India, Brazil, And South Africa Want Argentina To Join Brics

[Redpossum]

Story here -
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/05/06/india-brazil-and-south-africa-want-argentina-to-join-the-brics-club

This is a very attractive idea, at least from my point of view. Anything which strengthens regional ties within Latin America can only be good for the people of Argentina. And having the Russians and Chinese on board would put Argentina in a stronger position to press for justice regarding the illegitimate British occupation of the Malvinas and other South Atlantic islands.

If you look at the last paragraph of the article linked above, Scioli (they misspelled his name, oops!) and his wife are scheduled to visit India in September.

 

[thorsten]

The problem is that BRICS has nothing to do with strengthening regional ties... If they wanted to achieve that (which would be a good move), they should focus on Mercosur.

 

[pauper]

The problem is that BRICS has nothing to do with strengthening regional ties... If they wanted to achieve that (which would be a good move), they should focus on Mercosur.

Yes, and no member country has done more to weaken Mercosur than Argentina.

Plus the only catchy acronym I can come up with is CARIBS which may be slightly confusing.

As for the Falklands and 'other South Atlantic islands' - dear oh dear, the locals must love you.

 

[internationalguy]

Red, legitimate or illegitimate, the Falklands issue is a political flag. The people who live there don't want to live with the burden of the Argentine problems. They're Brits. Are you going to tell them they have to move because some crazy politicians in Casa Rosada want to benefit from some old and useless rhetoric? If the people of countries like Argentina focused more on real issues and real work, instead of going on and on about petty issues like that and look into the future instead of looking into their egos and their immature ways, then maybe one day Argentina would grow up and become a key world player. In the meantime they'll have to settle for their old we hate the British but we want to be them song.

 

[camberiu]

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Yes, and no member country has done more to weaken Mercosur than Argentina."

This![/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Nothing else needs to be said. [/background]

 

[Redpossum]

Red, legitimate or illegitimate, the Falklands issue is a political flag. The people who live their don't want to live with the burden of the Argentine problems. They're Brits. Are you going to tell them they have to move because some crazy politicians in Casa Rosada want to benefit from some old and useless rhetoric? If the people of countries like Argentina focused more on real issues and real work, instead of going on and on about petty issues like that and look into the future instead of looking into their egos and their immature ways, then maybe one day Argentina would grow up and become a key world player. In the meantime they'll have to settle with their old we hate the British but we want to be them song.

No, my friend, you are mistaken in dismissing this issue. Let me explain three reasons why.

First, oil and gas. The current English activities carry a high risk of a major oil spill. When that spill occurs, whose waters and beaches will be polluted for decades? Not England's. It is the waters, beaches, and economies of Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil which will be devastated. It is the fisheries of the entire Atlantic coast of South America which will suffer. Think back to what the Gulf Horizon oil spill was like. Look at the huge dead zones which still exist where the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred back in 1989. That is what we will suffer if England is allowed to continue with reckless and illegal oil drilling in the South Atlantic.

And that doesn't even consider the fact that the English are stealing natural resources which do not belong to them.

Second, militarization of the South Atlantic. Here's what Uruguay thinks -
http://en.mercopress...-defense-policy
This is a gross violation of the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation zone, even if we ignore the presence of nuclear weapons and assume that only conventional weapons are being stored there. The UK and USA are the biggest warmongers on planet Earth. How many nations have they invaded in the last 20 years? Do you need me to list them all? The presence of their military in the South Atlantic is an outrage and a direct threat to peace. Just who do they expect to fight in the South Atlantic?

Third, the issue of fisheries, although I touched on this issue in my first point. The English are not just fishing the South Atlantic themselves, where they have no right to be in the first place, they are selling licenses to fishing boats from as far away as Asia. And Asian industrial fishing activities have had devastating environmental consequences in the Pacific. Why should that be allowed to happen here?

This is far more than "old and useless rhetoric" as you describe it. These are issues of vital and urgent importance to all the residents of South America.

 

[sleslie23]

No, my friend, you are mistaken in dismissing this issue. Let me explain three reasons why.

First, oil and gas. The current English activities carry a high risk of a major oil spill. When that spill occurs, whose waters and beaches will be polluted for decades? Not England's. It is the waters, beaches, and economies of Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil which will be devastated. It is the fisheries of the entire Atlantic coast of South America which will suffer. Think back to what the Gulf Horizon oil spill was like. Look at the huge dead zones which still exist where the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred back in 1989. That is what we will suffer if England is allowed to continue with reckless and illegal oil drilling in the South Atlantic.

