MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ban Ki-moon calls on Argentina and UK to scale down Falklands’ dispute
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon voiced hope that Argentina and the United Kingdom can avoid escalating their dispute over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and resolve their differences through dialogue. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCan someone please explain to Mr Timerman, If the Argentina government did not turn up the heat with the whole issue then Britain would have no reason to deploy such a vessel in the area, The British government has send time after time that they will not discuss sovereignty while the Islanders want to remain British and can you also remind him that it was Argentina who invaded the island in 1982 and started a senseless war... and with Cristina Fernández attempts to isolate the island its very difficult for us not to believe her government and that 30 years on an invasion attempt might happen again..
Feb 11th, 2012 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“From Malvinas they can attack quite a piece of Chile, Uruguay and even the south of Brazil”,????
Feb 11th, 2012 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good grief, and did you know that from their bases in the UK Britain can attack France, Germany, and even parts of Russia!!!
What worries me is that this man can make a complete tit of himself and not even know it.
Everyone knows that the only country placing any restrictions and trying to control air and sea traffic in the South Atlantic is Argentina.
Argentina has banned our charter flights, restricted our shipping links by denying innocent passage, is threatening our scheduled flight...
And Britain's 'control' of air and shipping is....absolutely zero.
Everyone knows this. What is Timerman thinking of?
Does he though? You know, actually think?
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0He's either paid an extraordinary salary or is socially dysfunctional.
typical British arrogance and self-righteous that allows them to think the are above the law.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is it that they do not know that Latin America and the Caribbean region is designated a nuclear-free zone as specified by a treaty signed in the 1960s?
Or is that they don't care about the existence of such a treaty?
Which is it?
We know it very well. We signed up for it.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only Argentina thinks silence is confirmation.
It's that!
Are you then saying Lord Ton that there is NO nuclear sub in these waters or heading for these waters?
Feb 11th, 2012 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm saying nothing - we don't have to !
Feb 11th, 2012 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0And what are you talking about? Nuclear powered or nuclear armed ? There's a difference!
Timerman's reported complaint it is nothing more than Argentine disinformation & propaganda aimed at supporting his Executive's nationalist political agenda
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British have no reason to attack Chile, Uruguay or the southern tip of Brazil, they have friendly international relations
The British do not equip their Typhoons with the 500km range Taurus air-to-ground weapon, so Timerman's claim that the British could attack Chile, Uruguay or the southern tip of Brazil with the Taurus weapon is false
The four British Typhoon aircraft are configured in the air defense role.
They offer no air-to-ground strike capability nor can they operate against ships as they have no anti-ship weapons. They provide a minimum ability to patrol the Falkland Islands air space through symbolic interception of unauthorized aircraft, but no more. They can only fly for short periods & cannot maintain constant air patrols. Just four aircraft would quickly be overwhelmed by a serious air attack, as so effectively carried out during the Falklands War by the Argentine air force
The British Naval ship is a anti-aircraft destroyer. A defensive weapon. It's only credible use is to defend against air attack by others. That is all.
It has the same function as the Type 42.
As a single ship it could easily be bypassed in the open sea. At best it could provide effective local air cover to Mount Pleasant Airfield, but could easily be overwhelmed.
It's actual use is purely symbolic: To patrol around the Falkland Islands & fly the British flag. Speculatively, perhaps it could also provide protection to the British royal heir on search & rescue mission against terrorist attack, but that would be far-fetched. In reality he shall have to take his chances like any other rescue pilot
No country: USA, PRC, Russia, France or the UK reveals the location of their strategic nuclear assets, because they are strategic. Timerman know this & is scare-mongering
The British posture is purely defensive & token
typical *facepalm*
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0wishing to use secrecy and national interest argumentation to defy a long standing tradition in this part of the hemisphere
Ermmm, it's not a question of one OR another!!! It is a nuclear powered sub with nuclear weapons
Erm - no, not really, nuclear powered subs don't necessarily have to be armed with nuclear tipped weapons, but then you'll never know will you?
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0I like traditions - so quaint !
Ermm I did not say that HAD TO. I merely pointed out that your one OR the other is wrong because it can in fact be BOTH
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mate you are the native speaker; not me! I shouldn't be pointing this out to you.
*facepalm*
8 Domingo - I really don't know whether your technical info is right, but I have no doubt that your statement “The British posture is purely defensive & token” is true. But undeniably, it's enough for a UK paper to mention the sailing of a sub for the Argentines to get their knickers in a twist.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 09 Helber Galarga - How on earth do you know it's a sub with nuclear weapons? Have you got a mole in the Admiralty? Don't you realise you're actually working against what little credibility Argentina has left with such statements?
It's a question of propaganda. Timerman is scare-mongering to gain populist support. It is a simple tactic in an attempt to maximize the perception of militarization amongst the masses, but it actually undermines Timerman's argument because Timerman's argument is seen to be more fantasy than reality
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The reality is any country armed with submarine launched strategic nuclear weapons could attack anywhere in the world at any time from any sea. The proven fact is they don't, because they a strategic deterrent against attack by other nuclear powers. No more, no less.
The British submarines could be any where, it does not matter. They are militarily useless and irrelevant in conventional conflict and similarly pointless in terms of actual nuclear war - their use in self-defense means they failed in their purpose as a nuclear deterrent. However, politically the British Vanguard submarines can be exploited for propaganda, and for which Timerman makes crass use of.
The Russians, French, Chinese and Americans all have nuclear-powered submarines patrolling the South Atlantic. If the British do, it makes no difference. The fact that nuclear powered submarines patrol around the world's seas. It is not new.
The last time British ships carried nuclear weapons they were depth charges to use against Soviet nuclear submarines, strategic or attack.
The British had to transfer these off their flotilla during the Falklands War because the Argentine attack was by surprise and the British had to dispatch their ships without prior warning and could not remove the depth charges until later
Timerman is spouting nonsense. Again.
Shame on Argentina
No, nuclear powered submairines, WITHOUT nuclear tipped weapons can sail around the South Atlantic without breaching any agreements.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 01986 - October 27th, UN Resolution 41/11 creates a South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation Zone in the South Atlantic which aims to reduce militarization, the presence of foreign military bases and nuclear weapons.
1994 – The Treaty of Tlatelolco is ratified by Argentina, 26 years after applying its signature. The Treaty is more commonly known as the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Noticxe the word 'reduce' by the way, not 'eliminate' :-)
2003 - December 8th, Argentina demands that Britain apologises for the deployment of nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic during the 1982 Falklands War. Britain declines.
We won't mention the 3 nuclear subs deployed in 1982 ...... ooops !
@ Lord Ton
Feb 11th, 2012 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The submarine in questions is the Vanguard. I believe it is BOTH nuclear powered and with nuclear weapons.
The Treaty of Tlatelolco does not use the word 'reduce'!
@Domingo, the prohibition to have these subs in the South Atlantic is not ONLY because as there is a belief that anyone would actively use these weapons. As you correctly point out, they won't because there strategic goal is deterrence. Nevertheless, SH!T does happen and sometimes mistakes are made. Therefore, the ban seeks to avoid having them there in case there is an accident (I am not only referring to a misfire but MAINLY to the sub suffering a malfunction and scuttling with its nuclear weapons and fuel).
Meanwhile, in other developments that underscore that Argentina is not alone protesting against the UK's recent deployments. The UK being shown for what it is, a bully!
The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, expressed today his full support of the statements made by the President of the Republic of Argentina, Cristina Fernández, who upon vindicating the right of her country to the Malvinas Islands, warned that nobody should expect from her Nation “a response outside of politics and diplomacy.” Insulza highlighted that President Fernández “has made use of the only valid instrument to those who believe in peace and democracy: political dialogue; and in this way, she has the full support of all our region.“
The Secretary General of the hemispheric organization warned about the danger of sending war ships to the South Atlantic and emphasized the ”nonsense in adding a bellicose tone to a conflict with a country that in the last years has expressed its desire for peace, and has not given any indications of wishing to change that a policy.“ ”On the contrary, Argentina is among the last on the list of defense spending countries in our region, and that fact alone speaks clearly about the Argentine people's vocation for peace,” he insisted.
