Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

[tritsofme]

Source: Sunday Times

IN a new outburst of antiwestern sabre-rattling, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has threatened Britain with “revenge” for the Falklands war of 1982. The belligerent Latin American leftist warned last week that his recent build-up of sophisticated Russian and Iranian weapons would be used to destroy the British fleet if it attempted to return to the South Atlantic.

Speaking on his weekly television show Alo Presidente (Hello, Mr President), Chavez denounced what he described as Britain’s “illegal occupation” of the Falklands and repeated his call for a regional military alliance against Britain and the United States.

“If we had been united in the last war, we could have stopped the old empire,” Chavez said, as he gesticulated to maps showing how Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would intercept British warships. “Today we could sink the British fleet.”

Chavez has often expressed support for Argentina’s claim to the Falklands, but his latest broadside was notable for both its antiBritish vitriol and its unprecedented threats. He declared that British history was “stained with the blood of South America’s indigenous people” and demanded revenge for the “cowardly” sinking of the General Belgrano, the Argentine cruiser.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2368707.ece

---

I doubt that a vast majority islanders want anything to do with Argentina or Hugo.

[Skink]

1. Islanders definately like being taken over by bankers,

[tritsofme]

4. Well over 70% of them are of British descent

And 100% have British citizenship, I can't imagine very many are clamoring to become part of Argentina, let alone join Hugo's sacrosanct "socialist revolution".

[provis99]

12. You're right on that

And every one of those Falkland Islanders is a die-hard imperialist. Really, they're no different than the white Rhodesians or white South Africans who stole another people's country. The Falkland Islanders should admit what they really are: illegal colonizers, and return to live under Argentine sovereign rule.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. You mean...

...they should give it back to the French, who founded the first colony at Port Louis in 1764? it predates the British settlement of 1766 at Port Egmont. Or possibly the Spanish, since Magellan first put the Islands on the map in the 1500's?

Argentina wasn't even an independent state until 1816. It's tricky to see what sort of claim they have.

[ohio2007]

28. I think he is talking about that

African nation that took all the plantations away from the opressive white owners only to ruin the programs with destruction management techniques and poverty for the hired farm hands.

btw,
Those farmers were asked to come back but many said "Not while that knuckleheaded leader is dictating the countries "new policies"



I could be wrong though.

[Captain Hilts]

13. They had voted to be British. nt

[David__77]

36. That vote is not legitimate.

You cannot bring in a bunch of colonial mother country citizens, then claim that these constitute a legitimate representative majority in the occupied territory. If that is true, then South African apartheid would be "democratic" if the English and Dutch had sent more colonists so as to numerically overwhelm the indigenous Africans.

[Bacchus39]

44. Falklands were uninhabited, who else could vote???????

n/t

[David__77]

48. There were Argentine settlers as early as the 1820s.

Besides, I'm sure the US wouldn't like it if Russia invaded Alaskan uninhabited islands and populated them with Russian citizens. Would they then have a democratic right to vote to join Russia? The Malvinas were under Argentine sovereignty at the time of Britain's invasion.

[Bacchus39]

50. nope, there were British settlers even earlier

and Britain never gave up their claim. Argentina declared what was claimed by Spain was now their's. Britain had an earlier claim and previously attempted to establish a permanent colony.

if the US leaves somee of the Alleutian Islands uninhabited after already establishing a claim and NOT give up their sovereignty over them and Russia comes in tries to populate the islands, does Russia have a claim??

[cali]

86. free St. Miquelon and St. Pierre.

Canada should immediately take possession of these two Islands off her Eastern coast. France has no rights to those islands!

[Jim Sagle]

2. The Argentine government that Britain defeated in the Falklands was a brutal fascist dictatorship.

Chavez ain't lookin' so good.

[TomInTib]

7. Deal is, that was a generation ago.

Chavez and Silva, et al, are talking big now.

If I was a resident of the Falklands, I would be considering my options.

[Captain Hilts]

14. I supported Britain but felt sorry for the poor Argie troops sent to the Falklands by their dictator

[zonkers]

64. Stupid. Plenty of Brits died too. I wonder if the Argentines will ever end up with it. Doubt it.

[Captain Hilts]

72. As someone with kin in the RN and British Army, I don't have to be coaxed to support them. nt

[killbotfactory]

17. That would be the brutal dictatorship the US supported and encouraged

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm

I don't think Chavez would be best friends with them, and besides the dispute over the Falklands goes back centuries.

[DS1]

3. It's Reagan time all over again

[ohio2007]

30. I think we could point the finger at another president

Monroe and his 'doctrine'. He actually protected the rights those new countries from further colinization by Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

I don't think Argentina is harping about what Hugo is crowing over. Better source of info would be from the Argentina MSM at this point to se what's on their minds;
http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=11246&formato=HTML

Sources in Caracas may have their own spin;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2926415&mesg_id=2926415

[roamer65]

124. Where's Al Haig when we need him.

:sarcasm:

"I'm in charge here."

[krispos42]

5. Funny, the Argentinians don't have a problem with the sinking

They apparantly decided it was a legal act of war back in 1994.

Ironically, the British sank a former US Navy World War Two cruiser with a modern nuclear submarine... firing World War Two torpedoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Belgrano

[formercia]

83. I thought I read the Torpedoes were MK 45's

They date back to the 60's but have been upgraded.

[krispos42]

87. Apparantly the British commander didn't trust the new torps

So he used the old-fashioned non-homing variety. Hell of a big warhead, though. Over 800 pounds.

The weather was reported bad, which would have limited the visibility of the lookouts. Probably why the sub commander risked it.

[mitchtv]

102. Argentines don't have a problem?

with the Belgrano WTF are you talking about? You should see the very busy memorial to the lost sailors and marines. Argentina has loads of problems. England has just been put on hold

[TheMightyFavog]

139. Sinking the Belgrano saved the Royal Navy's ass.

Had they not taken down Belgrano, Argentina would have pressed on with their carrier task force.

[shance]

6. Here we go. Time to demonize and placed words in Chavez's mouth he probably didn't say.

Or say in the way they have for all intents and purposes misconstrued.

Could I be wrong?

Yes.

Would I believe Chavez over a British newspaper?

I would.

Since when has the corporate media been honest to us?

Especially with someone they are being paid to paint as the villain?

[trumad]

8. The guy could babies and some on DU would find away to blame it on somethin.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. "the guy could babies"?

could he?

[trumad]

31. forgot "Kill".

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Not hug?

Either one works. Odd that you should associate Chavez with killing babies. Bush has killed far more babies. In fact Venezuela's investment in public health infrastructure most likely has prevented the deaths of many Venezuealan babies. Perhaps 'unkills babies' would be more apt.

[trumad]

38. Please....

I'm sure Bush killed the world.... It's not the point... The point is, Chavez can do no wrong in the eyes of some DUers. Right?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. I'm still wondering why you think Chavez kills babies.

Or why you think that it is an appropriate hypothetical, that is that Chavez has in fact done great evil in the world on the order of 'kill babies' that in turn these mysterious 'some DU'ers' rationalize away?

Exactly what great evil deeds has Chavez done that makes your hypothetical appropriate?

[trumad]

67. Are you fucking serious?

OK---how about this er hypothetical. "The guy could kill puppy dogs"...

Is that better or are you going to ask me why I think the guy kills puppy dogs?

Some people---I swear!

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Yes I am fucking serious

you made the insulting (and incoherent) statement that "The guy could babies and some on DU would find away to blame it on something" which you and I clairifed meant that Chavez could kill babies and this mysterious "some on DU" would explain it away, and I want to know on what basis you believe that Chavez has committed crimes of the magnitude of 'killing babies' that these 'some on DU' have explained away that justifies your insulting crap.

[knight_of_the_star]

103. I think you just proved his point nt

[trumad]

108. Is it me? LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1724820&mesg_id=1724851

[Stella_Artois]

126. You must be feeling quite smug

Its not often someone can be proved to be totally correct in the space of a few posts ;)

[trumad]

107. Jesus Christ... You would happen to be Miss Teen SC would you?

[Marrah_G]

127. Just give in...

Yell "Viva Chavez" and you will feel better. You will even get a free koolaid- man shaped cup with a neat crazy straw!

[LittleClarkie]

134. Figure of speech. Perhaps you've heard of them.

Chavez could do just about anything, even something wildly negative, and those who support him would find a way to defend said anything is the gist of the slightly misworded phrase trumad was trying to present.

[LittleClarkie]

132. It is said the evil one eats babies

[1932]

9. Exactly.

[Socal31]

22. Well,

at least you admit your complete bias. Now we know not to take you seriously on anything to do with Venezuela. Thanks.

[shance]

90. Complete bias? Call me old fashioned. I just have a soft spot for the truth.

Perhaps you prefer to to believe those who lied us into more illegalities than i can list?

Im not sure what you are holding on to, but Chavez is doing some impressive things in Venezuela. And because he is the Bush Administration with the help of the CIA have been targetting him for years.

One of their biggest "guns" is their media owned machine.

Have you ever read Carl Bernstein's article published in the Rolling Stone called the "CIA and the Media"?

You want to talk about bias?

Read that article and then talk to me about bias.

