Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

reply to post by TheOmen

He didn't attack the UK. He didn't even threaten to attack the UK.
He said that if South America had been united, the UK would never have been able to take the Falkland Islands.

He is 100% correct.

He didn't threaten to sink the UK Navy. He said that it could be done if South America was united.

He didn't threaten the UK, but his vision for South America IS a threat to the UK. For the very same reasons that it's a threat to the US.

And by the way, if you think that you can disassociated the UK Corporate engine from the US Corporate Engine... well, you'd be wrong. We're all under the thumb of Privet Interests now. Even here in Canada (which was founded as a Socialist-Constitutional Monarchy), things are getting very bad.

It isn't over the UK press, the Prime Minister wasn't even asked about it during his monthly press conference to the press.

So, I wouldn't buy anything into this now.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
He said that if South America had been united, the UK would never have been able to take the Falkland Islands.

He is 100% correct.

What he didn't say, however, is that if South America had been united in any effective and authoritative manner then wiser and cooler heads would have ensured that the Argentinian government would never have done anything so foolish as to attempt to retake the Falklands by force when a negotiated compromise arrangement could certainly have been achieved with a little more thought and care.

To resort to such posturing as this will do absolutely nothing to further the respect with which South American states are regarded by the the "Western" world but serve only to reinforce the tin pot banana republic image which one would imagine they would be keen to divest themselves of.

reply to post by BitRaiser


I see, and I know that the US and the UK are one in the same, I'm not saying otherwise.
I am not argueing with you, I am on your page.


[edit on 4-9-2007 by TheOmen]

Saying Argentina deserves ownership of the Falkland Islands would be like the U.S. claiming Bermuda. Hey, it's closer to us!

Total B.S. IMO.

reply to post by djohnsto77



Exactly, I dont know what the big fuss is, but I'll bet ya monies plays a big part!

Originally posted by shots

Good Old Chavez always coming up with more BS, now he is vowing revenge for the Falklands war which he had no part in.
I assume GB did not take him up on his free offer Oh wait it was not free oil was it it had strings attached so now he threatens them with revenge. Obviously his intelligence is not that great I would assume GB could wipe him out in a day or so if that.

Im not so sure mr.shots. Britain doesnt have the type of logistics to affectively counter chavez. The US would undoubtedly intervene in support of the brits if it happened.

The US is significantly responsible for the current attitude of Chavez. If you recall, when he was voted into office, the US didn't like the idea, and backed a coup to have him removed. The coup was successful but then the people demanded that he be put back in power a short time later. This only added to his political strength. Much like the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba which also strengthened Fidel Castros position.

Chavez has no intention of bowing to US or UK corporate interests. It is ALL about the money and the history of US and UK exploitation of South America. While he may talk tough, he is also smart enough not to start any military action against either the US or UK.

[edit on 4/9/07 by Terapin]

reply to post by West Coast


I think you are under estimating British capabilities. Just check what Chavez has available to fend off the British it is laughable.

Originally posted by Terapin
The US is significantly responsible for the current attitude of Chavez.

This is the single most enlightened comment I've read in this thread.
Props to you.

Really folks, you do have to put things into context. How would you feel if you lived in Venezuela? Chavez is popular amongst his people. The people support his vision of both a modern, functional socialist society and a unified South America. Now consider that it's a matter of record that the US backed an attempted coup against their rightful leader. The US has a track record of interfering with the development of South American countries.

How would you feel about the US?
Would you smile when Chavez calls Bush a "Mad Man" or "The Devil"?

Here's a link to a rather good article that EVERYONE reading this thread should go over: Death Threat May Bolster Chavez's Popularity

Chavez is already over the hill and he hasn't been in power for very long. I understand that sometimes politicians make comments on foreign policy for domestic consumption but I really do have to question Chavez choice of the Falklands Islands.

Chavez sticking his finger in the Falklands Islands matter would be like the NZ government telling the US how to fight the war in Iraq despite the fact that the NZ has no military presence in Iraq.

Well I think we can all agree, that even if this is a threat, its not that much of a threat. The US and UK to me look like they're just being targeted for Chavez's own reasons and I personally am not worried!

Originally posted by TheOmen
Well I think we can all agree, that even if this is a threat, its not that much of a threat. The US and UK to me look like they're just being targeted for Chavez's own reasons and I personally am not worried!

It wasn't on the BBC or SKYNEWS.

So, it was nothing serious in the end.

