Hugo Chavez demands Queen returns Falkland Islands to Argentina

reply to post by mike-harris


They keep selling off old nuclear silos near me . They go for about three million each... I keep thinking if I win the lottery Im going to buy one , and turn it into a massive underground heavy metal venue !

So Chavez is all hot under the collar that Britain dares to have a colony? But if Argentina took the Falklands (ain't gonna happen), they'd technically be colonizing. How would that be different?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

I think those are lesser considerations than the main problem Saddam posed. The REAL problem HE posed. He murdered his own countrymen by the thousands, and had an entire nation living in fear . He had NOTHING to do with the bombings here in Britain, and nothing at all to do with the Twin Towers attacks. Seperate those two things in your head , theres no evidence to link them.
He was removed from power under false pretences, and if we wanted a just and fair war there in Iraq, then we should have gone in under the guise of concern for the human rights of the citizen of the country , rather than inflating intelligence dossiers about his non existant weapons of mass destruction. Mind you, if we had gone in with the right emphasis, then I guess the outright murder of tens of thousands of noncombatant civilians probably wouldnt have gone down as well as it did. "Oh yeah , we are going to go in and save the Iraqi people...by slamming thousands of pounds of explosives into populated areas just to take out one guy with an ancient badly maintained obsolete rifle." wouldnt have washed. We might actualy have had to have FOUGHT for the place, rather than just bombing everything to hell and back to kill a viscious minority.

100% agree with you on IRAQ but... it was a different ball game,

Im going off topic here this maybe deleted, i think to truely understand it you have to look much farther afeild for your answers & reasons,

If saddam had of been left he would have eventually been a bigger problem with out a shadow of doubt, and we maybe looking at a Iraq & Iran nuclear problem today aswell as a north korean one, and thats bad news especially when they dont like you very much, and everybody wants to rule the world dont they... and would if they could right?, witch then put us in there shoes... we play catch up on them & around the world goes,

now im not trying to be a armchair general here either...

Afghanistan, where all the real terroists actually are, (and they hate everything we do or stand for and wont rest till we are all dead) if we are not fighting them there we will be fighting them here, more terrorist attacks on home soil etc etc, we should never of went into iraq, not at that point in time anyways... we should have put a full NATO /US & UK strike force straite into afghanistan and completly annihilated Al-Qaeda & the taliban, first. maybe we would not be still there today?, but why are we still there today? imho i dont think we want to win in afghanistan (not yet anyways) our tactics sertainly back that up,

End of the day we couldnt just sit back and let them "al qaeda & taliban" launch attacks... just no way,

But it has a (MILITARY INDUSTRIAL WAR COMPLEX) ring to it now for sure, and you have to think they have made the war just as profitable business as oil... we had a good reason for going but completly diffrent agenda to staying & dragging it out.

We take ground, we retreat, we re-take the ground, we retreat?, we make more bombs, we make more amunition, we make more bombs, we make more amunition, and so on goes the money spinning machine,

We all know iraq was the same, firstly to stop a future threat, "but with a WMD reason or smoke screen as bait", secondly the controlling of oil resourses "bonus", saddam was just holding cards the west didnt want him to be holding (petrodollars) greed will kill us all, our governments know this and thats why they help out as much as they can with releaf efforts & aid to 3rd worlds, to stop the wolfs gathering out side the gates,

If you look back in history you will see this evidant enuff in every empires reign Egiptians, greek, romans, british empire, and now the US they all fell or will eventially fall and its the rest of the worlds job to to try & bring them down, (but then wot happens) they go and do the same, for wot? survival own well being of there people, its human nature... even accient tribal wars was for the same motives & reasons) even animals the same patterns can be seen, and if people would just open there eyes to the fact its still going on today and is the soul reason for these wars, for them to survive and stay top dog, top of the table, maybe you have even looked into NWO & the illuminarty where are thay today i'll say no more.


The only way we are going to see a world with no war & fair for all is if there was "One World Government" that shared this worlds resourses equally and made sure everybody was well looked after and most of all united & happy, FACT thats a world i would love to live in, and it does not yet exist, but untill that day comes expect more of the same, rich getting richer & the poor getting fu*ked over & screwed,

So why did we go to Iraq & afghanistan? well its simple, removing threats to modern day rome and you

Of course, the British were wrong with Iraq.