If you so say the Submarine has not nuclear weapons proove it. Until there aren't clear proofs, there are chances it has nuclear weapons. Chances are enough to worry about.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Timerman then mentioned the “Vanguard” as the nuclear powered submarine allegedly heading south and showed pictures to the press
Feb 11th, 2012 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why dont you show us a picture of a depth charge , jees I wish all conflicts were like this .the argies get all girly cos the Daily Mail says a sub is coming your way:-))))) our nuclear weapons didnt stop your lot invading in 82
9 Helber Galarga---- You’re a typically thick bastard aren't you? Don’t you know that in that region there will be British, American, Chinese, Russian, French, and Indian Nuclear Submarines all patrolling that neck of the wood? Therefore, what if we are carrying nuclear warheads all the others will be doing the same thing. However, you will never know for sure. They are a deterrent and will not be used unless one or more of the countries with nuclear capabilities decides to push a small red button and end the world, as we know it.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for that Idiot Timerman he is just as thick as you are Helber, what is it with you people being thick as two short planks put together? He should know perfectly well that the only countries in the South Atlantic who would invade another sovereign country is Argentina and Venezuela or didn't the thick bastard listen to the rhetoric between that thick bitch in office Argentina and her lap doggy Chavez who openly came out with the promise and told everyone that Venezuela would send troops to help the thick bitch in her quest to make our Falkland's Argentine property.
No Sunshine the only people down there talking of force are you lot of thick bastards, and now everyone in the world can see for sure who the real bad people are can’t they. See what I mean about being thick as two short planks mate, you have shown your hand and stepped into a pile of shit. Thick twats.
No, present day Argentina won't invade another country. We are about to get the Mirages out of service. We have not enough ammunition for half a day of combat. Our amphibial capabilities are low. Our equipment is old. And I can go on!
Feb 11th, 2012 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now tell me, if we would so likely invade another country, what are we going to use? Be serious.
Lol A vanguard Submarine, thats funny as it was made clear by the prime minister that it was a trafalgar class submarine, which by the way, DOES NOT carry nuclear warheads. It can only carry cruise missles and torpedoes, bu then it is a hunter killer class submarine. http://twocircles.net/2012feb05/britain_send_nsub_falklands_patrol.html
Feb 11th, 2012 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0All argentina had done is made themselves look stupid in front of the UN, by making claims the sub is a nuclear armed Vangard class, when its clear the Prime Minister had only approved the sending of an trafalgar class to the falklands earlier this month. By expecting Britain to confirm where its nuclear armed vessels are, they have made themselves look like idiots, when it is widely known that no single nuclear armed country reveals the location of its nuclear arsenal or nuclear armed sub, even more so when argentina is being aggressive towards the falklands and britain.
All their complaint to the UN is, is nothing more than further escalation of false propoganda and rehotric from argentina. The only reason they went to the UN is because they had no other route of action to take that would not lead to being accused of blockading the falklands, hence why they moved away from banning the lan link, as they knew if they went through with it the they would indeed be confirming themselves as the aggressor.
Oh and helber, even if we did have nuclear armed Vangard type sub in the falklands, the fact it is in international/falklands waters only means it is not in breach of any treatries as international/falklands waters do not belong to latin america. It is only land territories and their territorial waters of latin american states where the testing, manufacturing, production, deployment, storage and possession of nuclear weapons by any state is prohibited. The falklands are not an Latin American state, they are british and theirs no treaty in the world that prevents nuclear weapons being deployed, in british or international waters.
HMS Vanguard is a trident class sub and could devastate any part of Argentina from just about any Ocean of the World. It doesn't have to actually travel to the South Atlantic to fire its nuclear deterrent. Anyway chances of UK using its nuclear deterrent on the likes of Argentina are next to zero. More likely, the RN has sent Astute/Trafalgar class nuclear powered subs to intercept and sink any Argentine vessel should hostilities break out again.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0We don't believe Argentina, when its states its so called peaceful intentions. Timmerman acted like a clown yesterday. His presentation was riddled with lies and deceit. He was playing to a World audience. His comments were worthless but also provocative at the same time. Quite rightly they were disregarded by the UK. If Timmerman was sincerely seeking talks he would be more truthful, respectful and conciliatory to the Country, who at some stage, so he says, he wishes to peacefully engage.
@19JuanStanic,
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you're a toothless tiger, eh?
Good, let's keep it that way.
Helber,
We can send a British ship to British territory whenever we like & its got bugger all to do with you or your country.
btw- l believe Argentina tested army tanks in Antarctica.
Antarctica is a demiliterized zone.
More Argentine hypocracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Trident has a range of 7000 miles, they could if desired hit Buenos Aires from pretty much anywhere. Somehow I doubt the single boat on deterrent patrol is deployed in the South Atlantic and I'm pretty sure HMS Vanguard isn't as she is currently moored on the Clyde.
STupid Twiterman- and some of the others on here- his “secret evidence”- a phote from the Sunday Mail Newspaer which showed in error an ICBM Class Vanguard Sub- when they meant to show and were discussing the rumour of a non nuclear armed Trafalgas Class sub possibly going to the S.Atlantic!
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another stupidity of the TWITman - he showed a picture of a new “secret military radar”-0 it is a radio antennae system built and owned by the British Antatctic Survey to match a similar system in the Antactic to measure- I believe- the ionospere etc!!! The man is a complete and utter arsehole idiot!
I do feel so sorry for all Argentines who have such a clothead idiot representing you folks overseas!
I must say the Argie politicians are not the sharpest tools in the toolbox.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is obvious to anybody who has lived through the Bliar years that the
bubble is about to burst as regards the Argie economy.
I hope Cristina is getting her helicopter ready. I'd give it about two years.
@ 25
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course it is about to burst! In fact, that economic journal from the UK called 'the economist' has been forecasting since 2005.
It's bound to haven right? I mean, eventually....*roll eyes*
Keep participating. ;)
Interesting question Mr. Timerman...“Can any expert explain to me why the UK has in the South Atlantic a military display similar to that it has in the Persian Gulf?” You can find the answer if you think little, because you and the government that you work for are using exact the same concepts and words that the “military maffia junta members” have used in the past before the invasion to the Islands. Argentina ´s President has called “pirates ” to the British People on 2010 and many times appear in the press statements includying words and phrases similar to those dark times. By example the statement said by one of the “brain instigators” of the 1982 war:“The Malvinas constitute an open wound in the dignity of the Argentine Republic and the Argentinians we are ready to repair what laziness, cultural submission and a mistaken conception of the good international ways, has maintained segregated of the metaphysical map of the mother country. The Malvinas are not a piece of land. The Malvinas are a piece of soul and it is necessary to go and get them because sovereignty as dignity is not negotiable.“ it was said by Admiral Massera (one of the worst criminal minds in the entire Argentine History) and published in LA NACION newspaper the 11 of June of 1978. In those years many Argentinians enjoyed reading or listening these swaggering statements of the military maffia Junta members, without having the slightest idea about where the criminal junta was leading to. Nobody ( in Argentina or Britain ) thought four years before the war that Massera spoke with a real intention in mind, when he said “it is necessary to go and get them”. Also Mr. Timerman you must have in mind that may be the British Government remember very clear the military dictatorship plan for “recovering the Malvinas/Falklands” which started by : 1:To return to denounce in the United Nations the “bad British faith” then followed by 2: an embargo from oil and the air service of the Islands! ...I am sorry!
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina will not accept the presence of nuclear arms”
Feb 11th, 2012 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A nuclear powered sub is not a nuclear missile.
The military dictatorship plan for “recovering the Malvinas/Falklands” which was already known by the British secret service, since at least June 1981, (even though the same dictatorship elite members tried to make us think, after the Argentine Armed forces defeat, that it was an “impulsive idea” of Anaya & Galtieri to maintain an inconsistent government), was:
Feb 11th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. - To return to denounce in the United Nations the “bad British faith”
2. - To come to an embargo from oil and the air service of the islands
3. - To act against the British interests in Argentina.
4. - To harass to the foreign tracking ships that used Stanley
5. - To disembark in South Georgia.
6. - To create incidents as some “independent” disembark.
7. - To occupy a uninhabited island
8. - To carry out the total invasion….
The great difference now is that we ( the Argentines ) are living under a Democratic system and we assume that three fanatic criminals joined in the darkness cannot decide an invasion to the Islands as it was the case of the fact by the “illegal Junta” which it decided to initiate the 1982 war that we sadly celebrate each April 2. For that reason I say specially to my fellow Argentine countrymen/women, but also to citizens of neighbouring countries of the MERCOSUR and UNASUR: who we are against any type of aggressive action, we must be very careful not to let any official propaganda confuse us regarding this subject . Because there are many more ways to start a war conflict, not only by planning a formal invasion with the national armed forces. Sadly I think that the current Argentine government really has not honest interests to “to give peace a chance” ( As the President said last Tuesday) and does only have UNREALISTIC purposes to reach geostrategic objectives to position the Country in a better rank of regional leadership.
