Tuesday, January 15th 2013 - 02:57 UTC

UK considers “highly unlikely” Argentine invasion of the Falklands but is taking no chances

The British government considers ‘highly unlikely’ Argentina will attempt to invade the Falkland Islands, according to Defense Minister Andrew Robathan. But the UK is prepared for any outside contingency that might want to interfere with the March referendum on the Falklands’ future.

Minister Robathan said Argentina does not have the military capacity of 1982 when Galtieri’s time

Robathan who on Monday was at Parliament explained the Argentine military was not the same power as it was under General Leopoldo Galtieri, when the Falklands were invaded in April 1982.

“I think it is highly unlikely that the Argentines will invade the Falkland Islands, not least because there is a clause in their constitution I understand which specifically excludes invading the Falkland Islands by force”.

However Defense Minister Robathan emphasized that the British government ”retained the ability“ to re-enforce its military presence in the Falklands, ahead of a referendum on the Islands’ status and future scheduled for March 10/11, basically “if they wish to remain under British rule”

He added: ”we all very much hope, and indeed expect, that the referendum will enforce the relationship between Britain and the Falkland islands. This is of course is a Falkland Islands' initiative”.

Robathan revealed that the British have four Typhoon fighters, an infantry company, a network of land/air missiles, a South Atlantic patrol vessel, a Falklands patrol permanently stationed in the Islands, a couple of auxiliary vessels and ‘probably’ a submarine on global patrol.

But he repeated it was highly unlikely that such an action takes place because since the days of Galtieri there has been “a definitive gap between elected authorities and the military and thus it does not seem, although you must never the complacent, that the Argentine Armed Forces are well equipped for such an action.

Over the weekend it was published in the London media that UK defence chiefs have drawn up new contingency plans designed to prevent hostile action by Argentina towards the Falkland Islands.

“A series of military options are being actively considered as the war of words over the Islands intensifies”, The Telegraph published on its Sunday’s edition.

It is understood that additional troops, another warship and extra RAF Typhoon combat aircraft could be dispatched to the region ahead of the March referendum on the Falklands’ future.

The Falklands’ elected government is hopeful that the results of the referendum will finally convince Argentina to drop its claims and respect the Islanders right to self determination.

98 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 Pirat-Hunter (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:28 am Report abuse
Islas Malvinas Argentina is not negotiable. But try again!
2 Boovis (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:46 am Report abuse
No idea what your comment has to do with the story... but regarding your name: would you consider yourself a hunter of all pirates or just particular ones? If just particular ones, don't you think that's a little hypocritical?
3 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:13 am Report abuse
Just keep repeating your mantra P-H, and everything will be alright......

This is embarrasing when you realise the extent these kids have been brain-washed at school during their malvinas lessons......
4 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:34 am Report abuse
I hope nobody encourages Paraguay to take back their land and Patagonia to declare Independence, that might keep the RG military a little too busy to bother the Falklands,of course the long time answer for Argentina is to break up into smaller States the present model doesnt work,staggering from revolution to revolution for 190 years.
5 Britworker (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:42 am Report abuse
Military action very doubtful, but stupid churlish stunts not worthy of a 'so called' sovereign nation, yes I fully expect we will see some of those from Argentina.
6 Boovis (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:51 am Report abuse
If I was Argentina I'd send boatloads of kids towards the islands singing and waving banners. It'd look really bad if they were sunk for violating the waters and there's very little you could do to turn them away.

On the other hand: loads of 12-16 year olds fought for the Nazis in WW2 and they were shot the same as everyone else so, in conclusion: fug em, they knew what they were doing.
7 Musky (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:04 am Report abuse
@1 PH
Like minded malvinistas like you might decide that a 'Truman Show' style intervention would serve your ass-backwards cause so best to be on the look out for such brainwashed knuckleheads.
8 JuanGabriel (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:46 am Report abuse
@FI response would probably be to give them a proper meal and a safe place to sleep.
9 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:53 am Report abuse
The kentucky fried chicken administeation are such desparate group of people, I believe they would be well capable of staging a 'false flag' operation on or before the referendum day(s).

They'd sink one of their own vessels, or shoot down an aircraft (regardless of the lives of the occupants)
Just so they could say it was UK forces responsable.

Mark my words - They will try something spectacular during this referendum.
10 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:54 am Report abuse
@01 PH
PH - now you've said your slogan, and 'dumped' a link, have you f¥cked off??

BTW - are you an Argentine Amerindian???
11 Anbar (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:13 am Report abuse
“”“BTW - are you an Argentine Amerindian???”“”

doubtful, previous Argentine administrations eradicated most of them during their colonial expansions and current Argentine Governments continue to treat them as 3-rd rate citizens - if they are lucky - generally they dont treat with them at all: they are, after all, just the indigenes, not the Spanish colonial masters who currently rule the roost.
12 Clyde15 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:50 am Report abuse
Quite correct. The Falklands sovereignty is non negotiable.
13 Pirate Love (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:00 am Report abuse
21st century and we are still having to prevent archaic argentina invading a smaller much civilized nation, what does that say about the great backward argentine nation, i can help you with that one, try.........cowards!!

Surely The UNs reponsibility is to promote peace, ensuring the human rights of ALL people are respected, and warn argentina that any such an attack on democracy and freedom will be acted upon, just to put argentina back in its lowly place.

