Will the Falklands debacle soon be repeated?

AndyD.
Im beginning to understand your posts.
We are talking about two aspects. In reading your post twice ( both of them ) . I understand that you refer to the diplomatic efort . Yes , its not the diplomatic effort that im criticizing.
I would tend to agree with you that they are on a different level.
Couple of points i wanted to address. I wish i could see the program again , because the actual diplomat made the statement that he was given orders to scuttle what he perceived to have been progress right before argentina mobilised.
And u are corect , bad choice of words on my part regarding "concessions" I think "progress" should be the operative word here.
This is one of the VERY few times i have actually poken to someone on this matter that didnt completely cross his arms , and say " son argentinas - PUNTO !"
I think that the story that continues to be indoctrinated in school here comences with the massacre of argentines by american mercenaries serving their british masters" I never read in any laymans account that data that i read on wikipedia. Like i said , most of it starts with the removal of argentines.
I truly enjoyed reading the posts !
 
AndyD said:
He explains that what may support the British case is the self-determination principle, but it's seriously challenged by the fact that the "self determined" people descend from a population that they implanted after removing the other by force.
Click to expand...

A very large majority of the world's self determining people have implanted themselves in their current positions after having removed previous inhabitants by force.

It's sad but I wouldn't be about to give up my P.H. if some indios came knocking on my door, asking for it back.
 
After reading the Boston College thesis on the subject (the link posted by dennisr) I have come to the conclusion that the politicians and diplomats on both sides of the issue should read this report. Instead of going to war they would fall asleep!
 
Finding a quiet moment , i just concluded reading this thisis .
Again , its an example of extreme bias. It is clear tha the author is argentine or has been influenced by this indoctrination.
Fails to address the timeline properly.
 
PhilipDT said:
A very large majority of the world's self determining people have implanted themselves in their current positions after having removed previous inhabitants by force.

It's sad but I wouldn't be about to give up my P.H. if some indios came knocking on my door, asking for it back.
Click to expand...

With that line of reasoning it would seem Argentina lost its rights because she wasted a lot of time with diplomacy instead of attacking, or because she didn't succeed in defending the islands when she finally did. The globe would be that kind of jungle if, instead of applying international law, we accepted treatment like the American Indians suffered, or why not the Africans who were captured for slavery and other victims in history, distant or recent.

In the reference I gave before, IIRC, Gustafson gives some background on the source and place, in international law for decolonization, of the self-determination invalidation argument. There are surely other detailed sources to check in order to form a better picture. I wish I had time to look into this but I'm getting ready for a trip, so I might not be able to follow up on this thread until Feb.
 
the 1982 conflict was a BIG mistake, but perpetrated by an ILEGITIMAL government, las malvinas where taken to england BY FORCE and before 1982 Argentina claim the islands in good terms.

No war or conflict its gonna happen again, WE, the southamerican people, learn about our mistakes from the past, specially about militarism.
 
I think this fellow proposal is fair and square to everyone. I totally agree with this and I'm sure that the vast majority of the parties involved in this dispute will do the same, English, Kelpers and Argentines.

The Times page in full
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top