MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
First Argentine marine commander to land in Falklands in April 1982 arrested
Three Argentine retired naval officers including Rear Admiral Carlos Busser who in April 1982 commanded the first group of Argentines marines to land in the Falkland Islands, have been arrested for alleged human rights abuses during the last military government. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesbusser is a national hero
Nov 26th, 2009 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nothing will mess the saga of malvinas
neither you, the British
or local traitors
I am not surprised a man being charged with crimes over Human Rights is an Argentine hero. That just eptiomises the country that is Argentina. They worhsip an evil man who probably killed many without remorse.
Nov 26th, 2009 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And by the way...who are the local traitors? You mean the people of the Falkland Islands? If so, how are we traitors? We live our lives as British people, like we are, so how is that being a traitor? I think its more absurb logic, like an evil man being a national hero. But that is expected from Argentines. The more I read aticles and comments by and concerning Argentina and it's people the more secure I feel about the Falkland Islands. Argentina and its people are living in a fantasy, where facts and logic aren't welcome.
You must present evidence to charge someone with something so serious
Nov 26th, 2009 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the word “probably” that you used, indicates that your accusation is unfounded
and Busser is a National Hero
like it or not like
We have a new witch hunt in Argentina, this time against our national heroes, Admiral Busser is one of them, a national hero who had the responsibility to recover what is ours, what belongs to us, our Falkland Island. From Argentina, the Argentine who truly believe in the innocence of our hero, we want to tell the world that this is unheard of, it's irresponsible and hate does not lead to any way. Enough of rancorous persecution. Admiral Busser Liberation Now
Nov 26th, 2009 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THE ADMIRAL BUSSER IS A NATIONAL HERO, CARRIED OUT JOINTLY YOUR MARINES AND RI 25 THE RECOVERY OF FALKLAND ISLANDS THAT OUR APRIL 2. EXELENTE MILITARY PERSON. IMMEDIATE LIBERANCION BUSSER CONTRALMIANTE
Nov 26th, 2009 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank goodness Michael can add some sense to the above comments. The experience of people of all nationals trapped in Stanley from the 2nd April until the 14th June was that the Argentine Officers had a very different experience to the young conscripts involved in the Falklands War. They might not be so forgiving to Busser or the other national heroes you are calling “heroes”. You might like to try being face to face with some of these so called Heroes in their hayday. Surely your Grandparents can educate you at least a little about what happened in the 1970's in Argentina to good Argentine citizens who disagreed with the so called 'Heroes'. Shame on you for not giving this a bit more thought.
Nov 26th, 2009 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your newspaper published the comments, under no circumstances are falklands are Islas Malvinas.
Nov 27th, 2009 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks
Thanks Alejandro, you are correct, under no circumstances are the Falklands Islas Malvinas.
Nov 27th, 2009 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The comments published in the headline are probably very correct. I'm concerned that comments are made supporting Busser as a national hero when Argentines who think the likes of Busser are heroes would do better to check out the facts and why these accusations are made. ie This isn't just about Busser's involvement in the Falklands War (which of course I deplore) but also his involvement as part of the Argentine Government and the horrors that Government in power had on normal Argentine citizens. The big picture isn't that of a hero ~ surely!
Wuzzie, im one of those who do not consider Busser a hero. For me heroes are those who gave their lives to defend our nation and our lives. Those who were implicated in torture and murder of 30.000 citizens do not deserve to be called that way. They have their hands filthy with argentine blood.
Nov 27th, 2009 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0In any case, they were under strict orders not to cause victims among the small detachment of Royal Marines protecting the Islands or the local population, so no victims were made in the islands. So rejoice as maggie told you.
May be our experience can help you judge your militarys implicated in torture, murders, etc. I did not see yet the weapons of mass destructions of Saddam Hussein, while he was long time ago hung and his nation invaded and ocupated.
The mote in your neighbor's eye.
saying someone is a criminal
Nov 27th, 2009 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0and no evidence is not serious
and Miguel did that
no facts to support what is said
generalizations without evidence
Wuzzie, these are the comments with sense?
I am amazed how easy it used generalizations without evidence
Nov 27th, 2009 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0maybe they have some proof of their meaningless generalizations
those who accuse Busser will have to provide the necessary evidence
I see you have not yet provided any proof of what you say
And Busser is a great national hero, admired and loved by all his soldiers (officers, NCOs and conscripts)
Take the trouble to find something on the internet and see it in all the epic events of April 2 with all his soldiers
Mr. Director
Nov 27th, 2009 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clarín:
In the headline of today's date, written by journalist Gabriel Bermúdez, I read with amazement that Argentines “invade” the Malvinas Islands. I think in truth force, if the publication in the Journal of the management wants to be consistent should be entitled, for example, the following “arrest the sailor who commanded the invasion of the Falkland Islands”.
This land Mr. Director, under protest, and some routed through life belongs to us, are occupied by squatters. So bad we Argentines have “invaded” a part of our own homeland.
Perhaps if that was the intention professional can benefit from what happened today: when an employee of yours make a note of the historical events of the years 1806 and 1807, give instructions to make it very clear that the Patriots English had to bear the unjustified attack of usurpers who occupied Buenos Aires, pirates such as Liniers, to give a name.
And as for example published a chronicle of the Vuelta de Obligado, or Quebracho, San Lorenzo, Cooper writes that Anglo-French civilizing forces were also fiercely attacked in their peaceful waters becoming his property back and bloodthirsty savages.
Little help in such a prestigious newspaper headlines, Sir, to give clarity to the minds of our youth, by contrast, leaves Argentina as the aggressor in its own territory, or is perhaps in order to instill in the reader to the concept that the sovereignty of the islands corresponds to Britain?
This only contributes much to the confusion and mixed episodes and attitudes of our recent history, it is not wise to mix in a single note or owner the proven facts of a particular group during the repression under the dictatorship of the events of the Falklands Gesta. And I am frank: I do not think that is an unexpected attitude. I ask you to be honest, be frank, please: Among the people there are British agents, or simply are traitors for free?
Carlos Alberto BONETTI
Malvinas War veteran
About Admiral Busser:
Nov 27th, 2009 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is the man, who was forged in blood, pain in peace, hope, is capable, a man of deep study, deep silences and steps for meditation, a man of God, strategist, called the life, sacrifice, courage for every man, his spiritual needs, because in trying times is the spirit that prevails, the boss, is probably one of the men to hold office in this state destabilized, disconnected prostituted we have today, because it is a living example of renunciation, he never wanted power for power's sake, because he knows that this is finite and belongs to the sovereign, is a great person, always very low profile, but of a firm step, and concrete actions.
Marcelo G.
Michael said, “Argentina and its people are living in a fantasy, where facts and logic aren't welcome.”
Nov 27th, 2009 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0jajajaja. You are the ones who live in afantasy. Your “country” is a fantasy, your “self-determination” is a fantasy, all this exist only in your colonial mind!!!
Heros are those anonymous who does not apperar in the media. In santa Cruz everyone remember the guy of Rio Gallegos whose parents sold bicycles. This one was the only one born and raised in Santa Cruz who fought in Malvinas and never came back. He rest in peace in HIS land, the land he fought for.
La tatcher se merece como minimo ser colgada en plaza de mayo.
Nov 27th, 2009 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0(Re. #2- Michael)
Nov 27th, 2009 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Sir,
While some of the comments left by my countrymen are a bit off the mark, you should realize that they have been carried away by what I take to be very bad, sad news.
It's too bad that UK nationals (and islanders, for that matter) have taken leftists' propaganda at face value.
Probably Northern Ireland veterans could tell a thing or two about counter insurgence within densely populated areas (and against Uni student types, for that matter). I suggest to wait until next November, wait for veterans to show up, walk up to anyone wearing a GS Medal -with the NI Clasp- pinned to the left side of his chest, and ask him about it. I have done so, while visiting the UK, and the stories they tell are similar. But the Fenian propaganda machine did not foll the British as the Argie Left seems to have done.
What has been donde to Read Adm. Büsser is just your plain, old, garden variety of political revenge.
This is the dernier cri of a Gramscian approach to politics by the current government, which has used retired servicemen as bargaining chips with former insurgents, in order to rally and assemble factious groups, which would, in due turn, be used if (and when) urban middle classes draw a line in the sand and take a stand against one of the most (if not “the” most) lying, corrupt governments this blessed land has suffered.
Perhaps some day Americans and British will understand that, during the “dirty war”, these opersons were protecting not only civil society but private property against the insurgents, and that some of teh said property belonged to foreign interests. IBM, Shell, come to my mind (and could probably come up with a list that would be ten pages long, at least, single spaced).
This is being said leaving aside the 1982 conflict, which is just “background noise” for the true focal point of the discussion. This is neither the time nor the place for it, all I can say is that, to the best of my knowledge, no islander has ever filed a complaint against Rear Adm. Büsser for his brief time in the islands.
Throwing and eighty year old marine in jail, for allleged crimes that allegedly took place three decades ago is no heroic feat for the furthering of human rights, but a rotten attempt to steer the public eye away from corrupt practices.
And it also is a violation of human rights in itself, since it choses to ignore amnesty laws that were properly enacted by a democratic Congress, and repealed with “ex tunc” effect (a legal quagmire).
“Panem et circences”. As true in the Roman times as it is today.
Yours obediently,
An Argentine Navy Officer.
Obediently? bue...
Nov 27th, 2009 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argie, with all due respect, first of all, there is no excuse, no justification to close the congress, instauring a military junta, no matter the cold war, the commies, etc.
