|
Post by Sakura26 on Feb 26, 2010 22:20:38 GMT -3
I totally get their point of view, I do. I hope I'm speaking for all my people when I say that nothing military will happen ever again. Not only because it would be suicidal for us, but also because nobody wants to send their families to war and this is not a conflict that could be settled with blood. Imagine for a second that we inherit the american army to use it at our will. We get the islands back by force, we kick the population there and put our own people. In 20 we'll be having this argument again with our points of view switched. It solves the pride issue but not the issue itself.
How crazy would it be to divide the islands? I'm not saying anyone presented this as an option but I want to explore the possibilities. One for the islanders, one for us. One could be an independent country under the protection of the UK, the other Argentine soil. Would anyone be OK with this option? What other options are there?
I dont want anyone to suffer any more than we have so far. I won't require anyone to change their language, customs, flag, passport, nationalities if that's what they are afraid of.
And the other thing is, it takes two to tango... The islanders have not been angels themselves, they provoke and keep the anger alive. What happened in 1982 was sad, but we were under a de-facto government ruled by the army. Now we're in a democracy, and altough a crappy one, we still have a voice, and I don't see any potential danger around.
Again, if we could sit down and negotiate peacefully, understanding the concerns of all of the 3 parties, I'm sure we could find a solution. Argentina is not the enemy, and for me, neither are the Falkland people or the UK.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Feb 27, 2010 0:31:25 GMT -3
So do you accept Argentina's position then Sakura?
Yes or no?
"Negotiation means losing something and gaining something"
We can all see Argentina rejects this and just wants 100% of her demands granted.
The British position IS NOT THE SAME as the UK has not predetermined what the only result of any negotiation can be.
The UK has not said that ...". GB doesn't want Argentina "gaining something" ...", that i s your personal fantasy.
If Argentina was a 'pacifist state' and could be trusted to obey constitution, a much more limited British military base would be needed.
In the S Atlantic, about the Islands, the bully is obviously Argentina. Maybe one day she will drop her expantionist, imperialist dreams...
We all know that Argentina has no intention of respecting the '... language, customs, nationalities and whatever other thing the islanders want...' of the Islands.
Only her imperialist dreams will do.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Feb 27, 2010 0:40:57 GMT -3
We all hope Argentina won't be so stupid as to invade again.
Let's leave fantasy (USA giving their army to Argentina) and lies (Argentine settlers forced out of the Islands in 1833) out of this.
Argentina can't offer to 'divide' the Islands under her current constitution. It would be illegal.
Why would the UK / FI reward Argentina for her failures?
How has Argentina 'suffered'?
How have the Islanders not been angels? Other than asking for basic human and democratic rights? Why would they want to be ruled by a violent, aggressive and unstable neighbour?
If you don't see the danger of demanding that people lose their democratic rights, open your eyes.
"Again, if we could sit down and negotiate peacefully..."
As already explained and unacknowledged by you Argentina has made this IMPOSSIBLE.
"...Argentina is not the enemy..." as long as she denies basic human democratic rights and other rights to the Islanders you are wrong and clearly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Feb 27, 2010 0:46:13 GMT -3
Hutch, the negotiation is impossible because of you.
You want me to step down but as soon as I do, you shoot the worst you have. For this, I cannot keep talking to you in friendly terms any longer. You abuse my good will.
I hope it doesnt get to war either. But know that we won't submit to anything or anybody by force.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Feb 28, 2010 21:01:17 GMT -3
Hi all,
I am glad to see some familiar names again.
I also would like to be left alone and not governed by anybody. I don't understand what the USA wants with Cincinnati. I don't believe there is oil in Indianapolis, Lexington or Columbus, nor any strategic transoceanic route anywhere near (well, most of Canada is melting away actually).
Please let me know the formula to be left alone.
Gabriel
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 2, 2010 9:59:55 GMT -3
Wrong, wrong, wrong Sakura. You still don’t understand the Argentine position and refuse to attempt to understand it. Maybe that is due to decades of propaganda or just deliberate blindness but you clearly have no understanding of the Argentine position.
Please try and wake up and see what it is in reality.
You will never understand this issue if you don’t look at what Argentina demands.
Argentina has made any negotiation IMPOSSIBLE because she has already said that the ONLY result of any negotiation / talks / discussions can be full, 100% Argentine sovereignty over the whole area.
The UK has not said what any result of negotiation / talks / discussions can be only that sovereignty rests ultimately with the inhabitants of the Islands.
