We want dialogue! No, not here, not now!

[AndyD]

He actually defends the Islanders Right of Self Determination, and has a theory that seems actually compatible with his Argentine Nationalism. (considers the islands Argentine territory, but inhabited but a foreign nation that should be respected)

Rico argues that Britain gives back its colonies whenever it wishes to, so it will do the same with Falklands/Malvinas, and then he says: "Because there is another paradigm, that we Argentinians have accepted, namely the self determination of peoples, and what we need to understand is that on Argentine soil, that is, Malvinas, there is another nation, the English [sic] nation, and we have failed to convince these English [sic] that it is convenient for them to be Argentines." (This is my translation of "Porque además hay otro paradigma, que los argentinos hemos aceptado, que es la libre determinación de los pueblos, y lo que tenemos que entender los argentinos es que sobre territorio argentino, que son Malvinas, hay otra nación, que es la nación inglesa, y nosotros no hemos sabido convencer a estos ingleses de que les conviene ser argentinos.")

I'm not sure what he meant but, considering that he says the territory is Argentine and the islanders "English", I would consider that he could be expressing something more complex than defending the islanders' right of self-determination, whatever that means. Let's bear in mind that all peoples are entitled to self-determination; what is disputed is that this right entitles the islanders to decide on the sovereignty of the islands, as it requires conditions that we have argued before.

Aldo Rico explains in that same interview how the bombs were not calibrated because the handbooks were American and in English and no one read the language properly, so they had to throw the uncalibrated bombs through the ships, over and over again 'como sapitos' (the game I assume where you throw a stone or coin into a concrete amphibian?). So I guess it wasn't HIS hand after all.

By "sapito" he means that way of throwing stones almost in parallel with still water (e.g., a lake) where the stones bounce a few times on the water, before sinking.

Rico didn't say that they weren't able to translate the manuals. He said that he doesn't know why the bombs didn't explode, but some say that it was due to not having the manuals.

Why many bombs didn't explode is controverted but, considering the conditions in which the airplanes approached the ships, it was seemingly excruciatingly difficult to release them precisely according to the setup of the delay meant to allow the airplane to escape the blast. Besides inherent difficulty to do so, let's consider that there was no preparedness for this type of unconventional attack. Moreover, it was risky to set up the delays too shortly: pilots were lost anyway for being caught in the blasts, and the Air Force was left without planes at the late stages of the war.

 

[AndyD]

Ouch, I need to read to the end of the thread before answering... My response was caught in the middle of a cake-in-the-face gag.

 

[Matt84]

By "sapito" he means that way of throwing stones almost in parallel with still water (e.g., a lake) where the stones bounce a few times on the water, before sinking.

Rico didn't say that they weren't able to translate the manuals. He said that he doesn't know why the bombs didn't explode, but some say that it was due to not having the manuals.

Thanks for clarifying that part. One of the things I realized while listening to Rico is how complex actual battle is, but I still heard him very clearly say that they had manuals unable to translate (and I'd heard similar stories about other weapons too).

Rico argues that Britain gives back its colonies whenever it wishes to, so it will do the same with Falklands/Malvinas, and then he says: "Because there is another paradigm, that we Argentinians have accepted, namely the self determination of peoples, and what we need to understand is that on Argentine soil, that is, Malvinas, there is another nation, the English [sic] nation, and we have failed to convince these English [sic] that it is convenient for them to be Argentines." (This is my translation of "Porque además hay otro paradigma, que los argentinos hemos aceptado, que es la libre determinación de los pueblos, y lo que tenemos que entender los argentinos es que sobre territorio argentino, que son Malvinas, hay otra nación, que es la nación inglesa, y nosotros no hemos sabido convencer a estos ingleses de que les conviene ser argentinos.")

I'm not sure what he meant but, considering that he says the territory is Argentine and the islanders "English", I would consider that he could be expressing something more complex than defending the islanders' right of self-determination, whatever that means. Let's bear in mind that all peoples are entitled to self-determination; what is disputed is that this right entitles the islanders to decide on the sovereignty of the islands, as it requires conditions that we have argued before.

Is the concept too complex for you to understand or rather are you simply put off by Aldo Rico's reputation and pedantry?
His (rather rational) position as I understood it is as follows,

Argentina will forever consider those islands Arg territory, showing ambition in finally projecting toward the ocean and consolidating claims over Antarctica.
Argentina will not apply a double standard regarding human rights, and will therefore consider the actual population of the Falklands a foreign nation living within National borders.
Argentina will not pursue war or confrontation with the UK regarding the contested territories but will practice a policy of 'sedution' (a term that btw is fitting to the Argentine ethos) - supposedly allowing trade and travel and fostering cooperation
Argentina as a young nation with other matters to resolve first, will patiently wait until the day when the future people of the Falklands might decide to integrate the Argentine Federation or Mercorsur, trusting that the UK, far from posing an obstacle, will gladly take its chances and hold plebiscites and referenda on the subject.

Now can we have peace?

 

[Gringoboy]

Matt, we already have peace and have had peace since 1982.
This is a war of words and a diplomatic game of musical chairs.
This president and I dare say her successors will always use the Falklands as a convenient excuse to divert attention for what is essentially a lost cause.

Of course, it may not have been a lost cause if Galtieri had NOT taken the action that he did, but now history is speaking for itself.

 

[Matt84]

Gringoboy that may be true, but it's worth noticing that at least one elected politician displays a rational attitude on the topic, and I'm trying to see if Andy or others 'can see the light'.
It's rather sad that the one politician expressing those views is viewed, maybe fairly, as somewhat of an ex Fascist.