Secondly, the fact that existed a guerrilla activity does not justify a take over of the government, becouse the guerrilla made terrorism from the shadows but the militarys made terrorism from the government. Who gave videla the right to decide for us?, who decided whos who?, may be you were a terrorist, may be me, who decided that? who decided that we wanted to be represented by Videla?, by galtieri?.
Argie, i have a great respect for institutions like the armed forces, nor such respect comes for criminals, murderers and tortured who accidentally or not were in charge of those intitution on those times.
About the conflict, if you are an Argentine Navy Officer, you should know better than me, that beside the fact the soldiers gave their most for their land, the war was conducted in the bigger of improvisations and wrong asumptions.
About corruption, i agree this government has corruption as the military had, did you saw their pockets empty?.
Anyway we all want great armed forces, becouse its necesary for the nation.
Explain to me what kind of justification have to do what they are doing in Iraq today
Nov 27th, 2009 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0You do not have the moral elevation to judge the Argentine domestic problems
The history of the British Empire speaks for itself
And unless a criminal charge a person based on unsubstantiated generalizations
I'm still waiting for replies from Michael, something coherent please
My colonial views? If anyone has ever visited the Falklands they would know we are not a colony. And that is a fact. I also find it very confusing when Argentines say they want to save the Falklands by making it into an Argentine colony? How is taking an independent country and making it a colony saving it?
Nov 27th, 2009 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Michael, you are very confused, let me give you a light. You are a colony, like it or not. No argentine said they want to save malvinas to making it into an argentine colony. Independent country? keep dreaming a dream.
Nov 27th, 2009 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islands are not a colony?
Nov 27th, 2009 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0perhaps you can elect their own governor?
is not appointed from the UK? Am I wrong?
Because of the WWI memorial in Port Stanley says this?:
”In COMMEMORATION of the BATTLE OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS fought on the 8th day of December 1914 in which the British Squadron Invincible, Inflexible, Carnarvon, Kent, Cornwall, Glasgow, Bristol, Canopus & Macedonia under the command of Vice Admiral SIR E C DOVETON STURDEE destroyed the German Squadron under Vice Admiral Graf Von Spee thereby saving this ( ( ( ( ( COLONY ) ) ) ) ) from capture by the enemy”.
Two irrefutable facts:
1) The islanders can not choose their highest authority (one of the prerequisites for a government to be called “democratic”) and
2) In the WWI memorial, called the islands as “colony”
( ( ( ( Two irrefutable facts ) ) ) )
and...
I still hope to provide the evidence to say that Admiral Busser is a criminal
Since his baseless generalizations are useless
Yesterday it was our national heroes Carlos Carrizo Salvadores, Horacio Losito and others who were made to look like monsters and then jailed. They tried doing the same with Aldo Rico. Now they are going after Carlos Busser. Have they no shame these Montoneros? Don't people realize that the ERP and Montoneros were a real threat to Argentine sovereignity? Don't people realize there were more than 10,000 victims of ERP/Montoneros terrorism in Argentina?
Nov 28th, 2009 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Manuel, I'm really sorry about your history, now and in the past as you have not been blessed with the best Governments, but you talk about “threat to Argentine sovereignty”, ~ Carlos Busser came blazing into the Falkland Islands terrorising the likes of me on the 2nd April ~ trying to take our sovereignty ~ bullets blasting off. How's that acceptable?
Nov 28th, 2009 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I still hope that someone with verifiable facts demonstrate that the Admiral Busser is a criminal and that the Malvinas Islands are not a colony
Nov 28th, 2009 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 01) The islanders can not choose their highest authority (one of the prerequisites for a government to be called “democratic”) and
Nov 28th, 2009 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what.
The Governor is the representative of the Queen, the position is purely symbolic. The constitution obliges him to take the word of the FIG.
2) In the WWI memorial, called the islands as “colony”
So what, WW1 was nearly a century ago, the Falklands have moved on a lot since then, Argentine was once a “colony”.
Just for the information of our Argentine contributors. When the Argentine special forces arrived at Moody Brook, they twatted the place with machine gun fire and phosphorous grenades. They expected the Royal Marines to be sleeping inside.
Its nonsense to say they had no intention to cause casualties, they invaded the place with military force.
JPL, to take by force our government, implanting a coup d'état constitute in itself a criminal and illegal act. Busser participated in it and praised represion on civilians.
Nov 28th, 2009 - 07:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=393555&idseccio_PK=1007
In the link above, Busser praise represion on civilians.
Nevertheless he said something right when he said that they were trained by the french with tecniques applied in algeria.
The military Junta did not came without the US, the UK and France support.
The governor has veto power or not?
Nov 28th, 2009 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0the facts speak for themselves. If the intention of the Argentine commandos would have been to eliminate the royal marines, no one had stayed alive. If the intention was to kill the RM would have done in the governor's house
The facts and not speculation and generalizations without any proof, demonstrating that the intention of the Argentine forces had no casualties to the enemy (as happened)
About the “riddled” with bullets from Moody Brook barracks and that the intention was Argentines commands kill all those inside, is another speculation without any proof. Also fired on the government to intimidate and achieve Rex Hunt to surrender, which made quickly
Without any British dead, none. Because that was stipulated in the recovery plan for the islands
JPL,
Nov 28th, 2009 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You do not sound any better here than you do with your propaganda on Youtube or El Malvinense.
Actually your utterances here are even less believable as both sides seem to disagree with your POV.
How's life in Canada anyway? Better than in Argentina?
Expat Kelpers
Nov 28th, 2009 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0until now no one could prove his statements and generalizations with evidence
1) the islands are a colony, not a democracy (not elect their highest authority, the governor, who has veto power)
2) The Admiral busser, a national hero, was accused without basis and no evidence
For now all I hear are unsubstantiated allegations, no conclusive proof, malicious generalizations, all because they have nothing concrete to support what they say, nothing
And I doubt you have, the next thing that follows is (as already started) the personal revilers and insults. This occurs when one has no evidence to support what he says
What a pity
Life in Canada is very good, why?
Los malvinense son colonos, las islas siguen siendo colonia de Gran Bretaña, les gusten o no. La comunidad Hispana los ignoran. Una parte importante de los habitantes de las islas Malvinas tienen domicilio en distintas partes del mundo, como en UK, isla Santa Elena, etc., etc.
Nov 28th, 2009 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas unicamente se mantiene por el capital que pone Gran Bretaña!!
No es autosostenible!!
Los malvinenses no van a ningun lado sin la parte continental.
Seria como the channel island, en UK. Si ellos no comerciaran con el resto tendrian muy poca actividad.
Los malvinense no tienen futuro si no comercian con nosotros!
several of you ignore the rules of this site - write in english please. use spanish on the spanish mercopress site,is that to difficult for you.
Nov 29th, 2009 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0JPL - sorry mate it is a FACT - the Moody Brook Barracks were hit hard with phophorous grenades etc into the rooms on the night we were invaded. That is a FACT - the evidence was there afterwards! Purely by luck as we had warning of your invasion was it that the British marines were already out and were not murdered in their beds - which was the intention.
As Justin has pointed out it is also a FACT that the Governor here is appointed by the Queen - as HER representative here and the TITULAR Head of the Governmnet - same as she is titular head of Government in UK. He has NO VOTING POWER - unless there is a 50/50 spilt in our elected members voting, then and only then does he have a casting vote so there is always a decision.
Certain areas he can indeed veto and overrule - ib exceptional circumstances only and to ensure “good democratic governance” in the Islands - example if our elected members started to line their pockets by corruption etc. Ans the people here would want him to in those circumstances, also at the end of the day UK is responsible to the Un to see good governance within the Islands.
The problem from your side is you have a clear written constitution - but we and other British places have a more traditional unwritten one - certain things may be laid down - but in reality the do not happen only in very rare exceptional circumstances. For example the Queen could sack the British Government tomorrow if she wanted to-she has the power !
But in reality and practise she does not do it!
Pata - please write in English or go to a spanish speaking site - but I can assure you it costs the british taxpayer very very little extra to maintain forces here -they have to be paid,fed and trained wherever they are- there is the logistic cost of them coming and going and that is about it, set against the very good training and exercising oportunities that they have here. Above all Britain has,does and I suspect always will - value basic principles of democracy world wide - after all that is why she went to war in 1939 and many times since(Ok Iraq I agree perhaps not).
Neptune,
Nov 29th, 2009 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've news for you, you've been lied to.
The army did not treat the Falkland Islanders well.
For a start they began by expelling Islanders who had been vocal in opposing Argentine sovereignty. When that proved embarassing, they instead resorted to internal exile at Fox Bay. Those people were abused, threatened and underwent mock executions.
Look up the activities of your Major Patricio Dowling.
At Goose Green, they imprisoned all of the civilians in the social club. They did not provide food, water, sanitation or protection against enemy action (which by the way is a requirement of the Geneva convention).
In Stanley they did nothing to protect the civilian population, they hid military equipment next to civilian buildings. They also marked buildings as field hospitals, with red crosses, then used them for storing military equipment.
Then there was the booby traps, like wiring children's bikes to grenades. Not to mention the most revolting practise of shitting everywhere in people's homes.
The Argentine hospital ships were used to transport military equipment, they also illuminated British forces with searchlights during the Battle of Twin Sisters and fired upon. That is a blatant breach of the Geneva convention.
And apparently the British were to blame for the military junta seizing power, that is BS. The British had nothing to do with it. The islands were seized in a desperate attempt by the Junta to stay in power nothing more.
The ludicrous conspiracy crap that the British wanted to establish a base in the Falklands is utter nonsense. The British Government has no desire to maintain a base in the Falklands, they had done everything to avoid doing so for a long time.
The rest of your racist diatribe is unworthy of a response. What is telling is that always Argentines find an excuse why everyone else is to blame but Argentina.
