MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands Islands' minefield priority areas are named as bidders visit
Four minefield clusters have been pinpointed as priority areas for the next clearance phase in the Falkland Islands. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Advisor for minefield issues Alistair Craib confirmed this week that Priority 1 is Minefield 59 on either sides of the MPA Road near Wall Mountain and Mount Harriet. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMines laid by the Argentine government.
Sep 12th, 2014 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think that the Government of the FALKLANDS should send a troop of “ nuclear penguins” to “ Lagos de Palermo” in BA and lay mines there, tit for tat one might say.
Sep 12th, 2014 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0List, tell me to Soddy offy if you want,
Sep 12th, 2014 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0but I think the government or someone should have come up with all the money and had these mine fields cleared years ago,
surely after 30 years they should have been cleared by now.
even if you have to dump them in Argentina or outside of the UN.
Where are the trolls mamarrachos Nos. 1 & 2 as I call them? What comments will they have to say about the inability of Argentina to atone for this barbarous and inhuman act committed during their illegal invasion in 1982?
Sep 12th, 2014 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, they will deny any blame and just pass the buck to the military junta!
What is needed is argie 'assistance'. Let's start with 10,000 argies required to hop across each minefield. Let's see them lay down their lives for 'their' islands.
Sep 12th, 2014 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#3
Sep 12th, 2014 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The argument I've heard is that the mine fields in the Falklands are relatively well contained and that any mine clearing resources would be better spent in countries where mines are still causing casualties.
Not to mention the mine fields are a reminder to the world of Argentina's attempt to colonise (and probably ethnically cleanse) the Falklands.
I doubt it, but have Argentina ever made the offer to remove the mines? I doubt it would be accepted unless it was a third party doing the clearing but have they asked?
I douubt that Argentina ever will offer anything to help with the mine clearing particularly when they have this:
Sep 12th, 2014 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The two Governments noted that all hostilities between them had ceased. Each
Government undertook not to pursue any claim against the other, including nationals of the other, in respect of loss or damage arising from the hostilities and all other actions in and around the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands before 1989. ”
Taken from the 1989 Joint Statement:
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bi-24305.pdf
Question for the fine subjects of the queen- Is there a reason why a newspaper that is based in Uruguay on a continent where 98% of the inhabitants are Spanish or Portuguese and Roman Catholic have a newspaper that runs a mainly English speaking edition and routinely refers to the Malvinas by the occupiers name of Falkland? Is this run by MI-6 or by their funds- Just to boot, I had placed my callsign as USAF and someone in this press group kindly changed it to be more explicit, any reason for the change??
Sep 12th, 2014 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 8 US Air Force
Sep 12th, 2014 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A question if you do not mind. Why do you refer to the 'inhabitants' of the Islands as 'occupiers'?
As my name implies, I have no dog in this dogfight and I view this from an Academic standpoint. You should think of Malvinas as what happened to the natives of Hawaii, they were forcibly moved to reservations after inhabiting the islands for thousands of years. In 1833, the people inhabiting the islands were forcible removed and a British flag was placed. The people from Hawaii are still trying to reclaim what is theirs via diplomacy, I for one don't see the difference here in the claim. I fail to see why so many Brits make this a rally cry, except a couple of external circumstances. From a historic standpoint, the current inhabitants of those Islands are illegal. So #9, do you have an answer to why this is in English? Is this an English Oil based company running this paper or the UK SS?
Sep 12th, 2014 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders have lived on the Falkland's for over 200 years,
Sep 12th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and they still live there today,
they freely democratically with to remain British,
the Argentinians disagree and despite never ever having been there they invaded the islands demanding them, as they do now,
they are really just after the oil,
please read the following
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
and CFK in all her arrogance
Malvinas vs Falklands: Negotiations with the U.N
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
thank you
#11
Sep 12th, 2014 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are English language newspapers/websites in many countries, the Buenos Aires Herald springs to mind. This reflects the fact that many countries have English speaking expatriates and that English is the most widely used language in science and finance (and many other fields). It's no conspiracy.
The UK point of view is that the “previous inhabitants” (who were not in fact evicted) were there illegally. That of course doesn't matter at all, over the past thousands of years there has been huge population transfer (perhaps most notably the European colonisation of the Americas, and the subsequent colonisation of the Americas by independent “American” states, e.g. Argentina's conquest of the desert). Winding back the clock to some arbitrary point in time is worthless (what date would you choose?). The UN has prohibited territorial expansion through violence and has largely been successful with a few exceptions (the PRC, Israel, a few others).
[10]
Sep 12th, 2014 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0US Airforce - welcome to the forum. First - NO natives were removed by anyone from the Islands - there never were any. In 1833 the British(having landed on and hoisted a flag and claimed the islands long before Argentina existed as a nation ) arrived and told the recently arrived Argentine militia(they had been there a matter of months only) to leave along with their family dependents. The 2 dozen of so civilian families - some had been here for 2- 3 years or so, but no longer - were invited to stay - and accept British Sovereignty and Govt. All did so apart from 2 couples who voluntarily left. Indeed the last of these- a S American lady - died in Port Stanley in 1865 and is buried in the cemetery here.
Sep 12th, 2014 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So- contrary to what the Arg Govt tell you - there were no evictions of local or civilian populations - all the documents proving what I have said are on file in then Argentina military archives as well as in London.
Many Islanders can trace their ancestors back here for 8-9 generations now - so we do indeed have the UN,s democratic right to determine our own future. This is privately understood by several S American nations - who actually refer to and call us Falkland Islands in their trade and travel relations with us- for “realpolitik” reasons and a more peacefull time with their neighbour -Argentina- they will support her in public at the UN - but words only.
The Islands are totally governed and run internally-and offshore economically - by our own elected Legislature and Govt. UK has responsibility only for Defence and Int Relations and to oversee “good governance standards” in the Islands - ie our politicians are not lining their pockets etc.
18months ago at an int overseen referendum, 92% turnout and 99.8% voted to remain for the time as a British overseas territory. Those 92% who voted included a fair number who were neither born here nor in UK(24 nationalities live here) - but they still want the Islands to stay British even if they may not be!
@ #10 US Air Force
Sep 12th, 2014 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You clearly have not read the true historical facts concerning the archipelago known as the Falkland Islands in English and las Malvinas in Spanish.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted internationally and especially by the UN that the islands should be known as the Falkland Islands when referred to in the English language, les Isles Malouines when the French language is used and, lastly, las islas Malvinas in Spanish.
Mercopress is NOT the Buenos Aires Herald which always refers the archipelago as the Malvinas in its English edition(it is published in that pariah nation, Argentina) - Mercopress, quite rightly, in its edition in English refers to the Falkland Islands.
So, 1) kindly respect the rules and 2) make sure you base your opinions on the true history of the archipelago NOT the lies, fairy tales, myths and false aspirations of Argentina.
@10
Sep 12th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From a historic standpoint, the current inhabitants of those Islands are illegal
...........
no they are not.
@ No.10
Sep 12th, 2014 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kindly read http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/Outdated-GettingItRight.pdf
and http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/Outdated-GettingItRight.pdf
You will learn the unbiased truth here.
@10
Sep 12th, 2014 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The dispossession of the native inhabitants of Hawaii is pretty much what happened to the native inhabitants of the entire American continent as well.
Indeed, in the entire hemisphere, it's only in the islands of the South Atlantic that no indigenous population was displaced, exterminated, or otherwise disfavoured to make way for incoming settlers. There is no Argentine equivalent of the Hawaiian
islanders attempting to recover what was originally theirs by diplomacy. What there is, is a competing colonial claim, with no valid legal, moral, or historical basis.
On the other hand, it is well known that Mercopress is infested with MI6 agents pretending to be Argentines with a view to discrediting the Argentine claim. Stick around and you'll spot them pretty quick.
Now that we have welcomed a new poster to this forum, could I ask a question of my own?
Sep 12th, 2014 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the subject of mine clearance in the Falklands ( I know, I KNOW, back on topic....don't throw stuff!! ) With the British garrison there and with the new, improved, mine clearance equipment that is available AND with the recent conflict in Afghanistan...... Surely this would have been done much sooner than now right?
At the very least, the British Army could have used the mine Clearance in the Falkland Islands as a training course for sappers going out to “The 'stan” to counter the IED threat.
Even if they didn't do that, with the garrison on the Island, that could have been an on going project that they could have been doing as part of their tour, right?
1 Jay Bee (#)
Sep 12th, 2014 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Mines laid by the Argentine government”
It is a true fact bit keep in mind that democratic governments of Argentina offered to remove every single one of them at not cost for British taxpayers.
The reason the illegal British government of the islands to remove them soooo slowly because the issue is used as a propaganda tool.
19Tooldie - The Br Army have the equipment and technology to do battlefield mine clearances. they are a long way short of the 110% total secure safe clearance of every single mine which is the peacetime standard. In military speke you clear a breach through a minefield- a few soldiers may still get injured on missed ones - acceptable wartime losses as the majority get through and hopefully win the war.
Sep 12th, 2014 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Many of the minefields in the Falklands have mines with no detector strips and were not properly marked by inexperienced raw recruits who laid them.
Yes it is a very slow costly laborious process to do it safely today. Some have over 30 years sunk deep in peat, other on sand beaches and moving sand-dunes will probably never be cleared.
Falklands position remains- they are now well marked and fenced and not a threat to human life here - therefore spend the limited funds on other parts of the world where they still are a human threat and put us down the list.
Also not that many sapper engineers here either.
Marcos- quite simple- Argentina does NOT have the knowledge and knowhow nor equipment. We know you do NOT like us and want only to force us out of our homeland - so we would simply never trust Argentina to clear them anyway!
Your Democratic Govt is of course on record as saying it is only the current British Military Forces here that stop them from invading an occupying by force again.
Closer break the head of the pirates occupants of Islas Malvinas Argentinas. Especially in Monte Agradable.
Sep 12th, 2014 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here the state of the rocket “of cardboard”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t8YyLWNIb0
@10 USAF,
Sep 12th, 2014 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that the truth has been explained to you, what comments would you care to make.
Don't just take our word for it-do your own research.
lslander1 @ post # 14, pretty well summed it up.
But whatever you do, don't accept Argentina's version of history at face value.
lt is mostly lies & you can prove that to yourself.
Also, the glaring fact that Argentina refuses to take its ridiculous “claim” to the lnternational Court of Justice, in the Netherlands, who are the only ones who can rule on this.
You seem not to like us Brits, & thats your prerogative, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong in this case & Argentina is in the right.
A little research on your part will soon expose the Argentine “claims” on our land for the lies that they are.
Then get back to us.
Thank you.
Would £2 million buy an MRI?
