Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )

[ElQueso]

Yes, to talk a lot just to make people understood YOUR point, or what you want people to believe but a large and pseudo intelectual exposition of the "facts".

So you are saying that me talking about the facts is pseudo intellectual, while you talking about emotions is correct, I take it? I don't say this on forums, hardly ever, but I have to now - LOL.

Well, Elqueso, do you have any relatives from Paraguay, that doesnt like argentina very much, dont you?

Actually, my wife is Paraguayan and two of her sisters and a cousin live with me. So? Of the beefs I have with the way Argentinos treat Paraguayans and just about every other South American nationality, what I was saying about Guaranis had nothing to do with Paraguay. Or perhaps you don't realize that the north of Argentina was also once full of Guaranis (as were parts of Uruguay) and in fact still have a large Guarani influence, including speaking the language?

As far as i know, guaranies are not making any claims about anything.

Oh well, then, that's ok. Pat yourself on the back and feel better now that the Argentines managed to kill enough of them and intimidate and place into poverty the rest so that they can't really complain.

So if they are not complaining, ok, fine. Do you support every other place in the world where people have inhabited other's lands for centuries for them to give back the land? I am wihtout doubt that you would love to know that there are North American Indians who still want their land back. We didn't quite kill all of them and even gave them autonomy after centuries of bad treatment.

About the talkings about UK giving the islands back to Argentina, you understand the point i made, but you play fool and go back about the "self determination". How can you possibly even think to give away a territory that belongs to you, when someone else claim it? That means that you know that you have no right at all.

Well, I understood the point you made previously, but did not even come close to agreeing with it. The rest of this particular paragraph I don't even understand what you're trying to say, so I can't respond to that.

You say it right when you talk about the right of the people living there about having their own country, wich is England. If they are british living there (due to an invasion), what auto determinacion are you talking about? If they are british, they can go to their country UNITED KINGDOM.

Again, I don't understand the point you are attempting to make. As far as self-determination, actually, they are British subjects as I understand and not necessarily UK. That is a very complex issue which I don't even completely understand. I was just talking to an English friend of mine recently who was trying to tell me why he is insulted when he is called British. I do understand some points of that, but again, I don't see what bearing that has on what I talked about regarding self-determination.

I don't know that the inhabitants of the Falklands have complained to the British ruler (who is actually the Queen, btw, the head of state for the Falklands) about wanting to be independent. I was making an example of something I could support, if the British subjects wanted to be free of British rule. But how does that bear on Argentina getting sovereignity? I really don't understand what you are trying to say. I suspect that is because you have no logic to argue from, it is all emotion and you can't make an argument that makes any sense to those who do not share your same emotion.

Sorry, but this confuses me "So? There are also many more people who think that no possession of Britain's should be given up. You can listen to which side you want, but the British government is going to decide that." You say it in a general way including, let´s say, London? Or just about the Malvinas? Or what? Or is just pure imperialism behind that?

What I was saying is that yes, there are people who think that the Falklands should be given up, who are British subjects. There are also British subjects who don't think that any possession of Britain's should be given up. I don't know what London has to do with it. When I mention British possessions, I am talking about literally that - possessions that are Britain claims. Among them, yes, is the Falklands.

But what I meant by that was that because some people in Britain don't want the Falklands any mroe, that does not give Argentina any claim. That's plain silly. I meant that some people will opine that they don't want the Falklands, and others will opine that they do, but int he end the government will make the decision based on what they consider the best interests of their nation.

If you thought I was talking about soem people on the Falkland islands themselves being wishy-washy about whether they wanted to be a part of Britain or a part of Argentina, I doubt you will find a single inhabitant that would want to be a part of Argentina. So again, where is Argentina's claim, toher than an emotional thing?

 

[ElQueso]

The "time" argument is just as ridiculous or "emotional" as the geographic argument. Theft is theft no matter how long a person has owned something or how long the thief has kept the thing. The only difference here is that states last longer than persons and can pursue causes for longer periods of time.

For whatever the reasons you belive "natives" accepted Argentine rule, they accepted it. Argentina has not, in 177, accepted the UK taking the islands.

I agree that theft is theft. So whether or not the natives here gave up their claim to their land, it's still theft is it not? And with your argument, whether the natives gave up their land willingly or not doesn't make a difference - is it not still theft? The honest thing to do, then, would be to give the lands back willingly without them having to ask for them back.