Richard,
The Falklands manage very well without Argentina, they don't need you. Please carry on deluding yourself.
They would like better relations with their neighbours but they've done without you for nearly 200 years.
The Falklands are not a colony, have not been a colony for many years. The islands and the UK have moved on to modernise their relationship, with self-government devolved to the islands. Argentina remains mired in 19th Century recriminations.
José
The Falklands are a country in all but name, they decide for themselves.
Pata.
The Falklands are self-sustaining, they require no monetary input from the UK.
JPL or is it Juan Pablo Leronde? Do you still believe the FAA shot down 60 Sea Harriers? More than actually existed at the time.
The Falklands are self-governing, see falklands.gov.fk, funnily enough they exercised their democratic rights less than a month ago. The position of Governor is as a figure head he doesn't have a veto. His relationship to the FIG is more or less the same as the Queen to the British Government.
And the fact that there were few British casualties in 1982 was more down to luck than benign Argentine intentions. People who don't intend to cause casualties don't open up on barracks with machine guns and toss in phosphorous grenades. You're talking nonsense if you claim there was no intention to cause harm.
JPL,
Nov 29th, 2009 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0All the countries of South America have evolved from the original implanted colonists of Spain, Portugal, UK, France, Holland. On the whole taking territory by conquest and eventually becoming countries in their own right.
There cannot have been a magic date when this process ceased to take place which favours one country or another. Nobody has ever drawn such a judical line in the sand to the best of my knowledge. The date of 1810 chosen by Argentina is purely arbritrary and has no actual legitimate basis in international law. If it actually had Argentina would have played that card with certainty of success many years ago.
All British colonies now have the status of Overseas Territories which is a transitional stage towards any development towards independence in the form of association with another state, integration with another state (as chosen by former French colonies and accepted by the UN) or any other status that satisfies the inhabitants.
The Governor is the representative of the UK Government and the liason between the FIG and HMG. Yes he has certain reserve powers but I cannot recall when these were last used. can you? Whilst the Falklands is not yet fully independent, though internally self governing, and the UK takes responsibility guaranteeing its status, this is a very small price to pay for freedom against Argentine designs.
Busser? I know very little about his status with the Junta so I do not know if he is hero or villain. That judgement is for you to make really.
We all have our own heroes.
From what I do know about it he was very lucky there were no FI/Marine/FIDF casualties from 2 April 1982. Particularly from the phosphor grenade and machine gun attack on Moody Barracks as the attackers did not know that the UK Marines had deployed elsewhere. A number of houses in Stanley also suffered damage, again luckily nobody was wounded or killed in the indiscriminate firing towards the town and Government house.
We are not looking for retribution from Busser. That is up to your Government. The FIG and HMG are not making any ongoing complaints that I know about concerning your invasion and subsequent events of 1982. In fact as far as I know Madrid 1999 precludes this.
Canada. Great country, I have some close connections.
“JPL or is it Juan Pablo Leronde? Do you still believe the FAA shot down 60 Sea Harriers? More than actually existed at the time.”
Nov 29th, 2009 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I could never have said this because I did not study the issue of the Sea Harrier shot down, you lie to confuse and pollute the dialogue. Show evidence where do I say 60 Sea Harriers shot down? put the link
I'm sorry but everything you say is only speculation, the governor's house also had numerous bullet holes and also threw grenades, none of them was made to kill anyone, they were only meant to scare Rex Hunt and ensure the surrender quickly (which it did). What no doubt that if the plan was to kill all the shots had caused even some British dead or wounded? Or perhaps you think that the Argentine commandos had bad aim?
The Official Plan stipulates that recovery does not cause any casualties or military or civilian, to the extent possible. How irrefutable fact is that no Royal Marine or civilian was wounded or dead. Simple facts.
If the Islanders were so mistreated, why those who went to the farms outside the city gave them the keys of the houses to the Military Police of Argentina for the care?
The inhabitants of Goose Green were concentrated in the town hall for their safety and control (the people were a few houses and was a military operation). Besides Mr. Hardcasttle, which belonged to the FIC vital information they passed to British troops and was never arrested him)
Dowling was just a solitary anecdote, was removed from office immediately and sent to the continent
The fact is that under the circumstances of the military operation the islanders were treated impeccably, there was no theft, murder, or rape, and if one examines the military history that is quite unusual. Especially if you put in examining British military history
I'm still waiting for evidence on the Admiral Busser
And yes, I'm “Jean-Paul Leronde”, “Juan Pablo Leronde” o “JPL”
Nov 29th, 2009 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0JPL,Justin well desribed the way Arg Forces treated many islanders in 1982. None were really physically really badly maltreated OK-but there were numerous breaches of the Geneva convention on treatment of civilians. GooseGreen - yes they were intially locked up as the forces there convinced themselves some civilians were communicationg with the british - which was not true. The bad thing was that then the Arg commanders did not seem to know how to let them go again - and keeping 100plus people elderly and little babies in ahall with one toilet and no food for a couple of days WAS a severe breach on international laws on treatment of civilians. As for the nasty little nazi -irishargentine Dowling- he stayed in the Islands until near the end - but like all little cowards he fled back to the mainland before the surrender.
Nov 29th, 2009 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0And so all the Argentine bullets were fired to miss deliberatley on April 2nd!!! What fantasy drink are you on?
As for Busser himself, I dont know, he did the job he was told to do as a military invasion commander, and then I think he left here.But he was no brilliant famous man - it was not hard to force about 40-50 marines to surrender when they have rifles and light machine guns and you have several thousand troops,arnour,warships,helicopters,fighterbombers etc!
OK maybe no rape or murder of civilians - but no theft?-bullshit man, many houses were ransacked, much stolen property was taken off Argentine troops by the British as they went aboard the ships taking them back to Argentina, and some was taken back to Argentina before itself! It happens in war you know - that is reality! Dont try and make out it was all nice and smiles - war is a dirty game.
Patricio Dowling was an isolated case
Nov 29th, 2009 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0the islanders were treated with respect and correctly as far as possible in a military operation
You name Downling, but did not mention at Captain Barry Melbourne Hussey and Commodore Charles Bloomer Reeve, for example
They were praised for their kindness, by the islanders themselves
Emphasize that within the context of a military operation of some 10,000 soldiers, the 1,000 islanders were properly treated, the penalties for disturbing the Islanders for the soldiers were very severe. I have also heard some islanders in documentaries speaking well of the Argentine soldiers that were never frightened or threatened by them
JPL, Yes of couse those you mention were decent guys,BloomerReeve in particular was a good “buffer” between the more hardline army officers and the civilians. What I mean is that by and large- considering it was a war, we were not to badly treated - but it was not all friends and smiles as you tried to make out earlier - there were some cases of maltreatment - and 2nd April was real war and attempts were made to eliminate the british forces. Again that is the reality of war.
Nov 29th, 2009 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander,
Nov 29th, 2009 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Decent guys' maybe but they were at the beck and call of the Junta and did their utmost to pursuade islanders/councillors to accept the outcome of the invasion and set up a Quisling government of co-operation. They did not succeed so lets not sully the valuable memory of those who refused to co-operate with these 'decent' chaps who were smiling and selling a pig in a poke. They set the way for us to follow.
They were not on your side in spite of the facade of niceness. Don't forget that aspect.
Once you change sides there is no way back, a lesson learned by their example.
The invasion was totally illegal by international law, again a lesson to remember.
Argentina wishes to negotiate by the way of a preconceived outcome and is not interested in engaging in any legitimate and meaningful process of solving the problem caused by their claim that opposes their preconceived outcome. This in spite of their mealy mouthed and much loudly publicised apparent adherence to UN invitations.
They have no intention whatsoever of complying with the UN invitation to negotiate a peaceful outcome. They have enshrined their aims in the transitional clause in their constitution and there is no way round that unless they first remove this clause which blocks all genuine attempts at rapprochement; even simple normalisation of relations is precluded.
You need to recognise this situation and the Falklands needs to build its future without Argentina's intervention. Don't hang about waiting for fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Whilst it continues to speak out of both sides of it mouth just forget co-operation between FIG and Argentina. It is a hopeless ambition.
Here and elsewhere individuals hold out various ideas to improve relations but just like Bloomer-Holt and others in 1982 their ultimate aim is to integrate the Islands with Argentina just as it says in their constitution. Any other ambition is simply against their law as it stands now.
There seems to be no other way to deal with the present stalemate other than for the Falklands to act strongly on its own behalf and build its own version of the future independently. (This does not mean independence)
A link?
Nov 30th, 2009 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Certainly http://www.malvinense.com.ar/bajasbritanicas.html
Sorry it was 45 and more than a 1000 British dead.
And your claim that they riddled Government House with bullets but did not intend to hurt anyone is facile and illogical as to be laughable. The rest is just excuses.
Carlos Bloomer-Reeve and Major Hussey earned the abiding affection of the islanders for the humanity and sensitivity, 2 out of over 10,000. Dowling was not a solitary “anecodote”, just one of the more extreme examples. Interesting standard that the island's women should be glad they weren't raped.
Equally there were many islanders who treated your conscripts well, including many that fed them when they were starving, or gave shelter to your pilots that were shot down.
Justin Kuntz ,
Nov 30th, 2009 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aprenda a comprender mejor lo que le han posteado, está muy claro. Si Gran Bretaña hubiera respetado a las Naciones Unidas, a la Resolución 502, la propuesta de paz, al Concejo que es la autoridad máxima a nivel mundial, etc. no hubiera habido guerra alguna en el Atlántico Sur y los isleños no hubieran padecido los horrores de la guerra. Encima los británicos votaron en una resolución que por ser ellos parte interesada moralmente no deberían haberlo hecho, no es correcto ser juez y parte. Con esto, el mundo se dio cuenta que Gran Bretaña hizo lo que se le dio la gana, se limpiaron el culo con la ONU. La Comunidad Internacional con la Resolución 502 exigía a Gran Bretaña que cesen las hostilidades. Argentina respetó a la Comunidad internacional. Si no había mala fe departe de Gran Bretaña? Porque despacharon una fuerza de 113 buques para atacar a un país que prácticamente no les hizo ningún daño?.
Es importante destacar que fue Gran Bretaña quien mantuvo siempre una actitud prepotente e intransigente al respecto durante todo el conflicto.
Como ve, usted no lo puede negar, todo el mundo fue testigo de eso.
Justin Kuntz
Nov 30th, 2009 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“At Goose Green, they imprisoned all of the civilians in the social club. They did not provide food, water, sanitation or protection against enemy action (which by the way is a requirement of the Geneva convention).”
Eso es una fabulación suya, nunca se encarceló a ningún poblador, se los sacaron de sus casas y se los llevó para una mejor protección de los bombardeos británicos, tanto naval como aéreo. Las islas tienen una forma como una mesa de billar y era fácil para la flota británica arrasar con todo el caserío, en que lugar de las islas cree usted que los hubieran puesto a los isleños???. Los pobladores estaban más seguro que los soldados argentinos. Fueron las fuerzas militares británicas quienes trajeron la guerra al atlántico sur, hasta el 1 de mayo de 1982 fecha del primer ataque británico ni un solo súbdito de su majestad británica había padecido los horrores de la guerra.
Por otra parte, la Argentina acató el cese al fuego, no atacó desde el 3 de abril en adelante a las fuerzas británicas pudiendo haberlo hecho mientras se desplazaban hacia el teatro de operaciones. La acción de legitima defensa cesó en el momento que el Consejo de Seguridad se hizo cargo de intervenir en el conflicto.
Como ve, usted tampoco lo puede negar, fue Gran Bretañ quien ordenó bombardear las islas y les faltaron el respeto a la Comunidad Internacional.
Walter,
Nov 30th, 2009 - 04:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Resolution 502 called for Argentina to withdraw, Britain did everything possible to avoid the use of military force to resolve the situation, whilst Argentina rejected every attempt to achieve a peaceful resolution. And Walter, you're full of crap, UN resolutions did not restrict the UK's right to self-defence and it was Argentina that resorted to armed aggression.
UN resolutions call for talks, they do not require the islanders to capitulate to Argentina's petulant demands.
Nor did Argentina respect any cease fire, I'm constantly amazed at the crap you come up with to justify yourselves. Argentina just can't accept responsibility for its own actions.
Usted solo comenta sobre la guerra, porqué no piensa que esto se pudo haber evitado si su país obedecía a la Comunidad Internacional. Porqué Gran Bretaña no se quedó con su flota en su país y dialogra pacíficamente con Argentina??, porqué hicieron tantas fulerías y después se quieren hacer las víctimas??.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Usted sabe que lo que hizo Gran Bretaña en 1982 está pésimo, sabe que es el que ocasionó el conflicto en el Atlántico sur.
Si Argentina respetó a la Comunidad Internacional, porque no lo hizo también Gran Bretaña??.
Aprenda como se solucionó sin guerra el conflicto con Chile y Argentina, hablando se entienden la gente, así se soluciona un pleito, no a lo animal como lo hizo Gran Bretaña de querer llevarse el toro por las astas.
Gran Bretaña quedó muy mal parada ante el mundo por traer una guerra al Atlántico sur. Que ganó Gran Bretaña con esto?? que la Comunidad Hispana los ignore.
Argentina en todos los foros internacionales que se presenta año tras año la siguen respaldando la Comunidad Hispana, en las Naciones Unidas, etc.
Gran Bretaña les hizo tener miedo a los isleños con la guerra, no traten de involucrar a la Argentina. Fue Gran Bretaña quien trajo la guerra al Atlántico sur, el mundo fue testigo.
Yeah right, so Argentina invades and Britain is just supposed to take it and “negotiate” peacefully, with a nation that just resorted to armed aggression. There would have been no war if Argentina had not chosen to invade.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina brought war to the South Atlantic and it was Argentina that planned to resolve other disputes with Chile by force back in 1978. And as Brigadier Dozo demonstrated just this week, if Britain hadn't resisted Argentine aggression back in 1982, Chile was next.
La resolución 502 era para ambas partes, en ningún lado especificaba que las fuerzas argentinas eran las únicas que debían retirarse, ambas partes estaban obligadas a no derramar sangre y a los británicos no les importó, se limpiaron el culo con la ONU y encima votaron en una resolución que por ser ellos parte interesada moralmente no deberían haberlo hecho. No es correcto ser juez y parte. Por eso la argentina no se retiró porque diplomáticamente debilitaba sus reivindicaciones si se retiraba a partir del 3 de abril sin que los británicos no mantuvieran ellos la misma postura en forma reciproca.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Si no había mala fe departe de ellos? Porque despacharon una fuerza de 113 buques para atacar a un país que prácticamente no les hizo ningún daño?.
La resolución 502, dice claramente que ambas partes deben cesar hostilidades inmediatamente. Alistando una Task Force claramente no tenían voluntad de acatarla ni siquiera dieron tiempo a la Argentina de acatar la resolución. Sabían que la Argentina no podía retirarse. Si lo hacia se arriesgaban a que los británicos despacharan su flota, reforzaran la guarnición militar permanentemente y congelaran eternamente toda negociación sobre la disputa. La Argentina acató el cese al fuego, no atacó desde el 3 de abril en adelante a las fuerzas británicas pudiendo haberlo hecho mientras se desplazaban hacia el teatro de operaciones. La acción de legitima defensa cesó en el momento que el Consejo de Seguridad se hizo cargo de intervenir en el conflicto. Al alistar y zarpar una flota militar los británicos lanzaron una operación militar sobre fuerzas argentinas por lo tanto este derecho cambió automáticamente de titularidad así lo expreso claramente la diplomacia argentina en ese momento, pero no fue escuchada y no fue un antojo argentino, sus argumentos siempre se basaron en el derecho internacional. Además quien se alista para la guerra no cesa las hostilidades ergo se limpiaron el culo con la resolución que ellos mismos votaron e impulsaron.
EL derecho de legitima defensa ceso al intervenir el Consejo. Era el, mediante sus sanciones de ser necesaria o a través de la fuerza si así lo disponía quien tenia la facultad de obligar a la Argentina a retirarse, no UK por su propia cuenta. Es el Consejo la más alta autoridad a nivel Mundial en este tema. Nadie decide solo, debe ser autorizado previamente.
Cuando vinieron al Atlántico sur no vinieron por la libertad y la democracia, vinieron a defender un valuarte estratégico que custodia el único paso natural entre los océanos Atlántico y Pacifico. No vinieron por los kelpers ellos le importan un bledo. Si el canal de Panamá fuese destruido, averiadas alguna de sus exclusas, buena parte del comercio marítimo mundial, así como el movimiento de buques de guerra de las principales potencias Occidentales se haría por el pasaje de Drake. Es entonces las Malvinas tan importantes estratégicamente en el Atlántico sur como Gibraltar en el Mediterráneo. O acaso, no dicen los piratas con total prepotencia digna de matones que el Mediterráneo es un lago ingles?. Ud está contaminado por la propaganda británica o es un agente de ella. Ninguna potencia mundial que juega fuerte en cuanto a sus interés mundiales invierte en una amenazante base militar que duplica en cuanto a los medios allí desplegados a la totalidad de la capacidad operativa que hoy tienen las fuerzas armadas argentinas. No le importan los seres humanos que habitan las islas, le importa mantener y acrecentar sus intereses en esta región del mundo. Desde 1806 vienen jodiendo a los que habitamos estas tierras.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain would not have been forced to resort to the use of force if 1) Argentina hadn't invaded 2) Argentina had withdrawn 3) Argentina had not rebuffed all attempts at peace.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Face with Resolution 502 Argentina reinforced its garrison, it did not show the slightest inclination to resolve the issue peacefully. It never cease to amaze me the inventiveness in inventing reasons why its other people's faults.
Kelper Justin,
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0EL DERECHO DE LEGITIMA DEFENSA CESO AL INTERVENIR EL CONSEJO. ERA EL, MEDIANTE SUS SANCIONES DE SER NECESARIA O A TRAVÉS DE LA FUERZA SI ASÍ LO DISPONÍA QUIEN TENIA LA FACULTAD DE OBLIGAR A LA ARGENTINA A RETIRARSE, NO UK POR SU PROPIA CUENTA. ES EL CONSEJO LA MÁS ALTA AUTORIDAD A NIVEL MUNDIAL EN ESTE TEMA. NADIE DECIDE SOLO, DEBE SER AUTORIZADO PREVIAMENTE.
Ah I see, the usual racist epithets, shouting and ranting. La plus ca change
Nov 30th, 2009 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Disculpe, me equivoqué con su nombre, es Justin y no Kelper que es Expat kelper. Estaba leyendo a todos y me equivoqué al escribir.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin Kuntz
Nov 30th, 2009 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0EL DERECHO DE LEGITIMA DEFENSA CESO AL INTERVENIR EL CONSEJO. ERA EL, MEDIANTE SUS SANCIONES DE SER NECESARIA O A TRAVÉS DE LA FUERZA SI ASÍ LO DISPONÍA QUIEN TENIA LA FACULTAD DE OBLIGAR A LA ARGENTINA A RETIRARSE, NO UK POR SU PROPIA CUENTA. ES EL CONSEJO LA MÁS ALTA AUTORIDAD A NIVEL MUNDIAL EN ESTE TEMA. NADIE DECIDE SOLO, DEBE SER AUTORIZADO PREVIAMENTE.
