Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: headdie on January 04, 2013, 02:17:50 pm
-
I just ran into a News article on Yahoo which while mainly about public political gesturing and the UK tabloids making a complete arse of themselves again. One item in the article that was interesting is that their seems to be a referendum on the subject of ownership coming up in March.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/falklands-row-sun-warns-kirchner-061106943.html
for those interested in the previous nearly year old thread on here about the subject of the islands
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=79963.0
-
The problem, from the Argentinian perspective is whether a foregone referendum is any kind of referendum at all, but then, the question has to be asked 'why is the referendum foregone?'.
Argentina seem to have chosen the route of 'punishing' the Islands for not being Argentinian with things like embargos on Cruise vessels, rather than consolidating their links and trying to convince the islands of the advantages of being such, sadly the islanders themselves have largely been an unheard, and unheeded voice in Argentina as they are seen as merely an 'extension of the UK' opinion, rather than considering that corroboration is not always causation.
-
In before someone confuses "invitation to negotiate over the Malvinas" with "WE ARE MEAN AND BAD AND WANT THEM BY FORCE AND WE'LL ATTACK YOU WHILE YOU'RE SLEEPING!!!!!!!!111111oneoneone"
In before someone confuses "invitation to negotiate" with "the only acceptable outcome is for Argentina to get them back and exile the current population by force or drown them in their own bodily fluids"
In before someone says this is smokes and mirrors, ignoring how Argentina has skyrocketed socially and economically in the last twelve years, and how the current democratic government has the backing of a wide majority of the population.
In before the less reasonable among the UKers start measuring their military dicks. (They're huge, gigantic, enormous penises, alright? And they are bigger than ours, alright? Feel better now? Can we have that settled already?)
In before some idiotic Argentine who can't get over the past starts talking about old grievances with Chile and about the need to rearm for offensive purposes instead of defensive ones, while ignoring all the other aspects of a proper and modern defense system that also need to be addressed. (Do us all a favor and don't even open your mouth, please.)
In before some UKers ignore that modern Argentina is a peaceful and democratic international player, driven by negotiation, diplomacy and non-interventionism unless it's agreed upon by the relevant international bodies. It's far easier to judge us by the standards of some past military dictatorship that was backed by foreign powers.
In before some Argentineans that wish Argentina wasn't democratic, nor peaceful, nor diplomatic, and much less non-interventionist, say something stupid. (Do it anyway. No one is listening to you.)
In before the press on both sides inflate this to unbelievable proportions to advance their own agendas with their respective governments.
In before the simulated war scenarios, the disrespect for the 900 people who died, and the mandatory call to nuke them Argies once and for all.
In before someone disregards UNASUR and its commitment to mutual protection and mutual help as lip service, so he can feel safer (if UKer) or smarter that the current trends in regional policies in South America (if Argentine).
In before someone emits an arrogant judgement about Argentina without being in the least familiarized with its past and present, its cultural background, and its projected future.
In before someone in either band says something actually insightful, just to have it lost in the ****storm.
In before we all waste our time discussing this over the internet as if that hadn't been done before.
Alright. I'm drunk, sweat and REALLY tired and this headache just won't go away. I'd better go to sleep now.
-
:wtf:
-
In before someone says this is smokes and mirrors, ignoring how Argentina has skyrocketed socially and economically in the last twelve years, and how the current democratic government has the backing of a wide majority of the population.
Isnt Argentina currently in deep economical trouble?
-
Well, it's not as if the UK isn't, and it makes sure we all stay nice and patriotic and expend our energies pointing at someone else ;)
-
In the end it basically comes down to this for me, the islanders have no interest in being Argentinian.
Why is there anything more that needs to be said?
-
Why is there anything more that needs to be said?
Because Argentina's ego is hurt.
-
Can we please stop insulting and actually search for arguments from reliable sources using the powerful tool that is the Internet? Thanks.
It would seem Argentina is falling to pieces and becoming a fascist country, the government is gaining much power and the social state is deplorable, it seems to me the cause to reclaim the "Malvinas/Falklands" is exactly what it was the first time, a cry to rally a broken nation.
What outrages me is that the President of Uruguay, Mujica, seems to be supporting this move simply because he's in love with Kirchner (I will not use her family name, it outrages me to share it.)
What is even more shameful is that UNASUR is even supporting this. Whatever happened to democracy? What about the islanders? It's their island, and it's them who'll get screwed over, not the UK, not Argentina, not UNASUR, not Europe.
Found some Links: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-argentina-is-such-an-economic-mess-2012-11
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0826/As-Argentina-s-economy-slows-President-Cristina-Fernandez-s-popularity-dips
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/16/2851968/argentinas-economic-fiesta-is.html
-
Argentina is not falling to pieces man, sure things are not GREAT but I cannot recall a moment when everything was going as good as now.
The actual government seems to be focusing on social equality for the most part, which I must admit is actually improving for once, not that much but it is and despite my personal (and negative) opinions on our president, things are not getting worst for me or any of the ppl I know so.... falling apart?, not so much.
The issue might rest on the eyes with which you look at the country right now, if you are an investor, business man or an economic savant then it's possible to think that, but only because more pressure is being applied on those areas where economy seemed to be a little lax, put simply: before you could make a coin here and there, now you cannot because more eyes are watching.
That thing about Mujica and Cristina, where the did you get that from?... Our relationship with Uruguay is not that amicable, you know?, Mujica abiding to Cristina's desires might rest on the convenience for Uruguay to keep Argentina as a close friend.
About UNASUR? well... it's expected from an organization to speak up for it's members interests right?, besides what makes you think the UNASUR backing Argentina's pledge on the Falklands is not democratic?.
On the subject of the Falklands themselves, I think ppl living there should have the right to vote whatever they want to do, but that won't change a thing. I suspect this quarrel is more about oil exploitation (which our country direly needs) than any historical/political/pride stuff.
-
I think part of the problem is that the way Argentina seem to be dealing with it on the political stage appears to be by making themselves the 'victims of the horrible British Empire'. You'd think from some statements that had been made that Queen Victoria was still alive and we were busily raiding Spanish bullion ships in the Caribbean.
To be honest, a well-played political hand 25 years ago and closer connections would have made the Falklands more Argentinian the only way it could legitimately become so, by inter-marrying between the islands and the continent, instead they are still looked upon as invaders themselves, something they are rather sensitive about considering recent history.
Thing is, take the difference in relations in Europe in the 30 years between 1945 and 1975, such vast levels of change in a single generation are possible, but every time I hear the words 'Colonial' or 'Imperialistic' or 'Rightful Owners', I remember the history of South America and divide by zero.