[LittleClarkie]

135. So if it's not Venezuelan Analysis' website it's biased?

It's amazing. Sometimes folks around here will even take a right wing site like News Max and link to it if they agree with what's being said about whoever it is (I've seen it done with Kerry). And yet some here won't accept Time, or the BBC, or any site at all except for the likes of Venezuelan Analysis, which has an admitted bias going in the other direction.

How about we meet in the middle and go with the Christian Science Monitor.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. Will you condemn Chavez if/when it turns out that he was accurately quoted.

Arguing that the Falklands should be turned over to Argentina in defiance of the wishes of the vast majority of the populace (whose ancestors have lived there as British citizens for centuries) is, in my view, completely indefensible.

*If* it turns out that Chavez has called for them to be invaded and forced to submit to Argentine rule, would you condemn him for doing so?

[nick303]

123. Original quotes here

http://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15726&Itemid=34

Seems to check out (unless of course, cronicaviva is a corporate owned war profiteering capitalist criminal Spanish-language newspaper, in which case we can negate reality in favor of ideology).

[RL3AO]

10. “Today we could sink the British fleet.”

LOL.

[msongs]

11. who couldn't :-) nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. Venezuela, for one. emo

[Indenturedebtor]

18. Seriously though...

Seriously, the British fleet is probably much like our own in that it relies primarily on airpower... Um I really really doubt that Venezuelas airforce is all that impressive. Even if it's modern, the British and Murikan airforces are probably about a generation beyond modern.

I hope they don't do anything silly down there... beyond this silliness anyways. Pick your battles Chavez... pick your battles.

[Yupster]

19. Speaking of silly

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5101134.html

CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuelans have a penchant for creative naming, with some parents giving their children unusual names like Hersony, Nohemar — or even Superman.

But such odd names might be turned down by the civil registry if Venezuela approves a bill barring parents from giving their children "names that expose them to ridicule, are extravagant or difficult to pronounce," or that raise doubts about whether a child is a girl or a boy.

The National Electoral Council in the past week laid out that proposal in a draft bill circulated to city offices in Caracas.

[Shipwack]

33. Just because the Brits rely on air power...

Doesn't mean that anyone else has to in order to mount an effective defense. And as impressive as the British jets might be, they have only one small carrier.

It was Exocet missiles, not jets, that sank and damaged British ships back in the Malvinas War (or Falklands, depending upon your hemisphere). Anti-ship missile technology has far outpaced missile defense technology.

[hack89]

40. The Brits have tomahawk cruise missiles

The one thing they could not do during the Falklands war was attack enemy air bases - now they can now carry the war the the South American main land. They could make entire cities go dark if they wanted - in any case the potential economic damage to anyone that attacks the Falklands is potentially much greater.

[RL3AO]

76. England probably has the second strongest navy in the world,

Yet it doesn't even compare to the U.S.



U.S. carrier on the left, British carrier on the right.

[TheMightyFavog]

141. My analysis...

According to Wikipedia, The RAF Squadron at RAF Mount Pleasant currently consists of four Tornado F3s, A squadron of Sea King Helicopters, and some SAMs. Hardly enough to push back a combined argentina/Venezuala air attack, espeacailly if Argentina brings it's carrier into play. Granted with in flight refueling, the RAF could get Tornados to the Falklands, however if RAF Mount Pleasant's taken out, they have no place to land.

As for the Royal Navy, their air force consists of helicopters and upgraded versions of the Harrier. Don't get me wrong, Harriers are great little aircraft for ground attack, and against Helicopters and other slower aircraft, they can be quite effffective, but against contemprary fighters, well, I'm not sure they could be effective. The Royal Navy's stuck with these until the HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service in seven years.

Let's look at what Venezuela and Argentina could throw at them:

Venezuela's got F16s, CF-5, and 10 relativley advanced Russian Su-30 Flanker-Cs. Granted, the F-16s would be of limited use, as they can't get spare parts for them, but those Flankers could even give a Typhoon squadron trouble. Venezueala could also throw some of their old Mirage 5s into the mix.

Argentina can bring Mirages, modernised versions of the A-4 Skyhawk, and Pucara attack aircraft, These were all aircraft that were in service during the Falklands war.

Althoguh the Argentine navy no longer has carriers, their naval avaition wings can still bring their Super Etendards into play, even though these aircraft are ancient by today's standards.

My final analysis:

Considering the current strength of the RAF at the Falklands, combined with what the Royal Navy can Muster, it is my opinion, that the result of a joint Venezualan/Argentine air campign in the Falklands would result in The RAF garrison becoming quickly overwhelmed. I also predict that such an action could prove very dangerous to any Royal Navy task force sent to intervene. Unless the RAF coould find some way to get more Typhoons down there (even with inflight refuleing, I know they could get there, but if the opposition takes out RAF Mount Pleasant, (Which you'd have to be some sort of idiot not to do) Any RAF reinforcements would have no place to land.

