Hugo Chavez demands Queen returns Falkland Islands to Argentina

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
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.

I dont think i fully understand the implications of the Barclays issue and wot it could point to, im sort of stuck at it just sounding dodgy at the minite and there being more to it than first meets the eye, why would they do that ?

Wot are your suspicions then? you sound like you want to throw something out there? with the last big, sinse this is the forum for it im all ears.

0.5% is a start, but i dont think we are out of the woods just yet, i have a horrible feeling we will see a double dip, first quarter of this year, i hope im wrong.

reply to post by Bahb3


Yea, it isnt going to make any difference is it?!?!?

The only people who care about this bit of land are the British and for some strange reason the Argentinians. The rest of the world couldnt give a toss.

Argentina can jump up and down and shout as much as they like, it wont make any difference.

Whatever happened with the CIA jackals? why hasnt his plane crashed yet, same story for that schmuck Ghaddafi..Or did they truely stopped assassinating?

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Foppezao]

We all know that Chavez is full of hot air and loves to hear himself talk. His military bluster however has nothing to do with Argentinas policy, and Argentina is not seeking any military conflict. They are working diplomatically with the UN as they have been for quite some time.

The British government has long maintained an exclusion immigration policy in the Falklands, a policy that is entirely different than what is found in the UK and every other British Overseas Territory. When people talk about the islanders wanting to remain British, it is entirely due to this policy. The British government has deliberately stacked the deck by enforcing the exclusion policy. Because of this policy of exclusion, some consider British actions to be imperialist, and this is where Chavez chooses to puff out his chest and rant at the Queen.

Originally posted by BabyMD
And FYI, the UK aren't going to nuke Latin America over the Falklands- don't be so naive.

In fact it is naive to say that!

It is documented and a well known if "Off the Record" fact that due to the massive losses being inflicted on the British Navy by the French Exocet Missiles, and the real chance of a Carrier being sunk, leaving the Task force with no air cover therefore 12 further sunken ships... that the following happened.

During the build up and sailing to the Islands the British Mi5 and Mi6 and such like went into overdrive.

Every single Exocet available on the Market at the time was bided for with the British posing as other nations, states, organisations and black market arms dealers, prices paid were huge, many suppliers sent on wild goose chases, however some still remained on the market, and Argentina had about 6 or seven of the ship killers left.

Margaret Thatcher kept contacting the French President Francois Mitterrand demanding the codes to be able to detect the incoming missiles and block them, for the Exocet's of the Super Eterand planes that carried them. etc...

She was met with the typical French response to the UK of being sidelined.

Another ship was hit The Sir Galahad I think, Thatcher got the news, sat in thought for a moment, and did the following, this was early hours of the morning, night time.... she demanded an immediate and totally secret operation, booked a RAF flight to Paris, ensured no one knew her plans or knew what was happening, no diplomatic info passed to the French that she was about to land in De Gaulle airport, Paris.

She then had her special service police and a small SAS team escort her unofficially to the French presidential Palace, pulled up, and basically breaking all previous protocol forced entrance in her very brunt way into the residence. Refusing to wait whilst the security and diplomats woke him from sleep, ignoring these people she walked passed, saying "I Represent the British now, and Britain will Now see President Francois Mitterrand, Now not later!"

So she stormed into the ante chamber of his bedroom, with him coming out of his room bleary eyed and this is what was said, not verbatim but as retold by those who heard it....

Like them you do not respond to reason and peaceful advances, your refusal to help us in our defence of Britain is putting our entire nation at risk, you are as responsible for the those loosing their lives now as the aggressors!

Fair enough you might say so big deal.... but then she said this to him after approaching closer and going eyeball to eyeball

you have 24 hours to cease all technical and arms support to Argentina, you also will provide us with the codes and information we have requested

Pausing, and invading his personal space eyeball to eyeball then she said the following, turned on her heals and stormed out to go back to London

If you do not, you will leave me in no position but to defend at all costs the British and our dependants, We will not loose our fleet and I will Turn Buenos Aires into Glass

Though never admitted to helping, not another ship was hit by an Exocet after the 24 hour deadline had come.

This is not ATS or conspiracy talk, President Francois Mitterrand alluded to it himself after she left office, the head of the Naval Staff mentioned it on the BBC in a documentary years later, a French palace guard leaked it at the time, and it has been mentioned by some of her personal protection detail off the record to mainstream broadsheets years later.

She was as well crazy enough to use one, so your statement and post is soo of the reality of the situation it's not even in the same book never mind page.

If or when a country uses nuclear bombs again depends entirely on the leader at the time, and the risk to that countries or nations security if in a similar position.