No need to get over excited about this, just leave the Argentines to continue making comments that make them look foolish. We all know that current defence needs on the Falkland Islands have been decreased over the last fifteen years. This is partly due to commitments elsewhere like Afghanistan and also due to Argentina being unable to stump up anything like a force capable of taking the islands amoung other reasons. This is common knowledge, thus, the complaint made by Argentina, or rather 'whine' has made them look foolish in the eyes of the world. The new Frigate (replaceing an older one) and one search and rescue pilot does not constitute a build up of forces on the islands. The UN are bound to reply to the complaint by saying that the two countries should sit down and talk, the problem here is that all this has been talked to death and really the only thing left is for Argentina to let go of her false claims, eat some humble pie (latin Americans hate to do that) and get on by sorting out their own problems and leave the islanders to get on with their lives in peace.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Regrettably, for you, the Treaty of Tlatelolco ia applicable to the territories of the signatories within ” the western hemisphere within the following limits (except the continental part of the territory of the United States of America and its territorial waters) : starting at a point located at 35º north latitude, 75º west longitude; from this point directly southward to a point at 30º north latitude, 75º west longitude; from there, directly eastward to a point at 30º north latitude, 50º west longitude; from there, along a loxodromic line to a point at 5º north latitude, 20º west longitude; from there, directly southward to a point at 60º south latitude, 20º west longitude; from there, directly westward to a point at 60º south latitude, 115º west longitude; from there, directly northward to a point at 0º latitude, 115º west longitude; from there, along a loxodromic line to a point at 35º north latitude, 150º west longitude; from there, directly eastward to a point at 35º north latitude, 75º west longitude.“
Feb 11th, 2012 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't apply in international waters. So your drivel about ”the South Atlantic“ is just that. Drivel.
@16 Neither the UK nor the MoD make statements about the identity or location of its submarines. It is you lot that are accusing Britain of deploying nuclear weapons. It is for you to prove.
@19 Pity about your defence minister stating that you were ready to go to war then, wasn't it?
@21 There are NO ”trident-class” submarines. Trident is the name of a missile type.
By the way, there is no Taurus missile in the UK inventory. Taurus is a German/Swedish air-launched cruise missile and supplied to the German and Spanish air forces. There is no data to suggest that it has a nuclear variant.
By the by, the Trident D5 missile has a range of 7,000 miles. In other words, it could be fired from a point off the coast of France and Buenos Aires would be within range.
My God Conkie she really did it for you last night.a changed man
Feb 11th, 2012 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For all those argentines saying you have no desire to invade, i bet you would change you tune when chavez troops and military assets cross in to argentina and prepare an invasion force in support of argentina. Yeah you keep forgetting about Chavez the argentina not so secret weapon. Do you really think us brits and islanders would be stupid enough to pull our military defences out of the falklands knowing full well that as soon as we did, chavez would send his military in along side the what remains of argentinian military to capture the falklands whilst operating under the argentine flag.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh we won't invade, yet secretly your government probably has plans in place with chavez to do exactly what i stated above, hence chavez rehotric about sending his troops to support you earlier in the week. Clearly chaze along with your own defence minister are the only ones talking about war, not a single british government official has said anything about a war with argentina, but only about our resolve and committment to defend the falklands and the islanders. You warmongering hypocrites.
I have a new word for the oxford dictionary : Timerman
Feb 11th, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to tell a lie, to tell untruthes, to have a lack of intelligent thought. to base your information on wiki or bad newspapers. i.e
he/she did a right timerman
what a timerman
that person has the intelligents of timeman
i all most feel sorry for argentina :P
To the war-loving nomad Viking crowd: Don't you have a home?
Feb 11th, 2012 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You must stop your egocentric childish behavior; it doesn’t make the Brits look civilized. Or you couldn’t hear the whole world well enough because the wax from you polluted “hooligan” brain have clogged your ears?
I say to you:
1. Learn from your ancestor: Look very close to what's going on across the Channel, the Middle East, Southeast Asia; it will affect you because you are also there. Don't you know that Britannia no longer “rules the waves”? Your home affairs need immediate attention and ... for your own sake, please stay there.
2. Paraphrasing your own Winston Churchill, we Argentinians shall never yield to your power; we shall never surrender our sovereignty to the Malvinas Island even if you insist on displaying in the South Atlantic your apparently overwhelming might.
3. If you insist on militarizing the South Atlantic, you must expect reverses, even defeats. They will be sent to teach you wisdom and prudence, to call forth your energies to negotiate and prevent you from falling further into greater disasters.
This time this will not be Burger King: you will not get it your way!
Respectfully,
Your Argie friend.
@32 Hello, terrorist. Are you going to tell us where you are? Ireland? Cuba. Palestine (they think). Iran. argieland. North Korea. Pakistan. Somalia. Venezuela. Zimbabwe. Some other terrorist or rogue state.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0War in South América! British's guilt. Warlords! The poor planet is yours! The culture, the wealth, the goods.......all. Joke!
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This sabre-rattling is typical of the British mentality. It is pure provocation, just as is all the fly-past nonsense with Spitfires and Lancaster bombers to spite the Germans on VE-Day and so forth. A remnant of the Imperial Age of pure British aggression in which the Royal Family is embroiled quite unnecessarily.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the Argentines in response to the present militarization of the Falklands/Malvinas stationed an aircraft carrier in international waters just off the Thames Estuary permanently, how would that be perceived in London? It would be a nonsense, but a provocative irritation which might lead to an act of trigger-happiness in due course.
In the thirty years since the Malvinas War, the Age of Terrorism has visited us. No doubt there is nothing farther from the minds of the British than to take any military action whatever in the southern ocean, for these are times when in retaliation to such military action a faceless man with a suitcase could destroy for ever the centres of the Crown and Government in England.
One cannot expect much statesmanship from London from the present incumbents of Downing Street, but the words of the Secretary-General should be heeded, and this sabre-rattling stopped.
@35 “To the war-loving nomad Viking crowd: Don't you have a home?” - Since when have brits come from norway? Where anglo-saxon not Norse!
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You must stop your egocentric childish behavior; it doesn’t make the Brits look civilized. Or you couldn’t hear the whole world well enough because the wax from you polluted “hooligan” brain have clogged your ears?” - Coming from an argentine whos country is responsible for the current diplomatic spat, then what you said above is halirious, considering your the ones that won't leave the islanders in peace as the islanders wish to be.
“I say to you:
1. Learn from your ancestor: Look very close to what's going on across the Channel, the Middle East, Southeast Asia; it will affect you because you are also there. Don't you know that Britannia no longer “rules the waves”? Your home affairs need immediate attention and ... for your own sake, please stay there.” - We have learnt from our ancestors, we do not back away from other countries that are ratcheting up the rethoric, spreading lies about us instead we fight back and teach them a lesson, in agrentinas case, we did it twice already. As for looking over the channel, learn some geography, Asia is on the other side of the world, not the channel, and middle east is on the other side of europe to us, not the channel.
“2. Paraphrasing your own Winston Churchill, we Argentinians shall never yield to your power; we shall never surrender our sovereignty to the Malvinas Island even if you insist on displaying in the South Atlantic your apparently overwhelming might.” Given it is argentina that is being hostile, then you have know write to dishonour winston churchill by using his words in favour of yourselves, though it is yet more example of your rhetoric and assumption there will be war. In fact its the islanders and us brits that will never surrender the islands, just like we never surrender Britain in WW2
It is argentina that will end up a disaster zone if you keep pushing us!
38 Michael Ivinheim----- What a load of bollocks. Are you for fucking real ?
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Listen to them now ha ha, seems the 'sensitive button' has been pressed, more moans and ancient examples of historical conquests and wars that have little or no bearing on the current 'game' that has gone wrong for stupid reasons...get a life for God's sake!
Feb 11th, 2012 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38 Michael Ivinheim
Feb 11th, 2012 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can not seriously suggest the British are saber rattling in a situation where they are clearly only responding, prudently to the increasingly aggressive rhetoric and actions from Argentina. In support of what is a Blatantly fraudulent claim, even before you deny the Islanders right to self determination
You need to take off the blindfold before you get sleepwalked into another war. Which the Argentinian Goverment is provoking whether it realizes it or not.
