It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:48 PM
For those who have not read the other thread. I wish to make it clear that I do not advocate any use of force nor do I expect any. This is a diplomatic matter and should be treated as such. I also do not expect any resolution to come about in my lifetime. The issue is far too hot since the War stirred up a lot of emotional response and I feel it is highly unlikely that anything will be resolved until the war is no longer something of anyones personal experience.

Chavez is just rattling sabers and making the general statement that he stands by his neighbors and does not agree to colonial rule. I seriously doubt that he would be foolish enough to actually use force against an overwhelming opponent. The British military would make short order of any military movement by Chavez as they have far superior equipment and training.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:50 PM
Very nice post Terapin. I was open, but I think you just settled the case.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:03 PM
Once again, even the "deniers of ignorance" are falling hook, line, and sinker for the western media's propaganda tactics.

Has no one noticed the pattern here?

Chavez makes a speech and western media picks up a few lines to use out of context to make him seem aggressive or insane. Does no one here wonder why his speeches are NEVER transcripted in full? Why are only one or two lines quoted over and over? Why is there no responsible reporting that puts his comments in context?

I haven't been able to find this speech in full, but even what's being spammed around the "news" does not include any threat to invade the Falklands.

Yet folks are jumping the gun and buying directly into the propaganda.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:13 PM
Chavez has been rattling his saber about the Falklands since he got in power and the only thing new this time is his mentioning of new military equipment and capabilities. He made a $3 Billion arms deal with Russia and may be involved in talks with North Korea or Iran over Nuclear capabilities. He is discussing a possible joint programme with Tehran to build an unmanned drone aircraft similar to the American Predator. He seems to be trying to create a joint South American Army, but none of his neighbors seem to want anything to do with it.

While Argentinians may feel supported by Chavez in their legitimate claims of sovereignty of the Falklands, there is virtually no support in Argentina for any military action.  There is no indication that either of the Kirchners wants to precipitate a new crisis over the Falklands and anything Chavez has to say would not change the elections in Argentina. Chavez just likes to talk tough about a number of subjects but I wouldn't place any bets on his actually putting his military to action on the Falklands, unless perhaps someone else started first. Even then, he would have a difficult time of it as the British are quite capable and would not be going it alone by any means.

Remember how Noreiga used to like to talk tough... And look where it got him.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Terapin]

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by ChrisF231

The islands are under the control of the British only because they stole them by force and kicked out the legitimate inhabitants at gun point. This is a historical fact.........

erm - from that logic wouldn't the whole of the Americans have to be turned over to aboriginal people?

Back serveral hundred years the gun decided Who owns what in many places. Treaties have been written that mean the land of many north America Cities belong to Aboriginal tribes.

Don't see them getting it all back do you?


When do we stop turning back the clock? coz I'm pretty sure if we go back far enough we'll find out we've murdered the owners of all the land in the world at least once.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by puzzled2

The difference here is that we have a nation that recognises international law, made official statements that the Falklands were indeed Argentinian territory before they took them, and have since then made official moves to give them back.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Terapin]

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:54 PM
Do you folks not understand that by continuing to gnash your teeth about whether or not the Falklands should or shouldn't belong to Brittan, you are contributing to ignorance by playing into the hands of the propagandists?

Here's a challenge: Find the whole, unedited speech.
Let's see the context in which these comments were made. Let's deny a little ignorance by finding out what the man actually said before we start arguing over what we are being told he said.

I'm still looking myself... but I'm about to run out of time and it's not an easy search, for some reason.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:54 PM
I spent a total of 12 months in the Falklands whislt serving in the Military. Now the first guess would be that it should remain British as the people there ARE British and regard themselves as 100% British. If they wish to remain that way we should defend them at all costs.

Second point: Any hidden agenda down there is purely for the OIL OIL OIL.
There are so so many civillian employees employed to work rigs etc that are actually based in Mount Pleasant Garrison its so obvious the oil companies and goverment have shared interest.

