Jesus. That doesn’t read much like a ‘Monday-morning-written-off-shouldn’t-have-bothered-post’ does it ? No, not at all . . . sorry.
Lemme see, slightly incoherent, rambling, disagrees with someone elses post without providing any reason or authority…how 'bouts we just call you Mr. C from now on?
At least until January . . .
My central themes are as follows:
-
This “apology demand,” as it were, has not come from “out of the blue,” as has been posited by others in this thread.[list=a][li]For more than 20 years, there has been widespread public knowledge of Britain’s deployment of nuclear weapons in the Falklands War. Ever since the end of the war, average citizens have been interested in hearing the truth from the British government.[]For more than 20 years, the Argentine government has also been demanding full disclosure about the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Falklands War.[]Since long before the Falklands War, Argentina has been pressing the British government for talks aimed at sovereignty for the Malvinas.[]At regular intervals, including an attempt as late as September, 2003, Argentina has been pleading its case (for sovereignty of the Malvinas) to the press and, notably, the United Nations.[/list=a]2. This is a shrewd political move on behalf of Mr. Kirchner, an exceptional statesman who keeps his promises.[list=a][]This furor (and as by-product, this thread) is a result of Britain’s unprecedented admission that it did, in fact, deploy nuclear weapons in the Falklands War.[]This admission was not offered as a product of the British government’s sense of fair play. It was forced out by Mr. Kirchner’s agile diplomacy.[]It seems Argentina finally has in Mr. Kirchner a leader powerful enough to force Britain to break its 20-year silence on the issue.[]Mr. Kirchner has been a Malvinas Sovereignty activist for the majority of his life and uses this as a stanchion for his nationalist image.[/list=a]3. This story, this “apology demand,” is a cynically crafted and highly effective rhetorical machine.[list=a][]It feeds the anger, hopes and fears of Argentines.[]It raises the hackles and stirs nationalistic indignation among Britons.[]It comes at a time when it is especially important to divert the attention of both the Brits and the Argentines.[/list]This story has been spun and turned into a perfect, bifurcated creature. It satisfies the Argentines, who are almost beyond hope in their current national crisis. They are filled with pride for their president instead of fear for the impending anarchy. For the moment, Argentines can convert the anger into a drive toward sovereignty for the Malvinas and unity for Argentina.[/li]
Appositely, Britons are viewing this “apology demand” story as a slap in the face. British citizens are again feeling the old sorrow and loss from the Falklands War. They’re angry, justifiably, for the loss of life and national pride due to an incident over which they had no control. They don’t see the true story: a forced admission of wrongdoing on behalf of the UK, that was brought about by 20 years of badgering by Argentina. They don’t see it as a story of agile politics on behalf of Mr. Kirchner. They simply see it as a reminder of their pain.
This overblown “apology demand” has forced reason from the minds of reasonable men, as indicated by the vociferous denials and resistance in this very thread. And believe me, that’s only a small portion of the issue. For, all across Britain, from Chatham to Edinburgh, to Londonderry and Raglan, average citizens are swallowing this story, as spun, and without question.
If that was the impression made by my post, I apologize. It was only my intention to represent how his views were positioned in the UN, not necessarily that they came directly from him.
No. I am casting doubt on the origin of the quote “The UK must ask our forgiveness,” from the OP. Roughly half of the sources I’ve found make no reference at all to this quote. Editors make a living directing the theme of a news story with the careful wording of a headline, the weight of the prose or the arrangement of quotes.
I can understand the bitterness and acrimony brought about by this issue. As an American, I am continually surrounded by these kinds of reactions, about Viet Nam, Somalia and now, Iraq. In this Forum, I have a hope that we could get past the sadness and bruised pride and understand there’s more at play here than just an “out of the blue” demand for an apology, on behalf of the current toss-pot leader of Argentina. This is a ploy, as unvarnished as it is effective, directed at Britons and Argentines alike. If you’ve been an unwitting victim of this obfuscation, I am sorry.
I know for some, this subject is particularly painful, especially for those who lost people close to them; it was a foolish land-grabbing invasion that led to an unnecessary war. Hopefully, my words will help prompt many others to look a little more critically at what their government is saying, and specifically, how the press is allowing it to be said.
I’m not convinced by this statement. While there may have been some interest in some quarters, it’s certainly never received any significant media or public attention in my recollection.
