|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 10, 2004 22:47:53 GMT -3
Noelia and all,
“People are going to think I opened this forum to speak alone hahahaha, where's the rest? It's only you Ernie and me posting ......”<br>
Where’s the rest? That’s a good question Noelia!! Possibly something to do with the subject matter of the thread. Indeed an “independent Falklands” would stop all debate, therefore, the ‘independence’ thread, is a place where no one really wants to go. All the fun would end! No more history lectures for instance.
To answer your welcome reply and to further inspire further inane replies that fills the bottomless cup of ambiguity...
...Of course we are dealing with self-interest, national, personal, cultural and so on; and when we deliver our ‘self-interest’ we show how it influences our judgements, and the extent to which it blinds us from the truth.
Now truth is by no means palatable.
If, for example, the Argentine President said to the Argentine nation, “The desire for sovereignty over the Malvinas is no longer in the interests of the Argentine nation as we must, as a free and democratic nation, uphold the UN Charter where rights of the island inhabitants to live as they so wish are enshrined”
I guess that few Argentines would examine that statement honestly. The Argentine nation would be offended and be full of grievance. The Argentine President would be seen as an unworthy leader that has the worst possible motives, and we would attribute his words to malice and to spite. The revelation that his words are actually morally true would merely stimulate bitterness.
This leads me on to (Noelia’s) assumption that the islands were stolen and so they must be returned. This is the great Argentine national quest!
You, or I, or anyone, do not really know for sure that this is actually true; (that the islands were stolen by the British) what ever the so called ‘verifying’ arguments churn out. Indeed, they mean nothing at all. The known fact that imperialist Britain had a veracious appetite for other peoples nations is hardly cause for issue?*!. If Argentina was existence at the time - then no doubt some Victorian upper class British idiot would have arrogantly consulted your emerging state. Apparently, no such state existed that could be consulted. (Imagine the disgust of that ‘bow tied’ lisping idiot who wanted an imperially claimed territory named after him. The Falklands would then be called ‘Ruuupeerttthsland’) God forbid! ((imagine you have a lisp and say Rupert!))
The myth is not about historical figures that no doubt shaped early Falklands history nor is about Argentina's obsession with the islands. The myth, in my view, is the high sounding ring and appeal in the love we have for our countries and the strong emotions that are aroused by our self-interest. This instead of being critical examiners of the truth.
I mean, is the collective population of Argentina totally incapable of finding a precise definition of the word ‘Freedom‘?
In the same breath are all Falkland islanders happy to be unwitting ‘extras’ in some post colonial Soap Opera?. Take comparison with the BBC 1 TV ‘soap’ East Enders that has been running for 20 years and has past parts played by some 12000 extras.
Maybe the 3000 (unchanging extras) island inhabitants get paid, I mean, ‘grandly subsidised’, to play their part in the similarly long running FIG production of ‘Falklanders’ - occasionally getting sacked if they don’t play to FIG/ExCo script. I wonder how long ‘Falklanders’ will go on?
As long as they get the British ratings I suppose - or we, here in the UK, stop paying the license!
Best wishes,
John.
(British TV ‘Soap Opera’s’ = ‘Novella’s’ of Brazilian TV fame)
Justice cannot exist except in a just society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 10, 2004 23:37:28 GMT -3
Dear John
I fully agree with you. I admit that, more than defending the truth, my quest here is about pride. Although I am absolutely convinced that we have all the ways to prove the Falklands belong to Argentina, for me it's more a matter of "not letting the UK beat Argentina". I am very sick of powerful countries taking advantage of weaker ones and stealing their territories. I mean, this could have happened in the past, LONG ago, when the british invaded Pocahontas' land and Solis invaded the zone of the River Plate. But the Falklands issue is a lot younger than that. Even as a colony of Spain, Argentina DID exist, and when we fought for our independence, we gained the right over the territories that belonged to the Spanish Royalty, the Falklands included.
You were right about the president thing. Any president that would suggest the population to drop the claim would be automatically took off the power.
Unfortunately in Argentina, people are not very patriotic. There are only 2 events in our lives in which argentine population get united: Football worldcups(sadly) and the Falklands issue.
Changing everybody's mind is going to be very difficult. Changing MY mind is difficult already, because I admit I cannot see things differently. I can try to find a solution, I can care about the people there, but theres no way that I would accept to drop the claim.
