MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' naval exercises: “regular routine training”, says Ministry of Defense
UK described recent combined military exercises in and around the Falkland Islands as part of regular routine training. The statement follows on Thursday's strong Argentine protest, (which claims sovereignty over the (Malvinas) Islands), and called the military exercises a “new provocation”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOh no, Argentina is complaining and whining about something.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see where Paul and Nostrils get it from now.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, boring, go to the ICJ you numpties.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Surely a “show of force” would need to be close to Argentina if that was our intention? These were in Falklands waters and none of their business.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since the current Argentine administration understands only bullying and intimidation then it is unsuprising that they should interpret self-defense training as a direct threat to Argentina. Russia is currently flying and sailing up to the boundaries of various nations to test their defenses and to intimidate them into staying out of their war in Ukraine. Why doesn't Argentina complain about that instead?
UN 2065 from 1965 is dead. It contained the following words that are now irrelevant 'peaceful' killed off by the events of 1982 and 'interests of the inhabitants' which has been replaced by 'inalienable rights' brought about by the 'right to self-determination' confirmed by the ICJ in numerous Advisory Opinions. This is why Ban Ki-Moon said, 'I don't think Security Council members are breaching ANY ''relevant'' UN resolution.'
Nov 15th, 2014 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's one ship, there is always one ship down there. I hope one day we really give them something to complain about.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0'Capitanich renewed Argentina’s position that the UN had called on Buenos Aires and London to “dialogue for the restitution of our sovereignty in the Islands which we say must be reached in a peace scenario.”
Nov 15th, 2014 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another bare faced lie from the Argentine government, that statement sums up the problem with the average Argentine Malvenista. the UN Resolutions and the UN has never once sided with either the UK or Argentina regarding the sovereignty dispute, yet here we have a public statement that clearly states 'for the restitution of our sovereignty', shame on you Argentina, bare faced lies, this is your Chief Cabinet minister lying in front of the world and you seem to think that is acceptable.
They really do believe that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it!
No wonder your country is in such a mess Mr Capitanich.
The UK and the Falklanders will decide if they want to have military exercises in their own sovereign territory. It has nothing to do with Argentina or any other country. Stop your whining like a feeble and petulant child.
That photo of HMS Iron Duke (thanks very much for a lovely lunch onboard recently Captain) reminds of the Gripen deal. That photo is a good representation of what Vince Cable did but instead of firing a missile he fired his pen and BANG; destroyed them Gripens and most likely saved some Argie lives.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chuckle chuckle
Our ships, in our seas, firing our ammunition, in our time.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0What on earth has it got to do with you, Argentina?
None of your damned business, so butt out!
Poltroons.
I think its inevitable that when HMS Queen Elizabeth sets sail on her maiden round the world voyage that a stop off at port Stanley should be accompanied by a major live firing exercise demonstrating the fire power of her aircraft!
Nov 15th, 2014 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody should mistake this. It's analogous to a desperate worm threatening a shark that's already swimming away. Somebody must explain to me how a British frigate firing British rounds inside British territorial waters adjacent to a British territory is a 'provocation'. Can Britain protest about latam militaries exercising their forces and equipment? Perhaps we should make a more 'forceful' protest. For instance, if the ARA Drummond reaches and penetrates the Falklands EEZ, isn't that a 'provocation'? Territorial waters extend for 12 miles. Penetrating the Falklands EEZ can be considered an act of war. Argieland has no business being there. Let's sink it. We were 'provoked'. I feel slightly sorry for argies. Not too much. Their so-called 'government' is taking them closer and closer to war. A war argieland cannot win. If there's a 'next time' most British forces will be out of range. Argieland is ALWAYS in range. Argieland probably doesn't understand that a future British response will probably be completely airborne. It will be quicker. Taken into service, what can Boeing 747 or Airbus 380 freighters carry? And C-17s. Time a REAL exercise is mounted. A constant procession of heavy-lift aircraft off-loading major equipment. Tanker/transport aircraft flying in lighter equipment and troops. Refuelling combat aircraft as several squadrons land. Royal Navy SSNs and SSBNs on the surface. Protected by Type 45 destroyers. Just a 'demonstration'!
Nov 15th, 2014 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jolly good show!
Nov 15th, 2014 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting piece in papers today that 69% of European taxpayers want Rgenweener removed from G20 due to it's economic woes and “behaviour” on the global stage
Nov 15th, 2014 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also interesting to that Putin has scurried of home early from the G20 after getting a thorough telling off.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not sure why Argentina is even there. What do they contibute? What influence do they have?
