Monday, February 25th 2013 - 06:13 UTC

UK media says Iran/Argentina accord could hide missile project with Falklands’ range

British tabloid The Sunday Times indicated on Sunday that the Iran-Argentina accord on the investigation of the AMIA bombing case could also hide a joint missile development project. Furthermore, the paper assured “Argentina is developing missile technology that could threaten the Falkland Islands.”

Foreign minister Hector Timerman and his Iranian peer Ali Akbar Salehi (L)

The dubious article remarks that Sunday Times reporters have learnt that “military scientists in Argentina are building a rocket capable of being fired into space to an altitude of about 400 kilometres, at a time when its relationship with Iran — which has significant missile capabilities — appears to be warming.”

Experts believe such technology could, in time, develop into a missile with a range of up to 372 miles.

The British tabloid assures that such technology would put any missile “easily within range of the South Atlantic archipelago”, which are about 480 kilometres from the Argentine mainland, and “could transform the balance of power in the south Atlantic.”

Lord West, the former UK’s security minister and first Sea Lord, said he believed the only logical reason to develop such technology “was to threaten the Islands.”

Likewise, West called on the intelligence services to keep a “very close eye” on the program.

In the seventies and the eighties Argentine nuclear scientists were working closely with Iran helping it to develop its own nuclear program. This was started under the late Shah and after a brief hiatus continued with the Islamic revolution.

At the same time the Argentine military were developing a 500 km range missile in Cordoba, which was continued by the first Argentine elected government in 1983 but was definitively scrapped under President Carlos Menem who followed a foreign policy closely aligned with the US to the extent it sent two warships in support of the first Iraq war in the early nineties.

Likewise all collaboration with Iran in nuclear energy development was also definitively cancelled.

Argentina has long been the country in Latinamerica which has been a leader in nuclear energy development and technology from the fifties. Brazil is only catching up.


109 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 _INTROLLREGNVM_ (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 06:50 am Report abuse
Economy must be worse in the UK than anyone thought.

Such a typical anglo war drumbeat is utterly predictable when things are sinking at home. Tried and tested. But last time they tried it (to get out of the 2001-2002 recession) by invading Iraq, it bit you back and cost you nearly 800 casualties in your capital city.

I woudn't want to live in the UK if you attack Iran as an excuse to restart the economy, as is so typical in criminal saxon behavior.
2 toooldtodieyoung (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:25 am Report abuse

LOL........ You are “projecting” and your post above can therefore be ignored...... Let me guess, Thinking is something that other people do isn't it????

You really are a weapons grade retard arn't you?
3 _INTROLLREGNVM_ (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:28 am Report abuse
Everyone on this planet knows that when the anglo economies falter, a war with some form of genocide or killing of civilians within the following 12-24 is inevitable.
4 Xect (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:36 am Report abuse
@1 - What an utterly bizarre post, it lacks any logic or cohesion. It's like someone who is not clear in their thinking has stitched together a series of different ideas that don't belong together.

If its true, then it could be quite interesting although somewhat illogical given the UK's power to project itself on another country with long range weapons. If as it states in the article that the weapons are to threaten with, well the UK military could if it wished respond with devastating force thanks to tomahawk capable submarines, warships and aircraft so the threat could be immediately neutralised.

And if that wasn't enough this is the opposite to the current Argentine policy. However we've learnt before (the hard way) of Argentine duplicity.
5 _INTROLLREGNVM_ (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:41 am Report abuse

Here we go... drumbeats of war. Let's post fake stories in the papers.

Let's cook some spurrious dossier.

Let's take it to the UN.

Let's be told to get stuffed by the UN.

Let's ignore the UN and form a “coalition of the criminal”

Let's bomb some country and little children in their beds at home.

That should jump start the economy.
6 Xect (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:45 am Report abuse
Ah more incomprehensible nonsense.

Surely you can do better than that? Or maybe not..............
7 agent999 (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:47 am Report abuse
@1, 3, 5
new name but the same bullshit.

What happened - another account banned ?
8 Musky (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:16 am Report abuse
@5 _INT

They really should introduce an age limit on posting.

I'm not so sure a missile program could be launched between these two county-sized badboys but there is no doubt that they have mutual enemies and there is a benefit to collaboration. The full ST article is subscriber only so I can't see any reports of evidence other than the argentine-iran accord.
I trust to britain's intel gathering to pick up on this, failing that, we'll get Wikileaks to do the spying.
9 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:59 am Report abuse
Attention-getting ploy only.

Ignore it and him.

Argentina can only bluster and threaten with this weapon - a weapon of nerves. It is not sufficient alone to take the islands, and any attack would be an act of war, condemned by the world and UN.

Britain could respond with 2 missiles of its own. One on the Casa Rosada, and one on the 'Human Bouncy Castle' that is Maximo.