-
After getting some rest, my headache has gone away and my drunkenness has subsided a bit. So here I go again. I warn you in advance, a wall of text lies ahead. Maybe I will be double-posting.
First things first:
NGTM-1R: It is your own ego that's been hurt, as far as I can see. In two different threads in the near past (the one about direct voting and the one about drug smuggling in Argentina), you've demonstrated you're unable to back your loud mouth with facts, theories, reasoning, or anything like that. Your most successful strategy so far has been pointing out that my grip on the English language is far from perfect. Which also leads me to think you're not the most sagacious observer around here either, as that's something to be expected from someone who warns about it in his own signature (by the way, what the hell happened to my signature?).
I think you may have a personal problem with me because you can't argue with me, and so you resort to this kind of posts wherever I go, as a way to annoy me. This means elaborating a reply to your posts is a waste of my time, as you won't answer to it anyway. As a result, I will disregard you from now on on any thread where I consider you're not worth the effort. I'll begin with the current one.
Karajorma: Ah! Karajorma. It's an honor to see you again. I regard you as an intelligent person and as a testament of reasonability.
The problem is, Argentina considers the current population was implanted after forcefully replacing the Argentinean settlement there.
Argentina happens to have a sizeable Chinese immigration. Say, if China attacked Tierra del Fuego and replaced its Argentinean population with a Chinese one, do you really expect Argentina to abide to the self-determination of this new Chinese population?
Sarafan: Ermmm... No? Not at all? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina) However, two interesting things can be derived from your post.
1) Inversion of the burden of proof: Isn't it interesting that you never actually asked yourself if that is true? Or that no one asked you to do it?
I could point you at the constant economic growth rate, the fulfilment of debt obligations with all the creditors who entered in negotiations about our debt, the constant surplus in export-import exchanges and the consequent growing in federal reserves, as some of the indicators that show an overall healthy economy.
You could point me at inflation, income inequality, low reliance on banks in the internal market, and unreliability of inflation indexes as indicators of problems (to which I would point out that work is already being done in all those areas, that those numbers are actually good considering Argentina's historical numbers, that hyperinflation and the corralito are historical causes that justify the formers, and that the latter is also a problem that is being addressed, since neither the government nor the private firms have been able to publish reliable numbers so far).
But none of that happened. You just said Argentina is in "deep economical trouble" (which is stretching the truth just a little too much), and everyone assumed that as true. No proof required, no numbers asked, no sources posted. It's just assumed as truth. Why is that assumed as truth? Why did you assumed it as truth without even asking yourself about it?
2) Now consider this: Brazil and Argentina share a similar (while not identical) historical background, speak mutually-intelligible languages, and have been allies and economical partners for decades by now. We can know each other far better than people in other countries can.
Now, if you just assume a lie about Argentina (or any other Spanish-speaking country for that matter) as truth without checking first, even when you're far less conditioned about your sources and your worldview than other forumites, can you imagine what people who don't even understand Spanish can do? They are at the mercy of a narrow worldview, and of the limited set of information they have access to. Now tell me: Don't you think this will condition their thinking? Limit their reasoning? Their understanding of what happens in other parts of the world?
I'm not answering those questions. I just would like you (and everyone else who reads this) to think about them.
An4ximandros: Your post is a joke, isn't it? Please, tell me you're just doing a parody of the usual layman of the world to prove a point here before my faith in humanity falls even lower than it already is.
First, no insults have been hurled so far. Which is already an accomplishment for a thread about the Malvinas on the internet. Second, your post is an incoherent, delirant mess mixing such cliches as fascism, supposed infatuation with President Fernandez, the usual scapegoat of Argentina being a broken nation (I LIVE here, it's thriving), all seasoned with the usual impartiality of Andrés Oppenheimer (and to think some people reject the Wikipedia as an unreliable source :rolleyes: ).
Do you have any idea of how many editorials of this tone I've read in the last 10 years? How many supposedly neutral and accurate polls I've had to read? How many calls for all those things Oppenheimer wants to see, before the imminent collapse that Argentina will have NOW? (I mean NOW, for real this time, next weekend, about 3:00 pm, bring your own chair.)
Yet nothing happens.
Time and time again they keep telling us the roof will fall upon us. And yet the numbers keep denying it.
I've lost count about how many devaluations, hyperinflations, defaults, and other such catastrophes they have predicted in the last 10 years. 10 YEARS!
So far, nothing.
I wanted to believe them! I used to oppose this government. I used to live in fear that their predictions may come true. Those that sensationalistically warned us about the imminent dangers to democracy, about the danger of putting our money into banks, about the urgent need to buy dollars or euros (yeah, EUROS), about how the Kirchners will, without a doubt, loose the next election.
10 years of that kind of messages everywhere, all the time. 10 years. Not one of them has become truth.
Now, have you ever wondered, that maybe those journalists, those poll agencies, those massive medias managed from massive economic groups, may have an interest in us thinking those things are going to happen? You know, MAYBE? Just MAYBE a journalist, a poll agency, or a media group like CNN (to which Oppenheimer is an employee) isn't born neutral, pure, immaculate, blessed with the absolute truth and impartiality? Maybe, just like we don't trust our own governments all the time, we shouldn't trust everything we read in the internet or watch on television all the time?
Just MAYBE. I'm thinking in loud voice here.
-
Karajorma: Ah! Karajorma. It's an honor to see you again. I regard you as an intelligent person and as a testament of reasonability.
The problem is, Argentina considers the current population was implanted after forcefully replacing the Argentinean settlement there.
Argentina happens to have a sizeable Chinese immigration. Say, if China attacked Tierra del Fuego and replaced its Argentinean population with a Chinese one, do you really expect Argentina to abide to the self-determination of this new Chinese population?
That is a very poor analogy for what actually happened. Here's a better one. I own a holiday house on an otherwise deserted island. I move away for a couple of years. When I return I find someone living in my house. I tell them they may continue to live in my house as long as they acknowledge that it is my house and not theirs.
Now if at some point while I'm living there, they claim that the house is theirs and changes the locks, do I not have the right to force entry? If after having evicted them they start court proceedings saying that we should share the house why should I settle out of court and give them the house?
The Argentinians claim that the islands are theirs but when you look at the history it's actually quite a weak claim. The original Argentinian settlers were on the island for about a year before the British came back having previously colonised the island and pointed out that the Argentinians had settled on an island that didn't belong to them.
Having a settlement on a island for 1 year is not a legitimate claim as far as I'm concerned. Not when you consider the previous claim the British had to the island.