So, it's indeed a very difficult topic. Many things to care about: pride, people, history, geography etc... It has to be handled very carefully in order not to offend any part of the conflict and reach a peaceful agreement.
These kind of forums help, though. Because we're exposing everybody's point of view, and by learning the way the other part thinks like, we can try to discuss in a more mature way than going to war and kill each other.
Well, it's freezing here and I dont want to bore you anymore with my speech, thanks for replying!
Regards
Noelia
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Jul 12, 2004 1:18:02 GMT -3
Hola Noelia,
I would agree about the Malvinas issue being full of "historical" myths on both sides. But what country's written history is pure truth?
History books were written by people, not by some superior being uncapable of exercising any bias. There was unquestionable proof about the weapons of mass destruction. Where are they?
In an era in which we watch wars live on TV, we still get half truths. How can we trust books written over a century ago?
Historical claims serve a purpose only in court. Out of court they are worthless, true or not.
But here is the problem we are confronting today. Latin America is slowly doing what was supposed to have done two centuries ago. It is uniting. Mexico and Venezuela joined Mercosur. In the words of president Fox, more than two thirds of Latin America speak with one voice. I believe the rest will join within the next five years.
The era of "divide and conquer" is rapidly dissapearing for the colonial powers. The only way to conquer in the near future will be by waging war openly, and the Malvinas are a formidable tool for the job. Some will call this analisys lunacy, but how can you explain the 180 turn of Chile, now openly supporting Argentina's claim?
The Malvinas are rapidly becoming an American issue. I am afraid that at this moment in our history, "dropping the claim" is out of the question, even if we could be convinced that we have absolutely no right to make it an issue of pride. In a very few years, Argentina will no longer be able to make that decision alone.
Saludos,
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jul 12, 2004 7:18:57 GMT -3
Gabriel,
Don't place too much faith in Chile's apparent about turn meaning active and physical support. The only country that has ever moved to support Argentina in a physical sense was Peru surely.
La Prensa Austral, Punta Arenas' largest daily probably summed the position up quite well in this weekends editorial when it said:-
...while the Argentine claim is respected, British sovereignty is accepted”,
I think this is a true reflection of the inwardly held opinion of most of the world.
I personally respect Argentinas claim, but of course I cannot accept it, but like the rest of the world would like to see what amounts to a self inflicted pain in the heart of Argentina, discussed sensibly by those involved and a settlement reached that does not breach human rights and the UN Charter.
In comparison with the EU, Mercosur has a large mountain to climb to reach the same level of 'unity' as the EU, which, as with Mercosur, will always be beset by
nationalistic setbacks. Kirchner, unless I am mistaken, was not too keen to see Mexico within the fold of Mercosur. Mexico as a full member would be a dominating influence I think, not to Kirchners taste.
On the other hand if the Falklands became associated with Mercosur that may well lead to at least a partial solution to the sovereignty claim. Though it has not helped much in the case of Gibraltar being associated with the EU and the Spanish claim. Though it does highlight the ridiculous nature of the situation when a small state like Gibraltar can take part in EU activities, vote in EU elections but still be nationalistically claimed as the territory of another member state. Looks like illogical control freakery to me.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jul 12, 2004 8:02:51 GMT -3
Noelia,
Well I suppose ‘pride must abide’ as they say here. But is pride not one of the seven deadly sins and to be shunned at all costs?
I wonder though a great deal at the logic of your position. You accept the invasion of the Americas from the 16th century on as acceptable and thereby imply that you acknowledge that your position and therefore the validity of your claim for the Falklands is one that came about by the usurpation of territory that belonged to the indigenous people. Then you go on to say that because the British did the same thing (by your reckoning, not mine) at a later date i.e. the 19th Century that this was too recent to be valid.
Surely that same argument can be used against yourself and your own position.
One only has to look at the history of Argentina to see that the final form and boundaries of that country were far from decided in 1832/3.
Look for instance at the position of whether or not Buenos Aires, which proclaimed its independence in 1854, was even to be part of Argentina settled then by force in 1859 only to leave the Federation again in 1861 and rejoin again on its own terms.
Then there was Roca’s Desert War 1879-80, which established your sovereignty over certain areas wrested from the native peoples. Then a settlement of the Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego boundaries with Chile in 1881.
So what’s really in a date or moment in time that proves anything?
The boundaries of Argentina were far from fixed in 1832 nor did a formal Argentine Federation exist until 1853, indeed a long time after the British first claimed the Falklands formally in the 18th. Century, before Spain bought the French claim and before the foundation of the Vice Royalty of the River Plate and long long before the independent Argentine state existed.