Ah right, so when Argentina ignores all UN resolutions after Argentina's unprovoked aggression, the Brits are expected to do nothing and allow British people to remain under the control of a brutal military dictatorship who has a habit of throwing people from aircraft over the South Atlantic.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0A link?
Nov 30th, 2009 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Certainly http://www.malvinense.com.ar/bajasbritanicas.html
Sorry it was 45 and more than 1,000 British dead.
If you read well, and without malice, “the Falklands” I appreciated the cooperation only on her subject of British casualties. I only studied the subject. Not the subject of the Sea Harriers. So please do not confuse the debate, do not try to prosecute, or to disqualify. That's a sign that is running out of arguments.
Moreover, the debate shifted from the main theme:
You have no proof that the Admiral Busser is a felon, none, zero evidence. Simple facts.
Operation Rosario was an atypical military operation to retrieve a terrritorio, without causing casualties on the enemy, that was the reason for the large number of Argentine troops who participated.
If the intention had been to kill all the royal marines had landed far fewer soldiers, and had killed them all. It is quite clear that this was not the intention of the Argentine troops. Everything else is just propaganda.
JPL, I'm sorry did I spoil your concentration by providing the very link you asked for. At least you stick by that piece of nonsense and don't try to deny it, unfortunately it completely undermines any shred of credibility you might have.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0In my opinion..Carlos Menem is the real HERO of Argentina. :)))...oh wait..i know a better one..that Prostitute, or ex Prosititute..what's here name? Ah yeah Evita Peron..the female who uhmm..“borrowed” alot of money from the people (the working class) and never gave it back while giving great fantasy prep talk from a balcony? Or was it “Madonna”? lol..
Nov 30th, 2009 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hillarios when Argies bark about the past, about what was never their territory or bark what they never were. What a sad nation, :(. I guess that song really made sense in the past and today “Don't cry for me Argentina” ...lol.
It is actually laughable to call the Falkland Islands a colony. It shows how ignorant the Argentines are. These people who do this have never been to the Falkland Islands, have never witnessed how the whole democratic process works here. To call us a colony just shows how little you know, and thus renders all of your arguements obselete. To debate about something you know nothing about is disgraceful. There is no point even trying to argue with someone like that, because they live in a fantasy. They will just keep making up things to try and win.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it is understandable for an Argentine not to understand how democracy works. They probably find the concept alien, and think it is poor that our leaders don't steal money from the people who voted them in, like how their leaders do.
I knew this would happen
Nov 30th, 2009 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because of their lack of credible arguments, convincing evidence and malicious generalizations, it was their last resort, the disqualification of the opponent.
That does not speak well of you, sorry for you
From what I see in all these comments, the comments of the British were totally defeated, in the absence of factual facts to support them
Goodbye (for now)
Justin, learn from your fellow “Islander” with him if he can bring, despite differences of opinion, a friendly dialogue. But then you attacked him too.
Nov 30th, 2009 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People like you make a reasonable dialogue virtually impossible, however people like “Islander” no, they have hope of a final settlement
To end this dialogue, we all witnessed
Nov 30th, 2009 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that absolutely no one makes a single credible evidence of the charges against the Admiral Busser
Only malicious generalizations and provided “evidence” based on speculation without any real foundation or factual
apologies for the mistake, the commentary of “reaction29” I'm the one who wrote
Nov 30th, 2009 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bye
ROTFLMAO,
Nov 30th, 2009 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JPL
The person with a lack of credibility, stomps off in high dudgeon, after their claims have been demonstrated to be so false as to be laughable.
Reaction29, I'm perfectly capable of a friendly dialogue but if you speak idiocy, then don't be upset if you get called an idiot. What makes a reasonable dialogue impossible is the Argentine insistence on its way or the highway, leaving no room for compromise.
Expat, of course they were on the Argentine side, I just meant they reasobably decent under the circumstances representing the military rulers who otherwise might well have started chucking us out of aeroplanes as well.
Dec 01st, 2009 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Walter, At Goosegreen they were not held indefinatley for their own protection and no attempt was made to contact the british to say that was where the civilians were. Their red cross shiop abused the Geneva Rules as well - it brought in combat troops and possibly also missiles. When challenged by our loca redcross
Neptune,
Dec 01st, 2009 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your position is neither consistent, nor well founded, you seek to justify the unjustifiable, namely the annexation of a small island community by a military dictatorship in the epoch of the United Nations. Argentina ignored UN resolution 502, Argentina rebuffed all attempts at peace, Argentine invaded in the first place.
You also talk nonsense, Argentina did not and does not respect the islanders, if it did it would listen to what they had to say, not to invent excuses to ignore their voice. It would not have invaded in the first place, it would not continue to actively attempt to dominate and subjugate their very lives.
Más sobre Alexander Betts:
Dec 01st, 2009 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Alejandro nació, en 1947, en Puerto Argentino, único pueblo y capital de Malvinas. Allí estudió en las dos escuelas públicas egresando del secundario con el ciclo básico completo y habiendo cumplido los catorce años de edad. Acorde con la tradición del isleño nativo, con esa edad se independizó de su familia y fue a trabajar en varias estancias de las islas, desempeñando toda la diversidad de las tareas rurales: boyero, peón de patio, tractorista, esquilador, domador, mayordomo, etc. En el ´68 se casó y formó su primera familia, falleciendo su esposa en 1977.
Mientras aún vivía en el campo (como se dicen ahí en referencia a la zona del interior), decidió estudiar a distancia con la ICS y las universidades de Londres y Edimburgo. Eligió la carrera de Contabilidad para la cual tuvo que aprobar varias materias previas para obtener el nivel de estudios exigidos para ingresar en la carrera. Con título en mano, en 1975, volvió al pueblo para trabajar en el supermercado de la Falkland Islands Company (FIC). Fue nombrado secretario general de la Asociación de Hacendados de las islas, que, a su vez, le abrió las puertas para ejercer su profesión de contador, llevando los libros de contabilidad de 11 estancias privadas. Este contacto directo con la clase medio-alto de la sociedad isleña, le dio oportunidad de conocer de cerca las idiosincrasias del minúsculo circulo de “dirigentes” isleños, en su mayoría británicos radicados transitoriamente en el territorio.
Comenzó sus investigaciones sobre la cuestión política de la soberanía de las islas en 1976, por iniciativa propia, impulsado por un informe producido por una Comisión Británica sobre recursos no renovables en la zona, más específicamente, los depósitos del petróleo que subyacen en la plataforma submarina.
Luego de examinar ese documento, se tomo conocimiento de otro Informe inglés, del año 1910, producido por el Sr. Gastón de Bernhardt, conteniendo una extensa descripción histórica-política y jurídica del conflicto y, a pesar de ser comisionado por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores británico para realizar un estudio profundo de la cuestión, el autor no dudó en desarrollar las debilidades del pretendido título inglés sobre las Islas. Estas dos fuentes eran suficientes para provocar a Alejandro a continuar y profundizar sus estudios del tema, que continúan hasta la actualidad.
Debido a la falta de información disponible en las islas, tuvo que armar su propia biblioteca de consulta, acudiendo a fuentes francesas, españolas, argentinas y británicas a los fines de tener acceso a distintas y variadas versiones de la puja política-jurídica desde los inicios de la disputa. En cada documento, cada relato, cada compilación o compendio, había algo nuevo y distinto para conocerse o informarse. Se abrió un horizonte inesperado y totalmente desconocido, que produjo un giro de ciento ochenta grados en su postura tradicional sobre ese asunto, que es la pro-británica del poblador común de Malvinas. Ese giro dramático le ha provocado un sin número de inconvenientes de toda índole imaginable, pero no aparta un ápice de su arraigada convicción de la injusticia del caso, y la injustificable agresión británica de apoderarse de un territorio sudamericano, totalmente identificable con el Virreinato del Río de la Plata Española, y sobre el cual el Reino Unido no tenía ningún título legítimo.
Para Alejandro, este caso es un ejemplo perfecto de la arrogancia de los Estados poderosos, y de la hipocresía del discurso político que, en el mejor de los casos, nunca es demasiado sincero. Los acontecimientos de 1982 fueron otro ejemplo de lo ante expuesto. La reconquista militar británica fue proclamada como una demanda democrática y un triunfo de ella sobre la agresión. Pero, en realidad, esa reconquista iba en contramano de la verdadera obligación británica de colaborar plenamente con el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, para allanar el camino hacia una solución pacífica de una situación que el mismo Reino Unido había escalada a un enfrentamiento militar, a los fines de satisfacer necesidades políticas internas. La autoría y propulsora de la resolución 502 fue obra de la Gran Bretaña, miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad con derecho a veto que hizo lo imposible por obstacularizar el avance de otro proyecto de resolución en el Consejo, que no atendía a sus intereses inmediatas. No hace falta decirlo, pero logro su propósito.
La falsedad de los discursos en ese momento, fue posible (en gran medida) habida cuenta de una maquinaria comunicacional de proporciones descomunales (la prensa internacional) que paralizó la voluntad de muchos que podrían haberse opuesto al curso que había tomado las cosas.
http://elmalvinense.iespana.es/
Neptune,
Dec 01st, 2009 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0None so blind as those that will not see, why don't you ask a few islanders about their experiences. Apparently you believe that the same military responsible for “disappearing” 30000 Argentines, became a benevolent bunch of philanthropists in the Falklands. The same military who is currently the subject of legal action in Argentina for its abuse and torture of Argentine conscripts .... in the Falklands.