As a infantaryman most of my time there was spent on patrol through the mountains. This required a lot of heli pickups taking us back to base once a week and getting from to west to east islands etc. Now nearly every heli i got on was a civillian helicopter with civillian pilots and loadies etc. These Helis were Bristows from the rigs and the pilot etc were employed by the oil companies. Obviously something big going on between the goverment and the oil companies then. I would say in my time there i must have boarded a Mil Chinook about 20 times whereas i must have easily have been flown on patrol on Oil company helis 80 times at LEAST.

The living quarters for the Oil employees is based within the garrioson and is a plush nice little number much better than our quarters

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Terapin
reply to post by puzzled2

The difference here is that we have a nation that recognises international law, made official statements that the Falklands were indeed Argentinian territory before they took them, and have since then made official moves to give them back.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Terapin]

Are you saying america doesn't recognise international law or are all those treaties like the consitution ( according to quotes of Bush) just a pieces of paper?

Confused - Once the America Goevernment gives back all the Land and money for stolen "Natural Resources" to the First Nation people - then I think you should start telling other people what to do.
You could start by drawing real maps that show the land that doesn't belong to you.

But as Others here have said the quote is probably taken completely out of context and doesn't really warrent discussion. Nobody kicked off the Falklands is alived today and if they where the cost of land back then was so trival it wouldn't take much to pay them off. Or you could even let them live there as it is bound to be a better life than Argentina. Wait for the flames..

End of discussion by me. Have fun everyone and please keep exposing the truth

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by puzzled2
Or you could even let them live there as it is bound to be a better life than Argentina.  Wait for the flames..

British law prohibits any Argentinian from living on the Falklands and has been in effect since the British first invaded and forced out the former inhabitants. It would be nice if they allowed them the right of return but they know it will further weaken their position. That refusal of the right of return is the main reason why the UN Commission on Decolonization does not recognise the current inhabitants call for self determination. It goes against the very rules that Britain helped to write. Britain is a very important member of the UN and was significantly involved in creating the UN regulations on Decolonization.

As for the full content of  the speech Chavez recently made, I have been trying to find a copy in Spanish, but as it was a live broadcast on television, I have been unable to come up with anything yet. Pieces of it were translated and published in English language papers, but they never post the whole TV Show. It tends to be quite lengthy as Chavez likes the sound of his own voice. I will continue to search in the Spanish news outlets to see if I can find a full transcript.

( *note to Flyer: Just because I speak Spanish and Portuguese, does not mean that I am from South America or of Latino heritage as you guessed earlier. I happen to enjoy the study of languages and travel internationally on a regular basis. Unlike many I am not limited to speaking only one language and find linguistic abilities quite useful on a regular basis. I am working on Mandarin now and will be in China next month. That does not make me Chinese either. Never assume)

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:22 PM
Who cares, the people on the land is happy the way it is, there's no need for a change in rule. Just like the Americans took land from the indians. I'm sure differnent indians took land from other indians, which is wrong also. All land has been own by different people in the past. Now, it depends on who they want as a goverment and if they're happy then let it be.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:42 PM
All conflicted parties are controlled by larger financial interests, whether they are entirely aware of it or not. Declassified papers have outlined how Mao Tse Dung was installed by the CIA to keep China down for so many years. Contrast Taiwan and its development with that of post WW II China to see this. When the underlying domination of the Rockefellers et al was consolidated, then they began opening China gradually while their controls increased behind the scenes.

It is arguable that this divide and conquer strategy included conveniently conflicted Islamic peoples for centuries. Confessions of a British Spy is a good book to read to investigate this underlying strategy of the elites.

But away from general considerations and into the Chavez situation, he may well be another Marxist or Socialist who sends a few extra crumbs to the masses but answers to a higher earthly authority.

He continues to use the international banks and so forth, but his philosophy on the Falklands ignores the history of the conflict with the British. It was a time in Argentina when the "disappeared," were at issue due to the draconian government there. The issue for even the few British in the Falklands was clearly a matter of tyranny versus freedom. Besides these conflicts have a measure to keep oil in the ground and prices high. Oil runs the planet. Argentina is not his concern anyway, it is not his country.