[Pavulon]

42. Right, tomorrow Britian could smash your country.

This guy really is a moron. He has a nice little cult following, people who want to see a che, but he is what he is.

I wonder if that same nuclear sub that sunk the General Belgrano is still in service?

[YankmeCrankme]

56. Right, without US support Britain couldn't have taken the Falklands back

Yeah, they could "smash" Venezuela, only if they used nukes. Britain can't project military power anywhere in the world without US support, otherwise they'd still have colonies.

[Pavulon]

65. They have tomahawks and subs to launch them

which can be used to destroy targets inland as well as at sea. No need to project power. The US did not support the war as it was stuck in the middle of an argentinian government that was anti communist and Britain. We lent no overt support.

However, why is a loud mouthed, che wannabe speaking for Argentina?

He is a press whore, needs to stir up something at least once a month or so.

[YankmeCrankme]

73. Smashing a country isn't the same as destroying a few targets inland.

Without US support Britain could not have projected power to the south Atlantic. They didn't have the logistical capability to sustain a force of that size that far from home.

No need to get nasty about Chavez. I didn't address his comments, just your misconception about Britain's ability to project military power beyond England without US support.

[mitchtv]

104. A coalition of Argentina, Venezuela ,

and ( Brazil) running interference, would be probably more than the Brits could handle

[Pavulon]

111. Britain can inflict

serious damage with a naval operation. As it proved almost 30 years ago it can use naval power to win a war with a 3rd world nation. While a royal navy is not a fraction of the five operational us fleets it can disrupt a minor state 4500 mikes from the uk. that is half the distance to the falklands.

Not trying to be nasty.

[truebrit71]

130. Bullshit....

...but thanks for playing.... :eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

77. You live in confusion about his need to "stir up something at least once a month."

The corporate media hangs on his every word, looking over his shoulder, anxious for anything which can be spun good and hard for a right-wing advantage.

He's not going out of his way to get attention, it's gonna be there any time he says anything they can use. It's a given.

It's not that hard to grasp. We hear a lot about Chavez because he's someone _Bush wants to destroy, or he wouldn't have gone to the trouble to make as much trouble for him as he has.

Our right-wing-serving corporate media have slavishly served every right-wing pResident since Ronald Reagan, shading, coloring the truth in every instance, hot to keep the American people deeply in the dark, and hostile against everyone they hate, anxious to go knock their blocks off, to relieve themselves of the tension they think they've got from pigging out on all the propaganda the spin-meisters like Otto Reich vomit out by the ton.

By the time any of them ever finally get it all straightened out, years, if not decades later, it's way too late to matter, anyhow, and people have grown old and tired of the subject. Nice game they've played. They'd better make the most of it, however, as a lot of the public is starting to see through their deliberate misinformation, after recognizing the patterns, and starting to connect the dots.

[Pavulon]

114. Cult of Personality

there are many who love chavez and see him as a christlike figure. A socialist water walker, the like of which has not been seen since stalin ran the USSR.

In reality when his actions are examined, using only the AFP wire, show actions that are wholly unacceptable in western democracy.

The real question is why is el presidente so concerned with Argentinian policy?? Argentina has not changed its policy regarding the falklands.

We hear a lot about chavez because he runs an oil rich state and talks a lot. If he was running the DPRC no one would give a shit about his opinion on a damn thing.

[Judi Lynn]

117. I've never heard ANYONE who idolized Stalin. Interesting.

As for your odd remark, claiming there's anyone here who uses only the "AFP wire" for "examining" his "actions," do you know something about AFP no one else does? Is it possible these "commies" are actually "cheese eating surrender monkeys" who have been feeding the world bogus news?

That sounds far more like Fox News. I'm not buying any insinuation AFP is an untrustworthy LEFTY cabal. How odd.

[Pavulon]

118. AFP

does not exhibit the bias I sometime see in ap. my opinion. There is a long list of troubling behavior from chavez that has been reported in the us and eu media. I despise stalin, a mass murderer and megalomaniac, but hid love the portraits with the red backgrounds..

The little froggies in Venezuela have more to loose if he continues to consolidate power. You think chavez will be a US ally when bush leaves office or a pain in the ass for the democrat elected? He sure loves harry reid..

[Judi Lynn]

119. So who says Harry Reid is the last word on world events, anyway?

We all have to make up our own minds.

The "froggies" seem to be the ones winning as Chavez DECENTRALIZES power.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Why so bitter?

Did you lose assets in Venezueala? Do you just not like our latin american cousins?