Besides, the only reason why you argue this is becasuse of the war, which is the only reason why we don't own the islands today. All historical, geographical, judicial arguments have long ago been recognized in many cases, by Brittain itself, to favor Argentina. Like i posted before there were many negotiations before the war to transfer sovereignty, which didn't prosper because of petty politics in some cases or the intransigence of Argentina. But few officials before the war argued that the transfer of sovereignty was the only real and permanent solution to the conflict.

You make some good points here, to be sure. But one of your points kind of defeats the other, in my opinion. IF Britain made as many and as strong of concessions as you claim, WHY then, did Argentina try to invade the islnds and not let politics and the world court work things out?

BTW - you can't say that "[ALL] historical, geographical, judicial arguments have long ago been recognized in many cases" (caps are my editing). The words ALL and MANY are not inclusive. To me, "many" means that at best there were still some things to be worked out (could also be "many" things to be worked out), which Argentina blew when they invaded, apparently because they didn't like the direction the talks were going.

The US was actually fairly supportive of Argentina during those talks, and even supported a role in a three-way governing of the islands until such a time as Argentina would take them over, the US offering to be a third party who had interests with both nations. But when Argentina attacked, the US threw up their hands and put their support behind Britain, which to this day it seems like Argentina can't understand why.

 

[fedecc]

I agree that theft is theft. So whether or not the natives here gave up their claim to their land, it's still theft is it not? And with your argument, whether the natives gave up their land willingly or not doesn't make a difference - is it not still theft? The honest thing to do, then, would be to give the lands back willingly without them having to ask for them back.

It does make a difference wether you give up a claim, because you are con validating it. Mexico may have lost part of its territory unjustly but it has long ago accepted and respected the de facto situation. Argentina didn't. As far as the natives, its a hole different issue because its not a state-state conflict like the falklands.

You make some good points here, to be sure. But one of your points kind of defeats the other, in my opinion. IF Britain made as many and as strong of concessions as you claim, WHY then, did Argentina try to invade the islnds and not let politics and the world court work things out?

The reasons for invading the island had little to do with actually getting the islands back. It was a desperate attempt by a military government to gain some support by using an historic nationalist cause of the country. It was a diplomatic spat D) that started with some argentine workers in south georgia an quicly escalated to a war.

I remember a few years ago an incident with Morocco and Spain were Morocco siezed a tiny island that was disputed with Spain. The hole thing ended quickly with Morocco withdrawing from the islands, no shots fired, no one got killed. My guess is the junta was aiming for something like that, but it backfired.

BTW - you can't say that "[ALL] historical, geographical, judicial arguments have long ago been recognized in many cases" (caps are my editing). The words ALL and MANY are not inclusive. To me, "many" means that at best there were still some things to be worked out (could also be "many" things to be worked out), which Argentina blew when they invaded, apparently because they didn't like the direction the talks were going.

The US was actually fairly supportive of Argentina during those talks, and even supported a role in a three-way governing of the islands until such a time as Argentina would take them over, the US offering to be a third party who had interests with both nations. But when Argentina attacked, the US threw up their hands and put their support behind Britain, which to this day it seems like Argentina can't understand why.

Yes, like i said, the war set us back another 50 or 100 years or more, it was a major fuck up.

 

[Mano Negra]

177 years the Falklands have been in British possession. The people are British, not Argentine.

EQ - We are talking about a godforsaken, hilly, chilly, wet and windy piece of land inhabited by ignorant sheep farmers. It's like saying Wales is part of Britain....oh, apparently it is? But what do they have in common with us British (i.e. people from London). Furthermore, I don't think Wales has anything much left to offer on the hydrocarbon front, unless we go back to mining coal.

So herewith a potential solution. We Brits (yes I am one, from London), keep the Malvinas but we give Wales to the Argies. Imagine Cardiff thrilling to the sound of Tango at 3 in the morning; Swansea with a decent Ice Cream parlour; people drinking mate as opposed to drinking themselves insensible; suddenly being able to go to Wales and finding the food is edible; dare I say it culture; polo on the flat bits! Am I dreaming?

Actually it wouldn't be such a bad deal. I've watched oil exploration companies spend shareholder money for the last 15 years to consistently report "highly encouraging data". To my knowledge not a drop has yet been extracted and no one can tell if the deposits will be remotely economic to extract...!! If the price of oil rises dramatically, then the myriad gas shales will become firm competitors to deep drill oil reserves. And with clean coal technology and gasification, Wales's coal reserves may become highly attractive again!

Of course the new Argy owners of Wales would have to promise not to sell all the fish to the japs and the ruskys, otherwise the price of cod may get out of hand. But hell, they have more genuinely Welsh native decendents in Patagonia than we have in London, so they should know how to control them.