Sep 12th, 2014 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20
Sep 12th, 2014 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite. It's true an offer was made, but none of the promised funds were ever forthcoming.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=czKwMrKV-HIC&pg=PA747&lpg=PA747&dq=mine+clearance+falklands+argentine+offer&source=bl&ots=HA1rkiuZm2&sig=8e9nclNETyH2ZO24zqmfeMMMfBE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oGgTVJrmHIKROLDZgegE&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=mine%20clearance%20falklands%20argentine%20offer&f=false
Declining to pony up promised cash is rather a common occurrence with Argentine governments, I understand.
Jose- Where and what is Monte Agradable? Not sure what relevance a mainland Argentina mountain or hill has to the article?
Sep 12th, 2014 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Welcome to the forum Mr. US Airforce
Sep 12th, 2014 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#18 HansNiesund is obviously misleading you with the ridiculous allegation that “...Mercopress is infested with MI6 agents...”
The real truth is that the office there is manipulated by some really devious Old Grangonians formerly attached to A-2 of la Armada de Chile.
As a courtesy, let me bring you up to date with the current political situation of the Falkland Islanders occupation:
Although some actually think their claim to legitimacy seems reasonable, several countries recently have been given certain financial and future trade incentives to recognize the pretensions of the Argentine government in respect to their “rebellious” provence of the “Islas Malvinas”.
This week the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a monarchy led by polo fanatic Duchess Gloriana XIV, received eight Argentine polo ponies after her recent deciding vote to officially recognize that the term “Falkland Islands” was nothing more than a “fictional delusion of foreign colonists that illegally continue to occupy the rightfully national territory of my new most dearest Argentine friends.”
The Fenwick national parliamentary debate had been quite contentious over the past few weeks as the two political parties were tied in deadlock over the change of recognition. The Dilutionists, led by David Bentner III (supported by the Grand Duchess in the final vote) has purportedly been romantically involved in a scandalous relationship with the Argentinian model, Matilde Bonasera.
By the way, you are vert correct that the rightful inhabitants of Las Malvinas were forcibly evicted...in 1982...
I hope this factual information helps.
Mine clearance.....fatter sheep would do it....
Sep 12th, 2014 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 026
Sep 13th, 2014 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes indeed, Monte Agradable is a region of Argentina in the 58 ° W 27'37,4 “S and 51 ° 49'19,2” coordinates, Malvinas Argentinas, where it currently stands a military base pirate, where to direct all the cruise missiles...
26- Okay little boy - lesson is when describing a place that is not yours- use the language of that place- The name is Mount Pleasant on WORLD maps. Cruise missiles- you lot could not even afford to buy the fuel for one!
Sep 13th, 2014 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0According to the UN(not your little bankrupt state) the name of the Islands is:
Falkland Islands(Malvinas) - note which name comes first.
When doing business and trade documents with us, ALL Uruguyan Govt Depts. address such documents to: Falkland Islands - or some put Islas Falklands.
With Chile- ALL their Govt departments address us as: Falkland Islands - some even put afterwords :(UK).
You really are an irrelevant minority lot in Argentina.
USAF
Sep 13th, 2014 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0When are you going to give back Texas to Mexico? As I recall only two with Spanish names signed the constitution of the shortlived Texas Republic
No humor in this group. Alas, everyone takes themselves too seriously...
Sep 13th, 2014 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo.
Sep 13th, 2014 - 05:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Dutchy of Grand Fenwick?
Haven't they been contracted to put Argentinas latest satellite into space?
I am sure Chritina made a speech on the subject.
@32
Sep 13th, 2014 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo, have courage - it's the fate of all great satirists to be under-appreciated in their lifetimes.
So the trolls arrive with their nonsense just because a totally misinformed alleged American arrives on the scene. Get real, trolls!
Sep 13th, 2014 - 06:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0US Air Force = Narine from France.
Sep 13th, 2014 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos
Sep 13th, 2014 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you say is also correct but minefield clearance cannot work like that on account of the treaty that both the Argentine and UK governments are signature to. The Argentine Government are, of course, fully aware of this which is why they so happily offer to remove the mines from time to time but it is nothing more than a political bargaining chip.
The treaty says that only the State responsible for control of the mined area can and must remove the 'mines'. It used to say 'impact of the mines' which is a very different thing to simply 'mines' and is why the Mines in the Falklands have taken so long to clear.
#31 - Texas has the constitutional right to cecede without qualm from the US federal government. Economically it would probably not suit them. There is an actual ' a la Scottish method' movement to separate. As far as I know there is no claim from Mexico to reincorporate the State.
Sep 13th, 2014 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0A better question regarding this topic would be why real estate in the Malvinas is not placed on the free market? Why are Argentines not allowed to wear a national soccer jersey on the island? Why in 1982 did the British Government no accept the UN proposal to negociate a diplomatic solution prior to the force move from Argentina? This one is a powderkeg question - to what lengths do both parties pretend to involve military forces? Should the IJC give Argentinos the right to possess the islands, will the UK abide?
@38
Sep 13th, 2014 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0A better question - you might want to ask yourself - is why hasn't Argentina taken the case to the IJC itself? Think about it...
@38 USAF,
Sep 13th, 2014 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For a start, its the Falkland lslands, NOT the malvinas.
Why do you think that real estate is not placed on the free market?
l think that you should be able to work that out, all by yourself.
As for wearing an Argentine jersey, l'm sure you'll find that the wearers were making nuisances of themselves & being filmed for propaganda purposes.
Reasons enough, in my opinion. lf it was up to me, l wouldn't let ANY Argentines into the lslands. lt is OUR lslands, afterall. And its our right.
But l don't make the rules, only obey them.
Why should the British Government accept a proposal to negotiate with the invaders of our land? We didn't ask them here, they were/are not welcome.
One Argentine poster here said that Argentina will go to the ICJ, when they've finally got all their friends and allies in positions of power in the ICJ.
Thats Argentine corruption & Argentine “making-sure-we-win”mentality taking over again. No thoughts of “whats right”.
Finally, l'm now convinced that you are an Argentine by the wording of your last sentence.
No native English speaker would say “give ArgentinOS the right etc etc”
lt would be “give ArgentinA the right, etc” (capital letters for emphasis).
Good try USAF, but not good enough.
#38
Sep 13th, 2014 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A better question regarding this topic would be why real estate in the Malvinas is not placed on the free market?” - Firstly, there are no Malvinas. Secondly, many territories forbid non-citizens from purchasing land and businesses. Some governments even expropriate businesses and territories for political gain.
“Why are Argentines not allowed to wear a national soccer jersey on the island?” Don't know if this is true, but why are ships flying the Falklands Ensign not allowed to dock in Argentina and why are those flying the red ensign frequently harassed?
“Why in 1982 did the British Government no accept the UN proposal to negociate a diplomatic solution prior to the force move from Argentina? ” - Because there is nothing to negotiate other than improved relations and bilateral agreements. But, yes thanks for blaming the UK for Argentina's brutal and unprovoked invasion.
“This one is a powderkeg question - to what lengths do both parties pretend to involve military forces?” Prior the aforementioned invasion the UK had virtually no forces on the Islands, now they maintain the minimum required to defend the islands.
“ Should the IJC give Argentinos the right to possess the islands, will the UK abide?” As #39 notes we will probably never know as Argentina refuses to take it to the ICJ, because they know they'd lose. In reality if the ICJ ruled against the UK, forcing the Islanders (after 180 years of peaceful habitation) to either leave or accept foreign domination the UK would either veto it or the Islands would declare independence.
The ICJ would never pass the Falklands to Argentina, first it contravenes the UN charter, and secondly as this would open up the world to thousands of territorial claims.
@27 Chicureo
Sep 13th, 2014 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0dear old Gloriana is a personal acquaintance of mine! Only last Tuesday we were taking afternoon tea after a rather exhausting trip to Harrods. Gloriana, or Knickerbocker as she is known in our social set, was giving me all the latest gossip about darling David and that Argentine trollop Matilde Bonasera. Absolutely unbelievable what she got up to with those polo mallets.
The saucy mare!
@38 FAA
Sep 13th, 2014 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why in 1982 did the British Government no accept the UN proposal to negociate a diplomatic solution prior to the force move from Argentina?”
Because the Argentines refused to abide by UN resolution 502 which called for the withdrawal of Argentine armed forces from the Falkland Islands.
Margaret Thatcher had agreed to UN administration of the Islands until the issue was resolved, so did agree to a UN negotiated settlement, but as the Argentines ignored UN resolution 502, and the inhabitants didn't wish to live under a fascist government, they were removed.
So as Argentina ignored the UN resolution, the UK were under no obligation to agree to a UN solution either as one (UN negotiated solution, including a UN flag on the Islands ), was not preceded by the other (Withdrawal of Argentine armed forces from the Falklands according to UN resolution 502).
It's a bit like this. The UK used to govern the USA, except the inhabitants wanted independence-so the UK got the boot. As the UK owned the USA, we could come back and reclaim it, after all it was not the native population that the UK ironically wanted to protect, that wanted the Brits out, (the Indians fought with the UK AGAINST the USA in the 1812 war).
However, If the UK wanted to reclaim the USA, I would put it to you, that the inhabitants of the USA might take exception to that and kick any British invasion out.
And the wishes of the inhabitants are paramount-that clear?
The person calling himself USAF is almost certainly another Argentinian claiming to be something else. I presume most of the posters realise this and are just stringing him along?
Sep 13th, 2014 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#33, #34, #42
Sep 13th, 2014 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thankfully there are some enlightened posters who recognize the importance of a creative understanding of current geo-political issues that affect international relations.
It's remarkable that the fate of a regional somewhat well known wine produced in a small European nation may determine the recent diplomatic recognition of the Argentine pretension of what is known in most civilized nations as the Falkland Islands.
There have been a number of indignant outcries in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick by the national Anti-Dilutionist party who have accused the Argentinian wine industry flooding the European market with Tetrapak wine from Mendoza labeled “Pinot Grande de Fénico” in almost the same style and printing as the famous Duchy's “Pinot Grand Fenwick” and threatening Fenwick's prime market in the Geneva–Montreux–Chamonix areas.
There are serious and shocking rumors of the Duchess even being possibly deposed by her Anglophile younger sister in a coup d'état. This especially after it was discovered that the notorious Argentine wine was unknowingly being served at the Duchy's Gray Goose Pub which has caused an outrage among the populace.
Complicating the unrest are questions recently raised by the Fenwick Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the Grand Duchess expenditures at Harrods, detailed as “replacement Hermès saddles and uniforms” for the Duchy's defense calvary, which apparently disbanded sometime after the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.
(Ilsen, she really is a saucy mare. Naughty naughty...)
@44 Chicureo
Sep 13th, 2014 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol!
Brilliant!
:-))))
However, it is a well known amongst London Society that Knickerbocker Gloriana is not only partial to a man in uniform, and excellent horsewoman too, but is also looking for a weekend suitor. (you have been warned Chicureo!)
Since that unfortunate incident when she caught the old Duke 'inflagrante' with the Under-Butler on the Lower Field, the old Duke has been excommunicated from her bedchamber.