By the way 'che wannabe' is misplaced. Che wanted nothing much to do with actually governing a country. Chavez seems to be all about creating and governing this new decentralized democratic socialist Venezuela that you are so afraid of. Stick with the Castro comparisons, at least there are some similarities.

[Pavulon]

109. No, actually have done major jobs

there. There is significant presence of us and eu industry. I do wonder why hugo is so concerned with a argentinian issue. I am sure press time has nothing to do with that.

All the red shirts and socialist rhetoric gets me confused..sorry. Still marveling on how well it all worked in the USSR.

for the record argentina states their policy is to never attempt another military takeover of the falklands.

[truebrit71]

129. Complete and total bullshit. What "support" was given by the US?

Your attempt at revisionist history would be funny if it weren't so fucking stupid...

[Snarkturian Clone]

16. ah...

Chavez takes another step toward comic book Super-Villiany.

:silly:

[some guy]

20. Crap journalism

It's interesting that the story uses the word "revenge" in quotations, but they don't actually use a quoted statement by Chavez where HE used the word.

Citing the Falklands war as an example of how a united South America would be stronger than individual countries acting alone, and saying they "could",now, defeat the British navy is NOT the same thing as saying he WANTS to figth the British navy.

The story isn't worth the time it took to read (edit to add), except as an example of potential US-British stoking antagonism against Chavez, Venezuela, and by extension, the whole of South America.

[Socal31]

23. Come on people!

He was really showing the air-routes of the food-aid planes that were taking supplies to villages. Those villages just happen to be in the middle of the ocean, and look like British ships.

[Igel]

92. Actually, I read it the other way 'round.

Chavez stoking antagonism against the US and Britain.

After all, that's one of the two reasons for his speech: The first, as spokesman for all of South America, saying they need to unite under their leader. The second, saying what a consequence of the uniting would be, and the external threat.

In this case, he sounds very much like Castro, Mugabe, Lukashenka, and Neejad: "Ése es el viejo imperialismo y solo unidos podremos decirle ¡hasta aquí llegaste!: basta de imperio, de dominación, de explotación."

But it's really not a big problem, since the enemy are, well, foul: "Pero nos quedamos de brazos cruzados, mientras Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña atropellaban a Argentina y masacraban a un grupo de soldados heroicos que fueron allá a rescatar esas islas y hundían un barco que ni siquiera era de guerra, el Belgrano, y hubo cientos de muertos y tenían planes de bombardear Buenos Aires."

http://ar.news.yahoo.com/s/26082007/24/politica-ch-exige-reino-unido-devuelva-malvinas-argentina.html

And I quote the Spanish because there's a contingent who apparently believe that all translations for those they admire must be positive. Since my translation wouldn't be all that positive and glowing, it would, of course, necessarily be false.

[SquireJons]

21. Kind of reminds me of another south of the boarder dictator/president

Someone named "pineapple face" or something like that. I hear he's on his way to sunny France pretty soon. This is so silly... why is it these tin pan tyrants always have to bight off more than they can chew? I guess it's the old absolute power corrupting absolutely.

[tom_paine]

24. Chavez bellicose rhetoric makes him look like a leftist version of Bushler

Sorry, and flame away if you must, but that is how I see it.

And with every step, I am sorry to say because I kind of was hoping Chavez was truly a defender of liberty, he confirms his tyrannical nature.

[David__77]

35. "Bellicosity" is a sin?

Wouldn't a passionate defender of libery be quite "bellicose" in the course of such defense? I would hope that progressives would be very bellicose when needed. Not an ounce of forgiveness should be afforded those carrying out crimes against humanity.

[tom_paine]

54. You can't pretend to ignore the similarities of which I speak

To forgive Bushler's bellicose rhetoric of the tyrant and yet forgive Chavez's because "bellicosity" is no sin.

But is he being a passionate defender of liberty here?

I wonder...

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Bush's bellicose rhetoric is not the problem.

This is the problem.

[eagler]

81. He's a phony dictator but not the only phony dictator

[Warren Stupidity]

96. What is phony is claiming Chavez is a dictator. nt.

[ck4829]

25. Chavez shouldn't be wanting revenge for a war that a right wing military dictatorship started

[sofa king]

26. I'm going to withold judgment on this....

...Until I hear a Spanish-language version of what happened. If someone sees it, please post it in this thread, won't you?

The Hispanic world is really touchy about this sort of thing, especially toward the U.K. There's a really simple reason for it: if there was a navally strategic place in the world that looked weak, even for a minute, the Brits took it. Since the Spanish Empire was in decline for two hundred years, they've got plenty of lost territories to complain about. Examples include Minorca (eventually given back), Gibraltar, and the Falklands. More than that, the long and unusually tight relationship between Portugal and the U.K. has been a continual thorn in the Spanish side.