14 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:19 am Report abuse
Having an Sturmabeilung La Campora operative tell you that something is non-negotiable, when they say they want a conversation and not a negotiation, Nestor walking out of negotiations, and then they say they want the UN to reopen negotiations on sovereignty is enough to make an argie petty-minded fool's head spin with all the contradiction.
15 malicious bloke (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:27 am Report abuse
@14, in argie-speak conversation and negotiation mean the same thing.

“We demand, you listen and comply or we'll invade/threaten to invade/scream and shout and stamp our feet”.

No contradiction, just synonyms.
16 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:37 am Report abuse
@15 Sounds like the sort of thing Goebbels's pal Adolf would have said.

How ironic.
17 Gustbury (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:34 pm Report abuse
1@ Everything is negotiable my friend!UK may not sustain them forever!!jUST 2800 PERSONS..REMEMBER!!
18 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:43 pm Report abuse
Immagine the oil revenue, jobs, opportunities for UK companies working for the FIG, - Everybody (exept argentina) wins, - Thats why we will support the small population.

Some people have forgotten the 1982 conflict, or are too young to remember, or were yet to be born. (in most cases I think)

Those Islands will never be up for negotiation, - Regardless of the fact it was added to the argentinian constutution. (only as recently as 1994 by the way)

Putting something in your constitution like that, is the height of vanity, conceipt, and arrogance.

Scots Guards Forever.
19 andy65 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:47 pm Report abuse
@Pirat-Hunter GREASEBALL you are born of Spanish pirats ask your mother she slept with one.
20 Gustbury (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:47 pm Report abuse
I repeat...everything is negotiable!!!!!!!!!!
21 Pirate Love (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:53 pm Report abuse
@20 “SELF-DETERMINATION”.......NON-Negotiable you will find :)
22 Tobers (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:53 pm Report abuse

Why is it so important to you? How will Argentina benefit if they were to get the islands? And do you think its sound political practice to be belligerent and disrespectful to the islanders on the one hand and play the victim on the other to whichever nation will listen? The Argentine system is using this theme as a tool - it doesn't want the issue resolved otherwise the islands would be very closely linked culturally and politically to Argentina by now.
23 Santa Fe (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:54 pm Report abuse
Apart from Sovereignty as CFK has stated and recntly made a law up to state. So no its not epic fail
24 andy65 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 01:08 pm Report abuse
@Gustbury This is for the brainwashed Argentines who are fed shit from an early age.
.The British Governmant have made it clear SELF DETERMINATION is paramount to any decision made on The Islanders future.
Now, you might not like this but here's a little home truth
Not even Chileans who speak your language would want to be ruled by Argentines so why the hell do you think a prosperous law abiding forward thinking community like The Falkland Islanders want anything to do with people like you??? a country that

Creates false accounting to various organisations

A country in more disputes with various organisations than any other country

A country where 25% of its population have to survive on $7 per day

A country that can not use it's state assets beyond it's borders for fear of being in pounded for none payment of debts

And the list goes on
25 Boovis (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 01:09 pm Report abuse
@20: Everything is negotiable? According to the argie constitution, all discussions have to end in the islands being argified. So if we negotiated for the islands to remain british (as you say everything is for negotiation) then how would you do that without breaking the constitution?
26 Santa Fe (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 01:28 pm Report abuse
25...exactly...ignore Gustbury , he was just trying the troll tip of the day
1/ Post one sentence and simply repost over and over again
2/ you can get more angry each time
3/ An insult sometimes helps to add the final touches.

Inspired these trolls, he reminds me of the famous Paxman interview

''did you threaten to overule....''
''did you threaten to overule... etc etc
27 Conqueror (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 01:32 pm Report abuse
@1 Falkland Islands are NOT negotiable. Not now. Not ever! Neither are South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands.
@5 New “rules of engagement”. Anything airborne approaches the Islands - shoot it down. Anything waterborne approaches the Islands - destroy it. Ditto sub-surface. Anything with a latino-like face near the coast - shoot to kill. There. That should be enough.
@6 Agreed. Shoot! Also. Bomb! And don't forget. Missile!
@9 So what? Fewer war criminals alive. Besides, we could always respond with “No, this is how we sink a vessel or shoot down an aircraft.” And then proceed to do it!
@17 Just remember that, in British eyes, ONE Falkland Islander is worth a MINIMUM of a thousand argies. That's nearly 3 MILLION of you wastes of space. Where would you like GROUND ZERO to be? The Casa Rosada? But please bear in mind that we're talking MINIMUM. Here's a little list of “things” we can send you:
Missiles - AGM65 Maverick, AGM88 HARM, Storm Shadow, Brimstone. Plus air-to-air missiles.
Bombs - Paveway IV, Paveway II/III/Enhanced.
Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missiles.
Spearfish heavyweight torpedos.
And, if the worst comes, Trident ballistic missiles.
That's a fair list of our “negotiating tools”. Unless you'd like our destroyers and frigates to open fire with their deck guns as well? That's 21kg high explosive shells fired at the rate of 28 shells per minute over a range of 22kms. That's nearly 14 miles!
@20 Would you like to negotiate the continued existence of argieland!
28 José Malvinero (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:16 pm Report abuse
“The Falklands' That Elected government is hopeful the results of the referendum will finally convince Argentina to drop its claims and Respect the Islanders right to self determination.”
Ha, ha, ha!, naive small. We will never give up our sovereignty to the Malvinas Argentinas to what is ours by right and inheritance.
You do well not to rely, we can have at any time a truly patriotic government at the height of his people and return for the islands. Definitely.
naive small kelpers of the famous “generations” (From the time of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, at this point) who believe that this warmongering and sacrifice in men and materials made ​​by his majesty's pirate in 1982 , was for them!. Ha, ha, ha!
29 Boovis (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:24 pm Report abuse
@:28 How do you figure you inherited it from Spain when Spain said they gave it to the UK?
30 Raven (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:37 pm Report abuse
@ Gustbury, PH, Jose M et al