'twas the scandal of the whole of Fenwick!
40
Sep 13th, 2014 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm going to have to give you an English lesson here....
”No native English speaker would say “give ArgentinOS the right etc etc”
lt would be “give ArgentinA the right, etc” (capital letters for emphasis).
Good try USAF, but not good enough.”
I'm sure his intended use of Argentinos was referring to the people and not the Country....
A native English speaker would use Argentines or Argentineans.....
.....in that corner with the dunce hat on....NOW!
...must admit there is something amiss....Mercopress would not change the users call sign....How would they know it wasn't your initials or name.....I know a guy called ASAF.....an Asian, there could be a Usaf....
...anyone want to try and change their handle to USAF to see what happens...would be interesting......
@46 Voice
Sep 13th, 2014 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A native English speaker would use Argentines or Argentineans.....”
So you agree with Isolde's statement, ”No native English speaker would say “give ArgentinOS the right etc etc”
Yet you try to twist it to attack her? You are a nasty, twisted old grouch aren't you?
People often use a country name to symbolise its people. For example: 'Russia warns America not to bomb Syria'
Do actually interept that as a physical landmass actually SPOKE to another landmass warning it not to somehow take flight and bomb another landmass?
Hubris will, as is so often for Argentines, your downfall.
Hope you enjoyed the lesson. Be so kind as to pay my secretary on your way out. Try not to slam the door.
;-)
Children, all of you kindly please behave!
Sep 13th, 2014 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I am NOT a native English speaker and my proper k-12 English was bastardized by the Americans during my post-university studies there.
You get to the point where “theatre” becomes “theater” and “lift” becomes “elevator” but for some ridiculous reason, “Argentine” transforms into “Argentinian”...
Yes, yes... Spanish can be the same way, “Mexico” is an improper form of spelling the Latin nation in Spain...
Like I said, be careful of the staffers at Merco Press... ask HansNiesund
@ 48 Are you a former student of The Grange?
Sep 13th, 2014 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#49 Gordo
Sep 13th, 2014 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Personal question,
But yes “Nunquam Non Paratus”
@46 Voice,
Sep 13th, 2014 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l think that you are the one who needs an English lesson.
l am well aware that USAF meant “Argentinos” to apply to the people & not the country.
His whole sentence structure is stilted, thats why l picked it up.
Rather think, old Voicey, that you should be wearing the dunce cap.
@47 ilsen,
Thank you for your support, Voicey is being pedantic & l still maintain that USAF is an Argentine troll.
So far, he/she/it hasn't returned.
Trolls don't like the light being shone on them, at all!
Peace
@48 Chicureo
Sep 13th, 2014 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll have you know, sir, that the last person to imply I was a Mercopress staffer was the Truth Telling Troll, an MI6 agent if ever there was one. (Although it is widely believed that he only joined up after he got fired from the Stasi for being a Sesselpupser, an Eierschaukeln and a Klugscheisser).
Surely, sir, you are not in the same camp? I would hate to think you are not really a Chilean Admiral after all, but I must admit that my suspicions are also aroused by your bucolic Wodehousian descriptions of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. These, sir, are less than convincing to one who was actually born and raised in that forelock tugging feudal hell hole.
Oh, yes.
I too, on reaching the age of majority had my teeth knocked out one by one with a half-brick before being issued a voucher for the Pitchfork Office by Thunk, sinister Scandinavian adviser to the last Grand Duchess but one, Neutrogenia. The same Thunk, indeed, who’d been forced to flee Argentina when the Black Shirts militia he was supposed to set up for Eva Peron failed because there weren’t enough shirts to go round, and Evita had to come up with a new name pretty damn quick.
And now these days Gloriana has herself wheeled round Fenwick City on the back of a flat-bed truck to compulsory acclimation while she promises wine gums for the toothless, tomorrow. I said at the time, she should never have been allowed to go on that state visit to Argentina, and I was right as usual.
@51 Isolde
Sep 13th, 2014 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No problem. I mentioned on another thread, can't remember which one now, about USAF blatantly being a troll and a not unfamiliar on either!
Since you don't indulge, pass me the gin, cheers!
48 Chicureo
No one has criticised your excellent English, bastardised or not. I often use American terms such as 'garbage' etc if it gets my point across better/talking to an international audience. Calm down dear! I was just a bit annoyed at Voice's unprovoked and uncalled for attack on the Boadicea of the forum, Isolde. Who was using it the differences to expose the Troll, As I did on another thread.
Interestingly enough, a lot of 'Americisms' of the English language are original old English words that went over with the first settlers. Meanwhile British English evolved further, as did American English, but seperately. As is the nature of language and the peoples thereof.
NB:Equally some use the 'Sempre Paratus' instead of 'Nunquam Non Paratus'.
Less cumbersome, don't you think?
Each to their own, as it were.
:-)
This is not the first public ad nauseum commentary forum that I have been in, so the usual tactics of commentators have been utilized here. First there are the ones that doubt the callsign that I have chosen and have speculated wildly about being a troll (that's a new one), there are the one s that cut and paste and then there are the ones that sit there and avoid answering any real questions by dissecting the English language or lack thereof or the use of the General American Dialect. Long story, short, all these familiar tactics are done by people who fail to answer the question, know they are wrong or fail to even consider another perspective. It strikes as a person from a neutral stance, or one that does not tow this slanted paper's leanings or have that 'death to Argentina' stance that it is appalling. This paper's moderator has taken some liberties with my posts and my callsign and is being scrutinized.
Sep 13th, 2014 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#43 - The UK was expelled from the US in 1776. The UK in 1812, regarded the US as traitors and then proceeded to burn down the White House in an attempt to regain control of the region and was again expelled. Argentina has protested the occupation of it's territory since 1833. My question is and has failed to been answered by anyone here, is 'would the UK abide by an IJC ruling to vacate the Malvinas should they lose the court battle?'
Ho ho ho...English lessons from Ilsen.....
Sep 13th, 2014 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's take a gander.....
47......
...“Do actually interept ”.....WTF!!!
53....
“Who was using it the differences to expose the Troll”.....WTF!!!
It English Jim...but not as we know it.....
Take the Dunce cap from Isolde and stand in the corner yourself......
LMAO and PMSL.....;-)))))
Holy Toledo!!!!!! Do you Malvinistas realize what this means???? See this article - ”Scottish independence battle draws 'day of reckoning' warning to businessEDINBURGH (Reuters) - The battle over Scottish independence took a bitter turn on Saturday when a senior nationalist warned businesses such as BP that they could face punishment for voicing concern over the impact of secession.”
Sep 13th, 2014 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 056
Sep 13th, 2014 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What exactly does your last post mean...and who are the “Malvinistas ” to which you refer...?
@ 55 Voice
Sep 13th, 2014 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Typical. A couple of minor 'typos' because I am posting from my smartphone and you leap in on it? Is that all you have?
Prick. Nothing to actually contribute as usual...
Happy to hear that you have pissed yourself again, just another Saturday nights drinking alone I guess?
@54 US Air Force
“My question is and has failed to been answered by anyone here, is 'would the UK abide by an IJC ruling to vacate the Malvinas should they lose the court battle?'”
Your hypothetical question has not been answered because none of the posters here have the authority to answer it. It remains a hypothetical question. Especially since the 'Malvinas' don't officially exist. Idiot.
The other posters don't just make mad, spurious statements like you. They simply answer with reason and facts.
I already know which troll you are, yet you continue to hide behind yet another alias because you are a coward.
Why don't you post under one of your previous screen-names?
Could you please explain what your bizarre post @ 56 has to do with this article?
A fool and a coward. 'niff said. Now Jog On.
58
Sep 14th, 2014 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would have thought one would be careful not to commit typing errors..when trying to give me an English lesson.....
Not just typo errors...
.........“Do actually interept ”
What does that mean.....Interpret..?
Was it ..“Do you actually interpret”....?
Well interpret this.............fuckwit!!!.....
I do not dare to pretend that my intellect even comes close to the many mental giants that dwell in this area. My humble posts are simply panem et circenses for all. (Well, perhaps not those who are charitably described as “not being the sharpest knives in the drawer...”)
Sep 14th, 2014 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0#52
You far overestimate my commissioned rank which at times alas was closer to a grumete than a flag rank. Certainly no heroic adventures in signals anyway...
There is a certain schadenfreudeone feels when they understand the notable Denglish vocabulary that might confuse our duller cutlery... I've never been able to really understand why anyone would want to publicly admit their association with Militärischer Abschirmdienst types, but if they did they certainly would be told sei ruhig!
#45 & 52 You both have very wicked imaginations!
#53 No offense taken, regarding my Latin grammar, perhaps yes, but take a look at the school shield... http://www.grange.cl
Thanks Chicureo!
Sep 14th, 2014 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sad to see Voice trying to make anotherwise excellent thread to be all about him, as usual.
re: The Grange School. Cheshire eh? Lovely part of the country and a damn fine school too. Think I may have played both hockey and/or badminton against them at some point, although it might have been The Queen's school, which of course would rule out you being there (!). My memory is a little misty regarding schooldays now!
Apologies about the Latin, I understand now.
#61 ILSEN
Sep 14th, 2014 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Grange School in Cheshire...? Oh good Gawd noooo!
They would have never allowed me to enter their door...
Only due to my fortunate questionable luck and family bribery, I studied at a substandard Latin version in Santiago. www.grange.cl
Oops!
Sep 14th, 2014 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am sure you excelled there, just as you would have in Cheshire.
:-)
@54
Sep 14th, 2014 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Personally, I have no doubt that the UK would respect an ICJ ruling against it. Which makes it all the more telling that Argentina has refrained for nearly 100 years now from pursuing its case in the only forum that could possibly advance it.
What you've omitted in your recitation of Argentine mythology and victimhood is the fact that successive post-war UK governments would have been entirely happy to transfer the islands to Argentine sovereignity, and none more so than the Thatcher government, which was actively negotiating to that end right up until some weeks before the 1982 invasion.
If those negotiations failed, it was because of the Argentine refusal to recognise any rights of the islanders. In the most telling proof to date that Argentina has no idea whatsoever what the term “negotiation” actually means, the junta chose to start a war instead.
These days, the present Argentina government is no more prepared to recognise the rights of the islanders than the junta was. It apparently believes that 30 years after the war it can demand the capitulation of the victor by relying on a 50 year old non-binding UNGA resolution which the UK had respected but Argentina itself smashed to pieces by going to war, and by repeatedly misrepresenting the historical record to a corrupt UN committee composed for the most part of fellow implanted Italo-Iberian conquistador populations of South America.
This is the great comic irony of the Falklands/Malvinas question - it is Argentina's own irrational pursuit of an unfounded sense of entitlement, which ensures that the islands will never be theirs.
@ 51 Chicureo
Sep 14th, 2014 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are being very modest about your alma mater - it is well known as being the best of its kind in Latin America even in the world. It is also a member of the British Headmasters & Headmistresses Conference.
