First time visitor? Learn more.

Argentine President Demands Return of Falklands…Once Again

by Macker ( 45 Comments › )
Filed under Argentina, UK at January 3rd, 2013 - 8:00 am

Yes, I deliberately chose the Unflattering Photo on Drudge’s site! The 21st-Century version of Eva Peron has once again demanded from the UK the “return” of the “Malvinas”. How far will she get this time? Here’s the text of the letter, as reported in the UK Telegraph:

“One hundred and eighty years ago on this same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercises of 19th century colonialism, Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000 km (8,700 miles) away from London.
“The Argentines on the Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom subsequently began a population implantation process similar to that applied to other territories under colonial rule.
“Since then, Britain, the colonial power, has refused to return the territories to the Argentine Republic, thus preventing it from restoring its territorial integrity.
“The question of the Malvinas is also a cause embraced by Latin America and by vast majority of peoples and governments around the world that reject colonialism.
“In 1960, the United Nations proclaimed the necessity of ‘bringing to an end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations’.
“In 1965, the General Assembly adopted, with no votes against (not even by the United Kingdom), a resolution considered the Malvinas Islands a colonial case and inviting the two countries to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute between them.
“This was followed by many other resolutions to that effect. In the name of the Argentine people, I reiterate our invitation for us to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations.”

The residents of the FALKLAND ISLANDS have reiterated time and time again that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. They will get another opportunity this year to tell Argentina what to do with their demand.
Cristina had better be careful if she refuses to honor the wishes of those residents. One day she may wake up and find the following Special Delivery from London:

Sorry, Microsoft.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

45 Responses to “Argentine President Demands Return of Falklands…Once Again”
( jump to bottom )

  1. MikeA
    1 | January 3, 2013 8:33 am

    The economy in Argentina must really be bad if she is bringing this up. A nice shiny object to distract the masses. I was reading about looting in supermarkets in Argentina a few weeks ago. Its gonna get interesting.


  2. 2 | January 3, 2013 8:47 am

    @ MikeA:

    She could wind up like Mussolini if she screws this up. I wonder if the average Argentinian is actually concerned about the fate of the Falklands? Somehow I doubt it.


  3. 3 | January 3, 2013 9:00 am

    Argentina can’t mount much of an invasion, but then, Britain can’t mount much of a defense, either.


  4. huckfunn
    4 | January 3, 2013 9:08 am

    Dear Leader has already picked sides on this issue and he’s certainly no fan of the UK. His anit-Brit policies almost guarantee that Argentina will make another play for the Falklands.


  5. 5 | January 3, 2013 9:18 am

    @ huckfunn:

    The problem is that neither Argentina nor Britain can really project power into that region of the world. The Brit’s aircraft carriers are down until something like 2018, and Argentina doesn’t have any aircraft carriers even planned. The US being against the British, though, could be a telling blow to the Brits. It is going to be a rough four years for the “Special Relationship”. About as rough as it is going to be for the relationship with Israel. Elections have consequences.


  6. mawskrat
    6 | January 3, 2013 9:19 am

    @ Mike C.:

    well Argentina did sink the HMS Sheffield


  7. huckfunn
    7 | January 3, 2013 9:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    I’m guessing that the Args have figured out that sending large troop transport ships is a bad idea.


  8. Da_Beerfreak
    8 | January 3, 2013 9:32 am

    mawskrat wrote:

    @ Mike C.:

    well Argentina did sink the HMS Sheffield

    So what. They still lost the war. :twisted:


  9. 9 | January 3, 2013 9:32 am

    mawskrat wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    well Argentina did sink the HMS Sheffield

    That’s what having an aluminum superstructure will do for you. And the Brits sank the Belgrano.

    The Brits do have one aircraft carrier, but they no longer have any planes to fly off of it, just choppers.


  10. mawskrat
    10 | January 3, 2013 9:39 am

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    what’s up with the little angry icon?


  11. Da_Beerfreak
    11 | January 3, 2013 9:47 am

    mawskrat wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    what’s up with the little angry icon?

    It’s one of my favorites. :twisted:
    Other than that, nothing special. :grin:


  12. 12 | January 3, 2013 9:47 am

    Illinois wants to ban almost all modern firearms:

    Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups.

    Amid the developments, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued an “urgent alert” to its members warning them that Democratic legislators were trying to push through last-minute anti-gun legislation.

