Argentina's President demands Britain return the Falklands

Really, you expect the British government to sent British people to die for some Palestinians. Sorry but it's not going to happen, we just don't care about you enough. However didn't a number of Arab countries try and take Israel back, weren't those armies trained and equipped by Britain?

The UK people care about the Falklands, I am care about the Falklanders, so the government does. We will not abandon them.

 

The Brits will save their own skins. They did in Palestine, they will in the Falklands. An opinion, of course, but an opinion based upon sound reasoning.

 

You could try and do that, but you would face a highly trained insurgency.

 

It's based on no reasoning what so ever, the British public didn't care about Palestine. They do care about the Falklands.

 

Er.....no.

Only until their redtops tell them not to bother. The message will be delivered somewhere between pictures of tits and footballers' wage demands.

The Malvinas Islanders will be better off as Argentinians. The pendulum is in swing.

 

Moon . I beg to differ, and hope no British government would ever abandon the people of the Falklands , no matter how tough it gets.
RE: Palestine , I see no reason to defend British Govt's policies at that, but are well aware
and bear in mind the fact that Bfritish Police + soldiers was being fired on by both sides during that conflict. I agree their was promises made to both sides by different British Govt officals which finally made the situation much worse. However , I cant see how the British govt could've acted differently and pleased/satisfied BOTH sides ?

Can you ?


---

 

Really ? Why do you think so and they dont ?

;;;

 

Yes. They could have honoured their Mandate, not abandoned it. They didn't even have the guts to vote on Resolution 181. Worse was yet to come. Resolution 242 was a punt. They decided to kick the can until the Palestinians were scattered or dead. That's the nature of colonialists in retreat.

 

What on earth are 'the Brits'? The vast majority here don't give a twopennhy whatsit for anything that happens abroad, unfortunately, though they do get worked up about some issues, like Ireland and (actually) Palestine, more often than do most peoples. The 'British' were, originally, my own small nation, whom the foreigners call 'Welsh' (foreigners), and I am indeed sorry if I give so sinister an impression!

 

South America is in the ascendant . The UK is a spent force and in desperate straits. It's overlord, the US of AIPAC, will soon enough be going through dramatic changes itself. Its forthcoming demographic changes will create greater ties with South America and Latinos in general. It will abandon its mother country without a sideways glance. Sensible Falklanders, perhaps the new generation, will see that.

 

Thank gawd - the British Govt at the time chose to send most of Europe's Jewish refugees to Sth Africa - Canada- Australia etc. we couldnt have coped with them.

May I also mention that before Oearl Harbour our american fence sitting friends - wasnt all that keen in taking in Jews either - Not the pennyless Jews just the wealthy Jews.
What was the name of the ship, full of Jewish refugees the , American government
wouldnt allow to enter a US harbour ? Was it s.s. St Louis ?

...

 

What forthcoming demographic changes?

 

I agree, if they feel so British, it would be cheaper for the British taxpayer to have them re-settled and give them half a million quid each then it would be to carry on with this farce. I also agree this is being played out to the detriment of real politics.The Argentines, just like their British predecessors, are using the Falklands to capitalize on declining domestic popularity ratings. If there is any debate as to whether the British now as previously have ever intended to settle this issue amicably through negotiation, then Thatcher's repudiation of the Peruvian Peace Plan ought to end all doubt.

 

AFAI can tell - Brazil -at this time is doing fine - the same can't be said for Argentina or the rest of that continent. But - I might be wrong

- I would'nt write UK off - so easily - our close neighbours in Europe have as often as not made that mistake of underestimating our people ----- to their cost. .

I've no fears about our nations capacity. inspite of recent + present lot of plonkers in Westminster.


...

 

The list of past ' plonkers ' is long and you've only got more ' plonkers ' in the wings. Between them they have sold you out and turned the country into a service industry for America . You don't even step up to the crease anymore. You step up to the plate

 

Dear Moon - You are of course entitled to your opinion - but its only an opinion - NOt a fact, izzit ?