Suppose for one moment Argentina was to gain Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (extremely unlikely but this is a hypothetical question)

What would happen to those that currently live on the Falkland Islands? What would you be wanting to do?
31 Boovis (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:52 pm Report abuse
@30: they've said this before, they say they'd be welcome to stay but would have to accept argie sovereignty and, if they didn't like it, they'd be welcome to leave.

Not exactly practical. All you'd need is the local populace to carry out a policy of non-compliance and sabotage and it'd go tits.
32 andy65 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:55 pm Report abuse
@José Malvinero ONCE AGAIN remind us all Argentina a land of EUROPEAN IMMAGRANTS why do you see yourself as some different and superior YOU ARE FACKING IMMAGRANTS THATS WHY YOU SPEAK SPANISH
33 GFace (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 03:51 pm Report abuse
@17 as I said on another other thread.

~2800 to ~3k sovereign Falklanders vs. 40M Argentines in 2013
~3.8M Danes and ~8.3M Belgians vs. 69.8M Germans in 1940

Your moral calculus leaves nothing to the imagination.

@30, that question was answered in 1982 was it not? Neck, meet boot.

Irredeemable, Unrepentant. Undeserving. Fascists. Woe be the rank-n-file Argentines who deserve far better governance and identify than this.
34 ptolemy (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:11 pm Report abuse
Be prepared. Take no chances.
35 Gordo1 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:49 pm Report abuse
José Malvinero - “We will never give up our sovereignty to the Malvinas Argentinas to what is ours by right and inheritance.”

Other than be “force fed” since your infancy with lies and fairy stories there is absolutely no proof or historical evidence that the Falklands/Malvinas were ever part of Argentina or that sovereignty pertains to this country.

The events of 1833 upon which you base your aspirations just didn't happen. No Argentina citizens were forced or obliged to leave the islands by Britain - all illegal immigrants found there by the captain and crew of HMS Cleo were invited to stay and, with the exception of four people, all accepted the invitation. Those four people who left did not return to Bs As but to Montevideo at their own request.

Your constant rant about sovereignty “ya aburre”!
36 Clyde15 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:10 pm Report abuse
Your arithmetic is incorrect. 2,800 +60 million !!!!
37 Gustbury (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:10 pm Report abuse
18@ I don't think so:www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=664857
hahahahaha LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38 Optimus_Princeps (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:14 pm Report abuse
For those of you interested in the islands being under Cristina's control, just get in a small disorganized fleet of motorboats, and attack them with rocks. If you can defeat the “pirates” the islands are all yours. Try not to starve on the voyage or get lost. Have fun, you won't be missed.
39 Raven (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:15 pm Report abuse

Thank you for not answering my question. :(
40 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:22 pm Report abuse
'Atlantic coast countries question “undue militarization” of the ocean - Representatives from 21 countries of South America and Africa with coasts on the Atlantic Coast consolidation discussed in the ocean as a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their “undue militarization” when growing tension between Britain and Argentina over the disputed Falkland Islands.
“There is a concern about undue militarization” of the ocean, told reporters the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Antonio Patriota, noting that “there are issues of decolonization did not reach their final solution.”
“We need to build an image zone free of weapons of mass destruction,” he said, pausing the ministerial meeting to be held until Tuesday.
In this framework, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Argentina, Eduardo Zuain raised the concern of his country by increasing British military presence in the Falkland Islands, an archipelago claimed by Buenos Aires and London controls since 1833.
The topic will be specifically included in the declaration to be adopted by ministers on Wednesday, ahead Patriot.
The Seventh Ministerial Meeting of the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic (ZOPACAS)-established in 1986 by resolution of the UN General Assembly meeting in Montevideo, delegations from 21 of the 24 members of the body, of which three are African American and the rest.
Born as an initiative to promote peace and security in the area and as part of a process of revaluation of South-South cooperation, since its inception has however made only six foreign ministers meetings, most recently in Angola, in 2007.
To quote from Montevideo, for the first time were also invited several defense ministers of the member countries of the organization....
41 Clyde15 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:26 pm Report abuse
This has nothing to do with sovereignty. If no oil is found in the waters, the islands will still want nothing to do with Argentina.
The UK will still back the islanders wishes so what are YOU going to do about that ? Your screaming and rants about stealing our resources would invalid. or to put it in your childish uneducated manner ----- hahahahaha LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
42 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 06:44 pm Report abuse
For those of you that like a bet...

43 toooldtodieyoung (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 06:50 pm Report abuse
Dear KFC / TMBOA / Ol' Turkey Neck / The Harpy and all hanger oners and Like minded malvinistas,

We the citizens and government of the UK and Falkland Islands would like to accept your invitation to negotiate to the return of the Falkland Island to Argentine control.

Our negotitation team will be a party of one. Please let me introduce the ONLY member of the team, famed for his clear thinking and straight talking:-


A list of his expectation of the forth coming meetings are laid out for your attention at 27 in this thread, please take time to read and familiase yourself with it's contents.

