believe the the situations are the same and the Falkland islanders should be removed so Argentina can have them as i continue point out Argentina has done far worse during there dirty war with it self blah blah
no political party in the UK would survive losing the Falklands. there would be riots, chaos and a quick change of government. blood was split over the islands and we don't forget blood so easy.
The British and FI want to discuss ARGENTINE TERRITORIAL waters, and get concessions from us there.
That is as confrontational as Argentina wanting to discuss the Falklands themselves.
Britain insisting on fishing and environmental negotiations is agressive.
The best course would be to understand we won't sit down ever again with the Falkland Islands over any of the topics they wish to discuss which involve them having a say in OUR territory.
You are a fool. If the British chose to be aggressive, Argentina shall know all about it.
Right now the British Leadership and diplomats are addressing the issue as softly softly as possible. They are avoiding public scrutiny and defusing nationalist sentiment in the British public.
At the same time, I suspect their policy is shifting; reconciliation with Argentina shall appear unachievable, thus British policy shall shift that which is achievable. The British are, if nothing else, a practical people.
Should that ever change,
Short of total war, in which case they would lose all credibility on this planet for 50 years, they can't do anything. Don't ennoble yourself.
The best solution is a break in formal relations. I'm frankly sick both the Argentine government making this issue their personal obsession and of British hubris against us, by people such as yourself.
I am not impressed with the constant preening of “British character and diplomacy”. The only people that hold themselves to such toplofty regard are the British themselves.
That should work, just so long as everyone understands what an Argentinian fish is.
Your waters, Falklands waters. Catch whatever is within those waters. Simple as that.
Your deliberate frivolity betokens the practical transparency of the matter.
As again , your version or no version,
As we have told you before, [quietness astounds]
Britain only wants to be friends, and that is a matter of public record,
now about this aggression, which is not public record, but your version .of it .
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The British and FI want to discuss ARGENTINE TERRITORIAL waters, and get concessions from us there.
That is as confrontational as Argentina wanting to discuss the Falklands themselves.
Britain insisting on fishing and environmental negotiations is aggressive.
[just so you don’t think we are picking on you, or calling you a liar,
[OK, now prove it,]
Discussions about Fishing and environmental matters, when the initial condition set by one side is “we won't talk about our territory, we manage our fisheries as we please, let's only talk about how you manage them” is a non-starter.
Only intelligent people with common sense can see this fact which means most people here on the Falkland Islands “side” of the argument cannot.
The British think they are willing to be reasonable. The constant Argentinian confrontation shall be interpreted by the British that there is nothing to be gained.
Thus I ask: Is it's Argentina's strategy to provoke the British Leadership?
If so, my feeling is they shall respond in public with diplomatic probity, whist in private accept they must plan for the worst. Something they had perhaps decided not to do.
The key to understanding this logic is that the semantics of words such as “discussion” and “negotiation” are different in Argentina.
You bugle...more royalist than king !
There is no any people who named British, in the history , present time..won't be in the future time..
ENGLISH please, its all gobertygoop.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
178 , sadly you seem to be the only intelligent one,
But it does not answer the question set by you,
Please prove we wanted your territory
Thank you .
.
Well, guess what, they are not being reasonable. And the only opinion that matters in that case is the Argentine position, since it is the other side in any hypothetical negotiation on the matters “they” wish to discuss . If we don't think discussing our territorial waters and fisheries is reasonable, tough luck.
@180
Perhaps. I think in this case both sides (British government and Argentine government), don't understand the concept.
@181
Everytime you ask to put our fisheries and territorial waters in a negotiating table, that is enough proof.
If the FI stop asking to have a say in our fisheries, then one can say they (you) stop having pretentions on our territory.
Jun 19th, 2012 - 10:32 pm
Agreed. Only a fool would not plan for the worst in this situation. I suspect very strongly that the British general staff are meeting weekly in not daily to discuss any situation that could arise, any angle that has not been covered anything that might have been missed. They will plan for every eventuality except the possibility of an act of armed aggression against anybody, not just Argentina.