¡Viva Chile!
#66 Gordo1
Sep 14th, 2014 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are making me blush, but thank you.
¡Viva Chile!
@66 Chicureo
Sep 14th, 2014 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your “wicked” sense of humour gave the game away! I know one of the sons of Mr J.(the founder) - he with the CBE - and his wit is similar to yours!
¡Viva Chile!
#68 Gordo1
Sep 14th, 2014 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Jackson family are the typical Anglo Chilean family that prides themselves to be more British than those who reside in the UK.
@55 FAA
Sep 14th, 2014 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina has protested the occupation of it's territory since 1833. ”
Really?
The protests stopped in 1850.
38 years later there was a protest in 1888.
And all of 53 years later came the next protest, egged on by Peron's buddy Adolf Hitler.
There has been no continuous protest since 1833-another Argentine fantasy.
” My question is and has failed to been answered by anyone here, is 'would the UK abide by an IJC ruling to vacate the Malvinas should they lose the court battle?'
That's a problem because the UK aren't occupying a vineyard with mildew infected grapes.
To achieve the court ruling against the UK with their claim to Islas Falklands requires the Argentines to take the case to the ICJ.
I haven't answered your question but to get the answer why don't you get on the blower to the Botox Queen, Gollum, or the Trolley Dolly if you like, and tell them to extract digits and go to the ICJ?
Then we can all have a massive laugh and watch them collapse under the UN regulations they are sticking their fingers up at, all the pieces of history and documentary evidence they conveniently 'omit' in their claims, and the involvement of the British since 1765 (including regular Navy ship activity).
If you really are from the USA-don't forget that the only country that kicked off what might loosely be termed by the Argentines as their settlers was the USA in 1831.
Some are waiting with baited breath for Argentina to go to the ICJ, and for the 'cast iron guarantees' of promised arrests and imprisonment by Argentina of anyone involved with searching for oil around the Falkland Islands.
#55
Sep 14th, 2014 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- The UK was expelled from the US in 1776. The UK in 1812, regarded the US as traitors and then proceeded to burn down the White House in an attempt to regain control of the region and was again expelled. Argentina has protested the occupation of it's territory since 1833. My question is and has failed to been answered by anyone here, is 'would the UK abide by an IJC ruling to vacate the Malvinas should they lose the court battle?'
The USA declared war on Britain not the other way round Britain was a bit too busy fighting Napolean to wage a war of conquest against US. The burning of Washington was retaliation for burning York(Toronto). Surely a real American would know this.
I don't know if UK would abide by ICJ ruling against them over the Falklands however if Argentina thought they had any kind of legitimate legal case they would have taken it to the ICJ before now they have had 68 years to do it. The fact that they have not done so suggests they know that their claim is based on a tissue of lies and know they would have no chance of success.
Back to the mines laid on the Falkland Islands by the government of Argentina. Firstly it is important to clarify a few things. It has been wrongly stated for years that the positions of the mines were not correctly recorded. That's not entirely true. A lot of the mine fields were very accurately recorded. This fact was proven in 2010 during the clearance work at Surf Bay. However other fields were not so well recorded. Just like a lot of mine fields laid by the UK in other places.
Sep 14th, 2014 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't believe that Argentina is offering to clear the mine fields for sincere reasons. Anyone aware of the treaty rules would agree. It cannot happen.
The reason it has taken so long to commence clearing the mines is because of how safely managed the fields are and because of a change in the rules of the original treaty. The UK Government is the only body allowed to clear those mines and that is what is happening.
The Argentine mines laid by the government (people) of Argentina, on foreign solid, are being disposed of.
Eye thinks 55/57/or US Air force, may or may not be who he pretends to be
Sep 14th, 2014 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0just my opinion.
@69 Chicuero
Sep 14th, 2014 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are some Anglo Chilenos here who are more “chileno” than others. One lady I know - Anglo Chilena - makes the best empanadas, better than any I have ever tasted.
¡Viva Chile!
#73 Briton
Sep 14th, 2014 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suggest you add #71 Falkirklad ...
It seems USAF created this character to talk with himself over nonsensical cut&paste articles from Wikipedia...
@ Chicureo
Sep 14th, 2014 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you may well be correct,
someone trying to infiltrate us all.lol
75
Sep 14th, 2014 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and I say you are wrong.....71 was a fair comment, I was considering saying something similar along those lines ...and the diction and rhythm of the post was distinctly British....
...something too subtle for you to recognise.....
minefield priority
Sep 14th, 2014 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lets hope they are all removed..
#77 Voice
Sep 14th, 2014 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I say perhaps you are highly mistaken.
If you do a WEB search on the statement made by #71 “The UK in 1812, regarded the US as traitors and then proceeded to burn down the White House in an attempt to regain control of the region and was again expelled...” You'll discover a plethora of canny similarities with an identical diction and rhythm of post which I can only imagine is something far too subtle for you to recognise....
79
Sep 14th, 2014 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and I say, not only are you mistaken, but you are also confused @71 didn't make the statement....
“The UK in 1812, regarded the US as traitors and then proceeded to burn down the White House in an attempt to regain control of the region and was again expelled...”
That was USAF @55....@71 was quoting it.....
...as for subtlety you have already admitted you were not educated in the UK...how could you recognise British diction and rhythm.....
....was it you I had to correct concerning Jack Bauer....you were wrong then as well......
USAF- Would UK respect a decision of the iJC if it asked them to leav ethe Islands?
Sep 15th, 2014 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it would - BUT
1st Argentina has to agree to take the issue to the IJC - ie it needs to have a pretty good idea it will win - because otherwise if the IJC decided against Argentina - will they drop it all and shut up? That would be unlikely given their twisring of other recent It Court rulings such as the Beagle Channel dispute in the 1970s and the recent ruling over the Paper Plants on the river Plate that
pretty well went Uruguay,s favour.
2 - if it went to the IJC - and they ruled against UK - we Islanders would then vote and declare our Independence of both UK and Argentina - under the Un Charter we have that right- self-determination (the same one Scotland is voting on on Thursday).
Now - what would the rest of the world do then?
#80 Voice
Sep 15th, 2014 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh I most completely agree. Understanding my mestizo mixed heritage disgrace and admittedly substandard education has been a terrible burden of shame for myself and family. And yes, I certainly derailed from reality when I accused Mr. Jack Bauer being a part of MI6 or the Stazi, I can't quite remember...
Very obviously he's an agent of the DGSE...
I wholeheartedly accept your superior judgement.
#81 - I thought that there was a UN resolution in the 1960's that the UK ignored and basically told Argentina to go pound some sand when the UK had lost under the gaze of the UN. I was also under the assumption that it was Argentina that helped the Malvinistas set up shop in the form of airstrips and mail and port calls 200 miles to the West. I also understand that the UK stalled for about 20 years until ole' Iron Britches herself stepped in and put the proverbial knife in the back to the Argentines. That is what makes me think that the UK will not adhere to any IJC or UN resolution or mandate. Especially now since the UK may lose 80 percent of its oil reserves with the succession of the Scots and the possibility of oil reserves in the South American continental shift. I have looked at both sides of the coin and Argentina has consistently protested the occupation of those islands.
Sep 15th, 2014 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0#82 - Don't apologize for your heritage one bit. The fact that your post is in legible English is light years beyond what most of these commentators have listed. They occupy a SA territory and yet become enflamed at the use of the word Malvinas or Argentinos. Of course this forum is either a MI-6 public misinformation site or a UK oil funded website. The fact that I am able to post here is a miracle, and as a Yank at that.
@83
Sep 15th, 2014 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0That would be non-binding UN resolution 2065, calling for a peaceful, negotiated settlement to the Falklands dispute. That's the one that Argentina broke by starting a war. The Thatcher government, meanwhile, the most junta friendly of any British government, had been attempting to negotiate a transfer of sovereignity until right before the invasion.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/112605
Negotiations hit the rocks because the junta considered the proposed leaseback period too long. Poor, poor, Argentina, hapless victim of UK skulduggery, then chose to pursue the UN's wish for peaceful settlement by launching an invasion and refusing to comply with binding UN Security Council resolution 502 calling for it to withdraw its troops.
Like many Malvinistas, you don't just omit salient facts, you are so intent on the Argentine sense of victimhood that you can't see the contradiction in your own arguments. Of course both the UK and Argentina governments were entirely happy to be creating airstrips, trades, and friendly links between the Falklands and Argentina, for one thing because these are the normal course of relations between friendly states, and more importantly because these steps were the essential prelude to the transfer of sovereignity that both countries wanted.
And if this didn't happen, and won't happen now, it is because the Argentina junta destroyed any possibility of it, while the Kirchner governments have done everything possible to ensure that this remains the case.
The questions of oil or MI6 are just conspiracy theories for those who can't face Argentina's responsibility for its own mistakes. The more interesting question is whether Argentina's repeated sabotage of its own stated ambition is a function of deliberate policy or just plain stupidity. Personally, I think it depends on who you ask. Some Argentine politicians really are as fuck-witted as they appear, and some every bit as crooked and cynical. But who is which?
@83 USAF,
Sep 15th, 2014 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was going to reply to your half-truths & downright lies, but HasNiesund @ 84, has done such a thoroughly good job, that l cannot improve upon it.
IF you are a Yank(doubtful), then what has any of this got to do with you?
When the USA returns the south-west states & Texas to Mexico, sails out of Hawaii & withdraws from Dixie, you might have a bit of credibility when you start siding with the poor downtrodden victim, Argentina.
Your entire rant is a tissue of Argentine lies, from start to finish.
l have one more item to add.
lf you Argentines feel so strongly about this:-
1) Take your pathetic case to the ICJ
2) Have another go at invading(ready for you this time)
OR
3) Shut up & stop crying.
Diddums.
He seems very anti British, and pro Argentine, just my opinion.
Sep 15th, 2014 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@86
Sep 15th, 2014 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“US Air Force” is just another troll; may be another AKA of 'British Bomber', Herptia or 'British Kirchnerist'....
@83 FAA
Sep 15th, 2014 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The USA kicked off Vernet's settlers in 1831-bit quiet about that aren't you?
You must be an Argy. Most Americans I have met are capable of reading history in it's entirety even if Obama has problems.
Britain negotiated with Argentina over the Falkland Islands post 2065, unlike your false assertion, but like most of the Malvanistas on these posts you have never read 2065-especially the piece that prefers Independence to be the solution, never mentioned by Argentina, as is the piece 'with accordance with the UN Charter' and respecting the interest of the inhabitants.
Apart from the fact that Argentina has consistently broken 2065 according to the wording, the invasion in 1982 by Galteiri I-want-to-be-the -next-Adolf -Hitler, nullified 2065 which called for a peaceful solution.