But that’s because you live in London and the whole media there is in bed with the Government, doing their ungodly will.
duh
Silly me.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mr. B *
2. This is a shrewd political move on behalf of Mr. Kirchner, an exceptional statesman who keeps his promises.[list=a][li]This furor (and as by-product, this thread) is a result of Britain’s unprecedented admission that it did, in fact, deploy nuclear weapons in the Falklands War.[]This admission was not offered as a product of the British government’s sense of fair play. It was forced out by Mr. Kirchner’s agile diplomacy.[]It seems Argentina finally has in Mr. Kirchner a leader powerful enough to force Britain to break its 20-year silence on the issue.[]Mr. Kirchner has been a Malvinas Sovereignty activist for the majority of his life and uses this as a stanchion for his nationalist image.[/list=a][/li][/quote]
It’s nonsense to claim that Argentina has forced a humiliating admission from the British government. Apart from the fact that the story about nuclear weapons being on board some ships when they left port was broken by a British newspaper*, not the Argentinian government, the resulting statement from the MoD simply confirms their previous position that there were no nuclear weapons on their ships during the fighting.
It would have clarified matters if they’d made a fuller statement earlier than this, and in my opinion they should give more details now. But to claim, as you have done repeatedly, that Mr Kirchner has humiliated the British government is a joke. The Argentinian government has no power to make its British counterpart do or say anything, and they have played no part whatsoever in forcing a statement from the MoD. If the British government has been humiliated by anyone it’s The Guardian newspaper. You’ve been told this already, of course, but you ignored it because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear.
*Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits The Guardian, Saturday December 6, 2003
That may be your fantasy, but that fact that an apology has been demanded has already been demonstrated by several cites posted to this thread – including cites you’ve posted yourself.
That’s simply not true and depends entirely on your own imagination, not on any facts you have shown or any views expressed by British people in this thread. Personally I have said in so many words that I would be happy to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina. I feel no personal loss over the war whatsoever and took no satisfaction from it at the time. The rejection of the apology demand here is purely because there are no grounds for it.
Do you seriously believe that if a source doesn’t mention an apology request then no apology was requested? Are you accusing the numerous, unrelated, sources that do mention the request of fabricating it? Do you think that the BBC, the AP, your own MercoPress cite, the Swedish sources amanset cited and the Buenos Aires Herald are all part of some general conspiracy? If so, you’re going to need hard evidence to back that up.
What bitterness? Again, your imagination has been working overtime here. There is certainly no “sadness” or “bruised pride” on my part and I would be interested if you could post any quotation from other British contributors here that has given you that impression.
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you can’t make black be white or up down, and “no” does not mean “yes”. Your words in this thread do nothing but demonstrate your own incompetence as a journalist. Nobody here needs lectures from you about the need for scepticism about government statements.
One more thing:
Any personal remarks against you in this thread are, without doubt, the result of general exasperation with someone who has behaved in such a ridiculous way. For example, you have whined about anti-Americanism from certain people. In response, you have been asked four times now – count them, four times – to provide an example, but instead of doing that you invented an infantile piece of glurge you called a ‘pro forma response’. Let’s try it one more time shall we? Please give one example of anti-Americanism.
Well, I’m glad I previewed. Admittedly I’ve just wasted half an hour writing a reply to Mr B, but to be frank:
- Everton’s reply is far cooler headed than mine/
- Mr B would only ignore anything I’d have said anyway.
For the record, Mr. B, I am an American and I didn’t see anything even remotely anti-American in anybody’s comments.
I’d like to see a cite for Mr. B’s insistent claim that the British Government is apologising for deploying nuclear weapons in the Falklands war. If by deploying you mean “not actually taking them there” I’m OK. If by deploying you mean “showing up with nuclear weapons on board” I’d love to see some evidence.
I’d also like to see evidence that this created a furor at the time, as you have stated, more than once, and failed to back up.
Normally I’m not a fan of the “cite?” school, but with so many cites to the contrary this thread is begging for them.
As for “anti american” - the worst behavoir seems to be coming from you, Mr B, and it has a decidedly anti British feel to it.
Wanker.
That particular topic has been a main theme in this thread. I am old enough to remember the concerns of my fellow Americans, who, at the time were quite worried about Britain’s deployment of nuclear weapons. In case you missed it, I presented information about my father’s 1982 radio interview on the subject, as well as cites from around the time of the war from The Washington Post and The Boston Globe.
Additionally, one of my other cites states the following:
Back to the admission of guilt, at the time of its release, I found Britain’s statement fairly surprising. When the British government finally confessed to having deployed nukes – even in such a minor way – to the Falklands, I thought it was a satisfying vindication for a great many people around the world.
But my other thought was “Why now?” Why wait some 21 years to finally cop to toting the nukes? What caused the British to make this statement?
Apparently due to a “long-running campaign by the Guardian”.