Probably worse still, Britain deserves a lot of credit for fomenting and funding the revolutions against Spanish rule, which probably rankles some South Americans in the same way that the French intervention in our own revolution pisses off our rednecks (those who don't think that America was created by Jesus in 1981).

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Here you go - Yahoo Spanish News

http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/efe/20070826/twl-chavez-exige-al-reino-unido-que-le-d-e1e34ad_1.html

It's an interesting point - could a group of uninhabited islands be said to 'belong' to a South American country that only came into existence after they were settled by various European countries?

Personally, I think the views of the inhabitants are the important thing, not the order in which countries got their boats there.

Apparently, this all kicked off because Chavez took exception to a question on 'Aló Presidente' from The Guardian about term limits: http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2157362,00.html

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Ah the context as always sheds some light.

So Chavez was irked by a bit of a rude question from the Guardian and went off on a tirade about european and US hypocrisy and interference in the affairs of other people, part of which included the reference to the continued colonization of the falklands.

"It was a rare moment of silence in a seven-hour talkathon and did not last long. Venezeula's president hurled the question back out to sea, far over the horizon, and turned it into a harangue against Europe, the British navy, the Queen, racism, imperialism and that embodiment of old world vice, the Guardian. By the end of it, Mr Chávez had urged the Caribbean to reconsider membership of the Commonwealth, Latin America to recover the Falklands, and this newspaper, which he named about a dozen times, to stir republican sentiment in Britain."

This was just Chavez blowing off steam. Oh and the people of South America for some unknown reason generally seem to agree with Chavez with respect to the habits and attitudes of European and North American powers. I can't imagine why they would think this way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. "the continued colonization of the falklands" is not "interference in the affairs of other people"

because the people of the Falklands want to remain British. Indeed, Chavez's opinions on the Falklands and his thoughts about his ability to fight British ships seem to be the "interference in the affairs of other people" here.

[1932]

59. That seems to be what happened.

[sofa king]

122. Thank you, muriel!

As always, context is the key.

At the risk of annoying other readers, I think you're right in this case. I'd go a step farther and suggest that what Argentina really wants from the Falklands is strategic control over the Straights of Magellan--the same thing that the Brits wanted when they knocked the place over for themselves.

[Bacchus39]

45. latin americans NOT rankled by end of colonialism

n/t

[ohio2007]

27. He should address the Panama canal issue. which is owned by Chinese

companies and,
it's a lot closer to Hugo's homeland.

/sarc

[David__77]

34. The Malvinas must be liberated.

British colonialism must be wiped clean from all places it still occupies, from north Ireland to the Malvinas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Are the penguins that concerned?

Since the islands were uninhabited when Europeans found them, is it really that important to rid the island of all human population?

[David__77]

46. I understand your point, but I think territory is important.

Territory is of strategic importance for various reasons. There certainly was an uproar when Russia "claimed" the north pole recently. There are material resource implications involved here, but even otherwise, "resourceless" outposts allow for military and espionage outposts, etc. The Malvinas belong to the Americas, and I cannot imagine why they should remain a colony of Britain. I do not think that the individuals living there should be expelled, but they should be prepared to live under Argentine sovereignty.

Argentina's rightful claim to the Malvinas was established in the 1820s. There were Argentine settlers present when Britain invaded during the 1830s. The passage of time does nothing to justify Britain's occupation of the islands.

[Bacchus39]

47. how about the people who live there deciding?

n/t

[David__77]

49. Bringing in enough colonists to form a majority does not justify colonialism.

I would hope that progressive-minded people would oppose colonialism in all forms.

[Bacchus39]

52. and rule over British citizens by Argentina would be called what?

being "close" to the islands does not justify Argentina's claim. Argentina is trying to do exactly what you are decrying. subjugation of a people by a foreign power.

[1932]

143. Immigration?

[liquiduniverse]

53. Should we then oppose Argentina's colonialization of the islands too?

This was an uninhabited land. Placing a few people on a small part of the islands 10 years before the British doesn't necessarily make it yours. The islands have been established as British for a long time. A large majority of the people there consider themselves to be British. If the Falklands want to claim independence from the UK, that should be up to them, but I can't see Argentina making a valid claim for the islands.

[YankmeCrankme]

60. You can't colonize your own land.

Argentina has always claimed the land as their own.

The ownership of the islands have been in dispute for almost three centuries. Here's an interesting summary from wikipedia

"The Falkland Islands have had a complex history since their discovery, with France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina all claiming possession, and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. The Falklands Crisis of 1770 was nearly the cause of a war between France, Spain and Britain. The Spanish government's claim was continued by Argentina after the latter's independence in 1816 and the independence war in 1817. The United Kingdom took control of the islands by force with the 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Soledad by the American sloop USS Lexington (28 December 1831). Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and the dispute was used by the military junta as a reason to invade and briefly occupy the islands before being defeated in the two-month-long Falklands War in 1982 by a United Kingdom task force which returned the islands to British control."