10 RedBaron (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 09:32 am Report abuse
An altitude of 400 kms and a range of 372 miles- What happens? It goes straight up and comes straight back down, blown a little by the wind - a giant firework!
Don't forget who is banging this particular drum here- Lord West- Otherwise known as the Blairite Chairman of QinetiQ- one of the biggest defence contractors to HM Gov.
Of course he will create a threat and follow it in the House of Lords like a rat up a drainpipe when he sees an opportunity to make some cash for himself.
Let's face it, what would the RGs do with a missile that can hit the Falklands? There's virtually no targets of any significance apart from MPA and Stanley and even if they could be accurate enough, there would be nothing to follow them up with and nothing left to 'capture'.
11 Shed-time (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 09:39 am Report abuse
Is the torygraph really a tabloid? Article doesn't really start well given that it isn't.
12 kelperabout (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 09:58 am Report abuse
If I were Argentine citizens I would be getting real worried at the prospect that Argentina could be contemplating making such a missile. Remember what happened to those Countries that made threats of nuclear power they were violently destroyed by nato forces who will rise to any such threat to protect their nations. Unfortunately the Falkland Islands is not much of a prize for Argentina if in the end their Country is destroyed by other foreign players and believe me it will.
My advise to the people of Argentina is to stop your government going down this road and think of your own future. We islanders have lived with the Argentine threat for years but we are not connected to the South American mainland. We are in a nuclear world insignificant. Argentina on the other hand with dense populations are very vulnerable.
13 Rufus (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 10:28 am Report abuse
@2 tooold

I wouldn't say weapons grade, heck I wouldn't even go so far as pointy stick grade.

I'd go for safety scissors grade
14 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 10:35 am Report abuse
Whatever next, North Korea? They nearly do have small nuke capability. When they get it they will probably be invaded and it will start a massive war involving China and the US. I wouldn't be surprised to see China invade to head off a world disaster.
The present direction of Argentinean diplomacy is adding up to a disasterous future for all Argentinean people. The financial numbers are disasterous, inflation is out of control and corruption is rife. The poor are really suffering and the rich are in a state of dispare getting their wealth out of the country into $. Sophisticated Argentians can clearly see that the Falklands issue is just a distraction for the majority of the population of unsophisticated thick peasants like the trolls who post nonsense on here :o)))
15 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 10:56 am Report abuse
I'm sure if it were true and they did send a missle the Falklands way then both the number of surface to air missles and the wonderous abilities of the Rapier radar system would rapidly neutralize any incoming missle; which would no doubt result in the point of origin being obliterated and yet another international head shaking session at RGland commensed.
16 M_of_FI (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:30 am Report abuse

Yes, Britain and its media are developing a scheme to invade Argentina. You have uncovered their top secret plan. Britain is in dire need of soya beans. HMG believes soya beans are Britain's best chance to pull itself out of recession and achieve a AAA investment rating once again. But as you have pointed out, a war economy will increase spending and jobs, while deflecting public's interest and recognition of Britain's decline.

You are one very smart person INTROLLREGNVM to figure this elaborate, yet unbelievable conspiracy.

17 Conqueror (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:55 am Report abuse
@1,3,5 A bit of advice. Be careful. As WE look around the world, there is only one “state” that is threatening British territory. Yup, that's right. Argieland. Is that where you “live”? You may be aware that, in 1982, argieland carried out an unprovoked attack, invasion and occupation of a British territory without warning. Can you think of a good reason why Britain shouldn't return the favour? As for “genocide and the killing of civilians”, isn't that what your “history” consists of? Would you like to experience it for yourself?
18 Anbar (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:58 am Report abuse
this story is about as credible as poster #1
19 Islas Malvinas (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:58 am Report abuse
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
20 reality check (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 12:36 pm Report abuse
The UK has lived with the threat of attack from missiles for decades, indeed it was the first nation in the world to experience them, the V1 and V2's of WW2 .

If Argentina wants to waste money on developing a missile, which quite frankly, will not have much more capability than the V1 or V2, let them.

Possessing them and using them are two very different things. It has quite rightly been pointed out, that if they did use them, it would be an act of war. Then in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter, the UK would have the right to self defence and would respond in kind, with a far greater capability of causing conventional destruction. Argentina knows this.

Whilst it would be an unwelcomed developement for the Islanders, they have lived with Argentinas threats for decades, as long as Britian continues to assure their freedom through defence, which they will. The Islanders will adapt and in their own courageous way, accept it has yet another price they have to pay for that freedom.
21 Santa Fe (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 12:43 pm Report abuse
19- hahaha impotent / humiliated country that is RGLand
22 f0rgetit87 (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 12:53 pm Report abuse
If Argentina develop a missile like this then Brazil will have to follow along. Brazil will not stand for it. Could end up with a big conflict for them.
23 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 01:34 pm Report abuse
The UK is the FIRST port of call for John Kerry the new US Foreign Minister. The BBC reported that he was discussing Syria and Iran, but the Falklands was not on the agenda, it may have had a passing reference in a discussion with William Hague. The Falklands future will be decided by the Islanders in the referendum on March 12th.

Rgs please continue weeping and gnashing teeth. Turn your attention to your financial woes the $ are running out. When you get down to the Pesos the Brown stuff will really hit the fan.

A great financial tip, short any major Argentinean stock and you will become richer and richer.
24 Stendec (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
It all seems a bit unlikely, but if they did develop some kind of missile threat, then that would be a good excuse to permanantly park a Type 45 off the coast...see how they like that!
25 thorpeman (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 02:04 pm Report abuse
It explains why Argentina wont pay its creditors it obviously doesnt think it will be around long enough ha ha either that or their intended targets are hedge fund managers in the US :-)
26 Pirate Love (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 02:24 pm Report abuse
@1 Anti-Anglo keyboard rage nothing more, go buy some more teatowels..

@16 I think the invasion of Argentina is already being Iran!
shia-law influence in the provinces whod have thought it??
Get them ninja burkhas out, Iran has plans for you, Argentina!!!

27 CJvR (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 02:25 pm Report abuse

It is hard to tell what is more stupid, the original story or post #1.
28 ChrisR (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 02:43 pm Report abuse
11 Shed-time

It’s the Sunday Times, which is a tabloid and the subject of this article. The Sunday Telegraph is not, as you say, a tabloid.
29 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 03:28 pm Report abuse
The Sunday Times is a full sized newspaper, it isn't a tabloid. But, if you look how it has changed under Murdoch its content has become more and more Tabloid. As a design engineer, I worked on the Rapier in the late 60,s. It's had a lot of time to become better and better since then. If I was in the Rg airforce (whats left of it) I wouldn't venture anywhere offshore. So what with Asute class silently patrolling offshore and Rapiers and ship based missiles, Rapiers and Typhoons covering the airspace the Falkland Islands are well defended. Not to mention Princes Harry's pals in those helicopters.
30 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 03:35 pm Report abuse
@27 CJvR

Best to ignore @01

He posts outrageous nonsense to bait us.

He has only one agenda - get attention for himself.

Sad really. Addicted to Mercopress.
31 ElaineB (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:02 pm Report abuse
An article in Clarin today states that Argentina has complained to the UN about the UK sending submarines carrying nuclear weapons to the Falkland Islands.
32 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:10 pm Report abuse

“An article in Clarin today states that Argentina has complained to the UN about the UK sending submarines carrying nuclear weapons to the Falkland Islands.”

How did they find out ????
33 agent999 (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:40 pm Report abuse

Héctor Timerman, lodged a formal protest at the United Nations on Friday and showed slides of British military bases in the region, saying they represented a threat to all south America.
He said Buenos Aires had intelligence that a Vanguard submarine was operating in the area. “Thus far the UK refuses to say whether it is true or not,” he told a press conference in New York. “Are there nuclear weapons or are there not? The information Argentina has is that there are these nuclear weapons.” Quoting John Lennon, he added: “Give peace a chance.”

34 Rosarino (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:43 pm Report abuse
the “missile” is for landing satellites- Oh yes...we do satellites.
If Argentina want to use for non civil use, we sign the treatments about limits of range of missiles-
Malvinas is out of range-
If you want to be worry, well, I can give you reasons.
We can sent you very fast to the deep south atlantic cutting fligths from Chile....that is the best missile whe can use against you-

The note is a joke just for justify your PATHETIC PARANOIA.

Oh...I can´t decide nothing : self determination in not possible IF YOU WANT TO DETROY THE PRINCIPLE OF territorial integrity-

So, no one´s recognize your self determination situation....just in Overseas territories.

Es como que los tucumanos reconozcan a los rosarinos como argentinos....que buena idea tuvieron...son el hazmerreír del barrio!

Cariñosos saludos! Y dsifruten del feriado ;)
35 A.J.Rimmer (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:49 pm Report abuse
@29. Rapier has indeed come a long way since the 60's, and the Falklands conflict for that matter.

The main reason we got the Apache was due to Rapier. The yanks were very desperate to figure out how it managed to lock on to their stealth bomber while it was flying over Farnborough. Something to do with the IR tracking capabilities if i'm not mistaken.

It most certainly would be able to take out any flying objects the RGs have (including rocks from catapults).
36 Rufus (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
@33 Agent999 - that's last year's attempt to incite nuclear missile paranoia by Humourous Hector, this is a whole fresh one (it seems that February is the month to accuse the UK of having nuclear missile submarines in the South Atlantic).

@34 Rosarino
And Eduardo Zuain (Humourous Hector's #2) complaining to the UN, a year after Hector was laughed out, when Britain still has the same SLBMs with the same range (that put Bs As neatly within range when the submarines are passing Grimsby) as they did last year isn't paranoia? Or is it obsessive compulsive behaviour?
Especially as the SSN that might be lurking somewhere nearby doesn't have a hatch big enough to fit the SLBM in, let alone actually fire it.
37 ElaineB (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 04:57 pm Report abuse
@34 You cannot cut flights from Chile. Your President begged Pinera to cut the flight and he, quite rightly, told her he cannot interfere with the business of LAN.

But if the flights stopped for some other reason, new routes from Miami would be quickly activated.

@32 CFK was holding a seance with Evita and Nestor, to get her daily instructions, and she was told about the nuclear submarines. She immediately told Timerman who was delighted to have a reason to rush off and complain the the UN; anything to get away from the nutty woman.
38 GFace (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 05:22 pm Report abuse
It's been a long time but I find it hard to believe that the Sunday Times now features bold face headlines with gratuitous alliteration in even more gratuitous bold face type, and still more gratuitous bodacious babes on page 3. If this is the case (especially the lattermost item), I may subscribe.
39 agent999 (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 05:33 pm Report abuse
36 Rufus
I missed the date of the article but as you said this years complaint was just the same rehash.
40 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 05:53 pm Report abuse
#34 Where do you intend landing satellites then? Will they be packed with explosives? If you meant you intend launching satellites what will these satellites do? Will they contain spy cameras so you can watch the penguins? Please advise?
41 reality check (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 05:58 pm Report abuse
Mr Timerman would like to know the dispositions of UK vessels in the South Atlantic, I bet he would. Here's his answer, slightly better than they were in 1982.

I would dearly love to have seen the slide show presentation, I can just imagine the British guy struggling to keep a straight face and stifling his laughter. I expect they were probably photographs from some publications again, maybe their intelligence services actually looked at them this time.

One thing is for certain, he's a glutton for punishment, maybe he managed to pull it off without looking inept, but I doubt it, he does it so well!!!!
42 andy65 (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 05:59 pm Report abuse
Looking at that picture of Timerman and the Iranian guy it reminds me of the phrase SELLING YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL, LOL I bet Isreal love this Jewish guy.
43 reality check (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 06:07 pm Report abuse
He 's now accusing the UK of further militarisation of the South Atlantic by deploying a psychedelic submarine to the area.
44 axel arg (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 06:36 pm Report abuse
I have no doubt that there will a lot of ignorants who will believe what was published in the times, respecting the speculations about the soposed using of nuclear power by arg. to threaten the islands.
However, let me remind you that our constitution is very clear respecting the way that arg. must continue with it's claim over the islands, and it says that our claim must continue under the respect for the international right. It doesn't say absolutly anything about a soposed using of militar forces, in order to recover the islands.
Those speculations are not serious, and they can be made just by a country like the u. k., because accept it or not, such an admirable nation like the u. k., in some asects still bahaviours like the same thief of XIX century which deprived argentina cowardly from the islands in 1833. That act was as coward, as the invasion decided by the militar junta that roled arg. in 1982, which took advantage of the vulnerable situation of the islanders, and ordered to invade the archipelago.
45 Steve-33-uk (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:03 pm Report abuse
'In latest insult to Britain, the Obama administration kowtows to Kirchner on the Falklands referendum'

'Argentina denounces England for sending nuclear submarines Malvinas'
46 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 07:10 pm Report abuse

The act in 1833 was as cowardly as the Juntas invasion of 1982??

Are you for real? You cretinous prick!

In 1833, Captain Onslow of the HMS Clio kindly requested that 55 military representatives of the United Provinces of River Plate, who had been on the Islands for fewer than 2 months, vacate the islands.

These 55 had already murdered raped and mutineed.

No civilian was evicted.

In 1982, the Junta invaded the islands disrupting the lives of the Islanders who'd been there 150 years, causing the death of 900 people.

Yes, clearly the same.

No point replying to you in future, you are clearly a complete twat.
47 briton (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:18 pm Report abuse
Never in the history of stupidity,
Has a solemn backward countries government been so desperate to see its self destroyed as this Argentine government?
It seems this CFK is so desperate for a victory at any costs,
That she will risk war to get it,
And by god she will one day succeed in this desperate attempt,
And one day this elusive victory will come,

But sadly it won’t be a Argentine victory,
Shame then, it will take her own destruction to see this come true,

She talks a lot does she not..

48 Shed-time (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
@45 That columnist quite rightly states .... “As I’ve noted before, Barack Obama is the most anti-British US president of modern times. His administration’s stance over the Falklands speaks volumes about its contempt for the Special Relationship, as well as its disdain for the right to self-determination of the Falkland Islanders themselves.”

No doubt yankeeboy or ElaineB will come on here and pretend that Obama is massively pro-UK when it's clear that he simply just hates us. The only 'Special Relationship' that the USA has is with Israel (and occasionally Ireland)... and that's a FACT.
49 briton (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:29 pm Report abuse
you missed CFK perhaps.mmm
50 Steve-33-uk (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:31 pm Report abuse
@48 Shed-time
I'm afraid Obama is calling all the shots, and he hates Britain.
The Republican party would have done the right thing and supported the islanders rights.
51 briton (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:40 pm Report abuse
camaron has 2 aces and a joker.
its a pity, as he will never use them.
52 reality check (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:44 pm Report abuse
In 2014 the UK will withdraw from Afghanistan, barring something catastrophic happening, Obama will not need the UK again. The last 2 1/2 years of his presidency may prove very interesting indeed.
53 Shed-time (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 08:58 pm Report abuse
So, basically the USA likes spreading democracy into arab countries (not Saudi) that ultimately turn into theocratic hell-holes after 2 weeks of corrupt governments, but they won't support a fledgeling democracy in the South Atlantic? Instead they openly support Israel with $6bil a year in weaponry funding in order to protect their 'democracy' from threats?

Is this clear to anyone?
54 yankeeboy (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 09:19 pm Report abuse
Shed, The US will always support the UK over Argentina. We have never and will never support Argentina. We have little to no trade, no formal alliances, Argentina is a backstabbing scofflaw and you think we don't notice?
Give it up man.

His presence in London was “no accident”, said Mr Kerry, adding: “When you think of everything that binds the US and Great Britain together, there is a reason why we call this a special relationship.”
Mr Hague, for his part, said the Anglo-American “partnership” in “diplomacy, intelligence and defense has no equal anywhere in the world”.
55 Conor J (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 09:55 pm Report abuse
I love all the Argies on here saying this is paranoia and pathetic etc,etc. Hypocrites like TTT especially seem to forget that a few months ago the Argies were making up stories about Nuclear armed Vanguard class submarines in the area. Also Prince William was referred to as a conqueror as he was piloting an unarmed search and rescue helicopter and of course the big story of HMS Dauntless and militarisation. It just proves that the Argie posters here are a bunch of two faced idiots who's concept of militarisation and diplomacy are as relevant as a Muslims views on women's rights. Argie hypocrites anyone?
56 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 10:21 pm Report abuse

SUSSIE troll alert
57 José Malvinero (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:19 pm Report abuse
The undoubted ability of invaders (England) to position himself as a victim.
1 - They send a large fleet of war to 14,000 km away in 1982 ....... but war provoked Argentina.
2 - invade the Malvinas Argentinas in 1833 ......... But Argentina “invaded” their own islands in 1982.
3 - They expand their self-proclaimed Exclusive Economic Zone in the Argentine Sea to incredible limits ............. but it is Argentina that “locks” to the “poor” kelpers.
4 - And now Argentina missile threat to the “poor” in Mount Pleasant military squatters .......... andd to carajo!.
58 GFace (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:43 pm Report abuse
@57 “1 - They send a large fleet of war to 14,000 km away in 1982 ....... but war provoked Argentina.”

Headline: “Poland Attacks Germany!” You fascists never change.
59 toooldtodieyoung (#) Feb 25th, 2013 - 11:58 pm Report abuse
“British tabloid The Sunday Times indicated on Sunday...............”

The Sunday Times??? A tabloid???

ooooohhhhh this one won't go down well on Fleet Street.........

57 José Malvinero

F**k off José, you started it, the whole world knows you started it, you are only fooling yourself.
60 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 12:03 am Report abuse
@57 José

-1832- Vernet's settlers on Falkland Islands by permission from Britain
- UP sends prisoners and military garrison WITHOUT permission
- garrison mutinies and kills commander - anarchy ensues

- 1833 - January, HMS Clio arrives - order restored, asks UP Capt'n Pinedo to
remove the criminal mutineers.
- Four settlers leave - the rest stay.
-1833 - those settlers are the ORIGINAL and CONTINUOUS FULL-TIME
POPULATION and stayed until the present
- 1982 - April - Argentina invades the FALKLAND ISLANDS, a peaceful, mostly
unarmed civilian population.
- Argentina civilians cheer!
- Argentina ignores a UN resolution 502 to leave the islands.
- June - Britain kicks out the INVADERS, 955 people DIE, the civilian
population are LIBERATED and returned to their homes.
- Argentina civilians denounce their own government!!
Post 1982 - Falklands become SELF GOVERNING with elected representation
2013 - Argentina DEMANDS possession of FALKLANDS
- Argentinian civilians cheer!!
- Argentina fosters secretive close relationship with rogue nuclear state,
already under sanctions and threatening UK and US.
- Mercopress Trolls cheer!!

FALKLANDS AND UK say they will defend the islands.

Trolls JEER!!!
61 briton (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 12:54 am Report abuse
why does CFK talk , yell , scream , and cry,
because she has no guts to fight for them, so she tries to hogwash other silly countries to do her bidding for her,

you think what you like,
but if war comes and thousands die,
CFK and your goverment will be held responsable and charges with war crimes, if you live.
cowards .
62 Hepatia (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 02:42 am Report abuse
This is a “crisis” manufactured by the British neocons who want to increase the UK's defense budget by any means. And they have my support. I think that the UK should triple their defense budget.
63 mastershakejb (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 03:21 am Report abuse
there's no doubt that Cristina would LIKE to acquire such weapons....but there's also no doubt that Argentina can't financially afford to develop/buy them
64 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 04:06 am Report abuse
“This is a “crisis” manufactured by the British ”

I agree, manufactured by our own 'fears'.

CFK can ratchet up the tension on the islands, just by having us 'think' they could drop a dumb projectile onto the Falklands.

It's to their advantage to provoke a reaction from the Brits that would look bad.

However, she must know that it would be foolhardy to actually do anything overtly hostile.

I suppose that to say it is 'madness' is easy for me - I don't live on the FI.

However, there is no indication of a weapon of any kind.
65 ElaineB (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 09:32 am Report abuse
I don't think Obama is 'massively pro-British' at all. In the scheme of things the Falklands issue is a non-event in the eyes of the USA. Nothing has changed and nothing will change so why would the US get involved? They have more pressing concerns. They will back the UN charter and that gives the right of self-determination to the Falkland islanders, everything else stirred up by this failing Argentine government is just pointless noise.

Obama is a President with virtually no interest in foreign affairs. That is why he let Hillary Clinton fly. He has far more pressing trouble at home than to get involved in minor spats. He is more indifferent than anti-British. When push comes to shove, the USA and UK will always work together.
66 mastershakejb (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 10:45 am Report abuse
What ElaineB said is pretty much correct. The USA considers UK a VERY strategic partner. It might be USA's #1 most strategic partner in the world. Not only does the UK possess a fairly robust military, and military technology, but it also possesses a robust global financial center. Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the only strategic partners that come close to UK's importance level for USA's leadership.

Argentina, on the other hand, ranks about 150th in importance to US leaders, tied for the last 40 places with the dregs of Africa.
67 MrFlagpole (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 12:24 pm Report abuse
try it.
68 Hepatia (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 01:23 pm Report abuse You seem to have forgotten about, or maybe you were never aware of, the US policy dubbed “The Pivot to Asia”. The US has always been involved in Asia so what this policy really means is a pivot away from Europe - including, of course, the UK.