But that does not make them game. It is stupid to say, they found arrows of indians and thus Falklands is Argentinian. The killers want to be the heirs of the long lost?

Only the people on the Falklands decide, where they want to belong to. End of story.

hugo Chavez cuold any time he wanted expose the USA gov and special warfare for teh USA navy as real evils of he bible anytime he wanted over my situation and the way I have been made into a dying human slave from Ron Wyden(barrock obamas original pick for human services) The only reason he would not it seems our government is in collusion with the soviets and you are all next.

I think the UK is right to protect its territory, the Falklanders wish to remain a British territory, which is there right just as it is its right to become independant of Britain. As the likes of Canada, Austrailia and any other county that was part of the empire and voted to become independant have done.
The Falklands basicly have their own government and (correct me if im wrong) sold the rights to drill for oil.
There are some who will reply this post with "the time for empires is over", and im sure if they wished the people of the Falklands would become independant, however for the time being they are for all intensive purposes part of the UK. Also why would the people want to get rid of one country just to be in the same situation with another?

Argentina has occupied the islands for about Four months in their independant history (not including the time when the United Provinces of South America occupied). they can argue all they want about themselves being the indigonus people but to be frank they are not.

Also for the people who said the British should give passports to the islanders and give the islands "back" to Argentina, how would you react if your country decided to move everyone out of your respective states/counties/whatevers including you and give it to another country, would you stand for it?

Only support from my part. Argentina never had any right to say or even think, these islands belonged to their country.

Only the people who live there decide.

argentina lost the first falklands war because britain threatened to nuke half of buenos aires with their nuclear subs when the war wasn't going as planned.

U.S. fails to back British oil claims after row over American torture secrets

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Alan Mendoza London-based foreign affairs think-tank... "'It can only be motivated by moral weakness in the White House or a misplaced desire to punish Britain for the Binyam Mohamed case and the disclosure of U.S. intelligence documents.

'The decision, while feeble, is unsurprising. For the past year, Mr Obama has followed a foreign policy path that punishes allies and democracies while allowing rogue authoritarian nations like Iran and North Korea to pursue their objectives.'"

Nice work Mr Obama, im starting to get slightly edgy about his true agenda, he could bring the whole deck of cards down if hes not carefull, My guess is, he wants to.

I wonder wot would happen in afghanistan if we had to pull out to go fight Argentina & CO,

Does this mean Obama/US is saying, we do not care about our allies freinds british citizens & democracy???


blogs.telegraph.co.uk...



[edit on 26-2-2010 by BRITWARRIOR]

Originally posted by randomname
argentina lost the first falklands war because britain threatened to nuke half of buenos aires with their nuclear subs when the war wasn't going as planned.

Your going to have to back that one up my freind, thats quite a statement! from my knowledge of the conflict the war never went to far from plan, and why would we want to kill innocent civillians in buenos aires?




[edit on 26-2-2010 by BRITWARRIOR]

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Not sure we can expect anything different from the Obama administration..

Still feel unsure how set up this whole thing is with Argentina choosing Barclays to manage their debt swap..

Who chooses the bank of what is being touted as an enemy nation to manage their debts, especialy a bank that has a share in Falkands oil..

One bizzare mess..

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

Not sure we can expect anything different from the Obama administration..

Still feel unsure how set up this whole thing is with Argentina choosing Barclays to manage their debt swap..

Who chooses the bank of what is being touted as an enemy nation to manage their debts, especialy a bank that has a share in Falkands oil..

One bizzare mess..

I cant make sense of wots actually going on right now tbh either, ughh


theres a serious lack of UK media attention on this new falklands debait i have struggled to find any statements from UK Government officials and it should be headline news imo (or at least on the news) its all to hush hush, its all most a media blackout on the subject,

Yet argentina has been doing the complet opposite, rallying round the globe for support (and getting alot of it) going to the UN... even the US has spoken on the matter, but still we have no offical british government response, apart from, its sent a few destroyers & euro fighter typhoons,

i expected "alot" more tbh its almost like, we know they wont get anywhere with the UN and we are just waiting for them to attack,

[edit on 26-2-2010 by BRITWARRIOR]

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


I've been trying to put my finger on what bothers me about this.. Picking Barclays to manage their debt is utterly odd given the issues over the Falklands and Barclays having a share in that pie to..

