MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' war statements from Chilean minister praised by Argentine peer
Argentine Defense minister Agustín Rossi praised on Monday his Chilean peer statements relative to Chile's role and attitude during the Falklands war when Britain sent a task force to expulse the Argentine military invasion in 1982. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleswhy they feel they have to pay lip service to Argentina that is fast falling into the toilet, beggars belief.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0however, they are just words
Argentina will fall again and one day the electorate will not fall for the peronist claptrap that has condemmed their country to misery for decades
Chile along with the other south american countries are probably just playing the game while Argentina is unstable, after all, we all know when its unstable it does random acts of violence to take the peoples mind off its political state. Like the falklands invasion.
Chile has suffered over the years with illegal land grabs by argentina
In my own opinion, i believe the UK should help chile take its land back and restore calm and common sense to the south of the continent
@1
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only talk, move on. Argentina , you have to get rid of the current government, before you have the slightest chance of economic recovery.
No news about the holdouts negociations? Far more important I would say.
Ah that's nice, now how about reciprocating and apologising to Chile for your plan to invade them.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess it's a positive sign that Argentina is keen to celebrate the anniversary of a treaty in which it abandoned at long last an entirely illegitimate claim on somebody else's territory.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's regrettable all the same that Argentina has chosen to breach the free navigation provisions of the Treaty as part of its ongoing vendetta against the people of the Falkland Islands.
“particularly since at the time both Argentina and Chile were ruled by dictatorships”
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0There you go then, that's something else that Chile, Argentina & the Falkland Islanders have in common - they all experienced brutal dictatorships in the early 1980s. Fortunately, for the islanders it was only for 2 months. Strange that this doesn't make the Minister feel as much kinship to the islanders as it does to Chile.
It's sad. Is this what Chile is reduced to? An argie chihuaha? What has argieland got on Bachelet?
Aug 19th, 2014 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rossi ... what a poor little man. He being appointed as ministry of defense is the living proof that 1) Argentina has no defense at all 2) the gov gives a rat´s ass for defense 3) how low this gov can go.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I´d like to say I am surprised, but no.
Pointless prattle.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cue a medal ceremony.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0When can he be in BA?
Filmus will need at least a months notice to prepare.
“In my own opinion, i believe the UK should help chile take its land back and restore calm and common sense to the south of the continent”!...another proof of a poor, friendly and peacefull islander claiming to be letf in peace by an agressive neighbour....He, and his peers, must be protected by the UK !!!!
Aug 19th, 2014 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7
Aug 19th, 2014 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's no point in spending money in defense or military. You waste billions for NOTHING.
It's like spending thousands on a totaled car, when you could have used that money for something entirely different.
@4
Aug 19th, 2014 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It's regrettable all the same that Argentina has chosen to breach the free navigation provisions of the Treaty as part of its ongoing vendetta against the people of the Falkland Islands”.
Dear friend, the day argentine unarmed planes could fly over or near the island without being intercepted and harassed by the RAF planes. The day argentine ships could operate close to the FI or the territorial waters claimed by the islandres without being intercepted and harassed by RN ships we might be able to discuss this isse....
“I guess it's a positive sign that Argentina is keen to celebrate the anniversary of a treaty in which it abandoned at long last an entirely illegitimate claim on somebody else's territory.”...the day the UK were willing to sign a peaceful, honest and fair treaty with Argentine we will see the very same attitude from the continent...even from the naZional fascist of peronist politicians...
@ 11
Aug 19th, 2014 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I politely disagree; defense is necessary, as long as it´s well planned and has some sense.
@13
Aug 19th, 2014 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So tell me, how do you defeat a Chinese, North American, Russian, or European invasion? Isn't that the point of a military?
So explain, with what planning and spending does Argentina defeat them.
@12 pgerman
Aug 19th, 2014 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are not innocent planes, they are military planes, and like any sovereign state when unauthorised planes try to overfly your territory they will be intercepted and escorted away.
I would like you to show me so evidence of ANY country that would allow any aircraft to overfly their airspace WITHOUT their permission?