The only other claim the Argentinians can make to the Falklands is that they were settled by the Spanish. But then the issue becomes why? Why should a Spanish claim to an island instantly revert to another nation after they gain their independence? Why would the Falklands also not be allowed the same independence?
To be honest, a well-played political hand 25 years ago and closer connections would have made the Falklands more Argentinian the only way it could legitimately become so, by inter-marrying between the islands and the continent, instead they are still looked upon as invaders themselves, something they are rather sensitive about considering recent history.
Oh this is definitely the case. Before the war the British government were actually annoyed that you couldn't convince the Falkland Islanders that they should be under Argentinian control. I seem to remember they even complained about the governor having "gone native" because he couldn't convince them.
But while the opinion of the natives remains that they'd rather be British, I see no reason whatsoever to said with the Argentinians. In fact, I can't see how Argentina's claims to the islands is not a case of colonialism.
-
I pretty much have the same view point as karajorma, and I feel it as typical amongst my friends and family. We understand the background, we know the history, and the political context in which it has been repeatedly mentioned.
The absolute bottom line is; so long as the islanders are being respected I don't really give a crap about the situation.
If they wanted to be Argentinian, I equally wouldn't give a crap. Let them live in peace.
The only ironic thing I see in the situation is that Argentina call it colonialism when they're the ones attempting to get their way without regard for the residents, which is the real negative connotation of colonialism.
People who have had family there since 1833, being replaced because some people think they own the island.
What do Argentina want to negotiate? Buying the land? Do you really think they will? or, can even afford to? Do you think they even realise it would be the case that they need to buy the land from the Falklanders, not the UK? -.-
-
I have family on the Islands, I'm friend with Islanders, people who have lived there for nine generations. The only people to have lived there for that long. Not one of them is of Argentine descent. British, Chilean, Urugauyan, but not one of them is Argentine, and not one of them wants to be.
Also, with regards to Argentina - As I understand, you guys are in danger of being kicked out of the IMF, which is hardly the sign of "Not bad" economic circumstances.
This also very recently cropped in my facebook feed, and it's fairly amusing.
Dear Argentina...
NOW look. You've been whining about this since 1767 and it's starting to get on my wick.
I've ignored you until now, because you're very silly and your greatest cheerleader is Sean Penn, a man who pretends to be things he is not and once hit his then-wife Madonna with a baseball bat, tied her up for nine hours and abused her.
If he is on your side, it's not a good side to be on.
But today you've written to Prime Minister Dishface demanding he enter negotiations to 'return' the islands we call the Falklands and you call Malvinas, 180 years after we cruelly stole them from you with our jackbooted naval officers of totalitarianism.
You were 'forcibly stripped' of these jewels in the South Atlantic and your people were 'expelled'.
Only, that's not quite what happened, is it Argentina? Someone obviously needs to remind you, and probably Mr Penn too, of the facts.
Allow me to start by saying there are probably things we can all agree on. War is bad, for example, and colonialism - aside from the roads, aqueducts, education, health reforms, economic development, culture, food, integration and innovation - tends to be a bad thing too.
We could probably avoid an argument over the fact that the Falkland Islands, in and of themselves, aren't exactly pretty. There are no hanging gardens, no waterfalls, no exotic wildlife. They're a windy bunch of rocks a long way from anywhere, although I grant they're nearer to you than they are to us.
Which begs the question about why, exactly, you never bothered to settle them.
When they were first discovered by a Dutchman in 1600 there was nothing there but seabirds. No people, no cultural heritage for anyone to trample over. Just a windy bunch of rocks.
Ninety years later a British sailor was blown off course and sailed through a bit of water he named Falkland Sound, and 74 years after that the French turned up to form a colony.
WAIT! I hear you cry. The French colonised the Falklands?
Why yes, and 18th century email being what it was the British turned up two years later and built a settlement on another one of the islands and claimed the whole lot for the Crown, unaware the Frenchies were already in residence.
The French sold out to the Spaniards a year after that, who put the colony - containing French people - under control of a governor in Buenos Aires.
Three years later the Spanish picked a fight with the Brits, kicked them out and after a peace treaty let us back in. In 1774 the Brits, overstretched by the Americans kicking off, withdrew and left a plaque behind asserting their claim. Thirty two years later the Spaniards departed too, leaving another plaque, and in 1811 the last settlers threw in the towel.
We were back to empty, windy rocks known only to whalers and sealing ships, and two memorial plaques.
In 1820 an American pirate called David Jewett took shelter there, and finding the place deserted promptly claimed the islands for a union of South American provinces which later became Argentina.
You lot didn't realise this for a year, but still didn't settle the islands. Instead a German who pretended to be French called Luis Vernet came along, asked the Argentines and the Brits politely if they minded, and founded a little colony of his own.
It took him a few goes, but eventually he established a settlement, you named him governor and gave him the right to kill all the seals. This quite hacked off the Brits, who wanted some seals for themselves, but Vernet placated us by asking for our military protection.
It all got a bit hairy in 1831, when Vernet found some American seal ships, arrested their crews and sparked an international incident. The Americans sent a warship, blew up the settlement, and hot-headedly sent the most senior settlers to the mainland for trial for piracy.
The Argentines sent a new governor to establish a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny the day he arrived. The Brits, quite reasonably, decided the whole thing was a dog's breakfast.
And now we get to the bit you're unhappy about Argentina, the invasion and forced expulsion.
The Brits arrived two months after this mutiny, and wrote to the chap in charge of the small Argentine garrison. The letter said:
"I have to direct you that I have received directions from His Excellency and Commander-in-Chief of His Britannic Majesty's ships and vessels of war, South America station, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, to exercise the rights of sovereignty over these Islands.
It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government."
Now, there are many ways people can be oppressed, forced, compelled and abused - just ask Sean Penn - but a polite note is not one of them. The Argentine in charge thought briefly about resisting, but he didn't have many soldiers and besides, most of them were British mercenaries who refused to fight. So on January 3, 1833 you left, Argentina, with wounded pride and your nose in the air.
You had never settled the islands. Never established a colony of your own. Never guarded it with a garrison of your own soldiers. They had never, ever, been yours.
And now to the matter of that expulsion. The log of an Argentine ship present at the time records the settlers were encouraged to stay, and those that left did so of their own free will and generally because they were fed up with living on some boring, windy rocks.
Eleven people left - four Argentines, three 'foreigners', one prisoner, a Brit and two Americans.
Twenty-two people remained - 12 Argentinians, four Uruguay Indians, two Brits, two Germans, a Frenchman and a Jamaican.
As the imposition of colonial power on an indigenous population goes, that takes some beating. And for the sake of clarity I should point out that a human melting pot like that makes the place about as British as you can be.