 

[expatinowncountry]

Gringoboy that may be true, but it's worth noticing that at least one elected politician displays a rational attitude on the topic, and I'm trying to see if Andy or others 'can see the light'.
It's rather sad that the one politician expressing those views is viewed, maybe fairly, as somewhat of an ex Fascist.

Elected politician? Excuse me, do you know Aldo Rico well? I may not be Argentinean but I was an expat kid in this country and I can remember well Rico... how he attempted not one but twice a coup d'etat. I also remember when all of the sudden he became democratic and run for parliament under extremist views on how to deal with crime, poverty and gay people. Of course, in a country were everything goes he got a seat in Diputados for four years in the early 1990s (Patti, someone who is now in jail because of systematic violation of human rights also got elected around that time).
So, to summarize: 1) Rico is not longer an elected official 2) He is a fascist -and that is totally unrelated to his stance on Falklands on which he is not an authority and on which he has not been able to say the same thing twice in a row (honestly, my Argentine Spanish is 99% native and it is not really clear what he says in the video).

Do not take it personally but I feel disgusted when people revert to Argentine military authorities in this country. I think you could do much better choosing your Argentine sources when you want to present a pro Kelper position. For instance, no long time ago there was a letter signed by several Argentine intellectuals trying to demystify the Malvinas issue and making the case for the principle of self-determination.

 

[Matt84]

It's rather sad that the one politician expressing those views is viewed, maybe fairly, as somewhat of an ex Fascist.

I am deeply sorry for inserting that ex.

I remember the list, and I could also cite Borges. I might well be wrong but was there any elected politician on that list of intellectuals?

In any case my summary was out of what I heard him say, and even of what Andy transcripted. Are you saying he didn't defend more or less the points I wrote above at least in that interview I linked?

Do I really have to emphasize taht I'm not defending this man or his actions?

 

[expatinowncountry]

I am deeply sorry for inserting that ex.

I remember the list, and I could also cite Borges. I might well be wrong but was there any elected politician on that list of intellectuals?

In any case my summary was out of what I heard him say, and even of what Andy transcripted. Are you saying he didn't defend more or less the points I wrote above at least in that interview I linked?

Do I really have to emphasize taht I'm not defending this man or his actions?

I am saying that you can do MUCH better than this. Rico is fascist and if you use him as your source, you will not helping your cause.

I listened to the video and in all honesty it is hard to follow the logic of the argument. He does agree with the principle of self-determination, that the Island are de facto British and at the same time he says that the Falkland belong to Argentina. Does the principle of self determination for Rico also applies to the question of sovereignty? He says the only realistic way to recover the Islands is to seduce the Kelpers... what makes sense because that was the official stance of Argentine foreign policy during the Menem years (the same years that a few fascist were elected for Congress). This is what I think he says.

 

[expatinowncountry]

By the way, I wonder exactly when and why the 1990s policy of seduction toward the Kelpers changed. I understand that Kirchner at the beginning follow the same policy and later walk away. We left Argentina in 2000 and I only came back a few months ago so I lost that part of the story.

 

[AndyD]

Thanks for clarifying that part. One of the things I realized while listening to Rico is how complex actual battle is, but I still heard him very clearly say that they had manuals unable to translate (and I'd heard similar stories about other weapons too).

It's unlikely that the Air Force didn't have a translator to work on the manuals of the ordinary bombs they used. The difficulties with the bomb fuses are well known, though its unclear how much effect each problem had. They were related to the challenge of using, for a different application, bombs designed to be thrown at higher altitude on ground targets. There was improvement throughout the war, accomplished through tactics (e.g., aiming the bombs at the motors or weapons of the ships) and engineering (i.e., a special fuse was designed later during the war, replacing steel by wood so that it would break despite the low altitude from which it was released).

I've never heard of translation problems and neither I hear Rico referring to that during the interview (I payed attention to that specific point after reading your comment). Actually, it's rather insulting to say that they failed on something that basic. If you heard stories about difficulties understanding manuals in a foreign language, they may be about the Exocet, which required training that had to be replaced by studying manuals and such. In that case, the difficulty was not translation itself.

Is the concept too complex for you to understand or rather are you simply put off by Aldo Rico's reputation and pedantry?

The concept is too complex for me to try hypothesis that may start yet-another endless thread.

His (rather rational) position as I understood it is as follows,

Argentina will forever consider those islands Arg territory, showing ambition in finally projecting toward the ocean and consolidating claims over Antarctica.
Argentina will not apply a double standard regarding human rights, and will therefore consider the actual population of the Falklands a foreign nation living within National borders.
Argentina will not pursue war or confrontation with the UK regarding the contested territories but will practice a policy of 'sedution' (a term that btw is fitting to the Argentine ethos) - supposedly allowing trade and travel and fostering cooperation
Argentina as a young nation with other matters to resolve first, will patiently wait until the day when the future people of the Falklands might decide to integrate the Argentine Federation or Mercorsur, trusting that the UK, far from posing an obstacle, will gladly take its chances and hold plebiscites and referenda on the subject.

Now can we have peace?

Do you realize that you're filling in with a lot from your own views? What Rico said in no way implies those points. Regarding these, all he said is what I quoted, plus that Argentina cannot recover the islands by force, that it would seem that the 'policy of seduction' was correct yet it was also criticized, followed by arguing that Argentina needs long-term policy in these and all other matters. He also talks about advancing Mercosur, his references to trade being referred to that, in order to negotiate with more strength.

Besides, if by defending the islander's right to self determination you meant entitling them to decide the sovereignty over the islands, that's incompatible with the first point above. I don't understand the second point, if you mean that there's somewhere people who apply "a double standard regarding human rights" (?) by not recognizing that the islanders are foreigners living within the borders of Argentina (better still, they are recognized as Britons and also Argentines)... Anyway, it doesn't matter; the purpose of my reply was just giving better precision on what Rico actually said.