Friday, December 28th 2012 - 05:03 UTC

PM Thatcher “never, never expected” Argentina to invade the Falklands; “it was such a stupid thing to do”

The 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina caught PM Margaret Thatcher by surprise, newly released government papers have shown. The then-prime minister only saw it was likely after getting “raw intelligence” two days before the Argentines landed.

“That night no-one could tell me whether we could retake the Falklands - no-one. We did not know - we did not know”, reveal the declassified documents (Photo PA)

”Argentina is not just another 'banana republic”, warned then ambassador in Buenos Aires, Anthony Williams

Papers released under the 30-year rule show Mrs Thatcher were acutely worried about retaking the Islands. One historian said the documents were among the “most powerful material” declassified in the last three decades.

In October 1982, a few months after the war ended, Mrs Thatcher gave evidence behind closed doors to the Falkland Islands Review Committee, chaired by Lord Franks.

The transcript of that dramatic testimony has now been published for the first time.

“I never, never expected the Argentines to invade the Falklands head-on. It was such a stupid thing to do, as events happened, such a stupid thing even to contemplate doing”, Mrs Thatcher told the Franks Committee.

There had been some British contingency planning in the month before the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. On 26 March 1982, Ministry of Defence officials came back to Mrs Thatcher with a plan to deter a full-scale invasion.

One sentence shocked her, and she wrote it in her diary:

I  just put down in my diary:”Moreover, if faced with Argentine occupation on arrival there would be no certainty that such a force would be able to retake the dependency”. You can imagine that turned a knife in my heart, that lot.

However, in her oral evidence, she stressed that she had still considered an invasion unlikely:

...four month was something new. I again stress, I thought that they would be so absurd and ridiculous to invade the Falklands that I did not think it would happen. Nevertheless one has always to make contingency plans, and soon after we got the South Georgia incident happening.

The picture changed on 31 March 1982 when Mrs Thatcher was shown intelligence suggesting that an invasion was on the cards:

Chairman: That is right. What happened in August 1914, etc:
- A. I do not remember that: I just say it was the worst I think moment of my life.

She also told the committee: “That night no-one could tell me whether we could retake the Falklands - no-one. We did not know - we did not know.”

The British foreign secretary at the time, Lord Carrington, also gave evidence to the Franks Committee, where he too held the view that Argentina was not going to invade the Falklands.

”I have been accused, and was accused violently after 2 April in the House of Commons, and in the press and elsewhere - of wilfully ignoring signs and statements and evidence, and just ignoring it. I can truthfully say I did not do any of these things… they (the signs of an invasion) were not there,“ Lord Carrington said.

On 5 April, Lord Carrington resigned as foreign secretary, which prompted this reaction from Mrs Thatcher: ”I had tremendous confidence in Peter Carrington, and his loss seemed to me a devastating blow for Britain and I would back him up all the way.“

The political historian Lord Hennessy said Mrs Thatcher's evidence about the Falklands War was some of the most powerful material to be declassified by the National Archives in the last three decades.

”It's only three months after the end of the war, so it's immensely vivid. It's still coursing through her veins.
“She also has this great power of expression - she's a primary colours politician.”

Argentina's invasion of the Falklands may have come as a surprise to Mrs Thatcher and her ministers, but the government papers do reveal some interesting pointers.

As early as 1977 there was a British intelligence assessment that Argentine military action was possible if talks over the Islands went badly. At the end of that year, the British government decided to send a submarine and two frigates to the South Atlantic.

However, the ships' movements were kept secret.

Indeed, there was no conspicuous British naval presence in the South Atlantic in the five years that preceded the war. This may be why Argentina thought Britain would not launch an attack to retake the Falklands in April 1982.

Also, Britain's ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1982, Anthony Williams, felt some of his warnings sent to London were simply ignored.

“Argentina is not just another 'banana republic' - a tin pot country led by a tin pot dictator,” he wrote in his valedictory despatch in June 1982.

“Argentina has its share of vandals, hooligans and roughs. But this is not the whole story, nor was the seizure of the Islands a simple act of brigandage.”

• 2 April 1982: Argentine forces invade Falkland Islands. Other British South Atlantic territories including South Georgia are seized shortly afterwards
• 5 April: A British task force of more than 100 ships sets sail for the South Atlantic
• 25 April: South Georgia is recaptured by British forces.
• 2 May: Argentine cruiser General Belgrano sunk by HMS Conqueror, killing more than 320
• 21 May: Three thousand British troops begin landing at San Carlos on East Falkland
• 28-29 May: British forces recapture Goose Green.
• 8 June: British landing craft are bombed at Fitzroy, killing more than 50 men
• 13 June: Argentine positions on mountains overlooking the capital Port Stanley are taken
• 14 June: Argentine forces surrender. British troops march into Stanley

255 British servicemen and three Falklands civilians died during the conflict. The number of Argentine dead is estimated at about 650. (BBC).-

279 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.

1 Anglotino (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:56 am Report abuse
“I never, never expected the Argentines to invade the Falklands head-on. It was such a stupid thing to do”

Never doubt the ability of politicians to do really stupid things when backed into a corner.

But then again, never doubt others will also do really smart things when cornered.

Argentinean politicians invaded the Falklands and lost power.
British politicians fought back and gained power for longer.

Did Argentinean rejuvenate Britain? And give her back pride and purpose? Funny when you think about it.
2 Gordo1 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:24 am Report abuse
Argentine politicians? They were military bully boys who knew nothing about politics about governance.

But then the Kirchner gang are allegedly politicians but they, too, seem to know nothing about proper governance.
3 Iron Man (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:01 am Report abuse
I was never a fan of Thatcher but what shines through the material just released is her determination to do what she believed was right. Even when Britain was on course to regain the Islands and Reagan wanted her to allow Argentina to leave with some dignity and possibly a consolation prize, she insisted that the job had to be finished and Argentina expelled so that it would not be seen to gain from its aggression.

If only others like the UN and certain SA neighbours would follow the same line. It is useless to try to compromise or negotiate with Argentina, if you give an inch they will take it, say it was their right anyway and come back five minutes later for more.
4 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:38 am Report abuse
Don't let them think they can try it again! (they wish they could)

Sign this petition and ask the British Government to put a stop to their under hand tactics now! Ask any one and every one you know to sign!
5 Feathers McGraw (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:01 am Report abuse
This Kirchner woman is not much different from Galtieri from the perspective of an outside observer. Nutty, illogical, populist, no long term planning, no real grasp of serving the real needs of the country and all about keeping her own dynasty going at all costs.

Argentina is like most bullies - the only thing it understands is a punch in the face and that's exactly what Margaret Thatcher did. It's past time for another one.
6 Musky (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:24 am Report abuse
@3 Ironman
I too was never a fan of mrs thatcher (the children's milk snatcher) , architect of the poll tax and was glad when she went.... but she dispatched the true thugs of this world aka the argentine Junta. Their loss was their downfall and therefore argentine owes britain its gratitude.
7 Conorworld (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:56 am Report abuse
They were a tragic example of something prevalent in Argentine politics. When things are bad domestically, politicians or in this case generals deflect to shore up waning support. So a war was an excuse to deflect from domestic issue. CFKs attacks on Clarin etc are a similar way to deflect from her systematic failure to reign in inflation and crime, the two things her electorate say are the most pressing issues for Argentina today
8 lsolde (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 10:07 am Report abuse
@3 lron Man,
You've summed up their character precisely.
“if you give them an inch they will take it, say it was their right anyway & come back five minutes later for more”
l couldn't have put it better myself.
That is why l despise the appeasing weaklings who want to make a “deal” with Argentina(not that they're likely to keep their word anyway!)& “offer” them West Falkland or South Georgia or some other territory to drop their ridiculous “claims” & leave East Falkland in peace.
They have no rights here anyway, so it is gross treason to even consider a deal with the liars.
l'd rather trust a boomslang or a rattler before l would trust Argentina.
@6 Musky,
Too true, if it wasn't for us the junta or its descendents could still be in power, still running one-way tourist trips by helicopter over the South Atlantic.
They owe us a lot, but they get awfully cross when this is pointed out! lol.
9 emerald (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 10:12 am Report abuse
well done iron lady !
you well overturned the Argentine military junta.

the British is more cleaner power than all other world's powers.
10 downunder (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 10:45 am Report abuse
Margaret Thatcher was the best British PM since Winston Churchill and the leagacy she left us extends far beyond the Falkland Islands, she played an important role in ending the Berlin Wall and the cold war with the USSR. Iron Lady inded!
11 Rufus (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 10:48 am Report abuse
“it was such a stupid thing to do”

Always bet on stupid.
12 PGH (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:19 am Report abuse
MercoPenguin: the striking fact in the released papers is that Thatcher was prepared to give its place to Argentina in the administration of the islands in order to avoid the war, or to leave them under a US or UN secured trustee.

Leaving this away from the article really seems like “such a stupid thing to do”. But we all know that an inflammatory title fulfills your angry better.
13 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:20 am Report abuse
I never thought I would be here defending one of MT's policies but should we really remember her by a hook line 'milk snatcher'? Good heavens, if that is the worst a PM can be remembered for it is a pretty good term in office.

Free milk in schools was well past necessary. 1/3rd of a pint of milk given out at first break was introduced during the war years when rationing was in place and possible malnutrition in children a reality. By the late 60's when Harold Wilson -a Labour PM- started reducing the scheme it was unnecessary. MT continued to withdraw the free milk to put the resources where they were better spent.

Much like the plans to take away winter fuel payments to people like Lord Sugar. (Not that he would claim it). When you run a welfare programme you have to constantly review and put the money where it is most needed. By the 70's children were well fed.

Just sayin'.
14 Steveu (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:25 am Report abuse
Today's Daily Torygraph has some more revelations - nothing that we didn't know or suspect already but it does put some meat on the bones.

In particular, the US where you had the Haig camp afraid of upsetting the Junta (Reagan had several unsavoury juntas in his thrall) and were prepared to tip off the RG's about the South Georgia operation and then the Weinberger camp who were dishing out free fuel and “graciously” letting us use our own island (Ascension)

As far as I can see, you can pretty much forget the “special relationship”. After Blair's sycophantic toadying over Iraq and our ill defined role in Afghanistan it has been a one way street and if they want to use Ascension or DG (infamous for its part in “extaordinary rendition”), then it should be at market rates and under the direction of the RAF/MoD. The DG lease is up for negotiation but I doubt any UK government will have enough cojones to make it more than a rubber stamp exercise.
15 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:53 am Report abuse
The complete news is that Tatcher herself thought about given full sovereignity over the islands to the UN to finally give them back to Argentina.

That's nothing more than the thought of the british government of the past 50 years, that they should return the islands back to the original owners argentina, the fough back was nothing more that to return argentina touching british ass.

British gov gave a flying fuck about those islands and they always thought about returning them to Argentina.
16 Clyde15 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:04 pm Report abuse
How about “there is no such thing as society”. She opened the door for collective greed resulting in the rise of the bankers gambling with our money. Ask the population north of Watford what they thought of her. She did some good things but at the end she believed in her own infallibility and was one step away from being a dictator as Cabinet government was ignored.
Can you think of any current parallels in SA politicians ?
17 Steveu (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:06 pm Report abuse
Had the 1982 invasion not have taken place and had Argentina been a more friendly nation towards the islanders (like modern day Chile) it might have happened for pragmatic reasons - history shows there was nothing to “give back” to Argentina (I won't bother listing why I think this - it has been covered ad nauseum on this forum)

The 1982 illegal invasion and subsequent ejection of the Aregentine forces changed everything. No British PM is going to give the Falklands to anybody (unless the islanders themselves wish it). We are in a different place now and 255 UK servicemen and 3 islanders lost their lives. We owe it to them that their efforts were not in vain. Argentina also owes a debt to its 650 or so war dead - many young conscripts - to move on and to ensure that they are never so foolish again.
18 Lord Ton (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:10 pm Report abuse
One of the more intersting things to come out of this release is that, throughout the discussions/negotiations between the Uk and Argentina in New York, no great creedence was given to either leaseback or condominium. Britain never accepted that Argentina had any claim at all !
19 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:10 pm Report abuse
@15 I think you need to read again the documents disclosed today because you seem to have a poor understanding of the facts.

Nowhere is it indicated that the British government 'always thought about 'returning' the Falklands to Argentina'. For a start, they never belonged to Argentina. But more importantly, you have to look at the historical context. In the years before Argentina invaded the Falklands, they had been building a relationship with the islanders and there were some mutual benefits in working together. It was a time when independence was being negotiated for BOTs, but it was a only a consideration.

However, when the fall-down-drunk President of Argentina was overwhelmed with domestic problems he launched a mad-cap invasion of British territory as a warm up to invading Chile. (This is all well documented) At that point there was never, ever a chance of and deal with the devil. You might also try to understand that what was being considered was to lease the islands, never hand them over to anyone.

There is nothing new here. You just don't have a good education system that allows you to investigate history rather than be fed a load of Peronist propaganda.
20 Lou Spoo (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:28 pm Report abuse
@12 & 15

There's nothing new about the fact the UK Government considered a leaseback scheme in which Argentina leased the islands but they remained under British administration. However this didn't in any way recognise Argentina as being the 'original' owners, it was simply seen as a cost saving exercise by the Treasury and the MOD.

It's irrelevant anyway as the idea was dismissed in late 1980 when it became clear that the islanders would have nothing to do with it and the whole scheme centred on the islanders giving their consent to go ahead.

As has been mentioned above the illegal Argentine invasion of 1982 ended any chance, no matter how remote, of the Falklands ever changing hands. It would now be political suicide for any UK Government to hand over territory and people that British service personnel died defending.
21 Martin Woodhead (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:28 pm Report abuse
argentina was just another murderous bannana republic
22 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:31 pm Report abuse

23 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:40 pm Report abuse
@16 I hope I was not setting myself up as a MT devotee. :) I try to look objectively at history and can even - at a push- support some of the decisions of TB. The 'milk-snatcher' tag was blown up in the media when it had outgrown the reason it was there in the first place. That was my point.

Yes, she did start the 'me first-er' attitude in the UK but I think it would have evolved anyway. Tis a real shame when individuals cannot look at the bigger picture and beyond just their own personal needs. Society is important.
24 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:46 pm Report abuse
I won't bother answering one by one but the main argument.

Only an ignorant will deny that the will of the british gov over the past 50 years was to finally give the islands back to argentina, there are even british gov docs stating that.

The fact that full british citizenship was granted post war (1983) is another argument that backs that idea, british gov didn't care about those islands.

I can't back 1982 ARgentina's mlitary regime decision (for the fairness of the situation even that military regime was back by the british gov of that time pre war) because it threw away discussions being maintained at that time about sovereignity. For the records the 3 dead islanders were killed by british forces.

On the other hand, you don't plan to return something that you thing it doesn't belong to you. The reason not to give the islands back at once lies on the fact that when you're in a more powerful position you exercise that power under certain conditions.
25 Steveu (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:48 pm Report abuse
@13 Elaine

I think MT had a good image abroad and did work hard to protect the UK's interest

At home, a very mixed bag. Whilst her policies helped people like me become homeowners, a lot of the economic miracle was funded by debt and fuelled by the blind dogma of monetarism and this spree continued until we are where we are now so, ironically, now we have child poverty with us again and so I think we're are now more akin to the 1950's than the 1980's

Whilst I was no fan of the nationalised industries, it was a bit galling to pay for something we already owned and newly privatised companies like BT were still de facto monopolies offering little choice. As regards home ownership - there was a certain amount of gerrymandering (eg the Lady Porter fiasco)

In the end, she became convinced of her own invincibility and the men in grey suits had to break the bad news. I always remember listening to Geoffrey Howe's valedictory speech live in the car - political dynamite (from a “dead sheep”)
26 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:48 pm Report abuse
@21 a murderous banana republic which military dictatorship was backed at the time by the british gov, funny that you say so.
27 gustbury (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 12:58 pm Report abuse
28 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:04 pm Report abuse
@24 They were not going to give back something that Argentina never had. They did consider leasing it to Argentina, that's all. But your government's stupidity put an end to that thought.

It is irrelevant now because Argentina will never get the Falklands by any means. The rest of the world has moved on.

@25 Yeah, it is always important to look at the time she was PM. It was a very different situation to now and she had to make some tough decisions. To be honest, people knew that and often look for a strong leader when times are tough. I didn't agree with all her policies.

