Falklands Diplomacy

I dont understand why Argentinians should feel shame for the war in '82? I think their leaders were mistaken, and they led their country poorly, but for the country as a whole there was no shame. The courage and effectiveness of the air services during the campaign was a surprise to the English in that war. and anyone who knows just how tough the battle at Goose Green really was would never saythe Argentiniians had anythng to be ashamed about.
 
Parsifal you are right. The SHAME is the long history of "disappearances" that was going on. This current saber rattle is just a diversion by a weak government that clearly thinks the people are getting restless. Well - maybe the people should get restless.

MM
 
Last edited:
Parsifal
Excellent post
 
CharlesBronson said:
I dont know in what kind of bolivian slum you live but trying to undermine our country in a foreing forum seem to me like the most low and inexcusable behavior ever.

Im my province the hospital works, my pather father is a retired teacher, technical and one of the most succesful and respected members of the neirgbourhood.

No unit was ever deployed to the islands with bolt action Mausers in 1982, so stop wiriting lies and stop playing being argentine cuz you arent, the thing you are is a ****ing troll.
Click to expand...

CB, that was uncalled for. You are banned for 7 days. Insult a member in those terms again and I'll make it permanent.
 
I think he reacted badly to the inaccuracies and national slurs impied in his compatriots previous post. Doesnt excuse or justify CBs reaction however.

So what is the latest development in this matter. I have not heard anything for a week or more
 
Any new information on this story ?


Wheels
 
Nothing is going to happen because the Argentinians have no effective means of making anything happen. Nor do they have a legal leg to stand. Their sovereignty claim is absurdly weak, both in historical terms, and demographically.

Much sound and fury signifying nothing...

JL
 
parsifal said:
I think he reacted badly to the inaccuracies and national slurs impied in his compatriots previous post. Doesnt excuse or justify CBs reaction however.

So what is the latest development in this matter. I have not heard anything for a week or more
Click to expand...

I agree with ya'. He reacted to the post on the heavy side. But, CB usually has very level headed posts. It's kinda tough to react to a family quarrell (both are Argentinian and the details of a war that is still very much in living memory are painful). I agree wiith the ban (and it is a hard call) but the two of them should deal with this off the board. CB isn't a bad guy and a good poster on the board.

It's just something we oughta keep in the back of our minds.

As for the Argie/Brit dispute, think it's going to take some time.
 
Butters said:
Nothing is going to happen because the Argentinians have no effective means of making anything happen. Nor do they have a legal leg to stand. Their sovereignty claim is absurdly weak, both in historical terms, and demographically.

Much sound and fury signifying nothing...

JL
Click to expand...

Agree with the military aspect of it. Historical, dunno. Demographically, no chance. Logistacally and geographically, they have something.

It would probably work out best for all if some agreement is made to share the profits. Otherwise, the long term ramificaitions of the situation are not good. With this situations as well as others that may not be on our radar.
 
A journalist's viewpoint...

The Special Relationship is now starting to seem very one-sided
by Con Coughlin
The Daily Telegraph 6th March 2010

Hilary Clinton's intervention over the Falklands shows that US will side with Argentina

In times of trouble, it is always reassuring to think that we can count on Washington's support to get us out of a fix. OK, so the Americans have an irritating habit of turning up late and then claiming all the glory, as was the case in the two world wars. But even today, in the killing fields of southern Afghanistan, the arrival of 30,000 US Marines three years ago after British troops first deployed to the region has immeasurably improved our chances of defeating the Taliban, as I discovered during my visit to Camp Bastion last week.

It is mainly to guarantee American support for our freedoms that, alone among the major European powers, Britain has little hesitation in signing up to fight America's wars. In the past decade, more than 500 of our personnel have sacrificed their lives and thousands more suffered serious injuries, in wars that were primarily of Washington's making. From the moment Tony Blair declared that we would stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with Washington in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, Britain has committed its troops to places where other European powers fear to tread.

In late 2001, the role played by British special forces was central to the success of the campaign against the Taliban. Two years later, an entire British division was committed to the war against Saddam Hussein. Today, Britain is the only European power prepared to contribute significant numbers of combat troops to what is supposed to be a NATO-led campaign to bring stability to the region.