My worry is that the Argentine general staff are meeting every week, if not every day to try to figure out how they can get the British to do something, erm? Military against Argentina whilst covering up their own involvement. Thereby making the British look like the aggressor.
Fortunately I suspect that the British general staff will have been thinking about this eventuality at great length which why we have 'Rules of Engagement'. These rules are designed to counter 'brinkmanship'. Brinkmanship is what this Argentine administration is practicing. They are trying to engineer another military confrontation in such a way that it looks like the British started it. The British are countering this and trying very hard to avoid another war.
So what if (purely hypothetically of course) some wicked pirates were to scoop up all the proto-Argentinian fish coming down from Brazil before they ever reached Argentinian territorial waters and gained their blue and white stripes?
Argentina would have nothing to say on the matter?
Correct.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So let me get this correctly,
The Falklands have NO territorial waters, and neither do the British,
and thus, then, this means that argentina then owns and has sovereignty over the whole of the south Atlantic, from the south of brazil, all the way down to the Antarctic ocean,
[Is this correct]
And when these Falklanders, ask or demand, a bit of your water, its aggressive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
None none,,,,,,,,
Lets look again at this shall we,
First of the British Falklands, have there own territorial waters, [is this not true]
And so does argentina,,, then beyond these limits is international waters, [is this then not true]
So between Argentinean waters, and the Falklands waters, is international waters, [is this what you are arguing over]
You did not get it correctly.
time tea , we think .
And let's go even further and say that over-fishing made the entire fish population unviable. Still got nothing to say?
Correct. That's what happens when sides hold intransigent views, extreme things tend to happen due to lack of communication and engagement.
This is what the Falklanders wish, btw. No contact with Argentina. No contact means no contact.
The South Atlantic has no fisheries agreement and will have no fisheries agreement in the forseeable future. It is Argentina's fault for insisting on islands it cannot capture at this time, and it is the British fault for having such a poor track record of inspiring trust when it comes to territorial matters.
The British exercise sovereignty over their own territory, which is merely claimed to be Argentinian, with no actual de facto jurisdiction. It is laughable and diplomats laugh at Argentina's expense.
The reality is that Argentina is a mere effete poodle barking at a tough British bulldog.
It is an interesting aspect of Argentine political psychology that Argentina imagines Brazil to be its powerful ally rather than acting in its own interests, whist Brazil knows it cannot gain from direct military confrontation with Great Britain and actually seeks access to British and through British Patronage, American high technology through treaty.
In the same vein, the British do not fear the Brazilians in any way. They would expect to defeat Brazil in any war over the Falklands in short order. The Brazilian Leadership also expect their own defeat and would fear British retribution which would be direct and actually their own policy favors engagement with the British for their own self interest, not least a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
This also requires the incumbent to actually enforce UN Security Council resolutions, as the British have done at great cost to themselves with the U.S.A. for the rule of law and the principles of the U.N. Charter. Something the Brazilians are yet to come to terms with.
Thus Argentine posturing is based on many a false premise.
The interesting thing about the fisheries issue is that it is precisely the kind of low-level functional confidence-building measure that an intelligent, solution-oriented government would seize upon to promote communication and engagement. But what a surprise, extreme fuck-wittedeness prevails.
you just wont admit, that it is CFK greed, and nothing else, that has caused all this,
the islands will remain british,
unless you know differently .
Your exalting excursions are utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. No one cares about your self-delusions of greatness Domingo. Please spare the keyboard abuse.
I was not talking about Falkland Island waters, which you can reap or rape as you wish. I'm talking about Argentine waters which are not what my government “claims” to be theirs. I'm talking about waters off Mar del Plata for example.