The “Special Relationship” is really a UK thing. It does not exist in the US. Time has a good article on this subject and “needy Britain”.
69 mastershakejb (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 02:33 pm Report abuse
LOL, dude, I'm from the USA, and I'm well connected and well informed. You can't tell me more about US policy than I already know. Yes UK needs USA more than USA needs UK, but UK is still easily in the top three most strategic partners of the USA, if not the top 2, if not the top 1 still barely.
The UK is an important global financial center, energy power (BP and Royal Dutch Shell), and it punches far above its weight in military technology, training, and might. In fact, it could easily be argued that UK is still the second or third most powerful military in the world, after USA's. China's got a lot of troops, but its troops are extremely poorly equipped, and their technology is a joke still. In 2012 military might goes something like: 1) USA, 2)Russia, 3) UK. Realistically, China's not even in the top 3, it has no real combat experience, very little training, and atrocious equipment. TBH, 4th spot may go to France, 5th to Japan, 6th to Israel, and finally 7th to China. That's how poorly equipped and trained China's military is.
70 reality check (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 02:44 pm Report abuse
Your right no such thing as special relationship, it's right up there with the Malvinas myth, it never existed. It's all a figment of peoples imagination,

Frankly I do not care, because one thing is for certain, the Falkland Islanders, supported by the UK, control their own destiny. Not you, not your country, you have no say whatsoever in the matter.

As for an American newspaper article on needy Britian. That's rich coming from a newspaper that has the equivalent of 2/3 of the UK population on food stamps. 47.1 million in fact. now that's what I consider needy. Perhaps they should publish an article on that.
71 mastershakejb (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 02:58 pm Report abuse
The food stampers = the brown “people”, the illegal immigrants and former slaves. We should thrown the illegals out, and shipped the slaves back after we emancipated them.
Not racist, just being real. African Americans comprise only 13 percent of the US population, yet they account for 50 percent of homicides in USA. Those are official FBI statistics released in 2012, if you don't believe me, google it yourself. They also comprise about 45 percent of prison inmate population.....and I don't have official figures, but I imagine they account for more than 50 percent of food stamp recipients.
72 briton (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 08:05 pm Report abuse
68 Hepatia

The US has always been involved in Asia
Im going to tell you a big secret Hepatia
Now don’t tell anyone,
Are you ready,
BRITIAN also has an involvement in Asia,

And guess what,
We have had an interest in Asia for over 300 years,
300 years,

And you point just died of laughter.
73 Musky (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 08:38 pm Report abuse
@62 TT
I would say there is no weapon. Britain would respond by wiping out all defence structures in argentina... No, i cannot believe it. MI6 would be on to this activity and they wouldn't tell a newspaper.
74 row82 (#) Feb 26th, 2013 - 11:39 pm Report abuse
Please support this page - Falklands Forever British - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls -

Please support our other page - Falkland Islands Desire The Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs -
75 Hepatia (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 12:10 am Report abuse I think that most people are aware of the history of British industry in Asia - the rape of India, two Opium Wars in China and so on. The 300 years of this interest are one of the reasons that when you talk to an official of the government of the PRC you will find that there is a certain level of hatred towards the UK. Now that the PRC holds a significant level of of the UK's debt I suspect that the UK's future is not as rosy as it otherwise might have been.

But the UK's history in Asia is not the point in this context. The continued ability of the UK to project power into the South Atlantic is. And in order to to project that power the UK needs the support of a powerful American country (not necessarily the US). This is why the UK is behaving like a puppy dog, stick in mouth, tail wagging and pleading eyes, at the feet of its master who is ignoring it.
76 briton (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 12:36 am Report abuse
In this context. The continued ability of the UK to project power into the South Atlantic is.
[ and rightly so against an aggressor ]

And in order to to project that power the UK needs the support of a powerful American country (not necessarily the US).
[Interesting, taking out the US, what other powerful American country are to referring to ]

This is why the UK is behaving like a puppy dog

[who is it then that purrs to the UN ,]
[cries to the Africans and the wider world ]

at the feet of its master
[ you mean CFK toHugo the bear.]
Bed time we thinks .

77 Hepatia (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 02:53 am Report abuse In the absence of tactical nuclear weapons I cannot understand the tactical utility of short range ballistic missiles.

A credible report of cruise missiles would be another thing altogether. Stocks of these alone would almost certainly close off the South Atlantic to UK power projection.
78 Pete Bog (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 08:50 am Report abuse
“This is why the UK is behaving like a puppy dog, stick in mouth, tail wagging and pleading eyes, at the feet of its master who is ignoring it.”

But you're still sacred sh1tlessof us, otherwise you would invade the Falkland Islands today.
79 Musky (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 10:30 am Report abuse
@75 Hepatio
Dear me, the history of the UK rhetoric again and again. So Argentina and its spanish predecessor sat around playing harps, weaving tapestries and picking wild fruits. With the spanish empire being the 5th largest in history, it acquired it through genocidal activities against indigenous indians, this continued even after the formation of the argentine entity. It dam well near wiped out paraguayian men in the triple alliance war, it sat back and let others do the fighting against the idiologically monstrous nazis in WW2 and then let the buggers settle in its country in droves whilst sneakily joining the allies at the very end of the war. Argentina has no moral highground.
80 Hepatia (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 02:39 pm Report abuse It does not matter whether I'm scared or not. I am a little old woman and, so, am not in a position to invade any country or territory. I think you need to maintain a sense of proportion.
81 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 03:19 pm Report abuse
Old enough to have been a refugee, Frau Hepatia??
82 Hepatia (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 03:34 pm Report abuse We are all old enough to be a refugee which, had you a more than a superficial knowledge of the world, you would know without me having to tell you.
83 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 03:55 pm Report abuse
Refugee, as in a 'Nazi refugee who fled to Argentina' and as a 'little old lady', still has a venomous hatred of the British.