    “There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering,” the group stated in its alert. “You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution.”

    The Dems are feeling their oats. This i son the heels of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals instructing Illinois to set up a concealed carry law, so it is clear that Illinois intends to simply ignore the Courts on the Second Amendment. That’ll be interesting.


  13. 13 | January 3, 2013 9:51 am

    The British always bitch at Israel about occupied territories. Now the Argies are doing it to the Brits. If the Brits do not like to be lectured by the Argies, they should not lecture Israel.

    This is a publicity stunt by Kirshner. Argentina has no means of taking the Falklands. This also shows the treachery of the British Left. Someone demands territory from your country and you run the ads in your newspaper? This is treasonous in my opinion.


  14. 14 | January 3, 2013 9:52 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Argentina can’t mount much of an invasion, but then, Britain can’t mount much of a defense, either.

    It’s like 2 drunks at a bar!


  15. 15 | January 3, 2013 9:53 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    Dear Leader has already picked sides on this issue and he’s certainly no fan of the UK. His anit-Brit policies almost guarantee that Argentina will make another play for the Falklands.

    Yet the British love Obama. Go figure!


  16. 16 | January 3, 2013 9:54 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I wonder if the average Argentinian is actually concerned about the fate of the Faulklands? Somehow I doubt it.

    They are concerned about runaway inflation and lack of jobs. This is a publicity stunt aided by the British left.


  17. 17 | January 3, 2013 10:01 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Here’s the bill

    Hat tip -- rayra at GCP


  18. 18 | January 3, 2013 10:01 am

    OOps -- sorry about rogering the thread.


  19. mawskrat
    19 | January 3, 2013 10:03 am

    the Faulklands…Islams 2,932 most holy sight

    it realy belongs to the Muslims,just ask em/


  20. 20 | January 3, 2013 10:05 am

    mawskrat wrote:

    the Faulklands…Islams 2,932 most holy sight
    it realy belongs to the Muslims,just ask em/

    Don’t give them ideas!


  21. Da_Beerfreak
    21 | January 3, 2013 10:05 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    It’s a Lame Duck Session. More proof that all Lame Duck Sessions need to be outlawed. ASAP :evil:


  22. 22 | January 3, 2013 10:19 am

    @ Mike C.:

    I wonder how much chance they have of gettig it through? At any rate, it shows the contempt that the Left has for th eJudiciary branch if they aren’t doin gwhat the Left wants them to. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered them to loosen their gun control laws. So they try to make things even more restrictive. I’d never move to Illinois. Not for half a million dollars a year in salary. What an awful state. They are going broke, too.


  23. 23 | January 3, 2013 10:22 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Well, the 7th circuit appeals court decision doesn’t address anything in the proposed bill.


  24. 24 | January 3, 2013 10:31 am

    @ Mike C.:

    Not directly, but it is difficult to see how the proposed bill can be constitutional. The Democrats don’t care about that. They are goin gto ignore the Second Amendment until the Courts force them not to. I reckon that Chicago still effectively bars civillian gun ownership even after McDonald, so I am notsure how much relief the Court is going to be.


  25. 25 | January 3, 2013 10:37 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    There’s a separate bill RE magazine capacity, you know.

    Actually, this IL bill kind of mirrors the in-place CA laws, so it will probably withstand a court test if it passes.


  26. 26 | January 3, 2013 10:43 am

    @ Mike C.:

    I don’t think that the Court has ever spoken on California’s rather draconian gun laws. We only have Heller and McDonald on the books. So far they don’t have much in the way of teeth. The Supreme Court is acting very restrained in the area of Second Amendment law, and now that Roberts appears to have turned Left there is no telling what the Court will do. There are a couple of cases working their way through righ tnow on whether the Second Amendment confers the right to carry a gun. The 7th Circuit decision on concealed carry in Illinois is on eof those. It will be interesting to see what the Court does with that. I[d say it’s a five-four decision, but I don’t know which way Roberts will tip.


  27. eaglesoars
    27 | January 3, 2013 10:44 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    The Democrats don’t care about that.

    Who was it that said (during the Obamacare debate) that said the Federal Gov’t can do anything it wants? I think it was Pete Stark (Commie, Calif)


  28. heysoos
    28 | January 3, 2013 10:48 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    The Democrats don’t care about that.
    Who was it that said (during the Obamacare debate) that said the Federal Gov’t can do anything it wants? I think it was Pete Stark (Commie, Calif)

    I’ve said that for decades…it’s true


  29. 29 | January 3, 2013 11:22 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    The Brits do have one aircraft carrier, but they no longer have any planes to fly off of it, just choppers.