And Wales has lacked its own queen for a long time.... all Hail Christina?

 

[ElQueso]

Fedecc, I agree with just about everything you say in your response to me.

The only one I don't agree with is the differentiation between the country accepting a problem as a fact (and giving in) or not, and that it doesn't matter how long ago the problem occurred (I think it does, but I don't have an exact time frame either).

The problem I have with no limit on the amount of time is that is one way violence begins.

I never said the British rightly took the islands in 1833, I just mentioned that they had had them for a long time, more than three times as long as Argentina did, into current history.

At some point the Guarani looked around, realized that there was no point in fighting - they were all dead or scattered and couldn't match the technology they were fighting against anyway. They gave up and were absorbed into Argentina and they moved into the future.

Isn't it time for Argentina to realize that they are in a similar, if not much better, position than the Guarani? They are not about to lose their nation, but they would have to give up claims to the islands. There are a number of ways that that might be accomplished which would probably provide Argentina with more opportunities to share in some of the wealth. How much would the British be willing to share if Argentina approached them more from a partnership manner rather than as an opponent? Particularly after the war.

At this point, Britain doesn't have to do anything. Argentina can't do much to press their claim. In fact, they are not completely well-looked upon in many parts of the world. They are a nation who has defaulted on their debt and then blamed those debtors instead of themselves and their costly policies and corruption. They are a nation that attacked another nation during negotiations, or at least as they ended. Why would the British want to negotiate with them right now?

And yes, I understand the fact that it was the military junta doing it for all the wrong reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that it was done. In fact, it did poison relations with Britain and I don't see why they should have to treat with a nation that attacked them as recently as 28 years ago because they lost the islands 177 years ago. If they can hold on to their anger for 177 years, surely the Brits are allowed to do so for 28 years and more?

I guess we have to just disagree on that one point, of giving in or not giving in, over something that happened a long time ago.

 

[cosaco]

El queso, sos un boludo importante.
Cuando te conviene, no entendes, o sacas la estupidez del argumento emocional, que es pura palabrería tuya.
Sos un sofista de primera.
"I really don't understand what you are trying to say. I suspect that is because you have no logic to argue from, it is all emotion and you can't make an argument that makes any sense to those who do not share your same emotion."
Again and again. Emotion argument. que risa, por Dios. Vos no entendés, y yo no tengo lógica? O tenes argumento y salis con esa boludez.
Sos una risa, te reconozco que lo haces con sutileza, pero el final es un monton de nada.
Saludos lindo.

 

[tangobob]

177 years the Falklands have been in British possession. The people are British, not Argentine.

EQ - We are talking about a godforsaken, hilly, chilly, wet and windy piece of land inhabited by ignorant sheep farmers. It's like saying Wales is part of Britain....oh, apparently it is? But what do they have in common with us British (i.e. people from London). Furthermore, I don't think Wales has anything much left to offer on the hydrocarbon front, unless we go back to mining coal.

So herewith a potential solution. We Brits (yes I am one, from London), keep the Malvinas but we give Wales to the Argies. Imagine Cardiff thrilling to the sound of Tango at 3 in the morning; Swansea with a decent Ice Cream parlour; people drinking mate as opposed to drinking themselves insensible; suddenly being able to go to Wales and finding the food is edible; dare I say it culture; polo on the flat bits! Am I dreaming?

Actually it wouldn't be such a bad deal. I've watched oil exploration companies spend shareholder money for the last 15 years to consistently report "highly encouraging data". To my knowledge not a drop has yet been extracted and no one can tell if the deposits will be remotely economic to extract...!! If the price of oil rises dramatically, then the myriad gas shales will become firm competitors to deep drill oil reserves. And with clean coal technology and gasification, Wales's coal reserves may become highly attractive again!

Of course the new Argy owners of Wales would have to promise not to sell all the fish to the japs and the ruskys, otherwise the price of cod may get out of hand. But hell, they have more genuinely Welsh native decendents in Patagonia than we have in London, so they should know how to control them.

And Wales has lacked its own queen for a long time.... all Hail Christina?

Sounds good to me (here in Wales) but you must remeber that the Welsh Guards were the vangiard in the Falklands war. Also means I'll get my DNI without all that shit you guys have to go through.

 

[rrptownley]

Open letter to the Argentine people.