84 Hepatia (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 04:09 pm Report abuse Yes, I understood your allusion. (How could I not understand - it was so crude and obvious.) But it is not necessary for me to be a German refugee, or even to be German, for me to have a “venomous hatred of the British.” Hatred of the British is spread widely around the world. For instance, had you been in Oman in the early 1970s you would have seen first hand this hatred for yourself.

In any case I do not have a venomous hatred of the British. When they are within the British Islands they are quite pleasant people.
85 Conor J (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 07:15 pm Report abuse
You didn't read comment number @79 by Musky, did you?
86 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 07:20 pm Report abuse
“In any case I do not have a venomous hatred of the British. When they are within the British Islands they are quite pleasant people.”

I could say exactly the same thing about Argentina.

A bit snide, don't you think, for you to say Brits are ok if they don't leave home?
The same as saying, “the Brits should not be in South America or the South Atlantic, they don't 'belong' there.” - the same racist chant that the other Argentinians love to repeat.
The Brits, French, German, Dutch, Portugese, and Spanish were all here before the South American continent had countries. None of them have any more inherent 'rights' to be 'in the South Atlantic' than the others.
Your distinction between them is subjective, a prejudice not based on logic, but ethnicity.
Where do you think you come from, but Europe?

For you to say, “but I was born here”, has no bearing. There were many Falklanders born in South America and building a peaceful viable community and livelihood before the Latin South American territories and colonies had finished fighting amongst themselves to form states.

Further, listing the 'crimes' of the British Empire overseas right up until the 70's, does not make it morally acceptable to have invaded and annexed an unarmed civilian community in the 80's, or harassing them economically today and spouting lies and propaganda to intimidate them and displace them from their homes.
This community has been The Falklands for 180 years, living peacefully, while you slaughtered Amerindians for THEIR homes.

You are a racist and you do not have any moral high ground, despite your pontificating.

“I'm a little old lady” - pathetic.
87 ChrisR (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 08:39 pm Report abuse
75 Hepatia

I must admit it, I am impressed.

Here I was thinking you are just another paid argie troll with no real intellect and full of insults when things do not go your way. But I find you have had personal contact with the Chin in the form of the PRC no less: “when you talk to an official of the government of the PRC you will find that there is a certain level of hatred towards the UK.”

Very impressive apart from one fatal flaw: if you understood the Chin at all you would know they are the Middle Kingdom and as such are way above ANY other race, colour or creed on the planet and cannot stand ANYONE! When they were ‘telling you’ this they were laughing behind their back as to how any country could allow you out on your own.

And you exhibit a total misunderstanding of debt. If you owe your bank 10,000 arse wipes aka AR Pesos they will have you bend double until you pay them. If you owe them USD 10 M (though YOU would never have that level of credit) it will be ‘come into the bank and have a sherry to discuss your loan’.

Still struggling then eh? never mind you may die before you understand and that will be the end of that.
88 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 27th, 2013 - 10:28 pm Report abuse

Funny, old Frau Hepatia usually responds so promptly.

She must having another blue rinse done.
89 Hepatia (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 01:40 am Report abuse It is interesting to see that the UK's neocons and the US's neocons are having the same problems with the Administration - with the UK's neocons introducing the additional innovation that the Administration is ant-British.

The truth is that both President Obama and Secretary Kerry are are US officials an are pro-American. If the UK's neocons wish to see that position as ant-British then that would be their problem.
90 DanyBerger (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 03:24 am Report abuse
Just old news...

1.200 miles argies missiles range that will be really hurting doesn't it?

91 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 04:57 am Report abuse
“ It is interesting to see that the UK's neocons and the US's neocons are having the same problems with the Administration - with the UK's neocons introducing the additional innovation that the Administration is ant-British.

The truth is that both President Obama and Secretary Kerry are are US officials an are pro-American. If the UK's neocons wish to see that position as ant-British then that would be their problem.”

Just as many “neocons” saying the US is NOT anti- British.

- a lot of outsiders discussing and trying to analyse the situation.

There are many RG Trolls saying that the US Administration are anti-British, too - because it suits their purposes to say so.

I would agree with you that the US is Pro-America (USA), but not exclusively.
92 HansNiesund (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse

I think we've all heard of the Opium Wars.

But isn't it funny how British behaviour in the 19th century is to be judged by the standards of the 21st, while Argentine behaviour in the 21st is to be judged by the standards of the 19th?
93 Hepatia (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 01:42 pm Report abuse If you have any concerns with any disparity in the standards with which the UK is judged you will need to take them up with the government of the PRC.
94 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 02:13 pm Report abuse
This thread is concerned with the South Atlantic, and the actions of Argentina, the Falklands, and the UK.
The conversation has devolved to you (Argentina) vilifying the UK and dehumanising the civilian inhabitants of the Fslklands to justify stealing their lands and their homes.
It is your moral standards that need to be judged.
95 Hepatia (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 03:31 pm Report abuse Uh oh, I don't think we are in Kansas any more, are we.
96 HansNiesund (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 04:45 pm Report abuse

Ok. Do you think when I speak to the PRC I should mention Tibet, maybe? Or would that be considered inappropriate?

And isn't it funny how these threads always turn to the British Empire? As if it was only the Brits who ever had one. And as if Argentina itself wasn't the product of another Empire which gave the world the remarkable discovery that it's possible to steal so much you impoverish yourself. And as if Argentina, while loudly decrying colonialism, wasn't claiming a colonial inheritance to justify its aim of absorbing another territory against the wishes of its inhabitants.