Any questions???

Good, shall we get started then??

Lots of love

The UK.
44 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 06:55 pm Report abuse
@43 toooldtodieyoung

ha ha ha, we should do it.
45 Frank (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:10 pm Report abuse
If they do try some stunt lets hope that it involves staging a landing on one of the beaches the ratbags mined
46 briton (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:33 pm Report abuse
17 Gustbury (#)
1@ everything is negotiable my friend,

[Including Argentina .]

20 Gustbury
I repeat...everything is negotiable!!!!!!!!!!

[ including Argentina !!!!!!!!””]

But not the falklands mmm
47 José Malvinero (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:48 pm Report abuse

If they wanted to stay, to stay.
If they wanted to leave, they leave.
If the islands remain uninhabited, there would be no problem.
48 toooldtodieyoung (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:06 pm Report abuse
34 ptolemy

I am sure that there are no chances being taken.......

It's my bet that there a couple of ships from “The silent service” down there right now. You see, that's the thing about submarines or SSN's as they like to be called, you never know quite where they are, until the torpedo's start exploding all around you..........
49 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:08 pm Report abuse
“We are concerned about the unnecessary militarization of the South Atlantic”, said Brasilian Foreign Secretary Antonio Patriota. And added “there are decolonization issues that are still not defenetly solved.

”We have the responsability of avoiding all kinds of presense, transit and storage of nuclear weapoms and other weapons of mass destruction“, said Uruguayan Foreign Secretary Luis Almagro. And

Argentine Foreign Vicesecretary Eduardo Zuain, noted the concern regarding the military presence in Malvinas. And added ”this issue will be specificly included in the delcaration 22 countries will adopt next Wednessday“.

The final declaration will support UN position. ”There must be a pacific solution to this issue“, Georges Chikotti, added Angola´s Foreign Secretary. And added ”we believe a referendum cannot solve this issue Argentina has a legitimate claim over the islands”.

50 Conqueror (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:18 pm Report abuse
@28 I have news for you. You need to get up to date with your pal “Buried Guts”. You can stick “ARSENTINA” before or after anything you like. Nothing changes. Any unauthorised latino scum on the Islands are looking at, MINIMUM, a bullet through the skull. (I was going to say “brain” and then remembered that latinos don't have any.)
@37 Buried Guts. Are you related to Putrid Jelly.
@47 The Islanders aren't leaving. If they ever do, the Islands will be detonated with nuclear devices. If you're interested, arsieland can also be detonated with nuclear devices. Would you like to live, temporarily, on a cloud? YOU too can emulate the “missing”! Would YOU like to return to the planet in several pieces? No problem!
51 GFace (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:20 pm Report abuse
@49 well you shouldn't have invaded and committed war crimes against the civilian population, laid undocumented land mines, marked miltary resources with red crosses, illegally detained civilians in a war zone, nearly used them as human shields in the end in Standly and all the while proudly celebrating it to this day and still making it clear that if the islands weren't defended you'd do it again. Irredeemable, Unrepentant. Fascists.
52 jsf (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:24 pm Report abuse
No meny, no class. keep the poor islands in british assholes!
53 LEPRecon (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:42 pm Report abuse
@49 - Maldives

The Brazilians need not worry. The decolonisation issue will be resolved in March, when the Falkland Islanders will exercise the human right to choose what THEY want.

This is of course completely in line with the UN decolonisation process, which states that the people of that territory should choose for themselves.

So in March end of problem. And the world can finally have some rest from Argentina getting down on its knees, begging other countries to give you something that does not, nor has ever belonged to you.

Feel free to go to the International Court of Justice and PROVE your Soveignty over the islands. If you won't (and you won't because all your claims are based on lies), then you should all STFU about the Falklands, and turn your attention to trying survive the tempest that is about to befall Argentina.

Namely it's economies imminent collapse, where you suddenly realise that CfK has mismanaged your country so badly, and stolen ALL of your money, and the money from future generations. Maybe then you'll realise how foolish you have been to be distracted by the lies of Argentina. Lies created in 1941 by Peron. Lies, upon lies, upon lies.
54 Santa Fe (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:50 pm Report abuse
49.. Just laughed so hard, ANGOLAs foreign minister said....sorry still laughing

The well respected experts on stable law abiding countries Angola Jajajajajajaja great joke post
55 Anbar (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:02 pm Report abuse
“”“”Those four people who left did not return to Bs As but to Montevideo at their own request.“””

If one took the various (untrue, odd, dreamed-up, whacky, didnt really happen) Argentine versions of history into account, would not Uruguay have a stronger claim to the Falklands than Argentina anyway?

Its always made me wonder why Argentina assumed it inherited the Spanish “rights” and not Uruguay.... certainly taking the “our people were there in 1833” argument it would seem clear to me that Uruguay has a stronger claim. (still a totally bogus claim obviously, but stronger than Argentinas by dint of who the people staying on the falklands were)
56 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:05 pm Report abuse
57 overtaxedbrit (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:48 pm Report abuse
Evacuate the Falklands, there is plenty of space on Western Isles of Scotland for the residents.
58 Conor J (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:51 pm Report abuse
I expect that there is nothing that will make most Argies shit quicker than seeing or hearing a Typhoon.

59 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:53 pm Report abuse
@57 That's like telling you to get out of your house because someone else wants it and then telling you that you have to move into the house of some angry people. I do hope you're trolling.