You make a good point about her intentions. She was probably the last PM that saw their role as a public servant and not as a stepping stone to greater wealth.
29 gustbury (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:08 pm Report abuse
30 shb (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:09 pm Report abuse
Much as I dislike a lot of the things Thatcher did - the succesful campaign to retake the Falklands could only have been done by someone with an iron hard conviction in the justness of our cause.

Can you imagine Blair, Brown or Cameron doing that?
31 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:17 pm Report abuse
@28 I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's evident as you say (the world moved on) that the world is changing and the axis of power is moving from Europe/Usa to China/India/Brasil.

And it was never discussed a lease but to concede full sovereignity. Malvinas are not Hong Kong.
32 redpoll (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:21 pm Report abuse
The only person she ever listened to was Willie Whitelaw.He had been through WW2 and knew the horrors of war and did exert a moderating influence on her as she knew he wasnt a contender for her job as PM. Mrs T s tribute to him? “Everyone should have a Willy”
33 José Malvinero (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:28 pm Report abuse
Beautiful the second picture: The Malvinas Islands Argentinas filled of Argentinian: We will return.!
34 Steve-33-uk (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:30 pm Report abuse
'Reagan's Last-Ditch Falklands Plea - Documents made public for the first time show the US president urged Margaret Thatcher not to completely humiliate the Argentines.'
35 Condorito (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:41 pm Report abuse
What a great lady. She did the right thing at the right time on the most important matter that faced her. She did all of us a big favor.

29 Gustbury:
It is really your business if you have a banana up your arse.
36 Steve-33-uk (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:43 pm Report abuse
'Thatcher is recorded as saying as late as 29 May that Britain was “willing to consider change and did not necessarily expect a return to the pre-invasion status quo. The future probably lay in a settlement which did not involve either British or Argentine sovereignty but provided for some form of independence or quasi-independence for the islands.”
37 Steveu (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:44 pm Report abuse
@35 LOL!
38 Optimus_Princeps (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:53 pm Report abuse
@33 Who cares about the islands. They are small islands with only a few people and the weather isn't as pleasant as other places in Argentina (just an opinion).

Worry about home, and don't be like the other lazy morons that are willing to trade their beliefs for a sandwich and $50 pesos. What is important is earning a decent living, being safe, and being financially free. To make that happen, the Kancer that is killing this country needs to be removed.
39 Musky (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 01:56 pm Report abuse
@13 EB
Poor households were glad of the milk, a trivial cost to the
Government had an idea about giving sovereignty (never a case of returning.. That is an oxymoron) but only if islanders wanted it. They did not hence idea shelved !
40 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:02 pm Report abuse
At The Guardian by an englishman:

The UK country which has no problem being governed by unelected foreign bureaucrats. The British don't control their own country anymore, much less the destiny of these islands thousands of miles away. The initial urge to negotiate over the Falklands foreshadowed the approach the British would later take in the United Kingdom itself; negotiate it's sovereignty to foreign nationals.

Who really thinks sovereignty means anything anymore? With Scotland practically out the door, do you think young Britons are going to care about making the ultimate sacrifice for some islands they can barely control on the edge of the world? The youth of today are more interested in the legacy of Che Guevara than helping out Falklanders who they probably regard as nationalist overseas rednecks. Simply giving away your soil is a concept Americans would fight against, hence their belief in the right to bear arms.

Being British has been redefined and it doesn't include asserting ones identity. It's about being multicultural, and it wouldn't be fair for British people to be on these islands, which is basically the message Kirchner is sending; a message British youth hear loud and clear in school everyday in the new interpretation of their Empire.

Thatcher was a great leader. But today's Britain is a very different place.
41 José Malvinero (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:03 pm Report abuse
38 Optimus_Princeps

Do not be Argentine, asshole! If you're Argentine, going to understand me: Andate to reputísima mother who bore you!
42 Steveu (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:03 pm Report abuse
@33 The Falklands (there are no Malvinas) are already full of Argentinians

Most of them are six feet underground because of rabid nationalistic morons like yourself.
43 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:10 pm Report abuse
Another opinion from a britishman about the falklanders:

They're sadly mistaken, if that's what they say. It belongs to their employer, the Falkland Islands Company (rebranded “Falkland Islands Holdings”), a corporation contracted to manage this coaling station for the Crown.

Anyway, “soil”? It's barely deserving of the description “soil” - nothing can be grown there and it is extremely poor pasturage for sheep. The population is not viable, there is no economy as such, it's one step away from the status of a weather station. Perhaps Argentina can make some sensible use of the islands, we can't.

We were getting a much better return on investment from our steelworks and coalmines and shipyards when Thatcher shut them.
44 redpoll (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:15 pm Report abuse
@33 “we will return” You think you are the reincarnation of General MacArthur? Jose= Joseph- didnt he have a multicoloured dream coat?
45 JIB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:20 pm Report abuse
Another britishman:

It was high time that the truth came out into the open. The British claims to the Falklands were spurious, and mainly based on the use of force, not any initial right. This, of course, was brought to the attention of Mrs Thatcher, and thus her apparent resolve in 1982 was more for media consumption than to present the truth of the case (on which, see here, in a few letters of mine written to herself and other notables and The Times during the Falklands/Malvinas war: ).

So, no wonder that she was in fact open to another, peaceful solution, also given the Americans' awareness of the even superior strength of Argentine's claims to the Falklands, cfr the facts presented under the web-link here above.

Congratulations, Britannia, if you will ever realize this!
46 ChrisR (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:31 pm Report abuse
Well, unlike a lot of you I thought Mrs. T had bigger balls than any of her government and most certainly EVERY government since.

I was a Director of a GEC company and our biggest problem was the stranglehold of the unions.

Do none of you remember the strike when the dead were left unburied and my wife with our small children at the time had to wait in line for A loaf of bread, power cuts (on a rota to make sure we all had the grief) etc, etc. And she made eunuchs of the lot of them.

And did any householder really disagree with the poll tax, that everybody should pay a reasonable amount for THEIR end of all the council services? Only the scabs and CHAVs (council housed and violent) who did not work but managed to smoke and drink and produce scum without end protested along with the deluded students (some things never change do they). And school milk FFS, get real.

It was only when Mrs T became a grandmother and announced the birth using the Royal WE that I realised the end was close for her.

Pity Camoron has not got the balls she had.

I remember the Spitting Image show where the cabinet were sitting round a dining table and Mrs. T was giving her order to the waiter: steak (rare) etc. then the waiter asked ‘and the vegetables?’ She replied –‘they will have what I have’.

Of course in hindsight it is easy to see (with the exception of Casper Weinberger) what a bunch of weak willed lily livered arseholes the American people had for a government, but heh, what has changed? The only thing is of course that the UK government are not even as good as that.

Pathetic really.
47 Optimus_Princeps (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 02:31 pm Report abuse
@41 People like you are an embarrassment to Argentina. A huge ego, a small mind, and no ability to speak of. Where was your family during the military dictatorship?

Did they oppose them, join them, or hide like cowards? Were any of your family members among the disappeared? That battle brought the junta to its knees. The islands are a small price to pay for getting rid of that garbage.
48 José Malvinero (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:08 pm Report abuse
47 Optimus_Princeps
As I imagined and I was right. You're a revolting english like 99% of the “british” are.
49 Britishbulldog (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:10 pm Report abuse
I remember very well what we all said as we sailed down into the waters of the South Atlantic we all thought and hoped that it would be all sorted out diplomatically. As we sailed nearer and nearer it became clear to everyone of us that this was not going to happen and we had to take a sharp intake of breath and ready ourselves to what we would have to do, and do it we did and we did it against all the odds.

I usually come on here and insult the Argentine country I do it because it is the most stupid nation on this planet it was in 82 and still is now in 2012, its people still allow people like Galtieri to call all the shots they keep electing the same old crowd of despots that again would throw good men to their deaths if they could. What I never do is insult the ones who stood against us in 82 most were poorly led and for the most part frightened to death either by their own officers or by us who had to fight and kill them but many stood their ground and put up a good fight and only fled when it became obvious that their positions were going to be overrun. And for that alone those Argentinians have my respect and admiration. The rest can go to hell I don't want to know you until you start to grow a pair of balls that elect proper Government officials that put you first.
50 brucey-babe (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:21 pm Report abuse
@46. ChrisR.

Agree 100%
51 Optimus_Princeps (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:35 pm Report abuse
@48 Then feel free to take a trip down there with sticks, stones, and and a rusty paddle boat full of hooligans. If you can manage to club the Falkland Islanders to death without getting blown up, they're all yours.

Why don't you travel to another country and stop sitting on your porch everyday sipping yerba while listening to The Wachiturros? You might get some real world perspective.
52 Phil H (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:43 pm Report abuse
48 people who post as you do have no leg to stand on, no argument, nothing, only racism, meaningless words, and insults. The actions of a loser.
53 Simon68 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:48 pm Report abuse
51 Optimus_Princeps (#)
Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:35 pm

I notice this great Argentine hero, José Malvinero, hasn't answered your question about where he/she/it and his/her/its familly was during the dictatorship, which just goes to show that they were probably supporting the infernal junta as it tried to bring us all to heel.

José Malvinero is a sad colaborator of the junta and La Campora!!!!!!!!!
54 GFace (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 03:59 pm Report abuse
Regarding the “ambiguity” of the US during this episode and speaking as an American (though Pops may not be awake yet and may disagree somewhat), at the time I was ashamed at the “realpolitik” of the Reagan administration over the Falklands. The choice was clear. Back a genuine friend who while not perfect (as many critics of Thatcher here have clearly pointed out) was indeed in every sense an ally and partner, or pander to faux-ally of convenience who was all too happy to tripple-dog-dare the US into choosing the a barbaric-but-“anti-communist” fascist state as they played a pathetic game of diplomatic Cold War chicken against a solid liberal democracy and long-term friend. I'm glad Reagan's compromising angels were ~somewhat~ contained during this embarrassing foreign entanglement of Cold War alliances.
55 Hepatia (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 04:09 pm Report abuse
As has already been pointed out the decision to occupy Las Malvinas was not made by the political leaders of Argentina but by the Junta. It was just another of their many incompetent actions.

Had they not done so it is very probable that, in the natural course of events, Las Malvinas would have reverted back to Argentina by now. In any case, the islands will revert within the next 25 years or so.
56 cornishair (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 04:16 pm Report abuse
55 hepatia. And how on earth will that happen?, as the falklanders want no part of your plan...
57 Optimus_Princeps (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 04:26 pm Report abuse
@53 Yes, I don't like people that arbitrarily side with the person in power and sell their beliefs for a pittance. The junta sent poorly trained kids to the islands, some as young as 19. They shouldn't have died for those incompetent morons. I'm sure José will gladly switch sides when Cristina's government completely collapses.
58 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 04:31 pm Report abuse
@55 Who were the millions dancing in the street when the Falklands were invaded? They all supported the invasion.

The Falklands will never be Argentine. Never have been; never will be.
59 Pete Bog (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 04:35 pm Report abuse
“The youth of today are more interested in the legacy of Che Guevara ”

I asked several young people (in England by the way) today who Che Guevara was and none of them had a clue except one who said 'wasn't he a middle class Argentine who became a terrorist'?
“Another opinion from a Britishman about the falklanders:”
“Anyway, “soil”? It's barely deserving of the description “soil” - nothing can be grown there and it is extremely poor pasturage for sheep”

So, this expert (ex spurt?) Englishman translates 'most vegetables are grown in the Falkland Islands'' for nothing can be grown there?

This Englishman is clearly an uneducated moron.
“It was high time that the truth came out into the open. The British claims to the Falklands were spurious, and mainly based on the use of force, not any initial right”

So can you,( or who you have quoted from), detail 'the use of force' the British used to land on and settle Port Egmont in 1765/1766?
This by the way, is almost 90 years before Argentina became a republic.

And the first Britsh landing without settlement was in 1690. Was this landing an act of force against other people?

And the British expellation of the Buenos Aires Government militia in 1833 was achieved without a single shot being fired. Most of the militia had mutined and murdered the previous militia commander, raping his wife in front of their children. The reason that the British action was not oppossed was because the majority of (80%) the militia's sailors in the Sarandi were guess what? Yes, British mercenaries who refused to fight their own countrymen.

Also, the civilian population were not expelled and replaced with wholly British people (a lie that has been peddled by Argentina for many years), in fact half of the population of 22 that stayed, originated from South America, the rest were French Germans Jamaicans and two British people, one Scottish, one Irish-no English.

You need to bone up on Falkland facts and history, not myth.
60 redpoll (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 04:47 pm Report abuse
How do return some islands which exist in your fantasy to Argentina when the fairies never made agift of them to rg in the first place?
On your prediction the Isla Martin will revert to the rightful owner Uruguay within the next 25 years or so.
Hey,Wait aminute you may need it soon. Is the house of your former deposed president Isabelita Peron being readied up to receive a new tenant shortly?
61 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:05 pm Report abuse
@45 JIB

You make posts quoting ‘Englishmen’ some without source.

Well, opinions are like bottoms – everyone has one. And long may it last – unless of course it is Clarin in Argentina.

However, in your last post you do indeed source the comment of your ‘Englishman’ ).

It is with regret that I inform - your source Mr Jensson is an Icelandic national.

I understand that you live far away from northern climes, but I would encourage you to Google ‘Iceland’, and you will find that it is a separate and sovereign country to the north of the UK.

However, I can understand your affinity with the sentiments of the writer of the article, because Iceland, like Argentina, Iceland defaulted on its debts and reneged on its obligation to meet its guarantees.
62 malen (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:09 pm Report abuse
58 If the isles are british,brits should dont bother and askArg nothing in any way.
Cruises that call in USA cant go then to Cuba, and viceversa, for over 6 months.
You cant be nice if you are all day provocating, with this, with the Queen, with the PM saying nonsense, etc. Are you having problems in UK, some floods with icing, economics, etc.??? So much noise you are making......what happens???
Its you, not us.
63 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:22 pm Report abuse
@16 Clyde15

Not all the polulation north of Watford : )

Poll Tax was a fair and equitable concept......

Just saying.
64 malen (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:30 pm Report abuse
59 Tergivising history..................El Che Guevara was a revolutionary, not a terrorist. Revolution search in the diccionary.
65 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:43 pm Report abuse
@64 malen

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
66 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 05:59 pm Report abuse
Well, if anything, the conflict allowed for the truth to be aired and no longer be required to dissemble, for both sides.

Argentines and British are enemies, and always will be.
67 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:04 pm Report abuse

C'est la vie
68 marcio (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:17 pm Report abuse
Eventually Britain would hand over the islands to Argentina, despite the opposition of the islanders, but fortunately for they the 1982 war changed everything, as their situation changed completely. If the war had not existed, I have no doubt that Britain had made a leaseback with Argentina.
By 1982 the islands depended much of Argentina, but I think the fundamental reason q islanders refused to be under Argentine rule was that Argentina was ruled by military dictatorships. If Argentina at that time had been a democratic nation, the Islanders probably would have had a different view.
69 Room101 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
It doesn't matter who did what. The Falklands belong to the Falklanders. As for Argentina being a democratic nation... look at its democratic processes now.
70 M's Bulldog (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:27 pm Report abuse
@ Nostrolldamus

Do not base your hatred of the British, on tit for tat arguments in this forum and whatever you might hear where you live. The Brits don't hate your nation and don't want war with you neither. No doubt it is the same in your country.
If only we all realised this there wouldn't be any potential conflict between our two nations.
It's only the decisions of a few arseholes, regardless of which side, that manifest into war, death and destruction, and misery.
Just listen to the armed forces on both sides of the conflict 30 years back. The real soldiers only had respect for each other, got to like each other, and regretted killing each other.
Just the majority of us keyboard warriors, most that is, who have never been on the receiving end of a projectile travelling at 900 metres per second, seem to relish any possibility of a future conflict.
Peace out.
71 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:28 pm Report abuse
@69 Room101

Stand back and watch.

Que será, será
72 ChrisR (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:39 pm Report abuse
64 malen

NO. YOU search the internet and you will see what a complete loser this prat was.