Bad faith? No, but you clearly view things through rose tinted glasses as far as the Argentine military is concerned; you're not interested in the truth it seems.
Tim,
Dec 01st, 2009 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I understand the practicalities of the situation in 1982 and am not critical of what people had to do to survive. It was a matter of necessity.
But moving forward into the present there is now a choice with the pressures of occupation gone not to co-operate with people whose ultimate agenda is the integration of the Falklands into Argentina.
There is no longer a necessity to kow tow to those whose actions, no matter how decent they appear to be, are aimed at ultimate takeover.
Very few of any initiatives towards 'peace and understanding' between Islanders and the mainland have any objective other than the softening up of resistance to the Argentine demands.
I mean no more than that.
I see the El Malvinense gremlins are active here promoting the arch Quisling Alex Betts. What a shining example for us all. Sort of a shining wit I guess.
JPL (who portrays himself elsewhere as a hardline Argentine veteran)appears in many forums and only appeared here to try to prove that Busser is a decent guy who does not deserve prosecution in Argentina. I have no idea if he does or not.
Interesting site http://elmalvinense.iespana.es/. More over when it is made by an islander.
Dec 03rd, 2009 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The war is right? No arguments matter - a war is never right. Loss of life is never right, and pain is never right.
Dec 03rd, 2009 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The comments made by the likes of Mr. Justin Kuntz for me equate to the type of jingoistic rubbish that was peddled to the British public by the Thatcher government through iron-fisted media controls at this time. I wonder if the like of Mr. Justin Kuntz had even heard of the Falklands Islands before the conflict. One look at the world map shows that if anyone has claim to the Islands it is the Argentines and not the British. The unfortunate thing about debate on subjects like this is that some people seem to think that the United Kingdom is still an imperial superpower.
The name Reid tells it all. You normaly have a few dodgy uniforms in your closets.
Dec 03rd, 2009 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The war is right? No arguments matter - a war is never right. Loss of life is never right, and pain is never right.”
Dec 03rd, 2009 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where did I ever say it did? I rightly condemn the Argentines for starting a war that cost the lives of 1000 young men. But the British didn't start it and the British did everything to avoid conflict; the British accepted peace proposals whilst Argentina rejected them.
Jingoistic? No, I'm not a hypocrite defending a brutal military dictatorship who launched an act of unprovoked aggression against the democratically elected Government who opposed it.
I had heard of the Falklands before the conflict, so what if I hadn't. And to argue purely on the basis of geographic proximity, when the people have been there for 9 generations is simply ludicrous. People don't think the UK is still an imperial superpower, it ain't and hasn't been for some time. The unfortunate thing about debates on this subject is that the people who matter, the people who live and were born there, their voices are not heard.
Sr. Kuntz
Dec 04th, 2009 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Usted dice 9 generaciones??? se refiere desded 1842 hasta el 2009???, porque los primeros colonos británicos se instalaron en las islas a partir de 1842 y no antes. Antes habitaban nuestra gente y según los diarios de Luis Vernet y de su esposa María Sáenz ya había habitantes en las islas en 1820. Nunca un británico se instaló en el pueblo de Puerto Soledad, e incluso ya habían nacidos niños antes que un inglés se instalara en las islas más importantes del archipiélago. Hay historia criolla en Malvinas antes de la usurpacíon británica en enero de 1833. En enero de 1833 los británicos interrumpieron la vida de los primeros habitantes y expulsaron a sus autoridades con sus familias. Son 179 años de reclamo argentino, para que Gran Bretaña devuelve lo que le pertenece a nuestro país las islas Malvinas.
Fe de erratas quise decir 176 años.
Dec 04th, 2009 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gran Bretaña tenía que justificar una base militar en las islas. La mejor idea que tenía ese país era provocar un conflicto en el Atlántico sur para poder justificar ante el mundo la intalación de la Fortaleza Falkland. Ponen la excusa Argentina, pero la Fortaleza Falkland es para otros enemigos que vienen de otra parte.
Dec 04th, 2009 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0O acaso el gobierno británico, no tenían ya en mente de sacar a todos los isleños de Malvinas y llevarlos para otra parte, como a Nueva Zelanda, para poder instalar la Fortaleza Falkland. Nunca les interesaron los isleños, Argentina llevó progreso y materiales a las islas, les dio trabajo a isleños, tenían atención médica permanente y hasta los isleños venían a estudiar en el continente y los albergaban en casa de familia, etc. no creo que todos los isleños que tuvieron contactos con los argentinos durante la década del 70 tengan malos recuerdos.
En la década del 70, la Falklands Island Company, que es una empresa inglesa fue la que provocó un conflicto en el momento que dos altos diplomáticos laboristas de Gran Bretaña trabajaron para devolver las islas Malvinas a la Argentina.
Eso fue lo que le molestaron a los ingleses de la FIC, como Argentina estaba en las islas y trabajando con los isleños.
Justin......
Dec 04th, 2009 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Se preguntó usted alguna vez, porqué nunca su país nunca tuvo un triunfo sobre la Argentina en las Naciones Unidas y en todos los foros internacionales donde se debatió el tema Malvinas?.
Porqué en la Cumbre Iberoamericana siempre respaldan el reclamo argentino?
Porqué en todos los foros internacionales respaldaron y respaldan a la Argentina por Malvinas?
Cada año son más paises que respaldan el reclamo argentino.
Porqué ignoran a Gran Bretaña?
Porqué Latinoamérica desconocen a las islas como territorio británico?
Porqué investigadores españoles dicen que Gran Bretaña es una zorra con el tema de Malvinas y también de Gibraltar?
Esto, tengalo bien en cuenta, porque Gran Bretaña no hizo bien los deberes en 1982.
Un país como Gran Bretaña que viene humillando a la Argentina ignorando sus reclamos desde hacía 149 años, que toman por tonto a la Argentina, que los subestiman todo el tiempo, que los agrede, que no se sientan a resolver un pleito, que provocan a propósito un conflicto, que traen la guerra para congelar la disputa.
Justin Kuntz,
Dec 04th, 2009 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nada más ciego que el que no quieren ver
Mucho dice la propaganda británica que los argentinos debemos a UK la democracia como consecuencia de la derrota militar de 1982, sin lugar a dudas este es un argumento de tipo moral para justificar una guerra inaudita y la perpetuación del despojo que sufre Argentina. Pues bien sepa UD que la democrática Sra. Thatcher y el gobierno de Su majestad Isabel II le vendieron durante años armamento al gobierno militar argentino desde el golpe de 1976 hasta pocos meses antes del 2 de abril de 1982, de hecho parte de ese armamento fue utilizado efectivamente contra las fuerzas británicas en la guerra. Esto es importante decirlo porque fueron los civilizados y democráticos británicos quienes con total hipocresía armaron a una dictadura criminal y después le dijeron al mundo que habían venido al atlántico sur a defender la democracia los derechos de 1800 personas cuando ellos son responsables indirectos de la dictadura que azotaba a la Argentina. O acaso la junta militar no utilizaba las armas que compraba en contra de su propio pueblo?. No sabían las autoridades británicas lo que eran y hacían los militares argentinos?. Los argentinos no debemos nada a los británicos, salvo el desprecio que profundamente se han ganado de parte nuestra.
Una cosa son relaciones comerciales y otra vender armas a una dictadura nazi que practicaba el terrorismo de estado. Eso no se justifica con nada. Demuestra claramente la pragmática hipocresía británica. Los EEUU impusieron durante la gestión de JIMMY CARTER un embargo militar, no comercial a la dictadura argentina. Eso fue más ético que lo que hicieron los britanicos. Televisores, heladeras o cualquier bien comercial no matan a nadie, las armas si lo hacen.
Un embargo comercial solo empobrece a la población de un país sojuzgado por una dictadura. Causando más estragos entre las victimas que beneficios, el hambre puede ser uno de esos estragos, o bien la carencia de indispensables suministros medicinales. Las armas son otra cosa. Con las armas se pueden matar sistemáticamente miles de personas indefensas. UK es co-responsable junto a los militares de la dictadura argentina del delito de GENOCIDIO. UN DELITO DE LESA HUMANIDAD.
Lea despacio, pero todo, si no sabe traducir, pida a alguien que lo ayude y después comente.
¿why don't you ask a few islanders about their experiences?
Dec 04th, 2009 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pregunta, en que medio importante salió lo de los isleños acerca de las experiencias que usted pregunta??? Porque no recuerdo que esto se haya leído o publicado por el mundo como New York Time y que alguien que estuvo presente en ese momento lo comente.
El isleño Alexander Betts no estaba en Malvinas durante el conflicto???
El isleño Pablo Betts, hijo de Alexander Betts, no estaba en Malvinas durante el conflicto???
No saben ellos y otros isleños que después vinieron al continente lo que se hacía en las islas???
Porque la isleña Yolanda Bertrand de 67 años y 4ª generación Bertrand en Malvinas dice que LOS KELPERS DUROS NO REPRESENTAN A TODOS LOS ISLEÑOS??????????????????????
Como usted sabrá, en el continente hay isleños que tienen familia en las islas y nos tienen mejor informados como se vive en las islas Malvinas.
Justin....
Dec 04th, 2009 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Acá tambien les pueden decir los isleños Malvinenses como los trataron los militares argentinos durante el conflicto. Cómo usted verá estamos en democracia y no conozco a un isleño Malvinense que vive en Córdoba, en Buenos Aires, en Río Gallegos, en Santa Fe, etc, que comenten que los militares argentinos los trataron muy mal en las islas.
Piense antes de afirmar algo......