Very little it would seem. I expect absolutely everyone is so bored of their continual solitary whining over The Falklands whilst bringing nothing of value to the table.
I expect they get completely ignored in the corridors and lounges.
I can see the Argentine delegation walking down the corridors and everyone looking over their shoulders when they have passed and saying “ Any idea who they are ?” Someone said “ That is the Argentine delegation ” No shit I though it was the hotel employees”.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Nov 15th, 2014 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Part One Chapter II PRINCIPLES Article 3
The American States reaffirm the following principles:
a) International law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations;
b) International order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty, and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and other sources of international law;
e) ..and has the duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State. ...
Chapter IV FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
Article 11
Every American State has the duty to respect the rights enjoyed by every other State in accordance with international law.
Article 12
The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever.
Article 13
The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States. Even before being recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its preservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate concerning its interests, to administer its services, and to determine the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights is limited only by the exercise of the rights of other States in accordance with international law.
Article 19
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.
Article 20
No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind.
@ 14 golfcronie
Nov 15th, 2014 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is the Argentine delegation ” No shit I though it was the hotel employees”.
The reason for that of course is that most of the government are hotel emplyoees!
Capitanich renewed Argentina’s position that the UN had called on Buenos Aires and London to “”“dialogue for the restitution of our sovereignty in the Islands which we say must be reached in a peace scenario.”“””
Nov 15th, 2014 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe that this persons claim that the above is what the UN have asked for, is a complete and utter lie.
Provably so, in fact.
Fancy that - a representative of the Argentine Government telling a bare-faced lie.
I suppose they need the practice though for when they inevitably become arrested for embezzlement and the support of Argentina becoming the meth-amphetamine capital of the world, supported by its own government officials, who make an awful lot of money from it (and ship it out to places like Sri Lanka eh TMBOA..?)
Just imagine a country like Argentina legitimately needing 1 ton of met pre-cursor, but actually importing over 10 tons of it... none of which ends up in any form of legitimate medicinal product, and which, in fact, just “vanishes” from the country “as if by magic”.
Imagine even more that the dockets for the importation of said pre-cursors are signed by top government officials, all very close to TMBOA herself.... and her “it came from nowhere” 20million $USD personal wealth growth she suddenly gained when she assumed control of her nation.
fancy that eh?
What do you expect timerman, capitanich ?
Nov 15th, 2014 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Next time please shoot both ministers you have green light
Sun newspaper, today page four [ 4 ]
Nov 15th, 2014 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIXTY, yes SIXTY
NINE PER SENT 69% [for the argies benefit..lol
or European tax payers want ARGENTINA ousted from the G20
due to economic woes and strange behaviour on the global stage a latest poll found..
not as popular as they think..lol.
These regular routine training exercises are the best deterrent against foreign banditry in free Falkland Islands waters.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Honi soit qui mal y pense,
Philippe
18 aimee
Nov 15th, 2014 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Next time please shoot both ministers you have green light”
It's a bit harsh......... but I am liking your thinking. LOLz
2 golfcronie
Remember that £84 I told you about?
“On Thursday Argentina made a formal complaint to the British embassy in Buenos Aires condemning military exercises in the South Atlantic”
See what I mean? AAAaaaaaaahhhhhh, so much win!!
“regular routine training”?
Nov 15th, 2014 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do it at your home in Europe not in Argentina.
We all know how inaccurate are these English like HMS Avenger that killed three British women back in 1982.
Clearly, it is easier for the cross-eyed Minister Capitanich, and his gang to cry, lament, and moan on about the Falkland Islands, than it is to address the real economic problems of his own making facing Argentina currently.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you are militarily impotent, it is simple to register complaints about others.nations that are better managed than you.
In psychological terms, it is a case of simple jealousy and envy.
22 Marcos Alejandro
Nov 15th, 2014 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We all know how inaccurate are these English like HMS Avenger that killed three British women back in 1982.”
Oh, that was a well documented and thoroughly investigated mistake. They were ( regrettably ) the ONLY civilian casualties of the war.
Remind me, how many civilian casualties were there in the “Dirty war”??
Please do tell me, how many of your own people did the Junta murder in the name of “democracy”???
Oh, and by the way? HMS Iron Duke was not in Argentina so you had just better.... what would “Briton” say at this point? Oh yes, you had better soddy offy
@22
Nov 15th, 2014 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are doing exercises in British territory.
Hahahahahaha!!!
Why don't you try and stop them? otherwise, keep quiet and be thankful that they are not practicing on Argentine territory!!