That is what the British and FI want to discuss, and the simple answer is no.
if you think CFK could do any better talking to these Al-Qaeda cavemen in Iraq, please try.
in the mean time,
britain may have problems,,
but the fact is, if you or argentina or CFK thought you could do anything ,
you would have done it by now,
but alas, as you argies say,
we only want to talk.
so talk away .
South Americans are a peace-loving people. We don't invent false excuses to start unnecessary wars against unprepared foreign nations -- we don't need wars to shore up nationalistic feeling; quite the contrary, we pride ourselves on our tolerance and respect for other nations' sovereignty. That is the only reason you won't see a war commenced by a South American against a foreign nation in the years to come.
The British and FI want to discuss nothing; they mere hope against reason that discussing less contentious issues they can build foundations to eventual make some small progress on the contentious issues with the Argentine Leadership.
HansNielsund @192 is most perceptive. Unfortunately for his efforts, Truth Telling Troll, he suffers inferior and quite contrarian witless ornery is lugubrious riposte. Of which, you are most exemplary.
”The British and FI want to discuss nothing; they mere(ly) hope against reason taht discussing...“
Don't trick yourself trying to trick me. You can't anyway.
”he suffers inferior and quite contrarian witless ornery is lugubrious riposte”
Staggering much in your emulous attempts?
See what now passes for a beautiful women in Britain:
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html
That's why Argentina is bullying a population of 3,000 instead of talking to them.
OK, whatever, your ideas of peace are what others call aggressive, bullying behaviour. If the UK forces were not on the Falkland Islands the Argentines would invade the Islands. Just like 1982.
A leopard never changes its spots.
Bad news for Britain, and any other European nation.
Why do you continue to open your mouth and spout nonsense? Go back to your sewing and knitting and shut up. Were you educated in Argentina?< yes I think so, out of all the trolls on this site, you are certainly the most retarded.
“Maybe they didn't murder enough natives to be entitled to be a separate nation like Argentina?”
Perhaps you hit on the real reason why Argentina won't recognize the Falkland Islanders.
To truly belong to South America you have to butcher at least 20 percent of the native population. As there were no indigenious people on the islands to kill, the islanders don't qualify.
I thought it was mostly down to food, and weapons from the usa, having the USSR fight the majority of the German army and having the tenacity to hold on in 1940-41 when most of the world thought we were going down......
I repeat again - although I have read about the defeats of the british army in BA in the Napoleonic wars, as a campaign they are lost in the sweep of a world wide war- we tend to look to the pennisula campaign and the battles in europe- simply because they involved far more people. I will grant you that defeats in any nations history tend to get glossed over. If the Invasions had succeeded, they would have been held up as examples of aggressive applications of seapower.
The fact that the local people and militia were responsible for defence does'nt alter the fact that you were a spanish territory. However, that same defence, without spains help was one of the things that led towards your independence.
@197 - what total claptrap.
Disappointment to a supposed democratic republic.....
keep shooting yourself in the foot
If that is what Scotland decide then so be it.
If the Falkland Islanders decide to be independent of Argentina then so be it.
However it seems to me that in doing so, the UK Government and the islanders themselves are neglecting the other half of the argument, which is the history of the competing sovereignty claims. Even the most basic research, which I have done, exposes the Argentinian claims to be very weak indeed in comparison to the British claims, and yet I rarely see anything substantial coming from either London or Stanley that makes it clear that Argentina never actually owned the islands in the first place and that thier claim to do so is almost entirely without foundation.
Upholding the right of self determination, while laudable, is by itself not enough- Argentinians simply respond (with some logic) with “ OK we know the islanders views about who they want to be, but that doesn't change the fact that the islands belonged to us first and still do”. So until the utter fabrication of Argentinian ownership prior to 1833 is strongly refuted and a more balanced view of history promoted, the argument cannot be won in the international community (I am not suggesting it could ever be won in Argentina itself) on the self determination aspect alone.
falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf
Nope Musky you will became a AOT (Argentine Overseas Territory)
Is just one letter change that's all.
