MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Falklands' defense, number one priority whatever the Brexit outcome”
The officer in charge of the United Kingdom military in the Falklands has told Forces News that defense of the Islands is the “number one” priority. Brigadier Nick Sawyer, Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands said Brexit will not compromise the defense of the British Overseas Territory, whatever the outcome of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTWIMC...
Jun 15th, 2019 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse -1Leaving aside the fact that an Engrish military commander has no political power nor legal mandate to give political assurances against ***“Whatever Happens”***...nor guarantee ***“Absolute Dependency”*** to nobody........................, I..., as a humble Patagonian..., with some knowledge about windblown places..., would recommend the implementation of a 50% conscription gender quota to facilitate the above mentioned objectives of ***“ Further integration with the local community”***..., ***“ Finding new ways for the communities to work together”*** and ***“New recruits looking to settle in the Falklands”***...
Don't you Think..., Chays...?
Falklands' DEFENCE (not with an 's').
Jun 15th, 2019 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. RedBaron...
Jun 15th, 2019 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse -1Sooooo...
Would you agree that some more uniformed Engrish chicks who can spell “DEFENCE” the proper Blighty way..., could be an innovative solution to an acient problem afflictng them wndbown Islands...?
“Foreseeable future”. How many years or weeks does that cover in UK politics?
Jun 15th, 2019 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0If I’d said Boris Johnson would be PM of the UK a couple of years ago I would have been laughed at.
”Foreseeable future”. How many years..., months or weeks does that cover before Scottish independence..., ny wee Scottish gun totting roustabout...?
Jun 15th, 2019 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“If I’d said Boris Johnson would be PM of the UK a couple of years ago I would have been laughed at.”
Jun 15th, 2019 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Hardly. He was a front runner in 2016 before Gove withdrew his support. Boris's Prime Ministerial ambitions were the reason he campaigned for leave in the first place.
Not really - the Mercopress journalists need to use British spelling (also 'countries government' should be country's government) and phrasing when discussing the Falklands rather than US versions.
Jun 15th, 2019 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your earlier comments, I read the article and comments of Nick Sawyer and you may have misunderstood what he was saying. He was commenting about his military assignment and, therefore, his orders and command responsibility.
He was not making a political statement but stating that he has a duty to uphold the current peaceful status of the Islanders under a British patriarchy (as opposed to any foreign hostile change or take-over).
Mr. RedBaron...
Jun 15th, 2019 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I read the above article too and..., as I pointed above..., Cmdr. Sawyer's futuristic reassuring political comments and choice of words..., go way beyond his military assignment..., his military orders and his military command responsibility...
By the way..., even at my high age..., I do think that ~1,000 young Engrish lasses pub crawling the streets of Puerto Estanley would... quite inevitably..., “further integration with the local community”...
Mr Think, despite your many years of experience in Angloargentine matters you seem to overlook one important and fundamental fact. The British armed forces don't do politics. They carry out orders from the government. It's not like in Argentina where, from time to time, your armed forces decide to usurp the legitimate elected government and take over themselves. That's why the Falklanders are so wary of los Argentinos !
Jun 15th, 2019 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Mr. Border Rover...
Jun 15th, 2019 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Indeed..., the British Armed Farces don't do politics. They carry out orders from the government....
That what's makes them lesser Armed Farces (and better forces) than the Argentinean Armed Farces....
Do you follow my drift...?
That's why I am so negatively commenting about the Engrish ging political declarations above...
He..., with the grandiloquent verbosity he exhibits in this article..., is dangerously approaching the low level of a typical Argentinean general...
Capisce...
Sorry Mr Think,
Jun 15th, 2019 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't really understand why you are so worked up by the Brigadier's comments. Seem entirely reasonable to me, exactly what you would expect a professional soldier to say. We don't have “Armed Farces”. Many years ago I had a series of exchanges with some of your chaps at the Escuela Superior Tecnica, now they were certainly fully paid up members of the Armed Farces, lots of gold braid, very shiny boots,not terribly bright but keen to look the part.
Sorry Mr. Rover,
Jun 15th, 2019 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I don't really understand why you are so worked up by my textual reading of the Brigadier's comments.... Seem entirely political to me..., exactly what you would expect a professional politician to say.
We will have to agree to disagree on the next one...
Almost every country in the world has “Armed Farces”...
I am happy it was so easy for you to spot it with the Argentinean ones...
But..................., as that auld socialist sandnigga said some 2, 000 years ago...:
***“ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye...?”***
Think: ”...lesser Armed Farces (and better forces) than the Argentinean Armed Farces....”. Really? Do you really believe that? Truthfully? I doubt you've ever served in your armed services, but I can assure you that, as always, you are somewhat wide of the mark.