It is all far more complicated than the statements of Chavez, who may well be just another stooge for the extreme upper echelon who prints the money and lends it out to be paid back with hard work. Improvements for impoverished people are laudable anywhere in the world, but the deeper long run outcomes are questionable in the larger chessboard.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by SkipShipman]

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:52 PM
Chavez thinking he can beat the US is laughable at best. May God all mighty bless us with Ron Paul as prez. Send a cruise missile to his oil supplies, he'll never talk again.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:53 PM
I think he's laying more groundwork to justify an attack on the Dutch islands near him. I don't think he has intention of helping Argentina conquer the Falklands.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I'm still looking myself... but I'm about to run out of time and it's not an easy search, for some reason.

This is the website for his weekly show where he tends to ramble on for hours. It has transcriptions, audi and video.

Of course it's all in Spanish.

[edit on 9/3/2007 by djohnsto77]

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:43 PM
Haha, maybe its just revenge for Boris Johnsons recent attack on him and red Ken?

Modern weapons will not do much good when its raining tridents!

We nearly nuked Argentina during the falklands war, lucky for them France gave us the disarm codes for the Argentinian exocets after Sir Galahad was sunk.

The Falklands are of vital strategic importance to Britain, we can only steam our fleet so far without having to refuel.

Untill we get nuclear powered carriers they will remain of high strategic importance.

Even then, they will remain important to us, the ships involved in the battle of river plate were patched up in the Falklands, so they could make it home.

Moreover the people there are British and want to remain British, just like the people in Gibraltar do not want to be Spanish.

I personally vote that we strap Ken to the first missile we launch at them

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:03 AM
The pres of argentina sounds like some drunk bloke who doesn't reason or listen, and just wants to fight that other bloke for no reason.

Yes we have that territory and it could also be that he is just wanting to show off these new weapons.

But am I going too far in suggesting, perhaps he knows that the UK and US governments are corrupt and wants to be the saviour?

Just throwing things in.

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by DeepCoverUK
Moreover the people there are British and want to remain British, just like the people in Gibraltar do not want to be Spanish.

Precisely. I live on an island which is now part of the UK but 500 years ago was owned by Norway; if the Norwegian government decided to take the islands back by force (not very likely I concede, just an example) I would hope that the British armed forces would defend us rather than leave us to our fate.

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:58 AM

Originally posted by TheOmen
The pres of argentina sounds like some drunk bloke who doesn't reason or listen, and just wants to fight that other bloke for no reason.

No reason, eh?

You might want to do a little research into the US government backed corporate rape of South America.

Start here: Honduras vs United Fruit
Bush Team linked to Venezuela Coup

And here: Bolivia's Water War

Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, “Our dream, a world free of poverty.” Earlier this month in Bolivia, the citizens of South America’s poorest country sent the bank a message once again that the poor aren’t too keen on the part of that dream that involves handing their water over to foreign corporations.

On January 10 the citizens of El Alto took to the streets en masse to demand that their water system, privatized in 1997 under World Bank pressure, be returned to public hands.

What you (and most of us Westerners) don't understand is that the reason that Chavez is demonized by the propaganda engine is that South America is a land ripe for plunder by the Corporate Consumption Engine. It has plentiful resources, cheap labor, and weak governments that allow all sorts of abuses to be inflicted upon their land and people.

Chavez wants that to change. He wants a united South America that can stand up for itself, develop it's own resources, and become a first world nation. What's worse is that he believes our greed driven Western Capitalist economic system to be a poor way of doing things. He believes that a Socialist system can be developed that would truly before for the people, not just the corporate elite.

Western interests simply cannot allow that to happen.
Thus, Chavez is an enemy of Corporate America and Corporate America forces their pet attack dog (the Government) to protect their interests by disrupting South American development at all costs.

Are you seeing the light yet?

Destabilized, fragmented South America = Profit
Unified, developed South America = threat

[edit on 4-9-2007 by BitRaiser]

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by BitRaiser

I see what you mean but in my eyes, thats mainly reason for attacking the US and not the UK.
Fair enough it might be that now he has the weapons, he feels the need for revenge or somthing but obviously no war is really justifiable and he seems angry at a few people!

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in