Incidentally, in the 1960s and 1970s, what floored Britain's plans to pass what they thought at the time was an inconvenience (i.e. the Falkland Islands), to Argentina was that in all negotiations the UK returned time and time again to the fact that they could not hand over the Islands against the inhabitants wishes. Read the negotiation scripts and you will see that is the only thing that prevented any transfer, because the UK could not be seen to break the UN Charter. What made the Argentines UNBELIEVABLY STUPID was all they had to do was take the opportunity presented to them by the UK to establish air links, provide the fuel and to win over the islanders to the idea that they would be Ok under Argentine colonial rule.
Instead of persuading about 1,800 amiable, friendly people to become Argentine-they instead treated them like scum, flying in rotten fruit and giving them hassle over the white cards issued as passports.
The fact that the Argentines took lessons from the Waffen SS handbook on how to treat people, which didn't work during WW2 (and it didn't work in the 1960s and 1970's either ), shows how incredibly stupid they were.
Did anyone happen to notice that USAF doesn't quite understand the meaning and context of the term “Malvinistas ”...?
Sep 15th, 2014 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did query it @58, but no reply...
Soooo....why can't I buy a piece of the Falklands...the question wasn't clearly addressed with an answer and it seemed a fair question....
@87 thanks
Sep 15th, 2014 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@89others think he may well be a troll.
#83. USAF
Sep 15th, 2014 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh thank you so kindly for your sympathetic post. I guess I shouldn't feel so inadequate about my mestizo heritage and that you think my posts are in legible English really is encouraging.
You mention of the colonists that “occupy a SA territory” has me a bit confused. Does that mean the islands are a South Amerindian territory and if so, do you mean that the rightful original owners are in fact the Yaghan and Selknam indigenous people of the Southern Cone? There are many noted anthropologists that believe were the original inhabitants that were suspicioned to be enslaved by the French pirate Louis-Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. That makes sense to me and I think the islands need to be given back to their rightful owners, just like the rest of the New World.
BTW Mr. Jack Bauer, is an agent of the DGSE and is the real reason for all the disinformation. MI6 has nothing to do with it.
@83 “I have looked at both sides of the coin and Argentina has consistently protested the occupation of those islands.”
Sep 15th, 2014 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USAF - Out of interest, can you give me a little more detail about this? I have tried but cannot find any reference to any official protest between 1850 and 1888, or after 1888 till 1941. References would help to make your case.
@83 “I have looked at both sides of the coin and Argentina has consistently protested the occupation of those islands
Sep 15th, 2014 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And then what abt the red Indians, ain they then entitled to kick you out,
[ no ] we thought not. you are very suspicious.
do you work for CFKs secret service of the [ black hoods ] .
@91 Chicureo
Sep 15th, 2014 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“BTW Mr. Jack Bauer, is an agent of the DGSE and is the real reason for all the disinformation. MI6 has nothing to do with it.”
Of course that's just what an MI6 agent would say.
#94
Sep 16th, 2014 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0One false flag is as good as another...
#71 - The Brits most definitely burnt down the White House in 1812 and they most definitely started that war by kidnapping US Marine Merchants and pressing them in HM navy. Last time I checked it was Alexander of Russia that saved Europe from that nasty little Napolean. Funny how you Brits see history through your rose colored lenses. I would dare you to try that Impression of US personnel now.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0#88 - The quicker you realize that the Brit empire has lost its colonial powers since the end of WWII you better off you will be. The UK used the US twice as its savior in both World Wars, the Cold War, Guerra de las Malvinas and now again, against Russia. It strikes me a very quaint that you refer to the Malvinistas as amicable when ole' Iron Britches was trying to place a Nuclear warhead in Buenos Aires.
#84 - The Brits had been dragging their feet for 17 years and thumbed their nose at resolution 2065. What was Argentina to do....ok, I guess your right, its your. fo.
#85 - What does the US have to do with this? As soon as you Brits start or kickoff another European Continental land war stop crying to us. When your ole' Iron Britches thinks its ok to start using nukes like candy, over 2500 sheep herder 10000 miles away and think that placing a nuclear weapon in Buenos Aires will go unnoticed then you had better think again. The UK has done nothing but start an arms race on a continent that has been peaceful compared to all the warmongering the Europeans have initiated. Trust me, the US has tried to stay out of your genocidal forays.
This is for those that think that this MercoSur Press is nothing more than a legitimate paper and not propaganda. Why dont we start another Mercosur Press in London and make sure it is solely in Spanish and refer the islands as strictly the Malvinas. Really???
#85 -
#96. USAF
Sep 16th, 2014 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very interesting. Mind if I make a few corrections...?
The British did not burn down the White House, they just gutted it. The original walls remain.
Alexander of Russia did not save Europe from perhaps it's most remarkable historical and forward thinking leader Napoleon, that would be instead Lords Nelson and Wellington.
As long as the British Empire retains India, everything will be fine...
...please don't tell me that little Hindu is causing problems again?
The English would have nerve thought about destroying all that beautiful architecture in Buenos Aires. Matter of fact, after sinking one of their little decrepit cruisers, the whole fleet went into hiding. No fun.
What was Argentina to do at the time? The economy was in shambles, the Chileans were showing their teeth, so why not invade a little obscure island defended by a handful of soldiers and who's prime minister was a daughter of a shopkeeper.
(By the way perfect timing???the UK was about to rid themselves of their carriers and in a short time, Argentina's new state of the art “frigates” being constructed in Germany would be ready...Oh the hell with it, why wait...)
“Nukes like candy”. No, that would be the Russians and Americans. The purse strings for the UK nuclear weapons count was very low. Too expensive to waste on wine swilling gauchos.
Well, if you do start a MercoPress in London, try not to let it be infested with the DGSE as they smell of garlic and insist on smoking those horrible smelling cigarettes...
Re USAF - For an American he is the perfect Argentine troll! His facts are wrong and he just repeats the usual fairy tales, myths and false historical events.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0¡Le tengo lástima!
ok 97 and 98 -
Sep 16th, 2014 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sources cited -
From the July 2014 edition of the US Smithsonian magazine...“This timber, which survived the burning of the White House 200 years ago, was donated to the Smithsonian after it was discovered during a 1950 renovation.” The Brits set the White House ablaze.
'Alexander of Russia, Napoleon's Conqueror,' by Henry Troyat refer to chapter XII and pg 263 where Louis XVIII reviewed Russian troops in Paris upon the defeat of Napoleon. 'Napoleon, a biography' by English author Frank McLynn, pg 587, Prussian, Austrian and Russian troops occupied Paris for quite some time. You Brits try to take quite a bit of credit for what the Russians endured after the French Razed Moscow. Rose colored glasses.
As far as the Brits using nuclear warheads for some far flung sheep herders : look up Francois Mitterand's memoirs regarding Iron Britches: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/books.france - here is the headline from an English Paper: Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina'. Really over some sheep???
Regarding nuclear capabilities and using them like candy:
With Britain’s arsenal of 58 Trident II D-5 missiles and 160 deployed nuclear warheads based in Scotland, a “yes” vote would leave the remnants of the United Kingdom to find a new home for the weapons and the four Vanguard-class submarines that can be used to launch them. Yes, the Brits have their Nuclear candy to spread around.
#98 - The repeated use of middle school terms for peoples such as trolls is pretty lame. We in the US call the Brits limeys, people with bad teeth, ugly women and nasty tasting food, but that is usually a provoked reaction, not a constant term, very uncouth.
I previously stated that as a US person with an active affiliation with the USAF I was neutral. After trading barbs with obvious Brit loyalists, we in the US tire of picking up your crap and I will be pretty upset if I have to deploy due to Brit's indiscretions of continued Imperialism abroad.
@96
Sep 16th, 2014 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0“What was Argentina to do?”
A good place to start would have been to read the actual text of UNGA 2065, which nowhere states that “peaceful settlement” means the transfer of sovereignity to Argentina against the wishes of the inhabitants. Indeed, there is no UN document anywhere that says any such thing, and there never will be as long as the UN adheres to its fundamental funding principles, although Argentine Malvinistas clearly believe otherwise.
It's a curious phenomenon in fact that Argentina supposedly has the highest literacy rate in South America, yet apparently this does not extend to UN resolutions, treaties or financial arrangements the country has entered into.
Another good pointer for the junta would have been to look up in any decent dictionary just what the term “negotiation” means. It's not surprising of course, that the nuance might have been lost in a context where the practice of making electrical circuits our of students and trade unionists was considered normal politics, but one would have thought that an avowed representative of the world's foremost freedom loving democracy, such as yourself, might have a better idea than that.
It's curious also in this respect that you don't seem to have ever heard of Pearl Harbour, although perhaps understandable that the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar have somehow escaped your attention.
And finally I am wondering what the evidence is for your contention that the ever parsimonious Mrs T would have wasted a perfectly good nuke on a staggeringly inept regime that had not just been defeated, but routed?
@89 Voice.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Soooo....why can't I buy a piece of the Falklands...the question wasn't clearly addressed with an answer and it seemed a fair question”
You can if you move to the Falklands. The Falklands pretty much used to be owned by absentee landlords with a lot of farming income going out of the Falklands at a time when that was our top industry so there was a law brought in that you could only buy land if you were a resident.
@96 USAF,
Sep 16th, 2014 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0We most certainly burned/burnt down the White House.
So what? lt was war. Americans had already invaded Canada & burnt York.
What did you expect? Tea & cucumber sandwiches?
We also destroyed the Washington newspaper buildings & equipment, throwing all the type onto the road.
l believe that the British Admiral in charge egged his men on, saying that “the rogues will not print anymore lies about me” ha!
America did very well out of WWII.
Most of us are extremely grateful to the US for what they did in WWII, but we paid our way.
We know that the empire has gone, you are not telling us something new.
We willingly withdrew from our empire & gave independence to whoever wanted it.
Not all, but most former parts of the empire have joined the Commonwealth(no -one forced them to)so our rule could not have been too onerous.
Napoleon was defeated by a coalition, who has ever said that we Brits did it alone?
ln the Peninsular Wars it was the British, Portuguese & Spanish against Napoleon.
At Waterloo it was an Anglo-Dutch army & the Prussians.
We have never claimed that we did it all ourselves, where do you get that from?
Margaret Thatcher wanted the French codes to neutralise the Exocet missiles that France had sold to Argentina.
They were very good missiles & had done a lot of damage & could have done a lot more(to our carriers, for example).
The French president didn't want to give them, so she threatened to nuke BsAs if he didn't. lt worked, he handed them over, so we didn't have to carry out our threat.
Whats the difference between us nuking BsAs & the USA nuking Hiroshima?
Hypocrite.
l still think that you are an Argentine.
Something else US Air Force, and many other malvinistas,' seem to be blissfully ignorant of are the following two fact:
Sep 16th, 2014 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Argentina has told the UN, more than once, before 1982, that the only possible outcome of any 'negotiations' was the 'return'/'transfer' etc of the Falklands to Argentine sovereignty. How can anyone negotiate to a predetermined outcome?
