Skip to comments.Fury of the Falklands heroes over new Pope: He believes 'the Malvinas' belong to Argentina,
Posted on 03/14/2013 8:49:56 PM PDT by GrootheWanderer
Falklands veterans told of their dismay last night after the Argentine president hinted she hoped the new Pope her countryman would mediate in the dispute surrounding the territory.
Pope Francis believes the South Atlantic islands are Argentine soil.
In 2010 the then Buenos Aires Cardinal declared: The Malvinas are ours, and last year he accused Britain of usurping the islands.
Firebrand Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, who has for months been seeking easy home popularity by calling for Britain to enter talks on withdrawing from the Falklands, has leapt on the promotion of her fellow Argentine to the papacy to boost her case.
In a televised address yesterday she pointedly said she hoped the new Pope would take a message to the major world powers that they need to participate in dialogue.
The controversy was stoked up only days after the islanders voted almost unanimously to retain their ties to London.
Last night retired Lieutenant General Sir Hew Pike, who commanded 3 Para in the 1982 conflict, said the newly elected leader of the Catholic Church seemed not to recognise the Falkland islanders right to self-determination.
Sir Hew, 69, said the Popes statements about the Falklands gave no recognition of the islanders wish to remain British.
Sir Hew said: It saddens me that a man of the Popes stature does not seem to respect the rights of a group of people to self-determination.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Okay, honeymoon period lasted less than a day.
I guess that might matter to any Catholics living in the Falklands.
Let’s see what the Pope does, if anything. Argentina should not be trying to use the Pope for this purpose. It would be an abuse that any European Pope would back away from I think. Too much like the bad old days.
It was never part of Argentina for even one day of their history
The pope is not going to involve himself in this dispute. He dislikes Kirchner, and is unlikely to put that aside to aid her in election-related chest-beating.
I’m not surprised the pope believes the islands belong to Argentina. You’ll find 90% of the Argentine population believe the islands belong to them, just as 90% of Turks will say Northern Cyprus belongs to them. The pope is free to have his opinion on these kinds of things. It has nothing to do with the church at all, and is simply a geopolitical matter.
Now, in my opinion, the Malvinas are a fictional group of islands. Argentina’s claim to the territory is weak historically, from the evidence available, and was made even weaker by an invasion in the 1980s, in which they were defeated fair and square.
I believe Argentina also has some sort of border dispute with Paraguay, and I have no doubt the pope would come down on Argentina’s side there. Is he going to funnel Vatican money to Kirchner so she can invade Paraguay? Unlikely.
Oy Veh! Here we go!
Not counting the Swizz Guard, how many divisions does the Pope have? Hardly likely that the Vatican would declare war against the Brits.
The idea of England wanting to own the Falklands might have actually made sense when they had an empire which needed for ships to sail around South America. In today's world I can't see it, and I can't see any sort of a case based on what the "islanders(TM)" might want, they're basically English people living on islands which are very close to Argentina and very very far from England. They'd be happier living somewhere closer to England.
Yeah and the brainwashed Catholics on here will follow this guy and nod in agreement and forsake their conservative principles and our long time allies. The Falklands are British, period, I stand with the Brits not the Pope.
GrootheWanderer~:” I know it’s from the Daily Mail. But I hadn’t heard any of this before. “
When the Pope speaks , he speaks as the leader of the Catholic Church
He is the religious leader of the Roman Catholic Church; not the Greek Orthodox , not the Eastern Orothodox Church.
He is ‘infallible’ when he speaks “ex Cathedra” of religious doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, only.
He holds no power , authority , or keys that are temporal.
As an Argentine priest, he lolds the power ,authority, keys , and responsibilities of his parish, only .
When Obama speaks , he holds the keys , power , and authority of his office .
He accepts no responsibility ..(blame Bush )
and he is still a liar !!...
and he is still a liar !!...
and he is still a liar !!
“You lie!” ~ Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC) State of the Union Speech ( Wilson was right then , and he still is right !)
Sounds like our new Pope is Hispano Racist
The Falklanders have reasserted their rights to be British subjects.
Argentina needs to dump its racist Reconquista nonsense over the Falklands.
Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is stronger then the US claim to California. England should leave the Falklands, the north of Ireland, and Gibraltar; filling these places with your own settlers then using them to legitimize your claim is absurd; if any of these places were Muslim they would have already won their independence.
“Hardly likely that the Vatican would declare war against the Brits.”
It is the other way around; to this day it is illegal for a Catholic to sit on the throne of England.
Just thought I’d point out that we haven’t been ‘subjects’ since 1983. The only people considered British ‘subjects’ these days are, by quirk of legislation, Irishmen and women born before 1948.
Gibraltarians are not primarily of British descent, they are descended from people all over the Mediterranean.
Oddly enough, none of the people you mention want to be absorbed by their mickey mouse neighbours. Maybe if they weren’t so mickey mouse eh?
Also, in the case of Northern Ireland, which was largely settled by Scots in the 16th-17th century, you are on tricky grounds there even by your own standards. As Scotland was invaded and occupied by the Ulster ‘Scotti’ tribe (hence the name) from about the 5th century onwards, in which case the settlers were merely ‘returning home’ if you like. Even if that wasn’t the case, it is laughable for an American to be dishing out this argument unless he’s a native american.
As for Falklands, there were no people living there prior to British colonisation, so to all intents and purposes, the British people who live there are the aboriginal population. Putting them under the jurisdiction of another country against their will would be an act of imperialism that regardless of any wrongs that Britain might have done in the past, does not justify a 21st century wrong against British citizens living in the only land they have ever known.
If he has any sense, this is a political matter that he would do well not to get involved in, as it conflicts with his higher duty to the Catholic Church worldwide. Regardless of what he personally believes, it should be for others to argue about.
“Oddly enough, none of the people you mention want to be absorbed by their mickey mouse neighbours.”
That was the idea of planting colonists there to begin with, eh?
The northern Ireland example is absurd; much of western Europe was Celtic, and as they were pushed westwards they were left with corners of France and Spain and the islands of Britain and Ireland. The Saxon invasion, followed by Vikings and Normans, added to the mix, but the Scottish Celts remain distinctly different from those of Ireland and Wales (who differ from each other as well). Scottish Protestants were planted there to remove Catholic Irish from the land (and replace them with livestock); the Scottish were in no way “returning home”. Nice to see them today asking for the independence they helped the English deny the Irish centuries ago.
If Britain planted a flag on some uninhabited island along the Florida coast we’d have something to say about it; we conveniently ignore the Monroe Doctrine when it benefits white English speakers to do so.
If the new pope get’s involved in this dispute, then he’s a fool. This isn’t like Pope John Paul and the cold war where there was clearly a good guy and a bad guy. No one in the Falklands is being oppressed in any way. The only reason (as I understand it) that Argentine has pressed for the Falklands back is because there is thought to be possible oil deposits in the area.
If the Pope gets involved then as others mention. England can use uncle Joe Stalin’s old line. How many divisions does the Pope have?
The Pope has more important things on his plate then mediating a land dispute between the Argentines and the Brits.
1-—Sins has a point. The Cruthin tribe, whose ‘empire’ stretched over Ulster and W Scotland, settled and intermarried with the other Celtic tribes in Scotland (Britons, Galloway celts, Picts) over time as Scotland became one nation.
The Plantation of Ulster was done mainly by Scots from the Lowlands/SW Highlands, so many of those moving to 17thC Ireland would have been returning to where some of their (cruthin) ancestors would have lived.
2—Sorry, but who gives a monkeys about Monroe?. Americans think we are all supposed to kneel at the feet of this exalted doctrine.
Do you really have a difficult time accepting that this pope's personal opinions about a local geopolitical conflict do not in any way affect his stewardship of the entire Church?
He is now the pope of the Argentinians and the British. And everyone else, too.
Besides, who owns an island is not really a "conservative principle." Is it?
If the British occupation of the Falklands & the wishes of its citizens are wrong, the the Spanish conquest of Argentina is just as wrong. Therefore Kirchner & Co. have no more claim to Argentina & the Falklands than the British have.
One quarter of Gibraltareans are of Spanish descent. Even if a few of them were the only ones favouring integration with Spain, in the lasr referendum, Spanish descent voters would have been 95% in favour of remaining a British Ovberseas Territory.