Interestingly the above article is where the Guardian reported to MoD’s disclosure. It was only two days later, on December 8th, that they reported that Kirchner was demanding an apology:
So who did force the MoD to admit it? You seem to think Kirchner managed it, but The Guardian has a very different viewpoint.
amanset, on preview, thank you for the reply. I had just now taken my lunch break to read everton’s post and his links. I’d previously seen some of that information in The Guardian and remain unconvinced that the admission was based entirely on that newspaper’s efforts.
everton: The vast majority of the opinions expressed in your last post have been addressed throughout this thread, but there are two points of order.
One last time: I am casting doubt on the OP’s verbatim quote*, “The UK must ask our forgiveness.” I would like to find out if Mr. Kirchner actually said those words. That’s all.
Second point of order: You don’t seem to understand the importance of Britain’s admission to having deployed nuclear weapons in the Falklands. I doubt we’ll ever see eye-to-eye on how gigantic this admission is to a great many people.
The way I understand casdave’s post, a concession of this magnitude is unprecedented. As I said above, I must admit when I first heard that Britain had finally confessed to carrying nukes, I was shocked. But hard on the heels of the MoD’s admission, this sensational “apology demand” story eclipsed and stole the thunder from anyone who, over the last 20 years, has been demanding full disclosure on the matter.
Now on to other topics.
I could ask the same of keithnmick’s retaliatory assertion about me, but I’m not going to. Look, we are here to talk and learn about interesting subjects. Sometimes words are misunderstood; when my opponent in a debate uses gratuitous namecalling and personal attacks, the tone of the rest of his statements is similarly tarred.
I admit my assertion, that there have been “anti-American insults,” was a bit strong. And in retrospect, you obviously have taken my hyperbolic “pro forma rant” post a little too seriously. While I am still of the opinion that the tone of many responses here were insulting and belittling to Ohioans, there was no overt statement.
Finally, I understand you’re an opponent of my assertion that this admission by the British was forced by Mr. Kirchner. I’ve read your link and refuse to believe this came about solely due to pressure from The Guardian. My position remains that after 20 years of silence – and after 20 years of badgering by Argentina – the British government finally admitted its error.
- The quote originates in the linked article which was used as basis for the OP.
Call me weird, but for a start I’d have thought he’d speak Spanish.
We have a quote from a newspaper saying it was due to pressure from them. Have you got anything to back up your claim that it was due to pressure from Kirchner? If so, then please post links where we can read it for ourselves. Obviously these links will have to be dated from before The Guardian’s first article.
amanset: you’re not weird. 
But you do bring up an important point; a translation error is possibly to blame for this ambiguity. Are you suggesting that The UK must ask our forgiveness could, in fact, be a “phantom quote”?
Yes. Please see my reply to Crusoe, which represents a quote from a cite I originally posted on Page 2 of this thread. Additionally, papers like La Nacion have, over the 20-odd years since the war, published statements from prior administrations on the subject of full disclosure. Further, I think you’ll agree the people of Argentina had the right to know the truth: the threat that nuclear weapons on the sea floor posed to commerce and the environment is more than enough impetus to drive this story into the daylight.
here’s what I assume are actual quotes:
“Gran Bretaña debe pedir disculpas no sólo a la Argentina sino también a la humanidad”
- Alberto Fernandez - Head of Cabinet in Argentina (I’m not sure exactly what this post is, I don’t think it’s a minor one though)
el gobierno británico “debe pedir disculpas”
- Kirchner
From here:
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/03/12/07/dp_552597.asp
I’d also like to clear up Mr B’s use of me as an anti-American Brit. I’m not. I live in the USA, I’m married to an American and I like Americans. Very nice people, always nice to me, especially when they find out I’m a Brit.
I called you, Mr B, a wanker because you’re acting like one. You’ve been dealt cites left and right regarding most of what you’re asserting which prove you wrong, and you pull crap like this:
[QUOTEI’ll therefore return to Pro Forma:[ul]
Mr. B, you are an American. What the sodding hell gives you the right to comment on British affairs? Twat.
President Nestor Kirchner is a cockeyed poncy git. Stupid bastard, he couldn’t negotiate his way through a crowded pub if he were suffering from a pissing bladderful of Stone’s screw-cap ginger wine. Cunty Kirchner wants a bloody apology, what-what? Right Beezer, that one. Twat.[/ul]
<dances off, Zamba-style, humming Every Day Is Like Sunday> **
[/QUOTE]
I called you a wanker because you acted like one, not because you’re American.
d’oh
A real anti-American would have coded that properly. 
Strewth, keithnmick, could your spurs jangle any louder? You said my behavior had a decidedly anti British feel. I offered your post as an example of my magnanimity.
I said this
in response to this from you:
Duh.
Wanker. 