Si UD. se toma el tiempo de estudiar el conflicto de 1982 con total objetividad verá que el 2 de abril de 1982 las fuerzas argentinas no mataron a un solo soldado o ciudadano británico y en los días siguientes hasta la finalización del conflicto la Argentina buscó a través de su Ministerio de relaciones exteriores en todos los Organismos Internacionales fundamentalmente en la ONU una resolución pacifica y diplomática al conflicto.
Con toda intención se respetó sus vidas desde el primer disparo. A nadie se acosó y no hubo ni actos de terrorismo, ni abusos, es UD. gran mentiroso y un matón. Las fuerzas argentinas respetaron y otorgaron derechos a la población como ninguna fuerza militar en la historia de la humanidad lo ha hecho con nadie. Que niño o anciano fue golpeado o maltratado por soldados argentinos? NINGUNO. Qué poblador sufrió actos de pillaje consentidos por los mandos argentinos? NINGUNO. Si los hubo los soldados que los cometieron fueron duramente castigados. Qué mujer de las islas fue abusada sexualmente por un soldado argentino?. NINGUNA. Y Ud. lo sabe, por lo tanto es desleal embustero.
My “venerable” British friends, it looks as if you've lost this one.
Dec 04th, 2009 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin Kuntz
Dec 04th, 2009 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Usted es inglés, no es un isleño.
Mire, si Gran Bretaña desapareciera de las islas Malvinas y permite un acercamiento entre isleños y argentinos se solucionaría mejor el tema.
Sería bueno que Gran Bretaña no se metiera más y comenzara a desmantelar la Fortaleza Falklands e irse con sus tropas al lugar de donde pertenecen que es “Gran Bretaña”.
Usted como inglés que es, dirá que los argentinos son estos, que los argentinos son aquellos, alguna calificación tiene de nosotros, pero está muy equivocado, porque la gran mayoría de los argentinos son excelentes personas, como se que hay ingleses que son excelente personas.
Pero bueno, sigamos con el tema, no enviemos argentinos a las islas para dialogar, enviemos isleños que viven en el continente para que estos dialoguen con los que viven en las islas. Qué le parece a usted?
Los isleños que viven en el continente también tienen familias en las islas, como primos, hermanos, sobrinos, tíos y hasta hijos, etc. Permita usted que haya un acercamiento entre ellos y verá como a la larga aceptarán a la Argentina. Estoy muy seguro de eso.
Pero claro, siempre que Gran Bretaña no esté presente en el Atlántico sur, porque sabemos que ese país es quien no quiere salir de las islas.
Hay muchas formas para convencer a los isleños de Malvinas si los ingleses nos dejan.
Un saludo
Marcos Shultz
Dec 04th, 2009 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0A couple of points you'd be unaware of relying on the Argentine education system.
1. Vernet's settlement wasn't established till 1828. Argentina did not have people there from 1820.
2. Vernet also asked the British permission to form a settlement there.
3. You're nearly correct, the British didn't formally send settlers till 1841 but contrary to what Argentina claims, Vernet's settlers weren't expelled. As an aside do you not notice the obvious contradiction in the Argentine claims. Nevertheless the oldest settlers now have 9 generations in the islands, give it a few years the 10th generation will be born.
Now I don't suppose the obvious contradiction in what you claim will be noticed, seeing as you all seem to practise double think but there you go.
Pablo,
Britain has no need for or desire for a military base in the Falkland Islands, its presence there prior to Argentina's aggression amounted to 40 Royal Marines and they were only deployed there because of Argentine aggression in 1965. Were it not for Argentine aggression and your nation's continued campaign to pursue an illogical irredentist claim there would be no military base. The current presence in the islands is only 4 Typhoons.
Patan
The UK has never “lost” in the UN or other forums, the UN has called for the dispute to be resolved. This does not mean the UN supports Argentina. Countries do not support Argentina.
Also Patan, Alexander Betts does not represent the opinion of the islanders. Of his two brothers, one fought with the British Task Force, the other assisted British forces when they landed. They do not share his views and it is a rather sad story that the family has a schism caused by the war. It is offensive that Argentina exploits that family tragedy.
Also, every word i said about the experience of the Falkland Islands happens to be true. I sugget you find out the truth by actually asking the people who went through it. It also happens to be true that Argentine rejected EVERY proposal to resolve the crisis by peaceful means.
El Eter
I'm not English, I'm Scottish, so what.
If Britain disappeared, the Argentine warships would be coming over the horizon the very next day. We don't stand in the way of rapprochement between the islands and Argentina. It happens to be a fact that the islanders have offered direct talks with Argentina. The British would be happy to see it.
And prior to 1982, the British Government would have been happy to transfer the islands to Argentina. Not because of any doubt about the British sovereignty, lets be clear about that, it saw transfer as a neat solution to divesting itself of the islands and getting Argentina out of its hair. Both Governments conspired together to try and convince the islanders that is where their future lay.
Nevertheless its pleasant to hear of an Argentine speak of rapprochement for once, usually all I ever hear from Argentines is how they're going to force the islands to become Argentine.
The nub of the problem is that Argentina's attitude is what hardens the attitudes of the islanders and the Kirschners have set back relations with the islands decades. Please at least be honest with yourself what causes it and don't blame Britain as some kind of obstacle, because it isn't. Its your own attitudes that cause the problem.
Malvinas jamás fue y nunca podrá ser NACIÓN bajo las circunstancias actuales.
Dec 05th, 2009 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0La Ley de Ciudadanía Británica de 1983 otorgó a los isleños NATIVOS del territorio, una pseudonacionalidad inglesa que no permite independizarse de la Corona Británica, como así también, le quita toda posibilidad de considerarse “pueblo isleño”, beneficiarios de la autodeterminación.
A partir de entonces, los isleños nativos se transformaron en compatriotas de los ingleses, galeses, escoceses e irlandeses del norte.
Sin embargo, hay una curiosidad aquí que valga poner a conocimiento de nuestro ilustre amigo: La Ley de Ciudadanía Británica vigente con anterioridad al año 1983, establecía, con total claridad, que los hijos de ciudadanos de territorios dependientes británicos, (entre ellos léase las Malvinas), no nacían británicos.
Eran, igual a sus padres, ciudadanos de territorios dependientes británicos”: una categoría muy especial y atípico, que no les daba derechos a vivir y trabajar en el Reino Unido.
Es decir: “individuos sin estado”. Es por demás agregar que ese estado carencia de nacionalidad no extendía a los residentes provenientes del Reino Unido.
Por supuesto, los isleños jamás atrevían a mencionar la palabra discriminación, pero, lo dejo a sus propias conclusiones para ponerle un adjetivo adecuado a esta política de estado del gobierno inglés.
Ver a autor que le pertenece:
http://www.malvinense.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?t=173
Para Justin Kevin quien dice que no culpemos a Gran Bretaña
Dec 05th, 2009 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0AQUI VA EL LINK, LA MISMA DISCUSION Y MUY INTERESANTE
Observen la felpeada que le da el usuario Israel a Nora Femenia y al sotreta de David Barrow integrantes de la página Falklands-Malvinas:
http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15176#15176
Para Justin Kuntz quien dice que no culpemos a Gran Bretaña
Dec 05th, 2009 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0AQUI VA EL LINK, LA MISMA DISCUSION Y MUY INTERESANTE
Observen la felpeada que le da el usuario Israel a Nora Femenia y al sotreta de David Barrow integrantes de la página Falklands-Malvinas:
http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15176#15176
Esta es, precisamente, la situación de las Islas Malvinas.
Dec 05th, 2009 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nunca hubo un Pueblo Malvinense y no lo digo yo, sino muchos peticionarios isleños habitantes del territorio que defiendan la permanencia británica en el archipiélago han admitido en varias ocasiones la inexistencia de un “pueblo malvinero”, en declaraciones ante la Asamblea General y el Comité de Descolonización.
¿Cuáles son los motivos que impulsan estas declaraciones?
En primer lugar, porque en las Malvinas jamás hubo un pueblo en la aceptación que la expresión tiene el Derecho Internacional. Los isleños carecen de antepasados que hubiesen habitado las Islas antes de la colonia británica. Más aun desde y durante la ocupación inglesa del territorio. Un grupo de colonos introducidos al territorio, sobre la base de la eliminación de la población establecida y en posesión efectiva, un conjunto de personas funcionarios de la potencia administradora o empleados y obreros de una empresa monopólico cuya casa matriz está radicada en la metrópoli, no es un pueblo. Por otra parte, no se reconocen ellos mismos como comunidad original y distinta de la metrópoli, no sienten la ocupación o la dominación colonial como un insulto a su ser propio y no quieren una vida independiente y distinta del pueblo británico. Nada mas opuesto a una etnia sometida luchando librarse del yugo inglés. Los nacidos en el Reino Unido son, por ese sólo hecho, británicos. Hasta noviembre de 1983, un “Falklander”, en cambio, debía acreditar que, al momento de nacer,él su padre o su madre ostentaban la ciudadanía británica.¿Por qué? Porque el Reino Unido no quería darle la razón a la Argentina. El “súbdito británico” es un sujeto británico carente de ciudadanía; es decir: un individuo sin estado.
Es, también, erróneo pensar que una población introducida como consecuencia de una ocupación colonial, que no posee ninguno de los elementos necesarios y constitutivos del concepto de pueblo, puede tener algún derecho sobre el territorio arrebatado por la fuerza al ejercicio de la legítima soberanía sobre ese territorio. Para el Congreso del Instituto Hispano Luso Americano de 1977 la situación es inconfundible:
“Cuando por el contrario, no ha surgido un pueblo nuevo, sino apenas una población de funcionarios (importando poco que sean de la potencia colonial o del Estado cercenado), en este caso no hay por qué pensar en el ejercicio del derecho de autodeterminación. A la reivindicación del Estado originariamente poseedor del territorio en cuestión, no puede oponer la potencia ocupante, dentro de la perspectiva actual, el derecho de conquista”.