Sure keeps you on your logical toes this Malvinista stuff, doesn't it?
97 Hepatia (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 11:19 pm Report abuse The thing is that America, is it is politically constructed, is the result of a number of revolutions and wars of independence - a couple against the British Empire. I suppose the next question is when is the UK going to have its own resolution?
98 HansNiesund (#) Feb 28th, 2013 - 11:39 pm Report abuse
Some would say we got it out of the way in 1642, others in 1688. You could even argue 1745 or 1916.

But the more interesting question is why a rebelling implanted population has apparently got some moral ascendancy over the original implanters. One could argue in certain cases that revolution was just the local thieves declining to provide their cut any more to the distant thieves.
99 Hepatia (#) Mar 01st, 2013 - 12:21 am Report abuse Not at all. The American revolutions where an explicit renouncement of Europe and its values.

To a certain extent Europe itself has renounced European values - this was forced upon it by the US after WWII. The UK is the final hold out.
100 Troy Tempest (#) Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:51 am Report abuse

“To a certain extent Europe itself has renounced European values - this was forced upon it by the US after WWII. The UK is the final hold out.”

What “European values” are those?

How are the values of your South American, New World Utopia, better?

Interested to hear what you have to say.
101 HansNiesund (#) Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:54 am Report abuse
Is it thanks to your renunciation of European values that you had so many years of dictatorship and demagoguery there in the Southern part? And given its renunciation of European values, why does Argentina continue clinging to a political culture based on a 1930s Europeam model, thankfully now extinct everywhere else?
102 Simon68 (#) Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:11 pm Report abuse
I wish you people wouldn't keep saying that Hepatia is Argentine, she/he/it isn't, it is from the Nederlands and is a communist troll!!!!!!!
103 Troy Tempest (#) Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:53 pm Report abuse

Thanks Simon.

Sorry to make that assumption. I suppose his anti-British Fslklands position made me think he was a raving Malvinista.

While he said he 'speaks for zero Argentinians' he was not clear about where he was from.
104 HansNiesund (#) Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:12 pm Report abuse

My bad too, sorry.
105 axel arg (#) Mar 02nd, 2013 - 07:29 pm Report abuse
If you dedicated your time to investigate, instead of repeating mediocre analysis, you would realize that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
Many of you reject the rights of our country over the islands in 1833, but defend strongly the soposed rights of the u. k., and justify it's usurpation.
However, if you decided to investigate seriouslly, you would know that although the u. k. had a previous claim over the islands, according to the international right, the discovery just gives a precarious title, which must be improved with a permanent occupation.
I have always thought that perhaps the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, in virtue of it's occupation in port egmont (1766-1774), or in virtue of the secret article which had been included in the nootka sound convention, signed in 1790 between spain and the u. k. That secret article allowed the u. k. to stablish setlements, if another power stablished setlements over the islanss too.
In the case of our country, it's rights were based on the sucesion of states, according to the international right, that principle is applicable to all the emancipated colonial territories.
While it is true that spain had never ceaded any sovereign right to the u. p., when it decided to declare it's independence, it is also true that our country didn't need spain's licence in order to declare it's independence, and it had right to occupy those territories which had been submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty.
On the other hand, i have always thought also that if the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, it should have negotiated a peaceful solution with our country, or share the sovereignty, instead of depriving arg. of exercising it's rights over the islands.
Accept it or not, what the u. k. did in 1833 was a coward act, because it took advantage of the vulnerable situation of our coutry, and forced our authorities to leave the archipelago. There is a lot more to say about all these aspects.
106 Terence Hill (#) Mar 02nd, 2013 - 08:30 pm Report abuse
105 axel arg

You cannot have a succession of a state when Spain did not have exclusive title, and where third parties where specifically excluded, under treaties with the other sovereignty holder. There is nowhere under international law where this is supported.
What you think was moral or not is not international law. What the UK did was legal under the laws of nations at that time. Cowardly? Hardly Argentina attempted to usurp the islands after twice being warned that the UK considered them theirs. So your country ignored and then pushed, and got shoved back in return, it's pretty elementary. The Brits said they were not going to give to Argentina what they had refused Spain.
107 ChrisR (#) Mar 03rd, 2013 - 04:39 pm Report abuse
95 Hepatia
”I don't think we are in Kansas any more, are we.(?)”

From what Simon68 says (and I know WHO I believe) 'we' are a commie in Holland, no less.

Another argie in exile just like the cuckcold Fido Dildo but he comes from Holland and WISHES he was an argie and he lives in Canada with a LatAm girlfriend but she won't be around much longer by the look of it.

What is it with you idiots?
108 axel arg (#) Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:40 pm Report abuse
If our rights over the islands were fragil in 1833, the u. k.'s weren't stronger defenetly.
I don't deny that perhaps the u. k. had right to occupy the islands in 1833, in virtue of the facts that i mentioned in my comment 105, however, don't forget about how the discovery is considered according to the international right. I respect your opinion but i don't agree on what you think.
What the u. k. did was to take advantage of the vulnerable situation of our country in that time, that's why it could deprive arg. easily of exercising it's rights over the archipelago.
You defend strongly the u. k's posture, and at the sme time ignore how the discovery is considered according to the int. right.
Spain exercised it's sovereignty over the islands for 45 years, and we didn't need it's licence in order to declare our independence.
109 Hepatia (#) Mar 06th, 2013 - 01:23 am Report abuse Which 1930s European model are you refering to?

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!