What about AOP? Cool isn't it?
South Americans are a peace-loving people. We don't invent false excuses to start unnecessary wars against unprepared foreign nations -- we don't need wars to shore up nationalistic feeling; quite the contrary, we pride ourselves on our tolerance and respect for other nations' sovereignty.
Forgetty
No disrespect mate,
But that the biggest load of bollix and doctorial remark ive ever heard since,
Old adolf, Hitler stated that he only wanted peace,
Once again bollix to the extreme
TTT
Your good
But you aint that good,
Double standard questions loaded with distraction remark,
Typical old school, just standard stuff,
Is it not .
.
.
We know all to well about your peace loving attitudes don't we Mr Forget?
I now know who you are - Sun reader and white van man from Essex
Can you enlighten us with any more of your bile and crap?
I am beginning,reluctantly, to think that some of the Argie posters have more sense than you
Thank God that the bulk of the population in England are a bit less paranoic than you.
I thought you were a patriot Mr Conq? Insulting your fellow countrymen is no way to go about things .
“I'm talking about waters off Mar del Plata for example. That is what the British and FI want to discuss, and the simple answer is no.”
I can accept that burials at sea lend a special sensitivity to certain areas.
“This is what the Falklanders wish, btw. No contact with Argentina. No contact means no contact. ”
No, this is what you want. I would like to have contact with Argentina - friendly contact based on commerce and co-operation. We are willing now and have been in the past.
“The South Atlantic has no fisheries agreement and will have no isheries agreement in the forseeable future.”
It wasn't us that tore up the fisheries and oil agreements. Argentina believed that by doing so you could have it all Better to accept that this isn't going to happen.
@210 Justthefacts
“I rarely see anything substantial coming from either London or Stanley that makes it clear that Argentina never actually owned the islands in the first place and that thier claim to do so is almost entirely without foundation.”
With idiots like Reyvolution telling people that the British landed 2000 implanted pirates from a frigate in 1833, I think the Argentines are doing the job for us. More seriously, I think there is much mileage in the saying “the lady protests too much”. Sensible people become suspicious when outrageous facts are screeched from the rooftops.
@ 214 Alexei
“The Falklands could be handed to Argentina without condemning the Falkland Islanders to poverty and purgatory under the Argentine yolk”
I would give you two years to get over the novelty of strutting around our streets and making us drive on the right. Then you would lose interest, go back to sunnier climes and let this place disintegrate into a rural slum of which there are many examples in Argentina.
No thanks, I prefer things as they are.
Seriously how paranoid are you. in 1999 we had a fisheries agreement (amongst other things but that's the relevant part) about stock conservation thats was mutually beneficial until the mad Kirchners got in power and tore it up. It was nothing to do with trying to control your waters, we both agreed to put some measures in place to ensure sustainability of fisheries. The Falklands have lived up to their end of the deal and continue to do so.
If you live in Scotland you will have a vote regardless of your ethnic origin - English Polish Irish Welsh etc.
Now, if you wish to continue in this manner, find another place to post your opinions that have nothing to do with the subject.
There is nothing wrong with the UK apart from our present government.
I have lived under many more than you !
Ignore them Clyde they no nothing other then the crap thats they pick up in the media and in particularly the film Braveheart which is one of the most false and inaccurate films of all time.
Paranoia is based on unreasonable suspicion. As another Brit eloquently expressed
“A leopard never changes its spots”
I invite you to revise the history of EUROPEAN nations in regards to treaties signed with peoples of the New World (or with societies outside of Europe in general). It is appalling and shockingly depraved, over a span of hundreds of years. You expect Argentina to blithely trust such track record of turpitude? Thus I must oppugn you placing the onus on us.
If you do not believe me, ask Briton. He was objective enough to quote the history of treaties between the “Old” world and other latitudes.
There is no word in the 2,500 english language that will DEGRADE ME.
YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO IGNORE MY COMMENTS.
Please leave your house and enlighten yourself with the real world instead of this dark world you live in - where the UK and possibly the world is plotting to snatch territory from Argentina through fishing conservation and cooperation.
change your name ..
Of course it is possible. One violation by Argentina of such hypothetical treaty would be an invitation to sanctions by the UK (surely with the help of allies), which de facto would be the use of intimidation to chasten or discipline the country into altering its behavior WITHIN ITS TERRITORY.
That is de facto a loss of sovereignty.
And there are cleverer ways to even gain further from a treaty.
I have never heard of sanctions against countries who choose to no longer cooperate with others over fishing/environment etc.. as you state the territorial waters are for the country they belong to - to decide how to manage them.
All the FI's want to do is work in partnership to preserve and increase fish stocks to the benefit of both countries. Argentina and the FI would be free to leave such a partnership at any time with no consequences.
Because they were “agreements” to communicate and exchange information. There was no formal treaty.
How very nasty or courageous of you to mention a great.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Still back on track,
Allow me to help you out,
I invite you to revise the history of EUROPEAN nations in regards to treaties signed with peoples of the New World (or with societies outside of Europe in general). It is appalling and shockingly depraved, over a span of hundreds of years. You expect Argentina to blithely trust such track record of turpitude?
If you do not believe me, ask Briton. He was objective enough to quote the history of treaties between the “Old” world and other latitudes
What I said was quoted from sources below,
And I stand by my opinion, [otherwise no point in making one]
Yes the Europeans did treat native very badly, and conned them out of many things,
,
Then after all things had subsided enough, to allow millions of European immigrants to arrive in the Americas, [and other parts of the world]
Argentina, like others are a basic product, of European expansion,
Some ignore the past, [nothing to do with us]
But considering argentina [under CFK ]has bartered and broken treaties like bread,
It would be unfair to condemn the past, when today, CFK is doing exactly the same thing,
And make you in some ways worse, as a 21st century democracy should know better, and should have learned from her past,
[Argies aint the only ones][but who we are talking abt]
[LIST OF TREATIES ]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties
it may help you,
no one is perfect, but we can but try .
[Briton 2012]
..
So what's the problem with “agreements” then?
slida!
Hahahaha
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbcFv5boO1k&feature=youtube_gdata
Has anybody got more substantial footage of the actual President-PM meeting?
Jun 20th, 2012 - 09:34 am
If only it were that simple. I wouldn't want to inflict it on you but if you were to trawl through these pages you'll see that those arguments have been done to death. You might be right about the UKG making more of it though and call the Argentine government out. Not only on their version of history but the way it is rammed down every Argentine school childs throat thereby perpetuating the myth and of course the conflict that it brings.
Now I am not saying that the Malvinistas are liars, I don't think it is that simple. They genuinly believe what they are saying is true and that the FI and the UK are lying to them instead. It has even led me to question if what I know as the truth really is true but there is nothing I can find to refute it. Malvinistas have blind faith, we have verifiable facts. You can ignore facts and you can't argue with blind faith.
So it all boils down to the right to self determination. It trumps everything.
ha ha
I'm just talking about good practice between neighbors. How can you question the blame I assign with the 99 agreement? The only part of that agreement that Argentina have upheld is the weekly LAN flight being allowed through their airspace (originally we were also allowed charter flights but not any more), which they constantly threaten us with the romoval of. The Falklands has held up every part of the deal so the blame is with either the current government and Nestor or, if you prefer, with Menem for signing the agreement in the first place.
Indeed it would! She'd tear the right wing opposition to shreds and have the others eating out of her hand =) Bring it on =)
#214 An interesting idea. One to negotiate??
Perhaps Rockall should be a self-governing territory.
The C24 could judge its decolonised status.
Smile.
No, you know quite well the rationales: marine and offshore resources.