    I listened to an officer from the UK describe his use of Apaches from a ship. Very interesting. If Argentina wants to go up against that officer and his team with Apaches, they will lose again.


  30. waldensianspirit
    30 | January 3, 2013 11:26 am

    If Boehner gets bumped, Obama is gonna laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh


  31. 31 | January 3, 2013 11:33 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    If Boehner gets bumped, Obama is gonna laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh

    Obama is laughing as we speak. Thanks to Media-Entertainment Industrial Complex he can kill someone on TV and no one will care.


  32. unclassifiable
    32 | January 3, 2013 11:35 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Why do we care?

    Why do we keep feeding the left’s ego by reacting to them?

    Let’s focus on our agenda for a change.


  33. heysoos
    33 | January 3, 2013 11:37 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    If Boehner gets bumped, Obama is gonna laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh

    he should be already…the GOP allowed him to kick their asses
    the level of dysfunction is astounding even by my standards…why hasn’t the GOP gone on tv to explain the Sandy bill?…wtf is wrong with these people? it’s like they are scared shitless of the media…why do you suppose that is?…it’s all about perception regarding re-election…they love the office but abhor governing


  34. 34 | January 3, 2013 11:40 am

    @ heysoos:

    The national Republican Party is just a strawman for the Democrats. We do not have a serious opposition party.


  35. huckfunn
    35 | January 3, 2013 11:44 am

    Haw! Time Warner Cable Drops Current TV Upon Sale To Al Jazeera
    Via WZ


  36. Alberta Oil Peon
    36 | January 3, 2013 11:50 am

    Christina Kirchner: Obama with tits.


  37. 37 | January 3, 2013 11:52 am

    @ heysoos:

    This is why Republicans lose.

    Republicans began to fret about losing the PR fight. In a closed-door meeting, some GOP House lawmakers suggested that each member kick in $5,000 to hire a big Madison Avenue advertising firm to craft a communications strategy for them. But Boehner and other party leaders quickly shot down the idea.

    That’s exactly what they need. A PR firm!


  38. 38 | January 3, 2013 11:52 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Who was it that said (during the Obamacare debate) that said the Federal Gov’t can do anything it wants? I think it was Pete Stark (Commie, Calif)

    here is the entire question and answer. He said, “the federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country.”


  39. 39 | January 3, 2013 11:53 am

    New thread.


  40. Alberta Oil Peon
    40 | January 3, 2013 11:54 am

    @ huckfunn:
    And why shouldn’t they drop it? They made a deal with one entity to run the channel, and it was always a ratings disaster. Then the ownership changes, so the entity with which they had dealt is gone. Good excuse to drop the turd.


  41. 41 | January 3, 2013 11:55 am

    Rodan wrote:

    That’s exactly what they need. A PR firm!

    the way the dhimmicrats control everything, the Rs better be careful who they hire. they could end up with an agency with another master altogether -- ie, a double agent deliberately advising them to do things which are even more stupid that boners current strategy.


  42. 42 | January 3, 2013 11:57 am

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    @ huckfunn:
    And why shouldn’t they drop it? They made a deal with one entity to run the channel, and it was always a ratings disaster. Then the ownership changes, so the entity with which they had dealt is gone. Good excuse to drop the turd.

    normally contracts remain intact through ownership changes. or so i thought. kind of like how if you inherit an estate with real property, you can also inherit a mortgage.


  43. 43 | January 3, 2013 11:58 am

    @ Kirly:

    the way the dhimmicrats control everything, the Rs better be careful who they hire. they could end up with an agency with another master altogether — ie, a double agent deliberately advising them to do things which are even more stupid that boners current strategy.

    Good point and I just realized. Most of Madison Ave is Progressive. They better search for a PR firm that has some Conservative or Libertarian leanings.


  44. waldensianspirit
    44 | January 3, 2013 12:15 pm

    @ Rodan:
    @ unclassifiable:
    @ heysoos:
    Yep, that’s why I added and extra laugh


  45. 45 | January 3, 2013 5:51 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Shit, I’d never move to Обамастан even if they paid me…

    ONE!
    MILLION!
    DOLLARS!


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David