“The northern Ireland example is absurd; much of western Europe was Celtic, and as they were pushed westwards they were left with corners of France and Spain and the islands of Britain and Ireland. The Saxon invasion, followed by Vikings and Normans, added to the mix, but the Scottish Celts remain distinctly different from those of Ireland and Wales (who differ from each other as well). Scottish Protestants were planted there to remove Catholic Irish from the land (and replace them with livestock); the Scottish were in no way returning home. Nice to see them today asking for the independence they helped the English deny the Irish centuries ago.”
Even if you ignore the fact that they where returning back to their ancestral homeland, The plantation of Ulster happened in the 17th century, which happened earlier than the settlement of most of America, so when are you going to leave America and go back to Ireland then, if you care so much about what happened when one people displaced another?
In any case, most nations where founded through conquest if you go back far enough, so what happened centuries ago is of little relevance to the present.
In any case, the Falklands is one of those ‘nations’ if you will that was established without conquering or displacing any native peoples. If any nation has a right to decide who by and how they are ruled, it is the Falkland Islanders.
If Scotland wants to decide to become independent, that is their right. That is how things are done in the 21st century, not by nursing grudges of conquests that happened well beyond living memory.
The Falklands are a useful base. Moreover, there is considerable oil and gas around the islands.
“That is how things are done in the 21st century, not by nursing grudges of conquests that happened well beyond living memory.”
It is being done with wombs (see Ireland, California)
“And you revanchist hatred of a US ally leads you to support leftists fascist imperialists. Show some intellectual honesty.”
I thought all of the loyalists had gone back to England, Canada, or the islands that were loyal to the crown.
Okay, here is why you are 100% wrong.
The Falklands were discovered first by the Spanish, French, and British during the discovering of the Americas, and small skirmishes over the islands ended in British victory. Britain had an occupational force on the previously UNINHABITED islands. When the war in the colonies began, the troops had to leave, and left a plaque declaring the islands a British territory, and that they would return. When they finally did return, some fisherman from South America had set up an outpost. These new occupants were given an option of remaining or leaving, most chose to leave. This is what the ENTIRE Argentine claim is based around. So, let’s analyze this.
Point 1 - The fisherman who had an outpost on the Falkland Islands were NOT Argentine. In fact, Argentina was NOT even a country yet. It was part of a larger nation called the United Provinces.
Point 2 - There was no official government representative on the island. No office. No council. No governor. In short, the government of the United Provinces had NO government presence on the Falklands at all, nor did they try to place any.
Point 3 - We can conclude from these facts that Argentina has never actually owned the Falkland Islands beyond the brief, illegal military occupation in the early 1980s.
Point 4 - The proximity to Argentina is a ridiculous argument to make. By this logic, Brazil can invade French Guiana, and Canada can invade Alaska, simply because they are in close proximity to those countries.
Point 5 - Britain and Argentina went to war over the islands, with no direct military assistance given to either side by another country (it was a straight up battle between the two nations), and Argentina lost. They were decimated in a war that took place in their own back yard. Argentina trying to now change the outcome of that conflict is like Germany claiming that France should be given to them because they took it in WWII.
Point 6 - The people who currently live on the Falkland Islands have no less legitimacy than the ENTIRE population of Argentina, in fact, they probably have more, since they didn’t kill any native islanders when they settled there (the island was uninhabited), whereas the original, Spanish colonists conducted ethnic cleansing of the native population in what is now Argentina. Something to think about. The only difference is that the Falkland Islanders have elected (several times) to remain a colony, mainly due to the fact that they were invaded by a country that’s still threatening them today.
Point 7 - You mentioned Northern Ireland, and many other posters here have told you why that argument is false, so I won’t repeat their words. With Gibraltar however, your inclusion of that overseas territory shows your lack of historical knowledge. Gibraltar was given to Britain through treaty by Spain FOREVER. There were no caveats, no time limits. It was territory which was legally ceded in the Treaty of Utrecht. To mention Alaska again, Britain ‘giving it back’ to Spain is like us giving Alaska back to Russia.