@49 It's not a worry. The Argies don't care about peaceful negotiation, and this curious cooperation agreement means nothing when the Falklands haven't been invited, so it's not for them to tell the people of the Falklands what to do.

It's the equivalent of having the local criminals go around to your your house and have them telling you that the rest of the street had a meeting, which you weren't invited to and decided you cannot keep your car because it's too loud.

It's simply nonsense.
60 Steveu (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:54 pm Report abuse
@58 Can I have your house then?

I don't own it or have any legitimate claim to it but I want it anyway - there are plenty of houses down the street you can move to

Sound like a good deal for you? Thought not
61 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:18 pm Report abuse
Surely the German government have some responsibility for the final vestiges of the SS and germanic fascism that are alive and well running Argentina at the moment.

It's a bit rough them not helping to finally clean the world of this mess.
62 Gordo1 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:24 pm Report abuse
@55 Anbar.

In fact the Spanish Viceroy decamped from Buenos Aires to Montevideo and, if it is true the Viceroyalty controlled the Islands, then, yes, Montevideo could claim prior rights to the archipelago.
63 Pirat-Hunter (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:34 pm Report abuse
british illegal aliens should go home and stop the thefts of Argentinas natural resources, Islas Malvinas Argentina is not negotiable. I hear Romanian gypsy's get deported after 200 years in UK about some of that justice for brits themselves illegally occupying Islas Malvinas Argentina, if they can deport homeless people for public urination why couldn't Argentina deport thieves in islas Malvinas Argentina? Is this a racial issue? I thought slavery was over long ago, and the KKK was over with, but I guess they just moved it from a the black market to a formal international beurocracy, the English people here should do some real history research, nothing about brits has changed since 1807. Same old pirates, thieves, liars, murderers and cowards.
64 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:46 pm Report abuse
@63 because Malvinas Argentina is a fictional entity, the product of a group delusion.

It's difficult to deport homeless people from something that has no actual physical occurrence in reality.

Does that answer your question?
65 andy65 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:53 pm Report abuse
@Pirat-Hunter You are beyond stupid you need to take some of your rants to your primary school teacher and she will tell you the same YOU ARE STUPID
66 travellingscotsman (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:06 pm Report abuse
@63 - where does it say in the article that anyone was deported??? Don't you get free eye care in Argentina?????? I think you need to get your eyes tested mate! I think you must be getting used to your government's lies so you think that everyone else will believe your lies. Well let me tell you something - we don't believe your lies, never have, and we never will. @50 - I hope you're not insinuating that the scots are angry???
67 Pete Bog (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:07 pm Report abuse
There's plenty of space on the Falkland Islands for the Falkland Islanders so therefore there's no need for them to move.

If you are bothered about your tax money being spent on the Falklands, Britain would lose income and jobs(which also lead indirectly to tax being paid in the UK) if the Islanders moved north.

Haven't thought it through have you?
68 MrFlagpole (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:13 pm Report abuse
@pH 63

You are wrong. Completely and utterly. But you make the mistake of thinking we need to convince you. We don't. Your country is weak. Even if you were right you still couldn't have the islands.

Become the country that spend the 5th largest amount on your military. Train that military for forty years in battle. Hope that said military doesn't take over your county.

Then we'll talk.
69 Raven (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:42 pm Report abuse
63 Pirat-Hunter
british illegal aliens should go home and stop the thefts of Argentinas natural resources

So you would go against the Argentine Constitution which states

''Section 20. - Foreigners enjoy within the territory of the Nation all the civil rights of citizens; they may exercise their industry, trade and profession; own real property, buy and sell it; navigate the rivers and coasts; practice freely their religion;''

From the official conversion of text. www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/english.php
70 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 12:27 am Report abuse
@67 Pete bog

@57 is an obvious troll and a fraud - he's poking the hornet's nest with his stick.
71 Steveu (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 12:42 am Report abuse
@70 The “overtaxedbrit” handle doesn't ring true to me. Must try harder next time
72 overtaxedbrit (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 02:51 am Report abuse
@70 @71 Sorry to disappoint you but I am in London and BRITISH get it!!!
We are not all wave the flag and send the gunboats mentality.
73 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 06:00 am Report abuse
@ gutsbury;

Of course there's oil for developing there.

Take it from somebody who is in the industry you cretin.

Do some proper research, don't just post crap links.
74 HansNiesund (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 07:17 am Report abuse

But most of us are better able to use the definite article in English than you are.

Send in the next troll please.
75 inthegutter (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 10:40 am Report abuse
Hey, Pirat-Hunter, I thought I'd address this to you directly since none of you Malvinistas have answered my question: Should Argentine return the parts of Patagonia stripped from the Amerindians (i.e. post-independence)? How about the land taken from Paraguay during the War of the Triple Alliance?
76 Shed-time (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse
“We are not all wave the flag and send the gunboats mentality.”

Not we are all?
77 Clyde15 (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 12:51 pm Report abuse
Let us see how your scenario would work out. For a start, you know very little about the Outer Hebrides. The land is either mountainous or covered with peat bogs with very little productive land for farming. The climate is more severe than the Falklands .
Unemployment is a problem and infrastructure could not cope with a influx 0f 3000 people. The UK government would have to pick up the cost which would probably be more than letting them stay in their own homeland.
However, there is another possibility, you could offer YOUR home to an Islander and YOU could move to the Outer Isles - this would give you a feeling of satisfaction having done the “right thing”
As to the rest of the west coast of Scotland, the only people who can afford to buy property here are the English, moving in droves
from the L0ndon area.
I think the best solution is to leave things as they are.

