Monday, January 7th 2013 - 17:45 UTC

Argentina accuses PM Cameron of “military threats” regarding the Falklands

The Argentine Foreign Ministry rejected the recent “military threats” coming from British Prime Minister David Cameron in relation to the UK’s “illegal occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands” that began 180 years ago.

Cameron also said he hopes Cristina Fernandez will listen to the Falklands’ March referendum (Photo BBCTv)

“The aggressiveness present in the British Prime Minister’s words ratify the complaint filed by the Argentine Republic before the United Nations regarding the militarization of the South Atlantic and the possible presence of nuclear weapons brought by the colonial power,” the ministry said in a statement.

The government office also added that the Argentine population “urges Mr. David Cameron not to make use of the peaceful and legitimate claims we make against the usurpation of part of our territory and colonialism as an excuse to maintain the arms industry instead of solving the severe social crisis Europe is going through.”

“People need more employment and less war,” the statement reads calling on PM Cameron’s government to abide UN resolutions.

The Argentine government was reacting to strong statements from Cameron who in an interview with BBC1 said he was willing to fight a war to keep the Falklands.

PM Cameron said the UK has one of the five largest defence budgets in the world and given the circumstances it is essential that the UK keeps aircraft and troops stationed in the Falklands.

The UK Prime Minister said he’s “absolutely clear” that Britain would defend the Islands in the face of mounting pressure from Argentina, insisting that the British government would “do everything to protect the interests of the Islanders.”

”The future of the Falklands should be determined by the Falkland Islanders themselves - the people who live there,“ said Cameron.

A referendum on the Falklands' political status is to be held in March.

Likewise, Cameron said: ”Whenever they have been asked their opinion, they say they want to maintain their current status with the United Kingdom.

“They're holding a referendum this year and I hope the president of Argentina will listen to that referendum and recognise it is for the Falkland Islanders to choose their future, and as long as they choose to stay with the United Kingdom they have my 100% backing.”

President Cristina Fernandez in an open letter published is the London media 3 January said the Malvinas were forcibly stripped from Argentina in “a blatant exercise of 19th Century colonialism”.

Argentina's view is that the referendum is illegitimate and will have no bearing on their claim because they see the Islanders as occupiers, rather than residents.

130 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 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 05:56 pm Report abuse
How stupid can these clueless propagandist dipshits get? There was no military threat - in response to a direct question, there was simply a promise to meet any Argentine military aggression with a military response.

Unless Argentina is planning a military intervention, there quite simple was no threat; so one can't help but wonder if the the entire Argentine government can muster two braincells to rub together.
2 Trunce (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:09 pm Report abuse
Just plain speak - setting out UK position. Argentina should surely appreciate succinct clarification..
3 Xect (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:26 pm Report abuse
'Cameron not to make use of the peaceful and legitimate claims we make against the usurpation of part of our territory and colonialism as an excuse to maintain the arms industry instead of solving the severe social crisis Europe is going through.'

Bwhaha, are these people serious? Surely they can't manage to lower the international opinion of Argentina further than it is already?

Sheesh talk about dragging Argentina through the gutter with what everyone can see is a load of lies, rhetoric and make believe stories.

I pity those decent Argentinian people who have to put up with these clowns running their country.
4 Clyde15 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:27 pm Report abuse
Surely even the thickos here can differentiate between the verb defend ( defender in Spanish) and lanzar un ataque.
Defend means to take no aggressive action UNLESS attacked.
I imagine that is what most sovereign countries would subscribe to.
5 CJvR (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:29 pm Report abuse
From the Argie perspective the war will start once the British return fire.
6 MrFlagpole (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:33 pm Report abuse
ffs. We will defend the islands is only a threat to anyone thinking of attacking the place.

You have to wonder if anyone at the UN even reads the barrage of letters they get from Argentina. I also wonder if the Argentine government actually bothers sending them, or of they just pretend to, like when your child wants to write to father Christmas.

“Dear united nations, please can I have a new bicycle, and the Falklands, and the antarctic, and the frikin moon, please please please.”
7 txiki (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
The Argentine Government - the gift that just keeps on giving.

If they hadn't invaded the islands in 1982, there would probably still only be a detchment of 30 marines on the islands at any one time - so really they are responsible for the militarisation of the Islands.
8 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:38 pm Report abuse
@7 txiki

If they hadn't invaded in 1982, they would probably have had joint sovereignty by now; or possibly even sovereignty, with the islands on a long-term lease to the Crown.
9 Pugol-H (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 06:51 pm Report abuse
The obscene desperation shown here in trying to make something out of nothing, really says it all about this administration and its weakness in all this.

Money from the defence budget supports a lot of high tech jobs in the UK, worth spending for that reason alone.

I particularly liked “the severe social crisis Europe is going through” bit. Like Argentina is the land of milk and honey right now.

CFK & Co can’t get the courts in Argentina to back down to them, they will know there is no possibility of British giving an inch.

Once again more for internal consumption than external effect. Keeps peoples minds off other things.
10 Conqueror (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:03 pm Report abuse
@8 I have to ask you this question. Where do you live? You see, I doubt whether any Falkland Islander would have EVER agreed to argie sovereignty! I have little doubt that the Islanders would have been aware of argieland's little “Dirty War” housekeeping. Even back in the 70s, I reckon the only way that an Islander would have trusted an argie would have been if every one of them had been required to have the muzzle of a rifle held by a British Army soldier in their ear at all times. Location of bayonet optional.
11 Xect (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:03 pm Report abuse
It's amusing because the delusions are getting far more exaggerated and bizarre inline with how desperate the Argentine government gets.

Only the most brainwashed and out-of-touch Argentine posters on here will try to defend this level of ridiculousness.
12 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:05 pm Report abuse
@9 Pugol-H

Yes, that “social crisis” line is a bit rich coming from a country where 30% of the population live in abject poverty, whilst the President spends $100,000 on 20 pairs of new shoes in a single day :-)
13 txiki (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
“Humo para la gilada”.

I have spent an enjoyable weekend on La Nacion putting the story right - at least you get a lot of sane and reasonable people on here as well as the usual K trolls. According to one deluded chap, apparently the population of the islands is now 80% immigrants from the uk since 1982 as all the islanders have gone to live in the UK, and that the troops will be voting in the referendum.
14 Gordo1 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:16 pm Report abuse
¡Qué gentuza! What a rabble!

How on earth can these people be taken seriouslyÇ
15 puerto argentino (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:23 pm Report abuse
Cameron, Pirate's Fat!!
16 txiki (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:27 pm Report abuse
After the last couple of days of the K trolls saying that the Sun saying that CFK was hiring a British jet to go on her tour of the middle east was a lie, the RG government have just admitted that the report was in fact correct, and the reason they are doing this is because they are worried Tango 1 will be impounded if it leaves the country - that's if it doesn't break down.
17 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:36 pm Report abuse
@10 Conqueror

I live in London, but I am not British.

Until 1982, relations were close enough that YPF, the Argentine national oil and gas company, had been granted a total monopoly over the supply of all the islands' energy needs; there was a regular air link between Comodoro Rivadavia and Stanley and most of the children in the Falklands were receiving their secondary education in Argentina. The natural progression was to closer and closer ties with Argentina, with the children of the Islands feeling a stronger and stronger affinity with Argentina.