The argument advanced by successive British governments to justify this commitment is that in return for supporting the US in its hour of need, we can expect the same in return: that if Canary Wharf and Whitehall had been attacked by airliners commandeered by al-Q'aeda, instead of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, Washington would have rushed to our support. Yet after this week's unwelcome and unnecessary intervention by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, in the latest spat over the Falkland Islands, one begins to wonder just how committed the Americans would be if Britain were to find itself seriously threatened. Would Washington be prepared to commit its military might to defend our interests or would it simply confine its response to firing a few barrages of cruise missiles?

It was not that long ago that Washington was viscerally opposed to protecting any of Britain's interests. The formation of the League of Nations at the end of WWI, with its commitment to guaranteeing the political and territorial independence of all states, was Woodrow Wilson's way of undermining the British Empire, while Britain's status as a world power to rival America finally ended with the humiliation of Suez. Relations between the two countries have since improved - only as long as everyone accepts that it is Washington, not London, that calls the shots.

Even then, there have been occasions when it was unclear that Washington's support was guaranteed. Although Margaret Thatcher eventually won Ronald Reagan's support for Britain's liberation of the Falkland Islands in 1982, the Americans were at first reluctant to back a campaign that had echoes of past imperial adventures and which they feared might damage their own interests in Latin America. As John Nott, the Defence Secretary at the time wrote, the Americans 'were very, very far from being on our side'.

Those sentiments were much in evidence this week, when Mrs Clinton took it upon herself to break off from a five-day tour of Latin America to try to ease the tensions that have once more arisen between Buenos Aires and London, this time over drilling rights in the South Atlantic. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the Argentinian President and her husband (and predecessor) Nestor, are known as the Clintons of South America, because of their love of the high life and their Left-leaning agenda. While Mrs Clinton was no doubt made to feel very much at home in such a convivial environment, that does not excuse her support for Mrs Kirchner's suggestion that the Falklands issue be referred to the UN's decolonisation committee.

This might be a legitimate course of action if the overwhelming majority of Falkland Islanders had decided that they no longer wanted to be British but this is not the case. The inhabitants are immensely proud of their British heritage and have no desire to become Argentine citizens.

It has been suggested that the reason the Obama administration is proving reluctant to back Britain's case is anger at our disclosure of sensitive intelligence files relating to the former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohammed and the release last year of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, who continues to defy the predictions of Scottish physicians that he had only months to live.

But I believe that this explanation is a red herring. A more likely explanation is that President Obama and his advisors find it incomprehensible that, in the 21st century, Britain continues to maintain its sovereignty over a remote group of islands that lie thousands of miles from its shores. And I fear that far from supporting their traditional ally, they will lend their support to any initiative that brings British influence in the South Atlantic to an end.
 
Last edited:
Hello guys, nice to nice you again.

I am sorry Matt if I overreacted, but I have my serious doubts about the user "shadows81" I am pretty sure he is not argentine not even wrnting from Argentina. If you had some tool to do IP search you should comfirm that.

Now, this topic definately is not my favorite but since I been thrown into because other member I think I could comment 2 or 3 things.

I usually read some online UK newspaper, mostly to know about rugby and football scores, in this last days I was amazed by the level of histeria and if you allow me stupidity of some journalist.

If the British army has some decent intelligency ( and probably it has) they should no that there is no plans for war or any kind of agression towards the islands from here so I dont really understand the behavior of some "especialist".

I should clarify that with I am probably in the other corner both ideologycally and politically with Fernandez-Kirchner and I dont like a bit this kind of "blockade" wich is trying to test on british shipping, this in agaisnt the argentine tradition of being an friendly and open country.

However as an argentine citizen I want to express my surprize, dis gust and repulsion after reading in the Telegraph and Daily News things like " Old plastic face" and " The Botox Evita", those kind of insults not only does not help any british or falklander cause in Argentina but also are completely unworthy for a source of information wich want to call himself "serious" and "reliable".
 
<yawn> Clinton stages a patently transparent show to get the US and Kirchner a needed popularity boost among the resentful Latin Americans, the Brit gov plays its role and makes the obligatory squawks of wounded indignation, and everything carries on exactly as before...

Realpolitik soap opera 'intervention' :rolleyes:

JL
 
Last edited:
welcome back Charles.
the newspapers seem to be making more of this story just to sell copies, seems to have disapeared from the tv news over the last few days !
 