Notice the comment about the destruction of the Argentinian settlement by the US with the UK taking control of the islands by force afterwards.

Moving UK citizens onto the islands to reinforce claim of ownership is a tried and true act of colonialism that has been de-legitimized over the years.

No easy resolution to this problem. While I didn't agree with the attempt to take them by military means by Argentina, Britain's claim to the islands is not undisputed.

[Bacchus39]

62. Britain claimed it before Argentina

and Argentina's claim is that what was Spain's is now theirs.

[YankmeCrankme]

74. Maybe Spain claimed it before England, afterall that is what the original dispute was

And everything that was Spain's with regard to Argentina became Argentina's when they became independent.

[Bacchus39]

79. maybe Spain no longer had it when (England did) when Arg became independent

n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Spain bought their claim from the French

the year after Britain put a settlement on the islands - which was a few years after the French had. It's a tangled set of claims - and when you think that 'settlement' means a few farms and a church on over 4000 square miles, what happened in the 18th century isn't much help, really - the idea of self determination, like modern democracy, developed after the settlements were started. Better we stick with modern ideas of listening the the inhabitants of a place than just looking at 18th century claims by rival naval powers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Were the Argentinians who went there in the 1820s without any European ancestry?

If not, then surely they were colonialists as well. As far as I can tell, the last Argentinian in charge of the Malvinas was called Don Jose Maria Pinedo. It doesn't sound very American-Indian to me.

[YankmeCrankme]

61. What!

So you're saying that all the Latin American countries, because they were once European colonies, still should be considered "owned" by those same European countries because most of the ruling classes have mixed or full European ancestry?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. No, I'm saying what's the difference between colonisation of uninhabited islands

by Spaniards who had spent some time in South America, and by British who had come straight from Britain? I would say none - the Argentinians (independent of Spain for a few years before they claimed the Malvinas) don't have any greater inherent right to the Falklands than the British. So the wishes of the inhabitants should be taken as decisive - and they want to be British.

[YankmeCrankme]

78. Argentina's claim goes back to the Spanish claim, which was the original dispute

So their claim is as old as the Spanish claim. Everything that was Spanish, became Argentina's when they became independent. We were talking about the legitimacy of moving citizens to colonize a land to establish ownership. Since the land is claimed as part of Argentina it would not have been colonization to move settlers there, while the Falklands wasn't a part of Britain originally so moving British citizens there is colonization. When Argentina declared independence the islands were considered a part of their country. They established a settlement there, which was destroyed by the US, and then the Brits took over the islands.

There are uninhabited islands off the coast of the US, so any country can move their citizens there and claim it as their own?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. All of which was likely about whaling.

This was just typical anglo imperialism at work 170 years ago, same as it ever was, not much different than today. Although we've had several major weapons upgrades in the meantime and we don't care too much about whale oil anymore.

[killbotfactory]

94. It comes down to oil

Whale oil.

My how times have changed.

[AngryAmish]

112. First you get the whale oil, then you get the money, then you get the women

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. The islands were not originally part of Spain or Britain

Neither had an obvious claim. Spain was colonizing them just as much as Britain (Britain first had a settlement there in 1766). The US destroyed the Spanish colony (apart from the penal colony) because of acts of piracy against US ships.

[Nye Bevan]

68. So the question is, how long do the "colonists" and their descendants need to have been there

before you will allow them to have a vote?

I assume that your cut-off date is sometime after 1492.

[Bacchus39]

80. antiquated territorial claims have primacy over self determination

c'mon everyone knows that.

[mitchtv]

97. Viva Argentina

they pulled the same shit in Ireland , and are getting away with it. Time to seize Gibraltar as well

[tritsofme]

105. But don't dare to ask the people of Gibraltar what they believe their status should be

Since you would find that in 1967 they voted 12,138 to 44 not to transfer sovereignty to Spain and in 2002 voted 17,900 to 187 to reject shared sovereignty with Spain...

[mitchtv]

121. Funny, they didn't ask the rest of the country

[truebrit71]

136. Which country should they have asked?

:eyes:

[tritsofme]

137. I suppose Spaniards should get a vote on whether they should be the colonial overlords

of a people that wants nothing to do with them?

[mitchtv]

101. There are more sheep

than people there, send them home too

[Ediacara]

89. Colonialism?

The Falklands were uninhabited.

[killbotfactory]

93. Argentina started the first successful settlement in 1829

Previous settlement efforts had all failed, and were carried out by the French, British and Spanish.