And that doesn't even consider the fact that the English are stealing natural resources which do not belong to them.

Second, militarization of the South Atlantic. Here's what Uruguay thinks -
http://en.mercopress...-defense-policy
This is a gross violation of the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation zone, even if we ignore the presence of nuclear weapons and assume that only conventional weapons are being stored there. The UK and USA are the biggest warmongers on planet Earth. How many nations have they invaded in the last 20 years? Do you need me to list them all? The presence of their military in the South Atlantic is an outrage and a direct threat to peace. Just who do they expect to fight in the South Atlantic?

Third, the issue of fisheries, although I touched on this issue in my first point. The English are not just fishing the South Atlantic themselves, where they have no right to be in the first place, they are selling licenses to fishing boats from as far away as Asia. And Asian industrial fishing activities have had devastating environmental consequences in the Pacific. Why should that be allowed to happen here?

This is far more than "old and useless rhetoric" as you describe it. These are issues of vital and urgent importance to all the residents of South America.

The English? Never knew St George's Cross was flying over the Faulkland Islands. I'm sure our resident BRITISH expats will be along to correct you shortly.

 

[internationalguy]

No, my friend, you are mistaken in dismissing this issue. Let me explain three reasons why.

First, oil and gas. The current English activities carry a high risk of a major oil spill. When that spill occurs, whose waters and beaches will be polluted for decades? Not England's. It is the waters, beaches, and economies of Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil which will be devastated. It is the fisheries of the entire Atlantic coast of South America which will suffer. Think back to what the Gulf Horizon oil spill was like. Look at the huge dead zones which still exist where the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred back in 1989. That is what we will suffer if England is allowed to continue with reckless and illegal oil drilling in the South Atlantic.

And that doesn't even consider the fact that the English are stealing natural resources which do not belong to them.

Second, militarization of the South Atlantic. Here's what Uruguay thinks -
http://en.mercopress...-defense-policy
This is a gross violation of the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation zone, even if we ignore the presence of nuclear weapons and assume that only conventional weapons are being stored there. The UK and USA are the biggest warmongers on planet Earth. How many nations have they invaded in the last 20 years? Do you need me to list them all? The presence of their military in the South Atlantic is an outrage and a direct threat to peace. Just who do they expect to fight in the South Atlantic?

Third, the issue of fisheries, although I touched on this issue in my first point. The English are not just fishing the South Atlantic themselves, where they have no right to be in the first place, they are selling licenses to fishing boats from as far away as Asia. And Asian industrial fishing activities have had devastating environmental consequences in the Pacific. Why should that be allowed to happen here?

This is far more than "old and useless rhetoric" as you describe it. These are issues of vital and urgent importance to all the residents of South America.

Well, that is some very interesting in depth analysis of the issue. I sure will consider what you say and think about it. However, I really don't think that CFK has all those things in mind when she uses the issue politically. I understand that the issues you mention are valid and real, but the politicians in Argentina don't even bother with that. You're smart and idealistic and those are both great things. The CFKs, the Galtieris, the Camporas, they're not capable of that level of analysis. There is an issue as to what constitutes occupation and who the Islands really belong to, there's a real possibility that the British claim is legit.

I know it's tempting to always blame "the Imperial powers" and to side with the weak. The thing is, like in most human conflict, even the most horrible people can be right sometimes.

 

[Joe]

The English? Never knew St George's Cross was flying over the Faulkland Islands. I'm sure our resident BRITISH expats will be along to correct you shortly.

Give him a break, he's a yank. At least he knows that this is Argentina and not Mexico. Although he might argue that the Yucatan peninsula territorial waters extend to the Falklands making it a part of Guatemala.

And don't forget that Pink Possum gets his political inspiration from Sean Penn.

 

[ElQueso]

Redpossum, I have to ask you if you have studied anything in depth regarding the Falklands that wasn't approved by the government here. Personally, having studied it fairly extensively, I don't think Argentina has a leg to stand on but it sure has been used politically here to "rally the troops."

But if you think the Argentines have a strong claim to something they haven't even had possession of in something like 150 years (and according to everything I've read that wasn't written by Argentinos or those sympathizing, they never had possession of it as a country), I have to ask you:

Do you support returning the majority of the land south of Buenos Aires province to the indigenous population of Argentina, the lands of which the indigenous population was in control of well before certain Argentine citizens landed in the Falklands to take the wild cattle off the islands? The British were in solid control of the Falklands before Argentina even extended itself that far south.