MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Lisa: CFK scaring its own people with the military routine exercises in Falklands
The editor of the Falkland Islands weekly Penguin News twitted that Argentine president Cristina Fernandez is scaring its own people, regarding military exercises in the Islands, which Lisa Watson underlines are “routine”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAhhh, something's happening that has happened constantly for ages around the same time, run to the hills!!
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I assume she tweeted rather than twitted?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is one of the more daft claims by CFK. It works on the basis that people who want it to be true will believe it to be true.
Reminds me of a guy in my office that's become obsessed by the mystery 'millenium falcon' at the bottom of the Baltic. He believes it is an ancient alien space craft. It's recently been speculated it is a German WW2 anti submarine structure but he dismissed that as impossible because it didn't fit his little green man agenda.
The point of that story is that some people will believe any old crap and some people are beyond help.
The bottom line is it makes no difference to the Falklanders or the UK, whatever the Argentine government and people choose to believe.
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/britain-threatening-latin-america-says-timerman/
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
@1 Don't spoil their fun, Argies love to run! Plus it's about the only thing they can do that isn't increasing in price by 40% per annum. Run, Argie, Run!
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I always supported a nuclear defence program in Argentina, and even a missile test area in tierra del fuego.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Were these “missile tests” on November 5th by any chance?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0l think its funny,
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Big bully in the school yard doesn't like it because our big brother came to protect us from him.
Of course they don't want us to have missile capability, it would make their plans of invasion so much harder.
@7 Isolde
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice metaphor.
@5 PH
And use your nukes against the falklands, rendering them un-inhabitable? A master stroke of thinking.
Argentina will never have nukes, you need brains to make them.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Besides, 'can't we give peace a chance?'.
5: Pirates steal things like, you know, company assets and stuff, so if you want to do some hunting, better look closer to home.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's face it. CFK isn't scaring anyone with all this talk of militarisiation - Falklanders and Argentines alike.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'd challenge any Argentine that posts on here to make a comment confirming they are scared.
The whole thing is a nonsense.
So Argentina is worried that it might be hit by a stray missile?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rapiers have a maximum range of just under 7km. The distance between any part of the Falkland Islands and any part of Argentina is about 500km.
Bearing in mind that I don't think the test firing is happening from Beaver Island (the island that is furthest west) either, the distance would be considerably more.
Or could it be another rather poor attempt to divert attention from a 30+% inflation rate as the economy sinks like a stone?
A lot of these missiles fired off ,are duds past their sell by date anyway.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0We've had it all now from Big Chief Plastic Face, and Timmerliar.
The aircraft at MPA are militarising the region=minimal amount of fighter aircraft in Falklands, Harriers, Phantoms, Tornados and Eurofighters there since 1982
One ship replacing guard ship there (since 1982) is militarising the South Atlantic.
Sending submarines occasionally since 1982 militarising the South Atlantic.
The South Atlantic was truly militarised in 1982 with 100 ships, three submarines and loads of troops and aircraft, to kick off the illegal invaders, and guess what , the numbers to maintain the garrisson are a tiny, tiny fraction of the Task force
What next? Since 1982 the FIDF has been upgraded=militarising the South Atlantic?
Wind generators outside Stanley, anti-aircraft barrage defences?
Oi Mercopress, this is what she tweeted:
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Yes and as missiles have a four mile range if anything goes wrong it's the people of Stanley who should be worried!”
people of Stanley, not Port Stanley as you incorrectly quoted. I small error but one that always irritates me.
@13 Pete Bog (#)
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:18 am
The British have an army, a navy and an air force = militarising the South Atlantic.
Didn't they just have an, what word did they use? An agreement? No a declaration. That is it. They made a declaration that the Royal Navy had a nuclear submarine somewhere in international waters.
Fook in genius! Top drawer stuff. If you really want to make a total w@nker of yourself but are unsure how to go about it then study the mind of a Malvinista politician. If you really have to look like a grade A tw@t, this is how you do it.
'the British have fired a missile at the South Atlantic'.
Class A, top drawer freak balls.
Loving it!
for some idiots writing here:!!http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C3%ADses_con_armas_nucleares
Jul 27th, 2012 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have you got that in English?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A very spoilt lady,
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Her envy and jealously of the British, as at best pathetic, and worse,
She is becoming a dictator to her own people,
Grow up
17 War Monkey (#)
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
@18
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hope you're not talking about Lisa.
Lisa is becoming a dictator? To be fair she has been facing down gun toting Argentinian invaders since she was very young. If anybody could do it she could I reckon.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pathetic Argentinian government ...
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0False inflation ...
No dollars ...
Rumour mongering ...
Sabre rattling ...
Poplulation without a pot to **** in ...
No electricity in Buenos Aires ...
Running Mercosur into the ground ...
CFK needs to read 'How to run a Country for dummies'.
Dear Lisa,
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really Kretina scares us, not through her laughable theories on “militarization”, but by her incredible theories on “progressive” economics. She is definitely a gold medalist in the gentle art of ruining a country in 10 years, of course with a little help from Fester.
Seriously Timerman's stuttering about missile tests in the South Atlantic have no effect on the great majority of Argentines, we have other things to worry about, like insecurity, inflation, whether we'll be killed on the train home from work, etc. So no we're not scared of British missile tests, they are water off a duck's back!!!!!!
@5 A nuclear defence programme in argieland? With what? You can't even intercept the SAS and SBS teams. Do you know how many of your military installations have already been mapped with the co-ordinates on file in British submarines? Do you know how many of your power stations, including the nuclear ones, will explode when we want them to? A missile test area in Tierra del Fuego? How will Chile feel about that? Will Chile demand its removal or destroy it before Britain can? Surely you can't be considering the militarisation of the South Atlantic? Just accept that you are a 5th or 6th rate “power” and STFU!
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16 I do wish argies would try to develop nuclear weapons. Wouldn't be too long before they destoyed themselves and their country. Unfortunately, they don't have enough money. Go for it, argies. Breach another treaty. It's what you're good at! The only thing you're good at!
It's ironic that Lisa has more followers on Twitter than the entire population of the Falklands - by a wide margin. She seems to have to spend most of her time telling malvinistas to f-off - in 140 charachters or less.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 017 War Monkey and 19 Simon68:
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting difference between maps in Spanish and English wikis, as the Spanish-language Wiki map shows Argentina and Brazil as being countries that have had programmes to develop nuclear arms (Países que alguna vez tuvieron programas de desarrollo de armas nucleares.) - but there is no similar map in the English version or any other Wiki language except Russian (http://goo.gl/Ch34t).
And while Argentina may have renounced nuclear weapons, another English Wiki does relate a bit more about Argentina's programs of developing weapons of mass destruction:
http://goo.gl/Ch34t).
@Conqueror
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina already developed nuclear weapon technology that was abandoned after the return to democracy.
“Argentina has a history with the development of weapons of mass destruction. Under the National Reorganization Process, Argentina began a nuclear weapons program in the early 1980s, and was abolished when democracy was restored in 1983.”
“During the 1980s, the Alacrán (English: Scorpion) and Cóndor 2 (English: Condor) missiles were developed. While the Cóndor 2, with a range of around 1,000 kilometres, was reportedly scrapped during the Menem administration under pressure from the United States government, although this has never been verified and the current status of the Alacrán remains unknown.”
Both Argentina and Brazil had nuclear weapon programs in the ’80.
So nuclear weapons no big deal.
Just more of CFK's usual bullshit. The idea that testing close in air defence systems, which are hundreds of miles from Argentina, is any kind of threat to Argentina is plainly preposterous. CFK would like nothing better than to 'militarise the South Atlantic', if she had anything to militarise with. Thus her recent military pact with Hugo Chavez. Hugo's promised her that he'll sacrifice Venezuelans to help invade the Falkland Islands when the Argentine government thinks it has a chance. Her favourite catch phrase “give peace a chance” is an implied threat. There is peace. She means “do what we say or, when we can afford it, or somebody will help us, we plan to attack the Falkland Islands again”. When they do implement their plans and do try to use military force; they'll say “Well, we tried peace. They militarised, they threatened us, we had no choice”. Exactly the same ploy and excuse Hitler in used in 1939, accusing Poland of being the aggressor. Don't they remember what happened to Hitler? Or more recently Saddam Hussein after his similarly ill-advised trip to Kuwait?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can understand that for lisa watson, and for all the rest of the inhabitants from the islands, the military exercises around the malvinas-falklands are just routine. However there is something that they'll have to undertsand too, or the conclusions that they get, will be as mediocre as lisa watson's. If we have a claim for the islands, we can't ignore this fact, for us, the malvinas, are as argentine as any other part of the argentina, i know for some ignorants who publish comments here everyday, our claim is colonialism, but the point is that c. f. k's government is doing the right thing when she denounces all these military exercises. On the other hand, i hope that someday, not only lisa watson, but all the rest of inhabitants from the islands understand once and for all that as long as they insist with their intransigent posture, about not discussing the most important problem, which is the sovereignty, we will keep on having more of these problems, so, they shoudn't complain about it, because it's their side the one that chooses to reject the negotiations. I know that for some people, the best excuse to reject the negotiations, is the article of our constitution, however, this is evident that they dont realise about the doble standart that they use every time they criticise it, according to their view, there is just one outcome for arg., but at the same time, their side has always manifested that it's disposed to discuss about different issues with argentina, but not the sovereignty, and claim for them, the application of self determination, so for them, there is also just one outcome. HIPOCRITES. Anyway, some day they'll have to understand too that if the u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg. you'll be able to continue under british government, beyond what constitution says about our claim, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for the sovereignty, like in 1874, which was was unveiled by c. f. k at the u. n.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27
Jul 27th, 2012 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah Danny but unfortunately all that information has been lost hasn't? And even if you could develop Nuclear weapons, does it matter? Because you cant. There is no will politically, economically or socially to undertake such a project. You can go around saying “we could make nukes” and we could use nukes on the Malvinas” but it means nothing because you don't have them and never will get them. Only a small club of nations have them as you know.
@29 you just wasted your life away typing that rubbish, you have no genuine claim to the Falklands. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can lead a normalish life (well as normal as being Arg gets).
Jul 27th, 2012 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It must be frustrating for the hardened Malvinists to know deep down they will never own something they desire so much, oh well a life of frustration it must be.
In the meantime Lisa and her fellow Islanders will just get on with life, with the occational “FUCK OFF ARGIES” when you get irritating.
