Skip to comments.Respect the Falklanders, David Cameron tells Cristina Kirchner in row
Posted on 06/19/2012 7:53:16 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
David Cameron on Tuesday night had a furious face-to-face showdown with the Argentine president over the Falkland Islands.
The Prime Minister sought out Cristina Kirchner on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, to warn her to respect the self-determination of the Falklands.
Argentina has become increasingly aggressive in its remarks about the islands following the 30th anniversary of the Falklands. Mrs Kirchner attempted to force a package marked UN-Malvinas, the Argentine name for the Falklands, into Mr Camerons hands.
He refused to accept it and walked off, with the encounter filmed on a handheld camera by one of Mrs Kirchners aides.
Mr Cameron said to Mrs Kirchner: I am not proposing a full discussion now on the Falklands, but I hope you have noted that they are holding a referendum [on the islanders sovereignty] and you should respect their views. We should believe in self-determination and act as democrats here in the G20.
Mrs Kirchner is understood to have responded with some ramblings about Spanish headlines, the United Nations and the Malvinas. Her interpreter could not keep up with her so Mr Cameron was unclear about what exactly she was saying. The row is said to have lasted several minutes.
Argentinian sources described Mr Camerons behaviour as sour.
Héctor Timerman, the Argentine foreign minister, said: Nation states have the obligation to talk. We prepared an envelope containing various papers, but the British Prime Minister refused to receive it.
Britain continues to refuse to talk. And what surprised me most was that David Cameron did not go to the UN decolonisation meeting on Thursday.
At a chaotic press conference after the confrontation Mr Timerman accused Britain of being a colonial power. The UK is the most famous colonialist in the world, not Argentina, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Argentina is a bully and aggressor. The UN is out-of-line on this one!
Thirty years ago the Brits wrested back control of the Falklands from the Argies but barely. I don’t know as to what strength the Argentine military is in today but if they were to force the issue again I don’t think the Brits are in any shape to challenge them.
Was it worth $500k per islander to save? They will hVE TO MAKE BIG TIME THREATS to the mainland if it should happen again.
Mrs Kirchner, is a complete liar, she follows in the foot steps of 20 plus years of lying, selling out to big corporations, that all of the countries politicians have done. Just like what is happening here in America. Oh ya, as to what the big banks did to argentina, start here—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs
I will never apologize for truth, but it sucks!
If they get frisky, the Argies will get quite a bollocking..
As I recall then as now the Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects.
The Brits ought to nuke Buenos Aires this time. Maybe they might get the point.
Um, in a real shooting war. Argentina wouldn’t last a week...
Are the Falklanders under the same stupid British rules against individual ownership of firearms? If so, then in a real shooting war, the Falklanders wouldn't last 3 days.
Seeing as the Argentinians don’t care about the people, just the oil, you are correct. But if they are so stupid as to start killing Falklanders wholesale (and this socialist witch may be), Argentina will simply cease to exist...
Well said Satindoll.
“The Brits ought to nuke Buenos Aires this time...”
Absolutely. The U.S. has more legal claim to Cuba, formerly a prize of war from Spain, than Argentina has to the Falklands.
“Thirty years ago the Brits wrested back control of the Falklands from the Argies but barely. I dont know as to what strength the Argentine military is in today but if they were to force the issue again I dont think the Brits are in any shape to challenge them.”
Clearly you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and I really can’t bothered to educate you, so just have a quick look at the following link:
If you fancy a bet on Argentina, I’ll take your money.
30 years ago Margaret Thatcher sent the military might of the UK and kicked the bananna boat azz of Argentina out of the Falklands. For some reason they seem to have forgotten that swift and vigorous spanking. If Argentina tries to take back the Falklands Cameron will send the UK military to remind them again.
Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about chum. The Iranians captured a squad of Brit commandos and the Brits didn’t do a damn thing about it. I didn’t say they wouldn’t do anything I said I had doubts their military could do what it was able to do thirty years ago so go fly a kite.
Don’t bet on it.
If the Brits go in, they should not leave until every ship in Argentina's navy is sunk, and Argentina's congressional building, presidential building, and military HQ are all smoking holes in the ground.
I don't think they have it in them to go that far, but that's what I think it will take to discourage Argentina from trying again in the near future.
It’s a question of both actually. Thirty years is a long time between wars and the UK’s military, especially The Royal Navy is not what it was thirty years ago, and even then due to Britain’s economic situation it was tough for them to pull it off. As it was they lost six ships and 200 men. And David Cameron is no Margret Thatcher. And you’re right, I just don’t think the Brits themselves have the will to do it.
Don’t bet on it. Read up on the Falklands battles. The Argies didn’t exactly roll over.
“Clearly you dont know what youre talking about chum. The Iranians captured a squad of Brit commandos and the Brits didnt do a damn thing about it. I didnt say they wouldnt do anything I said I had doubts their military could do what it was able to do thirty years ago so go fly a kite.”
Well if you’re going to write off the fifth most powerful armed forces in the world because a speedboat with some RN sailors on was captured (from a ship which was part of a US controlled force) because we didn’t start WW3 to get them back, what conclusions should I draw by the defeat of the US forces at the height of their world power by third world Vietnam? I guess I’d better take your logical route and write them off as worthless and ineffective?
Neither does the US have it in them to conduct such a pre-emptive strike on a country merely threatening with words or we would no longer have a North Korea, an Iran, a Venezuela, a Cuba etc, etc.