Bwahahahaha!
it is not only Argentina who rejects the militarization of southern South America, but also the OEA.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and regular routine training?
lol
“Britain Reviews Plans For Second War In The Falklands
Britain's military are drawing up plans for a second Falklands war following the decision by some South American countries to isolate the Falklands by banning ships from the island docking in their ports.”
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2c_1328488916#5TGpkhiZ07lkkKeZ.99
@tooooldtodieyoung
Nov 15th, 2014 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Every country has commited it's own crimes for the security of the people.. England you murdered and hanged a lot of people in us ( massacre of boston or indian massacre , south africa ) in name of what the king ? As an Argentinian i will admitt we killed innocent and as you said if we had not fought in the dirty war , communist would be in power .. just an opinion
Pd: Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die.
26 paulcedron
Nov 15th, 2014 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did read it but there is nowhere in the article that confirms your claim. The only statement that remotely relates is 'According to a senior British official: “If there is a threat preparations would be made very quickly.”
“Si vis pacem, para bellum” is a Latin adage translated as, “If you want peace, prepare for war”. The adage was adapted from a statement found in Book 3 of Latin author Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's tract De Re Militari (4th or 5th century), and a very apt quote in the circumstances.
Nov 15th, 2014 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina, or those seeking to represent it, has, on numerous occasions declared that if it were not for the UK military presence in the South Atlantic, they would have attempted to colonise the Falkland Islands.
The quickest way the Argentines can 'de-miltarise' the South Atlantic is to change their Constitution and accept the Falklands have the right to choose their own destiny.
Ola ilsen;
Nov 16th, 2014 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Conquest, thwarted by a strong defense.
Clearly Argentina would repeat the same mistake if given an inch or an opportunity. Followed by more death, destruction, and ruinous mismanagement evident today.
I have your book in my library, and recommend it to everyone here at MP.
.
Very small, inexpensive, but very important. Written at the end of the Roman Empire when it was noticed that the Roman Legion had gone into decline.
It describes almost everything an Army should have and use, including selection and training of soldiers, where to camp, how to fortify, and battle strategies. Long after the Roman Empire ceased to exist, this manual was reportedly to be found on every military leader's campaign desk in Europe in the coming centuries.
“ Si vis Pacem, para Bellum ” indeed, which is exactly what we are doing with the concept of Amazona Azul, and the coming Gripens for Brasil.
Or in modern terms, plan and prepare for PEACE, through effective firepower.
#30 ,
Nov 16th, 2014 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ola BOTINHO,
I am very impressed that you have a copy of the actual book!
:-)
“To protect ones territory one must also sow the seeds of doubt and mistrust amongst the enemy”, is another favourite.
To continue;
”So today, I want to discuss with you perhaps the most important question concerning keeping the peace. Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the painful decision that the use of military force is necessary to protect our interests or to carry out our national policy?
National power has many components, some tangible, like economic wealth, technical pre-eminence. Other components are intangible -- such as moral force, or strong national will. Military forces, when they are strong and ready and modern, are a credible -- and tangible -- addition to a nation's power.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/weinberger.html
anyway,
back to the books ... ;
I also have copies of;
'The Prince' by Machiavelli
and
'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu,
sadly, not originals, but essential reading when dealing with belligerent neighbours!
Ola Ilsen -
Nov 16th, 2014 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0I kept hearing references to that ancient book over the years, in other books, online articles, and even on an archeological dig featured on Discovery-Brasil.
I went online and found a number of inexpensive copies, as it is not hardbound and more of a soft-cover pamphlet-sized book. My copy is in Latin, with English footnotes.
Our Argentine neighbours can beat the drums, throw rocks at visitors and their cars, and yell, cry, and scream like a child throwing a tantrum, and occasionally bite Italians in the back, but militarily they know they can do nothing.
New Gripens ? Never. Sukhoi ? Never. Argentina is Defaulted and Broke.
They can barely afford a feijoada when they visit Brasil these days.
Ola BOTINHO !!
Nov 16th, 2014 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you. Most interesting. Thank you for replying.
The true reason that Argentina has a weak military is because CFK is frightened of them.
In most civilised countries the military have no political role and consider themselves merely servants of the people.
Unfortunately this is not the case in Lat Am. as I am sure you know already.
Please do recommend other books that you are interested in.
I have always felt that Bartoleme de Las Casas ' A Short Account of the Destruction of The Indies' is an important text. What do you think? Do you have a copy in Portuguese?
Some one named 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu,
Nov 16th, 2014 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0“From the standpoint of Sun Tzu’s philosophy of war, the Mahatma Ghandi is among the greatest warriors of all time . Sun Tzu said, “Attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.”