I will have to stick with the validity of the claim of the real and existing Falklands Islanders to inherit the territory a long way above your claim.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 12, 2004 10:34:29 GMT -3
Gabriel,
“The era of "divide and conquer" is rapidly dissapearing for the colonial powers. The only way to conquer in the near future will be by waging war openly, and the Malvinas are a formidable tool for the job. Some will call this analisys lunacy, but how can you explain the 180 turn of Chile, now openly supporting Argentina's claim?”<br>
The only active ‘colonial powers’ that exist today are Russia and China, if you exclude the extreme Islamic fundamentalists who desire a wholly Muslim world!
China for instance is going into economic meltdown – fast running out of coal and oil to fuel their remarkable growth. It is feared that if China does go bust then they will do what they have been threatening to do for years and that’s invade Taiwan. China is about to conduct major military exercises not far from Taiwan and have openly stated that they will exercise the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
If that happens then it will throw the global economy into chaos. The world would change drastically over night. That change might well be to the advantage of China and this is not lunacy!
Please have another look at the situation with the Falklands in with this type of perspective in mind.
Best wishes,
John.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Jul 12, 2004 10:38:12 GMT -3
Hi Ernie,
I believe Hektor gave you a very accurate description of Chile when he wrote that the Chileans are the Spartans of South America. They have not joined Mercosur yet, and I would be very suprised if they aren't the last ones to do so.
Brazilian president Cardoso said "Chile is joining Mercosur, mercosur is not joining Chile". Very strong words if you ask me, but of course this was nothing new to us. We share a large border with them, and maybe we invited Chile in order to share our good fortune.
About your comparison between EU and Mercosur, you should know South Americans better than that. Mercosur is just the beginning.
Cardoso and menem were talking about sharing embassies around the world. Maybe too avant-garde at the time, but a true sentiment of what this is all about nevertheless.
Please take a look at the speach of president Fox in Iguazu. True, politicians will be politicians, and Kirchner is one of them; but why do you think they choose those words? They choose them because they work. When they use the word "unity" they are telling us exactly what we want to hear.
Sure, I know Europeans are superior, of course EU is better. You guys do everithing better. We had a few border shootings (Peru-Ecuador, Argentina-Chile) and you managed to kill well over 100 million people. We will never be that good, but again, we don't want to.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Jul 12, 2004 11:49:06 GMT -3
Hi John,
I am not sure I agree about China being a colonial power, but again, I don't know more about China that what the media is telling me, which is a way of saying that I am a complete ignorant. Having said that, how would the anexation of Taiwan solve China's energy problems? Wouldn't it make more sense to invade Venezuela? Is China capable of doing so? The strategists say no. But Europe and the US are.
You have been saying for a while that China is the one to watch. I would be far more worried if the economies of Europe were melting down. I am very aware of what Europe is capable and willing to do for money. I believe China will take Taiwan sooner or later, and I also believe the world will react the same way it did when China took Tibet. There is no oil in Taiwan either. Manufacturing?, don't worry about that. Surely China can take that load. It's been a while since I saw a "Made In Taiwan" sticker around here.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 12, 2004 12:26:25 GMT -3
Hi Gabriel,
Just a quick note:
China has bits of everywhere most notably Tibet, which they invaded and annexed in 1950, enduring the worst kinds of torture and oppression imaginable.
Chinese energy problems would never be solved invading Taiwan I agree, but having the west (USA) involved in a major Asian conflict would broaden the existing conflict in the Middle East.
Would not Iran attempt to close the Gulf if China was engaged with the ‘Great Satan?’<br>
It’s worrying!