Taken in context the timing is perfect to push up Gordo's rating.. as if he is jerrymandering the election, it's that or something bigger is happening and we are waiting for that to happen..

While on the other issues we've gone from vocal front row to silent back row on any new Iranian sanctions, we're distancing ourselves from Israel over the made for TV Dubai hit, and now moving out of recession..

If we get a snap election then I'll be happy feeling that is what this is all about.. if not.. then I can't help but feel something else is happening.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


I dont disagree that Saddam needed to be gone, but he didnt need to be gone as part of the war on terror. He should have been removed under the flag of freedom from oppression , not freedom from terrorism, which is as I have stated , a different thing. The war was not just because it was fought for the wrong reasons, and in the wrong way.
Regards the REAL war on terror. I accept that there are elements in the afgan population who are militant against the west and would be a threat if left to thier own devices. But they are small disperate cells , not large forces with proper command structure, and in light of that, the entire anti terror effort should be conducted by British , American , and allied intelligence operatives, NOT army personel. Armies, much as I respect thier capabilities and strengths , are not clinical enough. They present a target, they have massive armoured vehicles which are easy to target with both IED and rockets, and when they are about, they cant help but leave very obvious signs. Intelligence operatives ought to have the nouse and the training to behead the real threats without even leaving a trace of thier presence, save for the bodies of the slain. We pay the bastards enough after all!

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

The french found it, it was uninhabited.

Unless you are counting penguins as indigenous south americans.

After some to-ing and fro-ing, the british colonised.

Try reading the damn thread - or isn't it on your agenda to actually learn something about the history of the place

If I was a s. american leader, I'd hire a few thousand pissed off iraqi / afghani mercenaries, er I mean contractors, arm them with the best chinese / russian death goodies and unleash them on a PPV mini series "operation taste your own medicine"...

Normally I oppose terrorizing innocent souls, but the UK fully deserves it after lying, rolling over and being premier bushs good dog... call it karma... and hey, if the few thousand brits living there get summarily slaughtered like so many iraqis have been.. s.american leaders can claim it was "uninhabited", all they found were artifacts, and a few bodies, of the prior residents... and we all know under empire rules, if there are no living people on it.. the 1st one to plant a multi colored t-shirt on a twig.. owns it for ever and ever..

Congratulations, you've just qualified for the "WANKER OF THE WEEK" trophy.

reply to post by 0010110011101


i second that.

now back to the facts.

just a crazy though (and a bit of satire in this super serious post)

why dont gordon brown or the queen make a statement that the falklands are the church of englands spiritual promiced land .... it worked for isreal

(im from uk btw, and think that we are in the right, falklands want to be and are british, so it stands to reason we should protect them)

Originally posted by randomname
argentina lost the first falklands war because britain threatened to nuke half of buenos aires with their nuclear subs when the war wasn't going as planned.

Lol. What?

Are you sure the RMC, SAS, SBS, Paras and various other assorted horrible psycotic armed loons of HM Forces (God bless them all) kicking the living snot out of the argies on the islands had nowt to do with it???

or the Jacks? or the RAF lads shooting down their planes? Or the silent service saying hello to the belgrano?

Your comment above was probably the most muppety thing ive seen on here in a while., kudos

I think we need to face facts that there is ZERO chance of Argentina attacking the Falklands again.

This is a political stunt played by an Argentinian President on her last legs in a bid to stir up a bit of support within the electorate.

As stated, The UK have said they will go to the conference table to discuss oil but not sovereignty.

Argentina will not start another war with the UK, they don't have the forces or the money. The boat that was ordered to turn around by the Royal Navy was explained away by the Argentinians as "an embarrassing mistake" that says it all really.

This story will amount to nothing.

Looks like my country Agrees with me...UK go home!


US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, last night to intervene in the dispute, a move Britain adamantly opposes.

“The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening,” Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, said after meeting Mr Ban in New York.

www.timesonline.co.uk...