keejse,
What exactly was the point of that quote? Minister of Foreign Relations? More like government spin doctor, or in the old days more like propagandist.
Why don't you actually read the quote you have provided and de-construct it dispassionately point by point?
What "military threats" is the UK making? The UK has a small defensive force on the Falklands, which has a belligerent neighbour who has already once tried to take the islands by armed force. The UK military assets on the Falklands are of no threat to the country of Argentina. As a nation the UK is cutting its armed forces, and there has been no increase in forces deployed to the Falklands. Are these "military threats" simply statements that the UK will defend the islands if anyone tries to take them by force? I don't see how the word threat applies to such a statement.
"Illegal occupation of the islands" - one could debate this at length, using today's standards to analyse actions that took place 200 years ago is an approach that could be considered somewhat flawed. No doubt one could then equally argue that the Spanish and Portuguese "occupation" of South America would be considered "illegal". But for a country of "illegal" occupiers to accuse another of such an act is hypocrisy itself, without even debating if it is correct or not.
"Possible presence of nuclear weapons"? A nice provocative statement, no doubt the gentleman saying it will use the excuse of the word "possible" to justify it. Yes, the UK is a nuclear power, but a simple examination of the UKs remaining nuclear weapons will illustrate the absurdity of the statement.
Maintaining the arms industry instead of solving the social crisis in Europe? As I said earlier, a simple examination of the reduction in UK armed forces, men, material, bases, etc that has both taken place recently and is planned, shows that statement in its true light!
All in all this is nothing but another emotive, misinformed, (deliberately?) inaccurate statement from a politician pushing his own/party/country agenda - and his previous credentials (e.g. human rights activist) don't alter that fact! Is your quoting of it supposed to lend it some extra credence?
As to what Cameron said:
BBC News - David Cameron: 'Falklands will choose its own future'