What is crystal clear from the recently released cabinet papers is that, had it not been for the 1982 invasion, Margaret Thatcher would actually have been willing to negotiate a deal over the heads of the islanders - just as indeed Edward Heath and Harold Wilson would have done in 1974, had the snivelling fascist Juan Peron not done the world and Argentina a huge favour and kicked the bucket a few weeks before that deal was due to be signed. Hell, until 1982, hardly anyone in the UK even knew where the Falkland Islands were, let alone that they were a British Overseas Territory and the islanders probably had as much, if not more, in common with Argentina than they had with Britain.

What the 1982 invasion ensured - along with the 258 killed and 775 wounded in defending against Argentine colonialism - was that all goodwill was undone and that British public opinion would make it totally impossible for and present, or future, British government to even contemplate ever again even sitting down to talk about sovereignty without the express agreement of the Islanders.

Now there is only one way for Argentina to ever get their greasy nabs of the Falklands, and that is through winning hearts and minds - ie winning the self-determination argument - and everything they are doing is the diametrically opposite of what is required to either achieve that, or to stand any chance of win a UN resolution in their favour.
18 Brit Bob (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:06 pm Report abuse
I had the opportunity to speak with a Falkland Islander that was working in England in 1981 (he spent a little time in UK, then Australia before heading back home), he expressed the fear that the islands were going to be leased from Argentina for 99 years with a Hong Kong N/Ts type of agreement. He believed that the islanders were going to be sold out. 1982, improved air/sea links and the rich natural resources plus the pathetic mob ranting and using their propaganda has changes everything.
19 Joe Bloggs (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:10 pm Report abuse
Did anyone see the two articles in the Sunday Times yesterday? Rod Liddle did a pretty good comment column and on page 29 was a couple of column inches about how desperate CFK has become. Both interesting reads and both very supportive of us I felt.
20 Conqueror (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:28 pm Report abuse
@17 I take your points. But I reiterate: What makes you think that Falkland Islanders would have accepted argie sovereignty? I can see your assumptions regarding Margaret Thatcher, but let me raise these points. Would she have had “personal” knowledge of the situation and attitudes of the Islanders? She would have been “advised” by the FCO. Who are only technically British. Look back through FCO attitudes and activities for at least 60 years. They amount to “Don't upset the foreigners.” “Give the foreigners what they want.” “Anything for a quiet life.”

Trust me on this. I have direct experience of the FCO. They will do anything for, give anything to, foreigners. It doesn't even matter if it means breaking UK law.

So think about it. As soon as the Islanders got a whiff that the UK was discussing sovereignty with argieland, they reacted. And the negotiations were dropped.

I see no way for argieland to obtain sovereignty over the Islands. Britain and the Islanders will fight to the death. Reading various message boards, it's amazing, and heartening, how many Brits have the attitude “Give me a rifle, ammunition and a flight.” It's my attitude. Despite my age, I can still shoot. I reckon I can still put a bayonet in an argie invader's gut. And if I die, so what? I've had my life. Better me than some young squaddie with a wife and kids. And I swear, I'm not kidding. After 63 years, who cares?
21 atk357 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:31 pm Report abuse
Eventually, every dog stops barking...Just hang in there, with the UK providing protection you have nothing to fear. Have your referendum and give CFK the salute! (american expression for ...finger). Perhaps in the future there would be a president in Argentina who promotes peace and cooperation.....still a dream....but what dreams may become!!
22 Remember1982 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:35 pm
Comment removed by the editor.
23 Trunce (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:38 pm Report abuse

Undortunately - no. I used to read the Times, and had Sky TV, but greedy Murdoch charging to view news online and grabbing F1 - pay to view was a red line for me.

But feel free to paraphrase - providing no charge : )
24 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:41 pm Report abuse
@20 Conqueror

I haven't said that the Falkland Islanders would have willingly accepted Argentinian sovereignty, have I? The point is that, prior to 1982, they probably wouldn't have been given much say in it, and that the British government would have been the last to respect part 2 of Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, if it had meant keeping Argentina friendly.

1982 means that the British government now have no choice in the matter; so, if Argentina actually wanted the Islands, it was a self-defeating exercise on their part .. because doing a deal now would instantly bring any British government down.
25 ChrisR (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:55 pm Report abuse
And who in their right mind is going to take any notice of this little bout of hysteria from the Nazi Jew Timerman apart from the usual suspects?

Bit of a non-event except for the wind-up merchants from La Camping-It-Up blog squad. I would love to know how much these idiots get for writing this drivel.
26 THOR94 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:05 pm Report abuse
@24 Vuggevise (#) Actually your quite wrong. Prior to 1982, the British saw the islands as a 'political landmine'. They actually thought it would be best for a swap over, but the islanders rejected it. There were years of talks on some sort of deal that would appease the Argentines and the islanders including joint sovereignty and such. At no point did they attempted to defy the islanders. The invasion only strengthened the islanders resolve to stay British, and caused the UK government to cease all negations (and stop trying to persuade the islanders to become Argentine) unless the islanders stated otherwise. In history, like many other countries, we've made some stupid mistakes, but we've played it right with the Falklands.
27 jeffski (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:13 pm Report abuse
This is just more twisted Argie logic. Cameron was just saying we will defend the islands with everything we have available, the only reason there are 1200 soldiers on the islands is because of their previous aggression and there continued intimidations and threats, what do they expect us to do after 82, just have 30 odd marines again!!

They have no argument at all, they themselves are a direct product of colonialism, a implanted population. They are attempting to annex and colonise a British oversees territory. I can't understand how other so called democratic country's don't come out and openly support the islanders in their rights for self determination.
28 Burn1938 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
I really do not understand all the fuss . David Cameron is just stating the obvious ! You do not have soldiers , planes and two submarines in the area bird watching . They are there to defend the Islands and will do so . The worry in London must be that the President , with so many problems around her , could do something very stupid .
29 fill00000 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:33 pm Report abuse
You bunch of Argentine spick fucks invaded in 1982 without any warning ... David Cameron has told you what will happen if you try it again and you shower of shits could get a visit on mainland Argentina from a very pissed of BRITISH ARMY
30 redpoll (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:44 pm Report abuse
Do we have any qualified pschyoanalyts posting om these threads? I would really welcome thier opinions on Cristinas mental state As I see it she is completely unstable and as such irrational and unpredictable and therefore dangerous. Most intelligence services do character analysis on other political leaders as a matter of course and I feel sure that Madam Kirchner is no exception A self centred meglomaniac? I dont know
The first intimation of her character was at a G20 meeting where she turned up for the group photo of the heads of state twenty minutes late and demanded that the photocall should be redone with herself in it
Make no bones about it she will have a go at the Falklands. Not a full blooded invasion as in 82, but more likely a kamikaze attack. I dont think it will be done by the armed forces but by her rabid supporters from L aCampora or Qubracho. If they come by plane you wont have much alternative but to shoot it down. I fby boat try and capture the wee diddums and then deport them to somewhere like Balarus or Somalia. In either case Crissy is going to play the patriotic card of the brave gauchos who died or were deported por la patria but it will be a disaster and she will probably be impeached. Good oh. That action will be declared anti constitutional by Mercosur, Unasur, parlasur and all stations west and RG will be suspended from those bodies with a result of the collapse of these freebie meals for the politicos
31 jeffski (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:45 pm Report abuse
Just wait until they have there big victory celebration for the return of their ship, it has nothing to do with the islands but what are the bets she goes on about British stealing lands and colonisation, it will border on the rhetoric you here Iran leaders spouting about the USA. Deluded fools they are a total fooking embarrassment.
32 Pirate Love (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:46 pm Report abuse
thats right a threat of military force but in a defence capacity only, glad to see argentine government getting the message, however its more of a promise than a threat, as The UK will have every right to defend its people and their rights and territories once again from an aggressive repeat offender, have they not???

can somebody remind me what the agentine defence mincer stated last year for the reason why Argentina hasnt already been able to forfil its desire to re-invade The Falklands and force its will on the peaceful population?? Thats right ladies and gentlemen the prospect of the UK military threat(promise), thus keeping Argentinas greed at bay,
thank you defence mincer you are truly Argentine......