I will give you the extreme benefit of the doubt by assuming that you can understand some very basic precepts about citizenship and ethnic origins.
Here it is as simple as I can make it .
If a “Romany” family has been here for 200 years then they are UK citizens !!!!!!!!!! Tell me what UK Romanies have been deported and to where - I think you will find this rather problematic as it has never happened.
The rest of you post is the usual crap - I see you forgot about nuclear weapons this time.
You are the only self confessed coward on this forum. Talking war and destruction but too scared to go back to Argentina.
78 jsl (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 03:51 pm Report abuse
no money, no class. keep the islands in british assholes!
79 agent999 (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 04:50 pm Report abuse
that was a comment full of class
80 ynsere (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 05:48 pm Report abuse
Anbar @ 55
You're not the first to say so. See www.montevideo.com.uy/notnoticias_159901_1.html

jsl @ 78
Your fixation regarding money, class and arseholes sounds just like Sussie!
81 Faulconbridge (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 06:29 pm Report abuse
'If they wanted to stay, to stay.
If they wanted to leave, they leave.
If the islands remain uninhabited, there would be no problem.'

José Malvinero sums up the psychology underlying Argentinr politics and society that has helped create its disastrous history: if we can';t have what we want, better that no-one has it.
82 Argie (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
“The British government considers ‘highly unlikely’ Argentina will attempt to invade the Falkland Islands, according to Defense Minister Andrew Robathan”


Where were you Andrew in 1982? Where were you in 2002?

And I'm sure you believe that you have discovered the hole in the gourd (Le descubriste el agujero al mate!!!)

Master Andrew: You better read the papers more often.

83 briton (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 07:43 pm Report abuse
So what has it to do with Brazil, about the south Atlantic?

Some parts of Brazil are closer to Africa than the Falklands,
Brazil being on the crest of the Americas, where the Atlantic is very much open to the worlds military,
Surely they would have more to complain about if they included French Guiana ,
And some African military,
Is this not true,
So basically its another purely anti British stance on behalf of the UN-Mighty CFK
Is it not..
As for CHINA , forget em, drop it and it will smash, ?
As for Argentina,
hey, whos argentina ..
84 commonsparrow (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 01:37 am Report abuse
If that Libertard is one of their frigates, I think you will be ok,...you don't have much to worry about....
85 Argie (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 03:36 pm Report abuse
@ 13. Self determination? Watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE

@27 Oh you're a real macho of WAR (of words) Come off it!
86 axel arg (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 08:18 pm Report abuse
I appreciate the fact that minister robathan recognizes that arg. is not in conditions to invade the islands again, actualy it wasn't in conditions either in 1982, but that's another debate.
Anyway, robathan's posture is very contradictory, because he recognizes that arg. is not in the same conditions than in 1982, however the u. k. continues militarizing the south atlantic more and more.
I appreciate also the fact that he read our constitution, which transitory disposition says that arg. must recover it's full sovereignty over the archipelago, under the respect for the int. right., so, although c. f. k. or any other president has the wish of invading the islands again, none argentine president will be able to do it.
If c. f. k., and her husband thought the solution for this conflict had to be militar, they would use part of the huge economic growth that our country experimented since 2003, in order to militarize argentina more and more, however it didn't happen, and it's a good news that finally a british authority sees that.
The word full sovereignty is not so important, because the u. n has never asked the u. k. to return the islands to arg., in fact, it just has asked both countries to find a negotiated solution for this conflict. It means that although the u. k. decides to resume the negotiations with arg., and the if the islanders manifest that they want to remain under british government, arg. won't be able to force them to accept our sovereignty only, however its not imposible to find a solution that satisfies the three parts, like the proposals of 1974 and 1980.
Everybody here knows what i think about the postures of the three parts of the conflict.
87 Conor J (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 09:17 pm Report abuse
You could not be more wrong. In 1982 Argentina had a formidable military force which it simply did not field effectively. Over 150 Fighter and ground attack aircraft to Britain's 30 in the area. NO to mention the larger number of troops.
How are we militarising the South Atlantic? None of you Argies ever provide actual evidence that we are. Were is your proof?
And again Argentina has never actually owned the Falklands and yet you claim otherwise on the basis of a false 'inheritance' form Spain.
88 Clyde15 (#) Jan 19th, 2013 - 10:48 am Report abuse
You seem like a reasonable bloke but the basic fact is that the UK has no reason to trust the Argentine government. The Falkland islanders trust them even less !
If we follow your scenario and some form of Argentine partial sovereignty deal is arranged. What is to stop your government tearing up the agreement at a future date when the UK has removed its forces from the islands. Your country's record at keeping agreements is not particularly good.
The bottom line is that we dispute ANY claim from ARGENTINA, to sovereignty over the Falklands,S. Georgia and the S. Sandwich islands. The details have been done to death by both sides.
You are asking -(your country demands) - the Islanders to take a gamble with their lives and future in return for what?
They look at your country and the state it is in and say is this what they want to give us. NO THANKS.
It may be, in the far distant future, that the Islanders MIGHT want some loose confederation with Argentina.
However, Argentina would have to prove that they are a good neighbour and could be trusted to fulfill agreements and promises. At present, your government's belligerent attitude is hardening attitudes on both sides. Instead of making any meaningful dialogue possible, it is having the opposite effect.
89 ynsere (#) Jan 19th, 2013 - 03:35 pm Report abuse
Clyde 15 @ 88
Argentina is NOT a good neighbour, nor is it trustworthy. It's not in its culture. Ask any Uruguayan.
90 axel arg (#) Jan 19th, 2013 - 06:46 pm Report abuse
In the rattenbach report, which was made after the conflict of 1982, it was said that argentina wasen't in conditions to carry on a war.
Respecting the denounces of british militarisation in the islands, chancellour timerman explained them before the u. n. last year, and showed many prooves about it.
On the other hand, if arg. is the best or the worst country of the world, that's irrelevant, actualy all the countries have good and bad aspects, not just argentina, don't be so hipocrite. However, if the u. n. asks your country and mine to find a negotiated solution for this conflict, like us or not, it must be respected by both nations.
In the same way that i have always criticised the fact that our govt. doesn't include the gov.t from the islands, every time it asks the u. k. to resume the dialogue for the problem of the sovereignty, the islanders have always manifested that they are disposed to talk about different issues with arg., but not about the sovereignty, which is the main problem, so, the three parts aren't acting correctly.
Your problem, is that the hipocresy of many of you, and your lack of intellectual honesty, won't let you recognize that actualy your side is not acting correctly either, thats' why, the best thing you know how to do, is to blame arg. only.
Regarding the right to self determination, you should know that although it is included in the charter of the u. n., that institution has always considered this case like a special colonial situation, and never invoked it in any of it's resolutions, like it did for others colonial situations.
Respecting the historic facts, acept it or not, both parts omit information, not just arg.
If i decided to investigate, it's because i have never believed in our official history, and many of you should do the same, instead of buying so easily your own official propaganda, and accuse just arg. of indoctrination.
91 Conor J (#) Jan 20th, 2013 - 01:21 am Report abuse
Again you deny facts, the Rattenbach report may have said that but on the opinions of multiple British commandeers at the time were very fearful of Argentinas military strength. As for militarisation you're just going on the words of your president and other leaders. Your allegations of militarisation are unfounded and pathetic. HMS Dauntless arrived to relieve HMS Montrose as the escort ship of the islands. That is all that happened, nothing more. HMS Dauntless then went home and HMS Edinburgh took over. Eventually another ship will arrive to take over and Edinburgh will go home. HOW IN THE NAME OG GOD IS THIS MILITARISATION WHN ONE SHIP REPLACES ANOTHER????!!!!!