“ Gandhi defeated the most powerful empire on Earth, the British Empire, without firing a single bullet, and he was the pinnacle of excellence”
The US Army's Gandhi Strategy
by Paul Chappell
@10
Nov 16th, 2014 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ For instance, if the ARA Drummond reaches and penetrates the Falklands EEZ, isn't that a 'provocation'? ”
Imagine the humiliation if it was stopped by a T45 in Falkland waters but the FIDF ship came to and had a boarding party of FIDF sent aboard.
As the Islanders don't exist I guess they wouldn't be there but imagine Argentina's humiliation to be read the riot act by 'Kelpers.'
@22
“We all know how inaccurate are these English like HMS Avenger that killed three British women back in 1982.”
We all know that was the result of your fascist mates parking their weapons near civilian houses-but taking hostages at Goose Green and terrorising the civilians at Pebble Island didn't spare your mates from receiving a good belting did it? In fact I believe the SAS commander at Pebble Island had some problem in recalling his troops for evacuation.
@26
“Britain Reviews Plans For Second War In The Falklands”
This would be dependent on Argentine aggression-so if you don't want another malletting, don't start anything and you will be quite safe.
”The complaint also pointed out that the military deployment in the Malvinas Islands was ”a new provocation“
What is the Argentine definition of the word new??? These exercises have happened every year since 1982-if I was them I would fire the intelligence services if they have only found this out after 32 years.
So a military training exercise in British territory is “provocation”, BUT
Nov 16th, 2014 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0-LYING at the UN is not
-LYING at the OAS, UNASOR, MERCOSUR, SOREANUS, etc isn't provocation
-Economic blockade is not
-Abuse of islanders is not
Argentina is really really a joke under this government, as one of their own academics said...it can only be to win votes of the poorly educated like Marcos and Jose.
Who cares how they define a “provocation”?
Nov 16th, 2014 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0They have no business being here anyway.
So lets “provoke” them some more.
1) Hey, malvinistas, this is NOT your land,
2) ln fact there is no such place as las/los/les or even lis or lus mal……something or other.
3) your slip is showing.
4) you're a unwashed shower of stupid plonkers.
OK I, silly time is over.
Perhaps Britain should show the Argentines what true provocation is.
Nov 16th, 2014 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0For instance conducting military exercises just outside of Argentina's territorial waters. Flying regular patrols up and down the coast of Argentina, again just outside Argentina's airspace.
RN Submarines surfacing just outside Argentina's territorial waters, and then submerging again, which would set the Argentine government into a panic because they would never be sure where they were.
Perhaps the Argentines would like to see just what they would be up against if they were ever stupid enough to attempt another invasion.
Yes there is an awful lot that the British COULD do to provoke Argentina, but since they get provoked at the slightest thing, why should Britain bother spending the time, effort and money to do it.
On the other hand, just look at how Russia is trying to provoke NATO, all those flights, submarines and ships...and NATO just takes it all in its stride. After all as long as Russia stays within international waters and airspace, it's no one else's business what they do.
But in the meantime Russia is having to spend lots and lots of money (which is in short supply right now in Russia) trying to provoke NATO into some form of action, and it has got them precisely NOWHERE.
@22. You're getting very weak. It is unfortunately true that a shell from HMS Avenger struck a house in Stanley on June 11, 1982. Why don't you mention that cowardly argies were placing artillery between civilian houses? Expressly forbidden under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Or you could explain why more cowardly argies were painting the ICRC symbol of a Red Cross on the roofs of buildings that had nothing to do with casualties? Or why even more cowardly argies were painting the Red Cross on boats used for 'covert' armed actions? There are plenty of photographs so you can't deny it.
Nov 16th, 2014 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@26. I did read more, thanks. In fact, I read so much more that I found that the article was posted on February 5, 2012. Think you could manage something that isn't THREE YEARS old? If you go back a while to some comments made by your then-Minister of Underhand War, Snr Putrid Jelly, you'll find him saying that your cesspit would attack again but for the British garrison. Come on, it's only 1200 men, 4 combat aircraft and a couple of ships. But you're afraid, aren't you? Because you know that 1200 British troops and 4 British combat aircraft are enough for the two days until British reinforcements arrive. Wonder how many British subs are parked off your coast? They can sit there for months you know. And they are VERY good at surveillance. Radio transmissions, tv broadcasts, mobile phones, emails. They can get it all! Also wonder how many special forces parties have landed?
and then these imbeciles whine because south america bans falklands vessels from ports.
Nov 16th, 2014 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol
these isleters are just a bunch of llorones and pelotudos.
“South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.”