Why don't we build missiles and test them in Malvinas Argentina?? The illegal aliens and terrorists test missiles in our land why couldn't Argentina do the same, or about licensing fishing boats to fish in Islas Malvinas Argentina as well as antartica Argentina.We should take advantage of our resources before some other minority starts drilling for oil in our part of the ocean, if pirates can do it why not Argentina, let push communities around with the same enthusiasm as the brits do, a nuclear defence program will be a great start to strengthen the national economy.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We could always make them so that they will hit Argentina's capital and then say it was just mistake that it hit the botox residence and we did not mean to do it. The World wont do anything about it and we get rid of a maniac.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#33 great idea I am more up for testing an H-bomb in Islas Malvinas Argentina right after building a nuclear defense program against this missile threat from UK in our land.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At least, this time, Ms. Lisa Watson refrained to refer to Argentina’s President as “ a bitch”
The young lady is improving……….
One might assume that British PM didn't complain about 2010 joint US Navy- Armada de Argentina exercise saw nuclear powered and nuclear-weapon capable US ships in waters 120 nm off Bahia Blanca and about 500 nms north of Falkland Islands territorial sea.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, with USN participation, there were probably British exchange officers on board USS Carl Vinson, USS Bunker Hill or State-side monitoring the exercise and getting a useful bit of intel on Armada functions.
Reference:
http://www.abma-usn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:argentina-united-states-in-joint-exercise&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
UK Maritime Footprint in the US:
http://www.abma-usn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:argentina-united-states-in-joint-exercise&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
@35 Think (#) Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:08 pm
Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.........and yet KFC still is a crazy ape fruit loop bitch. Go figure.
Argentina will never do any joint exercises with the USA again, thank goodness.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Btw, funny how the people here complain about Argies pretending to be scared of missile exercises... so why is it OK for Falklanders to pretend to be scared of Argentina? Argentina has unilaterally disarmed, it has no functioning army. And to top it off you have a significant garrison there now.
So what the heck are you afraid of? Or is it just for international show?
Not to be difficult or anything, but how did you manage to be conducting joint military exercises with the USA if you have unilaterally disarmed?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly the same could be asked of you, the British garrison in the Falklands is a small, defensive establishment, it poses no real threat to Argentina so what the heck are you afraid of? or is it just for international show?
I insist:for some idiots writing here!!:http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecnolog%C3%ADa_nuclear_en_Argentina
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@40 Either the Argentine government is feigning fear of the British Armed Forces and putting on a melodramatic display for the benefit of the rest of the world, or they are genuinely afraid (not likely). Either way they are pathetic losers.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@34 PH I still have no idea where this Islas Malvinas Argentina you keep talking about is. I've never heard of such a place. I thought for a moment that you might be talking about the Falklands but then I realised that no-one would be so cruel as to annihilate an innocent group of islanders with only the minimum amount of protection soldiering on with life despite being harassed by an aggressive, bullying and colonial power 500 miles away which wants to steal their land. No-one would be that cruel.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27 Straight of out wikipedia. Is that all you know? Here's a thought. It took the best scientific brains amongst the Allies 6 years to develop a nuclear weapon. Want to figure how much longer it took them to make it small enough to go on a missile? And if you had them, we'd know. Isn't it the case that you are signatories to 3 separate treaties banning nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons research in South America. Or are you going to tell us you've already broken them? Nuclear weapons cost money, sonny. Money you don't have. Can't even pay your electricity bills. On the other hand, WE have them NOW. And we don't have to come anywhere near your cesspit to use them. Stop trying to be smart, ass. It doesn't suit you. You have no talent for it.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29 Yawn. Jajajajajajajajajajajaja. “We have our rights.” Says who. Shove off and play with your mudpies. That is what you're doing, isn't it? Playing mudpies in the river to damage Uruguay? You pitiful little pipsqueaks. Negotiate with you? Rather negotiate with your fleas and lice.
@32 Go for it, wanker. Oh, I forgot. You're thousands of miles away. “Safe” in a British Commonwealth nation. Cheating, lying and thieving, no doubt. Why don't you go “home” to Tierra del Fuego and get your rubber bands out. Let's see your missiles. How do they go? Whoosh, plop! Like everything argie.
@34 You couldn't make a honey-bomb.
@38 Do you ever read anything besides the “Beano”? Figured out your “treaty” yet?
38 Truth_Telling_Troll:
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not sure if Armada de Argentina is quite ready to give up on its ties to USN, given that somebody from Argentina apparently showed up for a memorandum signing in March with the US Fourth Fleet for UNITAS 2012, in Florida: http://goo.gl/fTqmc
Map of US Naval Forces Southern Command and Fourth Fleet,
Area of Responsibility appears to include Argentina and Falkland Islands too.
USN AOR Map:
http://goo.gl/fTqmc
That face expression is typical of an english child. What to do, What to do.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She is a copy of Isolde, Ynserely Skare.
46 SussieUS
Jul 27th, 2012 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were you repeatedly dropped on your head as a child?
20 WestisBest
Hey, I've got first dibs on her. I saw her first!
@46
Jul 27th, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Impressive comment Sussie, you really do go out of your way to cement your reputation as a cretin.
Interesting, MercoStanley put the same picture used by The Telegraph months ago...
Jul 27th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lisa Watson, the gossip girl and her cat Spike.
“The islanders take Penguin News very seriously: they often choose to phone me rather than the government when they have an issue, and they rely on the paper to give them the facts. For this reason, we tend to do a lot of rumour control” Ohhhhhh..
#38
Jul 27th, 2012 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you telling me that Argentina has no armed forces ?
Surely the answer is that we do not trust a word your government says.
If the UK withdrew all its armed forces then your lot would be back again.
Initially with harassment and then with some armed forces that the civilian population would be unable to resist.
I don't notice any friendly remarks or conciliatory statements coming from your side. It's pirat rubbish, H-bomb them etc.
Argentina has nothing to fear of the UK attacking them. The Falklands garrison has no capability of doing anything but defending the islands - including S.Georgia and the Sandwich islands.
Your people do not understand the British psyche. The more you carry on like this, the more stubborn we become. Remember, we have been threatened by real experts in our past. It's something we take like the weather - it's just one of those things.
Axel- The Islands(forget about UK as it is not their problem or issue) CANNOT sit down and talk about Sovereignty issues with Argentina whil;st at the same time Argentina id thgreatening us left right and centre with every form or economic and political sanctions she can.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you not see this?
NO Climate exists for talks - full stop! We are in the middle of a WAR- that you have declared - economic and political against us.
Despite this The Islands have offerred to sit and talk with Argentina about other issues - as a way to break the deadlock.
Your President HERSELF said publicly she wants to start with just sitting anfdtalking and not about Sovereignty!
Yet when the Islands says yes OK - there is NO reply!!!!?????
She and her Govt are the Hipocrites - They say one thing - yet do another
You really do need to learn a bit how International Diplomacy works - and that the current threats do not.
@28Alexei,
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's it exactly.
By saying “give peace a chance”, the RGs are implying that if we don't give in to their demands then there will not be peace & hence, war.
So glad that people can see this.
l've been feeling for some time now that there is going to be another war.
l wonder how the tropical Venezuelans will handle our winters!
Be an education for them!
@29 Axel,
Not you again?
Haven't you got the message yet?
Axel, just for you:-
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on SOVEREIGNTY. NEVER, EVER.
Even an ldiot like you, must have realised this by now.
@49Nasty Marcos,
Lisa is a hundred times the person that you are.
Haven't you got something to do, other than make remarks about her?
@23 Simeon cabron kretino
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She is nothing more than a BITCH!
All this silly talk about nuclear weapons used on the Falklands what a load of Bull, when the chips come down which i doubt they will it will be resolved again the old fashioned way, which the Argies invaders found out to their horror “Fix Bayonets...”
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lisa's photo in this Mercopress story looks nice enough, but she has an even- more sparkly snap on her Twitter site. Follow Lisa on Twitter to get her personal opinions as soon as Mercopress gets them: @Lisafalklands
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Sussie my little sex pot..... Why don't you watch the Oympics ceremony in gods country. It's rather good me ol' china. Anyhow, go and fix yourself a 'cuppa Tea“ sit darn and watch the box, kick back, and just admire the wonderful games in ”London tarn“. If you watch it in good time you might get frothed up watching the UK athletes parading the circuit and then you can clean yourself off with A ”Baden Powell”.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To all British,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0So... can any of you care to explain how all of you blast Argentina for its supposed lack of regard for the environment and forests (which are lies btw), yet in your OPENING CEREMONY you conmemorated (literally), the uprooting of a tree?
LOL!!!!!
So you on the one hand celebrate your deforestation of your island to make way for concrete and steel, but you criticize other countries for doing the same?
How does such logic work exactly? It escapes me.
WE was talking abt CFK ,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0thats all.
57 Truth_Telling_Troll
the man who aint watching,
@58
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I said I won't watch the Olympic events, I always watch the opening ceremony because it is a cultural thing, to see what values countries have.
It was allright, I give credit it was not the overly artistic bore that some opening ceremonies tend to be like.
Oh and btw to all the asked me, yes Argentina has no armed forces. Peru and Ecuador have superior armed forces than we do. And and as you all love to say, you could attack us from Scotland... so the question is again... why would our neighbors or you be scared of us? Not a penny has gone to military renewal in 15 years.
TTT
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0we bet befoire the olymics finishes, you will watch at the very least, one event,.
as for your other comment,
tus irrelevent, [yes Argentina has no armed forces ]
yes you do..
Nope we do not, Bolivia has newer planes than us. Next question.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even if you have one soldier, one pilot , one sailor,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0As long as they are not considered ceremonial, then you have a military
Go look it up on wiki,
.
You obviously lack the discernment of practical vs technical.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, why did your ceremony glorify the hewing of a tree, since you all claim to be so concerned with the forests of Argentina?
@59 Truth_Telling_Troll (#)
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:16 am
Because you bully, you threaten, you cajole but most of all you have a history of aggression. Not just toward the Falkland Islands but also to your closest neighbours, 'friends' and 'allies'.
If you thought that you could get away with it and if you thought you had a real chance you would do it, no question about it. You have intent. Our only intent is to defend the Falkland islands and Argentina is the only threat. Only in the long term but a real threat none the less.
The tree was merely part of the show,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0As far as i know, it was a real tree,
And afterwards it will be replanted,
How ??, ive no idea,
But the experts seem to know what they are doing.
As for
Practical vs technical
We appreciate that CFK may not be in a position to fight,
But in between the lines, she may well turn out to be far to clever for her own boots,
We all know she has stated, peace, and not renewed them, [military]
But we do know she has military agreements with hugo , and now china,
We may not know the details, but , if she does the unthinkable,
Then , ???
You may very well end up with nothing,
Just a thought .
@64
Jul 28th, 2012 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0And have you checked your history, the world is so militarized today in significant measure do to your country and your European cousins marauding all over the planet, so countries must keep massive standing armies “just in case”. Before the colonial period it wasn't like that, armies were recruited as need be, and then everyone returned to farming. Aren't you proud of such peaceful legacy?
“the world is so militarized today in significant measure do to your country and your European cousins marauding all over the planet, so countries must keep massive standing armies “just in case”.”
Jul 28th, 2012 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0yeah, just ask the indigenous south american indians how they feel about the slaughter caused by all those nasty Europeans who now call themselves Argentines.
oh.
“Aren't you proud of such peaceful legacy?”
well you could always ask the indigenous indians of south america how they feel about ...
oh.
@67
Jul 28th, 2012 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not European you lout.
2nd, why come to South America, when you can ask the North American Indians what the British colonist did there. I'm sure they were treated charmingly.
66
Jul 28th, 2012 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Explain how the Europeans settled in what is currently known as Argentina if not through colonialism.
Get over it and don't take it personally. You can't take the criticism but you'll have to be able to if you ever want to handle a site like this without resorting to posting complete crap that you know isn't true.
Chuckle chuckle
52 lsolde
Jul 28th, 2012 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lisa who?
@66 Truth_Telling_Troll (#)
Jul 28th, 2012 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 28th, 2012 - 01:04 am
You are trying to deflect again. British history is no more or less noteworthy than any other country. That we might have been luckier or more successful than some in some cases and less in others has got nothing to do with Malvinista atitude and very recent Argentinian history in relation to the Falkland islands. You won't absolve Argentina for this by dredging up ancient British history.
Malvinista logic. 75% fiction, 25% irrelevant. Your argument is irrelevant but without specific accusations I can't tell how much of it is fiction. I am guessing a fair amount.
@71
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0To be fair to the troll, he's not a Malvinista, he's a frustrated imperialist born in the wrong country in the wrong century.
Thats madness its rapier a short range surfaceto air missile slightly longer range than 4 miles but not by much.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ones that get fired off tend to have been ready to fire through the winter so tend to have rather intresting charactersitics.
Know one padre who had a lucky escape when one targeted his landrover :)
@57 BLASTING argieland is ALWAYS the BEST thing to do!
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@59 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Armed_Forces Explain please?
@61 Almost anybody has newer anything than you. Newer attitudes, newer education, newer intelligence, newer manners, newer views. Newer, newer, newer. You need to get out of the 19th century.
@63 Grow up!
@65 Hasn't argieland got a programme to upgrade/renew its military aircraft? I'm sure I've seen something about it!
@66 If you go back to around 200 BC, you can find an example of one of the first standing armies. I seem to recall that it grew to around 180,000 men.
@67 Was it not TiT that was recently boasting that there are no indigenous people in argieland? Or was it some other wanker?
@68 You must be at least part European. See above. Are you mestizo. Product of a conquistador and an unwilling (i.e. raped) Amerindian woman. What a wonderful legacy. 26% product of rape, isn't it? And, generally speaking, British colonists did nothing nasty to North American Indians. Many were allies. Americans (i.e. after the Revolution) were something else again. Is it something about America that brings out the worst in people? Although the Spanish never needed any help in being vicious.
@73 The Rapier missile has a range of 4.2 miles. The Starstreak missile has a range of 4.3 miles. Don't these missiles automatically target anything that's blue and white with a little yellow bit?
ISLANDER1.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have already answered you about this in another comment.
I really hope that our government answers soon what was proposed by your lawmakers about c. f. k's offer, respecting connecting the mainland with the islands by aerolineas argentinas with three flies a week.
On the other hand, it's really amazing how you complain about the decisions of our government, like if your's were acting correctly, let me remind you that it's your side the one hat rejects sistematicly all the resolutions that call the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, which is not acting acting correctly. Anyway, i dont deny that our government committed mistakes too, in fact i read that it didn't comply totally with some of the agreements that it signed with the u. k during the 90's. However, you and some of your people, just criticise the posture of our government, and dont' recognize that you are not acting correctly either. Let me ask you something, has your government ever proposed our's to discuss about a fair solution for the sovereingty which is the main problem?, of course it hasn't proposed it. As long as you and some of your people dont have enough intellectual honesty in order to recognize that actually both parts of the conflict didn't act correctly in different oportunities, and as long as you insist on rejecting the conversations about the sovereignty, we won't be able to have a mature and necesary debate about such a complicated cause. On the other hand, our government should start once and for all a dialogue with the lawmakers from the islands.
@75
Jul 28th, 2012 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, the UK government, perhaps even to its shame, was open to discussions of sovereignity with Argentina in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and even offered to submit the issue to the ICJ. Argentine rejected the legal route, the negotiation route, and the persuasion route, and went for the military invasion route instead.
One thousand deaths later, no British government can enter into negotiations on sovereignity and expect to survive, even in the unlikely event that one wanted to.
It really is about time Argentina collectively learned to to accept responsibility for its own actions.
And speaking of deflections and irrelevancies, then why do all of you comment on threads about Argentina politics or economy? Isn't your sole interest the Falklands? No one believes any of your words mendacious brits, you come here to insult us indiscriminately about anything.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@77
Jul 28th, 2012 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you are commenting about a particular story then it is usual to use the comment section that goees with that story. I find Argentina's deranged economics and politics interesting, Who ever said that anyone's sole interest was the Falklands?
1. the government didnt give the first rejection to this matter.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It came latter after it was announced in press by the instituto de hidrografía to advert ships not to travel round the zone.
Then the gov gave a message.
2. maybe its important to understand we are in different continents. so yes for Arg and SAmérica is not routine, what for UK warships is “routine”: the throwing of missiles. There are treaties here in South America that must be respected, and we are in southamerica, so dont bother. The rules here are put by SAmerica, not foreign countries.
#79
Jul 28th, 2012 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As usual, I am lost here. I cannot quite grasp what you mean to say.
What has the firing of short range missiles in Falkland territorial waters got to do with S.A. treaties. Are the Falklands signatories to these ?
do you know what happens clyde?? south america is of south americans, so you cant sign nothing that is southamerican. and south atlantic has a treaty of peace of cooperation signed by southamerica and africa, that are part of south atlantic. So yes we decide what happens here.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats nice for you, malen. But you don't decide what happens on OUR lslands or in OUR territorial waters.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So if we want to heave a few missiles around OUR country, we will & its got nothing to do with you or your country.
Why is that hard to understand?
#81
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for your cogent reply.
Argentina' s remit stops outside their 200 mile limit, likewise any state in Africa.
So what you are saying is that you and your chums have complete jurisdiction over the South Atlantic.
I hate to spoil your party_(actually I don't) - but you live on the continent of S. America and have given yourselves the right to control everything that happens in the S.Atlantic - by your words.
The Falkland Islands are actually IN the S.Atlantic, so , they have more entitlement to say what should apply than you.
Also, there is the slight matter of Ascension Island, St.Helena, Tristan da Cunha - you cannot get more in the S.Atlantic than this -not to mention S.Georgia and the S.Sandwich islands.
Guess what, the UK has an interest in these places. So, using your rules, we should have complete say which overrules any made up treaty your lot have signed.
QED
Ah
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isn’t it nice, of all these desperate Argies giving us the benefit of there dreams and desperations, there envy and there jealous hurt,
Sadly we don’t care, the Falklands are British, whenever you like it or not,
So carry on moaning, we enjoy a good laugh .
.
@77 Truth_Telling_Troll (#)
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 28th, 2012 - 02:32 pm
I can only speak for myself but I try not to insult Argentinians. I only insult Malvinistas and that is because you are all a bunch of cnuts.
What has Argentine politics got to do with the Falkland Islands? Erm? Where the jolly fat f*ck have you been this last 6 months? You Malvinistas can't take a communal dump in a canal with out bringing up your 'mendacious' claims to somebody else's territory. Don't give it. You obviously can't take it.
@81
Jul 28th, 2012 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can't see your problem. The missiles being fired off have a very short range.
They are not aimed at South America.
They are self defence missiles. Therefore the only time that any South American nation will be affected by them is if they launch an offensive strike against the Falkland Islands, in which case the said short range missiles would be used in self defence, not to attack the mainland (which at its nearest point is 300-400 miles from the Falkland Islands).
These missiles are not being used on the South American mainland. If for instance an Argentine Skyhawk drops bombs on an Argentinian firing range , that is not an offensive act against the Islands as the bombs are dropped in Argentine territory-so no problem.
I could understand South American concern if strike aircraft such as the Tornado was deployed in the Islands, but these are only likely to be based there after an Argentine act of aggression.
“So yes we decide what happens here.”
Not in Falkland Islands territory you don't because, The Falkland Islands are islands (ie they are not attached to the mainland), and no South American country owns the Falkland Islands.
I would find it very strange if no South American country test fires ground/sea to air missiles within their own terrritory /weapon ranges to insure that they work, but I will leave you to tell me.
Are you saying there are no weapons tests at all, in South America?
NOPE
Jul 28th, 2012 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to malen and CFK
Argentina is a peaceful nation, and tests or uses no modern weapons,
The last upgrade was with the [first airborne bow and arrow corps]
Followed by the national, navy spear throwing ,
Followed by the argentine air force testing dropping bags of sweets with precise precision.
Isn this totally truthfully true
mr malin .
Malen:
Jul 28th, 2012 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The affected area was(always is) INSIDE the Islands Territorial Limits - so NOTHING to do with Any Arg Govt Dept as none of them nor anyone else in the world has jurisdiction within out teritorial limits other than the Falklands.
That is why all foreign nations that need to enter them - request permission from the Falklands to do so- even British ships do.
I am unaware of any Treaty of Peace in the S Atlantic that Britain has signed(on our behalf as it would be Foreign Policy so her right)? TATLECO - but that was to do with nuclear weapons I think.
Tell me- does Arg complain every time the S.African Navy carries out gunnery and firing practice offshore Simonstown base?
Axel - of course Falkland Islands Govt is not offering suggestions on the Arg Sovereignty Dispute Claim - as far as we are concerned there is no case to answer and the Argentine claim was effectively resolved as a result of the military invasion in 1982 and Argentina,s subsequent defeat.
NOw, had the policies of Menem,s Govt regarding the Islands been continued by the Kirscheners - put the dispute to one side and work to agree where we can on all other issues - had that policy continued, then I agree- we would be finding it very difficult not to sit and talk to resolve that issue as well.
But - you have to accept- there has been a 10year long policy now of agression- economic,trade,political,communications etc agsinst the Islands by Argentina.
There is no way we- nor is there a chance that level headed democracies would expect us to - are going to sit and talk about Sovereignty under such conditions.
Sorry Axel - even if CFK decided tomorrow to change policy and reverse to where we were in 2002 and then move forward further gradually improving relations - it will take at least 20-25years before any talks could be considered.
83 clyde and his trolls
Jul 28th, 2012 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so you are saying UK, a foreign imperialist country has “interests” in some disputed territories in South america and South atlantic....ok, interests in disputed territories, not rights......in this region you cant do what you want..I think UK has to ask permission Argentina for throwing missiles, remember the UN has said not to introduce by any of the parties involved unilateral decissions...ask permission.
I cant imagine any country of SAmerica happy for having a foreign country “ruling” or dominating the South Atlantic or militarising the region. Unasur, Mercosur, etc has expressed rejection.
Prove what you say.
The treaty of PEACE of SAtlantic exists, find it on google.
@89 malen (#)
Jul 29th, 2012 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 28th, 2012 - 11:36 pm
No. YOU are say that the UK is an imperialist country, I am say Malvinistas are c*nts.
Malen
Jul 29th, 2012 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0A treaty exists between groups, if one group does not agree to a treaty then they are not bound by it. Nobody needs to ask Argentina to do anything. You can't just say you control an area and expect everyone to kneel down, it doesn't work that way. Keep on making your silly claims based on arrogance and false information, nobody is listening, obeying or really even caring.
zhivago the only arrogants and silly here are you, the UK imperialists, that believe that you can do what you want. So pity to tell you how things are.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.elciudadanoweb.com/?p=113053
during 28 years this woman says that they have been throwing missiles. And you didnt give advise, with the dangerous consequences to another ships sorrounding the zone that act could have provoque.
Arg is at OMI (Organización Marítima Internacional) responsable of security in South Atlantic, so UK HAS TO INFORM when you throw missiles.
Remember you are not the owners of the world, not of Malvinas either, and you cant do what you want wherever you go. Adjust to rules and not only yours. UN is aware of this.
All wrong, malen.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0No cigar for you.
Try again later.
You can have these mythical malvinas we'll keep OUR Falklands.
We will continue to test missiles in OUR territory.
Too bad if you don't like it.
What are you going to do about it?
@92 Next time we “throw” a missile, we'll let you know - promise! ;-)
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I ‘m so scared British launching missiles oh! Wait a minute only 4km range?
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0But that is like the fireworks that I used last year to welcome the new year.
I guess that with some Propergol I will get more distance.
Any help for my rocket to reach FI?
“The missiles have a range of four miles ”
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0which only goes to show how close Timerman thinks the Falkland Islands are to Argentina.
Time to start a subscription to buy him a measuring tape and a canoo?
92 Malen
Jul 29th, 2012 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can talk and talk and talk, but until you can actually stop them from “throwing” missiles your demands are quite silly. Stop stamping your feet, put up or shut up!
#95
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Dany. You have just negated Malen's argument. If you are firing your powerful fireworks out to sea, you are in breach of your own treaty. Did you apply for authority ?
#92
I had a look at your reference but as it was in Spanish I could only get the bare essentials of what it said. It seemed to refer to the Rapier which could only reach 4 miles off the coast of the Falklands - inside Falklands territorial waters so outwith the jurisdiction of the Argentine.
Also, it was Timmerman spouting off again in his usual manner.
You would think he was talking about ballistic missiles pointed at Buenos Aires.
Let us define “ missile”.
There are two types - guided and unguided.
The rapier is a short range anti-aircraft guided missile - not for use against land or sea targets. It is a defensive - not offensive weapon.
The Tomahawk is a guided missiles with a long range launched from surface ships and submarines. The Storm Shadow is an air-launched cruise missile. Neither of these are on the Falklands. The Typhoons on the Falklands are not configured to carry Storm Shadow.
So, there is nothing on the islands that could threaten Argentina.
Royal Navy ships carry the 4.5“ gun with a range of about 30km.
The shells from these are ”missiles” , as are mortars and anti -tank weapons. If test firings are made with any of these weapons - out to sea - then exclusion zones are necessary to protect life - even Argentinian ones. As they are not fired in international waters, no permission is required.
Are you now disputing UK rights to Ascension, St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha and that you have jurisdiction to the waters around their shores? No doubt that you will find some information that Argentina had prior claims to these in 1500 when some native Patagonian got washed ashore on any of these places and claimed it.
Argentine imperialists could equally apply as you have Christina as your queen
@89
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 01.“so you are saying UK, a foreign imperialist country”
1.The UK is not imperialist in relation to the Falkland Islands.
Since 1982 there have beem 3 changes of constitution in the FI that have transfered MORE powers from the Uk to the FIG.
This will continue. I predict that the FIG will in the not to distant future take more responsibility for its foreign policy, leaving itself reliant on UK for defence ( ie not OFFENCE) only.
This is the OPPOSITE of imperialism.
Argentina claims territory it has no valid legal claim to, ie The Falkland Islands, South Gerogia and Antarctic territories, because it IS Argentina that seeks to be Imperialist, ie adding to its empire, that started when it commited genocide against the former native inhabitants of Argentina
2.“I cant imagine any country of SAmerica happy for having a foreign country “ruling” or dominating the South Atlantic or militarising the region. ”
2.The UK is not seeking to dominate the South Atlantic. You do not seem to be aware of the area that the South Atlantic covers. The UK protects an area ONLY 200 miles around the Falkland Islands, which cannot be Argentine because the only other country that had a claim on the Falkland Islands/Isles Malouines (there are no Malvinas) was................ Spain.
Spain gave up its claims to sovereignty in 1866, (not 1816).
Therefore Argentine claims that it inherited the Islands off Spain are untrue. If they were Spain would have dropped its claim to the Falkland Islands in 1810/1816.
I hope Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the other South American countries are not carrying out weapon tests of any kind on their territory, as it would incur your displeasure.
However it does not concern me if South American countries are testing weapons on their own territory.
Can you explain how testing ground to air missiles with a range of 4 miles, affects the security of South America when the nearest land is 300-400 miles away from the Falkland Islands?
you guys need to go back to school, and listen to your selves,
Jul 29th, 2012 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you are without a doubt, totaly indocrinated, from head to toe,
for argentina to get what it wants,
makes you exactly the very same thing, that you accuse us of,
impearialist and empire builders,
@Clyde15
Jul 29th, 2012 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No need Clyde I can make a rocket to reach FI and none will bother for that.
In fact I would like to try Rubber and Nitrous Oxide what do you think?
If I reach FI do you think KaMoron will be upset?
Well really I don’t care because UK is a little country powerless and falling to the drains that cannot do anything about it.
May be I will sunk your entirely RN with my little rockets and none will give a shit about it.
@101
Jul 29th, 2012 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah poor Danny are you upset because all this talk of militarisation has been proven false? Ah its ok don't cry. “Little country powerless and falling” ? This is coming from Argentina a country that couldn't invade and hold a set of islands right on your door step with more avaliable troops and fighter aircraft and shorter supply lines. Against an enemy who had to come 8,000 miles with a quarter of the man power and a quarter of the fighter aircraft. And what was the result? You lost, badly to us. Maybe your armed forces should have stuck to what they were good at: throwing nuns out of helicopters, you know your troops had far more experience killing their own population then they ever did fighting a true enemy. Oh never mind its ok, I mean you have tried every other method to get the islands and you have failed and the British flag still flies tall and proud. Maybe its time for you Argentine's to except reality and give up.
clyde use translator pirate bombón killer virulento
Jul 29th, 2012 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0excuses, excuses, excuses...
#103
Jul 29th, 2012 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My translator on Google has a truth filter. As soon as it sees it is in Spanish, it refuses to translate as it knows it is a parcel of lies..
Your pirat bombon killer virulento describes Argentina perfectly.
thank you for that .
#101
I used to make rockets using sulphur and zinc dust - much less dangerous.
Seriously, what are you smoking ? Like most Argentinians you are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
Your country sets itself low targets and continually fails to meet them.
Off now to talk to the tweety birds - they make more sense than you !!!
#98
Jul 29th, 2012 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A long time ago a gaucho was washed out to sea chasing an English mermaid. When he washed up on Ascension the first thing he did was plant a turnip, then he ate some albatross eggs. Having accomplished this he was lured back out to sea by an Argentine mermaid who proceeded to rob and then drown him. All this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ascension, St. Helena and Tristan de Cunha are Argentine and the Pope said they could have them! I believe someone also planted an orange on Crete and a red pepper on Corsica but that is for another forum
HANSNIESUND. ISLANDER1.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HANS: Let me tell you that you are missinformed, like many people who publish comments here. In 1885 and in 1888 argentina suggested submiting the cause to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., and in 1947 britain offered argentina to take the question of the dependencies to the i. c. j, but it didn't include the malvinas-falkland in the proposal. I have always thought the only one way to finish with this dispute, is taking the case to the arbitration, however, if none of the two parts proposed it after 1982, it's because perhaps both aren't sure that they can win the case.
Respecting the consecuences of the war, that seems to be the best excuse of most you, but let remind you that even after those terrible facts, the u. n continued calling noth parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations and find a fair solution, which has ben rejected sitematicly by your side. Accepted it or not, that's not acting correctly either.
ISLANDER: I know perfectly that menem's policies weren't continued, in fact, i have always recognized that our government didn't act correctly in different oportunities. However, your side, has never accepted to discuss about the most important problem, which is the sovereignty. Some day, you and some of your people will have to understand that if you continue without accepting to dialague about it, we will keep on having more and more problems. C. f. k was very clear when she said that we are not asking you to recognize that the malvinas are argentine, that destroys that hipocrite argument that you and some of your lawmakers love using all the time , saying that for arg. there is just one outcome. It's not imposible to find a solution that respects your wishes and rights, and our's. Don't blame only on c. f. k, because like it or not, your side has always been intransigent. Maybe the day that you and some of your people stop being so myopic, we will be able to find a solution between both people.
#106
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought that the ownership of the Falklands/Malvinas was enshrined in your Constitution. If this is not claiming sovereignty then what is ?
You say that “ we are not asking you to recognise that the Malvinas are Argentine”. In your Constitution it says they are. How can you square the circle ?
Although I disagree with your case, I at least respect what you hold as genuine beliefs. It makes a change from some of the vitriolic invective posted by some on here.
106Axel
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First explain why there has to be a solution between both people? The solution has already been written in stone and you won't accept it. Well, too bad Either accept it or do something but either way you have to shut up about it.
Axel,
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Currently nobody here can see any benefit from discussing sovereignty. Probably unlikley to for at least 20-25 years - and by then - as we have been moving gradually down the direction of selfgovernment and independence fro the last 20 years - we will more than likley be an Independent State anyway.
But our Govt has indeed offerred to sit and talk along some of the lines you mention - dead silence from CFK! Not surprising perhaps as if the Arg Govt does agree to sit down and talk with the Islands Govt - then it is actually recognising that the Islands Govt exists! I can see she has a bit of a problem - of her own making!
She fails to understand that the Islands have changed a great deal - The islands now run all their own affairs other than Foreign Policy and defence - so any negotiations about things like:
Fisheries
Hydcocarbons
Communications
Trade
War Graves
will be done with the Islands Govt - NOT UK.
@106
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is the documentary evidence for these Argentine arbitration proposals of 1885 and 1888?
But you're right that Britain's 3 offers to go to arbitration in 1947, 1949 , and 1951 only concerned the dependencies. My bad. However you misrepresent the real position of the UK government on the question :
Margaret Thatcher, April 1982: “There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgment that it did not like.”
Or in other words, the ball is in Argentina's court, go ahead if you think you've got a legal claim. Why don't you? You are quick enough to go to other international bodies and organs of the UN.
It is also rather hard to see what is not “correct” or not “fair” in Britain's refusal to negotiate a claim whose validity it doesn't accept. What would be incorrect and unfair would be to negotiate away the rights of the islanders in the light of aggression and harassment which is unsupported by any serious legal, historical, or moral case.
@75 What a stupid twat you are. Am I surprised? Not from someone promoting three “flies” per week. Are you going for a sea connection? Would that be by duck? Let's see whether we can get something over to you once and for all. NO NEGOTIATIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY. NOT NOW, NOT EVER. Get it out of those tiny things you call “minds”. We are paying no more attention to the UN than you did in 1982.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@77 It's because we hate you. We hate the fact that you speak. We hate the fact that you lie. We hate the fact that you pretend to be human. We hate the fact that we haven't killed enough of you, yet. Give us an excuse.
@79 The Falkland Islands are in the South Atlantic. Not South America. Why are you dimwits so geocentric?
@81 Except for the places that are British. Like the Falklands Archipelago, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. You insects don't tell us what to do. Not ever. We'll kill you first.
@89 You're stupid. Have you noticed the UK asking argieland for permission for anything? Nor will WE. Want us to let you know when we're going to turn you into a glass crater? Soon!
@92 Tough. Get used to it. By the way, the International Maritime Organisation is in London.
@95 Do you practice being a moron?
@101 Why don't you try farting?
@103 Grimble. Translate that.
@106 Didn't the cesspit suggest arbitration by its downtrodden (by the cesspit) neighbour Paraguay? But I have an excellent solution. We should destroy the cesspit. No more problems. There will be NO SOVEREIGNTY NEGOTIATIONS. Not NOW, not EVER. Get the idea out of the miniscule thing you call a mind. Let me repeat it so you will have no reason to think you might have made a mistake. There will be NO SOVEREIGNTY NEGOTIATIONS. Not NOW, not EVER. Have you got it? There will be NO SOVEREIGNTY NEGOTIATIONS. Not NOW, not EVER. Can you rub your brain cell against something and see whether you can include that information for future use?
,Axel go grind elsewhere
Jul 29th, 2012 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can’t you wait any longer,
The day they vote for independence,
And then you get a new set of wheels,
So relax, your empire will grow one day,
And you can even have your very empress,
Now go and dream some more .
@101 DanyBerger (#)
Jul 29th, 2012 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 29th, 2012 - 01:42 pm
Yes. If the Falkland Island same attacked the UK will be upset. Very upset. Upset enough to defend against any such attack. What is you point? You going for the terrorist option?
What happened to British steadfastness? I've read countless times here that the British hold on to their convictions as long as it takes.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet, I was just browsing the sports section and come to find out there is a “Great Britain” football team??
I thought the UK football federations had been boycotting the Olympics forever because like crying babies the IOC denied them the priviledge of playing with the sides of UK provinces (England, Scotland, Wales, etc), yet there you are now.
I guess that is an admission that the IOC was right.
@114 Truth_Telling_Troll (#)
Jul 29th, 2012 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 29th, 2012 - 06:54 pm
Malvinista logic. 75% fiction, 25% irrelevant. Thie post is utterly irrelevant you pathetic fraction of an excuse for a human being.
@114
Jul 29th, 2012 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What the Fuck are you on about? Who the bloody hell watches football at the olympics? Didn't you hear? A great deal of Football tickets were “given away.” Football had never been officially part of the Olympics until now so it made sense to reform the old team GB.
Oh and the UK is not made out of province's they are countries, or if you want to be technical and traditional: The UK is made up off two Kingdom's, a principality, a province, 3 crown dependencies and 14 overseas territories.
Kingdom of England
Kingdom of Scotland
Principality of Wales
Province of Northern Ireland
104 el bombón asesino its a cumbia song very popular here
Jul 29th, 2012 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All this british made up issue is bias, for this reaon we Argentines civilians support a nuclear defence program for my country so we can also test missiles in Islas Malvinas Argentina. Not only white people have the right to test weapons in our country. We demand equal rights. Get the british terrorists, murderers and illegal aliens from our from islas Malvinas Argentina.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@118
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0go on then, I'll bite. You say 'we Argentine civilians support a nuclear defence program for my country', let's see the evidence of that if you please?
.....and if you cannot provide it then do us all a favour and shut the fuck up. Moron.
What can l say, but, Axel, NO. Got it, Axelbobo?
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@118PH,
Shouldn't you be in bed?
Do your parents know that they've left their computer on?
#117
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not popular here as we have never heard of it. You are welcome to go away and sing it as it means something to you and it makes you feel better. I have again missed the relevance of a song to your posting.
#118
Hi pirat - long time no hear.
You did test weapons in our country - the Falklands. Our weapon testing was more successful than yours if you remember 1982.
We have not tested any weapons in your country of Argentina. Why would we do a thing like that ? It makes no sense.
What is this thing about “white” . We have many races in the British forces - black, brown , Chinese, Indian and Ghurka. If any of them are in a rapier battery, then of course we will let them test fire them.
You already have equal rights to let any of your armed forces test fire missiles on your territory of Argentina presumably regardless of their ethnic origin. The UK has no interest in what you do in your own land.
If I could find islas Malvinas argentinas on on a Royal Navy chart,I would be interested to know where these terrorists, murderers and illegal aliens
were hiding. We gave up transportation to penal colonies ages ago.
I know that Argentina was full of murderers and aliens when you seized the land from the indigenous peoples. Is this to which you are referring .
As to your desire for nuclear arms, then your neighbours will start their own programs - they have more to fear of a nuclear Argentina than we have. You launch them at us and your country will be turned into glass.
By the time you develop them and a delivery system, we will have developed anti-ballistic missile shields. So, off you go and try it. By the way, if you did launch missiles then it might not be clear who the target was so you may find some being lobbed back from France, Russia, UK and
NATO ally USA. Do you wish to risk it ?
Grow up and stop posturing as macho boy !!
Good night
@116
Jul 29th, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Coudn't sellout the venues at the olympics? Sad, but given the UK economy understandable. One would have thought that there would be less empty seats in London compared to Athens or Beijing, but it's about the same.
Good thing Argentina is boycotting the football tourney.
@122
Jul 29th, 2012 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not venues Mr TTT but venue. A single venue: women's football has failed to sell out.
@123
Jul 29th, 2012 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You just said they were given tickets away in mens football, so imagine in the other venueS.
Is that what boycott has come to mean in Argentina? Fail to qualify
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boycott!!!!!!!!! That's what you call it!!!!
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Make no mistake Argentina is boycotting the Olympics through our president and the football team, the two best ways to snub.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or do you think the defending gold medalist country in football for the better part of a decade would not qualify? It was a tactical choice.
And the big talk in the world is the empty seats all over the Olympics, including the biggest draws football, swimming and gymnastics. Not good to have the Olympics in crisis nations.
Argentina is boycotting nothing,
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what TTT means, is they have no one to take part in certain events,
so they boycot these ones,
the events they get beat in, was corrupt and the british are to blame, because we hate them,
and the ones they win [if any]
they were the world best, and no one is better,
just about sums them up.
The qualifying championship for the olympics is the South American Youth Championship. The first 2 qualify. Argentina came third Argentina intentionally failed to be in the first 2 so it could boycott the olympics. Yes, of course it did.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TTT - do get facts in order over tjhe empty olympic seats:
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These are NOT seats that have beenfferred fro sale tothe public! All those have and are being taken up all the time!
The empty ones are mostly ones reserved for Olympic Officials and their relatives etc! Seems they way ovedid it! It was apparently very similar at beiging - simple Chinese answer was to bus in loads of Chinese and tell them to cheer! Not quite that simple in a western democracy!!
They are now offering them free to any service people off duty from their security tasks which is a nice gesture.
One hopes that soon they will also offer them to the public - with a money back deal if that official who was meant to be there then finally turns up.- or simply tell that official-tough you are to late- go away,someone else has your seat now!.
Ceetainly it needs sorting - but we cannot do it the Chinese way!
TTT
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0rather that finding any exuse to detriment the games,
why dont you just sit back , relax , and have a cuppa,
and watch your fellow countrymen , if nothing else.
Because when you are a host country, you are ensorcelled and captivated by everything that goes on, that's why you Brits are so “aaaahhh” about things like aquatic fencing and quadriplegic judo... but remember when you were not the hosts? You probably didn't care about 80% of the goings-ons, or the venues, or the locales. We just don't have any personal investment in the games like you do.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Same happened last year in the Copa America, I watched every game for the first time and watched the pre-and-post game shows to watch the fans from other countries, etc. As the host country it is a different matter.
And no, I won't really follow the competitors, since we really suck at most olympic sports and I don't hide that fact, we don't invest any money in such sports. Our thing is team sports, were we tend to be in the top 5-10 in almost all of them and for a country of 40 million that is pretty good.
@132
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“we don't invest any money in such sports”
You did a typo there, you meant 'can't' rather than 'don't'
@133
Jul 30th, 2012 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh please, countries far poorer than us invest to place well at the Olympics. We just are not interested in pretending to be good in sports where there is no interest.
TiT
Jul 30th, 2012 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Boycott!!!!!!! My God, you really are a putz. In most of your posts I can understand you because you are defending your country in spite of it's lunacy, a concept I can accept on a certain level, but this really shows your true colors. If anyone one here ever thought you had an ounce of intelligence it just went out like a candle and that includes your league of uneducated malvinista cronies. Better put away your lego and get to bed!
How do you explain the two-consecutive gold medal team not going then? You really think they really and legitimately failed to qualify due to lack of talent? hahaha, sure.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0TTT - Team Sports - yes I,ll give it to you that your Football and Rugby terams are pretty good!
Jul 30th, 2012 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0And field hockey, and polo, and basketball, and volleyball, and horseball, besides football and rugby. Maybe not the best of the best, but like I said top 5-10 in all those and NO other country in the world can say that.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0And we were the only country in history betweeen 2007-2009 to be ranked 1st in basketball (FIBA), 3rd in rugby (IRB), and 3rd in football (FIFA), two sports of which are generally regarded as the most popular team sports, and the three most important tournaments.
136
Jul 30th, 2012 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're not going because you failed to qualify. Only 2 teams from the Conmebol area go, and in the qualifying championship you came third
@139
Jul 30th, 2012 - 02:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right because we were bored of winning that tourney all the time and Wembley stadium didn't deserve our presence.
You've won 4 out of 25. Last time in 2003
Jul 30th, 2012 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0TiT
Jul 30th, 2012 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0And we were the only country in history betweeen 2007-2009 to be ranked 3rd in rugby (IRB).
Typical RG tripe
You were not ranked 3rd in the world from 2007 to 2009! You came third in the World cup, nothing more!
Your world ranking prior to the World Cup was 5th
After the world cup your world ranking was 3rd,
By January 2008 you had gone to 4th
after which you went further down hill
So your little bit of “news” is consistant with RG story telling - I.E pumping yourselves up when you can on tripe!
I didnt bother checking your facts on Football or Basketball, but guessing it is more pumped-up rhetoric
Argentina Olympics and the plot.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 03:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina on purpose will boycott the Olympics in London by not wining all gold medals as a sign of discontent toward UK.
The world will be deprived of such marvel event.
Another nail in British’s coffin I guess.
Dany is that your attempt at wit! You silly little man!
Jul 30th, 2012 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0144 Brit abroad
Jul 30th, 2012 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has been doing that for decades at the Olympics. LOL!
Oh hang on, I forgot; they don't care about the Olympics. They just send teams over all kitted out in the Argentine colours but then the athletes don't actually try at all because NOBODY cares about the Olympics in Argentina.
It's a bit like how Argentina is a peaceful nation because they can't afford a military.
Chuckle chuckle
CLYDE15. ZHIVAGO. HANSNIESUND. ISLANDER1.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CLYDE15: Our constitution cas say whatever, the point is that if the u. n have never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., it means that they will be able to remain under british government as much as they wish, but it doens't mean that we can't find between both people a fair solution for the sovereignty which is the main problem.
ZHIVAGO: If both countries are called by the u. n to resume the negotiations, that must be respected, however, it's your side the one that rejects sistematicly all the resolutions.
HANSNIESUN: I found the evidences of offers of arbitration by arg., in the memories of our chancery, i included them in my investigation. Anyway, you know what i think about the arbitration. On the other hand, i dont think that the ball is only on arg.'s court, due to in 1947, the u. k proposed to take the question of the dependencies to the court.
Respecting the posture of the u. k, we all can think whatever, but the point is that if both nations are called to resume the negotiations, like us or not, that must be respected.
ISLANDER: Accepted it or not, the u. n have never expressed that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it. I dont need to explain you again what would happen in case that both countries resume the dialogue about the sovereignty. I understand that you want to be independent, but as long as this conflict is considered like a special colonial situation, and as long as the u. k and arg., continue being called to resume the negotiations, i dont' think it will be posible the fact that you can declare your independence.
On the other hand, i know that those issues that you typed in your comment must be treatted with your gov., that's why i hope that c. f. k's gov. answers soon what was proposed by your lawmakers.
146 axel arg (#)
Jul 30th, 2012 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we could declare our independence from Spain, then the Falkland Islanders can declare their right to independence or whatever form of relationship they like with us or the UK.
Its known as democracy!!!!
Axel - No formal UN Organsisation that can issue binding requests has issued any formal call to Arg-UK and FI(even on foreign affairs you will find that the FI that will be at the table as well with the UK team).
Jul 30th, 2012 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0C24 has no formal powers - its a laughing stock of decreasing relevance - our side only goes to counter the diretribe put out by your side.
General Assembly has no formal power.
Formal Binding Power rests with the:
Security Council and the ICJ
I seem to recall Arg ignored the Security Council in 1982!
TTT
Jul 30th, 2012 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0did you see the hockey
GB v Argentina,
we beat you 4-0
very good game.
Axel 146
Jul 30th, 2012 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to Britain there is nothing to negotiate, so why would they waste time and effort to do so. Once they hold their referendum even the UN will have to respect the decision of the Islanders, you had better schedule the invasion before that.
@146
Jul 31st, 2012 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If both countries are called by the u. n to resume the negotiations, that must be respected, however, it's your side the one that rejects sistematicly all the resolutions”.
The UN resolutions in the 1960s were based on false historical information given. The Britsh negotiated andthe Argentines illegally broke the resolution by invading the Falkland Islands, and ignored Res 502 which was binding.
The Argentines have ignored several UN resolutions themselves in the past, so they have not got the moral high ground.
“that's why i hope that c. f. k's gov. answers soon what was proposed by your lawmakers.”
If she does, that is the only way she will be able to talk on any issue on the Falkland Islands, otherwise she'll continue talking to herself and despots like Iran, Syria, Angola etc etc.
Don't forget Falkland Islanders were the first people (apart from the indigenous Amerindians of course) to settle parts of Patagonia before Argentina.
They might consider putting in a counterclaim and would be justified in doing so.
SIMON68. ZHIVAGO. ISLANDER. PET BOG.
Jul 31st, 2012 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIMON: You should leave your wishes behind every time you give an opinion about such a complicated cause like this one. If the islander could declare it's independence, dont you think they would do it along time ago?. They are living in one of the most prosperous places of the world, they shoudn't need to remain under british government, however, if they decide to keep under brish protection, it's because of the sovereign conflcit between arg. and the u. k, due to they have in their minds the crazy idea about the fact arg. might invade the islands again, unfortunatelly, this is evdnt tht they still don't realise how far from the reality they are.
ZHIVAGO: You are right, according to britain there s nothing to negotiate, however, like it or not, britain is not the owner of the int. right, and if both nations are called to negotiate, that must be respected.
ISLANDER: Not only arg. ignored resolution 502, the gov. of your so loved thatcher did the same. On the other hand, like i said before, we all can think whatever, but laws were made to respected, not to be distorted, if for you the decolonization committee is irrelevant thats' only your opinion, however, accept it or not, it's resolution should be respected.
PETE BOG: If you think that only arg. omitted information about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, that shows how missinformed you are, in fact, i made two investigations about the historic and the legal aspects of this dispute, were i tell what is omitted by both parts of the conflict. On the other hand, resolution 502 wasn't respected by both nations, not only by arg., beside, even after the terrible events f 1982, the u. n continued calling both countries to negotiate a peaceful solution, like it or nor, that should be respected.
Those people who settled patagonia, was part of just one more settlement like any other, it wasn't made in the name of the state, like the int. right exacts.
“they have in their minds the crazy idea about the fact arg. might invade the islands again, unfortunatelly, this is evdnt tht they still don't realise how far from the reality they are.”
Jul 31st, 2012 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given that most of the adult population of the islands still remember what happened the last time British protection on the islands lapsed, coupled with Argentina's recent actions on the world stage I think they're fairly justified in thinking that your insane government might be *just* mad enough to start another war.
“Not only arg. ignored resolution 502, the gov. of your so loved thatcher did the same.”
UNSC resolution 502 called for Argentina to remove it's invasion force from the islands. It also called for an end to hostilities but gave Britain the option to invoke Article 51:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#Article_51
...which Britain subsequently did. We were within the framework of the resolution, you were not.
152 axel arg (#)
Jul 31st, 2012 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islanders want to remain as a BOT simply because of our threats against them. If it wasn't for our threatening presence, they would already be independent.
If that makes you proud of our brilliant Foreign Minister, bully for you, it makes me very ashamed of our disgusting government!!!!!
sadly exel has been brainwashed,
Jul 31st, 2012 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you want peace,
stop doing the nasty things you are doing to the falklands.
Axel,
Jul 31st, 2012 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina can demand all they want, once the referendum is finished they won't even have the UN, so keep up your petulant whining, nobody cares.
What is the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cults going on about in its latest diatribe about vandalism at the Darwin cemetery?
Aug 01st, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0And as for Britain doing military exercises in the Falklands territorial sea, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cults totally ignores Argentine exercises in tis own territorial waters.
EL GOBIERNO ARGENTINO REPUDIA PROFANACIÓN EN EL CEMENTERIO DE DARWIN:
http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/prensa/comunicado.php?buscar=5949
A 30 AÑOS DE LA GUERRA EL REINO UNIDO SIGUE APOSTANDO A LAS ARMAS:
http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/prensa/comunicado.php?buscar=5949
@157
Aug 01st, 2012 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ah yes, a monument to the cowards and scumbags who fought to subjugate the islanders has been vandalized and argentina starts shrieking for mercy and “respect” within hours.
Most amusingly is the fact they seem utterly shocked an dhorrified at the fact the islanders resent them and the pussies buried in darwin cemetary for their worthless nation's actions over the past 30 years
Still, I guess this will show the islanders how to get argentina to squeal like a bitch with minimum effort. I just hope they remember this lesson and take full advantage of it in future.
Found another news story (link below) with photo of broken glass cover of cemetery religious relic. Falklands Police looking into it and relic not damaged so one wonders just what sort of vandal would ONLY break the glass cover but not do a bigger job and destroy the relic itself?
Aug 01st, 2012 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vandalism not to be condoned, but certainly massive cemetery vandalism is quite frequent in many parts of the world. And the constant whining of CFK and her minions against Falkland Islands people could quite well lead to this sort of unfortunate incident - amply magnified by the ever-ready Argentine press services to broadcast the crime to the world. Doubt they broadcast Falklands police efforts to track down the vandals.
Argentine war cemetery in Falklands vandalized:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Argentine-war-cemetery-in-Falklands-vandalized-3750980.php#photo-3264210
@152
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ok Axel, do you think that the information submitted by Argentina in the 1960s to the UN was correct?
My argument is that if it was not, that 2065 which calls for Argentina and the UK to negotiate is therefore invalid.
For example Argentina claimed that Spain made an express reservation of its sovereignty in the treaty of 22/01/1771, whereas in fact, the British did not give up their claim, according to the treaty.
Where does it say in the treaty that Britain surrendered its claim?
Argentina says that the British action in 1833 was resisted. It was not because 80% of Pinedo's sailors were British mercenaries who refused to fight their own. Argentina claim that later in 1833 that Rivero resisted the British. The history suggests that he had a beef with the worthless money Vernet issued, not with the British administration ( Onslow paid the gauchos in their preferred currency of silver).
Argentina claim that Britain replaced the civilian settlement with British subjects. This must mean that Onslow offloaded British people from his ships,but where is the evidence for this?
The records I have examined show that most of the setters asked and allowed to stay by Onslow were from South America, and of these only 2 were British.
If you disagree, what evidence have you got to suggest that Onslow offloaded British settlers from his ships as Argentina claims?
If you wish I will continue with what Argentina tells the UN and its divergence from historical records.
What is annoying is the Argentine's continual insistence that Britain refuses to respect a resolution, born of innacurate historical facts, when Argentina itself is guilty many times of ignoring UN resolutions when it does not suit them.
It continually alludes that judgements formed by the UN 24, who wrongly refuse to talk to the FIG (as if they do not exist), are relevant when they are NOT UN resolutions, but are portrayed as such by a regime that is a wannabe imperialist.
#59 TTT
Aug 01st, 2012 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''Oh and btw to all the asked me, yes Argentina has no armed forces.''
Pure lies, just like the ones from CFK.
@152 - Axel
Aug 01st, 2012 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All UN resolutions made prior to the illegal Argentine invasion in 1982, were INVADLIDATED by that very same invasion.
This means that the UK is under no obligation to the UN or anyone else to talk to Argentina about anything let alone sovereignty of the islands.
Face it, in the late 70's and early 80's, all Argentina had to do was wait, bide its time and woo the Islanders to voluntarily to accept Argentine sovereignty. But you blew it, and your chances of ever persuading the Islanders to voluntarily become part of Argentina is lost forever. The fact that your country is continually harassing them makes you no better than the Junta who had planned to ethnically cleanse the islands, by either deporting the people or just murdering them.
Time and again, Argentina, shows the world that you are an aggressive bullying country, with dodgy human rights records, that can't be trusted as you continuously lie, cheat and break treaties.
No country in the world would accept Argentine sovereignty of the Falklands unless the people who live there wish it. And as I said, that is never going to happen, certainly not in my or your lifetime.
Should Argentina be stupid enough to try to take the islands by force, any deaths would be squarely laid at Argentina's feet. Plus the international repercussions could be very unpleasant for Argentina.
It's about time Argentina accepted reality. Perhaps if your government put as much time and effort into running Argentina, as it does over the Falklands, then perhaps your country would be in a better place economically, politically and psychologically. Argentina is one of the resource richest places on earth, yet you seem incapable of exploiting this wealth for the benefit of all Argentines.
Until the people of Argentina stand up to this self-perpetuating corruption, Argentina will never be able to take its true place in the world. You will always be seen as 3rd world country, kept there by your own incompetence.
MALICIOUS. BLOKE. SIMON68. PETE BOG.
Aug 01st, 2012 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MALICIOUS: If you think that arg. could be a threat, which justifies the huge militarization of the islands, i 'll give you a couple of numbers.
In 1982 our budget of deffence represented the 3% of the g. d. p., now it represents the 0,9% , beside, our constitution is very clear when it says that arg. must recover the sovereignty under the respect for the int. right. So, you should search better information before giving that ignorant conclusion. Respecting resolution 502, i 'll explain why i think that both nations didn't respect it.
The criminal and ignorant regime that roled arg. in that time, thought that the u. k would never make a war for the islands. When it invaded the malvinas in 1982, it's true purpose was to expeal the british government, and leave a garrison there, because the junta though that in this way it would force the u. k to negotiate for the sovereignty.
Before the sinking of the belgrano, there were conversations between both nations, but your thacher didn't agree with any negotiation for the sovereignty, it was told by her in her memories. After the sinking of the belgrano, the conversations were paralized, you can't ignore that when thatcher ordered to sink the blegrano, what she wanted to show is a rejection to a negotiated solution. The question s much longer, i'll explain more in my next comment.
SIMON: Let me remind that your brilliant falkland lawmakers from your falkland islands, reject sistematicly all the resolutions that call the two parts of the conflict to reume the negotiations, so, only a mediocre myopic like would blame on c. f. k.'s gov. only, without recognizing that your brilliant lawmakers aren't acting correctly either.
PETE: Your problem is that you still think that only arg. omits information before the u. n., i already said what i think about it in my other comment.
163 axel arg (#)
Aug 01st, 2012 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“SIMON: Let me remind that your brilliant falkland lawmakers from your falkland islands, reject sistematicly all the resolutions that call the two parts of the conflict to reume the negotiations, so, only a mediocre myopic like would blame on c. f. k.'s gov. only, without recognizing that your brilliant lawmakers aren't acting correctly either.”
The FI legislators are nothing to do with me, I did not elect them, the Falkland Islanders did that.
They sistematically reject to negotiate one thing; SOVEREIGNTY.
They are happy to discuss almost anything else, but CFK refuses to talk to them, so the ball is in our court, not their's.
I'm beginning to believe that you really are an under-educated twit, Axel, you spout so much rubbish without backing any of it up with solid facts.
Axel, just read yours 152- Security res 502 called for Arg to withdraw! - UK was several thousand of miles away and the main force had not even left Portsmouth!!- difficult for UK to withdraw when they were not even there- not even the Submarines had arrived offshore!!
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you get your historical facts from Timmerman by any chance?
Do you seriously belive that- if there were no British Forces here - that Arg would not re-invade again? All they would need is a couple od transports of some sort to sail in, 2 hercules to land simultaneosly at Stanley and MPA - and bingo- you would have captured the Islands - albeit after a bit of a fight with our Defence Force who are well trained-but- their heavy weapons are not exactly “heavy”!! - and they are part time so need to be called out and that takes say at least an hour or two - we would have no early warning radar etc - your Navy and Airforce could do it all at dawn and it would be all over my midday!
Do you seriously believe that they would not - if there was no british defence and thus nothing effective to numerically and tecnically stop them?
Tell me then - Why is it that your Airforce every now and then flies a jet towards the Islands - until they see radar signals that a Typhoon has been scrambled?
Now please don,t tell me that is just a friendly afternoon jolly?
You know - and we know- that Arg would be back in again- if they thought they could get away with it!
Yes your military are pretty useless just know- thats why we only have relatively light British defences - but plenty of reserve contingency facilities.
But your military do still have a few teeth!
Axel, you keep using the word “negotiate”, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that there is nothing to negotiate. Thatcher ordered the Belgrano sunk because it was an Argentine ship of war and posed a threat to the task force, even the surviving sailors and Bozo himself have come to terms with that, why can't you?
Aug 01st, 2012 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting, how this broken glass, got to the argentine government so quickly,
Aug 01st, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One has to are on the side of suspicion perhaps .
.
Axel,
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the umf time:-
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty.
Does the light finally dawn, Axelbobo?
(And stop lying about UNSC Resolution# 502).
(Argentina MUST remove ALL troops from the Falkland lslands).
Did you comply, Axel? Pig's arse you did.
We had to THROW you off OUR lslands.
SIMON68. ISLANDER1.
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIMON: I know that you are actually from the mainland, but i say your falkland islands, and your falkland lawmakers, because you love being their lawyer.
Unfortunatelly your biggest problem, is your total lack of intellectual honesty, the hate that you feel for c. f. k doesn't let you make an ample analysis of such a complicated cause like this one. I know that the lawmakers from the islands have always expressed that they are disposed to discuss about different issus with arg., but not about the sovreignty, that's why i have always said also that only myopic people like them woudn't recognize that the main problem is the sovereignty, which must be discussed. C. f. k was very clear when she explained before the u. n about what arg. asks theu. k., anyway i have always thought also that the gov. from the islands should be included in the conversations for the sovereignty, in case that both nations resume the negotiations.
ISLANDER: This is evident that you still can't separate the actual context, fromthe context of the dictatorship.
If you think that arg. might invade you again, in case that the u. k decides to dismantle the huge militarization from the islands, let me tell you that our constitution says that we must recover the sovereignty under the respect for the int. right.
I have always thought that the soposed fear that you express, because of a soposed argentine invasion, is just a hipocrite excuse that you love using all the time, in order to continue rejecting the negotiations.
Respecting the jets that flie toward the islands, i dont know why does it happen, maybe they are just controlling what we consider like our territory. Anyway, let's sopose that arg. invades you again, do you think that such terrible decision won't have serious consequences for us in the int. scenario?, do you think that the u. n won't sanction us hardly, do you think that the u. k won't react?. Why dont' you think, before giving such an ignorant conclusion.
@169 - axel
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given the constant harassment of the Islanders by Argentina, why should we take your word that Argentina wouldn't invade them the moment Britain lets down its defences? It wouldn't be the 1st time would it?
History has shown that Argentina's word is worthless, as you have broken too many treaties, to be trusted. And since it was Argentina that broke all the UN resolutions regarding the Islands, it frees the UK from any obligation to negotiate with Argentina, and your illegal invasion in 1982, when your military threatened to ethnically cleanse the islands means that the Islanders will never trust you. I mean, Argentina has done NOTHING in the last 30 years to try and mend the burnt bridges with the Falkland Islanders, in fact you have just continuously poured fuel on the fires.
The military presence in the Falklands is at its lowest for 30 years. And quite frankly if Argentina is really worried by this minimal military presence, then you must all be crazy. Britain has no reason to go to war with Argentina. British forces are there only to defend the Falklanders against your people.
So if Argentina behaves itself it has nothing to worry about, does it? But try any military aggression against the Falklanders then Argentina will be responsible, as it was in 1982, for any deaths that occur. The UK would also be within its rights, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, to attack any military installation or vessel (including ports, radar stations, air bases) that presented a clear and present danger to British forces or the Falkland Islanders.
This is not something that we would want, but the ball is clearly in Argentina's court.
@163
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the information given by Argentina to the UN in 1964 was historically incorrect, leading to a resolution for the UK and Argentina to talk then the UK are entitled not to talk until Argentina present s a case which accurately replicates history.
Resolution 2o65 did not state that the two sides could use aggression.
Argentina did in 1982, and refused to withdraw its forces from the Islands.
So resolution 2065 was broken unilaterally by Argentina and 502 was ignored completely.
This gives the impression to the islanders that Argentina cannot be trusted.
The solution to break this deadlock is so,so, so, simple.
All CFK has to do is talk to the FIG.
The UK made mistakes in the past by ignoring the islanders right to self-determination, now they fully recognise the FIG.
The Argentines refuse to so they are preventing any talks from happening.
You cannot lay the blame on the UK because they have given the Falkland Islanders more self-autonomy (not less), ie guiding the Islands nearer to independence, which is exactly what is prescribed by the UN doctrine on de-colonialisation.
So the Argentines need to talk to the Islanders, which they have not got the courage to do as they are frightened by 3000 people.
Axel 169- simple fact is- if the British Defence was not hear- even your weakened forces could easily invade and take over- and they would. The UN would not lift a finger really- a lot of huff and puff for a few weeks or months- and then nothing!
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Today UK has no seaborne airdefence so UK could not send an amphibious force to retake the Islands which by then would have all your airforce in and about it - and even 40 yr old jets are better than helicopters!!
Those are simple facts - sad if you cannot see them! That is the simple reason why Britain Defends the Islands instead!!
There was bugger all in your Constitution in 1982 about not attacking and invading either! And you invaded whilst talks were still to-ing and fro-ing at intervals at the UN and elsewhere between Arg and UK!!
Give me just 1 reason why we should belive anything that may or may not be in your Constitution anyway?
Please list perhaps all the Agreements reached by Arg Govts with UK and the Falkands since 1982 that are still intact and have been fully adhered to?
Hint - you will not need a very big piece of paper!
Oh and if the FAA pilots who fly this way at times are just doing it as they feel the area is their - tell me- why do they turn away so far away? After all they could at least come up to the territorial limit?
172 is right.
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Trust is earned. Argentina has never shown itself to be trustworthy, and has on many occasions shown itself prone to acts of grasping perfidy. Words in your constitution are nothing more than words if your actions as a nation don't match up to them.
The level of the whining about the defensive garrison on the falkland islands proves only two things:
(i) Argentina has a military ambition towards the islands and
(ii) The anti-air defenses and marine garrison on the islands make (i) unrealistic.
Given the above, the natural course is to cry to EVERY international body until britain removes or reduces the defensive posture of the islands, at which point argtardia can invade.
The alternative view is that those thousand-ish royal marines on the islands are there as part of a ZOMFG INVASION FORCE ABOUT TO ATTACK POOR LITTLE ARGENTINA ZOMFG TEH EBUL BRITISHES. This has to be the main propaganda aim put forth in any claim of militarisation, since any force deployed in a purely defensive role can't really be portrayed that way.
The only only problem with this is, Britain hasn't really had a military invention in mainland south america since 1849. Even the planned Spec Ops thingies in 1982 were cancelled due to “meh”.
So on one side you have argentina, who have started a war of aggression in living memory and now cry about Britain defending her people and on the other side you have Britain, who have set up a standing defense, have no expansionist goals and haven't made any aggressive moves in the region since signing the treaty of settlement.
Grow up, argtards...
We will NEVER trust you, Axel baby.
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sovereignty “which must be discussed”
No it mustn't Axel, & it won't be.
Not EVER, dear Axel.
Are you so stupid that you can't see this?
169 axel arg (#)
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No I'm not a lawyer for the Falkland Islanders, I'm simply a person who researched the history of the Islands with respect to our claims over them and found that the Governments from 1934 onwards have constantly lied to us, especially the peronist governments.
This means that the core of our foreign policy is as corrupt as the government that uses it to blow smoke into our eyes.
That is it Axel, I have proved to myself beyond reasonable doubt that the “Malvinas son Argentinas” story is absolute rubbish and the only thing that this ridiculous fairy tale does is hold our country back from realizing her full potential.
That being so, those that perpetuate the myth are traitors to Argentina, true “vendepatrias”!!!!!
#172
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the matter of FAA pilots flying towards the Falklands. This is probably to note the reaction time and radar capabilities of the UK forces. The Soviet Union did this for decades during the cold war, flying “Bears” towards the UK on a course North of the Shetlands. I had a discussion about this with an RAF pilot who made several intercepts. On one mission they were ordered to obtain a missile lock on the Soviet aircraft.
The Russian airwaves went into panic mode and the “Bear” turned for home. Why don't we try the same thing with approaching FAA aircraft.
The Typhoon can outfly anything the FAA have and I am sure that the pilot of the Argentian aircraft would turn for home muy rapido when he picked up the missile lock-on in his sensors. Who knows, he may even eject.
176- Believe you me- the Typhoon lads are always dissapointed that the neighbours dont come close enough to play!
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And yes - it is just a periodice testing of the airdefence readiness same as the coldwar.
ISLANDER1. SIMON68.
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISLANDER: You can't be more ignorant, your comparisons are really pathetic. Let me remind you that it was a criminal dictatorship the one that invaded the islands in 1982, not a democratic government. I'' inist with the what i said before, you should think deeply before giving those ignorant conclusions. I know that the kichner administration recalled the agreements that were signed in the past with the u. k, in fact, i have always recognized that our gov. committed mistakes too even after 1982. I recognize those facts because i'm not neather injudicious nor ignorant, however, only myopic people like you woudn't recognize that you haven't been acting correctly either after 1982, due to you have never accepted to dicuss about the soveregnty, which is the main problem, and you have never proposed any fair solution for it. The only thing you did was victimizing your people, like if you were acting correctly. Respecting a soposed invasion, that only can be thought by people who don't have any idea about what they say, do you think that invading the islands won't have any serious consequence for us?, do you think that the u. k won't try to recover the islands with a militar answer?, who in the u. n do you think will support that invasion?, if you want to justify the militarization in the islands, you don't need to be so hipocrite and argue about a soposed new argentine invasion.
SIMON: If you think that only our official history omits information about the historic aspects of this dispute, it shows that actualy you haven't been investigating, you just have been buying british propaganda. I made two exhaustive surveys about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, where i tell what is omitted by both nations. Therefore, i have always said that the solution for this dispute, must be fair for both parts. I am not perpetuating any myth, i'm just being fair.
Axel, you are a dink, I was in Argentina in '82 and I saw firsthand the euphoria in the streets when the “despised” military government announced their what proved to be folly so don't use that as an excuse. “All” Argentines are accountable, whether they elected the government or had it thrust upon them. You're all a bunch of savage cry-babies!
Aug 03rd, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, Axel,never,never,never.
Aug 04th, 2012 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0No Negotiations.
“Give peace a chance”
lol!
Axel
Aug 04th, 2012 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Believe it or not,I am trying to be fair about this. I don't live in the Falklands and I have never been there.
“Give peace a chance”
At present, the Falklands are subject to an economic blockade from Argentina. The Falklanders are told that they have no right to be there.
In every world forum your government attacks them. Your foreign minister tells blatant lies about aggressive military intent against Argentina and the whole of South America from the Falklands.
Most of the Argentinian posters here are either sarcastic or downright hostile to the islanders and want them removed. Hatred of the UK doesn't bother us, we have dealt with far worse and more competent governments than yours.
Would I, as an islander, stay physically safe under UK protection albeit putting up with inconveniences imposed by Argentina or “give peace a chance” under the dictate of a govt. with a dodgy record on human rights.
Would your people change their perception of the islanders, I think not.
It would take generations for anything like this to take place.
So, to use a poker analogy, “would I bet on a busted flush ” ----- I think not.
ZHIVAGO. CLYDE15.
Aug 04th, 2012 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ZHIVAGO: Ignorant people like you, will always that mediocre and too partial analysis that you make respecting the reaction of our people about when the criminal regime invaded the islands. Firstly, it's true that there was a huge euphoria in plaza d mayo when dictator galtieri told the country that we had recovered the malvinas without any rancour, which was false. But you omit that in that time there was not any freedom of press, all the chanels were under the control of the junta, the information that we received was absolutly manipulated by the adict press of the regime, in fact, all the time it was said that we were wining. Anyway, there is a lot more to analyse about the social and politic situation of arg. in 1982, it's a very interesting and necesary issue, in my next comment i'll tell you more.
CLYDE15: Your analysis shows that you are just buying mediocre propaganda. Firstly, what argentine authority told the islanders that they have no tight to live there?. I dont deny that our gov. committed mistakes, in fact although i support some of the decisions that it took for this dispute, i have always criticised also the fact that it doesn't dialogue with the gov. from the islands. But at the same time, neather the u. k, nor the islanders have never accepted to discuss about the sovereigty which is the main problem, in fact, they have never proposed any fair solution for it. So, accept it or not, they are not acting correctly either. Anyway, i understand that the mental mediocrity, and the lack of intellectual honesty of some of the people who publish comments here everyday, won't let them recognize that they aren't acting correcly either, thats' why, they will always blame on argentina only.
178 axel arg (#)
Aug 04th, 2012 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Axel, I didn't “buy” the British propaganda on the Falkland Island history, I RESEARCHED it for myself over a period of nearly 40 years and found that 99% of what I'd been taught to believe was totally false.
Your eternal cry of “...the sovereigty which is the main problem...” is ridiculous because it is only a problem to the ARGENTINE Government, not to the UKG or the FIG. The only discussion that can interest the Falkland Islanders is about resource management and resource sustainability, nothing else!!!!!
182 Axel
Aug 04th, 2012 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Germans- we didn't know what was going on, how could we know they were killing all those trainloads of Jews that we cheered as they passed by. We are so innocent, please don't hate us because of Hitler, the SS, the Gestapo, the Hitler youth, most of us didn't know what was going on.
Argentina- Same f*cking thing, just insert Dirty War for holocaust. If you don't accept part of the blame you will never be free, show some guts and accept some responsibility and maybe you won't get treated like children anymore.
#182
Aug 04th, 2012 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please elucidate the mediocre propaganda that I am buying.
You may say that the Islanders can stay on the islands BUT on what conditions. They seem to be happy with their lot just now.
We are talking about sovereignty. If Argentina were given sovereignty this would give them absolute power to dictate what happens on the islands and how they would be administered. The islanders would be reduced to chattels of the Argentinian state. What guarantees would be in force to protect them from future victimisation. The word of the current government? From over here in the UK they don't look particularly trustworthy. What happens 10 or 20 years down the line ?
You could easily repudiate any agreement you made and then what is the future for the indigenous islanders ?
You are asking the Islanders to take a huge risk with their future for what advantage. In this scenario Argentina takes no risk whatsoever .
They gain everything for no gain to the Islanders.
It's like asking them to play Russian roulette with five bullets in the chamber - not a risk worth taking.
The more your govt. play the petty tyrant, the more obdurate the Islanders will become.
Your only chance of having any say is another invasion, or back - off, let the dust settle and show the Islanders how it could be an advantage to join some form of confederation with a friendly and helpful neighbour.
This would be the long game but unfortunately, your politicians cannot think by the next election.
This is purely my opinion some 8,000miles from your problem.
@185Clyde15,
Aug 04th, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well said, Clyde15.
l agree whole-heartedly.
You will never get Axel to agree though because he still believes that Argentina actually has “rights” to our lslands.
l'm sure he thinks that he's doing us a great favour by “allowing” us to “negotiate” anything while living on “Argentine land”.
(not)sorry to disappoint you, Axel, but thats NOT gonna happen.
@183Simon68 & 184Zhivago,
Thank you for your constructive comments.
@182 Axelarg,
Get lost, Axel.
You're a pest.
SIMON68. ZHIVAGO. CLYDE15.
Aug 05th, 2012 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIMON: I dont know what kind of investigation you made, maybe you got very interesting information, but your problem, is that you think that only our official history omits information respecting the historic aspects of this conflict, that shows how ignorant you are. In my two investigations, i tell what is omitted by both countries, in fact i can send you one of them if you want. Respecting what you say about the sovereignty, it can't be more mediocre. We all can think whatever we want, however, if the u. n call both nations to resume the negotiations, like us or not, we must do it, and only myopic people woudn't recognize that the main problem is the sovereignty, which must be discussed.
ZHIVAGO: Your problem is that people who have such a mediocre thought like yours, will always make the same pathetic analysis that you made. I dont deny the support of our people to the invasion of 1982, but, what you did is to tell only what is convenient for you, everything i said in my comment 182, is as true as what you said in your other comment. On the other hand, you criticise the euphoria of our people in plaza mayo, and ignore the support of your people to the war, who were holding british flags in the english ports, anyway it's expectable that hipocrites like you, will always blame only on the others, like if your country had always acted correctly.
CLYDE15: If the u. k has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., the islanders will be able to remain under british gov., which is their wish, but it doens't mean that we can't find a fair solution for the sovereignty which is the main problem. All you said, shows that you are very missinformed, i suggest you to searh much more information, otherwise, you'll continue repeating what some ignorants here say everyday.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!