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.
“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.
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 20th 2013
Falkland Islands: Argentina blasts UK’s ‘double standard’ on self determination right
-
May 20th 2013
Polynesia in decolonization list; Pacific islands proposal supported by 193 votes in UN General Assembly
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.
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.
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.
Defend means to take no aggressive action UNLESS attacked.
I imagine that is what most sovereign countries would subscribe to.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Only the most brainwashed and out-of-touch Argentine posters on here will try to defend this level of ridiculousness.
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 :-)
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.
How on earth can these people be taken seriouslyÇ
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.
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?
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 : )
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
This story interests; CFK hires private jet for fear that Tango1 will be impounded if taken to another country.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257904/Flying-flag-Falklands-row-President-splashes-BRITISH-luxury-jet-plane-grounded-debt-fears.html
It seems the private funds are achieving their aims successfully.
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!
@33
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
You hear a lot of rubbish and lies from Argentina, none of it of course ever comes true, just pure fantasy as usual.
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.
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.
Why the need for Mt Pleasant? El gato escaldado del agua fría huye!
Nuff Said!
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 ;-)
PS:
May I ask.......... why did you change you “Nick”?
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?
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 ;)
And you still can't say where you are from, for what reason? I'm honest, are you?
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.
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.”
en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
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.
Do you actually think that is what happened? Really? Did you read the article?
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?
maybe YPF can make a profit selling it?
Help help, the nasty British are threatening us with war,
[UN]
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 ??
And the Chagossians Mr. Cameron?
Oh I almost forget, “they don't live there”, thanks to Britain of course.
“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.
Simple
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
Malvinas son Argentina! now that's classic paranoia.
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?
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
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.
www.transparency.org/cpi2011/results
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!
kindasaysitallreally
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.
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.
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.
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!
1) what racist terms Americans use (and with so many geographically correct ones from which to choose!)
and
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.
SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT
axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64333.shtml
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
axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64333.shtml
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.
Standard form response #1 will suffice again, I sense: *LOL NO*
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?
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
If you are looking for a good laugh then I highly recommend it. Just in case you missed it: axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64333.shtml
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.
P.S. As a woman I have no problem communicating with a gay man.
PH is clearly unsure of his own sexuality and like all his posting pals, lost all arguments before even pressing the 'Submit Comment' button.
www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm
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 !!
“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?
“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!
#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 =)
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.
www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-211350-2013-01-07.html
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. ”
contact:
face1354@hotmail.com
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
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!
Idiota.
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.
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.
Yet!
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
@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.
”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.
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.
Enjoy.
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.
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?
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.
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!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9797902/Defence-chiefs-prepare-new-plans-to-defend-Falkland-Islands.html
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
How is it possible to have 'pleasant' relations with Alicia Castro who is only doing as she is told anyway?
“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?
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 ?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!