Also the Falkland Islands Government has the right to protect it's EEZ, and also to authorise or deny it to anyone. Just like Argentina has the right to do in it's EEZ.
Usual twaddle from you, though I'm not surprised.
@15
Aug 19th, 2014 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uhmmm... the UK claims our EEZ (and by that I mean the EEZ that is beyond the EEZ that the Falklands exploits), as their own.
The UK has repeatedly stated Argentina has no right to an EEZ, and that it should grant further concessions to the Faklanders.
Next question.
@15
Aug 19th, 2014 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unarmed and cargo FAA C-130 planes liking Buenos Aires with the Antarctic bases were intercepted, and harassed, by RAF F-4 deployed in the FI garrison no matter that the argentine government had already informed the British Embassy about these flights.
In addition, RAF thypoons, and a large tanker plane, entered the Argentine air space and flew over the argentine territory of Tierra del Fuego without asking for any authorization.
Shhhhhh! Don't say countries don't need defence. The UK makes billions out of selling equipment so countries can defend themselves!
Aug 19th, 2014 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But seriously, it is the nature of humans to be acquisitive. Just ask CFK. All the land Argentina has and she still wants to steal an island. Without defence she would have already done so.
The idea that we will all live in peace together without defence is ………… a fantasy.
@18
Aug 19th, 2014 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I totally agree with you
I repeat from another thread, why should Chile be apologetic for working by any means to secretly defeat Jorge Videla and Leopoldo Galtieri? Should we lay wreaths at their graves? The cowardly statements from the Chilean Defense minister are embarrassing for the Chilean nation.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16 Tobias
Aug 19th, 2014 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've been reading La Campora news haven't you?
Please provide ONE none Argentine link that states that the UK says Argentina cannot have an EEZ? Just one.
What the UK won't do though is allow Argentina to STEAL the Falkland INTERNATIONALLY recognised EEZ under the pretense of 'because we want it'.
@17 pgerman
Please once again show me EVIDENCE of ANY country that would allow UNAUTHORISED aircraft to overfly their airspace.
The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Shetland Islands are British territory so anyone overflying their airspace would need prior permission. No permission means those aircraft will be escorted away.
All Argentina has to do, in order to get permission to overfly the Falklands airspace, is formally contact the Falkland Islands Government and request it.
See how easy it would be? But Argentina won't do that so they will NEVER be allowed to overfly ANY part of the Falklands airspace.
Oh and if the RAF did that, then it would be up to Argentina to send up its military aircraft and escort them away...oh wait...I see the flaw there. No aircraft capable of catching the RAF. But you could've just radioed them and asked them to alter course. Did Argentina try that? No...thought not.
But I'll bet the RAF had Chile's permission to overfly, didn't they?
Aw poor pgerman, floundering, floundering, floundering but never getting anywhere.
@20
Aug 19th, 2014 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well...Why Argentina must be apologetic for having felt that a democartic and nice presiden such as general Pinochet will not try to invade it's land or kill it's people. Mainly taking into account his trong defense of human rights of chilean people !!
In addition, I totally agree with chelian Defense Minister. He has done the right thing. It's quite clear that he is doing his work while you wouldn't be able to be minister without causing troubles between countries...
@12. You can have that any day you like. A few days after you've changed your “constitution”, made a public and binding statement in the United Nations General Assembly that argieland has no legal or valid claim to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, relinquishes its claim to any part of Antarctica already claimed by the United Kingdom and commits itself to full recognition of the Falkland Islands Government, the rights of the Falkland Islanders and compliance with all laws, regulations or orders issued by relevant British Overseas Territory authorities.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16. Proof?
@17. The RAF does not operate F-4 aircraft. Nor is there any necessity for any argie aircraft to be anywhere near the Falkland Islands. Justify flying a C-130 en-route from Buenos Aires to a base in Antarctica and heading 433 nautical miles out to sea. Especially when a C-130 only has a range of 2,050 nautical miles. Did these C-130s contact air traffic control on the Falkland Islands to request permission to fly through a restricted airspace?
The last RAF F4 Phantom retired from the RAF in 1992.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try complaining to the Turks, they still operate them, it was probably them.
#17
Aug 19th, 2014 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“RAF thypoons” and “RAF F4s” are flown by a highly classified secret stealth flight squadron based in a nice hangar in South Georgia Island and flown exclusively by Gurkha pilots. Those Argentine pilots should consider themselves lucky to still be alive....
@21
Aug 19th, 2014 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me see if I understood. You believe that fact that Argentina doesn't have any aircraft to intercept RAF Typhoons allows the UK to fly over other people's territory. I am right?
In addition I don't need to proof anything that can easily be found in the web. There are videos in youtube with these kind of situations. There were even a letter sent by to F-4 pilot to the C-130 pilots apologizing for the situation...
Additionally the Argentine government informed the British Embassy because both affairs, Defense and International Affairs of the FI, depend on the British Government....and also the Governor of the Islands himself is choosen by the British Government (by the way, most probably you consider that the Island quite a well representative democracy but you cannot chose the head of your Government...)
@23 Ahhhh “BIG MOUTH” Conqueror.....Have you been sending your money to the FI people to assist their protection as I urged you to do? Have you sent the promissed letter to the PM urging for more money to defend the islands at YOUR own expenses?
@25 Stop smoking weed....it affects your brain and it's not good for your health
@18
Aug 19th, 2014 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, you make money selling equipment so countries can kill each other.
The UK has so much blood in its hands it is execrable.
@21
That's the point. Since Argentina cannot tell the RAF to fuck off, you don't fuck off. Because you have absolutely no respect for sovereign boundaries, be it in the air or at sea. It is not part of British culture to co-exist peacefully and respect other's sovereign land.
RAF incursions into Tierra del Fuego are a regular occurrence. So are attempts by the UK to strip away the rights of Argentina to its EEZ. It is truly pathetic.
@26
Chichureo had some semblance of sanity until his hatred of Argentina consumed the remaining neurons. In the past the worst he was guilty of is not liking argie girls because their feet are significantly larger than Chilean girl's feet. Now he is way too gone to be rational and objective in anything relevant.
The F4 is a Phantom.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The RAF have not operated Phantoms for more than 20 years. your lot might fly obsolete aircraft, ours do not. Fact!
And no serving RAF pilot would ever send a letter to the pilot of an aircraft he intercepted, apologising for carrying out orders. Fact!
Not if he wants to remain an RAF pilot that is.
You should stop believing the propoganda your fed, the next thing you will be telling us is that there is a secret nuclear NATO base on the Falklands.
There were British bombers over Puerto Deseado in 2000 I believe, over 100 kilometers off course. They flew with impunity as Argentina has wisely decided not to waste billions in a military that cannot win a war.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People were very scared they thought the British wanted to bomb the town, just like they did in 1806 and 1807 in Buenos Aires, still so fresh in our memories.
Argentina cannot let it's guard down.
@28
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know that F-4 are Phamtoms you don't need to write this. I'm just mentioning details of a couple of incidents. I'm not mentioning the dates.
As regards the letter, you don't have to believe me. Nowadays you just have to surf the web and check for the information. It's there in the web !!!
Check for it and you will find it, then you will be able to believe or not.
In addition, I was more than surpreised when listening a argentine radio program that interviewed Nigel Ward and he said “we were forced to fight to each other because our Governments were not able to find the way to share the islands”.
I can imagine that followinng your reasoning:
(1) Nigel Ward is a traitor
(2) It's a fake interview
All the proof we need is when we say so.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29 You are the most idiotic individual I have ever encountered. In all probability none of your antecedents were even aware of the existence of Buenos Aires so how the events of the British invasion of Spanish territory in 1806 and 1807 can possible be fresh in your memory I cannot imagine.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are a fool intent on wasting your time on this site. If not then your verbal diarrhoea must, in someway, satisfy your very sick mind.
@12
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 10 of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina states “The Argentine Republic undertakes to maintain, at any time and in whatever circumstances, the right of ships of all flags to navigate expeditiously and without obstacles through its jurisdictional waters to and from the Strait of Magellan”.
Note that there is no exclusion concerning the Falkland Islands. And yet ....
On 17 February 2010 the Argentine executive issued the decree 256/2010 pertaining to authorisation requirements placed on shipping to and from Argentina but also to ships going through Argentine jurisdictional water heading for ports situated in the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
On 19 May 2010 the United Kingdom presented a note verbale rejecting the Argentine government’s decree and considers that “are not complaint [sic] with International Law including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, and with respect to the Straits of Magellan the note recalls that “the rights of international shipping to navigate these waters expeditiously and without obstacle are affirmed in the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina with respect to the Straits of Magellan”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Peace_and_Friendship_of_1984_between_Chile_and_Argentina#The_Argentine_decree_256.2F2010
Obviously enough, this isn't the first time Argentina has decided that a Treaty it freely entered into has turned to be optional after all. Indeed it's not even the first Treaty of Friendship has chosen to violate, I understand there was also another in 1850.
By the way, the audio of the interview is in youtube and the argentine journalist was Andy Kusnetzoff.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@32
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We re-enacted the bombing and genocide of Buenos Aires by the British every few months at school. That is how it stays fresh in our minds.
Just like the new European and North American Contemporary Imperialism classes at the uni are required every 2 years of attendance to remind us of who we are dealing with.
You are just digging a hole for yourself - each utterance from your tiny mind is more stupid than the last one.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¡Le tengo lástima! ¡Pobre boludo!
@33
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are twisting the interpretation of the article. The article was referring to ships navegating through its jurisdictional waters IN the Strait of Magellan.
Ships, even RN warships coming and going to the FI, still use the Strait of Magellan.
In addition, you must accept that Argentina has the right to accept or reject the usage of their harbours and jurisdictional waters as FI and the UK do. Please, stop complain about this, it's other country's right.
@33
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Duh! Treaties ARE optional!
That's why they are called “treaties”, not “demands”.
Once a treaty no longer suits you, you can simply leave it, abrogate it, or change it.
Once again the desperate argy s try to change the subject in their favour, but considering their history books are written by the argy government they fail hopelessly with the truth,
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they totally ignore the facts, in favour of lies and false words,
the truth is hard to swallow for most of them on here, baring the suicide attempts,
so what is the truth,
1, the Falkland's have been British for over 200 years
2, they are still British today,
3, and as long as the islanders wish it,, they will always be British
now chew on that for a while, whilst we have a cupper and watch Eastenders
lol.. llol
@37
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read it again. It doesn't say “IN the Strait of Magellan” it says “TO AND FROM the Strait of Magellan”.
@38
And you wonder why nobody trusts Argentina.
@40
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what you are suggesting if I got it all straight, is that when the UK / Anglos sign a treaty, they are bound into eternity to the terms?
@ 41
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UK/Argentina - agreements were made regarding hydrocarbons, fisheries and flights - all voided by Nestor Kirchner.
I'll ask the question again:
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you Brits are saying is that when you sign treaties, you are bound eternally to the terms of the treaty, right?
@40
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are plenty legitimate mechanisms for modifying or cancelling treaties, contracts, or any other kind of agreement. Just pissing on one because it isn't convenient any more isn't one of them.
@44
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How do you “modify” a treaty the other side refuses to modify?
@45 The UK isn't rated down in 106th position in the Global Corruption Index. Guess which State is?
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll ask the question again:
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How do you modify a treaty the other side refuses to modify?
@45
Aug 19th, 2014 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have to ask first. Otherwise how would you know the other side refuses to modify? Has Argentina ever asked?
Forget specific cases.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK, so you say one must ask. The other side says “no”. What happens then?
@40
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The article in writting, and in spirit, is related with the fact that Chile has always wanted to control the Strait. This was Chile interests even when the boundaries between both countries were not stablished.
Chile ideas was that the link between both oceans would always be vital so J. A. Roca ceded the sovereignty of the Strait but forced Chile to accept that the Patagonia and half of the Island of Tierra del Fuego would be, both, under Argentine sovereignty.
So, the mentioned article aimed to strengthen the chilean right to the use of the Strait as a passageway between two oceans.
I haven't heard about any complain from chilean ships not being able to use the Strait from argentine authorities.
As I have already told you even RN warships regularly enter Argentine territorial waters and, approaching the Argentine coast (both not very nice or at least wellcome from the argentine point of view), use the Strait.
Your complain is because you would prefer that commercial ships (coming and going to the FI) were allowed to regularly use argentine harbours and “cutting corners” arrive faster to Montevideo or Brazil.
Again, this decision is under Argentine sovereignty. The restrictions over flights are also applicable.
Another black killed in NorthAmoland!!
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And shootings all over New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles last 72 hours.
I warned Captain Poppy and Yankeeboy! Racial war was coming to the USA. IT is here.
At least they are in hiding now. Good for us here we won't see them again. Too dangerous.
@47 Article 60 of the VCL of Treaties outlines how States can terminate or suspend operation of a treaty. However, this does not apply to human rights treaties.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are stuck with Article 73 of the UN Charter (a constitutional treaty) ''the interests of the inhabitants are paramount.''
@52
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was in the interest of the inhabitants of Argentina to withdraw from the sovereignty and economic deleterious treaties with the Falklands Islands, that prevented Argentina from fully exploiting the riches of Argentina's EEZ beyond the Falkland's EEZ.
Thank you Brit Bob for proving Argentina did not violate any treaties with the UK in 2005.
@49
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why forget specific cases? It's not like there's a shortage to choose from among those involving Argentina.
In cases where two sides can't agree on a change, there are in some cases courts of law and tribunals which can be called upon to adjudicate. Argentina, of course, isn;t know for respecting these either. In the final analysis, you can always just repudiate the agreement, and accept the consequences, chief among which is that you end up regarded as a deadbeat scofflaw that can't be trusted, and fewer and fewer people will be willing to enter into any agreements with you. See for example, Argentina.
@54
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina invokes Article 73 of the UN charter to change or abrogate any treaties.
So no treaties were violated, legally.
#27
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How rude for you to insinuate that I have ever had any semblance of sanity. I proved that when I volunteered as a young man to take daily cold showers at 05:00 before formation and breakfast.
My love of worshiping the God of Bacchus has consumed the remaining neurons, not hate for my Andean brothers.
I have ALWAYS liked Argentine women, even the porteñas, and yes, their shoe sizes are generally larger, but so are their bra cups.
My apologies for the erroneous information I posted earlier.
...The “RAF thypoons” and “RAF F4s” are flown by a highly classified secret stealth flight squadron based in an ICE hangar in South Georgia Island and flown exclusively by Gurkha pilots... (Not a “nice” hangar as earlier posted.)
My highly reliable source for this remarkable revaluation:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#/image/File:Gentemayo1982.jpg
#30
You state “I know that F-4 are Phamtoms”
Yes pgerman, but the Gurka pilots refuse to fly them as the cockpit is way too large for their compact frames. That's why they replaced their Phamtoms for the Thypoons instead.
@54
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right. Article 73 is the article about concerning Non Self Governing Territories. I hadn't thought of Argentina as being as a Non Self Governing Territory before, but now that you mention it, it's quite an apt description of Argentina's political system.
@50
This is a treaty signed in 1984. Please read the article yet again. For your convenience :
“The Argentine Republic undertakes to maintain, AT ANY TIME AND IN WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RIGHT OF SHIPS OF ALL FLAGS TO NAVIGATE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND WITHOUT OBSTACLES through its jurisdictional waters to and from the Strait of Magellan”.
I'm sure you don't really need me to point out that “SHIPS OF ALL FLAGS” does not mean “CHILEAN SHIPS”, while “AT ANY TIME” actually means “AT ANY TIME”,
“IN WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES” actually means “IN WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES”, and “EXPEDITIOUSLY AND WITHOUT OBSTACLES” means
“EXPEDITIOUSLY AND WITHOUT OBSTACLES”.
What is more, there is no other article stating that Article 10 is void if you suddenly get the urge to piss off the Falkland Islanders.
Back in @12, you said “the day the UK were willing to sign a peaceful, honest and fair treaty with Argentine we will see the very same attitude from the continent.”
Now please, in the light of the above, explain just how much Argentina's signature on a treaty is worth?
@57
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When was a ship coming from (or going to) the FI not allowed to navigate throught the Strait?
Not a single ship coming and going from the FI was not authorize to navigate and link the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. Again this was the main interest of Chile regarding the navigability of the Strait.
You cannot reconginze that your interests and desires are no other than making things easier for fishing boats (and other commercial ships) by allowing the to freely navigate the Argentine territorial waters and to use the patagonina harbours.
Let me add, that no matter the political situation RN ships (an icebreaker) was assisted, and helped, by allowing it to use (even) a militar base (Puerto Belgrano). Not to mention a tourist ship with ERs that was rejected by the FI and ended in Tierra del Fuego (in the argentine side).
@57
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So then “non-self governing territories” (I thought the British swore the Falklands self-governed”), have MORE rights than nations?
Well, then in that case, I'm even more for Argentina saying fuck all to the current world order.
@56
I have met many Chilean women with very significant racks, maybe you are looking in the wrong places. I think it's the mestizo admixture because the Indian women of central/southern Chile, if I am not mistaken, are genetically predisposed to large breasts.
@58
Aug 19th, 2014 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What then is the purpose of the clear violation of the Treaty enshrined in Decree 256/2010?
“Artículo 1º — Todo buque o artefacto naval que se proponga transitar entre puertos ubicados en el territorio continental argentino y puertos ubicados en las ISLAS MALVINAS, GEORGIAS DEL SUR Y SANDWICH DEL SUR, o atravesar aguas jurisdiccionales argentinas en dirección a estos últimos, y/o cargar mercaderías a ser transportadas en forma directa o indirecta entre esos puertos, deberá solicitar una autorización previa expedida por la autoridad nacional competente.
Art. 2º — El MINISTERIO DE PLANIFICACION FEDERAL, INVERSION PUBLICA Y SERVICIOS, a través de la SUBSECRETARIA DE PUERTOS Y VIAS NAVEGABLES, el MINISTERIO DE JUSTICIA, SEGURIDAD Y DERECHOS HUMANOS, a través de la PREFECTURA NAVAL ARGENTINA, el MINISTERIO DE ECONOMIA Y FINANZAS PUBLICAS, y el MINISTERIO DE INDUSTRIA Y TURISMO, dictarán en el ámbito de su competencia, las normas reglamentarias que resulten necesarias a los fines del cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo precedente, en consulta con el MINISTERIO DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES, COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL Y CULTO.”
etc, etc, etc.
http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/leyes_decretos_y_resoluciones_recientes/17_02_2010/28876_decreto_256_2010_poder_ejecutivo_n
@34
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please tell me what planes were used to bomb Buenos Aires in 1807
@60
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Todo buque o artefacto naval que se proponga transitar entre puertos ubicados en el territorio continental argentino y puertos ubicados en las ISLAS MALVINAS, GEORGIAS DEL SUR Y SANDWICH DEL SUR, o atravesar aguas jurisdiccionales argentinas en dirección a estos últimos”.
This is Spanish for: “Every ship or vessel seeking to transit between ports on the Argentine mainland and harbors in the FALKLAND ISLANDS, SOUTH GEORGIA AND THE SOUTH SANDWICH or through Argentine waters towards the latter”.
I must have been because the text is in Spanish but by posting this chapter you are accepting that I'm right. The issue is always between the FI and Argentine mainland and harbors.
Regarding the blatant ignorance displayed above about naval law:
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, I know a little about this subject. Chilean sovereignty over the Strait of Magellan can result in denying passage of vessels, but has rarely been exercised. A case in point:
http://www.ipsnews.net/1995/03/msg083g-01e-environment-south-america-on-alert-for-ship-moving-radioactives/
You can counter argue all you want, but the Americans, British and Russian, etc... fleets all respect our control. The USA even formally requested permission when the USN Ronald Reagan nuclear carrier used the straight and had a Chilean pilot on board from Brazil all the way up to Valparaiso.
A little Naval trivia, Chile has an internationally recognized Atlantic coast. Even Argentina accepts it...
#61
I'm curious too...
@62
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No it isn't. Insofar as it applies to the areas covered by the Treaty of Friendship with Chile, it's a clear obstacle to free navigation and is therefore a violation of Argentina's treaty undertaking. Which is, of course, why the UK protested about it.
A little Naval trivia...
Aug 19th, 2014 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile has an internationally recognized Atlantic coast...
This Argentinean strongly advices against taking a stroll on it, though...
Good for Chile and Argentina. Hope neither one of them are fooled again by The Brits in fighting each other while The Brits take all the cookies.......
Aug 19th, 2014 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#27
Aug 19th, 2014 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RAF incursions into Tierra del Fuego are a regular occurrence.
I would be very interested to here more about this please. Not conjecture but verifiable details. I do know a bit about RAF deployments and actions
and have never heard about this.
@26 pgerman
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where did I say that? I didn't.
What I said that it is up to that country to police it's own EEZ and airspace. Now if Argentina can't do that they could've just radioed the aircraft and asked them to leave.
Did they try that? Did they? No thought not. I mean how can you 'play' the victim if you haven't got the evil British RAF flying around.
It's actually very easy for an aircraft to drift off course, did you ever think that was the reason? Did Argentina even bother to investigate why?
So, really the ball is in Argentina's court.
However, the UK will police the Falklands and other South Atlantic Territories airspace to prevent illegal incursions. If Argentina wants permission to fly over these territories they only have to ask the relevant authorities, such as the Falkland Islands Government.
#67
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I assume the incursions came from a similar place where someone has also imagined “RAF thypoons” , RAF F4s” and the highly classified “Phamtoms”...
Maybe, it's that LAN 767 on its weekly flight over to Mount Pleasanton.
#66
Actually the British GAVE us some really lovely “cookies”... All the sophisticated state of the art radar and communications alone. Honestly, I cannot recollect at any time in my experience where I remember them taking anything from us...
...help me out, did they steal an island or ship that I've forgotten about?
THINK your favorite Chilean president's defense minister assured us turnips that he'd had all the land mines removed from that area. If there still are some left, well... yea, ok, you have a point. Sometimes we miss one or two.
@67
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands’ thick fog forces two RAF Typhoons and tanker to land in Punta Arenas
”The incident was reported by the Chilean press and in an official release from the Argentine Air Force which revealed that on request to Comodoro Rivadavia air control service, the three aircraft over-flew Argentine territory en route to an alternative airport and therefore “there was no violation of Argentine air space”.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas
(69) Chicureo
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really...? You sure...? From Kawdjer's Island too?
@69
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why if the British have been kind to the Chileans, or Uruguayan, or Brazilians would that necessarily mean they must have been nice to Argentina?
Things are mutually exclusive, and they most certainly are here. The British attacked Buenos Aires twice, and no matter what the protestations that back then it was “Spanish”, at the time the citizens no longer thought of themselves as such, which was proven only 36 months later on May 25th. So as far as the citizens of Buenos Aires are concerned, THEY were attacked.
This seems to be a recurrent mental shortcoming of Anglos. They attack someone, causing death and destruction, and then get mad when those attacked fail to see things from their warped point of view.
The Americans attacked targets all over the Middle East, causing plenty of collateral damage, and then the Americans are flabbergasted and bemused when some Arabs strike back with terrorism.
Back to the topic... In 1845 they with the French sailed into Argentine territory after being denied permission, last time I checked, that is also an act of war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vuelta_de_Obligado
*69 They took your compassion,courage,empathy,generosity,impartiality.sincerity,barvery and your loyalty and instead they turnrd you into a cowardly,hipocritical,traitorous,sarcastic.murderous,corrupt,cruel,shameful,intolerant,heartless,immoral and evil dictatorship all for radar and communication technology. but you are not chilian as a Chilian would not prostitude themselves for radar technology but you WOULD.......ummmmmm
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@72 So what, that was more than 150 years ago! Its irrelavent to anything today.
Aug 19th, 2014 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@74
Aug 19th, 2014 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is it irrelevant exactly? If someone actually cared to elaborate on this common excuse, maybe I could be convinced.
It seems you find non-payment of debts a more egregious crime than acts of war, because I'm sure you are one of the ones demanding Argentina pay the Paris Club. That debt that was consolidated in 1955, was from many years before even that date.
So why is that not forgotten, but wars and aggression are to be?
#71
Aug 20th, 2014 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0The perfect island for certain members of a political belief that reflects that of its namesake...
@75
Aug 20th, 2014 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The answer thus far of the Anglos to my question at 74:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSLfgR2vZg
Roll on one hundred years of solitude...get a room Cristina before one is given to you free of charge in the funny farm
Aug 20th, 2014 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's sad to note that one troubled troll posting here is suffering from a multiple personality disorder.
Aug 20th, 2014 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@77. The mad-cap comedy club governing RG land claims EEZ around the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. This is contrary to international law and as such, irrelevant. The fact that Nestor a Kirchner voided hydrocarbon, fisheries and flights agreements settles two points: (I) that Argentina can't be trusted and (II) the requirement for the UK and RG land to talk regarding Falklands sovereignty matters has been met. Hence the Secretary General of the UN's words, 'I don't think Security Council members are breaching 'any relevant' UN resolutions.
Aug 20th, 2014 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@30
Aug 20th, 2014 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ward made those comments after leaving the Royal Navy, not as a serving officer. He was then a civilian and not subject to military regulations.
The interview was real, so were his comments which he was THEN entitled to make.
Did he apologise for shooting down an Argentine C 130 and killing all eight crewmen?
No he didn't. Why would he? he was a military officer doing his duty. Just has was Lt Tomba, whose courage Ward praised for staying with his Puccara until the very last moment.
No serving officer would apologise for carrying out his orders, it could be classed as mutinous conduct, end of career. Fact.
“It was in the interest of the inhabitants of Argentina to withdraw from the sovereignty and economic deleterious treaties with the Falklands Islands, that prevented Argentina from fully exploiting the riches of Argentina's EEZ beyond the Falkland's EEZ.”
Aug 20th, 2014 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Troll,
Please point the treaties and specific articles that do this.
Dear Arg posters -Commercial Vessels from the islands do transit the straits to and from Punta Arenas.
Aug 21st, 2014 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are liable to be hailed by radio by the Arg Coastguard(probabaly normal procedure I guess at the straits entrance) and usually answer confirming they are transiting the straits excercising their right of innocent free passage under the relevant UN Law of the sea declaration. No problem - indeed one even dipped the FI Ensign in courtesy as it passed the Coastguard vessel(correct international procedure) - the Arg Coastguard had no option but to acknowledge the compliment and very correctly dip their ensign in return. So no problems.
Does anyone Argentinian ever get a gag reflex whenever another member of their government says something pointless about the Falklands? I swear to god if I was an Argentinian I would have emigrated or gone stark raving mad by now. It's pathetically relentless. They're whining says a lot more about them than the ridiculous messages they're try to communicate. It's like Orwell's 1984 except Big Brother seems to be run by a Teletubby on acid.
Aug 23rd, 2014 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0President Bachelet should dismiss Burgos- a potential traitor- and appoint
Aug 25th, 2014 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assistant Defense Minister Marcos Robledo in his place. Who knows what silly
thing Burgos may do or say next.
Philippe
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!