2. Argentina was informed at numerous UN meetings and 'negotiations' that any 'agreement' reached was subject to the approval of the Islanders. A fact reinforced since the 1970 ICJ Advisory Opinion, to the effect that owing to Article 73 of the UN Charter, ALL Non-Self-Governing Territories had the right to self-determination. A fact Argentina seems unable to comprehend, despite the fact that they annually emphasize to the C24 that the Islands are not fully self-governing. Go figure!
US Air Force
Sep 16th, 2014 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are your thoughts regarding the clearing of the minefields in the Falkland Islands ?
It's quite funny, the first post I saw from USAF was that he had no dog in the race and was just here to try and inform himself, he is now the most belligerent Argentine supporter on here.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 010 US Air Force (#)
Sep 16th, 2014 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As my name implies, I have no dog in this dogfight”
Bollocks, you are a 'rebadged' RG troll !! lol
#102- Ole Iron Britches was mad. Who would portend to back up a nutball that was willing to incinerate hundreds of thousands of people over a 2 islands 10k miles away and a few sheep? Unlike Hiroshima, the Argies weren't poised to invade the UK at any point or have an Imperialistic tendency or plans on other than anything that is theirs.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#104 - If the Argentines lose the IJC battle, they should most definitely call it a day and have the mines cleared on their dime. Argentina should seek trade status and maximize commerce in a peaceful manner with the Falklands. If the UK loses the IJC case, the UK should pack their bags and hand the reins over to Argentina. At that point the Malvinistas should seek the best solution of retaining title to lands with the Argentines. Here lies in the problem. The UK in my opinion will ignore the IJC ruling and drag it out for another 50 years or flagrantly continue to utilize nuclear weaponry in the South Atlantic. Everything that I have read on line states that Argentina spends less than half percentage wise on defense, even in the midst of a economic upheaval and hasnt even updated its arsenal.
105-106 and others: It would seem to me that anyone on this forum that does not tow the UK or Falkland line is (in your words) “a rebadged RG troll” and has to be an Argentine. Wrong. As a US person with no gain to be had from this seemingly faraway dispute, we should stay out of it. Wrong again. Both sides will end glassing over each others capitals and the US will be dragged into the fray. We will have to pull out the Monroe Doctrine and keep both of you little kids from fighting.
@107
Sep 16th, 2014 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never said you were an Argentine, I said you were a belligerent supporter. ie more aggressive than the the Argentines on here at the moment, apart from Paul. Although now that you mention it your language usage is very similar to some of the multi accounters that we have had one here.
“flagrantly continue to utilize nuclear weaponry in the South Atlantic” can you give me an example of the UK's 'utilization' of nuclear weaponary in the South Atlantic? Haven't seen any mushroom clouds on the weather report recently.
108- UK routinely is using nuclear powered attack subs in the South Atlantic. It was a nuclear attack sub that sank a Argentine frigate in 1982.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which Argentine frigate? Name of vessel, please!
Sep 16th, 2014 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USAF - see you answering quite a few posts, any chance of answering mine @92 ?
Sep 16th, 2014 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll repeat it here........
@83 “I have looked at both sides of the coin and Argentina has consistently protested the occupation of those islands.”
USAF - Out of interest, can you give me a little more detail about this? I have tried but cannot find any reference to any official protest between 1850 and 1888, or after 1888 till 1941. References would help to make your case.
#110-
Sep 16th, 2014 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480241.stm
The Belgrano sinking was the most controversial event of the Falklands War. Many people, both inside and outside the British Parliament said it was an unnecessary use of force - the ship was outside the exclusion zone and apparently sailing away from the Falklands.
A few months later, the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was famously grilled on national television by a British housewife who said that the bombing ensured a halt to peace talks being brokered by the UN and the Peruvian Government at the time.
This post is a straight paste out of the BBC news website. It too has some omissions on their timeline.
@112
Sep 16th, 2014 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 01)El Almirante Belgrano was NOT a frigate, it was a cruiser an exUS naval vessel.
2) Both the captain of the Almirante Belgrano (Héctor Bonzo) and the admiral commanding the Argentine naval office at the time of the sinking averred that it was a genuine act of war and Britain should not be reproached.
So, again, you have the facts wrong. If you had investigated you would have seen the truth. Just google Héctor Bonzo,
The British never sank a “frigate” in 1982 they instead torpedoed a WWII decrepit light cruiser with 2 mark 24 tigerfish conventionally armed torpedoes from a nuclear powered submarine.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The White house in Washington DC was gutted by fire, but did not burn down as all the walls and a significant amount of the inner structure survived. That is why it was quickly rebuilt and painted white to cover the burnt stained walls.
Baroness Thatcher knew how to negotiate successfully with the French as the Exocet missiles were decimating the Royal Navy.
One other comment. We Chileans have noting but disgust for the way the Argentine forces cowardly preformed during the Falklands war. There were few exceptions, including the land based missile batteries, the nighttime re supply group that literally flew by the seat of their pants and most of all the jet pilots, who displayed incredible bravery and skill.
@112 : The Belgrano was crewed by Montonero volunteers who had come back from exile to fight in the conflict .
Sep 16th, 2014 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine Navy deliberately put the ship in harms way so that all the montoneros would get killed .
You are obviously well read , so you must have read a lot of David Icke , in which case you will know that the Queen is actually a lizard , and so was Ronald Reagan .They , together with the chief lizard on the mother ship wanted to colonise Argentina for it's natural resources , so they engineered this war to bring down military rule in Argentina and replace it with so called “ democrats ” who are actually rats .
Lizards eat rats , as you know , so conquest is made so much easier .
The lizards are using the chinese as trojan horses , and soon Argentina will be full of Chinese .
I can't find the relevant passages , but it's all clearly explained in the National Enquirer .
#113 gordo1
Sep 16th, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry about the light cruiser comment as you had made it while I was composing.
#115 Unsurping Pilot
You know, I get most of my information from the National Inquirer as well, although I double check facts in The Sun which has great photographs.
107
Sep 16th, 2014 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Both sides will end glassing over each others capitals and the US will be dragged into the fray. ”
I think that one side might find that a tad difficult......
Don't feed the troll.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0113- Frigate, cruiser or destroyer - you get the point. purist. The point was that the Brits were expanding the war outside their little 'maritime exclusion zone'. Old Ronny had to convince ole Iron Britches not to send RAF bombers to Buenos Aires.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0114-Another purist. Brits set the WH on fire, gutted or burned to the ground what is the difference? They set it on fire. Fact of that one as well, you miss the point. The Brits started that war by defacto kidnapping US sailors and making them serve aboard HM Navy. Did the US at the time go to London and set whatever monarchy palace on fire?
If I am not mistaken, the Chileans stayed out of that 1982 fray and sided with the Brits - You have stated that you are ashamed to be a mestizo and your English is flawed, are you ashamed to be a Chilean as well?
117- isn't that funny. one day both Brazil and Argentina with their nuclear reactors will detract from the non nuclear proliferation and it will be too bad for the world.
111- The point is that this Argentina protest is not going away. The protest has had its official and unofficial ebbs and flows since the 1800s. You Malvinistas and the Brits will have to deal with this.
So what is up with this MercoPress column?? Based in Uruguay and there is only one Chileno who is ashamed of his heritage? I have stated several times that as a US person you people take this crap way too far.
115 - yes the queen was a lizard or a snake, not sure which, but one of the two and ole Ronny Reagan was definitely a rat. What does that make (scoff) Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Camila Bowman, Princess Fergie and Princess Di??? Public sucking leeches?? haha.
119
Sep 16th, 2014 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I do find funny is your selective knowledge of history.....
...de facto kidnapping of English sailors that had deserted from English ships and were trying to claim they were American...
..also tit for tat..who burned York (Toronto) first...was it the Yanks..?
Answer LOUD and CLEAR.....WAS IT THE YANKS...?
The stupid Yanks thought England was all tied up with the French and used the Kidnappings as a pretext to declare war....did they win...?
Or did there first declaration of war backfire on them...?
They were fortunate the English only sent their B Team...
After the defeat of the French the Yanks quickly sued for peace knowing fine well, England were free to send their A-Team....
Selective Googling is all you are capable of...try studying real history instead of Wiki.....for a change....
#115 Unsurping Pirate
Sep 16th, 2014 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I still find myself laughing. What the troll still doesn't understand is how you ripped his ignorance. Again congratulations.
I suspect this boy, who fantasizes he can speak 8 languages, has a 50 shoe size and is from Mendoza, who lives with his mother, which he secretly hates along with all women.
Then again, I'm just a half breed, poorly educated mestizo...
119
Sep 16th, 2014 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USA started war of 1812 by invading Canada . Britain did not kidnap US sailors they took British sailors who had deserted, if anyone was found to American they were repatriated. There were of course many US sailors on British warships usually they were Black and preferred British wages to American slavery. If you are interested in history rather than propaganda I recommend “The Challenge ” by Andrew Lambert. For the British the war of 1812 was a defensive war and at no time was US independence threatened. Interestingly the US states which had most reason to complain against British maritime policies were mostly against the war.
@120 Voice,
Sep 16th, 2014 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l applaud you for this post.
Excellent & true.
Toby has got problems right enough.
Well Loyalists...talk about chasing my tail and running in circles. If I say black, you say white. If we say that the Brits started the war of 1812, you say it was the Yanks. If I quote the Smithsonian and valid authors you say it is propaganda. Where do you people come up with this rubbish? 116 - Your name should be more like Chupeta and not Chicureo. Where is your dignity. The Islanders on this forum have a lot to lose should the Argentines get possession of the islands. I am sure that they (Argies) monitor this forum and have a hold of the ip addresses to locate the people who dub them as 'trolls' rather easily. 120 - We handed George his behind in 1776 and 1812 no matter what your rationalization or alibi are for not keeping the Union Jack flying there.
Sep 16th, 2014 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Well Loyalists...talk about chasing my tail and running in circles.”
Sep 16th, 2014 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you will find that it's chasing your own tail...
If we were chasing your tail...unless you were running in circles..we wouldn't be...
The US was insignificant in 1776 ...Parliament....not the King decided there was richer pickings in Asia and the colonists were hardly worth the trouble.....
I know it's difficult for your ego to accept this....but it's simple fact....
It was never a case that the British couldn't wipe out their colony....just why bother...
It was the same in 1812...you tried to take 'Canada'...this was your objective in declaring war....you failed...live with it.....
Like I said, rationalize your losses and give them alibis.
Sep 17th, 2014 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@112
Sep 17th, 2014 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly, nuclear 'powered'. I've never heard of someone calling a diesel engine a diesel weapon.
“the ship was outside the exclusion zone and apparently sailing away from the Falklands” actually it was inside the exclusion zone heading out but the Captain admitted that they were manuvering to a position of attack.