A few months later HMS Beagle, taking Charles Darwin to the Galapagos for a long think, popped in and found the settlement half-ruined and the residents lawless. There were several murders, some looting, and in 1834 the exasperated British sent Lieutenant Henry Smith to run the place.
The islands have been ours ever since, and is now home to almost 3,000 people descended from settlers who came from Britain, France, Scandinavia, Gibraltar, St Helena and Chile.
At the same time, you went on to fight wars with most of South America and colonise provinces with indigenous populations by killing or pushing them out.
When your government was broke and facing strong opposition in the 1980s, you invaded them to divert attention of the voters with the cost of 907 lives, and it cannot be unrelated to your letter that in a few weeks you face being ejected by the International Monetary Fund for lying over your economic figures.
At around the same time, the people who now live on these boring, windy rocks in the middle of nowhere are having a referendum about who they would like to govern them. You will ignore this, because you believe they do not have a right to make up their own minds and have repeatedly refused to talk to the islanders about your claims.
So allow me to make a couple of things clear. Firstly, the history of these windy rocks is an utter mess but someone had to take charge, and you weren't up to the job. We did it pretty nicely, considering our record in other places.
Secondly, only jackbooted colonial scumbags refuse to listen to the democratic voice of the people who live somewhere, so you really ought to wind your hypocritical warmongering necks in.
And thirdly - well done with the wine, and the beef's pretty good, but if you want to negotiate let's start with you taking back your Total Wipeout, because as cultural imperialism goes it's pretty offensive, and you might want to think about handing Patagonia back to its people as well.
After that we are quite prepared to let you come and holiday on these windy rocks, where you will be invited to pitch a tent anywhere you like within the 13 square kilometres where you left 19,000 landmines last time you visited.
We know they're a long way away. We know there's not much to the rocks, and there might be oil and it might give someone a claim to Antarctica.
But we also know something you don't - which is that a well-run, law-abiding and happy bunch of rocks is the best bunch of rocks you can hope to have. You're no more up to that job now than you have ever been.
In case our position is still not clear, the above could be summed up as: No.
Yours sincerely,
Blighty
-
NGTM-1R:
The islands are British. When consulted, they have asked to remain British. There is nothing more to be said on the subject. That Argentina continues to press the issue is, in itself, an imperialistic act in the purest form: ignoring both the desires and the rights of the native population.
There is no strategic gain in absorbing the Falklands, because there is absolutely nothing on the islands worth having. Commercial oil exploration has been marred by Argentinian obstructionism and poor returns; it was not until last year that anyone expressed serious interest in commercial operations and the technical challenges in that area make it generally unattractive. If anyone tries to use them as a base to control the seaways in some fashion you can expect a United States Navy carrier battlegroup to come around while it's politely explained to them that the seas are free for the use of all. There is no grand external enemy Argentina faces which the islands can serve as a bulwark or a tripwire against.
There is more economic and strategic sense in the United States pressing a claim to Tijuana than there is in Argentina pressing a claim to the Falklands. Literally the only reason this is still an issue is the unreasonable, ego-based importance Argentina places on control of the islands.
-
Sarafan:
I did not just said Argentina is in "deep economical trouble" and assumed that it was true, I asked if Argentina is in deep economical trouble. The same goes for your second point because I'm not assuming that a lie about Argentina is true, what I'm doing is asking what is the situation there. Are they in economic trouble?
-
Falklands? Really? Again?
Come on Argentina. Get over it.
-
Sarafan; As far as I know, Argentina have not been publishing a lot of the _EXPECTED BY ALL COUNTRIES IN THE IMF_ reports, probably because they've not been performing as people would have hoped, and then putting up some bull**** bottom line numbers in their stead.
The IMF isn't happy about this and therefore is considering booting them.
While you can see that as Argentina doing worse than they make out, it might not be bad enough that they would be anything other than downgraded a shade or so on the economy, which isn't anything unusual at the moment.
If they are ejected from the IMF however, they are screwed.
-
Sarafan; As far as I know, Argentina have not been publishing a lot of the _EXPECTED BY ALL COUNTRIES IN THE IMF_ reports, probably because they've not been performing as people would have hoped, and then putting up some bull**** bottom line numbers in their stead.
The IMF isn't happy about this and therefore is considering booting them.
While you can see that as Argentina doing worse than they make out, it might not be bad enough that they would be anything other than downgraded a shade or so on the economy, which isn't anything unusual at the moment.
If they are ejected from the IMF however, they are screwed.
Thanks for the info.
-
Qu'est-ce que ****?
Right to self-determination. The population of the Falklands does not want to be Argentinian. End of debate. The only reason this has re-surfaced lately is because there appear to be some valuable natural resources in the waters around the Falklands - waters which, under international law, do not belong to Argentina. This is a problem, because Argentina could really use said resources to help its economy and bolster its government. Ergo, "we want the Falklands."
This shouldn't even be an issue these days. International law is on the side of the islanders; historical precedent is on the side of the islanders; UN precedent is on the side of the islanders; military resolution was on the side of the islanders. How the UK and Argentina feels about the matter is irrelevant - the islanders want the islands to remain UK territory, and so it shall.
Good grief.
-
QuantumDelta: It is a common myth that Argentina wants to remove the islanders (I cited it in my first post). It fails common logic, too (you know, you need people in the islands to run them, and the logistics would prohibit exiling them all and replacing them with Argentineans even if we wanted to).
That myth has been conveniently maintained because it perpetuates the image of Argentineans as big mean guys who want to retake those defenseless islands and enslave, exile or kill the islanders, or change their way of life in any way. Fact remains, Argentina currently considers the islands as part of the Tierra del Fuego province, and so they would also be considered Argentinean citizens if the islands were to be recovered.
http://dawn.com/2011/06/15/falklander-gets-argentine-birth-cert-in-legal-first/ (http://dawn.com/2011/06/15/falklander-gets-argentine-birth-cert-in-legal-first/)
You may argue that some islanders may not want to give up being British to get an Argentine nationality. Again, I'm pretty sure if the UK were to sit down and negotiate, those things could be ironed out too, so there would be no need to give up their nationality or lifestyle at all.
---
Ravenholme: I'm not going to answer about the things Sean Penn might have done. I don't care about Sean Penn. He's not relevant to a discussion that dates back to two centuries ago. Citing him is only an attempt to divert this discussion and deslegitimate the Argentinean claim.
The FACTS, as were told to you, may not be the real facts at all (just ONE example: there is enough evidence of discovery by the Spanish prior to 1592). If you can (if you speak Spanish), read the links I'm going to post to you below. If you can't... well, it's just not that simple. That's why it is important that the UK actually sit down with us and talk about it, and failling that, that we solve it via an agreed upon international actor. Status quo or military force do NOT form truth, facts, or rights; just predominance.
