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

[flowerpower]

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.

But Rico is missing one detail: the bombs were calibrated (right or wrong) before the "firts slam" and the first 4 or 5 bombs matched the objetibe very well. And after that was when the delay started and they never could fix it at time. It seems that the bombs take their own desition of an self-calibration or something like that.

 

[Amargo]

You're welcome to express your opinion. And equally, I'm entitled to tell you that you sound utterly clueless. Comments on newspaper articles are a terrible indicator of national interest.

Aha. Am I still clueless now that the British Prime Minister went out of his way to address the President of Argentina on this issue? Probably that is also a terrible indicator?

By the way, what was Cameron doing? It was not the smartest thing to do...did he try to play the tough guy for domestic political reasons? It was really weird.

 

[pauper]

Aha. Am I still clueless now that the British Prime Minister went out of his way to address the President of Argentina on this issue? Probably that is also a terrible indicator?

By the way, what was Cameron doing? It was not the smartest thing to do...did he try to play the tough guy for domestic political reasons? It was really weird.

Yes, two politicians playing to their domestic audiences (loved the envelope with the MASSIVE label) Cristina should at least credit the Falkland Islanders for the idea. Result: we remain with the status quo (ie: what Argentina defines as an impasse and the Falkland Islanders and Great Britain define as a problem already solved).

Thus we are in a familiar situation: the ball is in Argentina's court...

...court? That reminds me, someone was telling me the other day that a court exists in Holland specifically to adjudicate on such international disputes and to provide binding rulings to countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction - que loco eh? But imagine if this was really true, Argentina acting in good faith and with total confidence in her case would obviously request compulsory jurisdiction on the question instead of prancing about with non binding resolutions from the general assembly and a UN committee that has nothing to do but harass small island states to free themselves from colonial oppression against their will.

If only such a court existed...

 

[expatinowncountry]

Aha. Am I still clueless now that the British Prime Minister went out of his way to address the President of Argentina on this issue? Probably that is also a terrible indicator?

By the way, what was Cameron doing? It was not the smartest thing to do...did he try to play the tough guy for domestic political reasons? It was really weird.

I think that there is a difference between what people in a country think/care about and what a politician does. Cameron is a big clown and, as Cristina, he is political animal who needs to drive the attention to issue that distract people from domestic problems.

In any case, you are right... I would like to see the British people who in this forum always bash Crisitina and often feel morally superior to share their opinion of what Cameron did the other day. One thing is to not accept a letter from someone your government does not recognize and another whole different story is to not accept a letter from the president of a country that you do recognize. If anyone knows anything about international affairs/diplomatic protocol, they would know what I am talking about.

 

[John.St]

...court? That reminds me, someone was telling me the other day that a court exists in Holland specifically to adjudicate on such international disputes and to provide binding rulings to countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction - que loco eh? ...

If only such a court existed...

The International Court of Justice in den Haag (Hague), The Netherlands.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

Lots of cases & rulings.

 

[expatinowncountry]

Yes, two politicians playing to their domestic audiences (loved the envelope with the MASSIVE label) Cristina should at least credit the Falkland Islanders for the idea. Result: we remain with the status quo (ie: what Argentina defines as an impasse and the Falkland Islanders and Great Britain define as a problem already solved).

Thus we are in a familiar situation: the ball is in Argentina's court...

...court? That reminds me, someone was telling me the other day that a court exists in Holland specifically to adjudicate on such international disputes and to provide binding rulings to countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction - que loco eh? But imagine if this was really true, Argentina acting in good faith and with total confidence in her case would obviously request compulsory jurisdiction on the question instead of prancing about with non binding resolutions from the general assembly and a UN committee that has nothing to do but harass small island states to free themselves from colonial oppression against their will.

If only such a court existed...

Do not believe in everything people tell you. It is recipe for disaster...

That court you mentioned has been even less successful than the UN committee in dealing with this type of disputes. Please give me a good example of a case that has been dealt successfully at The Hague. I can give you good examples of things the UN has dealt in a good way (for instance East Timor but I can mention others). The Hague only prosecutes successfully former leaders in disgrace. Leaders that in most cases were supported by the States and the Europeans because they were functional to their interests but when it was no longer the case, they were send for a long vacation to the Netherlands. The Hague also deals with some issues related to resources and shared borders, again not the type of issue the Falkland is about.

Anyway, whatever The Hague or the UN, we know that the world order is organized in such a way to keep the world as it was in 1945 when the economic and geopolitical reality has changed.

 

[John.St]

According to Mercopress citing Argentine foreign minister Timerman, the envelope contained 40 non-binding UN resolutions, which Cameron already has in his drawer.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/19...change-between-cameron-and-cristina-fernandez

The only binding resolution, No. 502 of 3rd April 1982 was ignored by Argentina in 1982 and was missing in the bunch.

 

[expatinowncountry]

The International Court of Justice in den Haag (Hague), The Netherlands.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

Lots of cases & rulings.

These cases have nothing to do with the type of case the Falkland/Malvinas issue is about!! Do you think because in a ruling there is the name of two countries, they are empowered to deal with any sort of international issue?
With all due respect, have you ever heard about the words "Jurisdiction" and "Mandate"?

 

[John.St]

Please give me a good example of a case that has been dealt successfully at The Hague.... The Hague only prosecutes successfully former leaders in disgrace. Leaders that in most cases were supported by the States and the Europeans because they were functional to their interests but when it was no longer the case, they were send for a long vacation to the Netherlands.

You are confusing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the International Criminal Court.

One ICJ example: Dispute between Norway and Denmark. Sovereignity over Greenland. Denmark won, Norway abided by the ruling.

 

[John.St]

These cases have nothing to do with the type of case the Falkland/Malvinas issue is about!! Do you think because in a ruling there is the name of two countries, they are empowered to deal with any sort of international issue?
With all due respect, have you ever heard about the words "Jurisdiction" and "Mandate"?

With all due respect, do some research first.

Addition: List of Contentious Cases: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent.