MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands: OAS sceptical about possible mediation from the Pope: he’s Argentine
The Organization of American States Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza is sceptical about a possible mediation from Pope Francis between Argentina and the UK over the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute as was requested by President Cristina Fernandez. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGiven the previous comments made by the Pope when he was Archbishop of BA, You could see why KFC would want him as an independent mediator.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have yet to see if the words that he says as Pastor of his flock in Argentina will be the same now he has a worldwide flock including Catholics in the Falkland Islands, Great Britain and other Commonwealth nations.
ICJ, theres a nice impartial mediator - go see them.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0UN SG has been told by the UN to offer his good offices as a mediator. This he has done but neither side has taken him up on it.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I support that dialogue, which I consider is the only chance there is.”
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, Jose, but the only chance is “no chance”.
He has no jurisdiction, especially given that he is Catholic and we aren't. I don't think that the government would see him as impartial and I don't that he has the expertise to adjudicate. After all he is he the leader of a church which surrounds itself in myth, superstition and hypocrisy. He also has more important things to be getting on with.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why would mediation work?
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina accepts one single outcome.
The Falkland Islands does not accept the Argentine outcome.
Why would mediation change that? Simpletons.
Loyalties aside, this is potentially a massive PR disaster for CFK. To so publicly ask the Pope to intercede in a matter, when rejection is almost guaranteed, will amount to a huge and humiliating public slap in the face .. even if the request is just politely ignored.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reinforces how dumb CFK was to even think the Papacy would be a relevant mediator between a catholic and anglican country.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have to be utterly clueless about Britain and its history to think the Pope would be a good idea, regardless of where he came from.
@8 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0The best pope was julius II, he was played by Rex Harrison, a fantastic british actor, in the film The Agony and the Ecstas... About painting the cisten chapel. Only good because of our boy Rex.
@3
Mar 20th, 2013 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Has he doen anything more than just let it be known he's available if anybody calls?
@10 HansNiesund
Mar 20th, 2013 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly .. and the truth of it is that neither side is particularly motivated as long as they can make political capital from the sabre rattling.
@11
Mar 20th, 2013 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the supposed UN support for Argentina looks a tad lukewarm if the SG isn't going so far as to pick up his own phone.
But then that's entirely consistent with the position he has now put on record more than once.
Sorry pal,
Mar 20th, 2013 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The last chance saloon has closed,
And her interference in the argentine constitution may well have backfired,
And lost her any chance ever again.
And there is nothing but nothing the OAS can do about it,
CFK
Will just have to accept defeat on this issue and try for her victory somewhere else.
Before her own military gets their own victory over her and throw her out..
.
I think we can safely say that there is zero chance of a military coup in Argentina.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 I thought I knew what the phrase “sabre rattling” meant. To be on the safe side, I looked it up. And I was right. So I can see why argieland could be accused of sabre rattling. But how could that accusation be levelled against the UK? UK forces have been in place since 1982 to deter argieland from repeating its actions of that year. In 1982, it took the UK 49 days to put ground troops on the Islands. The subsequent military action only took 24 days. So it's sensible to have troops already there! That's not “sabre rattling”, it's deterrence.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Conqueror
Mar 20th, 2013 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Get yourself a better dictionary then. In fact, by the strict OED definition of the phrase - “displays of military force” - Britain is far more guilty of 'sabre-rattling' than Argentina has been for the past 30 years.
I use a broader definition of just generally trying to wind the other side up. Both sides are as guilty as hell of that.
The UK hasn't exactly been sabre rattling (at least not in the Falklands). Every time Britain rotates troops or replaces old equipment with new (eg type 42 out for type 45) CFK blows it out of all proportion. Britain isn't sabre rattling, it's just going about it's business.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh right, so when the British government makes a big song and dance about dispatching the latest and greatest Type 45 guided missile destroyer, rather than just quietly sending it on its way - or, knowing that it will create a stink, boasts that a nuclear powered Astute-Class submarine is going to be prowling around – at a time when there is zero threat of an invasion, they aren't sabre-rattling? That's just complete and utter bullcr*p; because it is deliberate provocation.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That isn't to say that you shouldn't have defences; but at a time when there is no great need for highly visible deterrents, there is no rational reason to make a big palaver about the exact nature and destructive capabilities of your latest deployments, unless you are deliberately trying to create some sort of reaction. It is in effect just flamebaiting on a massive scale, so of course Argentina are then going to complain about “militarisation”.
You simply don't get tit-for-tat unless both sides are playing the same disingenuous game - in this case they know that Argentina can't respond with a similar display of intimidatory military force, and will therefore respond with something that allows us to play the victims and label it as inhumane attempts to isolate the islanders and starve them into submission .. and so the cycle continues - with either side being as guilty as the other - and the islanders mere pawns in the game.
Publicly parading your military capabilities, even if it is just as a deterrent (assuming that you are naive enough to believe that it is only a deterrent, and not an equal measure of intimidation), is still sabre-rattling. What do you think Russia's Victory Day parade in Moscow's Red Square is about? Making the citizens feel good because the troops can goose step in perfect unison, whilst the tanks and 144 mobile missile launchers trundle by? Yeah, right :-)
If only the world were really as black and white as some people delude themselves that it is.
The bar is set very low for saber rattling it seems. But when your fleet just ... tips over like a cruise liner, i suspect its all a matter of perspective.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No one knows where the Astute is appart from some very important people in the MOD and a few of the crew staffing the Astute... So... PROVE its floating around the south atlantic. I'm sure it's got much more important places to be.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the Type-45, it was sent as a replacement for a much older ship which is being decommissioned and was a long time in the planning. You see, unlike the RGs, we like to actually maintain our standards in terms of military power instead of just letting it all just sit and rust until its beyond capable of over throwing our own government. I don't see how that can be determined as a provocation... It is not our fault we choose to maintain our standards when you let yours go down the swanny widening the gap between your chances of a successful invasion (and as we all know as you're gov has previously stated - if we weren't there in the piddly numbers which we are - you would have invaded a 2nd time a long time ago).
The British Government as far as I can see has kept it's nose as clean as possible and has not got involved in any of the issues the RGs have brought forward such as the banning of all Falklands and UK ensigned ships - we did not go tit for tat and ban Argentinas... Instead they have allowed the Falklanders the freedom to deal with it; and they have by pushing the issue on the international state with an overwhelming referendum telling you lot to jog on! This is the only publicity the UK and FIG needs. Our military capabilities are well know around the world and do not throwing into the spotlight more than they already are with Afghanistan etc!
In the UK freedom of speech is common place, political brain washing is not allowed. If a teacher in UK schools tells his pupils their political or religious opinion they can get sacked. We are able to form our own opinions and I have will continue to be critical when my country is in the wrong. Something you RGs have not been brought up with the capability of properly doing.
“political brain washing is not allowed”
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Politics IS brainwashing .. otherwise politicians would, on the whole, be infallibly honest and wouldn't spin myths like a circus performer spins plates :-)
Good to see thats the only thing you found to be in consistant Vuggevise - I take your silence on the other issues as an agreement that the RGtards are to blame for all.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the none RG world the only people politians brainwash are themselves, anything else is generally described as a fasist or dictator - we just have to choose from the best of the lot or attempt to become a better version of the politians we have. Unfortunately in the RG world you have been brainwashed to the point that its almost comparable to a dog. I.e. dog is being spoken to by owner and is very calm, suddenly it sees someone throwing a stick and sprints after it leaving behind a bewildered owner. You = dog, stick = Argentina, person throwing stick = your politians.
By human nature people are greedy, this is why politians are like they are and that why corruption is often present within government - some more so than others. Needless to say where the RGs gov stands within that spectrum.
@22 Huntsman Extraordinaire
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Take it as that is you want, but you would be desperately wrong if you interpret silence as agreement. I disagree with almost every word you have written there and consider it to be as blinkered and repellently nationalistic as CFK .. but I have already put my case.
Being Irish it seems ridiculous to me for the Argentines to say that the Brits are sabre-rattling when an Argentine minister stated quite recently that if it were not dor the presence of British forces Argentina would invade again. I can see no way that that is sabre-rattling it is called DEFENCE.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@22 Huntsman Extraordinaire
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is also quite hilarious that you are pig-ignorant enough to consider me a part of the “RG world”, simply because I am not naïve enough to subscribe to your delusional view of matters.
In fact, it is hilarious how many have assumed that I am pro-Argentinian, simply because I have used the term sabre-rattling. It is like a field-day for sockpuppets :)
Apologies stick = Falklands not Argentina. Typing mit haste.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 023) I'm no nationalist; a nationalist would not critise their country. My country has many things that are wrong about it and I recognise them, and have on occasion written to government/set up petitions etc. Indeed I did just this yesterday regarding the consultation regarding air rifles in Scotland. Just a strong believer in common sense. You're case is based on nothing other than the lies brought forward by your current Junta and corrupt education system.
@26 Huntsman Extraordinaire
Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, as self-delusional nationalist :)
And there you go repeating your pig-ignorant assumptions all over again, by referring to “your current Junta and corrupt education system”, so this common-sense you claim to believe in clearly isn't your forte :D
Oh right, right, sorry, sorry. The numerous documentories I've seen on your education system are a load of claptrap. The history books and subject mattar I have read regarding the Falklands/Argentine history are a load of rubbish. The many many news articles I have read from so many different sources so that I may form my own opinion were nothing but jumped up information.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is a totalitarian and isolationist state with a mean streak for colonisation; there is much evidence to co-oberate this and none to co-oberate what you say. Dollar Clamp. Ticks the 1st 2 of those boxes for a start. Falkland Islands, Antartica, Sandwich Islands ticks the 3rd. I could go on, but I think it's been done to death on this website.
As the saying goes 'it takes one to know one' because you are clearly self-delusional about Argentina's affairs. I'd give you my pity but I don't do sympathy.
If I was without common sense I would not be any good at my job. Without common sense I would be a poor huntsman, etc, etc. Fortunately though where common sense is required I excel.
@28 Huntsman Extraordinaire
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More staggeringly pig-ignorant assumptions.
OK then, here is a challenge for you: find a single Argentinian who considers me a supporter of their cause. Go on, I am sure you are man enough for the task (in the breaks whilst you are busy swapping between your various online identities).
For the record: I am not Argentinian, I don't live in Argentina – I don't even live in South America – and I do not support Argentinian sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (and nowhere have I given you any reasonable cause to believe that I do, other than your banal belief that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your infantile brand of ultra-nationalism must be the enemy); so the number of crass and staggeringly ignorant assumptions you have made really does beggar belief.
The last time I checked, Norway wasn't ruled by a junta, isn't bankrupt (in fact it is swimming in oil and natural gas, which is almost all exported, because it is near enough self-sufficient in dirt cheap hydroelectric power, and therefore has one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds), has a democratically elected government, has almost unparalleled freedom of expression and an education system that was the envy of most of the developed world … yet, according to you, I live in a “totalitarian and isolationist state”, I am lied to by my junta, likened to a dog that is spoken down to by its owner and live in a country that you claim to have read has an education system that is a load of crap.
Do you ever actually stop to let that single braincell of yours think, before you engage that frothing motormouth of yours with your scripted uneducated drivel? To be brutally honest, you are far more convincing in your nauseatingly rabid and homophobic Conqueror guise .. and to think I thought Sr Think was a few flakes short of a 99, but you make him look positively rational :-)
“”“”Oh right, so when the British government makes a big song and dance about dispatching the latest and greatest Type 45 guided missile destroyer, rather than just quietly sending it on its way - or, knowing that it will create a stink, boasts that a nuclear powered Astute-Class submarine is going to be prowling around – at a time when there is zero threat of an invasion, they aren't sabre-rattling? That's just complete and utter bullcr*p; because it is deliberate provocation.“”“
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it is, because they didnt make much of a song & dance about it - Argentina did.
I'd bet that 99% of people who heard that is was going down there ONLY did so because of the stink raised by Argentina.
Otherwise it would have been nothing more than the usual low-key announcement made for most ship/plane/troop redeployments - which every nation does.
Indeed the only hooplah about any of the vehicles of war, or personell sent to the Falklands has its origins in Argentine propaganda...
WHo noticed the first time China has ever sent a warship into the western hemisphere in modern times...?
Anybody see that ”hugely provocative” action plastered over the news? (Probably only if you are Chinese, read the Chinese news or were the American trying to raise a stink over it in the first place) .
That type 45 has, and will, sail all over the world without raising an eyebrow, but the moment it headed South the Argentine propaganda machine swung into action and the entire MYTH of “SOuth Atlantic Militarisation” was born.
That is not Sabre-rattling on the part of Britain, its shit-stirring on the part of others.
Sabre-rattling is when folks like the USA & Brits say “give up your WMD or we'll snot you & your country even if it means we have to ignore international law to do so - and LOOK HERE! We've got a BIG_ASS army!”.
@30 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yes it is, because they didnt make much of a song & dance about it - Argentina did”.
So that is why the MoD made sure it was plastered all over the front page of the Sun, is it? OK :)
I think you will find the MOD didnt do that, the Sun did.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You appear confused that the Sun newspaper somehow represent the British Government OR the nation as a whole.
So “The sun printed a article” = British Government Sabre Rattling.
Please elucidate on this connection for us.
@32 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You appear confused that the Sun just happened to know all these details in advance, even though the MoD doesn't as a matter of routine publicise such deployments?