Best wishes,
John.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 12, 2004 13:48:16 GMT -3
Hello Ernie, John and Gabriel Wow, first there were no messages and now, there are like 5 new messages since my last post, I'm kind of lost, but I'll try to reply them anyway: To Ernie, you posted I dont accept the invasion of the Americas, it would be against my main belief that I do not support the invasion of a strong country over a weaker one, If so, I would support every war, 1982, and Bush's quest in Irak, and I dont....either of them. What I meant, that probably was not understood, is that, the longer we go on the past, the more ignorant the people was. I mean, when Columbus discovered the American continent, people thought they would fall off the Earth if they kept sailing!! How to explain these people about human rights, or countries or indigenous civilisations??? But as time passes, comunications grew, and helped understand and respect each other. There are less wars now than a century ago. Of course, some people will never learn, but It helps though. Look at us now, with this awesome tool that internet is, talking to each other and posting our opinions here, instead of grabbing a weapon and try to kill each other. That's what I meant before about the invasion. I dont support them but I understand that they didnt have the understanding to comprehend the world that surrounded them. Nobody trusts Chile here. In fact, unfortunately, after the Falklands war, there was a big rivalry between us that is still in people's minds. Plus, Chile seems not to be interested in cooperate with the rest of south america, and make economical alliances with the United States, that is a country with a very bad reputation down here. But anyway, as I said before, some people/countries find it easier to support the stronger one against their real beliefs.....that's what Chile did in 1982 (because, I'm pretty sure they supported the UK not because they believed the Falklands belonged to them but to see Argentina beaten) and that's what they are doing now with the US.... Only God knows what's going to happen next, if the mercosur gets stronger, they may want to join us, and if not, they may not support our claim anymore. I can be mistaken of course. my knowledge of politics is limited to what I read in newspapers, internet and my self opinion, but I dont see Mexico as a threaten. If there is a dominating country in the Mercosur, that would be definately Brasil... ***************** A Gabriel About 3 days later, I'm sorry  I couldnt agree more with you in this point. As I told Ernie, if in this era we still have half truths imagine when columbus got here.. it would have been like discovering another planet, farrrrrrrrrr farrrrr away from here. We still have the geographical proof though. And this geographical proof supports the historical one. Because, what's more possible: Think about the century we're talking about, when they did not came with airplanes and got here in 12 hours... Isnt it obvious that the population of the Falklands was firstly people from the contienent? Call them indigenous, or spanish or colony of spain, it doesnt matter... ******************* And John You said: I dont know if I should give my poor opinion on this because, to be sincere, I have no idea what's going on in China. But this kind of thinking, is what leads to war. In the late years, I've heard of the US "preventing" wars everywhere, or participating in wars nobody asked them to go. In my mind China is a quiet country. What I mean is, it seems that the US and the UK are always looking for wars and problems that never existed, just to start a war out of nothing. (Well the US start them but the UK supports them too). Not enough with Irak, now you're pointing to China? This is neverrrr going to finish unless all the countries of the world "stand up" against you two! And you know the name of this, dont you? 3rd world war, that unfortunately IS going to happen, sooner or later, I'm afraid. I cannot see how is it possible that we're SO guilty for a little war (but by no means less important) from 22 years ago, and nobody has the courage to stop the madness that is going on in the world right now. Maybe the malvinas issue was not a matter of pride ONLY for us, maybe being invaded by a little 3rd world country did hurt Britain's pride a little. It is unacceptable that we're doing so much noise about this war but everybody finds a "good" explanation about why invading Irak was correct. Why helping in Vietnam was correct and soon, why stopping China from its evil intentions is going to be correct.. Despite what everybody thinks, Britain and the United Sates of America, are not owners of the truth. It is amazing that they could disobbey United Nation's orders and nobody complained about it. We are worried about the Falklands? Under this scheme of things, britain could come and claim the whole Argentina itself, who's going to oppose? Best Wishes Noelia |
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Jul 12, 2004 14:20:07 GMT -3
John,
I agree that if we dream of potential nightmares, we will be worried. But I do not believe there will be a war between China and the US. Why? Because I don't see how China could be a threat to the US at the present time.
Consider what the US stands to loose by going to war against China versus just looking the other way and letting China take Taiwan. If Taiwan is all that China wants (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), what's the big deal?
The Soviets took by far a lot more than China could dream of. Did the US go to war against the Soviets? What Arab country succeded in closing the Gulf during the Cold War? And didn't the US give China favorite trading concessions AFTER the Chinese invaded Tibet? After the big lie of Iraq, I doubt the US public will support any war any time in the near future, short of the US mainland being invaded.
I agree about Taiwan being a trouble spot, but believing this will trigger a cataclysmic success of events is crossing into the realm of dreams. You can hardly look at the bottom of a product sold in the US without reading "Made In China". In the majority of cases, the industries that manufacture those products no longer exist in the US. (Well, actually with another four years of Bush, even hamburgers will be made in China or India.)