Britain will never loose its entire fleet, will never allow invasion and would probably use 3-5 similar small scale weapons, if a coalition of S.American nations attempted to invade ANY part of Britain if conventional military defence did not work or our Air Force, Navy or Army were on the brink of being totally destroyed.

Having said that do I agree with Thatcher? no, Do I think this talk of war and conflict, and Argentina Vs British rhetoric is good, no. I am a total pacifist, however facts are facts and hyperbole is just that, not based on reality.

Source yourself, much is out there well referenced and discussed in print and also documentaries.

Careful all what you wish for imagining such a "small" conflict and the inherent dangers, and history of where that has nearly taken the world to in 1982.

I hope a very quick peaceful solution comes from this, infact if only Argentina would stop looking for an enemy outside as their government does not want the people to focus on the problems within.

Just accept the offers of joint rewards and profit sharing, it would be very good for the UK, for Argentina, put this silly ongoing spat to bed, and Create a more stable and prosperous S.America. Which after the CIA meddling, and European genocides carried out there over the last few hundred years has left it a very dangerous and unstable and criminal place in many areas Now.

Kind Regards,

Elf

Edit spelling

[edit on 26-2-2010 by MischeviousElf]

reply to post by Bahb3


This is not an oil dispute, this is a territorial dispute which is being caused by someone finding oil and the other person getting the hump over it.

on the us not backing usa thing, frankly i find it total sickening by the usa as we have had to act like their lapdog and help them in all their disputes which werent even territorial, or even logical!

if the crap did hit the whirling blades, and usa did not help, then i woudl have to say it would deffinitelly be time for all the "special relationships" to end... and for all help our army/navy and air forces give to the usa should be withdrawn in all shapes and forms.

let the usa army / navy and airforce friendly fire themselfs into oblivion...
then our good old fashioned banking cartels can charge the americans more for their dollars as a bit of a faceplant!

Originally posted by Bahb3
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...

So wot, Wot next ?

Are they going to forcefully remove us you think?

Do you really think the Brits are going to just give up British soil & British Civilians who wish to remain British to a ragtag inbread argentinan govenment? Honestly do you believe that is how its going to go down?

I havent seen such overwhelming amounts of british people so united about a single issues sinse well the last time & WWII they are and allways will be British so long as they chose to remain so, the only way the argys could have them is buy some form of millitary force/miracle, and that would be another huge mistake on there part,

I mean forget afghanistan...... wait till they contact a very pissed of battle hardend british army fighting for there own soil & civillians, there would be mile long ques of new recriuts signing up to take it back, i would certainly be signing back up to join my old battalion boys and no doubt many other ex forces boys & girls will be heading for the armorys.

Its not going to happen gringo, kirchner will back down after a diplomatic soulution ends up in the EPIC FAIL cabnet. and she certainly dont want to consider the other option,

As far as I can see, the only people talking about violence, is Hugo Chavez, and the UK. Everyone else has calmer heads and is talking diplomacy. Let the UN handle it and end the warmongering. We certainly do not need any more senseless violence.

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Elf,

This documented and well known "off the record" story is sourced in a book authored by a psychoanalyst, Ali Magoudi, published in 2005. Dig it and try to find another source confirming the story. You won't find another source that is not relying on this one. To my knowledge, no protagonists has ever confirmed the story but I'd appreciate if you can correct me with facts I am ignorant of.
This, I believe, fairy tale is appealing to Britisth audience, I do understand that. The author advertised his book as a "psychoroman" and I reckon this particular extract of the book is quite romanesque. Mitterrand never moved in the Elysées Palace to name only one inconsistency.

This is a friendly post. The only thing that drives me is trying to get rid of the... bs, sorry, and make way for mutual understanding and cooperation
This is the kind of distorted or made up "facts" that constantly fuels extreme nationalism and divides the ordinary people.

Originally posted by Terapin
As far as I can see, the only people talking about violence, is Hugo Chavez, and the UK. Everyone else has calmer heads and is talking diplomacy. Let the UN handle it and end the warmongering. We certainly do not need any more senseless violence.

You must mean UK forum members surely,


I think they have a right to be slightly jizzed off about it we are after all only human, especially with having to go though all this BS again, i hope you understand, very much doubt there getting there hands on our islands though diplomacy channels either tho,

I feed trolls to much

reply to post by Manouche


Certainly it first came up in print in that book.

However rumors were circulating before then,

I have seen a "dispatches" if memory serves me right (decade ago) with an interview with a top civil servant from the Foreign office, one of the security detail and also the cheif of naval forces at the time all on camera saying the same things.

Also a french newspaper broadsheet ran a story about a year after the end of the conflict with one of the Palace officials who was present saying the same thing, though it was so long ago and I was told at the time by a french speaking friend, and dont have access to the actual article.

The sources are as above and as you mention, but not limited to what you say.