@22
Feb 11th, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A teethless shark. We can grow our teeth again if we wanted so.
39 Teaboy2 (#)
Feb 11th, 2012 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When the decedents of the Normans arrived from Normandy (coast of France) to you shores and defeated the Anglo-Saxons in the Battle of Hastings in 1066, they settled themselves and imposed their rule and customs upon the Anglo-Saxons.
Now you may be able to deduct that a NOR-MAN was a name attributed to the tribal origin.
The Normans were descended from Norse Viking conquerors who were know as warriors, merchants, and pirates who raided, traded, and settled in wide areas of Europe, Asia and the North Atlantic islands from the late 8th to the mid-11th century.
By the time the Normans arrived, they were already more civilized, that is: they were “Latinized” and “Christianized” by the descents of the Roman Civilization; however, they remained sea-nomads as their Norse Viking ancestors.
Notice the parallels between them and the British behavior?
Best Regards and Negotiations
Once again argie over reaction,
Feb 11th, 2012 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN asked both to talk, and we did just that, anything to oblige the UN and to stop the baby crying,
Out side the Argies were waiting for the British to talk, with all the worlds press,
And then the brits spoke, they said, [sod off cry baby]
And the Argies are now on top of the UN building threatening to commit suicide unless someone listens to them.
All rubbish .lol.
.
The Argentinians aren't even bright enough to realize the UN can never pass any resolution on anything, let alone the Falklands, without the express approval of the UK which has a dissenting vote on any such motion
Feb 11th, 2012 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And to be honest the tactic of whipping up the Falkland issue is a common one in Argentina when internal issues become a problem, and if this fails the next stage is, as usual, thousands of unexplained “disaperances” of its citizens. Ah Argentinan democracy, wonder how long before ANOTHER military junta gets in (very common occurance, almost a routine)
“If Argentina hadn't invaded the Falkland Islands in the first place, there would be no reason to have any military stationed there.”
When will daft Argentinians realise the current mess was entirely of their own making? We British will be staying to protect the islands for as long as the islanders themselves want the military there to protect them.
Remember: ARGENTINA DID NOT EXIST AS A NATION STATE WHEN THE FALKLANDS WERE SETTLED BY THE BRITISH - & THE ISLANDS ARE WELL AWAY FROM THE MAINLAND.
And another thing while we are at it, do we feel it necessary to keep a large garrison and warships stationed around the Channel Islands, even though they are much closer to France than Argentina is to the Falkland Islands?
Uruguay's latest staements. As the OAS before them, Uruguay also disapproves of the militarisation in the South Atlantic.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is cut and pasted from the Buenos Aires Herald
Uruguay is concerned over the “militarization of the South Atlantic,” within the framework of the Argentine-UK dispute over the sovereignty of the Malvinas islands, Uruguayan Foreign Minister Luis Almagro said today.
“This is a very strong scenario. We are worried over the militarization of the South Atlantic. This definitely goes against UN resolutions. It also goes against the resolution that urges both countries to discuss the sovereignty of the Malvinas islands to solve this conflict in a peaceful manner,” he added.
“In addition, it goes against having a colony in the continent and to think that it can be sustained by force. All of this gathers elements that we obviously do not like,” Almagro explained.
Argentine Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman yesterday accused the UK of entering nuclear weapons in the South Atlantic, part of a “militarization” process and filed a formal complaint before the UN.
As the 30th anniversary of the Malvinas islands war approaches, tension between Argentina and UK have mounted in the last weeks.
@44 - Thats correct, the normans did invade us, but the majority were french descendant (that were descendants of the Gaul tribes from roman times), only the ruling norman class were or nordic descent. Or are you saying all the french in nomandy were wiped out and replaced with a nord, and the same for anglo-saxons? I think you will find that the vast majority of us brits, are anglo-saxon descendants. Even our royal family are mainly of german descent, and guess where anglo-saxons originate from? Thats right germany (from the gaul tribes). Just because our anglo-saxon rulers were replaced with a norman one, it doesn't make our anglo-saxon ancestors Normans, we are still anglo-saxons. Evidence of this is in tha fact the french call england angleterre, the word England itself evolved from the word anglo.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also there is no parallel between us and the normans, there was a good 400-500 years after 1066 before britain went on to colonise and become a major naval power. We merely followed in spains footsteps at first after colombus discovered america. Which led to spain (argentinians own european ancestors) colonising the south americas. So really it was spain that started the conquest and colonisation of new lands.
No argies ever answer the questions!! e.g youur country never existed when we claimed the islands etc etc they just psout off about the other children in the playground support us its beyond stupidity. Get over it abd concentrate on paying back your defaulted IMF loans, controlling your 25% plus inflation, and maybe help the poor families find out what happened to the 10000 murdered young people by the Naval Engineering Department.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is there, is purely your imagination,
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yours and only yours,
As for “militarization
You would have to define this,
To my knowledge, all south American countries on the east side, has more military equipment in the south Atlantic than the British, do you not,
As for nuclear weapons, no nuclear will ever disclose the whereabouts of its items to no one,
So for twiddle man to demand this info, is childish at least, very dangerous at worse,
For it is Argentina that is pushing and pushing, not the British,
But on the other hand, if we had a government with backbone, we would not be exchanging words at all,
For you can only push once to often, and when that day ever arrives, you will have no complaint will you .
.
Tell that to Uruguay, mate! They don't seem to agree with your assessment based on their latest statement which I posted in 47.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0keep participating ;)
well the facts are facts,
Feb 11th, 2012 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we have one ship
4 planes
and some soldiers in the south atlantic, is this not correct.
don't know mate as the UK did not want to comment on an alleged sub...
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In any event, it would appear that it is not only Argentina that is uneasy about the latest developments in the South Atlantic. I mean, by the tone of Uruguay's statement it would appear that they are not stoked about it either.
You tell me....
Argentina did exist. From 1810 onwards we governed ourselves. Official independence achieved in 1816. At that time we called ourselves United Provinces. The United Provinces lost different terrotories up to 1835. Then they changed their name to Confederacion Argentina. Following the civil war, this name was kept under the 1853 Constitution when Buenos Aires secceded. When in 1861 Buenos Aires rejoined the Confederation and accepted the Constitution, the name was changed to Republica Argentina. So 1861 is the date when we definetively consolidated ourselves as a country and put an end to the dispute on the Constitution.
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nevertheless, the Article N°35 of our constitution calls:
“The denominations successively adopted from 1810 up to the present, namely: ”United Provinces of the River Plate“; ”Argentine Republic“; ”Argentine Confederation“, shall henceforth be official names to be indistinctly used for the designation of the government and territory of the provinces, the words ”Argentine Nation“ being used in the making and enactment of laws.”
So yes, we were here independent before the Islanders.
Well just to put there mind at rest, if they lived next door to, say,
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Israel , Iran , Pakistan , India , Russia , china , north Korea , Syria , Egypt , Libya , Yemen , Somalia ,
Turkey , and few others, they may well be worried, but as that are not, and over 300 miles away, and will probably never see the British military, , and as they have not had any trouble with the brits for probably over a hundred years plus,,, then we can safely say,
They are worrying abt nothing.
Seems fair we think.
.
@44 nyaria2000,
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So now you're an expert on British history as well.
Unfortunately for you, you are not quite correct.
Teaboy2 @48 has explained it to you.
The Normans had resided in France for about 300 years before they invaded England in 1066.
By then they had massively intermarried with the local French peoples & completely lost their language.
Undoubtedly we had pirates & travelled to other lands to conquer etc.
Every nation who could, did.
Your own Spanish ancestors conquered South America killing, looting & raping.
ln Patagonia you Argentines murdered thousands of native peoples then stole their land. No, it wasn't the Spanish who did this as you were already inderpendent.
All this is very interesting & l'm glad to see that you take an interest in our history but it's getting right away from the subject at hand.
That is that Argentina has no valid claim upon the Falklands or any other British territory.
Simply put, my emotional Argie friend, this is not your land & never has been.
You may twist history, lie & squirm as much as you like, but when all the dust has settled, you are entitled to absolutely nothing here.
So sorry for your colonial ambitions, but they're going nowhere.
Try again,
Peace, my dear♥
@ 54 Argentina did not exist in 1810. It was called United Provinces for a reason. It was not Argentina. The United Provinces were not that united anyway. Do you think this is about names?
