Falklands In Light Of Crimea Rhetoric

[camberiu]

 

[Redpossum]

Why am I still taken aback when the bitch illustrates her seemingly irresistible urge to swim against the tide.
I mean, there's political opportunism and there's just plain wrong footed.
Also, I can't make out if she hates Great Britain....read English Pirates...or she simply loves us somewhere down there in that dark heart.
She could of course expand her horizons with a state visit to our friend in Zimbabwe.

You're going to hate me for saying this, if you're a Brit, but I totally agree with her on this one.

And why is "opportunist" used like it was a curse? When we are talking about someone we admire, we say "seizing the opportunity". And every writer on government and the use of power that has ever been, from Sun Tzu through Macchiavelli to von Clausewitz, has talked about the crucial importance of timing. So all you're really accusing her of is having a good sense of timing.

Could Cortez have conquered the Aztecs if they hadn't been exhausted by two decades of civil war? Timing.

Could the Spanish have overcome the Inca if the Inca empire hadn't just been devastated by repeated epidemics? Timing.

Could Alexander have conquered the Persian Empire if a man like Cyrus the Great had been on the throne, rather than the ineffectual Darius III? Timing.

Yet we lionise these three.

La Presidenta saw an opening, an opportunity to make political capital at the expense of a rival, and she took it. There is, after all, no better time to kick an enemy than when he's down. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm certainly willing to listen if you are willing to articulate your reasons. But with all due respect, I don't see where you have a valid criticism.

The US position on the Crimea is indeed horribly, ridiculously hypocritical. When Kerry stood up and said, "you can't just go around invading countries in violation of international law", I literally laughed out loud. Doh, what about Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Haiti THREE TIMES in the 20th century and once already in the 21st, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, let's see, did I miss any?

And we have vetoed dozens of UNCSC resolutions condemning the Zionist Occupation State, which has violated every international law on the books, including the use of chemical weapons.

I'm a US citizen, this is my own country I'm talking about here. But we suck in this context. We're the most warlike nation on the planet. If you have time and interest, go read George Washington's farewell letter to the American people, and you will see that our foreign policy since the 1890's has been a direct violation of everything he said.

Gringoboy, I do agree with a lot of the things you have said in these forums. I admire your integrity and the overall consistency of your opinions. But I do believe you're mistaken on this one.

 

[Gringoboy]

Fair points overall Redpossum and nobody can ignore the US invasions of the recent past.
However, the Falklands issue is not comparable to Crimea; but of course that isn't the point you are making.
My point is that she is consistent in her attitude of taking a seemingly odd view of the world which always seems out of sync.
Of course it's not surprising that she should jump on Crimea and make tenuous links with the British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic.
If she didn't, she wouldn't be fulfilling her mandate as the Dear Leader, national and popular.
So she's objecting, along with Putin, to the 'double standards' of Obama and Cameron over the referendum in Crimea?
Is that it in a nutshell?
So, does she support the referendum in Crimea? And if so, it surely follows that she supports the result, which is to be absorbed into the mother country.
In my opinion, she's stuck between a rock and hard place most of the time.
I mean, Chavez, Maduro, Morsi in Egypt, Angola, Vietnam, some ex Soviet repressive republic she sent Moreno off to on a wild goose chase, which I can't remember the name of.
Her judgement is suspect as is her credibility.
And as for Putin. Well, without wishing to sound flippant, she does appear to warm to 'the strong' types.
You say I am mistaken on this one and that you totally agree with her.
Yes, she took an opportunity, she's a politician. But I still will criticise her for that; it's my job.
But if you totally agree with her, would you mind explaining to me exactly why please?
It's not enough to drag up US invasions by the way.
We're talking about the invasion of a sovereign territory, a coerced referendum and a South American president's seeming support of such actions.
And I go back to my main point; does she support the referendum?

 

[Redpossum]

But if you totally agree with her, would you mind explaining to me exactly why please?
It's not enough to drag up US invasions by the way.
We're talking about the invasion of a sovereign territory, a coerced referendum and a South American president's seeming support of such actions.
And I go back to my main point; does she support the referendum?

Excellent post! I'm stoked that we're debating this politely. BTW, I'm a huge Half-Life fan. In fact, there's a lambda sticker on my laptop. I played HL1, and Op4, and Blue Shift, and HL2, and Ep1 and Ep2 over and over. The cinematic mod was what I was playing most recently. Now to answer your questions-

You're right that it's not enough to cite US abuses, because two wrongs don't make a right, do they? If Argentina is to reclaim her rightful place in the sun, and become a moral exemplar unto the family of nations, it will require some very careful attention to ethical standards.
(Possumology tip #1, when I start using words like "unto", it means I've dropped into poetic mode, and you need to keep a large salt shaker handy. In fact, you might just want to bring the blue can from the kitchen)

I agree with Santa Cristina (snicker) that the principle involved in the Malvinas referendum and the Crimea referendum are the same. And Bosnia was more of the same. You have cited alleged differences, and I could dispute those alleged differences, but why bother? Even if I accept your allegations on a nolo contendere basis, it's irrrelevant, because details are irrelevant in this. The over-arching principle is vox populi, vox dei, the voice of The People is the voice of God. And if you truly believe in democracy, you cannot dispute that one.

And yeah, I just used latin twice in one paragraph, when any use of latin in most forums is considered cheesy. But I'm going to plead special circumstances, given that we are discussing foreign relations.

In closing let me ask, have you looked at the treaty between Russia and newly-independent Ukraine when the USSR broke up? Have you read about the special clauses that applied if there was a breakdown of civil order in Ukraine? Draconian is the word.

 

[Gringoboy]

Then you need to have a look at Black Mesa if you haven't already.
It's the total remake of Half Life from the ground up, using the Source engine.
With a team of 40 unpaid volunteers, it took about eight years to develop, before its final launch in Sept 2012.....
....sorry, but I've completely forgotten what we were discussing....

 

[rrptownley]

Who would play Gordon Freeman in Hollywood?

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Who would play Gordon Freeman in Hollywood?

Who's Gordon Freeman?

 

[EdRooney]

He was awesome in Driving Miss Daisy.

 

[camberiu]

...and the cake is a lie!

 

[pauper]

Please, please, please tell me you are trolling and are not serious...