Britian invaded them in 1833, and they have remained in their control since.

[mitchtv]

99. !833? I believe that was AFTER the Monroe Doctrine?

Or wm I wrong? If that is the case, the US should be supporting Argentina's claim. Las Malvinas son de Argentina

[truebrit71]

131. Says the californian...

...you give back what belongs to the native population of your state, and then maybe we can talk about the Falklands...Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on...

[UTUSN]

51. Bwah-ha-ha-HAH!!1 Every day is a laugh day in Venezuela!!1 n/t

[NYVet]

58. You know, Freepers are going to love this one...

They are going to say that Hugo is looking to start building his own empire.

[Pavulon]

66. He has to set himself up at home first...

once he is el presidente for life then he can expand his horizions.

It is odd that he is speaking for Argentina, who has said it has no intent to ever retake the islands with force.

I have a comical view of the man. He is a great press animal though.

[Bacchus39]

63. Belize back to Guatemala, Guayana back to Venezuela anyone?

n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. He could worry about the status of St. Pierre & Miquelon as well

Some small islands off the coast of America, still part of a European power despite the declaration of independence of a couple of nearby ex-European colonies. They're a lot closer to Venezuela as well - and they had American Indian inhabitants.

[formercia]

85. Let's talk about the real reason for the 'spat' over the Falklands

or Malvinas if you prefer.


A very large Continental Shelf with lots of inferred oil reserves.

That's enough to start a War over. Ask Junior and Darth.

[rayofreason]

88. Chavez vows revenge for the expulsion of indigenous peoples

Source: Sunday Times

IN a new outburst of antiwestern sabre-rattling, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has threatened Europe with “revenge” for the expulsion of the Neandethals. The belligerent Latin American leftist warned last week that his recent build-up of sophisticated Russian and Iranian weapons would be used to destroy the Cro Magnons if they attempted to enter the South Atlantic.

Speaking on his weekly television show Alo Presidente (Hello, Mr President), Chavez denounced what he described as Europe's “illegal occupation” of Europe and repeated his call for a regional military alliance against Britain and the United States.

“If we had been united in the last war, we could have stopped the old empire,” Chavez said, as he gesticulated to maps showing how Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would intercept Cro Magnon tribes on the way to Europe. “Today we could sink the Cro Magnon fleet. We Neanderthals would be victorious!”

Chavez has often expressed support for the Neanderthal's claim to Europe, but his latest broadside was notable for both its anti Homo Sapiens Sapiens vitriol and its unprecedented threats. He declared that Homo Sapiens Sapiens history was “stained with the blood of the world's indigenous people” and demanded revenge for the “cowardly” conquest of Europe.

[yurbud]

98. I doubt he plans to invade the Falklands, but everything he said about history is true

[WinkyDink]

106. The Brits are calling ANYONE else "belligerent"??

[malaise]

110. Yeh they want the British imperialists

who slaughtered their indigenous people. :sarcasm:

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. Who is the 'they' you're talking about? (nt)

[Phrogman]

115. SA needs more leaders like Hugo, there'd be way less illegals crossing the US border

if some of his socialist policies were in effect in more Latin countries.

[Stella_Artois]

125. Really ?

I would have thought that starting a another war for the Falklands is the last thing South America needs.

Has anyone asked the Agentinian government what they think about Hugo's offer to get more Argentinians killed over the Falklands ?

When did Hugo appoint himself president of all South America anyway ? Maybe Argentina would prefer to persue their claim through peaceful means and not idle sabre rattling.

[Phrogman]

128. Turn your TV off and make a couple of trips down there to Caracas,

Columbia, Chile and Panama like I have than we'll talk.

[Pavulon]

133. I've been to caracas, and many other LA cities

I do not see how this type of jaw jacking helps anyone living in the slums..

[Stella_Artois]

142. OK, i'll do just that.

And you will also limit yourself to not having an opinion on every single place in the world that you have not been to. Deal ?

So when did Hugo appoint himself Argentinian foreign minister ? You've been there, so you may know.

[Seabiscuit]

120. Chavez is losing his marbles. n/t

[Beerboy]

138. So? n/t

[Prophet 451]

140. Disappointing

Assuming this is accuratly reported, I have to confess myself disappointed. I rather like Chavez and think he's done some impressive things but this is a disappointment. The fact is that while we (the British) shouldn't have imported people to colonise the Falklands, we did and removing those people generations later isn't practical. In 1982, we were the good guys in the sense that Argentina was a fascist dictatorship at the time and we were nominally democratic. Now? I'm honestly not sure how you resolve the question without either uprooting lots of people from their homes or oppressing the other inhabitants.

Also, the militaristic tone of the answer is disapponting IF it's being accurately quoted.