Feb 11th, 2012 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinists are crapping in their pants once again. Thank you Cristina p*tita. Nada nuevo, nada ha cambiado. Los patrioteros argentinos habituados a reclamar cosas que no les pertenecen.
#57
Feb 12th, 2012 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read the chapter on law of succession of International Public Law and you will understand why Argentina is the natural continuation of the United Province.
To TEABOY ( Nr.39)
Feb 12th, 2012 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can paraphrase Winston Churchill, but sadly Argentinian ´s authorities ( My government) are emulating Hitler if you take in account that Argentina claim a land whithout consider tha inhbitants wishes. That is fascism !! I am very sorry for that.
Oh no not a submarine! Boo hoo hoo.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Brits guys!!
Feb 12th, 2012 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do not forget to participate in the lottery for Andrew's last socks he used in MALVINAS!! You can keep as a souvenir as THE ONLY SOCK WITHOUT NUCLEAR WASTE.
@ 58 Nothing you Malvinists can do about it. You'll have to suck that big british c*ck until forever. Enjoy it :)
Feb 12th, 2012 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Briton 55
Feb 12th, 2012 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was the invasion and migration of Germanic tribes from continental Europe to Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages, specifically the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain after the end of Roman rule in the 5th century. The Roman Empire had collapsed by implosion and was invaded then by other Germanic tribes (barbarians) running away from the Huns (Asian barbarians).
Now I repeat again, later on from the 8th to the mid-11th century, the Normans, who were know as sea-nomads warriors, merchants, and pirates who raided, broke in, traded, and settled in wide areas of Europe, Asia, the North Atlantic islands and part of today’s New England (USA).
This had happened much earlier than Spain’s conquest and colonization of America starting in late 15th century (North, Central, Caribbean, and South America)
-------------------
Isolde 56
“Your own Spanish ancestors conquered South America killing, looting & raping.”
- I would have expected a lesser emotional over-simplification from you at this point. So tell me my dear Isolde, that means your Anglo-Saxon and Norman ancestors took other people's lands “politely?”
“So sorry for your colonial ambitions, but they're going nowhere.”
- Joining Cameron campaign my dear? I want to call your attention your status of Colony of the British Empire (today called “politely” a British Dependency)
__
“ln Patagonia you Argentinians murdered thousands of native peoples then stole their land. No, it wasn't the Spanish who did this as you were already independent.”
- Now here I grant you a half-point.
- Yes. That is a part of our history that we are not proud off - feeling pleased and satisfied about our ancestors owning something that was wrongly obtained. But have you done some soul-searching and criticize you ancestors on how the obtained Malvinas and other places in Asia, and Africa?
- If you ever do so, then I would grant you the other half-point:oO
Love, negotiations, and peace
Ban Ki-moon tells MORON Argentine Falkland Fanatics to grow up.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Question of the day (actually night),
Feb 12th, 2012 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is the difference between the “conquest of the West” (North America) and the “conquest of the desert” (South America)
lsolde, in proper Patagonia we killed less than 10.000. Most died of disease.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's more. Here in Tierra del Fuego, odds are that the ones who brought disease to the Natives were Brtish people.
@65 Artillero 601,
Feb 12th, 2012 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing,
oh maybe more people died in the conquest of the west.
Neither are anything to be proud of.
@66 JuanStanic,
Odds are,
so you don't really know.
Anyway you have admitted that we were there first. Thank you.
When are you going to “return” the land to Britain?
Irrespective of Argentina's escelation of the conflict, Britain's reaction by deploying Nuclear submarines makes a compelling case for the reconsideration of the Nuclear weapons-free treaty in the South Atlantic. Perhaps it is time that South American powers collectively consider the Nuclear weapons option. Afterall if Britain can threaten with their nuclear power then why shouldnt South America, Iran and North Korea. What makes Britain so special that only they should have these weapons as so-called deterants.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@pedro.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0North Korea has the bomb (design unreliable 1st test a “fizzle”)- and is a country operating a “military first” policy whereby the populace starves to sustain a bloated military. It is a police state operating concentration camps. It has lkaunched attacks on South Korea in ht past couple of years - sinking a frigate and shelling an island. Great role model to follow.
Iran is a Fundamantalist Islamic police state that routinely executes people. Official state policy denies that the holocaust exists. It backs islamic terrorism, particularly Hamas. It support president Assad in Syria as he shells Homs and carries out his murderous anti-democratic crackdown. It illegally occupied islands in the area using force in the 80s (sound familiar?). State policy has decreed Israel to be an enemy that must be destroyed. The regime is repressive and faces internal dissent that could turn violent again. Another brilliant role model.
If you want a nuclear deterrent - be prepared to pay through the nose for it. It's expensive. Then be prepared to face nuclear retaliation if you ever were to use a device. We could easily upgrade our Tridents to carry more warheads and develop tactical nuclear weapons for fielding on strike aircraft and RN warships. Fancy Mutually Assured Destruction? We've been there before.
@68 “What makes Britain so special ”
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well ....as C Rhodes said ... “To be born English is to win first prize in the lottery of life.”
You chaps just have to live with being 'also rans' at best...
@63 - So now your trying to lay the blame firmly on us, for something the nordic tribes did, prior to the normans invading Britain. When the nords first came to the americas (something that is widely disputed and no historical fact exists to prove it) They were likely raiding indian settlements, though nordic pottery found proves it more likely that they traded with the natives of the americas. Off course they may have had the odd small settlement, but they did not colonise the americas. Not only that but the Normans although descendants of the nordic tribes, were very different from their descendents. For a start it was only the norman rulers that were descendants of the nordic bloodline, the general population was of french and germanic bloodlines. When the normans invaded england in 1066 they spoke french, there soldiers were mainly french/german descendants. The anglo saxons were not wiped out and we are still here today, only our anglo-saxon rulers were replaced by norman rulers, not the whole population. So i fail to see how you can use nordic history, or assumed and very much disputed nordic history to blame us british of being the first to partake in colonisation, i think you will find that factual history makes that the romans, folled by the muslims (southern spain and isreal - remeber the story of the red see crossing) infact the ealiest historic evidence of colonisation was found in ancient eygpt as they expanded south along the nile. Then you also have genghis khan, who colonise much of asia, you also have the greeks who colonised much of the greek islands. You also have the persians and babylonians and the macedonians and so on - all of which conquered and colonised, way before the north european indigneous tribes (they were not barbarians, that was just a name the romans called them by)
Feb 12th, 2012 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0So since your playing the blame game, who do you want to blame first for being the ones that created the idea of conquer and colonise? because it was not the nords!
@69shb - Everything you say is true. That is exactly my point. Why did N Korea get the bomb? To counter S Korea and the US.Why is Iran working frantically on it? To counter perceived threats from US & allies. India got it to counter China and Russia. Pakistan got it to counter India. Israel got it to counter those that want to destroy Israel. Afganistan will get it and then all Muslim countries -Etc.Etc. So - it is irresponsible of the UK to posture and threaten with their nuclear weapons. It gives those repressive,authoritarian and fundamentalist regimes reasons (valid or not) to get Nuclear arms. Imagine Chaves,Correa et-all and Alba with Russian/Chinese/Iranian assistance getting the bomb. Why dont we just all get the bomb and destroy the entire planet. Those with Nuclear weapons have a huge responsibility not to escalate the desire for these weapons. As for costs - you dont have to develope them.Having only a few already acts as deterent as is the case with N-Korea - +/- 6 bombs. Iran once they have them wont hesitate to supplie their allies in South America.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 058 Helber Galarga
Feb 12th, 2012 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is Argentine islands and Argentine oil, being drilled by colonial pirates, protect by pirate ships, sooner all destroyed better.
Clearly, Malvinas is Argentine, claim exist since before Argentina exist. This is well documented that we renounce claim in 1850 but claim was resurrected under Peron who traveled to Italy and adopted policies of Mussolini fascist party in order to make Argentina great nation that it became.
As part of expanded living space, we must continue this policy and we must take over Terra del Fuego and Beagle Channel and then Malvinas.
My grandfather while working for Intelligence visit Indonesia in 1976 to copy plans they used for invasion of Portuguese East Timor and removal of colonial population to be copied in invasion of Malvinas.
If we had copied these plans our invasion would be success and like East Timor is part of Indonesia, Malvinas would now be part of Argentina. World has very short memory.
In order to do good for our country we must do bad things. This is what my grandfather always says.