Regards,

Elf.

Originally posted by Phlynx
If the Socialists stick together they may have China, Russia, North Korea, and many other countries with decent fighting power.

Can you clarify what your definition of 'socialist' is?
I ask because there are some [many] who mistake socialism for communism. Very different.

Remember that Britain's government is currently the Labour Party who are 'democratic socialists.'

So could you please clarify whose side should your cited China, Russia (are they really socialists? They are a democratic republic), North Korea and "many other countries" take?

So are we talking Chairman Mao/Lenin/Marx "Socialists", Hitler's "National Socialists", or what? Let me know. The word isn't that well defined.

reply to post by MischeviousElf


I guess I can only take your word for it then.
When the book was published, the story was picked up by British newspapers and deemed as sensational and a staggering disclosure.
I have strong doubts about an official revealing this while Mitterrand was in office, he would have been vilified forever, it would have made an awful lot of noise, imagine if the other way round Sarkozy makes his way up to the Queen and starts threatening her... We are not being very realistic here... And Mitterrand managed to hide a daughter and a cancer to the public.

Come on, it doesn't make any sense, what was this kind of ultimatum by Thatcher ? France, if you don't comply to our demands, we are going to... nuke someone ! Errr... Argentina !
Oh my god ! If we don't do as you wish, you'll be very very mean but... not to us ! I am so scared
But the French got their revenge and unleashed their mighty wrath with... a tunnel. An eye for an eye !

Credible sources starting by Thatcher's Memoirs or Nott's Memoirs spell out the French support.
We will be kept divided then.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Most British are ignorant of the fact that the British empire ceded all sovereignty to the Islands in 1790 and then took them back at gunpoint in violation of both international law and their own stated support of the Monroe Doctrine. Many are also unaware of the unusual exclusion immigration policy on the Falklands that is entirely different from all other UK immigration policies elsewhere. Most are also unaware of the long history the UK has of negotiating for a leaseback of the Falklands to Argentina, even as as recently as the 1980s.

There is a very good reason why it is listed for Decolonization, but we all know that misplaced patriotism will prevent that from happening for quite some time. Argentina has a legitimate reason for continuing to seek redress, and the UK government is well aware of it, as is the UN. Diplomacy takes time, but it can change things in ways you might not expect. A sealed document from 1940 titled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback" is set to be unsealed in 2015. I am quite curious as to what it contains. Perhaps there is another reason why the UK government is in such a rush to extract the oil as fast as it can.

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.

Sorry, incorrect facts. The war was lost by Argentina for two reasons:
1. The Argentine military had modern weapons, but very few of them. After their Exocet STS missiles were expended, the supply was cut off by France.
2. The Regan Administration explained to the Argentines that the IMF tap would be closed, Argentine funds in the US and UK would be frozen, and the Argentine people would suffer from even more hyperinflation and economic collapse. The junta did not want to be "Mussolinied" and knew their military situation was hopeless.

Argentina will make no military move. The "Malvinas" noise was for domestic consumption. Chavez can't keep the lights on at his own press conference, and will simply make noise until he is taken out. Brasil has a patina of leftism, but they know that their future is tied to a market economy and western markets for their goods. They will smile behind closed doors when Chavez disappears. Frankly, who could care less what Bolivia thinks? I'd consult my dog first...

reply to post by Terapin


Rubbish.

That's already been addressed and debunked, as you well know following your abortive attempt to cite the nootka agreement.

Putting it on a different thread in different words won't make your point any more valid.

But nice try

reply to post by budski


I am certain that you have never read the Nootka convention documents or you would not be making such a statement. Wikipedia links do not count as they are simplistic and much is lost in translation. I also suspect that you have not looked at the other relevant documents but are simply expressing an opinion based on hearsay, or what others have said.

I will refer you to one line in particular of the Nootka Conventions where as it relates to the Falklands it states rather clearly that Britain "cedes all sovereignty to Spain without proviso." I hope you can read French.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by soundgeeza
I stand by what I say ... I think perhaps YOU should read the thread FULLY!

OK but you really are making the education system over there look bad when it comes to reading comprehension.

You're a mod.

Quit the insults.

Brazil could help. They could fire an EMP over the Island (they have Nukes) which would destroy all electronics in the area.. Radar and ships,not to mention communications...gone.

Then it would be a cakewalk for Argentina....and Brazil just might help for a piece of the oil riches there.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Bahb3]

reply to post by Bahb3


So how will the trident subs tell a projected EMP from nuke and not respond accoordinly to a perceived nuclear attack..

In your mind are these Islands really worth millions of South American deaths?

That's as bad as others commenting on pre-emptive nuke strikes against Argentina.. millions of deaths for a manufactured argument.