---
Karajorma, Ravenholme and QuantumDelta:
Unfortunately, all the sources I could cite about the Argentinean side of this issue are, of course, in Spanish. I don't expect you to be able to read them (though you could hire someone to translate them if you wish, I know Karajorma really wants this material about the reasons Argentina claims the Malvinas and the other islands). Here are two links
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuesti%C3%B3n_de_las_islas_Malvinas
http://www.cerir.com.ar/admin/_cerir/archivos/libros/0000168/REI_03_003_103.%5B1%5D.pdf
(one is from Wikipedia and I'm still reading it as I write this*, the other one is from the Centro de Estudios en Relaciones Internacionales de Rosario) detailing the Argentine viewpoint. They are not the only ones out there, just the two I could find in a quick Google search.
Ultimately, neither you, nor me, have the power or the knowledge to solve this. It will be up to our respective governments.
Failing negotiation (because the United Kingdom refuses to acknowledge there may be something to negotiate, defying the United Nations' position), I think the only way to settle this would be to go to an international body, either a court or an arbiter. Since the United Kingdom happens to think their case is so undeniable and their evidence is so solid, and since they happen to think the Argentine case is so laughable, I don't understand why they would disagree. And yet here we are, 180 years later...
---
Ravenholme and QuantumDelta:
Ah! Yes. My good old friend the IMF.
1) Well, first of all, where did you guys get the data about Argentina falling off the IMF? Here we go again with the inversion of the burden of proof. It's you who are supposed to back your own claims, not me who is supposed to prove them wrong when they have no backing. And yet, here I go again disproving it.
Argentina has continued to cooperate with the IMF to develop a better system to elaborate our indexes. This Press Release from the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr12488.htm) cites collaboration as recently as December 17, with the material pending review. The IMF has expressed their intention to continue to cooperate with Argentina (http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2012/tr121312.htm)
MR. RICE: On Argentina, I wouldn't want to preempt that board discussion or any board decision so that I don't have anything further on that except to say as the Managing Director has said in the past, we stand ready to continue to cooperate with the authorities with regard to the issue of the official CPI and GDP data. We stand ready to continue to cooperate.
Yes, there is an issue that needs to be solved. Yes, the IMF disagrees with Argentina on this. No, there is no imminent danger for Argentina of being booted out.
Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, neither the government nor the private firms have been able to publish reliable numbers in Argentina so far. Those who keep complaining about private firms estimating inflation as high as 25% in 2012 and being fined (the private firms) because of it, conveniently ignore that Argentinean law requires them to post their methods for review, so we can all see how they arrived to such astronomical numbers, and so we can all make sure they are following proper statistical methods. They have so far failed to do so. Suspicious, isn't it? Meanwhile, the government has agreed in working together with the IMF and publishing their methodology, but they certainly have a case about it and they are (of course) going to argue in favor of it.
Also, and for the sake of future reference: Some of those rumors that say things about Argentina falling off the IMF and the G-20 are spread by holdouts (mostly vulture funds) who refused to enter in Argentina's debt-swap programmes. The ones who did enter made LOTS of money out of it, but the holdouts want EVEN MORE money, and have resorted to all kinds of questionable and openly illegal tactics, like the recent case of the Frigate ARA Libertad (a trial resolved in favor of Argentina by the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) proves.
Do keep that in mind the next time you hear someone saying Argentina will fall from this or that without any serious source to back their claims. Throwing a tantrum and spreading rumors doesn't change the fact, that they made the wrong decision and lost lots of cash.
2) Ravenholme, your post also assumes the IMF is a neutral and accurate authority figure. It assumes, if the IMF complains, things should be going bad and there is no other explanation. And ONCE AGAIN that ignores a whole historical background. It's not like the IMF is as pure and innocent as a 15-years-old girl, you know? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#Criticisms_2) (Or accurate in their policies and predictions, while I'm at it.) Many of their measures and policies are nothing short of criminal.
When it comes to international economic organizations (something the globalized world desperately needs) so far we're stuck with what we have. But don't fall in the temptation of pretending they've never made a mistake or that they may not have a political position (And... surprise! South America rejects that political position and Argentina has been very vocal about it). If you ask me, the IMF seriously needs a reform.
---
Luis Dias and MP-Ryan:
How about, no?
We have a case. We think it's fair that our case be heard. It's not that hard to understand. And the militaristic adventures of a junta supported (and armed) by foreign powers doesn't change more than 200 years of history.
Want us to shut up? Good! Because so do we. But first let's sit down and talk like civilized nations do. That is actually all we're asking for right now. TALK. To finally SOLVE the problem. Are we really asking for that much? Is it that hard to sit down and listen to what we may have to say?
---
Sarafan: The problem is that you asked the question departing from an assumed truth. The default situation was Argentina being in deep economical trouble, and having to prove the contrary. If the question would have been "How is Argentina's economy performing at this moment?" THEN it would have been a neutral question.
You may think the difference is minimal, but in our western world everyone has a right to be innocent until proved guilty, and Argentina is no exception.
I know, it wasn't your intention to be mean or to point fingers. I just want you to realize how you've been conditioned to think Argentina MUST be performing bad. It's not conscious. It's not that you harbour resentments or bad intentions. It's not that you're dumb or easily fooled. You just happen to have that ingrained in you as part of your worldview. And its not only you, it's everyone. Even ourselves. Even me. It's unavoidable to have a certain worldview and partiality. But it helps to be aware of it and of how it reflects in your daily language, judgements, and behaviour. I still have a lot to learn in that, by the way.
(As I'm writing, new posts appear)
Wait! WHAT info? There was no info in QuantumDelta's post. Just "I heard they are being very bad boys, you know". I, by the way, DID provide info in this post and the previous one about Argentina's economy and its relationship with the IMF.
*: I want to make it clear, I never post a source without reading it first (at least the relevant parts). But that article is so HUGE, I won't be able to finish reading it today. It actually exposes the arguments of BOTH sides.
-
Well seeing as are we faced with two conflicting, but equally legal claims in both countries, from each countries' perspective at least, then it really only can boil down to a referendum in the islands themselves can't it?
I would say, ultimately, that the right to self-determination is one of the ultimate expressions of Democracy, and a referendum at least moves the argument from paperwork to people and, indeed, from what happened 300 years ago to what is happening right now.
-
QuantumDelta: It is a common myth that Argentina wants to remove the islanders (I cited it in my first post).