Are British school students subjected to classes dedicated to the Falklands and British Nationality? NO!

Are Britons subjected to daily barrages of Pro Falklands media? NO!

Are Britons subjected to never ending screaming about the Islands from our politicians? NO! NO! NO!

Oh and again the historical facts are totally against you so drop your claim and as such your calls for dialogue are like India calling for dialogue over Sri Lanka, totally unfounded, inaccurate and unfair.
92 Clyde15 (#) Jan 20th, 2013 - 11:12 am Report abuse
You had discussions about the Falkands in 1982, remember !!!!
A solution was arrived at and satisfactorily remains.
Timerman proved it to the UN - lets examine this
Nuclear armed submarines near Argentina - his proof ?
Missile bunkers in the Falkands - proof ?
Test firing a few anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 4 miles - a threat to the Argentine mainland -explain this please
Three fighter aircraft on station. A threat to Argentina and S.America ?
HMS Dauntless on deployment to replace HMS Montrose.
Prince William taking his turn on deployment flying a Search and Rescue helicopter.
“Aggressive” radio masts a threat to Argentina.
All the above a serious threat to S.America ?

Your defence ministers non - aggressive statement that the only thing keeping Argentina from taking the Falklands were the British forces stationed there.

So, you expect negotiations where your country's only acceptable outcome is - hand over the islands and leave the S.Atlantic as everything down here belongs to us.

From our point of view talking is a complete waste of time.
93 axel arg (#) Jan 20th, 2013 - 09:34 pm Report abuse
The denounces for militarisation include much more prooves than the few lines that you typed in your comments, as i said before, timerman explained them last year at the u. n., if you don't believe what i say, perhaps you can get his denounce on line, because it was transmitted by different chanels.
Respecting the situation of the argentine militar forces, and their power in 1982, while it is true that in that moment they were in a better situation than now, it is also true that their situation wasen't good enough in order to carry on a war, that was what i wanted to say in my comment 86. It's not a personal analysis, it is actualy what was unveiled in the rattenbach report, if you prefer believing something different, that's your problem.
Respecting the indoctrination, that word is used all the time by a lot of people in this forum, arguing that many of us are indoctrinated with a false history, in order to deffend our claim over the islands.
If you really think that only our politicians omit information, in relation to the historic aspects of this conflict, before the u. n., or before different int. forums, then it means that many of you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your own official history.
Accept it or not, the aspects that involve this cause, are much more complicated than the tipical mediocre analysis that many of you usually express.
I know what i say, because i have been investigating deeply about the historic and the legal arguments that are manifested by both nations, and what i can tell you is that, like it or not, the case has strong and weak aspects for both countries. Again, if you prefer believing something different, that's your problem.
Regarding the phrase that our minister defense said, for being honest, i have never heard it, if he really said that, he couden't be more imbecill.
Anyway, he can say whatever, our constitution is very clear respecting our claim, read it in my comment 86.
94 Conor J (#) Jan 20th, 2013 - 10:47 pm Report abuse
A few lines?
Here is Timmermans analysis of militarisation:
HMS Dauntless sent to the islands
Prince William “the conqueror” sent to the islands
HMS Vanguard sent to the islands
Allegedly this constituted increasing Britain's military power “four fold.”
And here is the actual assessment of the so called militarisation:
HMS Dauntless replaced a ship on service at the islands, HMS Montrose. How is this militarisation? ONE SHIP REPLACED ANOTHER.
Prince William the “conqueror”? He is a Search and Rescue pilot, his helicopter was unarmed!!! How is this militarisation?
HMS Vanguard? Why the fuck would Britain send one of her Ballistic missile submarines to the South Atlantic? If we wanted to destroy Argentina the subs could fire their missiles form their docks on the Clyde river. It would be stupid to send a sub all that way for no reason.