Rockall was a 'de novo' claim,
and the Icelandic extended EEZ was an argument about historic rights and changed access.
A bit off beam, old chap, I'd say.
As I have explained to your fellow Argentine commentator's Mr Axel, your the one's who are being hypocritical about Colonialism. You were created by it and so you are in no position to complain. Don't like colonialism?, pack your bags and return to your continent of origin i.e. Europe, Asia, middle east etc. As you are on stolen lands were as the Falkland Islanders aren't.
Arg: “WE HATE COLONIALISM, UK OUT OF MALVINAS!!!”
UK: “You were created by colonialism.”
ARG “THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!”
LatAm natives: Europeans out of South America!!!
Arg: What?Who?
UK/natives: You!!!
1. Removing its Malvinas First Transitional Provision clause from constitution;
2. Expressing willingness for tri-partite Argentina-Britain-Falklands negotations;
3. Removing all embargoes (ie, food, shipping, flights, etc) from Falklands;
4 Join with the Falklands in conservation of all fish stocks and environmental impacts of marine oil exploration.
Anything else?
Still good one, limited time offer only available for FI, Georgias and surrendered area.
Argentina is going to waive it's own flag? As in to lose the right to use it?
The verb WAIVE has 2 senses:
1. do without or cease to hold or adhere to
2. lose or lose the right to by some error, offense, or crime
Strange move there, but given the current state of Argentina, probably wise.
You talk about surrender. Just who is Argentina going to surrender to? Chile? Brazil? Uruguay? I would say British, but we really wouldn't want you.
Never mind, Dany, I'm sure that some other South American country will take over the running of Argentina, and you may even get a decent government for a change.
Since Argentina's constant failures makes you want to waive the use of your flag, Dany, perhaps you could reinvent the country. Give it a different name and flag, and perhaps where your creditors come calling they won't recognise you as Argentina, and you can wipe the shame you feel of being Argentinian away.
Dany, Dany, you really are pathetic, fortunately most Argentines aren't as deluded as you, and even the majority of Malvinistas and Argtards can put together better arguments.
Fact Two: Britain never deployed people to make a claim to the islands.
Fact three: Pioneering travellers were the first people to settle the Falkland Islands. It just happens that many were of English , Scottish and Welsh origin but many others came from other Countries.
Fact Four: The settlers of that period did not remove any indigenous people because none existed.
Fact Five: Argentines on the other hand killed or removed an entire population of indigenous people from land that today is known as Argentina.
Fact Six: Argentine Politicians are the only ones wanting to claim the Falkland Islands.
Fact Seven: The majority of Argentine ordinary citizens are not interested in the Falklands Islands but are forced to publically state they are by their governing dictators .
Fact Eight: There are several Argentine families living on the Islands and some have a history of living here for a very long time.
Fact Nine: That South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands were never claimed , Owned or challenged by France or Spain but was added by the Greedy Argentines.
Fact Ten: These Islands were discovered by an Englishman Captain John Davis in 1592 and was settled by the British at Port Egmont before the French settled at Port Louis.
Fact eleven: The people of the Falkland Islands will always have the right to determine their own future as laid down in the united nations charter.
Fact Twelve: We wish to remain British period.
Get used to it Argentina. One Day the rest of the world will see your Country for what it really is .
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 09:03 pm
Well if her last encounter with that bloody Tory DC is anything to go by it would go something like this........
........ahem.....
DC. Madame President, the Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination as laid down UN charter.
KFC. Mumble mumble, migrating birds mumble mumble potatoes mumble mumble turnips mumble mumble pirate usurpers mumble mumble every body knows mumble mumble give peace a chance mumble mumble UK is finished mumble mumble geography mumble mumble. And here is a letter to prove it! Malvina son Argentinas!!!!!!!!
Ok Lepre don't get upset we will include Pakistan too to make you feel more at home.
Can you see that after all I have some feelings!