Question is do the Argentine people have the stomach for round Two??? without the advantage of a surprise attack, it will be very different this time around, but the status of The Falklands will remain the same,
but will argentinas???

SELF-DETERMINATION, Its a promise.......Squid bait!!!!
33 ProRG_American (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
What a liar. I did not see any military threat reference in the Presidents letterpublished in the Guardian. It only referenced of peaceful resolution as demanded by the UN resolutions. More boogie men Mr. cameron? Typical British Government deceipt by publishing false information, knowing that it's people are totally ignorant and believe everything every lie they are told.
34 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:04 pm Report abuse
I have to disagree with your appraisal that Argentina would have sovereignty over the islands by now if they hadn't invaded in 1982. You are fundamentally wrong about that. Speculation isn't helpful, there are a lot of 'what ifs' applied to history but you are very wrong about that.

As far as I am aware based on what I have read, in answering a question, Cameron stated that he would defend the islanders. I am no fan of Cameron but I do get annoyed at sloppy editing. Lets try and keep things accurate Mercopress. I doubt anyone would question that the UK would attack Argentina if they mounted another invasion, this is accepted worldwide. If big ears Timmermans wants to think we would be more than willing to give them another battering if necessary, then that's fine with me.
35 txiki (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:14 pm Report abuse

Try reading the article again and digest. It's Timerman who is reacting to what Cameron said in the interview (which was in response to the question of the interviewer). All Cameron was stating was that it was the British Governments intention to defend the islands militarily if faced with another attack by the Argentines - even though we all know, and most Argentines know that their armed forces can barely manage to keep a corvette at sea.

I do have to agree with the sentiments expressed above that there would have been a good chance of a deal had the invasion not taken place and the Junta been more patient. The islanders wishes were being overlooked by succesive govenrnments who were looking to save money wherever possible, and at the time the islands were a cost to the treasury to maintain. Howver the cost of the blood of 255 servicemen in 1982 changed that attitude for generations to come, and now the islands have enough income to be self suffient and not have to rely on handouts from london.
36 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:17 pm Report abuse
@26 THOR94

Sorry, but the evidence of the cabinet papers tells a very different story.

@34 Britworker

It isn't speculation. It is documented fact, so I am afraid it is you that is wrong.
37 Xect (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:22 pm Report abuse
I see Pro_RG the Argentine is making as much sense as ever. Maybe one should learn to read before posting further?

This story interests; CFK hires private jet for fear that Tango1 will be impounded if taken to another country.

It seems the private funds are achieving their aims successfully.
38 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:23 pm Report abuse
It is pure speculation what you are spouting, no- one could possibly know the answer to that, how can something that didn't happen be documented as fact, fool!

Just to put your mind at rest, the UK does not see Argentina as a military threat, Argentina and military threat should not be heard in the same sentence, they have literally have no military. What Argentin is, is foolish and unpredictable and more than capable of biting their nose to spite their face, that does make them dangerously unpredictable.
39 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:28 pm Report abuse
@38 Britworker

Well, if you weren't such flipping imbecile as to need to misrepresent what I said, you may have an easier time of making your case, because for starters I didn't say that Argentina would definitely have sovereignty.

Secondly, the Peron deal of 1974 and the recently released cabinet papers for 1982 both provide documentary evidence of what the British governments of the time were thinking. So, stick that documented fact in your pipe and smoke it, fool!
40 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:32 pm Report abuse
And their you are overlooking is the fact that the whole thing would ultimately have had to be ratified by the islanders, which would never have happened, war in 1982 or not. Just out of interest I was living in the UK in 1982 and I remember the war very well, where were you at that time, given your expert opinion?
41 redpoll (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:39 pm Report abuse
Well Argentina is no threat? The Uk govt thought that last time in 82. I recall Sir Rex Hunts immortal comment “It looks as if the silly buggers mean it”
42 txiki (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:40 pm Report abuse

I remember the war very well too - my cousin served on HMS Glamorgan and I went to meet the ship upon it's return and marvelled at the big whole in the hanger where it had been hit by an exocet. But I also remember the politics going on at the time. I suggest that you read some of the many books on the subject. Vuggevise is quite correct in his interpretation of the recently released documents, but as has been mentioned before since blood has been spilled in recovering the islands in 1982, it will be a long time before any such deal with Argentina would be considered again. The invaasion changed everything.
43 ProRG_American (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:41 pm Report abuse
38 Britworker (#)
If Britain did not consider Argentina a Military threat, then no need for Mt. Pleasant?
I heard the Argies have grand plans to recycle and revamp the base as a symbol of peace in the South Atlantic once they liberate the Islands. Just to name a few.
1) South Atlantic International Childrens and Reserach Hospital.
2) Tourist flight airport.
3) Ammo dumps used to store supplies for South Atlantic International Emergency Food Relief
4) Hangars converted for supplystorage for Argentine Antarctica bases. (Sector Nestor Kirchner).
5) Islas Malvinas International Space Port

A positive contribution to the International Community and an ease on the English tax payer.
44 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:43 pm Report abuse
@40 Britworker

I am not overlooking anything, and actually it would no more have to be ratified by the Islanders than the inhabitants of Diego Garcia had to ratify being thrown out to make way for US military bases. It is only because on 1982 that the British government now insists on the right of the islanders to determine their own future .. and that is the whole point of what I am saying. Before 1982, the British government had never taken that position.

Where was I at the time? Not that it is any of your business; but, as is well known here, I was in the South Atlantic as part of the naval task force whilst you were picking fluff from your navel back in Britain; so I can assure you that I have no problems remembering the war.
45 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:46 pm Report abuse
So why weren't they handed over before 1982 then, was it not because the Islanders would have never accepted it. The point I'm making is options are always discussed,considered and meetings minutes, they were during WW2. It's wrong to speculate that the UK would have relinquished sovereignty as fact before 1982, that is a 'what if' not a probability.
46 Pete Bog (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:47 pm Report abuse
“It only referenced of peaceful resolution as demanded by the UN ”

The UN resolutions INVITE the UK and Argentina to discuss the Islands.

They have never demanded the two countries to talk.

Resolution 502 was a demand, rather than an invitation, yet Argentina ignored that UN resolution which was binding, in 1982.

Yet you moan about the UK not complying with a non binding resolution.
47 Musky (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:47 pm Report abuse
@24 veg
Not true that they did not have much say, falklanders were consulted and rejected the idea. Good job too since they might have become part of 'the midding'. Nicholas Ridley and predecessors presented plans and got nowhere but at least the UN resolution was followed and fully upheld since the islanders retained their rights to self determination.

UN charter
48 Xect (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:49 pm Report abuse
Ah at it again Pro_RG I see, not had enough shame with misinterpreting the facts.