CharlesBronson said:
If you had some tool to do IP search you should comfirm that.
Click to expand...

Actually we do have that capability, and it checks out. Just because someone is critical of their country does not make them any less of a countryman or a fake. NO country is perfect and that includes Argentina.

I am an American and I am very vocal and critical of my country and its politics. Does that make me less of an American? No it makes me a realist...
 
I don't expect my views on the following to be popular here :-) but, I personally think that the "shut down" policy on political topics and posters that has taken hold on this site has been unfortunate (chilling). There are political topics that should be aired - climate change/carbon credits/cap and trade being the first of several that come to mind.

We live in a time where science and facts are being devalued - even as we speak it goes on. When science - both the hard data and the scientific method - no longer can be counted on, then mankind is adrift - and PC :-) - moving backwards instead of progressing forward.

This site more than most on the internet has a well understood code of engagement. The fact that the glue behind that code is MILITARY AIRCRAFT - products of facts and science - makes this society possible and civilized. We all love planes. - whatever else our differences.

So - when one (unknown) guy posts about the blight in his country and a (well known) member defends his country in reply, using rather 'colorful language' in the process. Surely that kind of thing is to be expected, it's healthy.

I agree that is possible for threads to go wildly spinning off into the depths ..... but then it's the Mods job to KILL the thread.
Not the individuals. Freedom to disagree is more important than freedom of speech.

So - welcome back Charles Bronson :-) Now that you're 'communicado' once more, I would greatly appreciate answers to the following questions which the incident raised in my mind :-)

(1) Is the term "Bolivian slum" a generally accepted, commonly-used insult in Argentina? or did you invent the insult for the poster you suspect of being a Troll?

(2) Why Bolivia? Is Bolivia a kinda joke in S.America, or in Argentina, the way regions of the USA and Canada are the butt of jokes (unfairly so, but that's life, eh?)? What did Bolivia ever do to you, or Argentina, or both :-) ?

When I read your post those questions leaped out at me .... "hey, what's with Bolivia". Whereas, having read many of your posts and looked at attachments you provide, I knew you are (1) a proud Argentine, and (2) would be really pissed that a countryman (?) would be critical in an international forum. (Keep the dirty laundry at home)

But why "a Bolivian" slum? Are there slums in Argentina? Are the slums in Bolivia worse than the slums in Argentina?

Charles - these are serious questions that we/I need answers to. Please explain :-)

MM
Proud Canadian
 
Actually we do have that capability, and it checks out. Just because someone is critical of their country does not make them any less of a countryman or a fake. NO country is perfect and that includes Argentina.

I am an American and I am very vocal and critical of my country and its politics. Does that make me less of an American? No it makes me a realist...
Click to expand...

Excuse me but what means " it Check out", was I right or wrong. NO country is perfect and that includes Argentina...well yes I knew that.



So - welcome back Charles Bronson Now that you're 'communicado' once more, I would greatly appreciate answers to the following questions which the incident raised in my mind

(1) Is the term "Bolivian slum" a generally accepted, commonly-used insult in Argentina? or did you invent the insult for the poster you suspect of being a Troll?
Click to expand...

Is used as an insult in the football stadiums, ( soccer for you canadians)

(2) Why Bolivia? Is Bolivia a kinda joke in S.America, or in Argentina, the way regions of the USA and Canada are the butt of jokes (unfairly so, but that's life, eh?)? What did Bolivia ever do to you, or Argentina, or both ?
Click to expand...

Refer to reply Numero uno.

When I read your post those questions leaped out at me .... "hey, what's with Bolivia". Whereas, having read many of your posts and looked at attachments you provide, I knew you are (1) a proud Argentine, and (2) would be really pissed that a countryman (?) would be critical in an international forum. (Keep the dirty laundry at home)

But why "a Bolivian" slum? Are there slums in Argentina? Are the slums in Bolivia worse than the slums in Argentina?

Charles - these are serious questions that we/I need answers to. Please explain

MM
Proud Canadian
Click to expand...

You are a fine observator, that is all I can answer to you.
 
CharlesBronson said:
Excuse me but what means " it Check out", was I right or wrong.
Click to expand...


You were wrong, CB. Welcome back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back