En el caso de Malvinas, como no hay un pueblo en el concepto jurídica de la palabra, no puede existir el derecho a la libre determinación, por falta del titular del derecho. Pero, si hay una ocupación colonial extranjera, lo que significa que el principio de la libre determinación, en cuanto a la expresión de la ilicitud del colonialismo, se manifiesta en su verdadero sentido en el reintegro del territorio ilícitamente ocupado a su legítimo soberano. A.J.B.
Ver a autor que le pertenece:
http://www.malvinense.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?t=173
S. B. F.
Dec 05th, 2009 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where was you concern for discrimination against the Falkland Islanders, when your Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office conspired together to ignore their wishes and tried to engineer a policy making them dependent upon Argentina to pave the way for a future transfer of sovereignty. Again before the usual nonsense lets be clear that it was simply that the British Government didn't see any use for the islands not for any other reason; they were confident in the case for sovereignty. That the Falkland Islanders stood up for themselves all credit to them.
As to your second post denying that the Falkland Islanders exist as a people, if you think that contrived racist nonsense does any good for your case, you are sadly, deluded.
I see you and your fellow cohorts from “El Malvinense” are trying to still blacken Nora's name, the one thing you can say about Nora was that she is absolutely fair and you and your fellow cohorts were banned from that forum simply because you were assholes.
Señor Justin Kuntz
Dec 06th, 2009 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not English, I'm Scottish, so what.
Le cuento una anécdota. Cuando una vez estuve en revisación médica, para entrar al servicio militar, delante mío había un muchacho de 18 años acompañado por su madre. Un sargento de unos dos metros de altura que parecía un jugador de rugby se acercó al muchacho y comenzó a preguntarle como se llamaba, cuantos años tenía, si estudiaba, etc. pero la madre era quien le respondía. El sargento se enojó y le dijo al muchacho, qué usted no sabe hablar, le comieron la lengua los ratones, etc......
A que voy con esto, es que usted, un escocés, habla por los isleños y eso está mal.
Igual que los ingleses, veo que usted no permite que haya un acercamiento entre isleños y argentinos.
Se por isleños que viven en el continente que no todos los isleños de malvinas están de acuerdo con el puñadito de matones, los llamados “Kelpers duros”. Conozco bien el tema.
Hace unos años el isleño Martín Clarke se vino a probar en el club de Boca Juniors de Buenos Aires y el grupo de “kelpers duros” le destrozaron los vidrios de la ventana del Pub que tiene su madre en las islas Malvinas, aparte, a ellos, los acusaron de “Argies lovers”. Otra isleña, no quiso darle una nota a un medio argentino por temor al puñado de matones de los “kelpers duros”...... ¿Qué es lo que pasa en Malvinas?
“If Britain disappeared, the Argentine warships would be coming over the horizon the very next day. We don't stand in the way of rapprochement between the islands and Argentina. It happens to be a fact that the islanders have offered direct talks with Argentina. The British would be happy to see it.”
Usted sabe que nuestras Fuerzas Armadas están desmanteladas, muchos Regimientos ya no existen y se unificaron otras fuerzas. Tampoco ya no existe el servicio militar. Estamos en democracia y la mayoría de los militares argentinos de la dictadura argentina están fallecidos y presos. Aparte nuestro país respeta los derechos humanos, cosa que Gran Bretaña no lo respeta en Irak, ni en Afganistán, eso no me lo puede usted negar porque hay pruebas, como acusaciones, los medios y documentales que comprueban los hechos.
And prior to 1982, the British Government would have been happy to transfer the islands to Argentina. Not because of any doubt about the British sovereignty, lets be clear about that, it saw transfer as a neat solution to divesting itself of the islands and getting Argentina out of its hair. Both Governments conspired together to try and convince the islanders that is where their future lay.
En la década del 70 fue Argentina quien llevó progresos, materiales importantes para las islas. Fue Argentina quien les dio trabajo a los isleños, vinieron isleños a estudiar en el continente, fueron albergados en casas de familias, y hasta hubo un isleño de Malvinas que hizo el servicio militar en la Armada argentina, etc.
Pero todo esto se aguó cuando los directivos ingleses de la empresa inglesa Falklands Islands Company comenzaron a molestarles la presencia argentina en las islas, entonces estos formaron un comité y empezó el problema. No fueron los isleños, ya que estos trabajaban con los argentinos en las islas y en el continente como Encotel, en la empresa aérea LAN, en YPF, etc.
Fue esa empresa inglesa la F.I.C. quien maneja el 80% de la economía de las islas la que intervino para evitar que Gran Bretaña le devuelva las islas Malvinas a la Argentina. Luego Gran Bretaña endureció el tema.
Por otra parte, si como usted dice Gran Bretaña estaba preparándose para abandonar las Islas, entonces reconocía Gran Bretaña y reconoce usted en forma implícita la validez de los títulos argentinos sobre todo teniendo en cuenta lo expresado por usted en cuanto a una transferencia, un consentimiento o mejor dicho acciones de Gran Bretaña con la finalidad de tornar a las islas argentino dependientes.
Hay ingleses que justifican con toda prepotencia la soberbia actitud británica a no discutir basándose en la supuesta legitimidad de sus derechos sobre las islas. Observe usted la contradicción de pensar y decir que las islas son británicas, que no hay nada que discutir y por otro lado intentar retirarse y tornar las islas dependientes de otro Estado que no tiene derechos. Nadie regala o abandona lo que legítimamente le pertenece. Aquí queda demostrado claramente que quien no conoce y no tiene fundamentos validos son unicamente los ingleses. Por otra parte Gran Bretaña implícitamente reconoce su carencia de derechos sobre las islas.
Nevertheless its pleasant to hear of an Argentine speak of rapprochement for once, usually all I ever hear from Argentines is how they're going to force the islands to become Argentine.
Usted, permita que los isleños que viven en el continente y que tienen familias en las islas tengan un acercamiento con los isleños que viven en Malvinas. No digo que será pronto, pero se que hay ingleses como el sr. Lee que vive en la isla Gran Malvina y que le dijo una vez a un medio argentino que a ellos no les importaría si los gobernaba Argentina.
El problema no son los isleños, Latinoamérica no quiere a Gran Bretaña metida en el Atlántico sur, ellos piden que se siente a resolver el pleito con Argentina y que se retire de Malvinas, desmantele la Fortaleza Falklands y se vaya con sus tropas a Gran Bretaña. Todo lo demás es negociable. La Argentina tiene la obligación de respetar los intereses de los isleños y lo dejó escrito en las Naciones Unidas, da las garantías.
The nub of the problem is that Argentina's attitude is what hardens the attitudes of the islanders and the Kirschners have set back relations with the islands decades. Please at least be honest with yourself what causes it and don't blame Britain as some kind of obstacle, because it isn't. Its your own attitudes that cause the problem.
Qué hace un perro cuando alguien lo agrede???, a la larga los muerde, no?
Qué hizo Gran Bretaña con el tema Malvinas durante los 149 años que viene el conflicto??? Hubo mala fe de parte de Gran Bretaña, humilló a la Argentina, la subestimó todo el tiempo, desde un principio, tomaron por tontos a la Argentina, encima agredieron y espera usted que no haya reacción de parte de la Argentina???
Le pido por favor que no tome a mal lo que he escrito, no tengo nada en contra de usted, ni encontra de los isleños.
Saludos
V.G.M.
Dec 06th, 2009 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't claim to speak for the Falkland Islanders, rather I repeatedly say that they should be allowed to speak for themselves and it is somewhat hypocritical to try and lambast me for something I didn't do, then proceed to do exactly that yourself.
Further, if you know as much about the Falkland Islanders as you claim, you'd know they find Argentines using the term “kelper” to be highly offensive, since it is used so often by your fellow countrymen as a racist pejorative.
And no you're utterly wrong, I'd be delighted to see a rapprochement between the Falkland Islanders and Argentina. Truly delighted. But it won't happen while you deny the true cause.
The activities in the '70s were done in Argentina's naked self-interest, lets be honest about that. There was no altruism involved, it was solely to make the islands dependent upon Argentina. Back in the 1970s, the FIG was persuaded to go to Argentina on a fact finding tour, unfortunately the Argentine media got wind of it, with the result they received a very hostile reception and left early. Also the “nice” Argentina period didn't last very long and as soon as Peron was elected it was back to the old confrontational ways.
It wasn't the FIC who stymied the possibility of disposing of the Falklands to Argentina, it was because the islanders themselves organised the Falkland Islands Lobby.
The fact the British were prepared to transfer sovereignty is in no way recognition of Argentine claims, rather they were not considered a great asset by the FCO. That attitude was completely reprehensible, the islanders should have been put first.
Funnily enough people do not see Argentine guarantees as worth anything, since Argentina loudly claims that the islanders don't have any rights and Argentina goes out of its way to interfere with the islands at every opportunity.
Back in 1982, it was Argentina that started the conflict, frustrated all attempts at peace and you try to justify it with the most absurd logic. The fact that Argentina under estimated Britain is your problem not ours.
There is a complete lack of honesty about the Falklands in Argentina, both in the claim itself and in your attitude towards the islanders. You claim you “respect” them but in thought, word and deed demonstrate that you do not. Argentina has been the architect of its own misfortune, causing it to fall from one of the richest to one of the poorest nations, yet it seems to find a way of blaming everyone else without ever taking responsibility for its own actions.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!