“Uruguay proposed the move to close ports to Falklands-flagged vessels. Mr Mujica said: ”We hold nothing against the UK. But we have a lot in favour of Argentina.”
Let me educate you paul, the FALKLAND flagged vessels can put the UK flag on their vessels if they so desire and would not have a problem entering your ports, so you see it makes no difference to us. If you do not believe me just look at Mercopress article 20th January 2012. Prove me wrong .
Nov 16th, 2014 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that's why the ban is for all the vessels that go to malvinas / falklands, regardless of the flag they fly.
Nov 16th, 2014 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0next step should be cutting the relations between south america and the uk.
it is insignificant from a commercial point of view, and we would be avoiding this class of malentendidos.
isolating the islets is the only way they can learn.
You obviously do not understand Maritime law, you cannot ban UK flagged ships from visiting yor ports , again prove me wrong. Yes by all means cut all relations with the UK, why do you not think your Government has not done so already? Because you get more from the UK than you give. Incidently the UK is still sending you money by the way of the EU in handouts. I think the UK should block ALL AID to the Dark Country but you are lucky I have no say in the matter. Anyway how is the International Investment going at PUTA MUERTE, Oooops PATO MUERTE Ooooops VACA MUERTE. Self sufficient in energy yet, yes the Great VACA MUERTE the saviour of Argentina
Nov 16th, 2014 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol
Nov 16th, 2014 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the uk still owes argentina +/- 3.5 thousand million dollars of 1945, for the food shipments in ww2.
add the inflation rate and it is +/- 35.000 million dollars.
but what can you expect from a pirate state like england?
so the best is pasarlo a pérdida, , cutting the relations with the uk and banning their vessels from our ports.
our waters, our ports, our decision.
@26 are we going to invade our own islands and then kick ourselves out. Anyway you can't isolate anywhere in this day and age. The Falklands has a big enough infrastructure these days to be resupplied by any means be it sea or air and there is NOTHING the Rgenweener government can do about it
Nov 16th, 2014 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@44 paulcedron
Nov 16th, 2014 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where is the invoice for these food shipments ?
@46
Nov 16th, 2014 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hyperbole, he just spouts the party line, still he will be very rich when PUTA MUERETE comes on line. Cups hand and laughs into them. Come on Paul show us the invoices and we will pay them, Oooooops it has all been eaten up by inflation, never mind, how is the Government getting on in this regards. Toodle Pip
Over the years I have had to deal professionaly with quite a wide range of nationalities and indidvuals with a perceived 'status' covering a wide spectrum of roles, political, financial, business and 'entertainment'. I have come to see national characteristics and stereotypes which have been either reinforced or educated my understanding. I have seen those nationalities who have been dangerous and devious towards the UK, but I have never come across such inexhaustive whingy,whiny, victimhood, selfish, mercurial, temper tantrum, juvenile lying and twisting of circumstances, foot stamping petulance as those expressed by Argentinians on these pages. I had no preconceptions of their national characteristics until I joined these pages, but my goodness, I have been educated and my opinions reinforced ever since.
Nov 16th, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 48 Audi Consilium,,
Nov 16th, 2014 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l agree.
The actions of a 3 year old who cannot get his/her own way.
You cannot reason with a 3 year old but you do have to give it an occasional smack on the bum.
Thats all Argentina understands-a smack on its bum.
i.e.
1) no trying to reason(ICJ).
2) just a firm “NO” & then the bum-smack(“force”)if reasoning fails.
Which when you're dealing with Argentina always does.
Then of course, they throw a tantrum.
What an immature country!
27 aimee
Nov 16th, 2014 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are some interesting points that you raise. No one can ever know whether Argentina would have been a better place if the communists had got into power. But friends and fathers and mothers would still be alive.
The Falklands war was a war that should never have happened. You can blame the ministers in Westminster who saw the warning signs and did nothing and you can blame the Junta who were so desperate to be liked that they completely underestimated the UK's response....but for whatever reason, it should not have happened.
“Pd: Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die.”
TRUE, but if the young men get rid of the old men, then the war might not happen.
I'm old enough to remember the actual events in 1982.
Nov 17th, 2014 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0There had been massive protests AGAINST the Junta in BA, at the time. And they were increasing.
Suddenly came the announcement that a naval action had begun to retake the Falkland Islands, and place them under military rule as the Malvinas.
Instantly the of the Argentine population was drawn away from the problems of the nation, and the protests ceased.
An effective diverting of attention, managed by the Junta.
2014 and here we are again. Massive problems in Argentina, and constant diversion of attention to the Falklands “issue ” again.