Bonus Point - Argentines should be grateful to Britain. If they had failed to win the war over the islands, the military junta which by this point had gotten completely out of control, had crashed the economy, and had slaughtered innocents, would not have been brought down. Like it or not, Argentina has Britain to thank for its freedom today.
I hope the issue can be resolved peacefully, but with crazy Cristina at the helm, I doubt it. She is a Peronist Galtieri looking to distract from her corruption and profligacy.
Loyal to the crown? If I were British, I would either be a republican (small "r") or a supporter of a different royal family. The current German inbreds show more loyalty to the Commonwealth than to Britain. They are either traitors on the level of Vortigern, or cowards or who dare not risk their Disneyworld castles to protect the nation from invasion, colonization, and servitude. The so-called sovereign Queen regnant has sat idly by as her empire collapsed, and transfered sovereignty to the the EUSSR. That is an act of supreme treachery, an act of treason by the monarch.
Loyal to the Windsors? I would rather piss on the graves of the Battenbergs.
“to this day it is illegal for a Catholic to sit on the throne of England.”
you probably know why, don’t you?
“If Britain planted a flag on some uninhabited island along the Florida coast wed have something to say about it”
They are called “The Bahamas”
Evil abounds in the "churches" that have broken from Rome.
Nevertheless, the new Pope will remain neutral.
No empire anymore but still part of a chain of strategic islands (RAF Ascension and Mount Pleasant) in the south Atlantic which do give us a very good air bridge to a good number of places if and when required.
Not to mention that the FI’s are positioned above the UK’s ‘claim’ to Antarctica (where we have scientific bases). So for these reasons alone we need to keep hold of the islands. Oh and the islanders themselves voted to remain a B.O.T, so they must be pretty happy with their lot.
The UK hasn’t planted a flag on a group of islands ‘just off’ the Argentinian coast though. The Falkland Islands are around 310 miles (500km’s) from Argentina, far and away removed from what is considered to be a nations territorial waters or even its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which tops out at 210 miles.
So even after the EEZ, there is another 100 miles of clear, rough, open ocean before you get to the FI’s.
All of which is a moot point of course, as given we all believe in the concept of democracy here, telling the only permanent inhabitants of the island who voted to remain as a B.O.T that they must now be part of Argentina (who invaded only a generation ago) is contrary to law.
One cannot pick and choose when you want democracy to apply when it gives you the result you didn’t want. That’s just mental.
Really? Did you have somewhere in mind? A pretty large assumption there about the Falklanders' state of mind, if I may say so. Some of them are sixth-generation Falklanders. Given their high standard of living (much higher than the average in the UK mainland), and the result of the recent referendum, seems they're perfectly happy where they are.
“you probably know why, dont you?”
Because a king wanted a divorce, so he invented his own “church”. Now they want to keep their “church” headed by their “monarch/pope” with their lesbian “ministers” (must’ve missed that part of the Bible), so their bigotry prevents them from allowing a moral character to sit on the throne.
They are called The Bahamas
They owned that already; their loyalists fled there after they lost the Revolutionary War (though they apparently left a lot behind, judging by this thread).
The Cardinal’s statements were designed to increase the take in the offering collection boxes. That is no longer his job.
“The British are our closest allies.”
That would be Australia.
“The current German inbreds show more loyalty to the Commonwealth than to Britain.”
This reduces their dependence on the EU; a trading bloc of former colonies/territories.
“The so-called sovereign Queen regnant has sat idly by as her empire collapsed, and transfered sovereignty to the the EUSSR. That is an act of supreme treachery, an act of treason by the monarch.”
The same queen watched the wars in Malaya, Rhodesia, Palestine, etc. sap the blood of her people; they couldn’t hold onto them, and avoided a war along the lines of France’s Indochina or Algeria wars or Portugal’s Angola war.
No, that’s not the reason.....Short story: the Catholic Church actively conspired against Henry to attempt to overthrow England, in favor of Spain. So you might understand that when a political entity (which the Church was at the time) is your sworn enemy that you may not welcome them into the monarchy of your Country.
The monarchy is as outdated as the exclusion, but really it’s not as bad as you make it out to be. It actually has roots in reason. You probably knew that already.