@127 Benson,
Sep 17th, 2014 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0l don't hold with this “exclusion zone” rubbish that the RGs have latched onto.
lt was an armed enemy warship, intent on doing us harm.
Therefore it was a legitimate target where ever it was.
lf we had come across it in the middle of the Pacific Ocean or anchored in an Argentine harbour, we still had the right to attack it.
Didn't stop the RGs from attempting to destroy RN ships at Gibraltar.
lts just one more crutch that the RGs use to play the victim.
@128
Sep 17th, 2014 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree completly, it was a viable target of war but for those that disagree it's good to point out that they are wrong about it's position and intentions.
@126 : The lizards have extraordinary powers , and control everything , and I mean everything , from the mother ship .
Sep 17th, 2014 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0They influenced the referee during the World Cup final into not awarding that penalty . Ask any taxi driver in BA .
I bet you didn't know that there are more alien abductions in La Pampa and Santa Fe provinces than in the whole of the USA .
The lizards are amongst you , and you worry about some silly islands .
The mother ship was actually seen in Claromeco , near Tres Arroyos .
http://realidadovniargentina.wordpress.com/
This rather strange “Us person” who calls it/her/himself “US Air Force” appears to think that the only cause of 1812 war was the “Chesapeake Incident”. This was the famous taking of the USS Chesapeake by HMS Leopard during which several US sailors were killed. The Chesapeake was asked to hand over several deserters from the Royal Navy, her captain (rightly) refused and thus began the action.
Sep 17th, 2014 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only problem with this incident being the start of the 1812 war is that it took place in 1807 thus taking 5 years for the war to get going!!!!!
One of the causes of the 1812 war was that the US wanted Canada and decided that it was a great time to attack as the Brits were well entertained by Napoleon at the time. Another was the British restrictions on trade and a third was the humiliation of the enforcement of the taking of deserters.
Now what this fellow, “US Air Force”, thinks all this has to do with demining in the Falkland Islands I really don't know, but the one thing that does stand out is that this “US person” is really one of my compatriots doing his level best to convince us that he/she/it is really a ”US person!!!!
@131 : Mercopress publish any story with the word “ Falklands ” in it because they know it gets a rise of malvinista trolls , who go off topic from the word go .
Sep 17th, 2014 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any day now , one will be entitled “ A lonely albatross flew over the Falklands ”.
It's just the Uruguayans way of pulling these idiots' chains .
Did it have permission to be in Falklands air space and was it an Argentine albatross...
Sep 17th, 2014 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...was it within the exclusion zone or on it's way out....
These are key questions that need to be addressed...
According to the Argentine ministry of defence , the albatross was an exact replica of one shot down by the Argentines and secretly cloned by the British in a laboratory in Gibraltar , all designed to fool the British public into believing that that the albatross had not in fact been shot down.
Sep 17th, 2014 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 01812, 1776, 1939 or even 1982 (UK internal matter) ect...fact of the matter is, friends today enemies tomorrow, we can never tell with you Brits. As someone from the US who has now had some interaction with you amicable Falklanders, will the Argentines allow you to take your sheep with you when you get the boot from your trailer trash? BTW has the UK decided how the Union Jack flag is going to look with the exit of Scotland - ?
Sep 17th, 2014 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ha
Sep 17th, 2014 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“will the Argentines allow you to take your sheep with you when you get the boot from your trailer trash?” Ok this has to be Paulcedon, just replace trailer trash with shacks.
Sep 17th, 2014 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“BTW has the UK decided how the Union Jack flag is going to look with the exit of Scotland - ?”
Well it could stay the same as the original national colour of St Patrick and Ireland is blue.
@135 : I think you'll find that Britain is being perfectly friendly and respectful to Argentina , despite the bile , hostility and provocation that emanates from Gollum's office and from that odious ex air hostess in London .
Sep 17th, 2014 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you had any sense at all , you would see that the Scottish independence vote and the Falklands issue have one important parallel .
They will not alter yours or our lives one iota , which is why we simply don't give a fig whether the Scots vote yes or no , yet hot blooded criollos like you get all hot and bothered and start thumping your chest in some sort of demonstration of faux patriotism .
Then when the bullets start flying you cry foul , run away and blame everyone else .
The Falkland Islands are not your train set , they are the Islanders , so leave them alone to play with them and stop being so jealous of 3000 people who just happen to live above an enormous puddle of oil which will make each and everyone of them millionaires ten times over , especially as they are governed by honest politicians who will actually disburse the money and not keep it for themselves .
Don't entertain the troll.
Sep 17th, 2014 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#138 - you are absolutely right about this Scot and the Falkland Is. issue will probably not affect me in one ounce. Especially the Scots, that wont affect a bit. However the Falkland/Malvinas may kick something else off that the Islanders dont even consider. Islanders are banking on the UK always being there. A University of Nottingham attorney has stated that the UK has quite a bit to worry about when the title to the islands is given under the IJC ruling. Should the UK lose, what will the Islanders do?? Will they take up arms? Will the UK thumb its nose at the ruling? Will the Mercosur bloc and associates back an armed intervention? Will this conflict spin out of control? That is when I get involved. Remember how World War I was started? Some backwater country and some small time assassination. This may now be some form of powderkeg, especially if there is oil discovered.
Sep 17th, 2014 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is a curveball for you. It is a possibility that the IJC rule in favor of Argentina for title of the islands, but in favor of the UK in the rights of the hydrocarbon extraction.
Links please for the University of Nottingham..“.attorney” article....;-)
Sep 17th, 2014 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All,
Sep 18th, 2014 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry to interrupt your serious discussion about the pretensions of a corrupt backwards South American pathetic excuse of a nation, but the government representing the Duchess of Grand Fenwick is offering all you esteemed contributors to subscribe for the release of the 2001 bottling of the “premier grand cru” crop of Pinot Grand Fenwick. At very competitive prices as our traditional markets have been flooded with a cheap imitation from Mendoza. This is an extraordinary offer and very limited as we plan to deliver a Q-bomb via DHL in the coming weeks. (Please keep this special opportunity under your hat as even the Duchess, who's attending a polo match in Monaco, is not aware of new ”competitor ground leveling program recently passed in our parliament.)
Tick, tick, tick...
The war of 1812 was know contemporaneously in the US as the second war of independence. The issue was US sovereignty.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the British a person who was born a subject of King George III could never renounce their allegiance to that sovereign. In the US citizenship was, and is, a defining attribute of the nation.
BRW I believe that the British still hold to some aspect of the inability of their subjects to renounce allegiance to the royal master.
Although, as a matter of doctrine, Jefferson wanted to get the British out of America the war was not about that. This war occurred during Madison's administration, not Jefferson's. Had invading Canada been a strategic aim of the US in the war then it would of started in 1804 or '05. The violations of US sovereignty by the UK had been occurring for at least ten years by 1812. The reason for the invasion of Canada was tactical. Canada was where the British were.
The US won the war of 1812. We know this because never again did the British attempt to cross the US. In fact by the late 19th century the British had adopted a policy of appeasement towards the US - a policy of the UK that continues to this day.
It is difficult to overestimate the degree of fear that the US invoked in the British. An Australian colleague has told me that when the UK sent the 'Founding Fleets' to that continent they feared that the ships would escape to the US. Also, from an Australian colleague, in the Australia of the 19th century the US was viewed as a beacon of liberty. There were a number of raids from the US to free the people enslaved there and bring them back here. IIRC one of those so freed went on to become the governor of the Territory of South Dakota.
Oh how interesting...
Sep 18th, 2014 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The war of 1812 and the upcoming 2014 war of Mendoza will result is the understanding that Argentine twits like yourself need to be gently eliminated in the most painless manner possible. First you'll see a flash, then a big boom. You'll never know what hit you after that.
Those kind readers approximately outside a 160 kilometer radius of Mendiza have nothing to worry about.
Remember our new marketing slogan: Malbec from Mendoza is pig swill.
Kind of catchy don't you think?
1812 .....That's even before 1833 .
Sep 18th, 2014 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wow ....
Is this ICJ thing soon ? Is it televised like the Pistorius trial ?
Can't wait to watch that one ....
@143 Hepatia,
Sep 18th, 2014 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0l think you'll find that the British won the war of 1812.
1) The US was stopped from annexing Canada
2) The British captured the US capital city
3) The US was not able to invade Britain.
And as for appeasement-dream on.
We(& the French) could have sided with the Confederacy in the USA's civil war BUT chose not to.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the UK had the biggest fleet in the world & by 1905 the Dreadnought class of Battleships were superior in speed & armament to any battleship in the world & that included the USA.
British capital was invested in the USA & so it seems a steady crop of American women were marrying into the British ruling classes.
l hardly call that “appeasement”.
You should check your facts before posting rubbish & lies here.
btw- no mention of “returning the malvinas within 25 years?”
Why?
Don't break the mould.
The only truth that you posted was the very real fear that the convict ships to Australia would escape to the US.
Desperate people will do desperate things.
Some did escape, some by rowboat to present lndonesia, China & New Zealand.
And l think to the US.
143 Hepatia
Sep 18th, 2014 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your own country has been defeated in every war it was involved in,
Your air force was blown out of the sky by the Chileans , your navy was sunk by the Brazilians,
And your army deserted in the face of urm the south African Zulus,
Their,
you aint the only one that can tell lies,
Now perhaps you can and will,, see how silly you look.
lolol
.
Re 1812 was more or less a draw america started it managed to get the indians shafted.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The evil empires war aims were for it to stop so they could concontrate on the french when the french lost suddenly the Evil empires 1st division were free to engage in a bit of yank slapping the yanks decided to sign a peace treaty.
141- http://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
Sep 18th, 2014 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marko Milanovic, clearly, is not aware of the Arana Southern Treaty ratified in 1850. In this treaty, Articile 7, Argentina tacitly forgoes its claim to the Falklands Archipelago - indeed, for almost 40 years after ratification, no claim was ever made and then until the 1940's, when Britain was at war with Germany and Italy, and Argentina was close to entering the war on the side of the Axis, no claim was made. It appears to have been encouraged by Perón and most pressure from Argentina has been generated by the Peronistas and their allies.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the meantime, Argentina had become a considerable economic force in the world mainly thanks to British investment, so much so that Argentina at one time considered joining the predecessor to the Commonwealth.
Oye Gordito - 150 - The Arana documents is an item for the IJC to decide. There may come a day when the US, Britain and the entire lot of South America becomes a unified entity and maybe in a Commonwealth, NAFTA, TAFTA, Euro type manner, until then, these petty issues will just be divisive. I imagine that to the 2500 sheepherders on the Malvinas, it is not petty, it is more like oil paydirt. If I were a Malvinista/Falklander, I would be holding separate talks with the Argentines and not solely clinging on the UK for salvation and protection. There are voices within the UK that oppose the tax drain maintaining a UK presence there.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2014/09/12/falklands-islands-minefield-priority-areas-are-named-as-bidders-visit#comment352007: I do not think your WWI analogy is the correct one to use. Who would play the part of the German and Russian Empires in this case? The conditions for a wider conflict just do not, and will not, exist.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In any case there will be no war over the Malvinas. The UK will peacefully return the islands within the next 25 years. And the US will maintain our historical position of having no position regarding sovereignty over the islands until the day of the return.