We know Malvinas never been under Argentine sovereignty but gifted to us by Papal Bull in 1496. No one can argue with Pope or God, that whole of South America given by him to Spain.
Go home colonial pirates w claim you land before our country exist, you can not argue with that. You live there almost 200 years illegally, you have no rights. We will own your homes, farms, businesses, oil and fish.
You will be made to speak Spanish, drive on right, obey our laws, live under our government and governor. In return we give you right to be reborn like our national hero James Peck.
James Peck is son of Malvinas War traitor Terry Peck, he was awarded MBE for helping British occupy our land. Unlike his father, James is brave, patriot, his father will be turning in his grave.
You can all be reborn like James Peck. Or you can die like Terry Peck!!!!!!
63 nyaria2000
Feb 12th, 2012 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i think your reply was to the wrong person,
i never mentioned saxons .
@73 Filippo
Feb 12th, 2012 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Peron who traveled to Italy and adopted policies of Mussolini fascist party in order to make Argentina great nation that it became. ”
“In order to do good for our country we must do bad things. This is what my grandfather always says.”
Very interesting Filippo, that you speak of Facist and Nazi princples as something to be proud of. That puts Argentina in the bracket of 'pariah state' similar to Zimbabwe. The fact that your nation murders its own population in their thousands 'for the good' means that NO country should ever want to do 'business' with it in anyway shape or form. If ANY nation has any sense it will give Argentina a very wide berth and leave it to wither and die a lonely death. And you wonder why the Islanders have no wish to be Argentine?
Filippo 73 - East Timor is part of Indonesia? For your information:
Feb 12th, 2012 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“East Timor was colonized by Portugal in the 16th century, and was known as Portuguese Timor until Portugal's decolonization of the country. In late 1975, East Timor declared its independence, but later that year was invaded and occupied by Indonesia and was declared Indonesia's 27th province the following year. In 1999, following the United Nations-sponsored act of self-determination, Indonesia relinquished control of the territory and East Timor became the first new sovereign state of the 21st century on May 20, 2002.”
(Source: Wikipaedia). Incidentally, do you see the words “self determination”?
Ring a bell?
75 Audi Consilium (#)
Feb 12th, 2012 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct when you say ”And you wonder why the Islanders have no wish to be Argentine?
The threat of Argentina becoming another fascist banana-republic looks closer than ever when we hear comments like that from Filippo!
77 BenC30 (#)
Feb 12th, 2012 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I totally agree with you !
@38 But your defence minister, Arthritic Putrid Jelly is the only one who has mentioned war. He said you are ready to go to war. Members of the British government have only mentioned defence.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@43 And we can kick your teeth in, AGAIN.
@44 Of course we see the parallels. We are more civilised than you are. But still capable of grinding you into the dirt.
@52 Actually we have 4 ships and 8 aircraft.
@54 I get it. If you put in your “constitution” “We shall be the wisest, most honest, pacific country in the world and, equally, benefactors to the world and pledge at least 50% of our country's wealth in aid to other countries.” that makes it true, does it?
@58 Just to point out that you used an incorrect word. But it's only a matter of adding a couple of letters. The word you wanted is not “natural”. It should have been “unnatural”. You are all, fortunately, homosexual, aren't you? All we have to do is stand back and watch you not breed. Problem solved!
@63 Don't worry. You haven't changed. Did you not kill at least 30,000 during your 'Dirty War'. You can still hold your heads up. Are you not the genocides with the greatest “score” in the last couple of hundred years? How proud you must be!
@68 Go for it. A vessel with nuclear propulsion is not covered by the existing treaty. Try to develop nuclear weapons and you become another Iran. A target. By the way, why don't you mention China, India, Pakistan, Russia or the USA?
@73 Back to the nuthouse for you. But I see you believe in Hitler's “Lebensraum”. “No-one can argue with Pope or God.” Why not? The Pope isn't the head of our church. And was it this Pope or the last one that said that the 15th century papal bull was meaningless? James Peck is a piece of scum. Like all argies. Terry Peck was, undoubtedly, brave, loyal, honest and a hero. A real Falklander. If he were still alive, Terry Peck would probably strangle his son. Since he, regrettably, isn't, somebody will have to do the job for him.
@58 Helber, while I do not agree at all with your interpretation of the Argentine claim to our islands, you do seem to at least study the issues (unlike Fillipo, who is clearly deranged - I presume you would not support his views in any way). I would be interested to read your views on how the 1849 convention of settlement can be interpreted any other way than to totally end any claim that Argentina had to the Islands. It clearly states that with the signing of the treaty “perfect relations of friendship” are re-established and existing differences settled. From the ratification in 1850, there was no further official statements on the issue until around 1940. In 1869 your president Sarmiento's message to congress stated “The state of our foreign re lations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by
Feb 12th, 2012 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their
sympathies”
My source is Pepper and Pascoe, who no doubt you disagree with, but they seem to have done proper academic research, and to convince me (or any international court of law) otherwise, you need to come up with a valid argument why this does not overrule any previous disagreements.
Argentina is struggling to differentiate between “nuclear-armed” and “nuclear-powered”
Feb 12th, 2012 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@72 “it is irresponsible of the UK to posture and threaten with their nuclear weapons”
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pedro - from where I live in the Falklands, the only people doing the threatening seem to be Argentina, threatening to take my home from me by whatever means they can. Argentina claim that they would never attack militarily again - if they keep that promise then what is the threat that UK poses to them???
mollymauk
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will exagerate the situation so you maybe get how we feel. Imagine you live in your house. Your neighbor every morning patrols with some new guns near your backyard. And whenever he cans, he buys better weapons. Wouldn't you be a bit nervous?
nope
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@83 you forget to mention that he has the guns because you once invaded his house and crapped all over the place. Having been forcibly ejected you now hang around his boundary screaming and shouting for all to hear that his house is really yours and you want all his stuff.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Personally I wouldn't have bothered patrolling with guns... I'd buy a bloody big and nasty dog and sool him on you at least once a week....... oh and I'd send him round to hump the yappie old bitch you keep in the pink kennel at the back of your squat...
83 - you are wrong - this is why:
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Publicly the UK and France has had more than it's fair shares of diplomatic differences! The Royal Navy sails up the English Channel and at it's narrowest it's 21 miles wide. France doesn't start throwing a wobbly every time the Royal Navy sails through, just like the UK doesn't say anything to France with French ships. Normal countries do not make a fuss. Argentina is making a fuss. Argentina is not a normal country!
You say: “And whenever he cans, he buys better weapons”.
The UK is just keeping up-to-date with the latest technology. The Ministry of Defence doesn't just buy new equipment to frighten off banana-republics like Argentina.
Argentina throwing their weight around is making some of the Falkland Islanders nervous. Many still remember 1982. Argentina doesn't feel 'nervous'. Argentina is making a “fuss”!
@79
Feb 12th, 2012 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your barbarian ancestors became civilized when they made contact and were allowed to live within the Latin-Christian civilization. That's when they learned how to live with human beings.
Back to the present, you are just “a big mouth hooligan”,makings the Brits look uncivilized again. I can see that, in a face-to-face real combat, you will act as a “ shy princess”, lacking resolve and boldness.
So do us a favor. seal your big mouth.
ok great Argentina will not show concerns as soon as we have a nuclear defence program to prevent the continued occupation by nuclear armed forces, illegal aliens and pirates.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 088 - There is a difference between a “nuclear-powered submarine” and a “nuclear-armed submarine”.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you do not understand the difference you may like to do some research.
If you believe the hyped up rubbish that the Royal Navy submarine is actually in the South Pacific, and is actually armed with nuclear warheads” then CFK has you brainwashed.
@83
Feb 12th, 2012 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, now add to that that who did that was the father, who now is old and retired. The son lives with him and is the one in charge of the house. In my example, the one nervous is the son. And the son keeps saying the other house is from him, because he that the neighbors grandfather occupied part of his yard and built it when his grandfather was on vacation. Yet he doesn't have a gun pointing at that house.
@86
UK and France are both NATO. France has weapons. Argentina is not NATO. Argentina has stuff that used to be weapons.
Keeping up to date or not, when you replace the old ones for new ones, the new ones are supposed to be better. Besides, when you get better weapons and you have the previous model, you either keep up to date or you get weapons from the future.
The UK and France are both in NATO. So? This should not make a difference!
Feb 12th, 2012 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should try and think how the Falkland Islanders feel. People still remember what happened 30 years ago there... everyday there is some pathetic piece of news out of Buenos Aires against the Falklands!