Read up on the battles of the Falklands chum. The Argies didn’t exactly roll over. The ‘’defeat’’ you speak of in Vietnam was a political one, not a military one. Look at the bombing of North Vietnam. It was what brought the North Vietnamese to the table to sue for peace.
No need to read up, my regiment was there.
A political defeat? Brought the North Vietnamese to sue for peace? If you say so, but it seems to me the North Vietnamese ended up with the whole country and US forces ended up going home. I think I prefer our result in the Falklands to yours in Vietnam.
“A political defeat bought on by a defeatist elements here in America. Johnson’s insistence on micromanaging every aspect of the war, always afraid as he put it of ‘’ a bomb going down the smokestack of a Russian freighter’’ in my opinion needlessly drew out the war.I’ve often wondered why one Democratic administration was able to prevail in one Asian war, Korea and not another. When Nixon resumed the bombing it bought the North Vietnamese back to the table. And yes, the North Vietnamese took over the country.”
Yes, we have a similar set of excuses why we lost the revolutionary war with our American colonies but it doesn’t change the result. ;)
“The Brits and the French found this out in 1940”
We Brits also single-handedly defeated the luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain in 1940, destroying any posibility of operation sea lion being launched.
“What I do doubt is their ability to do what they did thirty years ago.”
The whole point is, we wouldn’t have to do what we had to do thirty years ago. In 1982 we had 50 soldiers on the islands and nothing else. Now we have a large garrison, the FIDF, permanent and extensive anti-aircraft defences, Typhoons based on the Island, a brand new Type-45 Detroyer (the most adavnced in the world) permanently on guard, an Astute class hunter-killer sub (the most advanced in the world) permanently on guard with Tomahawks and a Vanguard class Trident sub on permanent guard. Now go and look at what Argentina has got - significantly less than they had in 1982. In light of all this your conclusion is bizarre, especially when you factor in that now there are hundreds of millions of barrels of oil there and a successful clash with the Argentinians would ensure the re-election of Cameron in 2015.
“Our’’ result? You’re English and a Vietnam vet?”
No, read it again. I said I prefered our result in the Falklands to your result in Vietnam.
Prevail? In Korea? I think the word is "stalemate."
I meant the Brits being tossed off the Continent and into the Channel and the french with their Maginot Line.(’’Maginot thinking’’). I’d beg to differ on ‘’defeating the Luftwaffe’’. The RAF did a splendid job in 1940 but that certainly was not the end of the Luftwaffe.
The South Vietnamese might have had a better chance if the democrat congress hadn't betrayed them and cut off their support. Sadly, the chinese and soviets didn't reciprocate and cut off their support to the north vietnamese. If S. Korea had been similarly betrayed by our congress, they would have suffered a similar fate.
I agree. Johnson choose to micromanage the war instead of listening to General Westmoreland in ‘68. Tet wasn’t a defeat for the US, it was a defeat for the North Vietnamese.A gutless congress, Communist sympathizers and radicals here at home as well as a liberal press added to the situation as well.
“I meant the Brits being tossed off the Continent and into the Channel and the french with their Maginot Line.(Maginot thinking). Id beg to differ on defeating the Luftwaffe. The RAF did a splendid job in 1940 but that certainly was not the end of the Luftwaffe.”
The only reason we were involved in Dunkirk was because we declared war on Germany the day our allies, the Polish were invaded. Had we waited a couple of years whilst our allies suffered and we prepared ourselves, it wouldn’t have happened, but we like to honour our allegiances immediately.
The battle of Britain certainly wasn’t the end of the luftwaffe, though it was the beginning of their end. What it was, was the end of the threat of an invasion of Britain and a message to the world that the nazis could be defeated by a small island with some clever people who believe in freedom standing firm and inventing things like Spitfires and radar.
Yes you invented radar. However it was not your little island nation with it’s limited industrial base that defeated Nazi Germany nor did your nation produce a two ocean navy that put the Japanese Imperial Fleet at the bottom of the Pacific nor split the atom and create two atomic bombs that ultimately end the war. The Spitfire was an excellent fighter but it didn’t have the capacity to escort bombers into Germany. Your nation might have showed some spine in 1938 along with the French at Munich and the whole ruddy mess in Europe might not have come about at all.
“Yes you invented radar. However it was not your little island nation with its limited industrial base that defeated Nazi Germany nor did your nation produce a two ocean navy that put the Japanese Imperial Fleet at the bottom of the Pacific nor split the atom and create two atomic bombs that ultimately end the war. The Spitfire was an excellent fighter but it didnt have the capacity to escort bombers into Germany. Your nation might have showed some spine in 1938 along with the French at Munich and the whole ruddy mess in Europe might not have come about at all.”
You’re going to have to stop attributing things to me I’ve never said.
No, we didn’t split the atom but we did invent the jet engine. The Mustang couldn’t escort bombers to Germany either until we let you fit the Rolls Royce Merlin to it. If your nation had shown some spine when the war started instead of waiting to be forced to do the right thing two years later by the Japanese, the whole ruddy mess in the world might not have come about at all. . . . . . .
Not attributing anything to you chum. Just filling in the blanks in your, ah,... history, as it were. Cheerio.
Oh yes, you’re quite right old man. America should have jumped in to save Jolly Old England, with an ill- prepared military that ranked tenth in the world to a European war more than half the American people were dead-set against being involved in. Frightfully sorry. You know, to your nations credit Britain is the only American ally of WW2 that paid back every penny of the aid we gave you, with interest. It was finally all paid off about three years ago. Good show. I mean that sincerely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.