He achieved what AG are achieving over the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas you prats) and that is NOTHING.
73 KFC de Pollo (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:44 pm Report abuse
@66 what nonsense, Britain and Argentina were best of friends for years and years until your fascist dictator Peron decided to fuck your country up with a cheap copy of Italy and Spain's Fascism.

Why do most of your football teams have English names? Why does Argentina play Rugby? Who built your infrastructure and informally brought you into the commonwealth market making Argentina one of the wealthiest countries in the world?

If Argentina ever gets past the nonsense of the Falklands and “populism” it has the natural resources within it to once again become a leading country in the world.

Unfortunately I'd say it us about 70% full of complete morons like yourself.
74 GFace (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:47 pm Report abuse
Watch for what? The C24 to openly defy its parent organization's leading principle of self determination? Honestly, I DO expect the C24 to to ignore the rights of the Falkland Islanders to voice their preference, lest the committee voluntarily forfeits a goodly piece of their raison d'être. Likewise, I expect the committee's hacks to face the judgement of the world's liberal democracies as the C24 will prove itself to be a greater advocate of colonialism than the countries it wags its hypocritical Great Blue Father's finger at.
75 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:47 pm Report abuse

What would you know about true democracy. You are European.

The Falklanders are the current inhabitants of those islands and their wishes must be respected, I as an argie have said that a million times in this forum and it is a position that anyone here will acknowledge has been my own since day one.

They are ethnically British, let them remain so.

That does not mean I will cease to defend Argentina from the scurril and opprobrium fulimated by the antis here. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Period.
76 Pete Bog (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:51 pm Report abuse
“If Argentina at that time had been a democratic nation, the Islanders probably would have had a different view.”

Quite possibly, but Britains acquiesence to Argentina was based on accepting their version of history without actually examining all the context involved-1765,1771,1810,1811,1820-1833, 1850,1863 etc etc.

I can see nothing in Argentina's claims that equates to a justified, outright claim to the islands, (ie it can be contested at every point),and now the spectre of the Islanders increasing journey to Independance through graduating stages of autonomy since 1982, replaces the former colonialism of the UK and the aimed for colonialism of Argentina.
77 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:53 pm Report abuse

“The Falklanders are the current inhabitants of those islands and their wishes must be respected”

78 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 06:55 pm Report abuse

Now if only Britain would respect the wishes of people in non-British nations, that would be a start.
79 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:07 pm Report abuse

Agreed, with proviso that wishes pertain to their jurisdiction
80 marcio (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
One of the first comments, someone mentioned something about West Falkland, probably this could be a potential deal, a utopia that Britain offered to keep Argentina West Falkland and let the islanders in peace on the Soledad island (east falkland), would be a take it or leave it, and Argentina would be forced to accept.

Regarding comment 73, what you say is true, historically Argentina and Britain have been very friendly nations, I believe that Argentina is the country with which Britain has been more links through the history of South America, from I actually think that Chile becomes the “great historic ally” of Britain after 1982.
81 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
Afghans and Iraquis jurisdiction.
82 Captain Poppy (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:09 pm Report abuse
titti you truly want to defend Argentina, work to rid Argentina of fascist peronism.
You are intoxicated with the notion that people, non argentines that is, are anti-argentina. What you fail to realize in your self inflated ego is that the only antis here are anti fascist peronists. No one here hates argentines unless there are trolling. Your paranoia stemming from your lack of worldly experience opines you to feel that everyone is anti argentina.
83 cornishair (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:15 pm Report abuse
81. Nostrolldamus. most of the british public wanted no part in the iraqi war. tho the point must be made that Afghanastan had wide UN approval.
84 Trunce (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:18 pm Report abuse

Evidence of wishes oI Iraq or Afghan nationals?

Don't drag off topic
85 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:22 pm Report abuse
75 Tito The Clown Troll

“What would you know about true democracy. You are European.”


Again you are barking up the wrong tree. Of course, as we all know Argentina is the a democratic model that the rest of the world envy's...

Their system of parliment by the people for the people is what everyone wants..................

P.s:- All the above is bullsh*t, did you notice?
86 redpoll (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:29 pm Report abuse
Snotty off topic as usual which he claims is his right
Come off it Marcio. Do you really think that Argentina would have been satisfied with West Falkland or even the Sebaldes or Carcass Islands?
87 ynsere (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:41 pm Report abuse
Posters on both sides are omitting some basic facts:
1. Galtieri did not invade the FI for patriotic reasons but to try and stay in power in the face of a general strike and severely adverse public opinion about his administration:
2. He underestimated MT, but this was mostly the fault of Costa Méndez and other atrocious advisors;
3. He very cleverly brought together a divided Argentina, knowing full well that the “Malvinas” myth would strike a chord in the hearts of 95% of its population and make them forget all else.
88 GFace (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 07:51 pm Report abuse
@80. Look, while I might agree that AR and UK had a more cordial past and that Thatcher's love affair with the loathsome Pinochet may have been due to his seeing an opportunity for yet more of the Cold War entanglements that I mentioned earlier... Any pipe dreams of handing over even the thinest sliver of West Falkland as a face-saving fig leaf to AR are gone forever. If AR had any moral right to claim any of the Falklands and associated real estate (obviously a point of debate) they flushed all of it in '82 when they cynically exported their Dirty War onto the local inhabitants, along with all the various war crimes and human rights violations therein. The residents will not give it back, nor will they stand for their Great White Mother or Great Blue Father giving it back on their behalf. They've said so repeatedly. They have good reason, right, recent and extended history and painful memories on their side. Like the original Utopia, it's a fairy story.
89 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:04 pm Report abuse
87 ynsere

Exactly right!!! but he worst mistake they made was underestimating the resolve of the British to retake the Islands.

The military planners at the Pentagon ( who did detailed studies and feasability studies on this ) said that it was “Impossible” to re-take the Falkland Islands. Obviously their idea of impossible is different to the British idea of impossible.

It just goes to show you, the American's don't get it right all the time.
90 Musky (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:16 pm Report abuse
Even now the latest Argentine government use the falklands to distract the populace.. CFK is just as unsavoury as the Junta.
91 Conor J (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:23 pm Report abuse
I love all the argies on here complaining and saying that “it was the Junta and not the Argentine people” completely forgetting that the vast majority of the population in the opinion polls came out in support. Plus the hundreds of thousands who showed up in Buenos Aires to cheer on old Galtieri.
92 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:29 pm Report abuse
thatcher is FINISHED the ex iron lady,will face HELL! Who cares about a criminal,harbored in a criminal country like uk....
93 Conqueror (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:36 pm Report abuse
@27 Good. Shove it up your ass before you pop the cork!
@29 Great! Sliced banana!
@33 Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You'll never “return”. But if you post your address, I'll try to have a copy of the picture nailed inside the lid of your coffin.
@40 But it's in the Guardian! The Guardian is full of nutters. It's true that they are more intelligent than argies. But not by much.
@43 You should try some proper research. Let me help.
@45 Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. A “britishman”? With a name like that?
@48 What a brainless little dogturd you are. Do make sure that you understand what you are. A useless, big-mouthed, cowardly, murdering, genocidal occupant of a territory that doesn't belong to you, you thief. A third-rate, third world, debt-ridden, dishonest territory without a single vestige of honour.
@55 Dear, dear, Hepatitis. Still in dreamland? Still trying to excuse yourself? “It wasn't us. It was the Junta.” And the Junta outnumbered the people, did it? War criminals and cowards, the lot of you. The Falklands will NEVER “revert”. Because they were NEVER yours. And you can wait for 25 centuries if you like. Still won't happen!
@62 You can disappear down your own wastepipe for all we care. But bear in mind the following. Argieland should make no attempt to interfere with British shipping on the high seas. That will lead to onsite protection by the Royal Navy. With orders to shoot!
@64 Che Guevara was an argie. And therefore a terrorist!
@66 Too true. And you do know what we're going to do to you, don't you?
@75 What would you know about democracy? You're a genocide. A thief. A piece of filth walking on the blood and bones of the true owners.
@78 Depends on what your wishes are. Don't push. Isolate yourself. Pay your debts. Be quiet.
@81 Fine. But not the Taliban or the Ba'ath or Al Qaeda.
@92 How are you enjoying HELL? Got any money you've earned by working? The new name of the GORGON is CFK!
94 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:40 pm Report abuse
poor deluded ex empire!
95 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:46 pm Report abuse
PM Thatcher “never, never expected” Argentina to invade the Falklands; “it was such a stupid thing to do”

I LOVE this headline, it says it all doesn't it? especially that last bit:- “it was such a stupid thing to do”

I'll say that again :- “it was such a stupid thing to do”.

It happened over 30 years ago and you know what? The humiliation for the Argentine armed forces and of their government, and of their people was so complete, was so over whelming that 30 years on, they still haven't gotten over it.

It's like watching the American's find scapegoats and soul searching after their total “fail” in Vietnam, even now their vets are shamed.

All those widdle Argentine doggies can do is bark, they have lost the will and the means to bite..................... clowns
96 GFace (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:50 pm Report abuse
@91, Well they recently celebrated it all with a coin and an Olympics commercial where we lived in the alternative history of an extended Galtieri dictatorship with an even higher body count and most likely an “ethnically cleansed” island filled with new colonialist form the mainland living in expelled and dead people's homes. When you compare failed and regrettable histories, you don't see certain US states celebrating Wounded Knee or malaria-infested blankets on their license plates, or Germany “honoring its veterans” of the war against Poland or their temporary reclaiming of the Sudetenland on their personalized Euros, or Japan defending the emperor against sino-aggression in Nanjing on a postage stamp. What college do you have to go to to get so dumb and tone-deaf enough to celebrate such things?
97 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 08:59 pm Report abuse
I liked the news that Reagan pleaded with MT not to completely humiliate the Argentines. Sweet. OK to partly humiliate them, but try not to completely humiliate them.
98 Conor J (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:04 pm Report abuse
Well we all know that the Argies are an odd bunch. Just look at Malvinero1
99 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:06 pm Report abuse
97 ElaineB

I suspect that he was being influenced by his secertary of state at the time who was ( believe or not ) pro-Argentine and pro - Galtieri.

Not that it made any difference to the outcome. As always, all you have to do is give the Argentine's enough rope, they will hang themselves.
100 GFace (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:16 pm Report abuse
@99/@97, It was mostly because the dynamic duo of Alex & Jeanne were not so much pro-Galtieri as much as they were reflexively anti-communist (seeing fascist juntas as an necessary bulwark against expanding Marxism despite them both being basically the same thing with different colored shirts). If a pro-American liberal democrat (small-L, small-D of course :-) were in charge of Argentina at the time (well, they likely wouldn't have invaded but...) the US would still have made sure they were on their Christmas card and discount “machine parts” list. Now-a-days in retrospect only the most rabid Kirkpatrick Patch Kid still apologizes for Pinochet, Galtieri and their respective Dirty Wars but oh-so-rarely so for the Falklands invasion.
101 Sir Rodderick Bodkin (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:16 pm Report abuse
38 Optimus_Princeps
Worry about home, and don't be like the other lazy morons that are willing to trade their beliefs for a sandwich and $50 pesos. What is important is earning a decent living, being safe, and being financially free. To make that happen, the Kancer that is killing this country needs to be removed.


This man speaks the truth!
I just hope you understand not all of us argentine people are like this guy ''Jose Malvinero'' who only resort to insults.
102 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:27 pm Report abuse
101 Sir Rodderick Bodkin

I certainly have no problem with the “Ordinary” - If I may use that word - Argentinian. I know that all they want is what you want, what anyone wants.... Money in their pocket, decent living, being safe, etc, etc, etc............

What I can not and will not stomach is the rabid postings of such lame brainers as Malvinero1 and Nostrolldamus The 5th and British Kitchernist who think that some how, what KFC / TMBOA / Ol' Turkey Neck / The Harpy is doing is for the good of ALL Argentine's everywhere and those that shout out agaisnt her are in some way, mad.

peace brother. Your pain is our pain.

By the way, I'm going to be terribly British and correct your spelling.... It's Cancer, not Kancer... but we all know who you mean.

Have a great new year.
103 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:31 pm Report abuse
I'll say that again :- “it was such a stupid thing to do”.# 95

Sure too young,Why are you sooo stupid,then?

It happened over 30 years ago and you know what? The humiliation for the Argentine armed forces and of their government, and of their people was so complete, was so over whelming that 30 years on, they still haven't gotten over it.

AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHHA only brit sstupidity think Argentina lost...Sure ,300 brits dead,1000 wounded,500 Suicide after,8 ship sunks,16 put out,24 helos,10 aircraft,USA,NATO on their side..AHAHAHAHAHAH What an humiliation for the brits LOSERS! AHAHAHHAHHA

just hope you understand not all of us argentine people are like this guy ''Jose Malvinero'' who only resort to insults AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH A
NO,I just laugh at brits stupidity and decadence! I just do not give a damn about you guys!
bodking: You are sooo incredible hopeless, brainless animal!
Who cares about uk guys! uk is FINISHED!!
AHAHAHAHAHA poor deluded ex empire,sinking all the way...
104 Anglotino (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:34 pm Report abuse
Thatcher restored democracy to Argentina, you would think that there'd be statues of her in every town square.
105 ElaineB (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:45 pm Report abuse
@100. Yes.
106 Conor J (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 09:49 pm Report abuse
Another thick Argie convinced that you gained something from the conflict. You should thank us for beating you as it finally brought down your dictatorship. As Anglotina says, “Thatcher restored democracy to Argentina, you would think that there'd be statues of her in every town square.”
107 toooldtodieyoung (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
103 Malvinero1

Congratulations!!!!!!!!! You have just proved my point entirely. Well done!!!

101 Sir Rodderick Bodkin

Have you read the post at 103??? Is this the thing that you were talking about??? If it is, I feel your pain.
108 Sir Rodderick Bodkin (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 10:06 pm Report abuse
Thanks!! Happy New Year for you too. :)

Maybe you are the one brainwahed by the government.

See, his kind always resort to namecalling and insults.
What else are you gonna say? Cipayo, traidor, vendepatrias?
109 GeoffWard2 (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:12 pm Report abuse
(Thanks Chris #46, you saved me a post.)

And #100:
Regan had invested in a South America that it felt it could support.
Post McCarthy, post Cuba, the USA was supporting right-of-centre regimes within this, the USA Sphere of Influence.

Galtieri was certainly not of the Left, and the US Administration was looking for 'diplomatic' ways of solving TFI 'issue' whilst still holding the line and trying to keep not only Argentina on side but the whole of the Left-Right polarising South America.

The way it went is there for us all to see. ....
In 1990 the Foro de São Paulo convened as a continent-wide proto-confederation of the Socialist Left.
It continues to this day to frame a possible future for South America.

Bolivarism was the way Chavez tried to mold it into something a little different,
but the Triple Alliance war over Paraguay has become continued under another paradigm - the war of the Left over the Neoliberals. It has an under-known history, particularly beyond South America (and the term 'neoliberal' means something very different here in South America compared to the common understanding in the 'Western' world).

No, it's my belief that the Unasur/Mercosur 'illogical' continued punishment of Paraguay is the manifestation of the whispered words of today's Foro de São Paulo. Chavez, Rousseff and Kirchner are its accolytes.
110 axel arg (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:14 pm Report abuse
I really thank the fact of having released such important documents, it's necesary a serious debate after 30 years of the war. It's true that in the decade of the 70's, the u. k knew about argentina's plan of ivading the islands, thats' why it decided to create a contigence plan, in order to recover them. On the other hand, i agree with thatcher's thought, respecting the stupid idea of invading the islands by argentina. The problem is that the huge arrogance of the argentine militars, didn't let them realise about the deplorable social context of the u. k. in 1982, roled by thatcher. In the same way that the militar junta ordered to invade the islands, with the purpose of traying to save the process that provoked the coup d'etat in 1976, and role argentina untill 1989, thatcher was going to need also a militar victory in order to try to save her miserable and unpopular government. On the other hand, when alexander haig talked to peruvian constitutional president, belahunde terry, he asked him to interven before galtieri, and warned him that the u. k. was going to win. Beside, before thatcher orders to sink the belgrano, her gob. had changed the roles in the end of april, and notified the junta about it, it had determined that all those ships that were located outside the exclution zone, would be considered like a threat by the government of her majesty. Before ordering to sink that ship, there were conversations between both governments, however, thatcher wasn't interested in a negotiated solution, what she wanted, was a militar victory, only in that way she could save her government, thats' why it was necesary for her to savotage the conversations. On the other hand, the argentine militars were so ignorant that they thought that the u. k would never give a militar answer.
111 malen (#) Dec 28th, 2012 - 11:52 pm Report abuse
110 Arg recovered our land, Britain invaded again.
112 Britworker (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:10 am Report abuse
I think what most people on here are overlooking about this great lady is what she achieved. She must have had some terribly lonely times when all this was playing out, but she stood by her convictions and saw it through to the end, despite being surrounded by doubters, including the Americans.
She embodies everything that is great about Britishness and she will be remembered throughout history as a warrior and the Iron Lady.
113 redpoll (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:11 am Report abuse
Oh do get stuffed malen. You are boring
114 Anglotino (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:18 am Report abuse
@111 malen

“Arg recovered our land, Britain invaded again.”