Sorry Anbar, your just another ultra nationalist whos opinion is nothing but pig ignorant.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vuggevise - I am not conquerer, and nor would I want to be. I dislike this persons pro-war gung ho attitude and offensive language.
I did not intend to mistake you for Argentinian, and I did try to come across as you may not have been, however I got ever so slightly carried away and lost/ignored that point. My opinion of Argentina however stands. If you dislike the metaphors and descriptions I use to get my points across then that is not my problem.
Thanks for comparing me to Think - I'm going to have a little trophy made with 'Turnip' written on the bottom.
Ah - you mean the publicly available notice of deployment that anybody can look up?
Mar 20th, 2013 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(You're on a BIG loser here, I suggest you bailout before you get more embarrassed than Hunstman)
Unless you can explain why 1 newspaper out of a total of over 300 (including regionals) printed a story somehow equates to an entire Nation, or its government “sabre rattling”.... do the other 299+ not count?
One would have thought the distinction would be readily apparent to one from a superb educational background.
Perhaps one is wrong on that?
@34 Huntsman Extraordinaire
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Sorry Anbar, your just another ultra nationalist whos opinion is nothing but pig ignorant.”
There you go misrepresenting me again. Unlike you, Anbar hasn't said anything to give me cause to believe that he is pig-ignorant .. we just don't agree. I can live with that, because he isn't relying infantile (and frankly racist) assumptions to make his point.
Anbar is, however, struggling to understand how the Sun represents our Government.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you have it confused with the News of the World.
Woaw, I'm a rasist, that is a first.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An English protestant married to a French Algerian muslim rasist. My my.
Have another go, perhaps using cut and paste.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Woaw, I'm a racist, that is a first.
An English protestant married to a French Algerian Muslim; racist. My my.
Just to go over that point on the CHinese ships - the first time a chinese (war)ship had passed into the Med.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Front-page news in China in both its Government funded news services and its “Independents”.
Nary a word about Chinese sabre-rattling from any Mediterranean countries though.... even though, on top of the newsies, the Chinese Government also highlighted the fact.
You see I think that people just look to find an argument, but fail to investigate how many ships, let us say, of varying degree of “power” have been sent to the Falklands in the last 30 years or so without any issue or complaint from anybody in the South Atlantic... indeed quite a few “thanks yous” from people rescued etc.
And all of those depolyments were announced in advanced... but they weren't sabre rattling.
Now, “all of a sudden” it is - because an independent news paper: probalby the single most jingoistic in the UK, splashed it on their front page.... and its regarded as official government policy and the unified opinion of all of the UK.
This does ring true (even to one of admittedly intermediate education and intelligence.)
@35 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK then, kindly show me this “publicly available notice of deployment” that is available SEVERAL months in advance of deployment and lists ALL overseas deployments.
The fact of the matter is that most deployments aren't advertised months in advance - in fact, most routine aren't actually announced, unless they are part of a wider mission .. and submarine deployments are never supposed to be announced.
So I await with baited breath the evidence to show that I am the “BIG loser” here :-)
I kinda think i dont need to vuggie, we both know that my point stands: the sun doesnt represent either the British Government or the British people.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You dont need a degree to work that out.
So as your “Proof” that “Britain was Sabre Rattling” its patently (at very, very best) “weak”.
On the flip side I think Britina SHOULD be sabre rattling, I think it NEEDS to, especially with Argentina.
Why? Barbecuer when it DIDNT Argentina took it as encouragement and they invaded the Falklands.
The nere fact that their military is pretty pathetic wont necessarily stop them from doing something stupid, even if it wont be an all-out invasion.
The common term being “deterrent”.
It is undeniably common to see the target of “deterrence” regard deterrents as “sabre rattling”... or to paint “sabre rattling” as “bad” per se.
If sabre-rattling prevents conflict I could easily argue as to its legitimate peaceful intent and worth in a working fashion.
But, I am not the product of a superb educational system. ¬_¬
@42 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I kind of think you do .. otherwise it is reasonable to assume that this mythical notice, issued many months in advance and listing ALL future Royal Naval deployments, simply does not exist.
oh DO grow up.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You chose a stupid-ass dumb-as-dumb-is example as “proof” of British Sabre Rattling.
The Sun newspaper is not the government, nor does it represent the nation - how hard is that to understand?
There are numerous FAR better examples of British Sabre-rattling ALL over the world, you just chose a piss-poor example and now wont admit it.... for the product of a superb-educational system you dont half act thick.
The Sun does not represent the British Government no matter how many conspiracy theories you read.
When the Government wants to rattle its sabre it frakking say so: just like it did with the hegihtened state of alert in the lead-up to the referendum.
That's saber-rattling you plonker. direct, in-your-face “we're ready for you, come and try some funny stuff then!”
Not some pis-poor claim of the Sun being the Governments stooge.
ffs its TOTALLY the wrong way around anyway.
The Government is the stooge of the frakking press.. do you know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about Britain?!!
I cannot abide stupidity presented as intellectual genius, its just like DoDgyThink, make some piss-weak comment then do some miss-quotes to dodge the topic.
Somalia - Infinitely better example: whole frakking fleet of ships out there Sabre-Rattling, ALL announced by respective governments... any need for the press to be in a conspiracy with them? Bollocks.
US in Hormuz? Spain in Gib waters? Man there are hundreds of better examples of GOVERNMENTS sabre-rattling.
But none of them are so stoopid to think that one newspaper represent an entire antiona AND the government and then use that as “proof” of a NATION sabre-rattling: it was one newspaper.
BAD EXAMPLE.
Game Over.
Do not pass Go, DO not collect pink cookies.
Governments rattle directly, they dont need to do it by proxy.
@44 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, you grow the hell up up and cut your imbecilic drivel - but welcome to the Huntsman Extraordinaire and Conqueror level of Neanderthal debate .. it must make you feel really proud to have sunk to their depth of inanity, misrepresentation and wild extrapolation.
You have the nerve to put the word “proof” in quotation marks, yet nowhere did I use the word in the context you are using it and nowhere did I claim that my opinion was proof.
You are totally batshit deranged and make all manner of wild claims, yet when challenged to produce what you claim is freely available information, you refuse to do so .. and then also delude yourself that the British government doesn't have a sophisticated spin machine that specialises in planting stories in the media.
Get real and face the fact that there is only one big loser here .. and that is you?
wow, total sense-oh-humor-failure or what?
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read it again eejit.
“Sense-oh-humor-failure”? Really? Saysw the unprincipled oaf who, until @45, was the only person to have even used the word 'proof', and yet on three separate occasions wilfully chose to put in quotation marks in order to dishonestly and dishonourably misrepresent it as something I had said.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Humour my derriere. You really are beneath all contempt - and with that I will leave you to stew in your own totally unhinged “stupid-ass dumb-as-dumb-is” ramblings.
Vuggevise
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have to say I agree with all your posts on this thread. The reality is most people who post on here, both Brits and Argies have no real idea what the average person in their respective countries actually thinks about the dispute ( not that the average person in the street would have any say in the matter lol ) they base their comments on what they read or see on a news report both of which may or not be biased. Brainwashing goes on all over the world and the UK is not excluded . The modern word is “spin” and sounds so much better than brainwashing lol
@46 There, that told you. Of course I would say that 'cause me, him and Think are all identities of the same person, aren't we?
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@48 Paragon
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you. The problem is that most people delude themselves that their own country's motives are purer than virgin snow .. when in fact, they rarely are anywhere close to be as honourable and honest as we like to believe.
I just read that Bishop Desmond Tutu does not after all, support the Argentine claim, as they would have you believe. Read for yourselves..
Mar 20th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.penguin-news.com/index.php/news/politics/item/520-archbishop-tutu-declares-falklands-referendum-is-act-of-will
Yup. REALLY.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Massive case of “rattle-out-the-pram” you're having again.
------------
“and yet on three separate occasions wilfully chose to put in quotation marks in order to dishonestly and dishonourably misrepresent it as something I had said.”
Did I? REALLY!? Crikey. Good job I didnt take the piss out of doing that then eh?
-------------------------
The Falklands is a RN 'Standing Deployment' and what ship is down there and what will replace it is given months in advance: you can look up the standing deployment on wikipaedia even, and the ships via the MOD.
Claiming that the Sun Newspaper represent the Government or nation IS incredibly silly.
Google the dates the story was published.
Google the date the Deployment occurred.
then re-read your statment: “ otherwise it is reasonable to assume that this mythical notice, issued many months in advance and listing ALL future Royal Naval deployments, simply does not exist.”
Standing Deployment - Publicly available? Yes/
Notice given months in advance? yes.
Verifiable by checking date of story against date of deployment? Yes.
Exactly what I said? yes.
So apart form the use of ALL (which you added) I would call that game,set & match to me...like...erm... Duh!
If I were picky I would then quote you saying: “and yet on three separate occasions wilfully chose to put in quotation marks in order to dishonestly and dishonourably misrepresent it as something I had said”
and highlight the fact that this is exactly what you did... but I'm not going to be picky and point out the rampant hypocrisy... or the fact that I was taking the piss, whereas you were not.
Coz Im a neanderthal, ignorant, unprincipled oaf - for no other reason than i disagree with you.
Well done Vuggie, shining example of no sense of humour, no ability to use google and rampant hypocrisy.
top job!
@51 I see he is also fully in communion with US foreign policy and UN GA consensus:
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Whether or not the Falklands remains a UK Overseas Territory, become a fully independent state or fall under the control of Argentina is a matter that should be resolved peacefully at international diplomatic level.
”Whatever decisions are eventually taken, it is important that the views of the people have been canvassed and that their opinion is taken into account.”
Vuggevise:
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Both nations do rattle, but to say it is the UK who does it more is a great lie. Firstly regarding the sub in the area, the UK government officially denied this.
You also fail to mention how Argentina went to the bloody UN of all places and told the world how we had a nuclear weapon equipped submarine sitting off the Argentinian coast line, then showed the world a picture... Which turned out to be a different type of submarine entirely and the picture was taken off the coast of the UK where the submarine was at the time. And secret spy antennas on the islands.... Which are public used research facilities used by a university in the UK.
Argentina uses every and all possible avenues to bring up the islands. That's not the press like the things you are mentioning. The actual government of Argentina.
The only single thing the government of the UK states the majority of the time is just that the islanders are entitled to self determination.
“”“”they base their comments on what they read or see on a news report both of which may or not be biased. “”“”
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0... isnt that what vuggie just did? base his entire post on a newspaper story as representing the entire British nation and its Government....
hmm.. funny old thing... hypocrisy is contagious they say.
DoDyThink: worked out a way to stop posting at the same times as Think yet? The 95% correlation in posting-times was a bit of a shocker for your entire “I am a real person honest!” attempts. Probably you should give up: the times caught out lying to prove your back-story, plus the whole “the pope as a mediator” thing pretty-much terminated any chance of any Brit believing you are real.... give it up sunbeam, aint worth the time & effort.
-------------
Zethee: it was in a Newspaper - that means it MUST be true...the Sun reported we had nukes down there!!!!!
its PROOF I tell ye!
PROOF!
The Sun knows EVERYTHING the government do, even where we hide our nuclear submarines!!!!!!
@52 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Falklands is a RN 'Standing Deployment' and what ship is down there and what will replace it is given months in advance: you can look up the standing deployment on wikipaedia even, and the ships via the MOD.”
That isn't what you were asked to show. We all know that HMS Clyde - a river class ship with a crew of 30 that is a far cry from a Type 45 destroyer - is the regular station ship in the Flaklands .. but where is this “publicly available notice of deployment” that is issued months in advance that the Sun and most other national newspapers got the information from? Fact of the matter is, that in the Royal Navy's notices of deployment, it only routinely lists where SOME ships are currently deployed - and in only half of the current deployments does it even list what the ships mission is ... and lists no submarines. The Falklands is one of the missions listed, but they aren't listed with the months of advanced notice that the British media had.
So I am afraid, all you have done is try to move the goalposts in order to distract attention from the fact that you can't support the claims that are central to you won assertions which you claim make me the “BIG loser” ... loser.
Also, I haven't claimed that the “Sun Newspaper represent the Government or nation” .. so that IS an incredibly silly misrepresentation on your part.
As for Google, if you have Googled the information, why the reluctance to share it? Oh, that's right: it is because you are blowing smoke rings out of your backside and are making it all up on the hoof, in the hope that some of it will sound believable (which it doesn't).
So, to be honest, that last post of yours was nothing more than irrelevant hot air that shows you up as really rather tragic and hypocritical.
Top job!
@16 I'm so sorry. I didn't realise that you were in charge of updating MY language.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But shall we take a look at reality. Up until April 1982, as a norm, the UK had 40 Royal Marines on the Islands for the Governor's “Honour Guard”. By pure chance, in April 1982, one party of Royal Marines were taking over for another. So there were actually 80. And then, without any warning, they were attacked by 66,000 argie troops. But, being British, they fought back. And were able inflict casualties on the cowards without suffering any themselves. Until ordered to lay down their weapons by the Governor.
And you object to a defence force?
@18 So when the MoD routinely announces the first deployments of two new classes of vessel, this is provocation? Just like the deployment of a single RAF SAR crew? When the MoD announces that certain elements of the Royal Navy are to be deployed to the United States, is that provocation?
@21,23,25,27,29,31,33,36,41,43. Let's get something straight. In 1982, who started a war? Who ignored two binding UN Security Council resolutions? In the following 31 years, who has made threats? Who has imposed “sanctions”. Who, despite being a UN member state, has engaged in economic warfare in direct contravention of the UN Charter? Who has sent its combat aircraft on direct courses for the Islands? Who has sent so-called “warships” to enter the Falklands EEZ on the pretext of “navigational error? You are one of a few possibilities. An argie skunk. An argie sympathiser. A fool. Or a coward.
The United Kingdom does not ”rattle sabres“. It states its position. It continues actions it has taken for 31 years. To protect and defend the Islands. The Falkland Islands were attacked, invaded, occupied. Whatever it takes, it will not happen again. When did you get to occupy your mythical ”high ground”? Don't you get a certain sense of shame for being so gutless? No doubt you're a LibDem as well!
@55 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“... isnt that what vuggie just did? base his entire post on a newspaper story as representing the entire British nation and its Government....”
Is it? Where is your proof of that? Where have I even claimed the “newspaper story as representing the entire British nation and its Government”? Oh, that's right, yet another unhinged rabid and factless claim from one of Conqueror's tragic little sockpuppets, who needs to lie and misrepresent in order to shore up his deluded naivety.
@57 Conqueror
Gutless? Not me, dear. I haven't started taking lessons in cowardice from you yet.
“”””Oh right, so when the British government makes a big song and dance about dispatching the latest and greatest Type 45 guided missile destroyer, rather than just quietly sending it on its way - or, knowing that it will create a stink, boasts that a nuclear powered Astute-Class submarine is going to be prowling around – at a time when there is zero threat of an invasion, they aren't sabre-rattling? That's just complete and utter bullcr*p; because it is deliberate provocation.””””
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As he is so hyper-sensitive, and claiming some moral and educational high-ground here, lets dissect Vuggies post here, as he is such an intellectual giant and we are only ignorant oafs he should not mind this rational approach.
His “Proof” of this attitude by the British Government consists of: “The Sun published it on their front page.”
Followed up with
“”””You appear confused that the Sun just happened to know all these details in advance, even though the MoD doesn't as a matter of routine publicise such deployments?””””
So, lets go over Vuggies claims it in detail:
“The Sun knew in advance” – The Sun knew at the exact same time that the whole world knew; when it was made public months before the deployment. This can be verified online using goggle.
“even though the MoD doesn't as a matter of routine publicise such deployments?”
The MOD does just that – Standing Deployments are available on wikipaedia for one thing, and the routine announcements of what sip is replacing the one coming out is given in public, routinely. (The ship before, and the ship afterwards were also announced, as is routine – wikipaedia even lists them)
pwned.
@59 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Repeating yourself whilst rabidly frothing at the mouth and making no point at all. 8-0 to me :-)
@57 Conqueror
You also seem to forget that whilst you were sat on your big fat backside, waving your little Union Flag at the television, some of us were actually in the Falklands theatre and are a lot better acquainted with the facts than you are. Gutless. Try that one when it doesn't take a NASA mission and six years of planning to circumnavigate your gut.
“Fact of the matter is, that in the Royal Navy's notices of deployment, it only routinely lists where SOME ships are currently deployed ”
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is just not true. All the current missions are publicly listed on the bloody royal navy website, with a nice map and the ships locations. Hell, it even lists locations of small patrol vessels. And the ships on deployments have there own bloody pages with pictures and several paragraphs of information about there deployment.
I dont know of any navy personally who is so open with such information. The only thing not listed is submarines and secret missions for obvious reasons.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations/current-operations/operational-deployments#
@61 Zethee
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually it is true, because the link you have just posted there is what I mentioned above. It lists SOME current deployments - it doesn't list all deployments and it doesn't list the missions for all the ships shown... and it most certainly doesn't list the deployments months in advance ... just as neither that nor the Wikipedia article list the last, current and next ship on station. It is basically just a pretty interactive map of where SOME of the fleet is deployed right now.
So: I provide the proof, you ignore it entirely. O.....K....
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That says a lot about you and your “points”. :-0
Notice I do not need to use your tactic of constant abuse and ridicule to make my point here.
I just listed your claims and pointed out the factual problems with them.
Your persistent use of personal abusiveness is not required, but it does make me question even more as to just how “superb” your educational system was/is, or, alternatively, whether or not you ever attended it.
One thing is for certain: your ability to ignore proven facts, and your instant rush to be abusive, is thoroughly unpleasant.
You appear to be a very bitter and rather nasty person.
@63 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You haven't provided any proof. You must be seriously delusional if you think you have .. you have just made a load of claims.
“Notice I do not need to use your tactic of constant abuse and ridicule to make my point here.”
Really? You could have fooled me. Your posts are laden with abuse.
One thing is for certain: your ability to ignore proven facts, and your instant rush to be abusive, is thoroughly unpleasant. You appear to be a very ignorant, bitter and vile person.
*sigh*
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah vuggievise... you cannot edit your posts, therefore anybody can scroll upwards and see where you added “ALL”. you even used capitals.
Not me, you. (I wont quote hat you have to say about people that change quotes like that)
----
“”“You appear confused that the Sun just happened to know all these details in advance, even though the MoD doesn't as a matter of routine publicise such deployments?”“”
““So that is why the MoD made sure it was plastered all over the front page of the Sun, is it?”“”
Those are your words, as you typed them.
Has anybody else seen anything of an evidential nature that..and I quote.. “the MoD made sure it was plastered all over the front page of the Sun”.?
I know I haven't.
Care to show us some proof Vuggivise?
@65 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still waiting for your proof Anbar :)
And for anyone who is interested, here is the Wikipedia article that doesn't show most of what Anbar claims it shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Royal_Navy_deployments
No wonder he was afraid to post the link to it - yet that is his “proof” ... nowt but hot air.
wtf are you on?
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said wiki listed standing deployments and you just linked to it - then said i was lying about it! you just linked to the publicly available standing deployments!!!!!
You're bonkers.
YOU added the word “ALL” about what ships the RN says are going where, I dint say that YOU added it - not me.
Lets see this proof of yours about the MOD ensuring it was all over the Sun frontpage shall we? You are VERY big about asking for proof, but providing none whatsoever yourself.
SO: Lets ALL see the evidence that the MOD leaked the news to the Sun IN ADVANCE so that they could ensure if was “Plastered over the fornt page”.
oh, hang on.. lets use Google to find out:
Sun article: DATEDD: February 1, 2012. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4099317/Destroyer-heads-br-for-Falklands.html
BBC article: DATED: 31st Januray 2012: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4099317/Destroyer-heads-br-for-Falklands.html
So, lets ALL get this right:
The British MOD LEAKED the news that the Dauntless was going to the Falklands to the SUn newspaer IN ADVANCE (your words) even though the Sun and the whole-wide-world could get the news from the BBC the day before?
Yes, nicely proven conspiracy Vuggivise, very well done... evidence link-able proof that you are talking total, unadulterated bullshit.
You are an intellectual GIANT!
@65 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Ah vuggievise... you cannot edit your posts, therefore anybody can scroll upwards and see where you added “ALL”. you even used capitals.”
Shame you can't read then. I asked you to show us where ALL future deployments were shown months in advnace. When I mentioned the deployments page, I pointed out that only some CURRENT deployments are show - and that they certainly aren't shown months in advance as you claim .. so I am afraid, there is no need for me to be able to edit, because it is yet again you are trying to misrepresent, when the evidence of what I actuially posted is there for all to check, but I shall quote it for your benefit:
“kindly show me this “publicly available notice of deployment” that is available SEVERAL months in advance of deployment and lists ALL overseas deployments”
... not really what you claim it was, is it? You really are getting quite desperate here, aren't you? :D
Simply repeating over and over again that something is publicly available does not constitute proof ... nor does claiming that it is listed in articles that it isn't listed in.
@67 Anbar
“I said wiki listed standing deployments and you just linked to it”
Try again. What you said was: “The ship before, and the ship afterwards were also announced, as is routine – wikipaedia even lists them” ... and Wikipedia DOES NOT list that.
Far from proving that what I have said is “unadulteraed [sic] bullshit”, the article you have just posted provides the proof that the information came from the MOD, because it says so in the article .. which is what you have just asked me to prove :D
You really are getting quite desperate here, aren't you? :D
Anyway, I'm off to eat unless you have anything of value to add .. which I seriously doubt, because you just seem to recycle that same incoherent rabid drivel over and over again.
Shall we have some more Facts? Yes, Lets:
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Announcement of Dauntless going to Falklands: 31st January 2012.
DEPLOYMENT of Dauntless: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606130
DATED: April 4 2012.
Dauntless ARRIVED in the Falklands: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606130
DATED: 29th August 2012.
January 31 - August 29th. Are there months between those dates? yes.
------
So shall we ALL re-cap?
I said the deployment was announced MONTHS in advance. You said I was an ignorant lying oaf.
Facts show: I was right. You were wrong.
Can this be proven: yes.
----
You said “the MOD ensured it was plastered all over their frontpage” by leaking the story to the sun “In advance”.
Sun Newspaper date: February 1. BBC Date January 31st.
Fact: All news agencies had access to the same information at the same time: announced as usual in advance and without any fanfare at all by the MOD or BRITISH Government.
Facts show that I was right.
Can this be proven? Yes.
---------
Vuggievise claims that the British MOD leaked the deployment to the Sun Newspaper as a “deliberate provocation” to Argentina:
Is that correct? No it isnt.
Can that be proven: Yes, it can and it has.
So, Viggievise, how does it feel to be out-maneuvered and proven wrong by an ignorant oaf? How does your “superb educational system” stand up to the rigors of an ignoramus oaf using google for 5 minutes?
Not so hot eh?
Well colour me surprised - not.
Underneath all of your claims you have knee-jerk reactions and false-memory syndrome, are abusive, aggressive and condescending, yet you persistently ignore facts whilst offering nothing whatsoever to back up your own wild claims.
Its pathetic that people like you think they are intellectually superior and that everybody else will roll over & accept whatever you say just because you say it.
They wont.
facts are facts and they just kicked your arse.
The Pope has little pull in the UK.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The history of the centuries has pulled the UK a million miles away from the Vatican.
He may however help get TFI, the UK and Argentina around the same tea-table.
Earl Grey and cream tea, all round ... but no discussion of sovereignty.
There is still a lot of gentle diplomacy possible.
Trouble is, diplomacy is an unknown country for Timermann, Castro A, and CFK herself.
Lets just stick with the hospitality ... scones and strawberry jam.
Vuggevise
Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are just wasting saliva, both sides are guilty of sabre rattling in this dispute. You can argue who has done it more than the other til the cows come home. The Uk had a reputation all over the world for this in the days of empire lol. Warships stationed at strategic points all around the world “ showing the flag” fortunately the empire was under control and unlikely that a disgruntled neighbour would object “ look at our big warship ” lol. In present day it still goes on, practised by all the world powers. Regarding “spin” its existed since the begining of time, just find it hard to believe people most times cannot see it, All governments no matter what their politics are, are gulty of it. The developed world are just better at it then the third world.
As far as Conqueror is concerned, after reading most of his comments during several months he has no idea what actual warfare is like, I get the impression that he thinks its like a video game along the lines of Call of Duty or Battlefield with his talk on other threads of missle strikes and total war. against what he considers a sub species. Think he should have worked for the German foreign office at the outbreak of WWII lol
@69 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I though, nothing new ... but WOAH! 10/10 for crass misrepresentation. You really have no principles, do you?
I didn't say you were a “lying oaf” for saying it was announced months in advance ... on the contrary, *I* said it was announced months in advance. In fact, you blatantly lie when you claim that I called you “ignorant lying oaf” ... I called you an “unprincipled oaf” for constantly misrepresenting me and fraudulently portraying your own words as mine, by placing them in quotation marks. And you have basically repeated that by once again claiming that I said something completely different to what I said ... thus proving that what I actually said was true and continues to be true.
You claimed that one single media outlet got it from a routine MoD bulletin - but the two articles you have provided show that far from being a routine MoD bulletin, it was an organised press conference, which is something very different indeed.
The really hilarious thing about the BBC article you posted is that it even says that the announcement of the deployment of HMS Dauntles will “undoubtedly increase tensions” .. and the Sun points out that it is “especially sensitive as the 30th anniversary approaches”. Just accept the fact that it was sabre-rattling and that the information came from the MoD in a press conference - not, as you would have us believe, from some routine bulletin posted by the MoD - and contrary to your claims that it was only one media outlet, your own post proves that it was multiple national media outlets.
So ... facts show: I was right, and you were wrong; but that you desperately need to misrepresent facts in order to save face. Can this be proven: yes .. it already has been.
I will reply to the rest of your deluded brain fart in the next post.
'Pope tomorrow to receive Nobel Prize Adolfo Pérez Esquivel - activist Human rights defender, who rejected the accusations against Bergoglio that marked him as an “accomplice” of the military dictatorship, said “Francisco may have an intermediary role between Argentina and the United Kingdom by Falklands ”.
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Papa-recibira-maana-al-premio-Nobel-Adolfo-Perez-Esquivel-20130320-0085.html
'TWS Podcast: Stand with the Falklands - It's time for the Obama Administration to change our Falklands policy.'
http://www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Papa-recibira-maana-al-premio-Nobel-Adolfo-Perez-Esquivel-20130320-0085.html
'Self-Determination for Falklands but Nowhere Else in the Remaining British Empire - London denies constitutional powers to Afro-Caribbean population in the Turks and Caicos'
http://www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Papa-recibira-maana-al-premio-Nobel-Adolfo-Perez-Esquivel-20130320-0085.html
'The Falklands and Entangling Alliances'
http://www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Papa-recibira-maana-al-premio-Nobel-Adolfo-Perez-Esquivel-20130320-0085.html
'Ex Malvinas soldiers protest and block entry to the Ministry of Defence
They demand to be received “five minutes” by the head of the ministry, Arturo Puricelli.'
http://www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Papa-recibira-maana-al-premio-Nobel-Adolfo-Perez-Esquivel-20130320-0085.html
@69 Anbar
Mar 20th, 2013 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0... the demolition continues:
You then claim: “Vuggievise claims that the British MOD leaked the deployment to the Sun Newspaper as a “deliberate provocation” to Argentina”
I never used the word “leak” and I never said it was only the Sun. What I said was: “So that is why the MoD made sure it was plastered all over the front page of the Sun, is it?” ... and that still stands. Nothing you have said disproves that ... in fact, the MoD announcing it in a press conference just goes to show that it was an out-of-the-ordinary announcement and wasn't gleaned from your mythical routine deployment listing (the one you refuse to share with us) ... and as I have already pointed out, both the BBC and the Sun highlight the fact that it was bound to be sensitive and raise tensions. So yet again, your claim that what I said is wrong falls flat on its face .. and that is proven by the two articles you posted.
Same goes for you infantile claims about my belief that I am “intellectually superior”. That is just the sort of hackneyed accusation one expects from someone who has been humiliated by their own words; so when it comes to the knee-jerk reactions and false-memory syndrome, abuse, wild claims, lies, misrepresentation, aggression and condescending, you appear to be looking in the mirror, because every single one of your misrepresentations and tortured truths fails to stand up to scrutiny.
Facts are facts and you keep kicking yourself hard in the arse with them.
And that is all you are getting from me, because you are just flailing around flinging mud in the hope that something will stick and distract attention from your own chronic bullshitting.
- - - -
@71 Paragon
Indeed. The phrase you are looking for is gunship diplomacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunship_diplomacy
@74 - Vuggevise
Mar 21st, 2013 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0”So that is why the MoD made sure it was plastered all over the front page of the Sun, is it?”
You have proof of this statement I presume? Or are you just making that up?
Unlike Argentina, the UK government cannot interfer in what the media report, without going through the courts and getting an injunction; which is always a double edged sword.
However, let's get back to the point of this thread, shall we?
The current Pope cannot mediate between the UK and Argentina, like Jean-Paul II did in the Argentine-Chile dispute, because unlike Jean-Paul II he isn't impartial, with him being Argentine and all.
The UK and FIG have offered on numerous occasions to sit down and talk with the Argentine government, but it is the Argentine government that refuses to do so.
As for the deployment of RN vessels, this has been standard since 1982, and hasn't increased. The only difference last year is that one of our new destroyers was deployed to the area (amusingly referred to as the 'Death Star' by the inept Argentine Foreign Minister), which is probably why it got so much media attention.
It was new, shiny, and the most advanced military vessel on the planet. Of course the media wanted to know what it was up to.
@75 LEPRecon
Mar 21st, 2013 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You have proof of this statement I presume? Or are you just making that up?”
Yes - the proof is all above in the links kindly provided by Anbar in his utterly feeble attempts to discredit me .. which ultimately just resulted in him totally undermining his own arguments and showing that it was in fact his claims that were nowt but hot air and wishful thinking.
As for your claim that the deployment hasn't changed since 1982, I love the way you the immediately contradict your self, because the standard deployment is river-class ship with a crew of 30 and a single 30 mm Oerlikon gun and a couple of M134 miniguns ... not the billion-pound heavily armed gunboat, with a crew of more than 200, that you describe as “the most advanced military vessel on the planet” and whose dispatch was announced months in advance at a carefully stage-managed MoD press conference.
OK. I’m Vuggevise.
Mar 21st, 2013 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.
.
.
.
Jokes apart. . . .
Worth to read...
An excellent article linked by (73) Steve-33-uk…
Thanks for your excellent work in keeping us informed, Mr. Steve-33-uk
”So, while Mr. Cameron lectures the Pope and Argentina on respecting the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, he continues to run roughshod over the wishes of the peoples of the Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, the Chagos Archipelago, and even those closer to home in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, who would opt for independence if not for the heavy jackboot of British colonial rule…”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/self-determination-for-falklands-but-nowhere-else-in-the-remaining-british-empire/5327478
Brainwash anybody?
@76 - Vuggevise
Mar 21st, 2013 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So no proof then, just your opinion, which you are entitled to.
There was no carefully stage-managed MoD press conference. It was announced in the routine way that all vessel deployments are announced. It is the media who made it seem more than it was, and as I said, the UK government doesn't interfer with the media.
As I said the deployment hasn't changed since 1982, one vessel at a time patrols the South Atlantic. You are confusing equipment with the mission, something that people with little military experience or knowledge often do.
The reason the Type 45 was deployed was because the other vessels, Type 23, are being replaced with newer versions: but perhaps the UK government did have alterior motives for sending HMS Dauntless, and that would be the Argentine governments belligerent attitude, and the fact that they publicly stated that they would invade the Falklands again if not for the British military, all said on the 30th Anniversery of the illegal Argentine invasion of British territory to stir up and PROVOKE not only the British, but the people of Argentina too. Nearly 1000 people died because of ARGENTINA. The British do not want a repeat of that monumental Argentine folly.
HMS Dauntless was not a provocation, it was a deterant and a warning that the UK is ready and willing to defend the islands.
Again your whole post is based on your opinion of what you believe to have happened, when you have, in fact, no proof to back up your opinion.
But back to the thread. The Vatican would do well to keep as far away as possible from this train wreck of an Argentine government and it's colonial and warlike ambitions.
@78 LEPRecon
Mar 21st, 2013 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I always made it clear it was opinion - and it most certainly was a press conference - just as what you say is nothing more than opinion. The point is that none of the other deployments are announced a press conferences - let alone months in advance - which even the British media describe as being bound to raise tensions.
But do Keep digging. The feeble excuses you make for blatant provocation really are astonishingly lame and transparent. If the standard deployment is a bigger vessel, kindly enlighten us as to what that is and why it is that there isn't currently a frigate or destroyer on station .. and indeed why it is that the nearest surface ship of any size is HMS Edinburgh (currently some 1,000 miles north of the equator off the Cape Verde Islands – that's 5,000 miles from the Falkland Islands - on her way back to Portsmouth for decommissioning, having been on an official flag-waving jaunt to New York).
Unless you have anything new to offer, which hasn't already been offered up above by Conqueror and his various debile alter egos, don't expect any further responses; because my replies to all that are already there for all to see and I really can't be bothered going round in circles with new entrants make the same hackneyed points over and over again.
@79 - Vuggevise
Mar 21st, 2013 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The MOD annoucnes all surface vessel deployments, it's just that the media in the UK actually bothered to print HMS Dauntless's deployment because it was a new ship AND the most advanced military vessel in the world, so they thought that it would be 'news worthy' for the national media. Local media around British naval bases are always announcing when ships are deployed...months in advance! Fancy that!
The UK has never keep a destroyer or frigate 'on station' around the Falklands, except in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands War in case Argentina tried to invade again.
There is no need to keep a vessel of that size 'on station' constantly in the area.
The South Atlantic patrol takes in visits to Africa, South America and the Carribean islands. Their mission is to counter piracy, drug smuggling, render assistance to other vessels and to protect British interests abroad. They also have a running mandate to provide humanitarian aid during a disaster, and all vessels have emergency stores on board 'just in case'. The RN assisted Haiti in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake in 2010.
No matter how the Argentine press might spin this, the RN do not keep a miliary vessel constantly around the Falklands, there are a few smaller vessels to help protect the fishing interests and that is all (and I think they're actually run by the Falkland Islands Government), not the RN.
The only provokation was coming from Argentina. There would be no need for the British military in the Falklands if it wasn't for the fact that the Argentine government has publicly stated that they would re-invade the moment the British military left.
So again your points are meaningless.
The UK will never cede sovereingty of the Falkland Islands until the people of the Falkland Islands no longer wish to be British. Nothing else to discuss, let alone Argentina's spurious and tenuous sovereignty claims or it's colonial ambitions.
@80 LEPRecon
Mar 21st, 2013 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The MOD does not announce all surface vessel deployments months in advance. FACT!
And your claims that only Argentina provokes is nothing more that banal and baseless opinion. So again your points are meaningless.
And I haven't suggested that the UK should cede sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, have I? *rolls eyes*
@81 - Vuggevise
Mar 21st, 2013 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes they do FACT. I know this because I used to live in Portsmouth and everyone there knew that HMS So and so was deploying in 3 months to the South Atlantic or the Persian Gulf etc... It was reported in the Navy News and the local newspapers and TV stations. The national media didn't announce their deployments because they didn't believe that it was particularly news worthy.
Perhaps you should try getting YOUR facts straight.
I said that the UK may have made more of Dauntless's deployment due to Argentinian provokation.
The UK doesn't need to provoke anything over the Falkland Islands, I mean why would we? We may respond to Argentinian provokation but that is all.
No, they don't .. and the fact that you claim to live in Portsmouth isn't proof of anything. Even if many deployments are common knowledge months in advance, that doesn't mean that they are announcements made to the media, so the truth of it is, you don't actually have any “facts” on your side.
Mar 21st, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it is funny how you are using exactly the same vacuous and factless script as Huntsman Extraordinaire, Conqueror and Anbar (except of course that even Anbar admits that they don't announce ALL surface vessel deployments) and how you all live in this fantasy world where your entirely made-up 'facts' are truths that mustn't be disputed :-)
@83 Vuggevise
Mar 21st, 2013 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never claimed to live in Portsmouth, I USED to live in Portsmouth, and it was reported in the local media when a ship was deploying, although that wouldn't have been necessary since all of the sailors families also knew when the ships were deploying, it wasn't a secret.
Ships know their planned itinery months, if not years in advance. They know when they are going into port for refit, they know when they are doing sea trials, and they know when and where their next deployment is.
None of it is considered secret, and indeed anyone can get that information under the freedom of information act anyway, although it isn't necessary.
Such deployments are of great interest to the town's and cities where these ships home ports are. Just because wherever it is you come from, you don't think it is newsworthy, then that's your business.
https://navynews.co.uk/
https://navynews.co.uk/
In places like Plymouth and Portsmouth the deployments of surface vessels is considered important and vital information for the local community.
The only time a surface deployment wouldn't be announced in advance is if is sudden, like in Libya last year, when ships were diverted to support NATO operations there.
Perhaps if you had ever lived in one of these port towns you would understand just how much information on future naval deployments is actually available.
The only difference between most naval deployments and HMS Dauntless was that the national media picked it up, and hyped it up a lot. Nothing to do with the UK government at all, although I'm sure that they weren't too upset by all the hype.
And if it made the Argentines think twice about invading, then it was all worth it wasn't it? I mean how many would've died should CFK have actually decided to try and invade? Think about it.
You have just posted two links that show nothing .. and which doesn't even come close to proving your claim that “the MOD announces ALL [my capitals] surface vessel deployments “ …. “months in advance” (let alone get away from the fact that the HMS Dauntless deployment was announced at a carefully stage-managed press conference).
Mar 21st, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again, all you are doing is posting claims (which I know for a fact to be only partial truths). I'd ask you to prove your claims, but you simply can't prove what is made up Cloud Cuckoo fantasy; so lets just agree that you believe the deluded cack you are spewing here and that your OPINIONS are immoveable – just as there is no way on earth that you will ever convince me that your deluded cow cack trumps what is blindingly obvious to any rational outside observer (even amongst those of us who have an immoveable belief in the Islanders right to self-determination and think that Argentinian sovereignty claims are unadulterated nonsense).
Finally, I didn't pass any comment on whether it was worth it - I simply pointed out that British motives aren't as virginal as people delude themselves that they are ... not that there was even a remote possibility that Argentina would have invaded.
PS: As a professional seaman (qualified MN and RNVR officer), you really should make assumptions about where I have and haven't lived.
@85 - Vuggevise
Mar 21st, 2013 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fair enough, let's just agree to disagree.
I do agree that the UK's motives aren't virginal or white than white, but I don't think it was the UK who started the provokation, we just reacted to it.
Here's something to lighten the mood though:
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/14/argentina-asserts-rights-over-vatican-city/
Hehe, not until the Holy See has claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands on behalf of their only ever indigenous inhabitant ... God :)
Mar 21st, 2013 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.globalresearch.ca/self-determination-for-falklands-but-nowhere-else-in-the-remaining-british-empire/5327478
Mar 21st, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK, I want to ask a hypothetical question about sabre rattling.
Mar 22nd, 2013 - 04:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Supposing CFK were in El Calafate at her palace on Lago Argentino. She's there for some more doctor prescribed R&R 'cause she's under the weather.
She's out on her patio relaxing with a yerba mate and suddenly out of nowhere her house is buzzed by a six pack of RAF Tornados out on a “training” flight.
Would that be a clear case of sabre rattling?
Argentina is sabre rattling now. Just announced that they are refloating the frigate that sank at its moorings and will be deployed in the Falklands.
Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#89 lol training or not, that would be an act of war, but damn, I'd love to see that.
Mar 24th, 2013 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!