Again, if you know something I don’t about China, I am all ears.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jul 12, 2004 16:33:39 GMT -3
Gabriel,
I think Europe learned its lesson in WWII. There is no master race, and I do not rate any people as being superior to any other. Good management of available resources, opportunity, innovation and determination of course do have a huge influence on success of people wherever they are. I do not know where pursuing defunct 19th century ambitions figures in that list. Do you?
You talk of 100 million dead as a result of Europe’s wars. That may be so but American wars have also taken their relatively high toll both of indigenous peoples and the ‘usurper’, sorry colonial, peoples of the new world. The American Civil War, the Triple Alliance, the Desert War, the Indian Wars, the Conquistadores to name but a few.
The Spartans, well I guess you know what happened to them? Their spartan habits, racism, isolationism and most of all their pride led to their eventual destruction. So better not to be compared to them I expect. No I think that Chile, and I speculate only, is like one or two European countries. Presently they think it is to their commercial advantage not to be in the tent.
I only compared the EU and Mercosur to emphasise what a long and arduous path is the task of unification or even commercial harmony, not to say that Europe was better. (Your paranoia was showing just a little there!!!)
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 12, 2004 17:26:22 GMT -3
Hi Gabriel,
My warning that China might take military action against Taiwan is well past the dream stage. But lets be clear. Communist China is not a military threat to the USA much the same as Imperialist Japan was not a threat the USA right up until 1941. The threat lies in the USA’s 45 year old support for the integrity Taiwan.
Last week a ‘Times’ report mentioned that the Chinese government conducted a poll of its citizens over Taiwan. The result was overwhelming in ‘retaking’ Taiwan. Is Taiwan all that China wants? No is the short answer.
China has now emerged as the fourth largest economic force in the world. China got there at a fantastic rate and all the indicators are that it could drop just as fast. Regionally and globally the main competitors are Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan. If China is not able to compete then they are well placed to use military action to achieve their eventual goal. They would start with Taiwan, and if the USA’s resolve is not up to protecting Taiwan then neither would it be in supporting S Korea or indeed Japan.
The USA never went to war with the Soviet Union? Not directly of course, that would have been mutually catastrophic. But ‘hot’ wars were fought between East & West throughout the Cold War. The Korean War, with the USSR piling arms into China and then into the Korean peninsula. The Vietnam war, the USSR piling arms into Vietnam. The Yom Kippur War in 1973 where we came dangerously close to a nuclear exchange. The Cold War was never really that cold!
No Arab state closed the Straights of Hormuz during the Cold War but Iran tried desperately to do so during the Iran/Iraq conflict during the 80’s. (The straights are still littered with the wrecks of those ships sunk by the Iranians supplied by Chinese made surface to surface missiles) Iran remains today a major recipient of Chinese arms.
You say...
“I doubt the US public will support any war any time in the near future, short of the US mainland being invaded”<br>
Yes, the same was said by the US isolationists in the 1930’s and early ‘40’s’ after the US engagement in western Europe 1917-18. I don’t have the mind of US citizens, therefore, I will reserve judgement.
The danger today is a China denied markets in a highly competitive global free market economy. They are in danger of imploding on themselves. I think they will take all measures necessary to ensure they don’t.
But I hope that you are right, and what I‘ve mentioned, is indeed is in the realms of dreams.
Best wishes,
John.
btw: “Made in China” actually means more unemployment in the west, especially in the USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Jul 13, 2004 0:30:14 GMT -3
Hi John,
I don't agree that China would interpret the approval of taking Taiwan by the US as a blank cheque to do whatever it wants with the rest of Asia. China has a legitimate claim with Taiwan, not so with Korea. As for Japan, well, I am sorry to admit I don't have a lot of sympathy for whatever they may suffer at the hands of the Chinese. I think the Chinese would have already done something in Asia based on the blank cheque they already got from the US; I am talking about Tibet.
I am very aware of the "hot" wars you mentioned. Argentina lost about 30000 people as a result of one of those wars.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Jul 13, 2004 0:43:24 GMT -3
Hi Ernie,
Europe said that WWI was the war to end all wars. I seriously doubt Europe has changed that much. As a matter of fact, antisemitism is growing.
You call me paranoid? I hope you are right, because it is not paranoia if is truth.
Mercosur has a tougher job than EU, because EU is only an economic union; Mercosur has a higher goal.
I am afraid that to say Chile is not in the tent is an understatement. They still refuse to talk with Bolivia about a sea corridor. I suppose a 5 Km corridor will diminish their 6000 Km lenght considerably. Personally, I wish they would share a border with Japan.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