The depth and complexity of your extremely well researched and lengthy reply has momentarily befuddled me.

It is so difficult to argue against such well thought out and enunciated logic. It is also had to imagine why the world doesn't embrace such scholarly writings and denounce Britain's pernicious and noxious falsehoods.

Again, thank you for finally setting the record straight.
115 malen (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:33 am Report abuse
befuddlateddddddd as you like, dont know what it means, but imagine
We didnt “invade” other continent, other land, other region, that wasnt ours, since the spanish established there and we inherited.
116 andy65 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:49 am Report abuse
The thing that makes me so sick is that Thatcher was accused of acting the way she did because her popularity was on the downwards.
I would like to think ANY British Prime Minister would defened any of our BOTs when faced with aggression and I honestly believe they would.
117 Monty69 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:53 am Report abuse
115 malen
The Spanish didn't 'establish'; they invaded a continent that wasn't theirs. If you 'inherited' that territory then you also inherited the responsibility for those actions and the crimes that were committed. And don't start blithering on about mestizos. Most Argentines have got as much native american ancestry as I do.
118 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:02 am Report abuse
BBC NEWS. U.S,A,offered U.K. an aircraft carrier,during the conflict,the USS EISENHOWER. Would the Argentinians have attacked that??
119 malicious bloke (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:04 am Report abuse
“Beside, before thatcher orders to sink the belgrano, her gob. had changed the roles in the end of april, and notified the junta about it, it had determined that all those ships that were located outside the exclution zone, would be considered like a threat by the government of her majesty.”

That wasn't a change of policy, that was in the original declaration of a maritime exclusion zone.

The exclusion zone is a formality of war informing enemy AND neutral shipping that it is subject to attack within that zone. It doesn't -and has never- meant that enemy warships are only legal targets within the zone. To put it bluntly the Belgrano and any other Argentine navy vessel would have been a legitimate target even if it were docked in port.

As for a “negotiated solution”...LOL NO. You attacked our people and refused a UN security council resolution to withdraw. Any negotiation that didn't start with an immediate withdrawal of all argentine forces from the islands (compliance with UNSC resolution 502) was a non-starter. Besides, southern hemisphere winter was fast approaching and the general concensus was that the usual ruse of argy “negotiation” was just obfuscation and playing for time.
120 malen (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:19 am Report abuse
115 no problem with the spaniards because we sent them back to their continent, recovering everything it has always been ours
121 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:22 am Report abuse
Who cares,anyway the reality is this:uk is FINISHED!!

uk will colapse!
And the BOMB you will get is this,hopeless pirates!
And is ticking.....useless pirates!
122 Islander1 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:35 am Report abuse
JIB- you really have written a lot of irrelvant incorrect tripe on here!

The Falkland Islands Company do NOT control the Islands! They no longer own ANY farm land and are just ONE of several large employers in Stanley - They have NO trading monopolies.

The Islands ARE economically self sufficent and we have not received any direct overseas financial aid from UK to balance the costs of the islands since the 1880s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since 1986 we have not even received any specialist pesons or capital development aid from UK - in fact we put money into the UK economy and have done for many years as 90% of all our imports come from UK.
Our only cost to the UK is defence - and that is less than 0.5% of the UK Annul Defence Spend!

Foos and crops DO grow here - severad hundred tons of fresh vegetables a year are grown locally - and several Antarctic cruise ships coming here from Ushuaia load fresh salads like lettuce,tomato,peppers - just for 2 days until they reach Stanley - then here they load Fresh Falklands grown quality salads for the 12-21 day cruise down to the antarctic and back to Ushuaia!
I was here in 1980- you were NOT and the UK Govt was talking about LeaseBack as an option - looking at 999yrs or maybe 199 years minimum(although we doubt Arg would have accepted more than 25) - it was rejected by us. A sovereignty transfer was NEVER on the Agenda.
Axel- we all know it was a simple military decision to sink the Belgrano- and one accepted and verified publically since by the Arg Naval High Command. NOTHING to do with politics.
123 Monty69 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:37 am Report abuse
120 malen

No you didn't. They were there when argentina was formed and their descendants are still there now. You probably are one.
124 mark it (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:33 am Report abuse
quick question... pardon me if I'm wrong....but had it or had it not Brasil Appropriated itself from some Rgs land?! + Y Rgs never tried to take it back and there nobody even talk about it?????
125 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 04:10 am Report abuse
The Islands ARE economically self sufficent and we have not received any direct overseas financial aid from UK to balance the costs of the islands since the 1880s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who cares islander.....AHAHAHAHAHA Do you want some oil?
126 Anglotino (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 04:42 am Report abuse
@115 Malen

Of course you don't know what befuddled means. And that isn't because English isn't your native tongue. After living overseas and studying more than one language I only have praise for people that speak more than one language.

The reason you don't know what it means is because no one told you. You don't research or even look stuff up, unless you are spouting Argentinean government lies you are lost.

That's why I'm not surprised. You can repeat propaganda but when it comes to originally thought or research you are befuddled.

And yes you did invade another continent. Your country is a product of Spanish imperialism and colonialism.

And actually if you took notice in class more you might realise that Argentina's entire claim is based on Spanish colonialism.

As for inheriting the Islands from Spain, not even Spain says that is true. They recognise British sovereignty.

Argentina is a product of colonialism just as much as the Falklands. The difference is that the Falkland Islands aren't embarrassed nor lie about it and are quite happy to remain a part of the UK.
127 TALDY (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 05:24 am Report abuse
going back.just wait....
please.....just wait....!
no need to pay the price of gold salt as they did with India.
no need for a ghandi.
back with the power of reason.
128 Faulconbridge (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 05:40 am Report abuse
“They were military bully boys who knew nothing about politics about governance.”

But the military coup seems to be the role-model for South American politics, especially Argentine, Gordon@2. The party as a quasi-military organisation and the way it functions, as a system to reward the members,t he seizure of state and private property and the installation of reliable folllowers in every administrative position and the eviction of predessors, the treatment of a country as if it had just been conquered- these are characteristics both of caudillos and Argentine politicians in general. The Peronists have merely carried the logic of the system further than everyone else.
129 Santa Fe (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 08:27 am Report abuse
43... RIB carry on trawling the web for comments by trolls it's a powerful argument to repost them.

facts are islands are well defended and never going to return to the Rgs. The more the reich in BA use this as a political tool the longer and more prominent it becomes in UK media and government thinking. little tip stop moaning on about your humiliation of defeat, leave it ten years save up some dollar buy some landing craft and try again.
130 lsolde (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 09:07 am Report abuse
But don't leave it too long, RGs.
We want to try out our latest weaponry & l don't want to be too old to enjoy it.
131 shb (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 09:19 am Report abuse
It is really refreshing to see Malvibaby (malverino01) out of the institute and making more random comments. It looks like they've gone the malvinista version of “care in the community” with him.

He has been predicting our immiment destruction for sooooo loooonnnnggg. He's a bit like Peter cooks “end of the world” cult.

We are still here though, and our prospects are improving (albeit slowly). Meanwhile Argentina is in real social and economic crises.

Meanwhile-back on topic - I think Thatchers summary of the Juntas action as“a stupid thing to do” is pretty accurate.

The Argentines fought for a poor, unjust, cause- the right to kick out over a thousand people from their own homes, based on a twisted sense of victimhood from a time over 150 years before the first shot was fired.

The Falklanders had as much right to their homes as the residents of Buenos Ares did to theirs.

The Argentine defeat (which was no way guaranteed) led to such a hardening of attitudes towards any kind of negotiation with that country that no government will now try to sell out the Falklanders, they would be signing a political suicide note.

Argentina can fume, spit bile and cause trouble, but it will never get the Falklanders or the UK to capitulate.
132 Musky (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 09:28 am Report abuse
@121 Malverino1
Such a dreamer. Britain is a strong warrior country and a global 'soft power' .... a source of non-military influence. Argentina is a malformed foetus, militarily inept, socially warped and politically embarassing with peronist (populist fascism) government. What a bunch of boneheads.
133 malen (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 10:33 am Report abuse
123 Im descedant of such a mix.............indegenous too.
Sorry but San Martín, Belgrano, Bolívar were liberators, and who do they fought and killed?? they killed spanish realistas, we know it, so lot of battles have been in many years.
134 ChrisR (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 10:45 am Report abuse
130 lsolde

You will never be too old! (Smooth talking bastard, aren't I?).
135 Monty69 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 11:42 am Report abuse
133 malen
Bolivar was a Spanish aristo, San Martin was Spanish and spent his early years in Spain, Belgrano was the son of an Italian immigrant. The fact that they decided to fight for independence is neither her nor there; they were colonists and they took their country from its original inhabitants.
This doesn't matter to me; this is the same history as many other countries, the USA, Canada, New Zealand etc. Just don't pretend otherwise.
Your country had original inhabitants. They were colonised against their will and most of them died. What the colonisers decided to do after that is irrelevant.
136 Alexei (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 12:47 pm Report abuse
Thatcher was cold, arrogant and contemptible. The majority of Britons regarded her as such. She was elected by a minority of the electorate who were understandably tired of what they perceived, rightly or wrongly, as destructive and counter-productive antics of corrupt lazy and subversive leftists.

Argentina's despicable sneak invasion of the Falkland Islands managed to unite the vast majority of the British population across the political spectrum from the far left to the far right. We were almost 100% on side with Thatcher, our differences cast aside. The only dissenters against using whatever means would prove necessary to evict the invaders and liberate the Falkland Islanders, were a tiny number of cranks, the likes of hard left political parties which acted on instructions from Moscow, or self-centered attention seekers like Malvinas Morrissey who supported the Argentine junta's illegal invasion in order to, in his narcissistic and warped perception, make himself look edgy and cool.

In 1982 thousands of delirious baying Argentines thronged the Plaza de Mayo enthusiastically cheering and celebrating Leopoldo Galtieri's famous 'victory'. A few weeks later they were throwing rocks at the defeated deported 'bravos' and denying they ever supported the invasion, the invasion which was always the fault of the junta. The junta was replaced within weeks of Argentina's military defeat and the eviction of their forces from the Falkland Islands. The thought occurs; If the Argentine people were able to depose their military junta, why didn't they do it earlier? They could have saved thousands of lives had they done so, many of those lost souls were British. Did the blameless non-aggressive Argentine people really need our help to get rid of their junta? Are the current Argentine people as blameless and non-aggressive as they were in 1982, or are they just as enthusiastically expansionist, but lacking the toys they need to try again? I think we know the answer.
137 Hepatia (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:39 pm Report abuse The basis for “ambiguity” that you mention was, of course, the so called “special relationship” that has existed between the US and the UK. This US ambiguity will not be possible in the future.

In late 2011 President Obama delivered in a speech in which he laid out the elements of the future foreign policy of the US. This policy is usually referred to as the “Asian Pivot”. But the US has been an Asian / Pacific power since the start of the 20th century, if not before. So what can be the meaning of this policy?

Since the end of WWII the chief focus of US foreign policy has been across the North Atlantic towards Europe. This focus is now being removed by this “Pivot”. As a result the US - UK special relationship will diminish and wither away.

Also as a consequence of this Pivot the US will need to integrate itself back into America once again. In this coming era the US is simply returning to its long standing policy of concentrating on America and the Pacific. Indeed, it was WWII and its aftermath that temporarily distracted the US from this focus.

In the future if the US is forced to choose between Europe and America its interests will cause it to unambiguously choose the latter.
138 Zethee (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 01:45 pm Report abuse
“it was such a stupid thing to do”
She was right about some things.

139 Alexei (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:03 pm Report abuse
@137 “Obama delivered in a speech in which he laid out the elements of the future foreign policy of the US”

Many of us are very well aware of Obama's third world origins and sympathies, his anti-European and anti-British rhetoric. Obama was elected by a minority of Americans and fortunately is in his last term, soon he won't be US President. He can lay out the current foreign policy of Obama and the Democratic Party for the duration of his reign, which mercifully won't be for very much longer. That is all.
140 malen (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:13 pm Report abuse
135 bué, bué, ejem, ejem, pero qué cosaaaaaaaaaa hay que leer
1) San Martín, Bolívar, Belgrano werent spaniards, because they werent borned in Spain (read it again,please)
San Martín borned in Yapeyú, Bolívar borned in Caracas, Belgrano borned in BA.
The mother of Belgrano was from Santiago del estero, and yes his father italian, and those mixes were very common even with indegenous too.

2) They werent colonists either. Read it well.
300 years of spanish colonization in SA, but they were borned in the 1770 aprox, last period of colonization and didnt work for the colonial gov or viceroy, in fact at a very young age, and with the ideas and spirit of french revolution, they decided to fight for independence of SA (of the indegenous, criollos, etc) from Spain.
141 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:13 pm Report abuse
@121 Malverino1
Such a dreamer. Britain is a strong warrior country and a global 'soft power' .... a source of non-military influence. Argentina is a malformed foetus, militarily inept, socially warped and politically embarassing with peronist (populist fascism) government. What a bunch of boneheads.
Like I have said before: uk is FINISHED!.With a public debt oof over 1 trillion,and a foreign debt of 9 trillion,uk has no room for anything good in th efuture.Jim Rogers,as a brilliant multimillionaire that he is,knows about the real situation of countries.He does not believe in bankers or government tales.He sees reality.
So when the uk recognizes the futility of their actions,and the NON SUPPORT not only from Brazil,South America and the USA,they will give is just a weak shadow,what it was 120 years ago....Their purpose is ended.If you do not see that..Well I am sorry,that is reality...
142 Zethee (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:14 pm Report abuse
“Before ordering to sink that ship, there were conversations between both governments, however, thatcher wasn't interested in a negotiated solution,”

Oh shove it axel, you talk so much rubbish.

YOU invaded us, she SHOULDN'T have negotiated with Argentina because your country needed a good slapping to keep in line.
143 Alexei (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:25 pm Report abuse
@142 Absolutely. Galtieri and his cronies assumed that the British would just shout and complain, but wouldn't actually do anything. Like the typical bully, he counted on lack of retaliation when he 'bravely' attacked the Falkland Islanders. That assumption came back to bite him. The good kicking his forces received was the only response he would really understand.
144 ChrisR (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:38 pm Report abuse
And I know others have posted a similar theme, but the way TMBOA and her moronic government (that's an abuse of the word really) are performing they are about to get another slapping, only this time it will be for real.
145 Monkeymagic (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 02:56 pm Report abuse

You seem to suggest that the Spanish colonialists weren't Spanish as they were born ( borned) in South America, and therefore South American.

Therefore the Falkland Islanders born on the islands are equally South American (south aatlantic) because they were born (borned) there.

Excellent. now we have established that they are South American, they are entitled to the same rights as every other South American, namely to form whichever system of government suits them.

Just as Brazil, chile, Suriname and Guyana do!!
146 Monty69 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 03:01 pm Report abuse
140 malen

So what, in your opinion, are Falkland Islanders? Clearly not British, since they weren't born in the UK.
Falkland Islanders have been here about the same amount of time as the Spanish had been in Argentina at the time of independence.
So, by your argument, we can't be colonists either. Thanks for that.
147 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 03:21 pm Report abuse
It is really refreshing to see Malvibaby (malverino01) out of the institute and making more random comments. It looks like they've gone the malvinista version of “care in the community” with him.

He has been predicting our immiment destruction for sooooo loooonnnnggg. He's a bit like Peter cooks “end of the world” cult.