You hear a lot of rubbish and lies from Argentina, none of it of course ever comes true, just pure fantasy as usual.
49 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:53 pm Report abuse
Oh really, I saw you write on a previous post that you live in the UK but you are not British? So who's naval task force were you part of then in the South Atlantic in 1982? Surely not a British one I'm guessing? Are you being deliberately ambiguous? You seem very certain about other things.
50 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:55 pm Report abuse
@45 Britworker

It is a matter of public record that the only reason that Argentina didn't get JOINT sovereignty in 1974 was because Juan Peron died before the signatures were put to paper (but after the terms of joint sovereignty were agreed) .. and his successor, Isabel Peron, wasn't considered influential enough for a deal to matter. The islanders had no say in the matter. That isn't speculation - it is documented fact.
51 txiki (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:57 pm Report abuse

Why the need for Mt Pleasant? El gato escaldado del agua fría huye!

Nuff Said!
52 redpoll (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:59 pm Report abuse
@43 Proargs post so ridiculous that no reply neccessary. Get off that moonshine idiot. Its wood alcohol and will turn you even blinder than you are now
53 THOR94 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
@36 Vuggevise (#) Link me this evidence....
54 Think (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:03 pm Report abuse
(50) Vuggevise

Welcome back “ Mr. Vuggevise” a.k.a. Mr. Skare, MercoPress's most well hung Norwegian hunk ........

I can see that the British Turnipidity still gets on your nerves ;-)

May I ask.......... why did you change you “Nick”?
55 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:04 pm Report abuse
I disagree with you regarding your opinion of the Islanders lack influence in the process, and the reason you purport it never came to pass. I have serious questions regarding your origins, my instincts are telling me you are Argentine. Surely anyone living in Britain would consider themselves as British if they had been living here since 1982, but you weren't living here then were you?
56 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:15 pm Report abuse
@49 Britworker

No, I am not being deliberately ambiguous - it is you trying to be too clever for your own good and inferring meanings that aren't there (and for the record, not that I was in the Royal Navy, but you don't even have to be a British citizen to serve in the Royal Navy). I was actually on the Atlantic Causeway, in San Carlos water (which is also where HMS Glamorgan was), delivering helicopters and supplies in support of the landings, and then acting as a support ship refuelling helicopters and Harriers - not to forget evacuating the survivors from Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram - or perhaps you forget that the major part of the naval task force was actually comprised of merchant vessels?

To be honest, Britworker , I don't actually give a rat's arse what you suspicions tell you; because not only have I not said a single word that would support the Argentine position - on fact I have never been anything other than totally supportive of the British position - but the evidence of your own words tell me that you don't have a frigging clue what you are talking about and simply want to spin whatever line you feel reflects your own patriotism in the best possible light.

@54 Think

Yes, it is me. A change is as good as a rest - but still a good Norwegian name ;)
57 Britworker (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:25 pm Report abuse
And you still can't say where you are from, for what reason? I'm honest, are you?
58 Vuggevise (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:30 pm Report abuse
@57 Britworker

What does it matter where I am from? As it happens though, I am Norwegian, as is obvious if you read #54 and #56 .. and I think the Argie-loving Think will be the first to tell you that I am anything but an Argie sympathiser (although I have lived and worked in Argentina .. and indeed many other countries).

I only have your word for you being honest, and on the evidence of what I have seen, I have to say that I seriously doubt your word.
59 andy65 (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:47 pm Report abuse
Can we just get this straight once and for all with the Argentine illiterate who grace this forum.
When The UN invited Argentina and The United Kingdom to talk thats all it was an INVITE to discussions it was not an order and once again please take a look at what the Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-moon said in November 2012,now it is completely the oposite to what Aregentines want to hear but they must learn they can not keep twisting and altering the truth to suit there own arguments.

“Ban Ki-moon and colonialism: people should be able to decide their own future

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.”
60 Faulconbridge (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:52 pm Report abuse
Argentine sovereignty made good sense under the right conditions before 1982. The obvious example was Ahvenanmaa, a group of internally self-governing monoglot Swedich-speaking islands which are part of Finland. However, the chances of an Argentine government abiding by the terms of any such treaty were very thin and the Argentines kept revealing it. Even so, it makes good sense, objectively, for the Falklanders to be on good terms with their nearest neighbours and to know rheir language- again, the Argentine government made a mess of that. They treated Falklanders the way they treated their own subjects, which didn't go down too well, and didn't persuade the Falklanders of the qualities of Argenine government and administratiuon, while most of the Spanish teachers supplied by the Argentine government took the opportunity to marry British citizens and go to the UK.
The astonishing thing is that Argentine governments have not just been brutal, incompetent and duplicitous, but they haven't even noticed. They have done everything they can to make the Falklanders fear, hate and despise them them and are surprised they are feared, hated and despised. For all their rhetoric,they have behaved in the least likely way to make the UK or the Falklanders want anything to do with them.
61 Hepatia (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:14 am Report abuse
It is amazing that the UK responds to an advertisement in a paper with talk of war. This shows just how corrupt and degenerative the UK, as a country, is.
62 MrFlagpole (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:18 am Report abuse
@61 hepatia

Do you actually think that is what happened? Really? Did you read the article?
63 redpoll (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:31 am Report abuse
Hepatitis has difficulty in reading me thinks
64 Anglotino (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:54 am Report abuse
@61 Heptia

I read the advertisement. I then walked my dog. Went out to dinner. Watched a movie and the next day I pulled some weeds out of my garden.

The advertisement didn’t make me weed the garden.

You have such a facile and narrow view of the world, it is no surprise this article confused you.

Unless you think those corrupt and degenerative weeds got what they deserved thanks to Cristina?
65 Anbar (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:04 am Report abuse
Argentine hot air, lots of it...

maybe YPF can make a profit selling it?
66 briton (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:18 am Report abuse
Once again CFK goes crying to the UN,

Help help, the nasty British are threatening us with war,
No, he was just explaining things to you, now run along please, [next]

Wahh wahh, she screams the British are coming the British are coming,

It’s only a fishing boat passing on the horizon, lol.

The union jack is flying over my palace,
Warden, ,,please take CFK back to her isolated cell please, she has gone quite mad again.
Now she is claiming to be the leader of argentina blab la .

[ all bullshit] if only they had a cow ??
67 Marcos Alejandro (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 04:33 am Report abuse
”The future of the Falklands should be determined by the Falkland Islanders themselves - the people who live there,“ said Cameron

And the Chagossians Mr. Cameron?
Oh I almost forget, “they don't live there”, thanks to Britain of course.
68 KFC de Pollo (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 04:50 am Report abuse
Timmerman is such a joke. How did he get into any position of power?
69 Boovis (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:36 am Report abuse
@67 why do you always bring up points, get responses, then run away until another article comes along? The chagossians were mainly deported as a result of what Mauritius did, not the UK or the US, and at least they're still alive, which is more than I can say for any peoples that lived on what you now claim to be Argie land, we have no reason to believe you'd treat anyone in the Falklands differently.
70 Pete Bog (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 07:44 am Report abuse
“It is amazing that the UK responds to an advertisement in a paper with talk of war”

Cameron was asked astraight question, would Britain defend the Islands if attacked by Argentina? He said yes.

So if Argentina does not attack there won't be a war.

Britain did not defend the Isalnds properly in 1982, Argentina invaded. Therefore the lesson to be learned is you cannot trust Argentina not to attack if the islands are not defended. And Britain was told in 1982 by Argentina that the Islands would not be attacked-they did attack, so because Argentina does not do what it says you have to take accountof the opposite happening.