Dear Argentines,

Please if you can find the time and the money, ring up LAN, buy a ticket to Port Stanley. Go there. After your first hour of constant 50 knot gales, icy drizzle, and stark wonder on the barreness and desolation that one place may experience, battle your way down though the port reeking of the offish carcasses of the morning's catch and find the establishment on the main street with its hurricane lamps' myopic squint through the front windows, awaiting a brave soul's approach through the lashings of rain ('The Rose' I think it is called). Approach the bar and order your beer, only to find a soapy, warm, darkish substance arrive in front of you. Try to ignore the heavy stench of sheep dip and Herring carcas from the farmers and fisherman jostling the bar, enjoy your ale, and then take a walk down the high street to the Flaklander's own Malvinias memorial, where they list not only the British and Argentine soldiers killed in the conflict, but also the civilian Islanders. Have a chat with a local. Then leave.
I can only hope that you will discover from your experience an alien culture and environment that may help you realise that the Falkland Islands have no relation in anyway to Argentina or its people other than its proximity.
You will hopefully be also detered from future arguement by the weather there.
(Your school teachers were misinformed to tell you that it was yours and an utopia)

/leave Deadhorse <fromFlogging>

Yours,
An under-read Englishman


As for the exclusion zone, that is wrong, but If I was foriegn minster in the British government and I kept receiving dalliances from the Argentine foreign minister petitioning a handover or blasting 'invasion'and 'occupation' because CFK is 'on his back about this goddam issue again' I would put down the letter and stare across to the map on the wall, take note of the rosy shading encapsulating the islands and think 'Balls to your perpetual pig-headedness' and let a wry smile creep across my lips.

 

[fedecc]

Fedecc, I agree with just about everything you say in your response to me.

The only one I don't agree with is the differentiation between the country accepting a problem as a fact (and giving in) or not, and that it doesn't matter how long ago the problem occurred (I think it does, but I don't have an exact time frame either).

The problem I have with no limit on the amount of time is that is one way violence begins.

An injustce is an injustice no matter how much time happened, that much is clear. But in international (and local) law, and particularly in border and sovereignity issues, the convalidation of a situation for a cosiderable period of time sets precedent. Otherwise things could get very messy, every country in the world has suffered numerous injustices and the lost of land, but eventually agreements and treatys are made. If Argentina had once signed a treaty giving up the falklands, then i agree it would be wrong to claim them back, just like it would be wrong for argentina to try and get the beagle zone back from Chile after we signed a treaty in the 70s. But argentina never gave up the falklands.

And again, as far as the guaraníes or any other native tribes, is a very different issue because the bounderies are much more diffuse. You seem to place a line dividing Argentina from the guaraníes were no such division exist. To give you an example, our biggest national hero, our founding father, José de San Martín was the son of a guaraní indian.

At this point, Britain doesn't have to do anything. Argentina can't do much to press their claim. In fact, they are not completely well-looked upon in many parts of the world. They are a nation who has defaulted on their debt and then blamed those debtors instead of themselves and their costly policies and corruption. They are a nation that attacked another nation during negotiations, or at least as they ended. Why would the British want to negotiate with them right now?

And yes, I understand the fact that it was the military junta doing it for all the wrong reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that it was done. In fact, it did poison relations with Britain and I don't see why they should have to treat with a nation that attacked them as recently as 28 years ago because they lost the islands 177 years ago. If they can hold on to their anger for 177 years, surely the Brits are allowed to do so for 28 years and more?

A less intransigent position by Argentina may be good and reasonable, but what does Argentina has to win by giving up the falklands, nothing. And not just that, by giving up the islands argentina would be also accepting British presence in Antartica, which is a latent conflict. No, Argentina will never give up the islands.

Right now Britain has no reason to negotiate with argentina, we have nothig to offer to them. But we do have time and geography on our favour. On the other hand, keeping the islands has been expensive for Britain for most of the time (except in the last decade were the islands economy has been doing really good).

 

[esllou]

After I posted about my hong kong idea a couple of pages back, I did some looking around on the net and saw that this idea had been suggested before. In fact, it was one of the ideas being discussed just before the invasion. After the war, menem came out and said (paraphrased) "we would consider a leasing arrangement whereby we get the islands in a few months, or 5 years, but certainly not 30 or 50 years."

I don't imagine the irony of this statement will be lost on those reading this post. Menem, though not personally responsible, was leader of a country that had a) just invaded the falklands in an act of aggression condemned worldwise and b) just had their backsides handed to them - he wasn't exactly in a strong position to be laying down conditions.

If argentina had just bided their time, I'm pretty certain the falklands would now be in their hands or at least under shared control.