Due to Argentine actions, words, deeds, threats the Islanders do not want to be ruled by their imperialist, aggressive, arrogant, periodically unstable larger neighbour.
"Negotiation means losing something and gaining something"
Argentina REFUSES to accept this. That is a fact. She just wants all her claims to be given to her.
Argentina REFUSES to allow any kind of Quebec type settlement and that would violate her constitution.
Argentina refers to Stanley as Puerto Argentina. This is a fantasy name, driven by fascistic / imperialist claims and immediately shows Argentina has no intention of respecting the Islanders at all.
“How crazy would it be to divide the islands?”
Argentina REFUSES to accept this and this would violate her constitution. That is a fact. She just wants all her claims to be given to her.
Step down? I don’t know what you mean. Just look at the Argentine official position, look at the constitution, look at what Argentina says and see if you would negotiate with Argentina on that basis. No one could or would as she makes actual real and honest negotiation IMPOSSIBLE and until Argentines realise this they will always be disappointed.
Don’t run away but face these issues and ask these hard questions of yourself and your country. Not to answer me or many of the questions I have posed to you, but for your own benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 3, 2010 2:20:10 GMT -3
I wasn't speaking for Argentina. I was negotiating with you, personally, and as soon as you see me being flexible, you attack rudely.
Do you think I am stupid? If you really want to debate, here I am. JUST YOU AND ME, no countries in the middle to hide behind. You, Hutch, and Me.
Let me know if you're up to it.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 3, 2010 7:10:45 GMT -3
Okay, but do you have any opinion at all of Argentina’s official position?
Was I rude? Apologies if you think so but it seems you are unaware of what Argentina actually says and demands and that is what I was more concerned with as it is an issue that eternally comes up when trying to debate with Argentines about this.
What I have done is show how absurd and counter productive Argentina’s actual, real life position is. If you want to talk about possible solutions but ignore the real world then we can do that and that’s when we can talk about shared sovereignty, 2 flags 3 voices, leaseback, Quebec style arrangement, etc. All things that the Argentine state refuses to consider but we could on here.
It will be hard to ignore Argentine intransigence in reality but we could look at things that could be done.
If you want to debate you could start by answering some of the questions I have asked.
Let’s start then.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 3, 2010 13:21:25 GMT -3
As much as I would like to be the one calling the shots in Argentina, I'm not. But I am a citizen of this country, and although the majority (poorly represented by our politicians) might think otherwise, my thoughts count as "Argentina" too.
The REAL reason why nobody wants to sit and talk nicely and find a good arrangement is so simple that we totally miss it. If any kind of friendly arrangement is made, one that would leave all three parts fairly "happy", governments from all three sides would be facing some bad problems:
1) All of us, use armed conflicts to rise the spirit of the population selling crappy propaganda, be it "let's free the world from Saddan Hussein" or "Let's get back the Malvinas". No matter who says it, when or where, the effect is always the same. History taught us there's always leaders capable of manipulating the masses, specially by addressing people's feelings and fears. IT IS A VERY POWERFUL control tool, and no part is going to lose it.
2) Giving up part of the island block (let's say, sharing sovereignty, the quebec-canada thing, or whatever can be arranged) will not be translated as a friendly arrangement by the politicians at all. In Argentina, the oppositors to the government will accuse them of traitors, and I'm pretty sure in the UK it would be seen as a sign of weakness. How dangerous is that for the position of powers?
So, I can't speak for the government and neither can you, because unless you just want to blincly defend the british government thinking corruption and race for power doesn't exist, you know what I am saying is truth. In this context, how can we be expected to reach a solution based on the official positions?
The purpose of the forum was to bridge the three parts and avoid the dirty politics. Understand each other and each other's points of view.
I support Argentina's claim although I don't support Argentina's action. And although I support our claim, I want to protect the rights and the safety of the islanders as much as I can within the scenario I want for my country. Those are things nobody asked from the citizens (not the government). Most islanders think we all want to go and kill them, and most british think we're being brainwashed by our government.
Nothing further from the truth. I hate this, and mostly all the past governments since 1982... except maybe the one that came after the war, that was a good president, but anyway.
That's all I can offer. Citizen-to-citizen negotiation. Until you see me sitting in the presidential chair of this country.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 3, 2010 14:13:54 GMT -3
Yes, leaders do misuse armed conflict and patriotic issues for their own gain. The junta being a prime and shining example in 1982 of course. Thatcher used it for her own gain as well, but she reacted to aggression instead of causing it and just dealt with it like any deft politician.