Sure,brits,uk is a terrorist state,they have killed and deprived the freedom of milllions..SO now it is pay back times...and yes I am glad I DO NOT LIVE in the uk!!...AHAHAHAHAHA poor dreamers,they still think they are the good in the world...poor deluded ex is FINISHED that is the reality....Bye bye pirates,time to pay,...
148 Musky (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 03:22 pm Report abuse
@145 MM & @146 M69
As usual the argentine thought processes cannot stretch to dealing with valid arguments. Well done for dispatching this brainless troll.
149 Brit Bob (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 04:02 pm Report abuse
Yes it was a stupid thing to do.

And Argentine's should get rid of that statue of Ho Chi Minh from Buenos Aires and replace it with a statue of Mrs Thatcher!
150 Shed-time (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 04:17 pm Report abuse
stupid is as stupid does.

151 malen (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 05:15 pm Report abuse
the viceroy, for ex, was a spanish colonists, borned in spain that was designated here to control the colony
those borned in SA, mixed and indegenous people that were subjugated by the spanish colony, fought for independence
you are a particular case of colony, descendant of colonists, not subjugated, etc,etc.
152 Monkeymagic (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 06:08 pm Report abuse

What are Australians?
What are Canadians?
What are New Zealanders?

Not subjugated, descendant of colonists, no war of independence....

The only one of your criteria that the islanders don't meet perfectly is “mixed with indeginous”, as there are no indigenous. That said, pretending that the majority of South America (or sadly other areas) is mixed with indigenous is pushing it...subjecting them to genocide is closer.

So it seems, subjugation and fighting for independence is not necessary to have self-determination, nor is “mixed with indigenous”.

So, your argument has become more flawed not less.
153 Shed-time (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 07:30 pm Report abuse
Occam's razor suggests that the British version is most likely to be correct. Some unbelievably convoluted sack of nonsense spouting out of Argentine mouths since 1930s is just drively bile.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.
154 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 07:42 pm Report abuse
Britain never accepted that Argentina had any claim at all !who cares !
MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!! That is the future!
155 lsolde (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 08:56 pm Report abuse
@154 Malvinero1,
Wrong, malvi-baby, it is not even the past.
Argentina has no hope of getting their thieving hands on our lslands.
They have never belonged to you & do not now.
THAT is the truth. l do not care whether you belive it or not.
156 redpoll (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
Isolde waht is this Malvinas drug these unfortunates seem to be on?Is it known to medical science? Seems to send the addicts completely bobo and incapable of rational thought
157 axel arg (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
I must say that i didn't express my self correctly in my comment 110, i should have said that i thank the british government for having released these documents.
It is often said by some people in this website, respecting the invasion of 1982 that arg. didn't respect resolution 501. If we want to discuss about something so complicated like politic issues, it will be necesary to have something which is very important, i mean intellectual honesty. It must be signalized that reolution 502, asked the argentine troops to leave the islands, beside, it asked also both nations to solve their differences peacefully, respecting the principles of the charter of the u. n. Argentina didn't retire it's troops finally, and thatcher ordered to sink the belgrano during the conversations with arg., it shows that actually both nations didn't respect resolution 502, not just argentina. I respect if many people in the islands and in the u. k admire margaret thatcher, but if we all want to disuss about the issues of the war, we need intellectual honesty, otherwise, we can't debate about them. On the other hand, it is often repeated by some forists here, and by some jornalists who post their opinions in mercopress, about the support of our people to the invasion of 1982, in fact, are posted pictures of plaza de mayo, which was full of people celebrating with galtieri. However, none of those ignorants, take into account that in that moment, there was not any freedom of press in arg., in fact, all the press was under the control of the junta, and all the information that came form the isands was distorted, beside, galtieri said that the 2 nd of april arg. had recovered the islands without any rencour, which was absolutly false. The argentina society is very complicated and contradictory, like many others, but if somebdoy wants to analyse the social context of 1982, it can't be done with so partial information, making such mediocre analysis.
158 Monty69 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 09:44 pm Report abuse
151 malen

No, Malen. Bolivar, San Martin and Belgrano were not 'subjugated' by the colonisers. They were not 'mixed indigenous' either. They were colonists and descendents of colonists. They might have been born in SA, but their parents and grandparents were European colonisers. I'd be surprised if any of them had any indigenous ancestry at all (that they would own up to).
San Martin was the child of a Spanish soldier and grew up in Spain. Bolivar was descended from a long line of Basque aristos and Belgrano was from one of the richest (Spanish) families in BA. They were not 'subjugated'.
You are living a sad deluded fairy tale.
How about if all the Falkland Islanders with gaucho ancestry, including those who stayed on in 1833, decided to fight for their independence from Britain. Do you think we should get our independence then?
159 British_Kirchnerist (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 10:11 pm Report abuse
“She also has this great power of expression - she's a primary colours politician.”

Well thats one thing she had in common with the real Iron lady, the lovely Cristina. But I must say, what horrible pictures. Both of them! As well as being no looker the sight of Thatcher is the sight of poverty and immiseration to the British working people, and I have no truck either with the junta and its agression

#12,15 Interesting

#23 ”I hope I was not setting myself up as a MT devotee. :) I try to look objectively at history and can even - at a push- support some of the decisions of TB”

Or even CFK, Elaine? Or is your girl on girl jealousy and hate too strong in that case?!
160 redpoll (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 10:12 pm Report abuse
Though at times its a bit difficult to understand your English, at least you try to argue Argentinas very weak case in some sort of rational way without resorting to the schoolboy invective some of your countymen regularly posted on these blogs
So I would make three points:
1)You state that niether side abided by resolution 502 of the UN to which I would reply that if Argentina hadnt invaded the Falklands and its Dependencies in an act of unprovoked aggression such a resolution would not exist in the first place
2)You say that the press at the time of the invasion the Press was contolled by the junta which was the de facto Argentine government of the time. Is not the present government trying to do exactly the same thing through the Media Law?
3) a mediocre analysis of the 1982 situation? Well under the 30 year rule most of the British info of the time has been made public, some of it quite detrimental to the British point of view. On the Argentine side, apart from matters relating to the internal Dirty War very little has been released about the conflict officially
161 GFace (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 10:22 pm Report abuse
@154, yes yes yes,.... and the Sudetenland and Danzig are German.
162 malen (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 11:30 pm Report abuse
liberators as the people living here, were subjugated, understanding subjugating not only the oppression that may have suffered more the indegenous, but also as the domination to be governned by a foreign king from 14.000 km away and people not having any right.
mixed, you insist with that but at that time only 6.000 were really spanish borned, while the subjugatedpeople, including criollos and mestizos and indegenous had increased enourmously, surpassing the the colonists.
Belgrano, was of italian and a mother criolla. Some mix he had.
And liberators, fought for independent, cant be colonists. jaja
163 Monty69 (#) Dec 29th, 2012 - 11:56 pm Report abuse
162 malen
Of course 'liberators' can be colonists. It all depends on your point of view. I doubt very much that the 'indigenous' felt like they were being liberated. Do you really think it made any difference to them whether their subjugators were born in Spain or Argentina?

Anyway, I asked you a question. If Falkland Islands born 'criollos' decide they want their independence from Britain and don't want to be governed by a foreign queen 14 000km away, how is that any different to Argentina winning independence from Spain?
164 British_Kirchnerist (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 12:45 am Report abuse
#160 “Is not the present government trying to do exactly the same thing through the Media Law?”

No, its trying to break up the monopolies that backed the junta =)
165 aussie sunshine (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 01:26 am Report abuse
The USA assistance to The UK during the Falklands/Malvinas war helped The USA loose its power in South America. South American countries today are all nearly from the far left and
China is the new master in the continent at the expence of The USA.
166 Anglotino (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 02:33 am Report abuse
Well at least Malen accepts that the Falkland Islanders are now not colonists but have a right to live there.

I suppose the referendum will mean that the now native population who were born there and not in Britain will finally be able to voice their opinion of how their country should be governed.

The poor oppressed peoples of the Spanish Empire wanted independence and a republican form of government. That was their right after fighting for independence. However, Britain being a more enlightened and less oppressive 'colonial' power to the Islanders, will let them vote instead of fighting for what they want.

And should they want to remain part of the UK with the Queen as their head of state, then that is their right as fought for by San Martín, Bolívar and Belgrano.

After all, they did not fight for independence and self rule for some and not for others.

Oh and always fun to see Malvinero1 trying to gain some traction with repetitious poss.
167 British_Kirchnerist (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 03:12 am Report abuse
#165 Ah I see, thats why you're so favourable to today's Spanish government, because you're more a Galtieri than a Cristina supporter...
168 agent999 (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 10:02 am Report abuse
@157 Axel.

Resolution 502 on April 3rd 1982 demanded an immediate Argentine withdrawal and an immediate cessation of hostilities.
Argentina did not comply - Britain launched counter offensive operations on May 2nd 1982, invoking Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

@164 BK

“No, its trying to break up the monopolies that backed the junta”
The Clarion group backed Nestor during his elections. !
169 Zethee (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 12:50 pm Report abuse
“ it shows that actually both nations didn't respect resolution 502, not just argentina.”

Resolution 502:

“the Council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The Council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.”

The UK invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing it to claim the right of self-defence.

We did not ignore resolution 502, your reasoning skills are frankly awful. We are entitled to self defence in order to live in peace, as set out by the UN in article 51.

We tried to use diplomacy but by ALL accounts(UK and Argentine sources) your government was not in any way shape or form going to use diplmoacy in any other regard other than stalling us. We we defended ourselves as was SANCTIONED by the U.N.
170 Musky (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 01:45 pm Report abuse
@169 Zethee
Nice one. Britain is allowed to defend itself and its territories. Mrs Thatcher did the right thing and not for her own political gain, she did the right thing legally and morally.
171 Shed-time (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 03:15 pm Report abuse
@170 allowing a corrupt nation of animals to annex islands that do not belong to them is morally obscene. Regardless of people's beliefs about her politics, she did the right thing in this instant.

She could have given them a buffer zone though.
172 Malvinero1 (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 03:18 pm Report abuse
We did not ignore resolution 502, your reasoning skills are frankly awful. We are entitled to self defence in order to live in peace, as set out by the UN in article 51.

AHAHAHAHA Poor deluded pirates.Res 502,DID NOT ALLOWED uk or ANY country to use force.......As usual the pirates brits using the terrorist force apply in subjugating the people....Ahaha anyway time to pay back is FINISHED and I am glad I do not live there.....Bad times ahead for the pirates scum brits...
173 Shed-time (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 03:22 pm Report abuse
@172 You're talking out of your hat and angry. You're also trying to use psychological defense mechanisms to detract from the fact that the UN security council through it's binding resolution allowed the UK to defend itself and demanded the withdrawal of the Argentine forces.

The Argentines ignored the UN security council resolution and then got sh@t on by a far far smaller force.

These are things you're struggling to deal with, we understand that.
174 commonsparrow (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 04:50 pm Report abuse
It was a dumb idea for Argentina to invade Falklands in 1982 but better Argentina invaded Falklands in 1982 than the late 1800s. England would have surely sent troops into Argentina you know what would have followed to the innocent of Argentina. Argentina thought its just a little island, thousands of miles away from England, we can take it over. Yeah, sure......
175 Clyde15 (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
Since you continue to call us pirates despite this being a long gone activity, I think the title of despicable brigands suits your people nicely. After all, you colonised the bottom half of S.A by stealing and murdering the indigenous population like a band of brigands. Yes. I think the name suits you. BAD TIMES AHEAD FOR FOR THE DESPICABLE BRIGAND SCUM ARGIES.
ahahahahahahahahahaha - you're not even worth the upper case !

ps We are glad you do not live here. As a tolerant civilised country, we are not allowed to punish the mentally afflicted and sub-normal.
As you are probably not acquainted with the word “civilised.” It means pertaining to the values of high ethical standards, morals, intellectual achievements and being totally reasonable despite severe provocation from sub normals like you.
This is something for your “country” to aspire too.
Maybe when you stop acting like adolescents, you may reach this goal in about 100 years.
176 Anglotino (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 07:15 pm Report abuse
@172 Poor Malvinero1 is still showing his education level and total lack of understanding of international law.

The UN Charter trumps any resolution issued by the UN.

Considering your intelligence level, there's about 62 million Brits that are glad that you don't live there too.
177 British_Kirchnerist (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 07:36 pm Report abuse
#171 Talking about a “nation of animals” is morally obscene
178 GFace (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 07:42 pm Report abuse
These noxious posts with the neo-Galtieriets like Malvinero1, Raul, Think and the rest just gets worse and worse, they make even punch-drunk Tobias look sober from the neck up. It's like living in an alternative reality where the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats of Germany insist to the world that they have nothing to do with their Nazi predecessors and insist on bullying the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland top accept total rule from Berlin while at the same time celebrating the height of the Reich in their civil assortments from 1 Euros coins, to postages stamps.. Harry Turtledove couldn't write such a revolting and implausible alternative history at least you might be able to consider suspending enough belief to have aliens invading during WW2. That the various Argentine posters can't figure out how badly they and their country looks WRT the Falklands shows how utterly bent they are. Do they even remotely consider how foolish they look to the rest of the adult world, not to mention the strain on the credibility of their neighboring countries that they have to take when they have to pander to the rants of the various post Junta governments on having their equivalent of a “little 'peace' of Poland”, and a “little 'peace' of France,” and of course all of Czechoslovakia.
179 lsolde (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 08:23 pm Report abuse
@178 GFace,
l dont take the malvinistas seriously anymore.
l used to try to have meaningful discussions with them, but as you can see, their reasoning is like small children.
Truth & facts mean absolutely nothing to them & they just have to “win” ALL the time.
So now l just voice my opinion & have fun taunting malvinistas.
Sometimes its like poking a stick through the bars to stir up the caged animals.
Oh boy, don't they react!
The assaults on their fragile egos & their frustrations at not getting their own way must really get to them.
Hope so as its fun to watch!
180 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 08:28 pm Report abuse

That's why the UK exist perhaps. To make any mistake by any other country look tame in comparison to what your country did during Empire.

Keep talking about all other countries of the world, how mistaken they are, how you are the only righteous ones. You are the people with the biggest insecurity complex on this planet, and probably a couple of others.

UK the best baby. Never made a mistake, always on the right side of history, always the honest ones who never killed anoyne or took anyone's land. Happy?

LOL!!!! I'll leave your bubble now.
181 Clyde15 (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 08:38 pm Report abuse
Thank you for that unsolicited vote of praise in the third paragraph of your thankfully brief epistle.
In the first para. substitute Argentina
In the second para. it will be be obvious that you again are talking about your beloved homeland.
Even more praise for writing in English instead of that peculiar archaic version of our tongue which went out about the time of Samuel Pepys.
182 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 08:46 pm Report abuse
I am in a very brief mood today. Satisfied?
183 Islander1 (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 08:52 pm Report abuse
Axel- when are you going to stop all this twaddle about Thatcher ordering the sinking of the Belgrano during negotiations for political reasons?
FACTS - as made officially by your Navy after the event:
The ARA aircraft carrier battle group was at sea looking for the British fleet to then launch its fighter bomber to attack the 2 carriers - to be closely followed up by Exocet missiles from SuperEntendards and surface ships.
In the resultant mayhem the Belgrane group would arrive on scene and open fire with her 6 inch guns which outranged the British guns.
That was the Arg plan - it is a Historical Fact - get used to it!

There was little wind and the Arg Carrier could not launch her aircraft, the attack was delayed and the Belgrano was ordered to hold her position by steaming around a triangular course.
The British commanders had figured what the Arg Navy was attempting to do - they knew the carrier was at sea as its escort type 42 destroyers had been detected by the Royal Navy Sea Harriers - which then retired quick as they knew the result of being locked onto by the SeaDart missile system - both sides had it!
So the British knew the ARA was at sea for a pincer attack - they did not know the location of the northern arm- the ARA carrier group so it could not be attacked by a submarine.
They knew the Belgrano,s position and the submarine shadowing her said it would be difficult to follow if the Belgano group headed west at all as they would go over shallow water difficult for the sub to follow.
Hence the British Commander requested permission from London to take out the southern threat before he was himself badly attacked and perhaps disabled or sunk.
Permission was given and the Submarine sunk the Belgrano.