A Luta Continua ( Latin: The battle continues ). Different government, different corrupt actors, same fraud.
A frigate fires some shells ... and it´s a show of force?
Nov 17th, 2014 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0give-me-a-break, Timerman ...
Why don´t you use your highly well paid time to cancel the shameful deal with Iran?
Why, if we are facing an actual threat, don´t you do something to turn our armed forces into a competent instrument of defense, rather than the non existent handful of obsolete assets they are now?
or much better, why don´t you STFU?
@52
Nov 17th, 2014 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as Timerman is concerned it is a show of force, the HMS Iron Duke fired more shells than Argentina has at it's disposal.
@ 53
Nov 17th, 2014 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then I repeat myself: If that single ship is a threat to Argentina, they should take proper actions to counter that, not girly-crying.
If they don´t take proper actions (eg: proper funding and training for our armed forces) it´s because
a) They are incompetent, or
b) there is no threat at all and they just use this irrelevant training to divert attention.
I bet all my chips to b).
Also the UK can, and does, block any arms deals from NATO and/or European countries.
Nov 17th, 2014 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which is why Argentina has to ask Iran and Israel for favours..
@42 Boludo
Nov 17th, 2014 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“isolating the islets is the only way they can learn.”
Before 1982 the Islanders were isolated (though they had shipping links), for well over 100 years.
If a people have been battered by the weather, lived under hard conditions and have put up with isolation for generations it is bred into their DNA, so Argentina trying to isolate the Islanders or batter them, analogous to the South Atlantic weather (that mainly comes from the West) is UTTERLY FUTILE! The islanders have been putting up with the weather for over 100 years, either getting out of the wind, facing it, or ignoring it, so being put into isolation is likely to be laughed off-the Islanders aren't losing anything.
I saw very young islanders once hauling an engine from a landrover for their dad to fix-because they couldn't get it to a garage-no problem-their dad fixed it-no garage needed!
just because South America sulks-there has been an airlink with the UK for 32 years and in 10 years time when the Skylon is flying, the Islands will be a few hours flying time from the UK.
How can you isolate people who are used to isolation?
Think about it.
40 paulcedron
Nov 17th, 2014 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jan 10, 2012
Chile, Uruguay & Brazil will not blockade the Falklands
Yesterday, the British Foreign Secretary William Hague responded to statements made in South America about the Falkland Islands.
“I would like to update the House on the British Government’s response to statements made in South America regarding the Falkland Islands during the Christmas recess.
On 15th December the Government of Uruguay declared that they would deny access to their ports to ships flying the Falklands flag. This was followed five days later by a statement from the summit of the Mercosur group of countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members including Chile) that echoed the Uruguayan announcement.
Our response has been justifiably robust. The Uruguayan Ambassador was formally summoned to the FCO and I spoke twice to the Uruguayan Foreign Minister to underline how seriously we regard this development. Our Ambassadors in the region were instructed to call on their host governments to express our strong objection to the Mercosur statement and to assess the practical implications for vessels operating between the Falklands and South America.
We made clear that the decision to close ports to ships flying the Falklands flag has no legal basis, and that it would be unacceptable and unbecoming for any Latin American democracy to collaborate in Argentina’s attempts to economically blockade the Falkland Islands. We reiterated our strong support for the rights of the Islanders to determine their political future, and also made clear that any attempts to coerce them through economic or other pressures would be resisted by the British Government. Such actions are inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the rights of the Falkland Islands people to trade openly and without hindrance.
Whilst we do not accept that the decision to refuse entry to vessels flying the
Falklands flag has any basis in international law, our prio
@ 57 Terence Hill
Nov 17th, 2014 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please carry on.
@40
Nov 17th, 2014 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Google flags of convenience Paulie
I really wouldn't bother with paulcedron anymore. He is only interested in issulting and then running away.
Nov 18th, 2014 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would, however, be intrerested in hearing Terennce Hill finishing the point he was making.
50 toooldtodieyoung
Nov 18th, 2014 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you.
But let's be honest which country with communist ideas has progressed ?
#57 -Terrence, based on what I have read from 95% of the blog members here that appear to be one of the representatives of the Falklands or a pro Brit that they possess a huge disdain with anything remotely resembling Hispanic. Their (95%) hatred is quite embedded in their language. Even this newspaper is an affront on almost every article that it posts.
Nov 18th, 2014 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So to you I ask, what do you care if South America closes it ports? You hate us, then don't come over here. If you are soooo muccchh better than us then keep on wearing your little union jack outfits and keep bad mouthing LATAM and let the entirety of the continent show you just what solidarity means and let us close our ports.