I find it interesting you're citing something QD stated at best peripherially, as if it is the thrust of his argument. Why you feel the need to address it at length as though it's meaningful, when the primary thrust of his argument was about self-determination, would doubtless be a fascinating discussion. As would your inability to counter, or even confront, the issue of self-determination. All you are willing to do is dismiss, with but a single sentence, the wants and desires of the native population of the area in question.
Indeed, your complete inability to grasp that this is a matter of national sovereignty and thus it is utterly necessary that historical claims be tossed aside, is why nobody takes your repeated defense of the Argentine position seriously. (Much like why nobody takes the Argentine position itself seriously. We all know where historical claims leave us, we've seen the State of Israel.) National sovereignty is a matter for the citizens, and failing that force of arms when it comes to the unscrupulous. Argentina has failed on both those counts. There is no discussion left to be had on the issue.
-
Well seeing as are we faced with two conflicting, but equally legal claims in both countries, from each countries' perspective at least, then it really only can boil down to a referendum in the islands themselves can't it?
I would say, ultimately, that the right to self-determination is one of the ultimate expressions of Democracy, and a referendum at least moves the argument from paperwork to people and, indeed, from what happened 300 years ago to what is happening right now.
No, because as I have stated before, Argentina doesn't regard the islanders opinions as those of a neutral third party, but as those of actors implanted by force by the United Kingdom. And the United Nations agree that self-determination alone cannot solve this, by calling Argentina and the United Kingdom to sit down and negotiate.
You know what the sad part is? With Argentina being as promising as it is for the future, were it not for the deplorable military actions of the Argentine junta in the past, I'm pretty sure by now we would be walking towards a shared sovereignty or some similar agreement.
Instead, we're wasting everyone's efforts and losing lots of money we could be earning by working together (or not wasting in military operations), simply because no one is willing to compromise enough (or even SIT to talk). The fact it may eventually boil down to international tribunals or arbiters to solve this, is ultimately an indication of failure for all parties involved.
This is just a thought about how damaging military dictatorships or unilateral interventionism can be in the long run.
-
No, because as I have stated before, Argentina doesn't regard the islanders opinions as those of a neutral third party, but as those of actors implanted by force by the United Kingdom.
It really doesn't occur to you that their neutral starting status is irrelevant to the issue, or that treating them as some kind of openly hostile force by disregarding their opinions is a very good reason why Argentina shouldn't be given control of them?
-
how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phonebox
.
.
.
Tell them they own it
-
how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phonebox
.
.
.
Tell them they own it
Too late. Someone already made that joke before.
-
Thing is, as I said before, if they are considered British invaders now, then they won't magically be considered Argentinian 'rightful inhabitants' afterwards, the world doesn't work that way. They'll still be British invaders, only now they'd be on an Argentinian soil rather than their own.
There's no way on Earth that Argentina would magically 'accept' the inhabitants as being rightfully there, regardless of the outcome of any UN meetings, the Government can make all the announcements it likes, but they would, as attitudes towards them have already shown, be personas non grata both on the island and on the mainland.
The thing is, the islanders may be saying the similar things to the UK, but that doesn't mean they are being told to say it by the UK, they simply have similar opinions. The mistake is the assumption that the islanders are obviously just shills because they are not saying what is wanted to be heard.
-
The thing is, the islanders may be saying the similar things to the UK, but that doesn't mean they are being told to say it by the UK, they simply have similar opinions. The mistake is the assumption that the islanders are obviously just shills because they are not saying what is wanted to be heard.
The thing actually is, by failing to recognize their origins may influence their behaviour, you simplify the situation to a point where it's not negotiable.
Let's say you own a house. The house is taken away from you. You protest and initiate legal actions. While legal proceedings are taking place, the original usurpers die and their sons have inherited (de facto) the house. Now, you would still consider yourself the legitimate proprietary, even if their sons were born and raised there.
That is NOT to say the islander's words aren't worth taking into account. Just that it isn't a neutral voice, and it isn't the only thing that should be taken into consideration.
And, once again I tell you, the United Nations have agreed (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/28/IMG/NR021828.pdf?OpenElement) that the situation of the Malvinas is a case of colonialism and needs to be negotiated. The argument about self-determination doesn't apply to this case.
---
About the rest of your post, your argument is wrong for two reasons:
1) Because you still think in terms of the war. I didn't said "British invaders", but rather "British population implanted by force". Subtle, I know, but it removes the blame from the islanders themselves for the situation.
As it has been historically demonstrated, the Argentinean behaviour towards the islanders hasn't been one of hostility. I point you again at the article I posted before about James Peck:
“A lot of things went through my head,” he said in Spanish. “But my life is here with my children and my friends.”
Sounds to me like he actually felt well treated here.
Consider also the case of Rick Jolly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Jolly). While not an Islander, he was a surgeon and British officer during the conflict. He was not only respected, but actually awarded an Order of May (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_May) (one of the highest Argentine decorations) for his service during the war.
Moreover, the Argentine culture is far more acceptant of British citizens and culture that you seem to believe. With Argentina being the cultural melting pot it has always been, British citizens have contributed considerably to the development of Argentina, its history, and its culture. English is widely spoken amongst the upper and middle classes (especially the upper class). British culture, while many times questioned, is also respected. British musicians like the Beatles and Pink Floyd are held in high regard. Some British persons like Admiral Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brown_%28admiral%29) are not only respected, but are national heroes. British immigration is encouraged in the Argentine Constitution (http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/english.php), as per its status as "European immigration" (First Part, Chapter I DECLARATIONS, RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES, Section 25).*
Section 25.- The Federal Government shall foster European immigration; and may not restrict, limit or burden with any tax whatsoever, the entry into the Argentine territory of foreigners who arrive for the purpose of tilling the soil, improving industries, and introducing and teaching arts and sciences.
While I'm at it, I would also like to point you to the Constitution's Temporary Provisions, article "First", about respect to the islanders way of life.
First.- The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory.
The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.
2) Still, if none of this convinces you, the argument about the possibility of there being problems in the future by mixing the Islanders with Argentineans of the mainland is ultimately very poor. If that criteria would have ever been heed before, there would be no racial or religious mixing, because mixing people who have had problems in the past is problematic. Fortunately, so far we've thought the benefits far outweight irrationality in these scenarios.
And I would like to remind you that Argentina isn't asking to be handed the islands and their inhabitants without conditions, either. We're asking to NEGOTIATE. Any number of possible agreements, including the UN or even the UK themselves permanently watching over the process of integration, could be achieved. It wouldn't be unheard of to have an agreement like that.
There are many possible solutions to such supposed problems. When the political will exists, problems become opportunities.
*: Now if you ask me, it's discriminatory to foster only one type of immigration. But that's a matter of another discussion altogether.