All this has been publically verified on more than one occasion by senior Arg Naval Commanders - get used to FACTS Axel - or stay quiet.
184 Hepatia (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 09:12 pm Report abuse Administrations come and administrations go but the national interest remains. The “Pivot to Asia” was started under the second term of the Bush administration and has been expanded and codified under the Obama administration. So the policy has already weathered one change of administration and, because it reflects the nations interests, will continue on as far as one can see into the future.

Europe's leaders are not surprised by this change of policy even though you are. And one thing you can be sure of. There will be no “Pivot to Europe” - why should there be. The US has been propping Europe up for over 70 years now. And it is going to stop.

I should point out that many of the other American countries are already executing their “Pivot to Asia” so it is not just the US.
185 Shed-time (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 09:49 pm Report abuse
@18 Considering that China 'owns' a considerable amount of the US debt, it's pretty hard for them not to 'pivot to asia'.

The real question you should be asking is, are they pivoting there for the right reasons or because they were told to?
186 axel arg (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 09:56 pm Report abuse
I respect your opinions, but i dont agree with most you said in your analysis. Firstly, i want to express that i have never denied the lack of respect of resolution 502 by arg., and you all know it. But, if both countries were asked to find a negotiated solution, that had to be respected by both. I know about what article 51 says, however, the u. n. had not asked the u. k to transfer the sovereignty to arg., beside, it had not asked either to return the situation to the status quo that existed in the islands before the invasion. The fascist and ignorant junta didn't want a war with the u. k for the sovereignty of the islands. Actually it was so stupid that it thought that britain would never give a militar answer. With the invasion of 2 nd of april, what the junta wanted to do was, a touch and go, they wanted to take position of the archipelago, and leave a small garrison in order to push the u. k for a diplomatic negotiation, it was unveiled in the rattenbach repport, which was released last february by order of c. f. k. It is true that there were aircrafts from our navy, beside, the belgrano was a war ship, but the point is that during the negotiations, the u. k wanted the wishes of the islanders to be taken into account, that was rejected by the junta, because it was contrary to resolution 2065 which said that the their interests had to be taken into account. If thacher was so interested in defending the islands from a fascist and criminal junta, she could have sent a a huge militar mission to protect the population, in order to avoid the islanders to be victim of the terrible abuses that the junta committed in the mailand with our people, but that didn't implicate a war.The issues that involve the order of sinking the belgrano will always be arguable, i respect your analysis, but in my opinion, if both nations were asked to find a negotiated solution, it had to be respected by both nations.
187 Anglotino (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 10:52 pm Report abuse
@186 axel arg

“If thacher was so interested in defending the islands from a fascist and criminal junta, she could have sent a a huge militar mission to protect the population”

Blaming the UK for not fortify the island is akin to blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Considering the current Argentinean government keeps complaining about the UK 'militarising the South Atlantic', this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Resolution means diddle squat as the UN Charter trumps any resolution. The UK were ASKED to negotiate, however the Charter gives them the RIGHT to defend their territory.

Article 51:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member”.

Anyway, other than the tragic loss of lives on both sides, the conflict actually helped both countries and especially the islands. It reinvigorated the UK to the power it is today and restored democracy to Argentina. The islands also took control of their own destiny.

Argentina has done more to entrench UK sovereignty on the Islands in the past 30 years than the UK ever did.
188 GFace (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 10:55 pm Report abuse
@186, Axel, to mix metaphors, you're trying to have two feet in one basket. 1) you correctly concede that the Junta were a fascist invading power but 2) the world had to sit on their hands while the generals did to the islanders what the Junta did at home. The head officers and occupying “officials” were not civil servants, they were active in the Dirty War. They were there because they had the resolve to do to the Falklanders what they did to their own citizens. The idea of a touch-n-go is fantasy, and dare I say a blatant dishonest apologia designed to sugarcoat the invasion so Argentines can sleep easy on it. The Islanders rejected the thought of being liberated by fascists so it was the jackboot for them. The only thing that likely stopped the Dirty War from being *fully* implemented in haste was Menendez's sense of self-preservation (a critical job skill when working within a fascist military junta) once he saw British resolve on the Island and storm was coming from over the sea. WRT to the the UK going to Article 51, for heavens sakes, they had a population in danger! They had guns in their face, a boot on their neck and the Argentine “police” arriving on the island with the same kind of files they used when dealing with their own dissidents. If the Junta was going to stay do you really think they would have been treated with the same doting “colonialist” manner as Hunt? No. That is why they sent their Dirty Warriors. That is why they sent their secret police. The reports from the Islanders made it clear that they were at risk from a regime that had shown a willingness to be appalling brutal to its own citizens. How long should a governing body (dare I say a even a responsible colonial stewart) wait for the notorious wheels of cold war diplomacy spin in the mud while its citizens were being placed on “lists”? Would you have had Thatcher wait for FIers to be thrown from helicopters into the South Atlantic? If so, how many?
189 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 30th, 2012 - 11:43 pm Report abuse

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

So, the UK violated the UN charter passing a resolution that violated the charter itself. A war of agression when the state attacked had not taken agressive action against no other state.

Well, thanks for proving Britain as a rogue state that should be punished (and was in 2005).
190 Islander1 (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:01 am Report abuse
Axel- so the Belgrano sinking is still “arguable” you claim! Ok - please answer me on here - yes or No - Do you accept the PUBLIC and PRESS STATEMENTS made after the event by Senior Officers of the Argentine Naval Command in control of operations at that time? - Yes - or No?

AS for the politacl rights and wrongs at the UN - The FACT remains that at the time right up to 2nd April 1982, talks were going on betweent UK and Argentina - in compliance with the UN request.
That is a simple undisputable FACT.

How on earth can you then claim that UK should not have resorted to military force under Charter 51 when Argentina refused to comply with a MANDATORY Resolution of the UN Security Council?

The 1965 resolution you refer to was one of the General Asembly which are NOT binding on either side - nevertheless UK did open negotioations in the 1970s in good faith with Argentina - and it lead to a brutal military invasion by the Argentine GOVERNMENT of that time- and received Massive Public Support across Argentina.
Oh - my brother was one of several folks who was “questioned” by your military gestapo here - they did it by sitting the person in a chair - then putting a pistol to the head with the cold muzzle against your skin - and then pulling the trigger in between questions - who knew which chamber was empty and which had a bullet- my brother and the others did not!
Nice lot Argentines are - we were getting over it all and starting to think a future in peace alongside you could be possible as a result of the Menem Govt attitudes of the 1990s - but your current mad lady president and her late husband have successully turned the clock right back to mid 1982 as far as our view of Argentina and Argentines is concerned.
Namely that you are mostly a distasteful unreliable lot - bent on one object- a 19th century COLONIAL takeover
191 Pete Bog (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:03 am Report abuse
“she could have sent a a huge militar mission to protect the population, in order to avoid the islanders to be victim of the terrible abuses that the junta committed in the mailand with our people”

I am in no way condoning Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982, but in this quote's passage I totally agree with you here Axel.

Even as a dislocated viewer in 1982 knowing only what I had read in 'Look and Learn' Magazine about the Falklands and seeing a 'Penguin Isles' video, it was obvious that the events on South Georgia in 1982 clearly indicated trouble as did the defence cuts that were well publicised on the TV.

The UK government should have done more to deter the Argentines ,given the information they had, made blindingly obvious in High Bicheno's 'Razor's Edge'.
However the 1982 war produced a guilt in the UK that proper support and attention to the FI rights of self-government were not given previously, resulting in successive UK governments giving the islanders increasing self-government, since 1982, and the best aid you can give to people that have never been wasters-control over their resources.

“to resolution 2065 which said that the their interests had to be taken into account.”

I have no doubt though, that the Junta had no idea of what' the interests of the islanders' were, it was not in their interests to be involved in an invasion and a war-surely?
I feel it important to note that the UN resolutions do not mention the interests of the Argentines or interests of the inhabitants of the UK mainland, both of which are different from the interests of people who were born in the Falkland Islands.
192 malen (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:11 am Report abuse
163 Dont want to be rude, but Arg has 200 years of history as a recoignized nation and facts of the revolution and wars of independence talks for themselves, not a fairy tale.
You think liberators were colonists, well in that case, they didnt like much to be colonists, because they used to kill colonists in numerous battles registered by our history.
what do you think or feel about indegenous, much of them fighting against colonists, its not sth that matters me..........
193 lsolde (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:29 am Report abuse
l don't know why anyone even bothers to answer Axel anymore.
He/she comes out with the same drivel everytime that he posts.
He has the strange idea that somehow Argentina actually has “rights” in the Falklands!
Axel, baby, for the last time:-
Absorb it in your excuse for a brain.
1) you have NO RIGHTS here.
2) we had every right to sink the Belgrano, you were going to try to damage or sink our ships in Gibraltar, well out of the “exclusion zone”.
3) try it again & we'll sink some more of your ships.
And here l am, answering the idiot & l advised others not to do so!!! lol.
194 Anglotino (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:46 am Report abuse
Article 51:
@189 NT5

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member”.

You just can't argue no matter how hard you try.

@192 Malen
“Arg has 200 years of history as a recoignized nation and facts of the revolution and wars of independence talks for themselves”

Britain's been a recongised nation much much longer. 1066 is a good place to start. So nearly 5 times longer. Means nowt.

Also San Martín, Bolívar, Belgrano and others didn't fight for two sets of rights, but the right to choose their own form of government. So the Falkland Islands have every right to remain part of the UK with the Queen as their head of state.

Unless you are saying that a Spanish or Portuguese speaking republican government is the only form of goverment that people in South American can have.
195 Pete Bog (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:54 am Report abuse
I can understand that Argentina became independant because they did not want Spanish Rule, but you seem incapable of understanding that the Falkland Islanders ARE happy being British therefore they don't wish or need to rebel.
Also whenthey have changed their constitution three times since 1982, the UK has not stopped them.

It has been made very plain from the UK government that if the Falkland Islanders wish to have Independance, they can have it.

Therefore there is no need for the Islanders to rebel or fight a war of independance when it's much easier to ask for it when they are ready.
196 Monty69 (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 01:36 am Report abuse
192 malen
Your 'indigenous' carried on fighting almost into the 20th century. So who were they fighting? Clearly not 'liberators' so they must have been fighting colonists. As I said, it all depends on your point of view.
Your version of your history is a myth and a fairy tale. You tell a story of how the criollos and mestizos and indigenous all rose as one and booted out the evil Spanish. It's just not true. Your country is built on a legacy of colonialism; war, exploitation and genocide.
I don't care about that particularly; what it means is that you have no business at all telling Falkland Islanders what to do, no right to accuse anyone of taking any territory, and particularly, no right to imagine that you 'inherited' anything from Spain.
Your 'liberators' decided, when the time was right, to seek independence from Spain. The time may well come when we want to be independent too, the difference being that we won't have to fight for it.
197 GFace (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 01:41 am Report abuse
@190, regarding the Belgrano, I just don't see why it is an issue. Any ARG vessel in the exclusion zone should have considered themselves to be fair game. Any warship anywhere should have been looking over their shoulder. They were assets of the aggressor. And honestly given her past life as the a US flagged cruiser which fought *against* fascism in WW2, if she had a soul, she would have likely saved the UK the trouble and honorably sunk herself.
198 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 01:59 am Report abuse

Too bad the UK equipment didn't disable itself when you gratuitously invaded Iraq, the “Poland” of the middle east.


You have no FUCKING idea about argie history. Full stop.
199 GFace (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:02 am Report abuse
@198 There are so many ways to critically and soberly oppose the war on Iraq. You can ask a huge number of Americans and Brits for pointers, both countries had a huge protest culture on the subject. Compare to the apologists for the Dirty War's export to the Falklands that you claim to oppose.

But really, Tobias. Iraq = Poland?! Saddam Hussein and his mass graves, his war on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs and anyone else who stood in his way == peoples of Gdansk and Warsaw under the jackboots of the Soviets and Nazis. You are one morally bankrupt soul.
200 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:29 am Report abuse

I was merely pointing out that you as Brits pointing out Argentina is not living up to the UN charter is risible.

So what happens within a country is justification to invade it? Well what if one day someone thinks you treat the pakis to badly and you need to be invaded for that... is that justification enough?
201 GFace (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:34 am Report abuse
No. You were quite clear. You can't or couldn't be bothered to distinguish against the Baathist regime that was inspired by European Fascism (which likewise inspired Argentine Fascism) and one of the first countries to fall to the Nazis. You are too far gone for reason.
202 Nostrolldamus The 5th (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:44 am Report abuse
No you are trying to justify a war of agression that just on that sole fact violates article 1 of the UN charter.
203 GFace (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 04:01 am Report abuse
@202, if you are referring to GW2, then you are making thing up. I was never sympathetic to Saddam Hussein, was grudgingly glad to see him go unlike people like George Galloway but I opposed the rationale and methods GW2. The fact remains, you callously equated Fascist State with the victims of Fascism. You are one messed up little kid.
204 Shed-time (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 08:27 am Report abuse
Tobias, the fact is according to the UN self-defence allows an aggressive response to the Argentine military invasion. Like the Argentine's spent their days in the falklands threatening to shoot children, playing russian roulette with a bound and gagged farmer and creating unmarked landmines. The UN saw fit for the UK to defend their peoples through a sudden and decisive military response.

These sorts of people are like animals, and you occasionally have to smack a dog on it's nose so that it knows it did something wrong and doesn't do it again.
205 lsolde (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 09:18 am Report abuse
@204 Shed-time,
All this was done & more by the Argentine invaders and these deluded malvinistas actually think that we want anything to do with them!!!!
Get real, Argentina.
We will never forget & you will never return.
Stay in your own backyard, you're not a good neighbour & we don't like you.
206 Hepatia (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 10:34 am Report abuse In the context of this article whether the US was “told to” pivot to Asia or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it is and, as a consequence, the US will be far less ambivalent about the status of Las Malvinas.

Ironically, it is the UK which is going to enter into a period of ambivalence with respect to Las Malvinas. Already the UK is becoming isolated over its stance to the Las Malvinas question . As long as the UK continues to support the status quo this isolation will increase.
207 Clyde15 (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 11:00 am Report abuse
“The UK is becoming isolated over its stance on the Falklands” - where is your evidence for this. Apart from the Latino club who are a bit excitable about anything, the rest of the world has not the slightest interest in this “question” There are massively more serious problems to contend with.
208 Hepatia (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 11:41 am Report abuse One piece of evidence is the Pivot to Asia.
209 malen (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:00 pm Report abuse
196 We were a real people in 1800, different of our colonists that dominated us, and you have only one way when that happens. Liberators are sth you will never understand, neither what is a revolution.
And indegenous of Patagonia, fought against others of BA and its mixes, in a terrible war between brothers.
Indegenous has rights the same as all argentines. Not like in the colonial times.
Yours is a fairy tale. From the A to Z.
Its a problem of UK, the british people. Not of Arg.
210 British_Kirchnerist (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:13 pm Report abuse
#203 George Galloway, the best potential British PM in my view, never supported Saddam in fact opposed him when he was Thatcher and Reagan's ally in the 80s; he just wasn't “glad” about the war and complete collapse that came next for Iraq...
211 GFace (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:25 pm Report abuse
@210, On please, he supported his indefatigability. Whenever there has been a boot on a human face that has expressed anti-western sentiment he's been cheering them on.
212 LEPRecon (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:35 pm Report abuse
@210 - BK

Fortunately your view in is the very tiny minority of TWO - you and George Galloway.

George Galloway support dictators, because he's a sicophant who hopes to be given a few bread crumbs from them. But he is in no way a serious politician, or human being. He feeds on hatred, and likes to spread that hatred. Satan has a nice spot picked out for him in hell.

Every political party he has ever been allowed to join have seen him for what he is, and booted him out. He's a pariah.

However, regarding the article, Margaret Thatcher was right, it was a stupid and desperate thing to do.

Fortunately, she had the balls to stand up to this murderous regime and boot them off the Falklands, curtesy of the British Armed Forces.
213 Clyde15 (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 12:42 pm Report abuse
I must be missing something here. What has the “pivot to Asia” got to do with the Falklands? How does this isolate us from world opinion? Or is it the oft quoted Argentine mantra ”the whole world agrees with us

As a once(note PAST TENSE) Imperial power, I think we understand about revolutions in our former colonies. You may have heard of a country called the USA - I believe it rebelled successfully against the British Crown. Canada, Australia and New Zealand took a more peaceful route.
If our history is a fairy tale, it has had a happy ending.