The UK will peacefully return the islands within the next 25 years.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina will apply to be part of the British Falkland's in the next 25 years.
@152 Hepatia
Sep 18th, 2014 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK will peacefully return the islands within the next 25 years.” Yeah, and pigs might fly!
You are clearly not aware of the strong feelings of support for the Falkand Islanders from the UK.
@152
Sep 18th, 2014 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK will peacefully return the islands within the next 25 years”
Not returned, but given as the Falkland Islands will be independent within 25 years when they can afford the defences required to keep Argentina at bay for ever.
152 - Look what happened in 1982....It just came out that old Iron Britches was ready to go nuclear on the South American mainland. The Argentines were ready to not only using the French products, but were actively seeking Soviet equipment and that was getting ready in the works. The Russians and the Cubans were more than happy to get the equipment there. The Brits were utilizing US intelligence. If you think the Russians or the Chinese won't have a hand in this battle this go around, should it come about, I would be greatly surprised. All it takes is one misunderstanding, one accident, one mishap, perhaps a Brazilian airliner that gets downed or a Russian Trawler gets an Air to Ship missile and it gets ugly fast.
Sep 18th, 2014 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2014/09/12/falklands-islands-minefield-priority-areas-are-named-as-bidders-visit#comment352058: I think it is important that you Brits continue to post on this subject because only thus will your profound ignorance about the US and our history be exposed.
Sep 19th, 2014 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is a long list of countries that the US did not invade in the War of 1812. On that list is the UK. But there was never any suggestion that we would invade. In fact the US had no capacity to effect such an invasion.
I have addressed the situation WRT ON. but you seem not to have understood.
The UK has apologized and paid reparations to the US for its misdeeds committed during the Civil War. The US has accepted that apology and we are not a vindictive people so I don't think we need to discuss the UK's Civil War crimes any further.
On those rare occasions that Americans think of the UK it is in the context of the UK client status. And in such a situation it is the master that determines the 'facts' not the servant. The view from the US regarding the fact of the UK's appeasement policy is uncontroversial. So much so that an article, such at this one
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/09/12/falklands-islands-minefield-priority-areas-are-named-as-bidders-visit#comment352058:
may be published in the US and section describing UK appeasement policy is seen by Americans as the conventional wisdom.
@151 US Air Force
Sep 19th, 2014 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is obvious that you have little comprehension of the situation.
The Islanders have said, several times that they are quite willing to enter talks with the RGs on everything except sovereignty.
It is the RG's who will not talk to them!
157 Hepatia/ British Bomber/ Air Farce
Sep 19th, 2014 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK has apologized and paid reparations to the US for its misdeeds committed during the Civil War. The US has accepted that apology and we are not a vindictive people so I don't think we need to discuss the UK's Civil War crimes any further.”
Umm,
Hep/BB/Farce,
Do you even read your links?
The British had nothing to do with the US CIVIL War, though France almost did.
BTW,
Monroe Doctrine or not, Argentina owes money to many EU creditors as well as the US, and they will be paid.
Your Argentine economy is going down the tubes, thanks to the antagonistic stance of Elvis, Timidman, and CFK.
I hear Patagonia is talking about Independence or joining the PA as their own entity.
157
Sep 19th, 2014 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0you lost get over it.
Hepatia has a very shaky hold on history, still its gratifying to correct him/her/it.
Sep 19th, 2014 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0And USAF just gets more & more ridiculous.
So, USAF, harbinger of doom & gloom, what do you think that we should do to avoid a nuclear Armageddon?
1) Submit to Argentina?..................................................................... Nyet
2) Roll over to have our bellies tickled?..............................................Nyet.
3) Beg for the US to save us(so the US can get OUR Oil)...................Nyet.
lts time for you to butt out & mind your own business.
l believe that you're both Argentines anyway♥
lts time for you to butt out & mind your own business.
Sep 19th, 2014 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0l believe that you're both Argentines anyway
Agreed.
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/09/12/falklands-islands-minefield-priority-areas-are-named-as-bidders-visit#comment352306: I do remember that the issue of nuclear weapons came in 1982. I do not remember the UK deploying nuclear weapons. Certainly the US government cannot allow countries to threaten to deploy them against others. This is doubly true in the Western Hemisphere. The relaxed attitude of the government indicates to me that we told the UK to “leave their guns at home”. I have not seen anything since then to contradict this impression.
Sep 19th, 2014 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I remember correctly the Soviets were even more bemused and bewildered than we were. I don't remember them having any real interest in the conflict. But, in any case, the US was worried that it might possibly allow the Soviets an angle. I believe this concern was overblown, but that does not detract from the level of irresponsibility shown by the UK. They put us in a very difficult position.
The only resupply that I can remember was (it was long time ago) was equipment coming in from Libya via Brazil and something about Peru promising to sell aircraft to Argentina.
Not only do I think that the Russians and the Chinese will not get involved but the US government doesn't think so either. Hence the relaxed attitude.
The issue will be resolved within the next 25 years when the UK returns the islands with no hassle.
161 - Isoldes paints history and omits and writes cryptically and offers no theories to a solution. The only reason that the US would get involved is due to her Majesty's armed forces constantly requesting for assistance since the US and the UK are currently close allies. It would be the same as it was in 1982, the UK, during an armed conflict requested from ole Ronnie, intelligence and material. That is what makes it our business.
Sep 19th, 2014 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The saber rattling in 2010 came from Brazil, Venezuela and Mercosur. Venezuela who possess advanced FSU weaponry even stated that Argentina would not be alone this time in a Malvinas conflict. My post is not Armegeddon, it is sound theory. If you think that the UK would allow itself to be defeated on the field by a coalition of third world countries, you are mistaken, like the Russians and ole Iron Britches, would pull out the stoppers and may go nuclear.
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/09/12/falklands-islands-minefield-priority-areas-are-named-as-bidders-visit#comment352561: I think that there's two problems with your formulation. The first is that it is very unlikely that Argentina will attack the occupation forces. The second is if the UK were to threaten to use nuclear weapons it would have to deal with the US first - there is far too much at stake for any other course.
Sep 19th, 2014 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0165
Sep 19th, 2014 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you live in an imaginary world.
@164 Argy Air Force
Sep 19th, 2014 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Venezuela who possess advanced FSU weaponry even stated that Argentina would not be alone this time in a Malvinas conflict”
Lol! Venezuela are going to need a few tanker aircraft to get their Sukhoi aircraft down to the Falklands!
@163 Hepatia,
Sep 19th, 2014 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rave on.
You have to admit, the bluff worked.
France gave us the Exocet codes.
Back to the 25 years angle l see.
@164 USAF,
We have a solution & to us there is no problem.
The Falklands are ours & Argentina should accept that & back off.
Argentina is the one who has a problem.
Thats the solution.
We do not require US help.
Any material that we get from the US, we pay for.
We do not need US personnel, but thanks for the offer.
We are quite capable of handling Argentina all on our little own, thank you.
l doubt that Brazil or any other country wants to do Argentina's fighting & dying for them.
Don't make me laugh about Venezuela, they cannot even supply their population with toilet paper.
Venezuela-another potentially rich country misruled by incompetent crooks.
What is it with you South Americans?
Did you leave your brains & morals behind in Europe before you invaded the S.American continent.
Try again, malvinistas
South American morals..it is more of a hemisphere deal. Lets see. I believe that it is Europeans that invaded the entire continent and placed a majority of a stone age culture on reservations, enslaved them, stole their land and just plain bred them out. When they (Europeans) were done with the genocide of the native Americans, you brought in Africans. Let see about European moral, genocide on part of the Germans in the order of 7 million, genocide on part of the Russians to the tune of 21 million, major genocide in the 1990's on part of the Serbians, major continental land battles between France, Spain, England, Germany, Russia that perennially cost Europeans millions of lives in some cases in less than a month. Is that what Americans, North and South should strive for???? The last large war in the Americas was circa 1880's and the 1770s against who? that's right a European power.
Sep 20th, 2014 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0If European brains and morals consist of figures such as Stalin, Hitler, Milosovic, King George, Napolean and a cast of other European power hungry turds, then you can keep your morals.
You should try again.
Lol @169 !!
Sep 20th, 2014 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0'cos you are a European descendant too!
What a ridiculous rant! You are a complete fool who can not even formulate an argument.
You only serve to make an idiot of yourself. I truly wonder why the serious posters bother to engage with such an obvious fake personna.
Bog Off!
@170 ilsen,
Sep 20th, 2014 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0You beat me to it.
The guy is a complete plank.
With splinters.
He/she/it couldn't come up with anything to refute what l said so he/she/it just raved off at a tangent.
Thats another malvinista that l won't bother arguing with anymore.
Knew it wasn't a Yank.
Like most argies they just change the subject.
Sep 20th, 2014 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@171 plank with splinters? Suspect more like the ample lady who sat on the bacon slicer. Result: Dis arsed 'er?
Sep 20th, 2014 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's it? Plank? We call that 'tool'. After debating with fine English gents such as yourselves and seeing your grand hatred and despise of anyone that thinks different than you makes it that much easier. This forum exchange with you Falklanders makes my articles written for the US audience easier to gauge and disseminate. Ciao buddies.
Sep 20th, 2014 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0174 You write as foreign correspondent for that far famed Okie newspaper the Tulsa World? Certainly with your narrow input it would seem so.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0175
Sep 21st, 2014 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Campora Monthly!
@174 USAF,
Sep 21st, 2014 - 05:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares what you think?
You've proved by your posts, over & over that you are hostile.
Never a censure of Argentina, only us.
lf you're going, goodbye & good riddance.
And l will never be your “buddy”.
USAF has so obviously been a fake and a time waster. He will disappear and next week a 'new' poster will pop up repeating the same diatribes and hate.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn!
I'm waiting for “US Air Farce” to slip
Sep 21st, 2014 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0up and answer his post under his “Hepatia” identity, any time now...
Paulcedron has also been very quiet recently. It's definitely one of the two.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0180
Sep 21st, 2014 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ilsen,
Yes, could be.
niño- sh!thead is usually too lazy, too angry, and too simple-minded to post anything as ramblingly convoluted as The Farce, though
Good point.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who, or what ever, will most likely pop up next week with a new moniker. It is one or two people posting under a multitude of names, trying to look as if they are many. No one is fooled. They always pretend to be new but restart old themes and previously lost arguments.
Occasionally amusing for a while but overall a little tiresome.
meanwhile the land mines need clearing.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good point Briton.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Definitely best left to the professionals even if it cost a bit more.
very true.
Sep 21st, 2014 - 07:00 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!