Near my bedtime - wishing you _ yours a very Happy New Year - Good Health.

G'nite. cheers,

 

They don't have to "conquer" American border states. They only have to immigrate.

For better or worse, America is becoming more Hispanic. This involves both legal and illegal immigration.

 

While it is true that Brazil and many other South American countries are on the rise economically (including Argentina), most people would probably find the quality of life better in the UK over that of Brazil and Argentina.

Current economic trends will eventually allow Europe and South America to "meet in the middle", but that's a few decades off. It will take at least another 20 to 30 years.

 

Few points to make here. In the first place, Thatcher, a sort of female Voldermort, she did not take us into that conflict, because she really gave a crap about 14 islanders, in a place with more sheep than people. Heck, she did not give a stuff about the British people here, why would she care about these people, be honest?

This was back in the days when the nature of the public here was probably more receptive to a conflict. Not now. Too cynical and on to it now, imo.

Personally, I do not think it is right for a nation to 'own' land, that is not even on their continent, and insist that on this bit of land, British rules apply. I could not defend that were it anyone else, so I cannot defend it here. I know it would be going against the apparent wishes of those 14 islanders, were they to be handed over to Argentinian rule, but geographically, it would seem the right thing to do. It may not be so bad for the islanders, Argentina is a lovely country, I believe. But if they really want to be British, then by all means, book a little plane, I am sure we can accomodate them, maybe in the Highlands. That way they get the best of all worlds.

All that being said, when you consider it, it was certainly an impressive show of strength, by Britian, to go all that way, and comfortably defeat them, on their own back yard. Albeit not in maybe the top ten nations most able to fight, you have to think that Argentina were not unable, and were far more able than Hamas or Hezbollah, or Grenada.

Thinking back, Thatcher was as demented as Netenyhua really, actually, he would probably have hid from her. For one thing, there was the whole Belgrano thing, a bit of controversy there, as Britian sank one of their vessels that was not in the zone that they could not, and I believe it may have been heading the other way, at the time. Also, Thatcher got on the phone to France, and told them that unless they gave us the codes for Argentina's missiles, she would consider launching a nuke!

She was most likely bluffing, but it is amazing, when you reflect on that. France obviously relented. Reagan(a close friend of Thatcher), he begged her not to go ahead with the operation, and when it was too late, he begged Britian not to humiliate Argentina entirely.

Of course, back then our armed forces was larger in number, not sure we could do such a thing now. Probably, if we needed to, we could soon deactivate the conditions, that is to say, it would not take that much time and effort to get to that level again, if we really wanted to, or needed to.

For all that Americans try to run us down, and pretend that they won both wars, off forums, I have had many American soldiers, past and present, admit to me that among the best they have worked with, were British. Further, British special forces train other special forces, around the world, and not for no reason.

 

It makes no odds if we appear to have cut back on this or that.

For one thing, it merely means the money is spent on more modern methods, perhaps, methods which reflect the 21st century.

For another thing, confllicts do not happen overnight, does not work that way. Can take a decade or so to get there. Thus, you have plenty of time to build up the parts you need to.

For another thing, Britian is an island itself, and just as the terrain of Afghanistan, in it's own way, lends itself to an advantage for them, so too does the fact we are an island.

We are one of only two countries in Europe, France being the other, who have a substantial nuke arsenal.

Take Germany today. Some say an economic power, and that is true to a point.

But when I was asked who I thought would win a conflict between the two today, I had to laugh, because.

1. Britain spends $66 billion on its armed forces, Germany spends $40 billion. This means Britain has more tanks, ships, air craft & posses air craft carriers.

2. Britain is a nuclear power, Germany is not.

3. Britain has troops experienced in modern warfare, Germany doesn't.

4. Britain has the second largest weapons manufacturer in the world: BAE.

Lets take note of the last time the two fought, World War 2: Germany had being preparing for war for many years prior to entering WW2,Britain hadn't. A fully armed Germany couldn't invade a semi-prepared Britain. So how do you a think a less prepared Germany would fair against a more prepared Britain?

Even with no nukes Britain has far superior forces. We have the best tanks in the world - the Challenger II. Germany's prize air craft - the Eurofighter is built by BAE, we already have far more Eurofighters than Germany does, plus we have the blueprints to build more. Britain currently has the second most air craft carriers in the world, plus two in development. Britains SA80 A2 is superior to Germany's HK G36. Plus, as I already mentioned; Britain has troops with experience of modern warfare.

Based on all this what does Germany have that is superior to Britain? Nothing. I'm not being biased, everything I have listed is pure 100% fact.

 

The UK doesn't own the land or the waters around the Falklands, the Falklanders do. We are defending their right of self-determination under international law, so we have a small base their for defending the islands, air space and waters, it costs about £70 million a year. This is what people fail to understand, the Falklanders are under our protection, not our rule.

Thatcher was a bad PM when it comes to foreign policy, and the Falklands war would never have happened if she had acted sooner. It was down to our military personel at the time who got the job done, not Thatcher. In real terms the UK is in a better position now to fight a long range overseas war than it was in 1982. The problem is we need carriers, we don't have any, that's the only disadvantage we have from 1982. Now we have purpose build landing ships and helicopter carriers, enough for 2,000 troops and at a push maybe 2,500.

 

That's what the Israeli settlers on the West Bank say too.

 

Good point. Anyway I have an idea, make the islanders an offer to change their citizenship. A million dollars each, see how long they choose to remain citizens of the Empire then.

 

Very true.

Actually, it was only really after the assasination of JFK and then the 'Six Day War', that suddenly, there was this odd obsession, in the US, with a foreign people, in a foreign land, that spoke a foreign tongue, and whose religion was not their religion.

Make what you will of that, but I believe time lines are key, it is not just that a thing happens, it is the time span that is also important.

Indeed, it was not well into the late 70's that even the term 'holocaust' came into common parlance. It simply was not used before, outside of some academics in the 60's.

Certainly, prior to WW2, Jews from Eastern Europe were not giving the almost god like status that they have today in the US, and it was more than possible for an American to criticise, or not even like Jews, if they wished. The US media was not full of stories and reports ,that were all Jew friendly, or even about anything to do with Jews.

There were not the staggering numbers of Jews in high office, that you have only seen increase, under Obama, from when Dubya was in charge, even.

Industrialists like Ford, they were able to give their views, without fear of being smeared, slandered, threatened, or worse. And his views were by no means uncommon for the day. It is really sad and cringeworthy when a man like Netenyahu goes to the US, and gets 29 standing ovations, four more than the US President.

It is really sad when the US President mentions to Israel about returning to what would be the legal pre 67 borders, and Netenyah flies over, to tell the freaking President of what is meant to be a SUPERPOWER that no, he is not going to listen.

It is pathetic to watch the two US Pres candidates, last year, each beg and plead, to show which one could pledge most allegiance...to Israel.

These are just brief examples, and yet, even if I fleshed them out, and gave 1,000 more, NOTHING would be enough for many of these shabbot goy to see that, yes, they have been subverted, and it is damaging.

As I keep saying, any US President or candidate, can make and break ANY promise, or lots of them, to the US people.

But he will never break one to the Jews/Israel. Ever. Now, if that is not telling you something, short of changing the US flag for one that says 'Yes, okay, we have subverted you - signed The Jews', I am really not sure what it would take.

Not so many decades ago, the very people that the Americans would not have wanted to give high office to, E European Jews, have dominion over it.

Jack

 

The UN wanted to negotiate a deal.

Thatcher was a boorish type though, and said she had not taken a fleet all the way over there, just to hand the destiny of the islands, over to a committee.