Thankfully the British public has more sense than to give gorgeous George a look in. I don't think we are yet desperate enough to vote in a self-seeking Marxist.
214 Pete Bog (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 01:09 pm Report abuse
“George Galloway, the best potential British PM in my view, never supported Saddam”

So was he expressing his opposition to Sadam Hussein here?

It appears here that he stopped just short of kissing Sado Hussein's pencil sharpener. Or was this a coded way of expressing his opposition?
215 redpoll (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 01:22 pm Report abuse
BK has a new pinup George Galloway and well shortly be moving to West Bradford where his wonderboy is losing popularity and RESPECt among his constituents. They aint too happy about his remarks on the Assange rape case and cant see that his campaigning for Chavez in Venezuela has much to do with the problems of Bradford. Nice expenses claimed in 2008 too - nearly U$D200,000. Doesnt seem to think much of parliamentary democracy either as his attendances at Westminster have been erratic to say the least
BK West Bradford NEEDS YOU now
216 ChrisR (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 01:46 pm Report abuse
215 redpoll

More like BK is a new PIMP for gorgeous George!

217 Monty69 (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 02:00 pm Report abuse
209 malen
Where were your indigenous' rights when there was a bounty on human ears?
That was a long time after your 'liberators' and your 'colonial times'.

And don't tell me I don't understand about 'liberators'. We celebrate Liberation Day on the 14th June every year and have a personal relationship with our 'liberators'.

You might well think that you were a 'people' in 1800. I have already said I agree with you and I don't care about that.

What you have to understand is that we are a 'people' now, and we will never agree to being subjugated by you. For us, being ruled by you would be as bad, worse even, than you being ruled by Spain. Falkland Islanders have been here for two hundred years, and that gives us rights just as it gave your ancestors rights.
218 Hepatia (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 02:07 pm Report abuse See -
219 malen (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:28 pm Report abuse
217 internal affairs of SA at difficult times where everybody was fighting between southamericans for southamerica, so???
Well in SA liberators were from the people for /to the people.
Special case of colonialism its yours, arg were expelled from a land integrated to our continental territory and inheritated and with legal recoignition and authorities of Argentina, and never could return.
We never subjugated you if you were and still are a british colony, never ruled you, never wanted it either. There was an armed conflict. Only between two sides, Britain and Argentina.
220 British_Kirchnerist (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:31 pm Report abuse
#212 Galloway has only ever been expelled from one party, New Labour, after it had stopped being the real labourist party he had been a member of in good standing for over 30 years. He also fell out with the ultra-left SWP at one point, but who on the British left hasn't?!

#213 He's not a Marxist, he's religious

#216 Silly comment, he's married

#211 Just have a listen to this discussion from his old talkshow where he tears apart a Nazi if you think he supports “tyranny”
221 Anglotino (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:31 pm Report abuse
I love it when Malen contradicts her/himself.

Thank you for supporting the Falkland's rights.
222 malen (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 03:35 pm Report abuse
who is your liberator Monty??? Margaret Thatcher, that lives 14.000 km away and has been only once in the isles, after war, becuase if not she would have never travelled there???
223 Monty69 (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 05:56 pm Report abuse
222 malen

I know children who spent the conflict locked up in their own home. Sometimes Argentine soldiers came a pointed guns at their heads while they ordered their parents to do things. Falkland Islanders were routinely locked up, deported, ordered to speak Spanish, denied access to media and communications, threatened and humiliated. Don't say they weren't subjugated, because it isn't true.
Our liberators were the British armed forces, and the Falkland Islanders who helped them, sometimes at great risk to themselves.

You already know what I think about your 'territorial integrity', and about the 'expelled population'.
224 lsolde (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 07:26 pm Report abuse
Stop your crying & telling lies, malen.
Go cry for your precious Argentina, it needs you, we don't.
This is not your land & you will not return.
Bye bye.
225 reality check (#) Dec 31st, 2012 - 10:27 pm Report abuse

Sorry to disagree, but it was not the British armed forces who came to liberate you.

They were your armed forces. that's how they felt then and that is how they still feel today.

Happy and prosperous New Year to all in the Islands and all on here.
226 axel arg (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 12:22 am Report abuse
Firstly, i will always understand the desperation that you all felt during the 76 days of the argentine invasion, it is actually the same desperation that millions of us felt during seven years and a half, when our compatriots were taken from their houses or jobs, and finally many of them dissapeared. For being honest, i have always thought that the sinking of the belgrano was a war crime, because it was sunk outside the exclution zone, however at the begining of may of this year, i could know that in the end of april of 1982, thatcher's gov. had changed the roles, and notified the junta about it, that change implicated that the gov. of her majesty would attack all those ships that it considered as a threat, including if they were outside the exclution zone. So, i'm not sure if that act can be considered a war crime. I respect your analysis, but i dont agree with most you say. I really think that actually both countries didn't respect resolution 502, if you argue that the u. k decided to use article 51 of the charter of the u. n., it was contrary to the peacefull solution that resolution 502 asked both nations. Before the sinking of the belgrano, there were conversations between both nations, beside, the u. k had made small attacks against some argentine positions. In may 6th general secretary of the u. n, perez de cuellar proposed a mission of good offices in order to find a negotiated solution, both countries accepted that proposal, however in may 7th, the u. k. decided to amplify the naval blockade against arg., and ordered to bring the ships that it had in the asencion island, in order to unship in the islands, so, it was obvious that it didn't want a negotiated solution, thats' why i have always thought that both nations didn't respect resolution 502 finally.
227 agent999 (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 02:24 am Report abuse
@226 Axel
Resolution 502 on April 3rd 1982 demanded an immediate Argentine withdrawal of its forces
Argentina would not and did not withdraw its forces !!!!!!!
228 Anglotino (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 05:13 am Report abuse
@226 axel Arg

Not being a Falkland Islander I cannot know what was felt during those 76 days. My country has always had democracy so living under any form of dictatorship is thankfully foreign to me.

You keep trying to argue and place UN Resolution 502 on some untouchable pedestal, but keep missing the point. The UN authorises a country to “collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member”.

A resolution is subordinate to the Charter.

There is no way around the fact that the UN Charter is superior to any UN resolution.

Unfortunately for Argentina this also pertains to self-determination.
229 Shed-time (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 10:16 am Report abuse
I think what everyone is talking about is the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Any multilateral talking-shop will clearly allow a member state to defend itself against a marauding ethically-vacuous nation, intent on naught but the spread of corruption and expansionism.

If the any multilateral talking-shop doesn't allow for this, then it has little or no purpose as some place that expects countries to sit there getting slapped in the face routinely by their animalistic neighbours. The charter and resolutions no doubt uphold this.

Whatever the argentines say is just testicle-air.
230 Zethee (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 03:52 pm Report abuse
“So, i'm not sure if that act can be considered a war crime.”

It was not, this is not an opinion but a fact both readily accepted by both governments of the conflict. The exclusion zone was never, and i repeat never meant to mean the only area in the world that the war was to take place, it was simply a warning to any civilian ships that they may be targeted if they enter the zone.

“actually both countries didn't respect resolution 502”

The resolution called for your forces to leave the islands and for peace to be made, your nation refused so we was forced to send in our troops. The end result:

Argentine forces removed from the islands.
Islanders live in peace.
Peaceful solution found.

Resolution 502 followed.
231 Shed-time (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 04:09 pm Report abuse
@230 Not removing morally-vacuous Argentines from peaceful proto-nations is the war crime.

End of.
232 axel arg (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 08:07 pm Report abuse
I don't deny the relancy of the article 51, in fact, in my comment 186, i said that if after the invasion thacther was so interested in deffendig the islanders from the argentine occupation, she could have sent a huge militar mission to the islands, in order to protect them from the terrible abuses that junta committed in the mainland, but at the same time, she could find a negotiated solution with the junta, like resolution 502 asked both nations, it shows that a war wasn't the only one solution. beside, don't forget that one year before the invasion, she had been warned about the danger of her decision of desmantling partially the defence from the south atlantic. On the other hand, in 1980 her govt. had sent nicholas readley to the island and to buenos aires, in order to dialogue with the govts. from the islands and from the junta, with the purpose of finding a negotiated solution for the sovereign conflict. These facts show that actually the islands weren't important for her govt. In my comment 226, i said that both countries accepted the proposal of good offices of gral secretary from the u. n. perez cuellar in may 6th, but i forgat telling that the main condition, was the retire of the troops of both nations, in order to start negotiating. However in may 7th, the u. k. decided to amplify the naval blockade in the islands, and bring the forces that it had in the asencion islands, it shows that it wasn't interested in any negotiated solution, because just a militar victory would help thatcher to boost her miserable and unpopular govt. In the case of the junta, it was stupid and ignorant that it thought that with occupation of the 2nd of april, it would be able to push the u. k. for a diplomatic negotiation, i already explained in my comment 186, what was the true intention of it. All these facts that show that actually both nations didn't respect resolution 502 finally, accept it ro not.
233 reality check (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 08:59 pm Report abuse
Axel arg.

In the history of mankind, except where war is seen as an extension of national policy, war usually follows a break down in negotiations, not the other way round. That's why 1982 is so incredulous. The idea that the British of all people, with their history of warfare, would negotiate following an act of armed aggression against them, is staggering beyond belief.
You know what I suspect, I suspect that someone in the CIA advised the junta that the Brits had neither the will nor the means, to fight a war miles from home. Seems to be the only logical explanation for such an illogical act.
234 lsolde (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 09:17 pm Report abuse
@233 reality check,
lts pointless trying to reason with Axel.
He has a one-track mind.
He thinks that Argentina actually has “rights” in the Falklands & l think he is highly offended that we refuse to “negotiate” our sovereignty.
@232 Axel,
There is nothing to negotiate, dear Axel.
You have no rights here & we don't want anything to do with your “precious” Argentina.
YOUR country is the aggressor.
YOUR country invaded our peaceful lslands
YOUR country was then defeated & evicted.
So just GET LOST.
235 reality check (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 10:33 pm Report abuse
I said to him in an earlier post, that if he wants to know what would happen if KFC changed her stance conditions for talks, he should get an opinion from an islander, well, you just gave him it.

Also said we would support whatever decision you take about your lifes, and we do. I was a serviceman thirty years ago, I was stationed in Germany and was not sent South, but be sure of one thing. I would have gone and been bloody proud to have done so.
236 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 10:44 pm Report abuse
YOUR country is the aggressor.
YOUR country invaded our peaceful lslands
YOUR country was then defeated & evicted. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAuk lost 3 billion,300 men,800 wounded,8 ships sunk,16 ships put out, 24 helos lost,10 aircraft,tons of supplies lost ...AAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAH Useless pirates,2.6 million unemployed,1,1 trillion public debt.....Riots,desperation in the british isles..AHAHAHA poor deluded ex is FINISHED!!
So just GET LOST
237 reality check (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 10:56 pm Report abuse
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! It seems that the late President Ronald REAGAN may have had a point about the humiliation.

Still, who gives a ferk, the result was never in doubt.
238 malen (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 11:15 pm Report abuse
British troops for themselves cant be “liberators”. Because those troops are sent by somebody, that is Margarita, they didnt decide nothing by themselves, but what Margarita said, even when sinking the Belgrano they asked her.
For me, a liberator, as a concept, cant be colonist.
Margarita has been surprised in her usurpation of Malvinas with low contact and defence in the isles, and she only went to colonized it with more militar power again.
The junta never killed an islander, they had orders to treat them well, stupids are everywhere, but it was not the general way of treatment. It was not with you the conflict, it was Britain.
239 reality check (#) Jan 01st, 2013 - 11:51 pm Report abuse
You make a common mistake, A mistake in thinking that the Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen who fought against you, were not the armed forces of the islanders, but you see, they were!

The troops who fought their and who defend the islands today are British? yes.
The Islanders are British? yes. Ergo, the guys in 82 and the guys and girls now there, are the Islanders armed forces.

So they were their boys who liberated them and they are they are still their boys and girls, who still have to defend that liberty to this day. Lovely concept, liberty, never lost it myself, can only imagine how bad it felt for my fellow Brits on the Islands!
240 Martin Woodhead (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 12:11 am Report abuse
There was no real point talking to the junta they didnt think the UK would fight a pretty idiotic idea. Then they thought the US would back them an equally deluded idea.
Malvino one country has 4th generation fighters and is building two aircraft carriers that will get some 5th generation stealth warplanes to put on them eventually.

The other just managed to get its sail boat out of hock.
To be fair one of the chinooks we stole off you is still flying the augusta 109s we found have had to be replaced though.
241 reality check (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 12:21 am Report abuse
True, not to mention that nice 155mm on display at the Mucklebrugh collection in Norfolk. Looks nice sitting alongside those jerry tanks.
242 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 03:28 am Report abuse
Still, who gives a ferk, the result was never in doubt.
Yes,the uk lost miserably,300 men dead,3 billion...
True, not to mention that nice 155mm on display at the Mucklebrugh collection in Norfolk. Looks nice sitting alongside those jerry tanks.
The british flag at Buenos Aires look nicer......We have a few collection of british frigates at the bottom of the MAlvinas Sea......,will you like the type 42? Or the Amazon class? 2,6 millions unemployed,who cares what you have in the museums...a lot of stolen stufff,from India,Egypt,etc..
243 malen (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 09:04 am Report abuse
Margaret was a defender of a colony of Malvinas, a protector, that sent troops of her country and for you motherland to defend you.
Liberation of a colony, its sth different, has nothing to do with that.
244 lsolde (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 09:33 am Report abuse
@236 Malvinero1,
l have never been to hell, but l imagine it would be similar to present day Argentina, if Hell existed.
There is no such place as Hell, Malvinero1.
lts a fairy tale invented by priests in the Middle Ages, designed to keep the peasants in line.
So Hell doesn't exist, somewhat like that other fairytale, the Malvinas that is taught to Argentine children.
So you see Malvinero1, you cannot go to either place because they do not exist.
You didn't like my earlier post, signor? Which part didn't you like?
1) when l called you the Aggressor? why? its true. You ARE the Aggressor.
2) when l called you the lnvaders? why? its true. You DID invade OUR lslands.
3) when l pointed out that you were defeated & evicted? why? its true.
You WERE defeated & evicted.
So you can AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA as much as you like, you poltroon.
The facts speak for themselves & just to reinforce our position with you deluded malvinistas:-
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty. Hope this helps you, Malvinero1.
245 GeoffWard2 (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 09:48 am Report abuse
It's all very well the Brits removing the military dictatorship for you, but this still cost money.

It is wrong that this cost should be absorbed by the British taxpayer. It really is time for the full reparations to be claimed and paid.

Not all need be paid in money and not all £6billion need be paid in one go. Oil, gas, food, even manufactured goods, (warships) and sailing ships would go towards the bill .... perhaps best paid by an Argentinian/Mercosur preferential trading arrangement.

Truthfully, you don't get anything for nothing, and you owe the Brits big time for your present freedom from your military dictatorship.
And even if you paid this bill, nothing you paid would come close to replacing the cost of the British lives - this will forever remain as your unpaid debt.
I know we did not do this FOR you, we did it in spite of you. But YOU benefited ... and for that you must pay - short term or long term, but you must pay.
246 ChrisR (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 10:07 am Report abuse
245 GeoffWard2

Superb post, I agree 100%.
247 Anglotino (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse
I see Malen is still trying to create a logical argument and failing miserably. Some people are colonists and some aren't. Some people can liberate themselves but others can't. Some deserve it and some don't. Self determination is a right for some but not for others.