71 travellingscotsman (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 09:11 am Report abuse
@69 - because this is typical Argie behaviour! @ProRG - last weeek you were saying for Chileans to think of their own problems. Well here's some advice for you - think of America's own problems too. THe Falklands were British, are British, and for ever will be British and when the oil revenue starts to flow the UK taxpayer won't even have to pay to support these islands anymore!
72 Martin Woodhead (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 09:56 am Report abuse
Chaoggsians were black and french speaking and not British completely Disgusting behaviour though.
Argentina invaded it Lost and still wont shut up about it.
the Foreign office attempted to palm the islanders off on argentina but even the stills could see Argentina was a nightmare and still is. Now Chile might be possible or Brazil or even Somali would make a better option than Argentina.
73 Zool (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 10:00 am Report abuse
Yes Argentina just like last time at the UN when you accused the British it was all lies & propaganda & the UN didn't buy into it, in fact they didn't even bother to record the minutes of the meeting when Timmerman made his little speech letting Cristina & her government know that they don't believe her accusations & wont be used by her for propaganda purposes.
74 lsolde (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 10:52 am Report abuse
@60 Faulconbridge,
Excellent post. Couldn't have put it better myself.
@Vuggevise & Britworker,
Stop squabbling you two & close ranks.
The malvinistas would love to see a split in our defences.
l see Chief Squatting Turnip has returned.
75 M's Bulldog (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse
In fact ProRG is NOT an American. He is in fact Argentinian, who has a love affair with the US and would love to be American. He posts loads of anti-British rhtoric on the Mercopress FB wall too, saying how crap the English language is and that US English is far superior.
I can't think of many American's, only those who have Peronist brainwashed family ties, that believe in the Maldivas, Maldivian, or whatever they call them.
76 txiki (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 10:58 am Report abuse
Of course, Cristina would never have this problem because she doesn't do interviews with the “free press” and certainly doesn't like to be asked questions she doesn't want to answer - and any organisation that is critical of her is attacked both verbally and through the courts (such as what is happening to Clarin) or gets ridiculed by telling them how successful a lawyer she is (Harvard). I'd love to see Cristina spend 15 minutes with Andrew Marr, or even on Question Time.

The first thing they do in the Argentine Government is attack the messenger. This was so obvious yesterday when they made the press release about hiring the british jet at a cost of $880,000 (pure pantomime to hire a british jet when she's advocating an embargo of British goods and services). So, when the made the press release confirming that the Sun report was actually true, the first paragraph was thus:

1)El Sr. Rupert Murdoch, titular del diario “THE SUN” fue condenado por escuchas ilegales y publicaciones de noticias falsas sabiendo que lo eran relacionadas con actores, personalidades y políticos del Reino Unido, beneficiando abiertamente en la campaña electoral al Primer Ministro David Cameron, al punto tal que funcionarios de su gabinete debieron renunciar frente al escándalo y complicidad con el Sr. Rupert Murdoch.

1. Mr Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Sun, was condemned for ilegal phone tapping and publishing knowingly false news items about actors, personalities and politicians in the UK, openly supporting David Cameron's electoral campaign to the point that a civil servant in his cabinet [sic] (Andy Coulson I guess) had to resign due to the scandal and his complicity with Rupert Murdoch.

This is an official Argentine Government Press statement? WTF?
77 reality check (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 11:02 am Report abuse
No he did not respond to an advert in the press, read the article, he responded to a direct question put to him in an interview. Would the UK government go to war again over the Islands, his anwser was simple, If attacked again, yes.
What is provocative with that?
78 ChrisR (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 11:33 am Report abuse
54 I Don't Think aka The Turnip In Chief

You're back, what a pity. We were all getting along together swimmingly but I suppose that will change now.

Talking of changing, I was so overjoyed at your post I misread ”why did you change you “Nick”? and thought it said 'when' and 'Knickers'.

Not really but you have to admit on your first day back you have given me a chuckle (see what I did there?).

So do tell, got your scarlet knickers on then, the ones with the French lace around the legs?

Oh well, I have had my laugh, BUT YOU HAVEN'T!
79 Hepatia (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:49 pm Report abuse You seem to have forgotten that Argentina was simply reoccupying Argentinian territory in 1982.

In any case I think you should continue to send your military down to Las Malvinas. In fact I think you should send more than you are sending now. Maybe the Argentinians can help with that by continuing to provoke your paranoia.
80 reality check (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:55 pm Report abuse
Our paranoia! LMFHO.

Malvinas son Argentina! now that's classic paranoia.
81 LEPRecon (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:03 pm Report abuse
@79 - Hepatia

The Falklands have NEVER been Argentinian territory.

It is is, why don't you PROVE it at the International Court of Justice?

Lets see shall we?

Spanish inheritance? No they didn't. Spain relinquished their sovereignty claims to the Falklands in the 1840's (so the United Provence's troops were tresspassing on both British AND Spanish soil), leaving Britain with the only VALID sovereignty claim. Spain DIDN'T recognise Argentina as independent FROM their Empire until the 1860's.

The British didn't 'evict' an Argentine colony in 1833, for these main reasons: Only military personnel (not colonists) were removed in 1833. These were NOT from Argentina but from the UP. Argentina DIDN'T exist in 1833.

In 1850, the fledgling Confederation of Argentine Provinces (later to become the Republic of Argentina), signed a Treaty with the UK stating they had NO outstanding disputes with the UK. Maps produced by the Argentine government CLEARLY shows that they DIDN'T think the Falklands were their territory.

Face it, Hepatia. Argentina is an aggressive would be, coloniser. ALL of your claims are based on LIES, most of them so BLATANT and easy to disprove, that I'm surprised that your government is still pedalling them.

Not only that, but the only law that counts today is international law BASED on the UN Charter. The UN Charter trumps all your pathetic imperialist lies by allowing people to determine their own future.

And the Falklands future is bright. Argentina's future is very murky indeed.

Tell me, Hepatia, just how much money has your government STOLEN from you, the Argentine people?
82 malicious bloke (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:06 pm Report abuse
^ that
83 Ozgood (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:32 pm Report abuse
1 Vuggevise (#) Argenbtina is no position to pose a military threat to the Falklands. The Kirchners have made sure that the military will notpose a threat to them. Anyway, the Junta (1976-1983) members are either dead or languishing in prison.

My own opinion is that they may have got away with it if they had not behaved like school bullies when they invaded the islans in 1982

Mrs Thatcher could not wait to divest HM Government of the reponsibility of Souther Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Look what they left their kith and kin to - R G Mugabe who was quite reasonable until he lost the 2000 elections
84 Musky (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:53 pm Report abuse
You talk rubbish. Internation independent scales of corruption rate the UK in 16th place, with 1st place being least corrupted. Argentina comes in at position 100. So best to start sorting out your on place before you accuse us.
85 Anbar (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 03:00 pm Report abuse
“”You seem to have forgotten that Argentina was simply reoccupying Argentinian territory in 1982.“””

lol..and the moon is made of cheese.

as for 'paranoia', spot the Paranoid one here:

UK: yes we will DEFEND the Falklands
Argentina; The UK are threatening us!