Jun 16th, 2019 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. FitzRoy
Jun 16th, 2019 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse -2Juppppp..., truthfully..., I really believe that..., don't you...???
Unless..., of course... my defective daedalian Engrish had you confused ...
The Malvinas / Falklands territorial dispute really shows us what our problem in the world is. Once we have guns weapons and a powerful army, our nature's arrogant pride and avarice for competition disguises itself with dignified honor and purpose, pushes justice fairness and truth aside and starts lying about our true intentions and motivations. Everything about the Falkland Islands has to do with making War, British Fascist Nationalism and the Territorial Dispute that caused them here, in order to validate and give worth to the Islander's presence and occupation of the islands.
Jun 16th, 2019 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Islanders never had any form of country-hood celebration before they invented “Liberation Day” after 1983. Basically the Islanders were brought by G.Britain to the islands to try and shut up the Argentine protest after first taking the islands from that country in 1833, 11 years before the islander's arrival. Then after 150 years of deceitful manipulative filibustering, Britain immediately sought war in 1982 rather than negotiations over the Argentine military occupation's passive repossession of the islands; in order to promote propaganda and the resentment necessary to install an artificial patriotism based on antagonism against instead the Argentine people.
Since they had never had any sovereign sense of self before, the Argentine territorial dispute against G.Britain (not against them) became that for them 140 years after never having cared to recognized it. That's really what “Liberation Day” is, although that is not how the Islanders were groomed to understand it. They rather insult the Argentine people who had never sought nor wanted war against Britain nor had any animosity towards the islanders, just so that they can feel like they belong on this British overseas disputed territory.
Who is this dickhead, a clone of Stink? They cant even run a power grid! Reminds one that Argieland is in reality still in the 3rd world.. What Falkland Islander would want to go back to the C19th?
Jun 16th, 2019 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Rule Britania!
Trimonde: Perhaps you can explain away the invasion? You version of history is decidedly warped.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse -1Why did Britain have a need for a reason to shut 'Argentina' up after 1833? Buenos Aires had been trespassing. Warned twice, in writing, in 1829 and 1832. BA did not listen. Argentina was not involved. Perhaps you should do some more research Trimonde?
Jun 17th, 2019 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Perhaps this?
Número 30: 30º Sesion ordinaria del 29 de Julio de 1882
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/senadoargentina-sesion18820729.pdf
Modern Argentina's claims are entirely spurious.
“The Malvinas / Falklands territorial dispute really shows us what our problem in the world is” You don't have a legal leg to stand on. https://en.mercopress.com/2019/06/11/argentina-recalls-the-day-of-affirmation-of-its-rights-over-the-south-atlantic-islands/comments#comment501563
Jun 17th, 2019 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@R.Lorton
Jun 17th, 2019 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have always spoken from your ostentatious egocentric nationalistically biased fantasy world Roger Lorton. Why would Mariano Moreno present a protest in London on behalf of the United Provinces in 1833 about a territory included as part of the Buenos Aires administration of the La Plata Vice Royalty since 1776, if Argentina had been “trespassing” ??? LOL LOL LOL ... Such an old world child's mind you got sometimes.
-
@Fitz Roy. Do you mean the 1982 invasion? The Junta acting alone, against what would have been the people's and the Congress better judgement took back the Islands for Argentina, It removed its Governor and sent him back to London, as we had officially taken possession of the Islands in 1820, seeing that there was no government or established owner to the Islands nor any settlers. So Argentina made good on continuing on the Islands Inclusion in its Viceroyalty territory since 1776. Britain tried briefly to settle the Islands but left after a confrontation with Spain. Spain stayed on until 1811. Argentina was its defacto administrating government as it went through the various phases of transformation from Spanish Empire to Independent Republic. Britain did not argue the Islands with Argentina, it just came and bullied our Governor off the islands at gun point backed by two warships. Thus starting the conflict in 1833. We responded 150 years later as direct consequence to that event. So it was not an “invasion” as Britain want's the world to think, and it was not against the Islanders. Instead it has to do solely with an unsettled score with G.Britain only to do what that event 187 years ago. Britain however lies and non challantly tries to paint a different narrative to the world, to attempt forging through the public's education a different reality. This is its strategy. To pretend everywhere it does not exist as a dispute except in those places it needs to make mention of it, where of course then it presents its false story-line.
Trimonde
Jun 18th, 2019 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1“Britain did not argue the Islands with Argentina” Yes they did as RL stated, they sent two diplomatic notes. Which unilaterally acting Argentina ignored, so the UK acted likewise, twice, very successfully.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!