Argentina are making a fuss for the sake of it!
The Royal Navy is not a threat to Argentina, unless Argentina declares war again!
Let me say to any Argy blogger and to the lobotomised widow who calls herself the president of a nasty little corrupt broke country this is what awaits you if you don’t do as the UN says and pull back from the brink. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099755/Chris-Parry-How-I-fired-shots-Falklands-War-crippled-Argentine-submarine.html Now we don’t mind either way how it goes down, hell it might even be better for Argentina if we fired a few shots and they surrendered in double quick time. Don’t forget we brought democracy to Argentina when we last kicked their arses. Time now I thinks to bring on the second phase and bring proper stability to her so that everyone in the area can prosper including all Argentinians.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are several types of Argentine posters on here I note:
Feb 12th, 2012 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Old establishment types, the uber nationalists. Many of whom either date back to the 70's and early 80's rape and genocide of Argentina political dissidents, or who explain that age away in terms of left wing “terrorists” and “traitors” getting their just deserts.
Most of these live outside of Argentina.
2. The younger, more naive, hot tempered, Malvinas Fanatics, of very low intelligence, whose only world view is shapped by reading nationalist literature and listening to their governments rants about the Mavlinas and Great Britain.
Most of these live in the USA and mix mainly with fellow Hispanics.
3. The veterans - whose views are shaped by their having fought a war they lost and were then ostracised by the government that sent them and the entire Argentine society. They are generally ill educated and their mindset has been shaped by the shock of their defeat and treatment and the propaganda they were exposed to from school to national service, to the conflict.
There appears to be ONE of these veterans posting here. All of the other Malvinas fanatics are armchair warriors, who prefer others to fight their wars (see group 3) and wish to do everything they can to stoke up hatred, make threats and generally, fire everyone up.
4. The more moderate Argentines, people who are educated, are more intelligent than either of the above two groups.
Most of these live in Argentina. But they are roundly condemned by groups 1 and 2 for being traitors, socialists, left wingers, imposers.
You would find in very difficult absent traveling back to 1930's Germany or Italy to find the same level nationalist, fascistic, vitriol spouted out by groups 1 and 2.
The fact that the failed logic of their own mindset passes them by is either because they have such low intelligence they can not comprehend or they are naturally evil minded hateful people.
I have yet to see an Argentine say thank you to Britain for rescuing them from the junta and bringing them the chance of democracy (no matter how flawed) when we rescued the islanders in 1982.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They do not seem very grateful.
Britain, the country that destroyed Iranian democracy in an act of spite because the Iranians dared to want a share of their own oil profits.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain, the country that sold off the Chagos islands to the Yanks against the wishes of the Chagosians.
Was Iraq's right to self-determination considered by the British when they invaded Iraq?
Was Iran's right to self-determination considered when the Brits and Ynaks ousted Mossadegh and replaced him with a thuggish clown (the Shah)?
TBH Most of the war talk has come from Britain. There's been plenty of fiery talk from Cristina and co, yes, but I have not heard the word “war” bandied about.
People should remember that the Junta was US backed and US trained; Kissinger urged Videla and Galtieri to “crush the working classes”. At his trial, Jorge Videla spouted lines that sounded like they had been written by the CIA. Apparently Reagan was fond of the Child Snatcher.
Look, I think this whole dispute is farcical, a waste of time and money (though note that this has cost the Brit taxpayer far more than the Argentine one).
As for the Argentine economy, well, it has problems, but 10% growth last year is something the British can only dream of (and even in their dreams they probably cannot imagine it). The UK economy is entirely subsidised by the taxpayer via bank bailouts and tax credits. The UK government has to top up many Britons wages because the wages paid by the private sector are too low to live on. That's a recipe for disaster.
@91
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it's different. It's an alliance. And France and the UK don't have the same issues as Argentina and the UK.
Following your way of thinking, the military in my country should be abolished. Many people remain what happened 30 years ago. But no, people don't have an issue with todays military.
And as Argentina neither wants or CAN(important thing) go to war, what are the ships for? Why such a modern one? Use an older and smaller one.
Isn't it interesting how the British media never mentions the Dirty War, which was ultimately what led to the 1982 invasion. Juntas, by their very nature, are war-like.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm never failed to be amazed by Argentine posters somehow claiming their economy is in better shape than the British economy, its so fricking retarded its hard to even find words to describe.
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For anyone with even the most slight knowledge of economics Argentina's economy is a terrible ticking time bomb. When inflation breaches 10% your economy is in dire straights and when you are at 25% (which you are) its effectively game over regardless of how your government pretends to do otherwise. The Argentine economy is akin to Enron in the US.
The UK economy is fairing very well in spite of the western recession hence the UK still having the highest credit rating and Argentina having a junk credit rating.
As for those confusing tax credits and bank bailouts, you really need to learn more about the subject since they are not even related.
As for growth figures, well they are entirely pointless if you've got an out-of-control inflation problem which effectively puts you in negative growth. If I were Argentina I'd be very envious of the UK's economic strength who are the 6th biggest economy in the world and doing comparatively well in a time of a western recession.
It is high time some Argentine posters accepted some truth into their lives.
@87 “Your barbarian ancestors became civilized when they made contact and were allowed to live within the Latin-Christian civilization. That's when they learned how to live with human beings.”
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know its funny you should say that since your own spanish ancestors were babarians (Visigoths originally desendants of the gauls german ancesters) until invaded by the romans just like the gauls were. Oh wait those same barbarians Visigoths and gauls invaded the crumbling roman empire in 400'sBC in fact it was the Visigoths that sacked rome in 410BC.
So your talking crap saying our ancesters this and that, when all along you and all those argentines of spanish descent have the same flaming ancesters as us anglo-saxons, you dumb twit.
Oh it was nice seeing you talk crap and making a fool out of yourself whilst i purposefully kept the above revelation from you, knowing full well where you would take the subject.
95 Gary
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina the country that backs the Wests policies on Iran (led by the United States), that you find so onerous.
Argentina the country that backs and supports Israel and the government of Israel (as you seem to be a supporter of a brutal Iranian dictatorship, you are almost certainly anti Semitic!).
Argentina the country that sent its forces to join the multinational forces in Afghanistan and Iraq (conflicts I object to, perhaps I should blame Argentina for them?)
Argentina the country that committed genocide against it's indigenous population.
Argentina the country that committed genocide against it's 50% Afro-American population in the 20th Century.
Argentina the country that raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered 50,000 to 100,000 (according to your own respected academic Borges) of your own people under Operation Condor, the highest death toll of any Operation Condor nation. Carried out under a military dictatorship.
Argentina, the country that holds the world record for the highest number of military dictators of any country on Earth.
Argentina a country that invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, uninvited against the wishes of the people who live there and in violation of national sovereignty, backed up by the United Nations and almost every nation on Earth. Argentina was isolated and slighted by the UN, the EU, the Commonwealth, Soviet Union, China, France, Britain, United States, the World Bank, IMF, even Ireland, Italy and Spain took a stand against Argentine aggression.
Argentine one of the most nationalist nations on Earth and consequently one of the least educated and most poorly governed, with one of the highest inflation rates in the world.
Argentina where any one who doesn't support the government is labeled a traitor.
Argentine where new anti terror laws will soon label any Argentine citizens who protest in the street, object to government policies or become the subject of “dissident” activities as a terrorist.
Gary
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some of what you say does have a ring of truth but we live in a different world from the 1950s.It still doesn't justify a neo fascist regime in a country of 40 million intimidating a small community of 3000 in 2012.
As for the Chagos ; the official line is that these people were itinerant workers from Mauritius. I have met some who live in Britain and I tend to agree with you as do many people in the UK . What harm would it do to let the few thousand who want to resettle on the islands.We are not all unthinking automatons in the UK.
The British did not invade Iraq (to use CFKs reasoning about the junta).Tony Bliar arranged the British side of the Iraqi invasion .I was one of the million who marched against the war; ' make tea not war'.
As for the Argentine economy. One of my specialities is economics and having lived through Bliars 'economic miracle' I know a bubble when I see one and Argentina is definitely going through one. 10% growth and 20% inflation is not real growth.
I also think that the British economy is a disaster area. My diagnosis is based on the real unemployed in the UK being in the region of 6 to 8 million not 2.5 million. When I studied economics there were 8 million workers in UK factories. Now there are 2.75 million. No country can afford to have so many long term un or under employed.