Argentina cannot into islands
Nov 19th, 2014 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0continuance gf post #57
Nov 19th, 2014 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0our priority has been to ensure that the trade and commercial links between the Falklands and South America are not compromised by this political declaration. We have had productive and honest discussions with Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. All three countries have said that they have no intention of participating in an economic blockade of the Falkland Islands and that all Falklands-related commercial shipping will continue to enjoy access to their ports, in accordance with domestic and international law, if they are flying the Red Ensign or another national flag when docked. .....
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/chile-uruguay-brazil-will-not-blockade-the-falklands/
Terrence,
Nov 19th, 2014 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anything from the Falklandnews.wordpress is biased.
Here is an article from your benefactor and lords in the UK, the BBC (read it and cringe):
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16280613
“South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
Stanley in the Falkland Islands”
“ The Mercosur decision is the latest in a series by Latin American regional bodies designed to show solidarity with Argentina which has long claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Las Malvinas.
Britain has held them since the 1830s and says their future is not negotiable. The two countries fought a brief but bloody war over the islands in 1982.
Their dispute has flared again recently. Last year, Argentina accused the UK of breaking international rules by allowing oil drilling under a seabed off the islands, located in a vast area of potentially mineral-rich South Atlantic waters.
'Very concerned'
Britain has also refused recent requests to re-open negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands. ”
If you think for a millisecond that the Falklands have one once of impact on LATAM ports or goods then you got another thing coming. Not so much the other way around.
@65 Sallus
Nov 19th, 2014 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If you think for a millisecond that the Falklands have one once of impact on LATAM ports or goods then you got another thing coming. Not so much the other way around”
How has the ban on Falkland Island flagged ships wrecked the Falklands economy?
The Islands aren't bankrupt like Argentina-they run a surplus every year, so clearly the Falkland Flagged Ship ban is an inconvenience but does not prevent the Islanders from trading with someone else-so the Islanders do not lose.
But the ban merely means that Falkland ships cannot contribute to Argentina's economy by paying harbour fees, and the absence of cooperation from Argentina, does not stop the FI operating, it merely deprives Argentina of income from oil/fishing, wages paid to potential Argentine employees, money that could be paid to Argentina for services; this does not impact on the Falklands economy as the Islanders are the country spending the money.
Therefore the lack of Falkland Island money being spent in Argentina clearly DOES impact on LATAM ports or goods, but not clearly as much as with a larger country.
But when a country like Argentina cannot pay its debts it would be reasonable to assume that any income is useful, even from a small (but importantly, successful economy) like that of the Falklands.
66 - Bog - go ahead and do it then. Show LATAM how you were the little engine that could. 1567 adults.....big deal.....you have but a .0001% impact to countries that numbers in the 400 million range.
Nov 19th, 2014 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your argument holds no water!
Don't you worry about our debts, your little farce of the Falklands would be empty without the UK being your benefactor.
@67
Nov 19th, 2014 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many times do the uneducated of Argentina need to be told? Only the military is provided by the UK Government otherwise THE FALKLANDERS look after themselves at NO COST to the UK, Google it if you do not believe it.
65 Sallus
Nov 20th, 2014 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklandnews.wordpress may well have good reason too hold a certain bias, but regardless what they have reported is unrefuted by you and proves your claim of a South American blockade isn't true. A blockade is defined as “an act of war directed to the exercise of economic pressure on an adversary” according to An Analysis of the Legality of Maritime Blockade in the Context of Twenty-First Century
Humanitarian Law By Phillip Jeffrey Drew. So my interest in the dispute is purely from the view point of international law. One of the parties may behave as badly or immaturely or unfairly as they wish. But when they transgress international law, then I'm going to draw attention to the fact. Incidentally, the article you posted predates the one I posted so I have given you the most recent position of the parties.
@65 Sallus
Nov 20th, 2014 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Back when you were pretending to be in the United States Air Force, I helpfully provided you with this link, in which Benino Belli, head of the South American department in the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explains that the flag ban is a purely symbolic measure with no practical consequence.
veja.abril.com.br/noticia/mundo/malvinas-apoio-brasileiro-a-argentina-e-antigo-diz-governo
But never mind, why worry what Brazil says? Next time you take the bus or the train or whatever, you will see a sign telling you the Falklands are Argentine. That must be very reassuring.