I will not actively participate in this discussion any longer. I will be travelling for my vacations in a few days and I have to begin preparations. I've already stated my point and achieved all I set out to do in this thread. I will be posting my conclusions in my next post. I also will, of course, keep reading you all a bit longer, so you can have a right to a final word with me.
-
It surprises me (positively) that a 2 pages discussion about the Malvinas/Falklands issue could be had without a single insult and a single call for violence. I REALLY wasn't expecting this.
The actual level of politeness, rationality, education and dignity displayed by the British members of this forum during this discussion are truly a testament of a developed culture. You leave your nation in a good standing in my eyes. I wish it could always be the case throughout the internet and in real life. And I wish, someday, this whole conflict gets to a solution that benefits us all.
Thank you for your time.
-
It's worth bearing in mind that Argentina is itself a colony. How would you feel if someone claimed you don't have a right to vote in your countries elections unless you are a member of one of the native tribes?
@Ravenholme, thanks for that. It didn't state anything I didn't know before but unless I wanted to repost the whole of wikipedia's Falklands Island entry I didn't have a nice way of pointing out how completely threadbare the Argentinian argument was.
-
hey el_magnifico, constantly bemoaning how everyone else in a discussion is stupid and immature is not going to win you any friends
-
hey el_magnifico, constantly bemoaning how everyone else in a discussion is stupid and immature is not going to win you any friends
I've not done such a thing. In fact, I've done quite the contrary, if you read my last post. NGTM-1R is an special case, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Could you point me to the places where I told people here they were immature and stupid? Or is telling people that they may be wrong the same as treating them as stupids? It's not like I also haven't been wrong before, couldn't be wrong now, and couldn't be wrong in the future.
-
His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.
-
His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.
You counting me as a friend would certainly be an honor to me.
-
The people on the Falklands want to be British. End of discussion. I certainly can't trust the UN General Assembly to be impartial about this since how many members are either A. former colonies who might want to poke a European power in the eye over a similar issue, B. Argentinian allies on this (probably all of South America due to simple proximity), or C. not-quite-enemies of Europe/NA (North Africa, Middle East, China, Russia)?
Seems to me like a large part of the General Assembly might want to side if not with Argentina, then at least against Great Britain on this issue for reasons other than the facts on the ground. I'm not saying that I am anywhere near impartial on this, just that I can't trust the UN to be impartial either when an issue of possible colonialism by Great Britain, an American ally, is brought before them.
-
Basically it comes down to this. Both sides originally have fairly weak claims to the islands. So prior claims basically nullify each other.
So in the end you have the Argentinians claiming it was very wrong of the past British Government to force the settlement on the Falklands Islands to come under British rule despite many of them not wanting to do so, and then trying to use that as an excuse to do the same thing in reverse now.
I can't see why anyone is still arguing in favour of the Argentinian position when it is so obviously hypocritical.
-
NGTM-1R is an special case, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
The pity of it is the comment I got a warning for, the one you so eagerly hold against me, is something that you've been actively engaged in proving in this very thread: Argentina's contact with the reality of the outside world is often very shaky (continual citing of the General Assembly as some kind of saintly impartial body, for example) because of its own nationalistic feeling and its historical (and current) limitation of the freedom of the press, as well as its relatively recent drives to create press organs that are part and parcel of the government because it doesn't like what the actual press is saying.
EDIT: For the curious: a brief primer on the turbulent history of Argentina's government vs. Argentina's press since 2008. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_between_Clar%C3%ADn_and_Kirchnerism) It amuses me that article's neutrality is disputed, considering how strongly it focuses on actions rather than results of actions.
-
NGTM-1R is an special case, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
The pity of it is the comment I got a warning for, the one you so eagerly hold against me, is something that you've been actively engaged in proving in this very thread: Argentina's contact with the reality of the outside world is often very shaky (continual citing of the General Assembly as some kind of saintly impartial body, for example) because of its own nationalistic feeling and its historical (and current) limitation of the freedom of the press, as well as its relatively recent drives to create press organs that are part and parcel of the government because it doesn't like what the actual press is saying.
EDIT: For the curious: a brief primer on the turbulent history of Argentina's government vs. Argentina's press since 2008. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_between_Clar%C3%ADn_and_Kirchnerism) It amuses me that article's neutrality is disputed, considering how strongly it focuses on actions rather than results of actions.
I just want to let you know, if you were issued a warning, that I absolutely did NOT report your post (or any other post so far, for that matter). If your post was reported, and you got a warning, look somewhere else for the culprit.
As for the rest, I've already told you I'm not going to discuss with you about this. Just give it a rest, OK?
-
We have a case.
No, you don't. International law and precedent say that the right to self-determination trumps all. This is why democracies like Canada and the UK have to put up with regular separatist stirrings by portions of their populations (Quebec / Scotland). It's why Northern Ireland is still UK territory. It's why Taiwan has international recognition.
Argentina doesn't have a case. The islands are populated with UK citizens and have been since 1833. They - the current inhabitants - are the owners of the islands; they have the right to self-determination; they have repeatedly said they have no interest in being citizens of Argentina. Hence why the rest of the democratic world collectively shakes its head every time this issue comes up.
The text of UN resolution 2065, passed in 1964, also bears mentioning (emphasis mine):
UN Resolutions
Resolution 2065 (XX)
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
16 December 1965
The General Assembly,
Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,
Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,
1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);
2. Requests the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.
1514 is here: https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml
It's predominant message is the right to self-determination.
So I'll repeat myself to make it quite clear: under international law, Argentina does not have a case. If the islanders change their mind, that's up to them, not Argentina.
-
Hold it everyone! I'm sorry to jump back in the discussion, but a new thought has occurred to me that might render all of my previous thoughts ultimately irrelevant.
An interesting question no one ever asks himself in these discussions isn't why or how Argentina plans to get ahold of the islands, but rather how Argentina plans on holding them without the islanders sympathy.*
Note that this is not recognizing that they have a legitimate claim for the islands out of supposed self-determination, but rather about the practicalities of keeping the islands productive under the rule of a government that may be every bit as good and democratic as their current one, or maybe even better, but that they ultimately might feel that doesn't represent them. This also isn't about hostility TO the islanders (that was already discussed with Flipside). This is about hostility FROM the islanders rendering any effort Argentina or the UK might put into integration with the mainland moot. Without the help of the other two actors (the UK and the islanders), or at least from the islanders alone, Argentina could find itself governing a rebellious rock plagued with political and logistical problems. And our current strategy, even if we're right about our rightful sovereignty over the land, may ultimately prove to be useless.