Don't thank me please, is just the less I could do to make comfortable a friend like you.
The Argentines keep rattling on about Britain steeling land particularily the Falklands. Yet they never make notes of the very fact that every square inch of what is Argentina today was stolen from an indigenous people. I would like to know why this is.
For the sake of world peace drop these stupid claims to what at the end of the day actually belongs to the people who live on the Islands. The ones who at every level the Argentines have refused to recognise exist just as they did to the indigineous peopl of that country.
Honesty and truth always prevail and as history shows Falkland Islanders are truthful and peaceful to the whole world including their bullying neighbour.
The hard fact of life is that when this issue is finally put to bed. Argentina will still have to live with her past and our people will live on through the passage of time period
As usual you make little sense, but do you still want to waive the Argentine flag?
I'm not sure where Pakistan comes into this, but since you're afraid of the big bad muslim people, it's best that you don't go there.
The day the Argentines gain sovereignty over the Falklands will be the day Satan is skating to work.
Argentina is economically finished Dany, because people like you allow corrupt officials to constantly rob and rape the country, and then don't do anything to fix the problems. It takes hard work to make a country successful, which is why I suspect that Argentina never will be. Too many of you looking for the easy fix.
Well Dany, you reap what you sow, and all Argentina is reaping lately is sh!t because you voted in (and I use that term loosely considering the amount of people who were paid to vote) a sh!t government.
That's why people like you hold onto the 'Malvinas' myth, to take you're mind off just how crap your life is.
“but since you're afraid of the big bad muslim people, it's best that you don't go there”
Why you say that Bro?
As-salam alaikum!
wa 'alaykum salaam
You always mention muslims, Dany, one would think that you were either obsessed with them, afraid of them, or both obsessed and afraid. I wonder which one it is.
Allah Akbar!
The position of the Argentines have changed so much over the Falklands Dispute that it is becoming ever more clear now it is in fact the absolute financial wealth that surrounds us which is now paramount in their eyes. Many years ago it was national pride where dictators brainwashed their children to believe what they wanted them to believe. Today Oil has changed all that. He who owns the Falkland Islands has absolute control over all of the South Atlantic by the very fact that our Islands could one day produce amounts of revenue that would dwarf anything Argentina has ever had and they cannot accept that we the Falkland Islanders just a mere 3000 strong are in complete control of what they want. I have seen this the world over. Oil is possibly the biggest discovery that started world turmoil. Wars and human greed. However I am sure we Islanders would from our new found wealth be quite prepared to help our strugling neighbours to ensure their poverty ridden people were fed which is the complete opposite of what that Country is currently trying to do to us through embargos. Such tantrums from so called reformed peoples does not look good on the world platform. comments have even ssugested that one day the Argentines will get our country. I doubt that very much because unlike our rather grumpy thugs of neighbours, we have always played by the rules that is peacefull. Heck we even allowed Argentine families come and make their homes here that says a lot about how decent we really are. We are not an implanted people as would be sugested we are all decendants of people who wanted to do something differant nothing more.
Shukran
Is not Allahu Akbar? Or Am I wrong?
Should I ask my money back for my poor lessons?
“Dany, one would think that you were either obsessed with them, afraid of them, or both obsessed and afraid”
Don’t panic I’m not obsessed, afraid or whatsoever you may think against any religion. I don’t even care about religion meanwhile you don’t try to impose to me anything against my religion. Which is none.
I just only use the name Mohammed (popular name in Britain) to call British generally and has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or whatever you may think.
And the name Mohammed does not means that the person is Muslim, he can be Catholic, like the name Alí, etc.
Or do you think that anyone with the name Aaron, Samuel, Issac, Isaias, Miguel, Esther, etc. has to be Jewish?
Do you get the idea?
“I wonder which one it is.” Who?
Learning some word in Arabic now turns me Islamic? Ha ha
I can say Wanna, cute, fory and Miami Am I American?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!