The only people to militarise the South Atlantic was Argentina in 1982.
95 Clyde15 (#) Jan 21st, 2013 - 01:35 pm Report abuse
See the above in MercoPress archives for August 13.
I would presume that he would speak for the Argentine government as he is the defence minister !
Your constitution also declares that the Falklands -(Malvinas ) - are sovereign Argentinian territory.
So, you want talks with a set of loaded dice .

Whatever the Rattenbach report said, the UK's military power was 8000 miles away at the time of the invasion of the Falklands and was not geared up to an amphibious landing unaided by NATO forces. Our forces were trained to help in the defence of western Europe from an attack by the Warsaw pact.
This included the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.
I am pretty sure that these were not considered in the Falkands war.
The RAF could not deploy its best strike aircraft or fighters for lack of a runway or the business would have been over much quicker with fewer UK casualties and a corresponding increase
in Argentine casualties.
We won the war partly by the skill and determination of our forces, tactical errors by the military junta and also a bit of luck.
Hindsight can make experts of us all, but we can only act on information available at the time.

As to Timerman's claims I have searched in Google for 1 hour and have already listed his complaints and “proof” -I could find nothing more than this
As to HMS Trafalgar sailing off the S.A coast - where did this information come from. I have known a few sub mariners and they have told me that they had no idea where they were while on patrol. They said that only the Captain and the navigating officer new of the subs. position - and the Admiralty, obviously.
Is Timmerman privy to UK Strategic intelligence.
For our benefit, will YOU please furnish us with details and PROOF - NOT HEARSAY - of the UK's militarisation of the S. Atlantic
96 axel arg (#) Jan 24th, 2013 - 01:48 pm Report abuse
Sorry for my dely, but i had not time this week to ckeck my i mails.
I insist, the denounce presented by timerman before the u. n. last year included much more issues than what you said in your comments, search it in you tube, and perhaps you can get the conference that he gave before that institution last year in february.
Respecting the militar capacity of the u. k. in 1982, i have no doubt that it had a much better capacity than our's, that's obvious, but i just wanted to clarify that while it is true that in that moment our militar capacity was in a better situation than now, it is also true that it wasen't in conditions to face a war.
Regarding the wrong interpetation that many of you make about the transitory disposition of our constitution, i explained it perfectly in my comment 86, read it again.
97 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 24th, 2013 - 05:31 pm Report abuse

“The word full sovereignty is not so important, because the u. n has never asked the u. k. to return the islands to arg., in fact, it just has asked both countries to find a negotiated solution for this conflict. It means that although the u. k. decides to resume the negotiations with arg., and the if the islanders manifest that they want to remain under british government, arg. won't be able to force them to accept our sovereignty only, however its not imposible to find a solution that satisfies the three parts, like the proposals of 1974 and 1980. ”

Your government does not seem to agree with you, Axel.
They don't want to 'negotiate' anything that does not include sovereignty.

Respectfully, The Falklsnders and the UK are under no obligation, legal or moral, to “find a solution that satisfies the three parts”.
The Falklanders have Self- Government and will affirm Self-Determination in March.
They only need to find a solution with parties that they trade with or have a friendship with.
They currently have neither with Argentina because Argentina withdrew from the agreements they had, and brought in an economic blockade which ended any trade or friendship towards the Falklands.

It is a situation that Argentina created for themselves. It is laughable that they expect the Falklands or the UK to woo them back with sovereignty.

98 Clyde15 (#) Jan 24th, 2013 - 05:59 pm Report abuse

Is this the you tube video to which you refer. As I do not speak Spanish I cannot accurately comment on the whole of his speech.
However, I could understand the usual rhetoric about militarisation but my question was still unanswered. Where did he get his information about nuclear ARMED submarines in the Falklands area? I still await a reply on this question.
It appeared that he was also saying that the Islands of St. Helena and Tristan da Cuna were examples of British military bases - absolutely laughable. Most of the time, it is impossible to land on T de C. and Ascension island is an American base.
The usual mention of S.Georgia and the S.Sandwich islands are included.

Here is your President setting out her “demands”


Nobody hearing this can be in any doubt that sovereignty MUST be given to Argentina. It is obvious that any “discussions” can only be about when the UK is going to hand the islands to us!
As has been said ad nauseum it is pointless to enter into discussions when the outcome MUST coincide with Argentina's demands..

As far as Timmerman's speech, he is saying that the UK should remove all vestiges of it's presence in the S.Atlantic and acknowledge that it is a Mare Argentineum.

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!