Having said that, Britain is probably in a better state than just about every other European country. It is a 99 to 1 racing certainty that the Eurozone will implode to a greater or lesser extent in the next few months.The west is an economic disaster area. The US is probably the best placed for recovery.
India is slowing down ,as well as being massively corrupt.China with its 70 million unoccupied homes is the biggest bubble in the world.
The immediate outlook is bleak!
101 STRATEGICUS
Feb 12th, 2012 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you will find that the policy was at the behest of the US, which took over Chagos and has built a massive top secret base there. The Mauritius who lived there were moved out but at some point in the future they will return with the compensation they have been given. It can be compared to some of the English villages cleared during WW2 so the Army could use land for training - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyneham
strategicus,
Feb 12th, 2012 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is not in a bubble. I will call it a balloon. The country economy has grown. Measure it in dollars and you can tell.
Besides, the problem is that most of the grow comes from exporting and consume, while production is almost none growing. So is the point of our last trade restrictions, to boost local production, so that offer equilibrates with demand.
Already, private and government economists predict that growth will slow. Some even think that only in 3 or 4 years the protectionist policies will start having a considerable impact in production and therefore in inflation. That's also why Cristina needs the possibility of another term. As the economy worsens to later improve(worsens around the end of her current mandate), only her figure can get her Party to win. The Frente para la Victoria without her in front is not so strong.
Juan 103
Feb 12th, 2012 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A balloon is normally bigger than a bubble and when it explodes it does more damage.
@1o4
Feb 13th, 2012 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a possibility. It can also not explode. Or slowly loose air. Or loose some air and then explode. It's not mandatory that it explodes.
@105 “It's a possibility. It can also not explode. Or slowly loose air. Or loose some air and then explode. It's not mandatory that it explodes.”
Feb 13th, 2012 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its certainly mandatory when you have such high inflation acting as a spear head constantly striking the ballon. Remember Zimbabwe?
Thanks Ban Ki-moon for the offer. This might have slipped your mind, but does this mean you'll also be opening your doors to Japan and Korea so they can sit down and discuss the Liancourt-Dokdo-Takeshima Rocks? Referring them to the UN Decolonisation Committee?
Feb 13th, 2012 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I somehow doubt it.
@106
Feb 13th, 2012 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would be if you didn't tried to control inflation. But the government will do eventually(they won't want to loose the next election).
@108 its all ready way out of control and recent devaluation of the peso will only lead to faster increaes in inflation.
Feb 13th, 2012 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gary? A wee anglo Argentine boy?
Feb 13th, 2012 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@110 No, regardless of his apparent nefarious activities Gary Glitter is not Argentine.
Feb 13th, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 097 Gary the Anglo Argentine
Feb 14th, 2012 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here is a film all the nationalist children of Argentina should watch. It should be compulsory education in Argentine schools to learn about their country recent history, instead of teaching lies about the Falkland Islands (the imaginary Malvinas - which Argentina has NEVER had sovereignty over).
That something like this was allowed to happen is a crime against humanity, 50,000-100,000 raped, tortured, mutilated, murdered and disappeared (Borges). Unborn babies ripped out of their mothers wombs, young children taken from their parents, who were murdered by the heroic Argentine military.
Anyone of you born in the 70's? I hope your lucky enough to know who your real parents are...
The Official Story / La historia official (1985)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7LF5II0wIY
It's a film everyone should watch. Feel shame because the specter of fascism still grips Argentina and as Martino Moreno said “If publishing the truth is forbidden, then lies, ignorance and poverty will follow”.
Argentina's history is still being written by Moreno's assassins.
The devaluation of the peso(regardless of salary raises) won't have as much effect as people will buy less. Cristina is cutting subsides for a reason. She wants us to buy less. The demand is the key. Here in TDF, one of the reasons prices are higher than in mainland even when we don't pay IVA is because our higher salaries gives us the chance to buy more. That gives you higher prices.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0@113 Yes people will buy less, because they simply will not be able to buy things due to inflation making them so expensive, reduction in consumer spending also increases inflation as less goods are being sold, therefore manufacturers and companies selling the goods make less profit whilst still having increasing overheads to pay including increases in wages forcing them to put up the price of goods, and/or reduce jobs. Which will lead to more unemployment costing the state more money in benefits, and yet futher inflation.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0So how you can say it will not have much effect is beyond me. Now why on earth would CFK want consumers to buy less, your economy depends on consumer purchases, cutting subsides leads to increases in prices too, increasing inflation further. Sorry but higher salaries do not give you higher prices, infact, the lower the inflation, the lower the prices, so the more consumers buy the lower the prices are and the lower the inflation is. Buying more does not increase the price.
A brother TN3170 is one of the most common toner cartridges used in businesses, as a result its one of the cheapest as it is purchased more than say a TN3280 which is not so commonly used by business and as such the TN3280 is more expensive.
@114 Hmm, economic stagflation in Argentina. Nice.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You would have thought that the Argie Politburo's policy of Juche (주체사상) under their Beloved leader KFC and Eternal Leader Nestor would have brought the Argies to the great national realisation of the glorious future.
The UN must be cringing having to ask the UK to calm down. the Argentines mouth off, we say silent and we get roped into the pygmy politics of this screaming child.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0This affair is turning into a farce. Nobody in the CFK government knows the difference between a nuclear weapon and nuclear powered propulsion, nor the difference between fact and a twitter rumour. Timerman would have more credibility if he announced to the world he is an idiot.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the twits in cfk's government are ldiots
Feb 15th, 2012 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Ban Ki-moon calls on ArgentinaJapan and UKKorea to scale down Falklands Takeshima-dokdo dispute”
Feb 15th, 2012 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh wait, no he doesn't. Ban Ki-moon, the only Korean to have wiped the entirety of WWII out of his mind... and curiously, the Secretary General of the UN.
Lord deliver us from these fools! (or Richard Dawkins if you're an athiest)
#119
Feb 15th, 2012 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Argentina “invade” Chile were only for gave them freedom from spanish colonialism.....
Argentinean top hero called General San Martin fight for Chile with argentinenan troops crossing the andes....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Andes
Chile knows this prety well....ask them, their scholars books or just look the main place in Chile Casa de la Moneda were proudly stand San Martin monument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Andes
Clean your mouth before talk about Argentina or Chile
@120 Do you want to tell me what the UN did when during the Beagle Conflict? If I recall they did pretty much nothing, and the Pope had to devote time away from handing out indulgences for altar boy love, in order to mediate.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But Argentina pulled out of talks, just like it did in 2003 with the UK. Hmm, trustworthy Argentines.
65- Artillero, the rigth question is What´s the difference about Conquest of South, north and INDIA?
Feb 16th, 2012 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@122 Rosarino
Feb 16th, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0India was not conquered as such but annexed piece by piece, mostly from the decaying Mogul Empire, which did conquer India a few centuries before.
Changing one ruling class for another, did not make even a dent on the population.
@123 Pugol-H,
Feb 17th, 2012 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0A lot of lndia was far, far better off under the British.
Very little corruption for a start.
The English language, which is still one of the official languages.
Railways,
Roads,
Canals,
Strong currency,
Start of abolition of diseases,
Telegraph,
Heavy lndustry,
Protection of the Tribals,
Many lndian states had more personal freedom & security than they ever did under native rulers.
Attempts to ban suttee(now making a comeback!),
Eradication of Thuggee.
l could go on.
Of course its good to see lndia is an independent country now.
ln my opinion lndia was ready for independence in 1919.
Thats just my opinion.
Btw-malvinistas, do you give your “lndios” all the above benefits?
Mmmmmmm?
@124 lsolde
Feb 17th, 2012 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Indios can now speak Spanish!
@67 Isolde
Feb 17th, 2012 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my personal opinion the conquest of the West (North America) was more “democratic” (not for the American Indians , of course), the land conquered was given to the poor (immigrants). In the “conquest of the desert” (South America) , the lands conquered were negotiated by the Government to be sold to the rich.
In other words the North was more democratic ?? ;-))
@126 Artillero 601
Feb 17th, 2012 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anglo Saxon economics at work.
:-))))
Feb 17th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No shit !
Yes, by giving it to poor immigrants you create a lot of of tax payers, and thereby revenue for future governments.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By selling to “Los Ricos” apart from the purchase price, these people have never paid tax in their lives, in fact never contributed anything to the life of the Nation, only ever taken.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!