Argentina Doesn’t Want to Discuss the Falklands…

The British are so much more subtle!!

“The President of Uruguay has been caught on microphone calling his Argentine counterpart, Cristina Fernandez, an “old hag”.

Jose Mujica was caught at the beginning of a news conference while speaking quietly with another official during a visit to a farming area in Uruguay to discuss trade with Brazil and Argentina.

The microphone picked him up saying: “This old hag is worse than the cross-eyed man.”

President Jose Mujica is not the first politician to be caught out
The “cross-eyed man” is apparently a reference to Mrs Fernandez’s late husband, the former president of Argentina Nestor Kirchner, who had a lazy eye. He died suddenly of a heart attack in 2010.

El Observador newspaper, which posted the audio on its website, said Mr Mujica was referencing the Kirchners and did not realise that the microphones were on.”

You don’t think I actually read your stuff, do you? :diablo:

Great minds, etc….. 😉

Reluctant though I am to quote the monster Stalin: “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?” 😉

Now we can expect to hear around Whitehall…to paparphrase Stalin…”How many carriers does the Pope have?”

Beat you to it…:)

Rightly or wrongly, such comments mean there isn’t a uniform opinion in the UK on the issue. International politics being what it is, if international pressure builds, it would also likely erode UK internal support to remain there.

With money being so tight with the MKoD, is the cost of protecting the Falklands good value for money…or shuld the UK “pay and price, bear any burden” to protect one of its last remnants of Empire?

To be clear, there are not my opinions, but I’d welcome opinions from forum members.

The subject of the Falklands very rarely comes up John…I am not aware of any of my circle of friends or work colleagues who believe strongly that we should ditch the falklands…I am afraid it is mostly hype engineered by certain people !

‘Remnants of Empire’ come in handy occasionally 😉 and one would have to be fairly naive to believe that any other country has a believable claim to the islands.
Most conversations here would be centred mostly around not getting involved in ‘arabian’ countries !!

Well, it didn’t take her long:….

Reluctant though I am to quote the monster Stalin: “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?” 😉

Rightly or wrongly, such comments mean there isn’t a uniform opinion in the UK on the issue. International politics being what it is, if international pressure builds, it would also likely erode UK internal support to remain there.

An assumption with which I wholly disagree. And your assumption is drawn from that big” IF pressure builds” and there is no evidence to suggest it will.

Mrs de Kirchner has many good domestic reasons for her huffing and puffing but few countries are that much exercised by her protestations. And she might do well to consider that, but for the British vistory precipitating Galtieri’s fall, and the subsequent collapse of military rule she would still be subservient to a military dictatorship.

Didn’t I recently read something in the UK media about a UK politician complaining about the cost for maintaining forces there?

Do you mean this guy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17232315

…there isn’t a uniform opinion in the UK on the issue. International politics being what it is, if international pressure builds, it would also likely erode UK internal support to remain there…

Well, the war in Afghanistan isn’t very popular with United Kingdom voters and we’ve been there ten years, spent more money and had more casualties than the Falklands.

As for external international pressure…..if you really want to harden the opinion of United Kingdom voters just try telling them they have to give-up, to a country that tried to take by force, the rights of people that British troops die for!

. Never going to happen, and as for another invasion, it’s not the same as the last time where the place was defended by a dozen Marines.

Didn’t I recently read something in the UK media about a UK politician complaining about the cost for maintaining forces there?
IIRC, he said it was a subsidy paid by all UK taxpayers to protect a few.

Rightly or wrongly, such comments mean there isn’t a uniform opinion in the UK on the issue. International politics being what it is, if international pressure builds, it would also likely erode UK internal support to remain there.

With money being so tight with the MKoD, is the cost of protecting the Falklands good value for money…or shuld the UK “pay and price, bear any burden” to protect one of its last remnants of Empire?

To be clear, there are not my opinions, but I’d welcome opinions from forum members.

She’s a bit like a lamb bleating in a flock hoping someone will listen to her trying to drum up support for her desperate cause. Talking to anyone she thinks will listen, even those such as the Pope whom she never exactly had a smooth history with, as said she is sitting in a Country taken by force from the original populace.

I can see very few Countries if any taking her side, the USA for all its posturing over this, one would think they would think twice about alienating the one Country that has stood beside them during all the conflicts of late, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Without the UK, they would lose a voice in Europe over such things, so the posturing American I think is just that, they will listen to her rants, offer a crumb of hope but do squat.
The UN not being a Country may or may not side with her, but for all that regardless one would think it would be political suicide for a UK Government to go against the wishes of the populace and hand it over, especially considering the deaths in retaking it. Never going to happen, and as for another invasion, it’s not the same as the last time where the place was defended by a dozen Marines.

Well, it didn’t take her long:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21835252

I’ve seen one story where the new Pope said (while he was just the Bishop) that the UK usurped the Falklands.

I said that in the new pope thread but a mod deleted it.
Still I don’t take much notice of blokes in dresses with red shoes.

If and its a big if, he makes a difference in a good way to the world I am willing to eat my words.
If I remember correctly the only member of the Vatican Air Force was not very succesful. I refer to Eilmer of Malmesbury.:)

.

He wasn’t the Pope or even a Cardinal at the time…

Surely the Pope being holy and a man of power and influence should be above this and neutral–or am i being naive

I’ve seen one story where the new Pope said (while he was just the Bishop) that the UK usurped the Falklands.
It might put a bit of excitement back into the story.

Now we can expect to hear around Whitehall…to paparphrase Stalin…”How many carriers does the Pope have?”

They would have known to have received a healthy slap in the face had that question been asked!!

Fortunately the views of the current Argentine administration are not very relevant.

The three votes were only ‘not to remain a British Overseas Territory’.

Maybe the ballot paper should have had an option to become part of Argentina and the islanders become Argentine citizens.

To be honest I’m surprised that it didn’t; and I’m more surprised that the Argentine government hasn’t made more out of that (despite calling the referendum ‘illegal’).

I am just very pleased that the democratic process was scrupulously carried out under the eyes of independent monitors and delivered a result – other nations please take note!!

My meaning was more directed to the islanders who themselves might be wondering who those few who voted against and those who didn’t vote were in such a small although dispersed community.

In a way I’m kind of happy that there were votes cast that way. There are those who have been outraged and who have said it is disrespectful towards the British who fought and died to liberate the Falklands but I disagree.

Surely what the British fought for was the right for the islanders to decide for themselves democratically; what we were fighting against was a military dictatorship that used a popular cause to deflect criticism from its own failure. I think it is important to remember that.

My first thought when the results were announced a couple of days ago was “who were the three who voted against?”!!!