Perhaps our current strategy is a flawed one, and we've been looking at this problem the wrong way all this time. Discussion about Argentina's case, UK's case, or the islanders' right of self-determination, might as well be pointless.
*: I seem to remember Machiavelli wrote about the long-term “unconquerability” of republics in The Prince. He could have been either right or wrong, but he did have a good point.
-
His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.
That's the thing, despite the discussion having been completely civil so far el_magnifico has remarked every other post about how it always degenerates into name calling and he's so used to being the only intelligent person in the conversation.
-
Presumably he's discussed it many times on other forums and had forgotten that HLP tries to stick with reasoned debate.
@el_magnifico that is a good point. It is pretty doubtful the Argentinians would ever manage to hold the islands. The second they were handed back the islanders would almost certainly declare independence from Argentina. The question then becomes what would they do? Cause quite frankly there is nothing they could do that wouldn't be worse than what they accuse the British of having done.
-
Too late. Someone already made that joke before.
Checks through thread
No they didnt :D
-
Too late. Someone already made that joke before.
Checks through thread
No they didnt :D
I think it turned up in the last thread
-
His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.
That's the thing, despite the discussion having been completely civil so far el_magnifico has remarked every other post about how it always degenerates into name calling and he's so used to being the only intelligent person in the conversation.
Which personally I find to almost be a form of antagonism. I'm somewhat miffed that he went to great lengths to talk about a side comment, and forward the fact that REAL peoples lives and histories don't matter. Only some strange sense of governmentally installed perspective does.
If someone wandered over to me and told me they now owned my house because THEY THINK THEY SHOULD, with no other legal, tangible reason why, I'd probably punch them in the face until they changed their mind.
The fact that Argentina want to take the Falklands as part of their manifest destiny with no regards to what ever else happens, and throwing statements out about "British Colonialism" (something which really, doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't for ages?) when they're behaving with classic examples of it.
All at the expense of the people on the island. Who have lived there for hundreds of years.
Invasions.
Minefields.
Sanctions.
Blockades.
Being treated as objects rather than people.
Being seen as owned rather than independent.
The mentality that the islanders have no human rights.
Yea, Argentina should totally 'administrate' or whatever the hell they want to do with the Falklands, they've proven they'll be brilliant at it.
All under the reasoning that they feel they should own it.
Nothing else.
That's why they never go before the ICJ.
Edit;
The question then becomes what would they do? Cause quite frankly there is nothing they could do that wouldn't be worse than what they accuse the British of having done.
Which is probably why as it stands they'll never change their minds about being "British".
-
His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.
That's the thing, despite the discussion having been completely civil so far el_magnifico has remarked every other post about how it always degenerates into name calling and he's so used to being the only intelligent person in the conversation.
Exactly what Karajorma said. Besides, it isn't always the UKers who start the unreasonability and name calling. (Pirates is an usual one from we Argies, sheep-****ers also gets hurled every now and then.)
Also, if I would really have thought this thread was full of idiots and there was nothing to gain, I wouldn't even have bothered to spend hours writing and documenting my post (yes, each one of those long and documented posts takes away at least 2-3 hours of my life to write).
And there was indeed something gained. I'm starting to believe that, whether our case is right or not, we may be missing the whole point anyway. Perhaps I (we) have indeed been wrong in this approach. So far for my supposed ego blinding me.
Whether you like it or not, discussions are made of two or more sides confronting opinions and thinking the other one is probably wrong. And discussion about contentious issues like this one tend to get ugly everywhere (you should really see how ugly discussion about this can get, even within Argentines themselves, when unreasonable people are around). If you expect me to not defend my case and to not be wary about the probability of everything going to hell, well... sorry, but that won't happen.
Finally, in a thread that's been both civil and productive, you're going out of your way to find something negative to remark. I don't understand why you do that.
---
Karajorma:
Cases like that one have been solved in the past through referendum or mutual agreement when relations between Argentina and the other nation were good.
I agree, I can clearly see the islands would at the very least demand special status if they were to be handed back. So any successful long-term recovery of the islands would need more subtlety than simply presenting our case.
---
QuantumDelta:
I just want to point out that I also addressed your other points in the rest of my posts. Many of those sections where directed to more than one person. I had to organize them in that way to avoid over-quoting (something for which I've been criticized before.)
-
I don't believe any Politician in Europe would support Argentinan claims.
It would open Pandoras Box, because during and after World War II almost every Country in Middle and Eastern Europe has had to suffer the lose of Territories and the expulsion of the millions of People living there ( Germans from Poland, Poles from the Soviet Union, Germans from Italy, Italians from Slovenia,... ect. ).
That was just 70 years ago, and no sane person want to dig out that monster from it's grave by changing borders because on some forgotten Islands at the end of the world 200 years ago some hundred Spanish / French / whatever guys have been expelled.
Russia and China also doesn't seem to like to create an example for claims that may justify claims against Russia (some Nations in the Caucasus) or China (Tibet)...
But personally it just admit the Chutzpah to fight against colonialism by claiming rights dating back to the Spanish Colonialism ;)
-
Pirates is an usual one from we Argies
Ironic since it was a privateer who claimed the islands in the name of Argentina in the first place. :p
Cases like that one have been solved in the past through referendum or mutual agreement when relations between Argentina and the other nation were good.
I agree, I can clearly see the islands would at the very least demand special status if they were to be handed back. So any successful long-term recovery of the islands would need more subtlety than simply presenting our case.
I think the Argentinians have to realise they are not getting the Falklands back this generation and that every time they try to claim that the islands are theirs they only succeed in pushing back any chance of it happening another few years. Again, how many Argentinians would listen to the arguments of native tribes who said "We were here first, therefore we own the whole of Argentina, it belongs to us, not you"
The simple fact is that the islands are not theirs at all. At the very least they are 1/2 British since the British were the first to colonise half of the Islands. And while Argentina continue to claim that they own all the islands they'll never get anywhere.
-
Actually from a socio-political point of view it's interesting, because part of the reason the people of Argentina threw out the military regime and created their own government was because the regime not only invaded the Falklands, but lost the fight over them, that weakened them enough to be overpowered.
It is strange to think that, had that war been won, Argentina would most likely be a lot less Democratic and have a lot less Freedom than it does now. I'm not saying that the UK 'freed' Argentina or anything silly like that, but it IS worth noting that it was the failure of the invasion that put the current Government and Political system where it is now.
-
Too late. Someone already made that joke before.
Checks through thread
No they didnt :D
I think i did in the last one, i certainly knew it beforehand ;)
If not..... I relinquish all claims to the above statement.
-
Your lucky, I was just about to send a task force to liberate the joke...