How often does the Falklands issue come up in Argentina when there are serious domestic problems? Such as falling / low popularity? When the economy is in trouble?
Even if we ignore the Argentine constitution too many in Argentina would protest against any such creative arrangement as you suggest. The conditioning, lies and propaganda have gone on for so long especially when coupled with a compliant education system. The war veterans seem to be very loud as well depending on what you read.
In the UK some would be opposed but they would not be as powerful or disruptive as those opposed in Argentina. Plus, if the Islanders wanted that solution the UK would go along with it as it is their decision. Remember that the UK has surrendered huge portions of the globe under self determination and has political and law making bodies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
We can’t reach any solution based on the official positions because of the Argentine position.
Can you actually try and understand what the reality of the Argentine position means? I have asked this several times.
Argentines are lied to – brainwashed if you like as it is done by officials – about the Falklands. That is why there are so many misconceptions, mistakes, lies, propaganda, etc, in what the average Argentine knows about the issue and its history.
For example, (nearly) every single Argentine I have met or talked to thinks that the UK forced the entire settler population to leave in 1833, used bloody violence in 1833, that the UN has said the Islands should be Argentine, can’t say what year Argentina claimed South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and more. There are plenty of people who don’t know the facts in the UK and spout of rubbish but that is due to their ignorance – in Argentina it seems to be state led and you see it in official statements as well.
Citizen-to-citizen negotiation is fine but it has to be based on reality.
“…I want to protect the rights and the safety of the islanders as much as I can within the scenario I want for my country….”
So you would sacrifice the rights and safety of the Islanders to get what you want?
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 3, 2010 14:31:12 GMT -3
“…I want to protect the rights and the safety of the islanders as much as I can within the scenario I want for my country….” So you would sacrifice the rights and safety of the Islanders to get what you want? Hutch, you just want to fight... doesn't take much to see that. You're good at pretending to misinterpret someone's words just because you can't face the fact that I am like I am being Argentine. It kills you to realize that we're not like you were told. Who has been brainwashed? I hope you find someone willing to play your game. I'm way too smart to waste my time with troublemakers. I'm sure you'll find feisty argentines to argue with soon. You missed a nice opportunity to have a good debate.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 4, 2010 11:01:23 GMT -3
Not so. I’m asking questions and making statements. If you had some responses to questions and statements we could have a debate but you keep stepping back from that.
Debate is good but it does – ultimately – have to be based on reality at the end of the day, hence the focus on the reality of the Argentine ‘no negotiation, just give into our demands right now’.
Your statement was ambiguous which is why I asked you that question – all you had to do was deny or clarify. Many Argentine’s talk about democracy, human rights, peace, anti-imperialism, the post colonial world and other topics but when the Falklands issue comes up can suddenly throw all of this out. They can talk of how democracy and the will of the people is sacred but if that conflicts with the Falklands acquisition policy they say it doesn’t matter and that democracy must be ignored.
I did not misinterpret you – I quoted you directly and asked you a simple question. You were the one who said that you want to protect the rights of the Islanders but ONLY if this fitted in with Argentina’s demands. You apparently gave yourself an escape clause so you can deny or neglect their rights at will.
Nothing about what you have said or done ‘kills me’. You just reinforce some of it in your apparent inability to accept what reality is.
I have already shown how the ‘brainwashing’ works in Argentina and you have no reply to that other than to ignore it and vainly try and claim the moral high ground. I ask you again to look at Argentina and what you were told about the Islands.
I have seen many Argentines run away from the Falklands debate when they find themselves / what they believe / what they have been told to believe being questioned. An apparent inability to cope with a robust approach seems sadly common and it means the cycle of ignorance continues. I hope one day some truly patriotic Argentines start to examine the Falklands issue with clear heads and from a neutral position but, sadly, I see little or no sign of that.
….
Imagine that the UK says
“We will discuss sovereignty of the area tomorrow with Argentina at the United Nations. We invite Argentina to come and join us. However before we start the UK will make one thing clear – the ONLY result that will result from this is British sovereignty of the Islands. Nothing else will be accepted. No change will result. The end of the negotiation is already predetermined and will result only in what the UK wants.”
Would you want Argentina to attend those talks? Would you negotiate with a party that had already decided IN ADVANCE what the result of the negotiation must be?
|
|