Originally posted by ANOK
The Falklands war was nothing but a popularity boost for thatcher and her 'party'. The country was falling apart and her ratings were at an all time low. Nothing better than a good old war to rally the country around the flag. She was voted in office for a 2nd term.

You have it completely backwards. The UK did not start it either. The Argentinian government started it, in order to give something for the country to rally around.

reply to post by firepilot


No, no firepilot, you are missing the point.

The Falklands war was the result of a madcap right wing dictator exploiting an almost forgotten territorial dispute to galvanise public support behind them in order to counter disastrous popularity ratings at home and to shore up a hated Government that was otherwise destined for oblivion.



...and that General Galtieri was no better either.


Boom boom!

[edit on 7-9-2007 by timeless test]

This could be a very dangerous man.Instead of just spouting rhetoric he is actively arming and increasing his military forces.Unlike castro he will soon have teeth to back up his threats.Then what?

Originally posted by timeless test
reply to post by firepilot

 

No, no firepilot, you are missing the point.

The Falklands war was the result of a madcap right wing dictator exploiting an almost forgotten territorial dispute to galvanise public support behind them in order to counter disastrous popularity ratings at home and to shore up a hated Government that was otherwise destined for oblivion.



...and that General Galtieri was no better either.


Boom boom!

[edit on 7-9-2007 by timeless test]

Ummmm Argentina invaded Falklands and took the British Garrison prisoners. What was Maggie supposed to do? Just roll over? Or was it some vast conspiracy where Maggie and the Argentinian junta conspired together beforehand?

I would not call an armed military invasion of British Territory- an almost forgotten territorial dispute. It was almost forgotten until the the Argentinians invaded. That crisis belongs solely on the hands of the Argentines, not the UK. You act like Maggie started the whole thing, or that she was wrong for not surrendering UK territory.

The UK had tried to actually give the Falklands to Argentina, but there was an uproar from those living on the Falklands, so that was dropped. The sole purpose of the Argentine invasion was distracting from domestic problems and rallying the country. Thats not conspiracy, thats just part of history.

Originally posted by firepilot
I would not call an armed military invasion of British Territory- an almost forgotten territorial dispute. It was almost forgotten until the the Argentinians invaded. That crisis belongs solely on the hands of the Argentines, not the UK. You act like Maggie started the whole thing, or that she was wrong for not surrendering UK territory.

Of course the invasion was not forgotten, but the islands were almost unknown before that as you acknowledge. In fact, if you had asked the vast majority of UK citizens about the Falklands before the invasion they would have asked you which coast of Scotland they were closest to.

Without doubt the Argentines precipitated the crisis by their invasion but Thatcher exploited that situation to her advantage and turned an almost impossible domestic situation into a position where she was able to rule for years almost unopposed when prior to the war all the indications were that she would not achieve a second term.

Should she have rolled over? No need for that, but a negotiated settlement was available both before the invasion and again before the task force reached the area. Thatcher chose to ignore both options and fight instead; some will always admire that others will mourn the futile deaths.

While Argentina was very wrong to start the war, you have to realize that the UK had been yanking their chain for far too long with false promises of returning the Islands to them. They had repeatedly worked towards a deal, then backed out, which the Argies did not take well. Had they finished the deal, the war never would have taken place.

There is significant documentation since the 40's which show how Britain alternately promoted their intentions of returning the Falklands, and then reneging. The Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document dating back to 1940 called, "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback." Declassified Foreign Office documents show that, by 1968, a "memorandum of understanding" was in the final stages in which Britain would agree to hand back the islands to Argentina. The basis of the talks were a "transfer and leaseback" based on the Hong Kong model or even perhaps a joint temporary British-Argentine sovereignty known as condominum. Additional released documents show that James Callaghan, when he was foreign secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement."


It is very true that before the war, most UK citizens barely knew the Falklands existed.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I don't know why we've still got the Falklands anyway, there's really no reason for them to be British territory.

Because regular British people live there, because it is a vital Military base, because British people have died protecting it, because it is as much a part of Britain as England, Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales.

Its not Imperialist to keep them as part of Britain. We won them fair and square. Thats how countries are made, people fight and whoever wins keeps the land.

Chavez is a fool if he's threating the UK about the Falklands. I'd like to see actual footage of his threats of revenge though. Sometimes the Media cook these things up to fuel hate. Or at least exaggerate the truth.

(Also Chavez has nothing that can be any real threat to UK firepower.)