70 Hans, I sorely tire of you Brits assigning me misnomers: Stevie, Hepatia, Farce and this last one...when you are against the ropes, stick to the guns would you. From what I can see, your portugues is about as negligent as your Spanish. Here is a partial translation of you sent:
Nov 20th, 2014 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A posição do Brasil, numa linguagem padrão no campo internacional, é de respaldo aos legítimos direitos da Argentina na disputa de soberania em relação às Ilhas Malvinas. Essa posição de respaldo é tradicional e histórica, não é recente. Ela vem desde que os ingleses tomaram as ilhas, em 1833.”
“Brazil's position in a default language in the international field , is backing the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute regarding the Malvinas Islands . This position is supported by traditional and historical , is not new. It comes from the British took the islands in 1833 .”
Seems as though Brazil through and through backs Argentina in the big scheme of things. Try again. Your article.
71 Sallus
Nov 20th, 2014 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Brazil's position in a default language in the international field, is backing the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute regarding the Malvinas Islands .“ Says it all in diplomatic terms since Argentina cannot point to one facet of international law that supports her unlawful claim. So Brazil is in the the unique position of blowing both hot and cold on the issue, and in effect doing nothing. At the best Brazil is reduced to cheer-leader status which carries no legal weight. If you want to know what opinions are legally admissible they would be the ones from 1833 and the immediate aftermath. Where there was silence that is in the UK's favour. Therefore, under international law UK sovereignty = The world minus Argentina thus: ”..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker.Author And Legal Practitioner
http://books.google.com.br/books...
@71
Nov 20th, 2014 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, Sallus, my bad. I should have realised that as a rabid Malvinista you would have difficulty distinguishing between ritual declarations of support, and practical measures of support. Let me help you out. The key passages you should be looking for are :
“Em que se baseou a decisão de aprovar o bloqueio de navios com bandeira das Malvinas nos portos do Mercosul? Primeiro, a linguagem ”bloqueio“ não está correta. Não existe bloqueio às embarcações. O que existe é a não aceitação de uma bandeira. Tanto que o navio não é o alvo da medida. Não é a atividade econômica que ele exerce, tampouco o fato de ele estar indo e voltando das Malvinas ... Tanto que se o mesmo barco colocar uma bandeira que não é das Malvinas ele terá acesso aos portos de toda região sem nenhum problema. Se fosse bloqueio, fecharíamos os portos a todas as embarcações vindas das Malvinas, e não é o caso.”
Or in short, the flag ban is a purely symbolic measure which does nt aim to interfere with any economic activity. Later, we find :
“Nós respeitamos a posição britânica, eles respeitam a nossa, e mantemos relações corretas, que vêm se fortalecendo dentro dos pontos que temos em comum. Não temos de concordar em tudo com os outros países para termos excelentes relações.”
Or in short, Brazil has excellent friendly relations with the UK which it wishes to maintain.
If it were me, I'd be rather disappointed that there is nothing remotely resembling this Latin America trade embargo you're salivating over, which will supposedly force the dastardly Brits to impose on the Falklands the Argentinian colonial regime which they already fought a war a reject. What you get instead is a nice piece of pragmatic diplomacy from Brazil. Argentina could learn a thing or two there, though nobody really expects you to.
Stevie Sallus.
Nov 20th, 2014 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil is actually being very cautious by supporting any 'legitimate' rights. Argentina doesn't having any legitimate rights, therefore Brazil is playing you.
Do you get it yet?
Like all those countries that support 'talks'. Doesn't mean anything. It's just a diplomatic nicety, to say something, yet say nothing.
In realpolitik Argentina is isolated on the 'Malvinas' claims.
Name me one country that would assist you in a war against the Falklands. One country that would be willing to put their own lives at risk?
Hmmmm....
Just one country?
@67 Sallus
Nov 21st, 2014 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your argument holds no water!”
Yes it does-ask Chile how many £millions trade they get from the Falklands-and remember the Islanders pay their way unlike Argentina, who cannot even pay their debts.
The trade that Chile and Uruguay get from the Falklands has been lost by Argentina, and there are Chilean workers in the Islands earning money at the expense of Argentine workers-mind you I guess the Chilean workers don't need siestas.
“your little farce of the Falklands would be empty without the UK being your benefactor.”
As it is Argentina that receives aid from the UK and not the Falkland Islands (they earn their own money without the assistance of the UK), what will Argentina do when the UK stops sending aid there?
I wish that the UK would be a benefactor to the Islands, in fact I think that all aid money sent by the UK to an ungrateful Argentina, should be re-routed to fund a mega deep water port-instead the Islanders are funding this themselves.
Because Argentina begs money from others all the time, I guess you think the Falkland Islander are the same-sorry to disappoint you-the islanders pay their way, while Argentina begs on its hands and knees to the world-then runs off with the money.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!