86 redpoll (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 04:39 pm Report abuse
What the hell do you expect Cameron to say in an interview? Perhaps “We will of course no defend the wishes of the Falklanders who wish to remain a BOT” or “Ok we surrender. The human rights of the islanders are of no importance under the UN charter. Walk in tomorrow and expel the population who have lived there for nine generations”
87 disasterjunkie (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:02 pm Report abuse
ladies and lads! this is all about two things:
1. They are trying to steer attention away from all the money the current corrupted government stole from its people by covering it up with The Falklands.
2. Oil and natural gas found off the Falklands.
I tell you what, you share them oil right with the U.S and not only will we defend the island but we will invade Argentina’s mainland for ya thus spreading real democracy :))) and permanently putting an end to these silly pro-Nazi war criminals rallying up the natives with dreams of eliminating imperialism.
The threat of Argentina will never stop unless it is stop dead on their tracks! R they aware that G.B has nuclear weapons? or that the U.S will always support the U.K when it comes to the Falklands.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ,
Between the Surname de Kirchner, a surname of German origin and specifically this countries colorful/colourful past of offering a safe heaven to Nazis I could just imagine who is really behind all this nonsense.
88 fill00000 (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:46 pm Report abuse
ozgood 83 I think your keyboard is fcuked
89 ProRG_American (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 06:33 pm Report abuse
51 txiki (#)
What a lovely display of literary ability. It appears that you are a South American trying to pass for a Brit Turnip. Nothing but posturing by an empire in continued downfall.

52 redpoll (#)
Monitor, please block this participant from this site. His/her offensive language is unacceptable.
90 LEPRecon (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 07:16 pm Report abuse
@89 - ProRG troll

Why would they ban redpoll for stating the bleeding obvious?

Face it, Argentina is on an express elevator straight to hell, no stops, do not pass go and do not collect 200 Peso's.
91 ChrisR (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 07:40 pm Report abuse
52 Redpoll

This argie pratt can't even recognisse good advice when you give it!

Ha, ha, ha.

89 ProRG-weener

Bit sensitive are we? Your SA sensitivity coming to the surface now. Of course you are an American living in the States: of course you are dear, keep taking the Crystal-meth.

And your comment about the IOU Libertad having 'battle scars', more like shit stains I thought when the Cowards of Argentina (you should know the song) thought the Ghananians were going to use a 50 cal BMG on them. New nappies all round I should think.

Have you thought of writing TMBOA speeches for her? I know they are hilarious as they are but you could bring that extra element of idiocy to them, and the pay should be a bit better than being an AG La-Camping-It-Up troll.

Go for it, you know you have a willing audience awaiting your every word!
92 GFace (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 08:05 pm Report abuse
@91, this comes from a fraudster who used not only forgot

1) what racist terms Americans use (and with so many geographically correct ones from which to choose!)


2) that Americans who are sympathetic to the “Malvinas” narrative are often Left-leaning (though not all lefties or progressives are pro-“Malvinas”, I am part of that spectrum) and do not tolerate racism or racist language. Double-fail. Mask off.
93 redpoll (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 08:49 pm Report abuse
So Arg american wants me censored? Good oh. Just like Clarin isnt it? I dont use foul language on this site generally but I will quote you, Proarg, the supposed words of your hero Maotse Tung
94 Pirat-Hunter (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 11:03 pm Report abuse
Here is the prove this report is fake, no Argentine ever recognized the fakland holding firm but all Argentine's agree that UK is illegally occupying Islas malvinas Argentina, good try mercopress but try again as you always do.
95 redpoll (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 11:52 pm Report abuse
Alex Vargas My recommendations to you
1. Give yourself up to the RCMP as an illegal immigrant
2. Choose your country to which you want to be deported to. They will pay your fare for sure but dont expect any pocket money from them
3. You will be given a choice of countries where you would feel at home. Belarus, Khazackstan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran or North Korea. Plenty to choose from. Take your pick. You will probably need it in the reeducation camps of your new country
96 Pirat-Hunter (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 12:59 am Report abuse
We Argentines love CFK she is the best president in the world.
And we demand UK to remove the illegal aliens from Islas malvinas Argentina, we demand the end of the illegal occupation and theft of resources by UK.
97 malicious bloke (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 08:34 am Report abuse
Oooh, yet another argtard “demand”.

Standard form response #1 will suffice again, I sense: *LOL NO*
98 LEPRecon (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 08:48 am Report abuse
@96 - Pirat-hunter

We demand that you remove all none Amerindians from Argentina. We demand that you remove the illegal aliens from South America, we demand the end of the illegal occupation and theft of resources by Argentina from the native peoples.

We also demand that Argentinians STOP murdering the native amerindians.

When, and only when that has happened, will the Falkland Islanders consider giving the Islands back to their INDIGENOUS population - the PENGUINS.

By the way, PH, how does it feel to support a regime that is mudering and stealing land from the native amerindians? I mean you are always telling us that you are a native amerindian, so why do you support the descendants of Spanish colonists over your OWN people? Or is that you are a liar and NOT native amerindian at all?
99 Ozgood (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 10:34 am Report abuse
One war criminal who got away with his crimes was Erich Priebke

The following paragraph is from thw Wikipedia
Erich Priebke (born July 29, 1913) is a former Hauptsturmführer (Captain) in the Waffen SS.[1] In 1996 he was convicted of war crimes in Italy, for participating in the massacre at the Ardeatine caves in Rome, on March 24, 1944. 335 Italian civilians were killed there in retaliation after a partisan attack had claimed the lives of 33 German soldiers (an SS military police battalion from South Tyrol). Priebke was one of those who was held responsible for this mass execution. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, he got help to flee to Argentina where he lived for over 50 years.

Another was Adolf Eichman, one of the most infamous of all the Nazi war criminals , who lived in Argentina and was kidnapped, tried and executed by the Israelis after a trial in Jerusalem in 1962

There are probably not many left at all as most have died of old age
100 Anglotino (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 12:30 pm Report abuse
Had anyone read the article that Pirat-Hunter keeps pasting? (Comments 94 and 96)

If you are looking for a good laugh then I highly recommend it. Just in case you missed it:

The gist of the article is:
* Argentina is weak and keeps complaining but no one listens
* Britain is very strong both militarily and economically and can afford to ignore Argentina
* Argentina is effectively broke and can't upgrade its military though it relies on importing arms from Britain
*Britain is so rich it can afford to keep upgrading its military and is unassailable by any regional powers in this area.

Now I'm not sure why Pirat-Hunter keeps posting this link considering how devastating it is regarding Argentina's military weakness.

It also accuses Argentina of not taking the case to the ICJ. Which is the same thing asked by many Falkland Islanders and Britons on here.

But the best quote was this:
“Argentina’s claim to sovereignty has yet to be formally recognised”

I'm laughing so hard be sure Pirat-Hinter is continually pasting an article that admits Argentina doesn't have sovereignty over the islands.

Oh and the best part? Pirat-Hunter can't reply to this post or even comment on what I have written because he doesn't talk or reply to homosexuals. Can't have him reading the rantings of a gay man now can we.
101 Hepatia (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 01:16 pm Report abuse And the gist of your argument, in so far as you have been able to formulate one, is that because Britian is “strong” and Argentina is “weak” it is right for the UK to invade and occupy Argentina's territory. That is, might makes right: the morality of all imperialists.