But it isn't half as funny as Malvinero1 who is desperately and repetitively trying to make a British victory look like a loss.
248 Clyde15 (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 01:23 pm Report abuse
My moderate reply @'175 to your rantings still applies.
You must live in a parallel universe. Your country was absolutely humiliated - sorry, but you brought it on yourselves.
I Remember the BA crowds cheering and waving flags at the news of the invasion. You would think they had won the World cup in perpetuity. The obvious reaction to this scene was that we have humiliated the Brits. We have shown the gringos who is master, well for you, unfortunately not. Nemesis was coming.
It was well known in military circles that we would lose ships and take casualties. But we still came !
Maybe we were not as soft and decadent as your masters thought.
Anyway, you were well and truly stuffed.
We could really have humiliated you, but as a magnanimous nation, we let you go home with your tail between your legs, even feeding your men, giving them medical attention and supplying them with a luxury cruise.
If you call this a defeat for the UK that is up to you, the rest of the world probably thinks differently. Your brothers in Chile were probably wetting themselves with laughter while consoling the Arg. govt.
The moral of this tale is--don't play rough with the BIG BOYS.
Am I allowed a small self congratulatory AHAHAHAH orJAJAJA?
I think so !
As for Nos. 5 saying that we want to take over mainland Argentine territory, he is away with the fairies.
I sense a touch of paranoia in his postings.
You may as well say that the Romans, Normans, French etc have plans or desire to take over mainland Britain.
249 Monty69 (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 04:43 pm Report abuse
243 malen

You still don't get it do you.
If we are ruled by Argentines, then we are a colony and we are subjugated. If someone rescues us from that, then they are liberators.

You haven't got a clue about the conflict.You wanted to take over the Falklands and Falkland Islanders made it clear that they didn't want you. Therefore your fight was most definitely against Falkland Islanders.

Quite apart from the fact that the UK armed forces are ours too, did you know that the Falkland Islands Defence Force was out defending Stanley on the night of the invasion? Did you know that many Falkland Islanders put themselves in the line of fire to help and guide the troops? These are all our liberators. They liberated us from an unwanted coloniser. I know that must be hard for you to accept, but that is what you are.
250 Pete Bog (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 05:56 pm Report abuse
“For me, a liberator, as a concept, cant be colonist”

A liberator frees people who do not want to be ruled by those keeping them prisoner. If the Falkland Islanders wanted to be Argentine then the UK would have not sent a task force.

The Falkland Islands did not want to be ruled by Argentina therefore in 1982 the UK armed forces liberated them.

That's why June the 14th is known as Liberation Day in the Falkland Islands.
And yes, a liberator cannot be a colonist. Argentina wished (and still does) to colonise the Falkland Islands and their liberator's, the UK, stopped treating the Falkland Islands as a colony so after three constitutional changes the Falkland Islands Government has more executive powers than ever.

Argentina wishes to reverse the Islanders democratic rights to govern themselves and impose a colonial solution.
251 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 06:30 pm Report abuse

Well said, Sir!
252 GeoffWard2 (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 07:51 pm Report abuse
“If there are to be any negotiations it should be about reparations from Argentina for starting an unprovoked war by invading sovereign British territory resulting in the deaths of 255 UK citizens.”

Azeem Ibrahim (Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding).

It seems we let off Argentina and its fascist regime without even a slap on the wrist for causing us so much trouble.
Never has a victor been quite so 'gentlemanly'.

Can anybody tell me why reparations have not yet been sought by the UK Government?
253 axel arg (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 08:12 pm Report abuse
I don't reject your hipothesis, per haps you could be right. I have read and investigated so much about the historic and the legals aspects of this conflict, because i have never believed in our official history, and i have also read a lot about the context of both nations in 1982, due to i'm 31 years old, and i was 10 months old during the argentine occupation in the islands, so, i didn't live that moment fortunatelly.
In my comment 186 i explained that true intention of the junta, when it took possession of the islands, was to do a touch and go, that decision implicated that after taking over the archipelago, the militars were going to leave a small garrison there, and all the rest of the troops were going back to the mainland, with that way, the junta thought that it would push the u. k. for a diplomatic negotiation, because they actually didn't want a war for the islands. The problem of the ignorant junta, was that the huge arrogance of the argentine militars, didn't let them see that in same way that the junta invaded th malvinas-falklands in order to try to save the process that provoked the coup d'etat in 1976, because the social conquences of the decisions taken by the junta were really miserable, beside, the militars wanted to role argentina untill 1989, margaret thacher was also in a very difficult social context, because the decisions taken by her miserable and umpopular govt. were very bad for the middle class in the u. k., so, it was obvious that she was going to give a militar answer, the islands weren't important for her govt., and i already explained why i think this, in my comment 232.
254 agent999 (#) Jan 02nd, 2013 - 08:40 pm Report abuse
Unfortunately you cannot invade a country, leave a small garrison in place, withdraw you main army and then claim the country has not been invaded !
255 downunder (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 03:52 am Report abuse
After the defeat of the Argentine army on the Falkland Island in 1982, President Reagan asked Mrs T to give Argentina a 'consolation prize'.
Well she did, the Argentine army got taken away by P&O cruises for a nice voyage throug the South Atlantic back to Argentina. Their treatment was a lot better than the treatment that they meted out to the Islanders during their brief period of occupation by the Argentines.
In 50 years time, The Falkland Islands will be a small but self sufficient country that will enjoy the recognition of of the interntional community. Argentina will still be tryingh to work out what went wrong. Happy new Year Falklanders.
256 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:01 am Report abuse
@252 geoffWard

Posted in the Comments Section of your Huffington article:
“Alex Vargas
0 Fans
01:45 AM on 04/11/2010
If the colonist want to be British let them go back home, if they want to be Argentine they can stay in Argentine as they are, I am in Canada facing probable deportation for not doing my papers, I don't think think they should be treated any different. I will like to ask this reporter if he considers Patagonian indians, people? according to him there was no people in Malvinas but history and evidence says diferent, the british in the Malvinas should be thankfull that they don't run the same fate as the Patagonian idnians.”

Written in 2010, before he started posting as “Pirat-Hunter”
257 lsolde (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:59 am Report abuse
@256 Troy Tempest,
There must be some department in the Canadian Govt, that you can lay all the evidence before & get this idiot deported?
Canada would be much better off without him.
258 ynsere (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 02:59 pm Report abuse
Who's going to wash the dirty dishes at the restaurant if TT is deported? That's what Argentines do in developed countries.
259 malen (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:35 pm Report abuse
British of the isles must have been heroes, but not liberators. A libertador surpass a heroe. You were recoignized as a crown colony in 1982 (sic, sic) then dependent terrotory of Britian etc etc, your heroes and the british were defending that status. So you werent liberators. Britain rejected an arg militar intervention of a militar Junta(in decline) in the isles, that fought and was about to negotiate with Britain, according to your leader Thatcher.
260 Anglotino (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:54 am Report abuse
Britain liberated the Islands from the Argentinean junta.

Perhaps your English (though good) is inadeqaute to express your beliefs. However the Islands were indeed liberated.

It is the same concept used by the Libertadores - removal of a power considered foreign by the local population.

Try to twist all you like but Argentina was the coloniser this time around, not the hero and definitely not the Libertador.
261 malen (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:54 am Report abuse
and you are for more than 180 years a foreign power in a land that was usurpated to South America......
Libertador of the people would have fought against that, but as you are only descendants of colonists (you expelled the arg and never could return), you will never never do that. Special case of colonialism its called.
In SA we know very well, and dont get confused about that.
262 ChrisR (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 11:17 am Report abuse
261 malen

I used to think that it was your translator that garbled your post. The drivel you wrote was forgivable to a point because of that.

It is now perfectly clear that you are nothing other than a stupid woman and a Malvanista, so stupid to the power 2. Well done.
263 Pete Bog (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 03:32 pm Report abuse
”but as you are only descendants of colonists (you expelled the arg and never could return)”

No Argentines were expelled in 1833. Argentina did not exist until 1853.
In 1833 11 people from South America plus 4 indians from the Montevideo area stayed in the Islands under the British flag. They were asked to stay. Brisbane (a British guy by the way)was a member of Vernet's settlement who did return and other people 'returned' to the settlement.

Some of the people in that settlement (especially the slaves that were freed under British rule) lived on in the Islands another 40 years and were the decendants of Islanders today, before more immigration from the UK added population. However that immigration was not only from British stock but as you cannot research history properly you will never discover this.
264 lsolde (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
@261 malen,
Everything that you have said here is false.
You have accepted the malvinista's creed without doing ANY research at all.
lt is really not worth even talking to or replying to you.
Go away, read a genuine, truthful history book & forget all the rubbish that you learned at school.
Anyway, cry as much as you like, but one thing is absolutely certain.
The Falklands(malvinas do not exist)are OURS, NOT YOURS.
You will NEVER get them & why should you?
Repair your own broken country & keep your long nose out of our business.
Thank you, malen.
265 redpoll (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:20 pm Report abuse
Keep it up Pete and Isolde. As a small country on the other side of the Plate subjected to bullying from across the river most of us are with you in spite of our govts posturing to the contrary
266 Monty69 (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 11:52 pm Report abuse
261 malen

You know what? We can call those who fought for our freedom in 1982 our 'liberators' if we want to. It doesn't matter what you think.
The Spanish probably called your 'liberadors' traitors, and your indigenous probably called them colonists. It all depends on your perspective.

In 1982 your government invaded the Falklands, changed the names of the places, closed the schools and the radio station (which was allowed to play the odd bit of censored propaganda), kept a lot of people under house arrest or imprisonment etc etc. It was not going to negotiate anything apart from keeping the islands.

The inhabitants of the Falklands are from 60 different nationalities. My neighbour is descended from one of the Argentines who stayed in 1833. Another neighbour's ancestors were Argentine gauchos who came in the 1860s. The Falklands was full of Argentine gauchos in the 1800s. A close friend was born and brought up in Argentina and married a Falkland Islander.
Get this through your thick skull; none of us wants you. We are not mainland British, and we aren't Argentine. We are Falkland Islanders, and if we want to call British troops and fellow Falkland Islanders 'liberators' then we will do.
They fought to liberate us from domination and subjugation by a foreign power; you. They didn't fight to keep us under British rule, but to save us from oppression. By you.

We don't need to fight against being a colony, because we aren't one. If we ever want to be independent we only have to ask. The only people we have to fight are you.
267 dab14763 (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 09:59 pm Report abuse
266 Monty69

It's polite to ask, but you don't have to. You can simply tell the UK that you've decided to become independent from a certain date. You don't need the UK's permission for independence.

And what you've posted should be reposted in every forum possible where Malvinists make an appearance.
268 malen (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 12:47 am Report abuse
Obviously you can invent the story you like Monty, name the things the way you like, who cares, but never never would be the same one Manuel Belgrano to one MargaritaThatcher for ex, so simple like that. 25 arg are in the isles.
Isolde, you are a bunch of liars and white gloves thieves. Admit that for once.
269 Anglotino (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 12:50 am Report abuse
@261 malen

You were relying to my post but I hate to break it to you. I'm not British.

”and you are for more than 180 years a foreign power in a land that was usurpated to South America......
Libertador of the people would have fought against that, but as you are only descendants of colonists (you expelled the arg and never could return), you will never never do that. Special case of colonialism its called.
In SA we know very well, and dont get confused about that.”

You see the funny think is that my country gained independence by a VOTE. The first country in the world created by a VOTE. The world has moved on from the days of your libertadores. Britain didn't fight against our desire. And though there was 85 years between Federation and the unfettered independence of the Australia Act in 1986, that doesn't detract that we liberated ourselves and I'd it with the help of Britain.

Your mindset has not caught up with the XXI century.
270 redpoll (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 01:13 am Report abuse
Isolde. anglo You trying to knock off malen with self induced apoplexy or maybe spontaneous combustion? I note that the more you bait it the worse its English gets
271 malen (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 01:48 am Report abuse
Would you like if I go to Australia with friends and very well armed, take one of your gardens, take out all the australians gardeners and people of that garden, dont let enter any more australian, and sya that garden is mine because I say it and I want it only??
272 lsolde (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 04:23 am Report abuse
@271 malen,
You mean the same way that your country did to Paraguay,
You took a lot more than their garden-give it back.
Or you mean the same way that your country did in Patagonia-taking land from both Chile & the native peoples-give it back.
Only in Patagonia, your countrymen murdered the native people, THEN stole their land.
Your pathetic country KNEW that the Falklands were British BEFORE they even sent Squatters here.
Then, childishly, because they can't get their own way, moan & bitch to everyone when these Squatters were rightfully ejected.
And now your country teaches lies to its children & like you, yourself, grow up believing that OUR lslands are yours!
Therefore your example fails, as it was NEVER your garden, anyway.
Hope this helps.
273 Anglotino (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 09:05 am Report abuse
@271 oh poor malen

I know that you will conveniently ignore any facts that contradict those you have learnt but it feels so good to highlight some people's stupidity.

“Would you like if I go to Australia with friends and very well armed, take one of your gardens, take out all the australians gardeners and people of that garden, don't let enter any more australian, and say that garden is mine because I say it and I want it only??”

*Well had you or your friends or their forebears landed on Australia before and claimed sovereignty?
*Did they build a settlement in Australia before any of the current inhabitants in Australia did?
*Did the people living there have your permission to move there like Luis Vernet received from the British?

So the question I ask you is how was it possible that produce was sent as cargo to Buenos Aires in April 1833 if there was no one left on the island after the “expulsion” in January?

How were settlers that lived there with Luis Vernet such as Antonina Roxa, Santiago López and Manuel Coronel still working there in 1835 on behalf of Luis Vernet?

That's TWO YEARS after they were supposedly expelled.

How is it that Antonia Roxa died in Stanley in 1869 when she was part of Vernet's settlement?

That's THIRTY THREE YEARS after she was supposedly evicted.

Or let's try with Carmalita Penny who was one of Luis Vernet's slaves. How come she died in Stanley in 1845. TWELVES YEARS after she was supposedly evicted. And worse her 3 sons were living there in 1851 and one was even given £550 by the British government in 1858.

WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE EVER DISPROVE THESE FACTS? It would be so nice to just once find one of you guys that could actually disprove something. But you can't. All you do is repeat blatant lies that are so easily disproven that it is embarrassing for Argentina.


I've got more questions but will have to wait for someone to post so I can ask them.
274 ChrisR (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 10:36 am Report abuse
273 Anglotino

Carry on then.
275 lsolde (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 10:46 am Report abuse
@273 Anglotino,
Be very surprised if you get an answer from malen.
When you ask inconvenient questions, or put foreward checkable facts, they just ignore you, in the hope that you'll go away.
They know deep down that they are in the wrong but refuse to admit it because they hate losing, always have to win & they'll also lose face.
lts such a shame because they have a country with great potential, but cannot manage it.
They could be the showcase of South America.
276 Anglotino (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 11:15 am Report abuse
Thanks ChrisR. Sorry I was over on the Gonraltar article which I'm sure you'll see.

Isolde I know that malen will not be able to reply. That is why we Britin doesn't really react to the Argentine government because all their claims are so easily disproven by people such as us sitting in our homes with an Internet connection.

Anyway to the unanswerable questions:

The question you should be asking and seem totally incapable of; why can't Argentina get over the loss of these islands? Colombia lost Panama and got over it. Paraguay lost a huge amount of her territory to Argentina and got over it. New Zealand was once part of New South Wales. France lost Quebec. Mexico lost heaps of territory. The list goes on and on....

I know it has nothing to do with resources.

Why does the Argentine government periodically get riled up over this? What sets Argentina off? I mean it is highly unlikely that nearly 3,000 people are going to leave their homes. Argentina has NEVER been further from gaining these islands as it is right now. If there is one government that is pushing the islands to independence it is Argentine. Why do you support independence for the islands? Why would you prefer independence above all else?

The funniest thing is that you will be totally incapable of answering any question I have raised. You will continue to paste outright lies and falsehoods.
277 redpoll (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 03:03 pm Report abuse
@273 Thanks Anglo for your interesting post. Didnt know half of that. An interesting new slant on the matter
278 Anglotino (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 07:56 pm Report abuse
279 Monty69 (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 10:35 pm Report abuse
268 malen

Sorry, but it's no story. It's all true, and verifiable fact.
Of course there are only 25 'Argentines' on the islands. That's because when people move here and get FI status, and marry Falkland Islanders, they become Falkland Islanders. And their children and descendents are all Falkland Islanders too.
At least one of the people who posts in this forum is a Llamosa, descended from the gaucho of that name who came here over 100 years ago. Your version of events is a complete fabrication. Argentines came and went here for decades and were very welcome, as long as they understood that they weren't in Argentina any more.

By the way, I think you should look up the story of Antonina Roxa. She's quite a folk heroine. Having avoided being murdered by the thug Rivero, she went on to live a long and happy life in the Falklands, helping the early settlement to survive and prosper with her dairying knowledge and skills.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!