P.S. As a woman I have no problem communicating with a gay man.
102 Musky (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 01:17 pm Report abuse
@100 Ang
PH is clearly unsure of his own sexuality and like all his posting pals, lost all arguments before even pressing the 'Submit Comment' button.
103 reality check (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 02:07 pm Report abuse
104 Clyde15 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 08:46 pm Report abuse
Were you referring to Anglotino's reply above ? I have read it carefully and nowhere does he say that it is right for Britain to invade and occupy Argentine territory. If YOU are inferring by this that they have invaded and occupied Argentine soil, I refute this. Presumably you are obliquely referring to the Falklands.
As this island group have never been ARGENTINE territory your message is meaningless.
No, might is not right but when you have a colonial expansionist regime in BA,it feels rather comforting !!
105 Anglotino (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 12:04 pm Report abuse
@101 Hepatia

“And the gist of your argument, in so far as you have been able to formulate one, is that because Britian is “strong” and Argentina is “weak” it is right for the UK to invade and occupy Argentina's territory. That is, might makes right: the morality of all imperialists.”

Umm no!

Where did I state that? Don't blame me, it is Pirat-Hunter that is spreading this article everywhere not me. I can't help it that he is now advancing these arguments.

Though I am still trying to find Argentine territory that is occupied by Britain. Unlike many on here, I can actually sort fact from fiction. Probably due to the education system in my country.

“P.S. As a woman I have no problem communicating with a gay man.”

Hardly surprising as we don't have our own secret language. But I do wonder why Pirat-Hunter can't. Don't you?
106 scottbart (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 12:14 pm Report abuse
”“urges Mr. David Cameron not to make use of the peaceful and legitimate claims we make against the usurpation of part of our territory and colonialism as an excuse to maintain the arms industry instead of solving the severe social crisis Europe is going through.”

“People need more employment and less war,” the statement reads calling on PM Cameron’s government to abide UN resolutions.
CHEEKY BASTARD! You couldnt make this up!
107 British_Kirchnerist (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 01:15 pm Report abuse
Well said Arg, we really do need “more employement and less war”!

#43 Great ideas, love the vision thing you've got going on there =)

#76 I too would love to see Cristina on Question Time. She'd rip the Tory and New Lbour representatives to shreds, like George Galloway does when he's on =)
108 Clyde15 (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 04:59 pm Report abuse
Of course we need more employment and less war. If Argentina would stop making veiled threats against the Falklands and behave like a friendly neighbour then the UK forces could go home.

At #43
He said “once we liberate the islands” This implies force as the islands do not need to be liberated, they are already free.

Do you really think that CFK could handle Question Time ?
If the panel was chosen wisely,how about William Hague and MLA Sawle. That would be interesting.
As for George Galloway, he is good on rhetoric but poor on facts.
Give her an easier option, try Kirsty Wark. She would shred and spit her out. If she could handle Thatcher then CFK would be no contest.
But this would never take place. She only performs in stage managed rallies with her supporters and enforcers bussed in .
The stage managed fiasco of the return of the Libertad proves this.
109 Raul (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 05:16 pm Report abuse
“People need more work and less wars”

The National Government repudiated the “militaristic threats” made ​​by the Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron, who said he was “ready to fight” to maintain colonial rule over the Falkland Islands. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling on the Prime Minister to “stop using legitimate and peaceful demands” made ​​by Argentina in international forums “to continue supporting the arms industry, rather than alleviate crisis experiencing social Europe ”.

The response of the Palacio San Martín Britain insists that meets demand “the obligation to accept the resolutions of the United Nations to resolve the matter peacefully Falklands”.

“The aggressiveness of the words of British Prime Minister confirm the complaint filed by the Republic of Argentina to the United Nations about the militarization of the South Atlantic and the possible presence of nuclear weapons introduced by the colonial power,” said Foreign Ministry.

During an interview with the BBC, Cameron said it was “absolutely essential to have jets and troops stationed in the islands,” and stressed that his country “is one of five defense budgets in the world.”

Therefore, the portfolio of Minister Héctor Timerman order British Prime Minister “not use legitimate and peaceful demands” that Argentina was “against the usurpation of part of our territory and against colonialism as an excuse to continue to support the industry of weapons instead of alleviating social crisis currently affecting Europe. ”

110 Clyde15 (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 06:59 pm Report abuse
Easy reply. No usurpation by the UK.
The Falklands are part of UK and are under threat by a colonial power - Argentina. WE ALWAYS defend our territory. End of story
111 ChrisR (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 07:17 pm Report abuse
109 Raul

I take it that you cannot read English?

If you think you CAN read English, why do you get everything backwards? Clue: you are translating word by word. This does not work for Espanol to English, especially the AG version of Espanol, because it is your language that has eveything backward as far as English speakers are concerned, even those who have Espanol as a main language.

It is Timmidman that has it deliberately backwards.

You bunch invaded the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas you prats) in 1982 without any warning at all. And of course you had your arses handed to you on a plate.

IF, TMBOA is stupid enough (and she has severe mental health problems) to try it again the UK forces are there to ensure you never even get to the island and we all hope that the next time our boys are not stopped from hitting the mainland.

It seems you need the destruction of your infrastructure for you to learn the lesson that you do not threaten 3000 people in another country with 42 Million, even if the AG military are a bunch of cowards.

Oh, I forgot the 3 M of AG civilians armed with private firearms (Dunny-Burger). Ha, ha, ha. That will make 3,100,000 AG combatants! So no problems for 3 Para then!

112 Joe Bloggs (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 10:25 am Report abuse
105 Anglotino

Every psuedo-macho heterosexual homophobe knows why PH won't talk to you. He'll catch your gayness! It's a disease don't you know? You won't find any gays in the land of Latino lovers. LOL!

Is there any sign of a cold change and rain coming to sort out those fires? It's truly terrible. I was in the ACT during Ash Wednesday 1983. People we know who have a weekender in the Dandenongs narrowly missed having their place burnt down. Houses all around them got destroyed but for some reason the fires skirted around their place. I was at Duntroon and we nearly got called into action but then the weather changed and the fires got under control.
113 Anglotino (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 11:14 am Report abuse

Lol. He actually replied to me on the 'Argentine tourists must pay 8 pesos for the US dollar in neighbouring countries' article.

Well someone who uses that login did.

No matter what happens the fires will be bad this year. We've had a couple of years of good rain and there is just too much fuel out there. The whole environment is made to burn through every couple of years.

Ash Wednesaday was terrible and came so close to Melbourne. Mind you Black Saturday's 4th anniversary is coming up. That was horrific. 46C heat combined with 100 kph winds. I don't think I've ever lived through conditions like that before. Or will again.

The problem is the undergrowth is back to the same level.

But we learn our lessons. Like the Falklands did. Glad you liked Australia. I'm jealous as I haven't had a chance to see your country yet.

114 redpoll (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 01:10 pm Report abuse
Value of Argentina peso now at 8:1 in nieghbouring countries.
Can someone please tell me what the Exchange agencies and banks who are the recipients of thesr Arg pesos do with them apart from selling them to Argentina bound tourists? Can they be used to pay for imports from Argentina or do their exporters insist on being paid U$D? I understand that any importers of foriegn goods into Argentina can only justify thier expenditure if they can prove that they have exported goods to the value of a the same amount. To give a fictitiuos example, a firm that wishes to import tennis balls from Italy first has to purchase say soya beans and export that commodity to China. I am sure the Chinese would be happy to pay in Agentine pesos rather than dollars for the shipment at the rate of 8:1. Problem is at what rate does the tennis ball importer pay his supplier? Perhaps some financial whizz kid on these threads can explain as I am confused as to how this works
115 Conqueror (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 02:52 pm Report abuse
@24 Let it go. There isn't the space on here for a proper discussion.
@33 Are you talking to yourself? Please note that normal, intelligent people start a “response” by stating the respondee.
@43 One can never tell what a bunch of crazies might do. Harriers had a limited range. Runways needed for aircraft with full capability. From which glass-walled crater will argies be launching their project to get their troops immortalised as etched shadows?
@44 What a pity you had to bring up Diego Garcia and demonstrate your lack of knowledge. No indigenous population of Chagos Islands. No fresh water, see. Occupants were Mauritian contract workers descended from slaves imported by French. No property ownership. No property rights. Please try for FACTS and TRUTH.
@61 No, hepatitis, no talk of a war. Just talk of defence. Back to the funny farm for you.
@67 What a useless, ignorant twat. Try FACTS instead of DELUSIONS!
@79 At what point in time did argieland “legally” occupy the Falkland Islands? We'll send our military wherever we want, but I don't recognise the “place” you mention. Does it have anything to do with hepatitisland? Or “the shithole”?
@89 You have a problem with ACCURACY and TRUTH?
@94 Don't bother, waste of space. When a single argie has the guts to face a single British soldier, we might listen. But a single argie couldn't do anything. Too busy shitting itself.
@96 And WE demand that YOU DIE!
@101 All is explained. An argie female. Congenitally thick. Twice!
@107 How unfortunate. Following Salmond's independence, you are looking at mass unemployment and civil war. Lucky England. As you finally wipe each other out!
@109 Drivel! There's a real need to wipe argieland off the planet. Just think. This is what has got through the filters at the bottom of the cesspit.
116 Pete Bog (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 06:53 pm Report abuse
”The National Government repudiated the “militaristic threats” made ​​by the Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron, who said he was “ready to fight””

But that's only if Argentina initiates the aggression, so if Argentina don't repeat their stupidity of 1982 there will be no fighting.

But if Argentina does take a gamble on attacking the islands and ignoring the human rights of the people that were born there, don't assume like 1982 the UK will leave your airfields and most of your ships alone.

The message the UK gave last time was one of appeasement and just like your mates in Nazi Germany in WW2, you took advantage of that.

Even in 1833 the UK told the illegal garrison to leave...with a polite note, no shots. Didn't help you much that most of your forces were made up of British mercenaries who were bound to refuse to fight Onslow. Didn't think that one through did you?

This time the UK is ready for you.
117 Isolde (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 09:33 pm Report abuse
Who cares what the cretins accuse us of?
l would need rheams a paper to list all their crimes.
l'm glad they feel frustrated, and it will continue for the foreseeable future.
Can't wait to see their reaction, over the water as the laden oil tankers leave our waters to their markets.
They will be like a cage full of monkeys jumping up & down & screeching.
Lots of baiting fun coming up!
Now thats not very Christian of me is it?
Well malvinistas, you changed my perceptions of you & your country.
118 malen (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 11:38 pm Report abuse
116 Arg is democratic, and has made an important judgement on the military junta and human rights abuses for 30 years now.
Arg only uses diplomacy, goes to the UN, reclaims talks in all instances. And it is our right.
Arg troops are internationally recoignized because they are sent to Chipre, Haití, Congo, etc etc for humanitarian help, to give medicines and food and assistance. Not to threaten anyone by force.
119 redpoll (#) Jan 13th, 2013 - 12:51 am Report abuse
@118 Malevo
Yes Rg troops are on UN peace missions. The Rg govt recieves s a poncho full of dollars from the Un for thier services. But do the soldiers and thier families get the full wage and benefits from thier serving abroad and are paid on time? How much of that money due to them is siphoned off by corrupt politicians?
120 Joe Bloggs (#) Jan 13th, 2013 - 08:38 am Report abuse
118 Malen

Yes your troops ARE recognised internationally aren't they. In Ghana when anyone thinks of Argentine troops they think of their poor unarmed port officials being threatened at gun point with their lives.
121 scottbart (#) Jan 13th, 2013 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
Of course the “we are peacefull” angle is only there because the RG military is in tatters.
I saw on TV in 1982 millions of RGs suporting military action! I didnt hear ONE RG denounce the military action!
It so easy to pronounce peace when that is your only option, i dont think the rest of the world buys it!
122 ChrisR (#) Jan 13th, 2013 - 04:48 pm Report abuse
Well, TMBOA is really going to be in a flat spin over this:

Wait for the bleating and how we have less ships than in 1982.

We all know the answer except the dead-headed Malvanistas: they have moved on 30 years.

Question to all Malvanistas: do you have ANY ships that can go to sea, fight and come back again? NO? I didn't think so.

The problem for AG is the up scaling of threat and the likely response from the UK. We can imagine it can't we: AG threaten licensed fishing vessels - RN fires a warning shot, AG 'sailors' crap themselves and wave pre-prepared white flags.

OR: AG vessel fires on ANY shore installation or rig, etc. RN sinks it, Stanley on battle alert; Typhoons deployed and fly over BsAs and Casa Rosada. Set-trigger is then on set, what do argies do next? Cry? TMBOA goes to the UN?

Sue for peace with the Brits if they have half-a-brain.
123 GFace (#) Jan 13th, 2013 - 05:31 pm Report abuse
I love the “it was the Junta!” “we're peaceful!” crap. They celebrated the Junta's war crimes on the Falklands with a commemorative coin. Irredeemable unrepentant Fascists. Plus they have admitted that they are “peaceful” for only one reason -- the Falklands are defended by people who shoot back.

And as Chris says, the Argentines may have enough of a “navy” to harass and maybe even threaten ~unarmed~ fisherman and oil rigs/vessels. And similarly, I can certainly see them setting up such an incident -- rather like beating up the BMOC's little sitter and playing the victim when he sticks up for her, and of course to gain “status” with their fellow third-raters.
124 scottbart (#) Jan 13th, 2013 - 06:24 pm Report abuse
ChrisR (#122) 123 GFace
RGs put that new ambassador in the UK only to cause trouble, in every forum they bring up the subject of the falklands, even when it is way off subject.
Should the UK consider breaking off dipolomatic ties? It seems obvious to me that with the current regime all they are going to offer the UK is trouble!
Is the UK turning the other cheek the best thing to do?
125 ChrisR (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:26 am Report abuse
124 scottbart

It would be exactly what TMBOA wanted if we chucked the trolley dolly out on her ear. Can you imagine the crying, wailing and running to the UN?

In any event the FCO are experts at handling idiots like this, they have plenty of practice with the present (and past) UK government.

Are you saying that she is being effective in any way because I just cannot see that she is?
126 scottbart (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 05:17 pm Report abuse
@125 ChrisR (#125)
i guess keeping calm and carrying on is the order of they day!
But it is just obvious that argentina wants to cause as much trouble as they can, whats is the point in having relations that are unpleasant?
127 ChrisR (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:34 pm Report abuse
126 scottbart

How is it possible to have 'pleasant' relations with Alicia Castro who is only doing as she is told anyway?
128 Pete Bog (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 12:02 am Report abuse
“And as Chris says, the Argentines may have enough of a “navy” to harass”

Of course they can, but remember recently when they started threatening fishing boats and the lightly armed Falklands patrol ship turned up and Argentine warship vanished?
129 scottbart (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 07:00 am Report abuse
@127 ChrisR
i meant with Argentina, it is clear they arent the UKs friend and with their economic blockade of the Falklands, is it time to tell them to sling their hooks ?
130 lsolde (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 09:45 am Report abuse
way over time, scottbart.

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!