|
|
Post by Evil Kondor on Jun 20, 2004 1:23:01 GMT -3
Hi Ernie:
Welcome to the board!
You said:
I disagree. I read in two newspaper articles (one for the States and the other from Britain) that Thatcher was seriously considering a comeback especially after the death of her husband and even after what the doctors warned her about public speaking.
I did not say that the British people would vote for her. What I said is that:
How do you know that the British won’t vote for her if she gets her “Falklands Issue” landed on her laps, once again? It might be quite a different story then when she takes her gift and runs away with it!
Regarding your second part of your response, I certainly do not agree. However, we’ll never see eye-to-eye on this one.
Best regards,
Evil Kondor (AKA: Hektor)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jun 20, 2004 1:55:29 GMT -3
Hello Ernie
I hope you like the new layout.
You quoted
"The British people would also never elect her again I am sure of that. Her day is past just like Argentina's aspirations to own the Falklands and indeed never fulfilled aspirations to succeed to the former territories of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. "
You are wrong there. Our aspirations to own the Falklands will never be kept in the past. As you can see, each new generation of Argentines grows up with the desire of getting them back. Unlike youngters in the UK who have NO IDEA that there are a couple of islands in the south atlantic named Falklands, and that they belong to their country. It's a matter of time until we get them back.
Regards
Noelia
|
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jun 22, 2004 7:14:20 GMT -3
Hello Noelia & Hektor,
This is a much better format altogether, congratulations.
I like the idea of nom de plumes not for anonimity of course but as a bit of fun. I guess EK still makes you Ektor after all.
I used Carrancho ( the gaucho name for the bird) as my initial user name in deference to your susceptibilties but for all practical purposes have changed it to Sea Eagle to reflect the British name pre the Argentine colonisation effort to satisfy my own susceptibilities. But still a wicked predator for all that.
To summarise my thinking:
Argentina had an aspiration to own the Falklands and Vernet and some settlers (Colonists) arrived May 1828... 15 English people, 23 Germans and a small number of Gaucho and Indian convicts. The Buenos Aires Governor made their position official on 10 June 1829 by appointing Vernet Political and Military Commander. Their settlement was destroyed on 31 December 1832 by the Americans and from that date they never suceeded in re-establishing any sort of official occupation until 2 April 1982. The British have now been there for 170 years so in my opinion the Argentine aspiration or claim totally fails and their hysterical nationalist hype is quite unjustified by the facts. My point is that there is no substantive Sovereignty claim to discuss but we should be willing nevertheless to discuss an accommodation with Argentina in the South West Atlantic simply because we are there, but have nothing to do with their (spurious) claim. I agree that FIG could help more in this respect but they also have a duty not to concede any points on sovereignty to Argentina e.g even by legitimising by default the Argentine wish to control exclusive access to the Falklands by air. So putting to one side declarations of possession and unsupported claims of ownership the Argentine attempt to establish a position of sovereignty in the islands lasted less than 1000 days. Therefore it did not meet any of the criteria that is required to establish a secure and recognised position of sovereignty internationally. It was simply a failed dream.
With regard to Thatcher, not my favourite person, she may have done a few good deeds but I cannot actually think of any offhand. Her position as saviour of the Falklands is probably secure there but what she did then was as much to save her own skin and failing political position as anything. Her own party, the Conservatives, pay her some lip service respect but just remember they also disposed of her when the time was ripe and threw her out without ceremony. Her shade, Michael Howard, the present party leader would be unlikely to give way to her nor would her party likely accept her back as leader. Michael Howard by the way, is the son of Romanian refugees, I only point this out because we get a lot of criticism in the world as being anti asylum seekers! Thatcher would also have to renounce her title and get an Act of Parliament passed confirming this before she would be able to return to the House of Commons. Notwithstanding someone would also have to be prepared to give up a constituency for her to get back. All too much for me to accept as very likely.
Basically she no longer has credbility or influence here, as much as they love her in the USA, definitely yesterdays women whose day has passed. She has absolutely no influence now or in the future regarding the Falklands Sovereignty issue nor is the position likely to change when she passes on or over. (Whatever your preference!)
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Kondor on Jun 22, 2004 16:01:03 GMT -3
Hi Ernie (I mean Sea Eagle,)  [shadow=red,left,300] Welcome to the Board! [/shadow] [/size] I agree with you regarding Thatcher. However, my point is that no British Politician would land her with Falklands’ issue once again on her laps. We just do not know what would happen if that took place. I believe that she would take the most mileage out of it. British Politicians, of any party, have enough problems without having to create extra ones. Ernie, you are arguing against yourself. What you are saying that the Argentine settlement of Malvinas was done by a private company working on behalf of the Argentine Government. However, weren’t most of the British Colonies settled by private companies on behalf of the British Government including the Falklands? If the Argentine settlement is not valid neither is the British settlement. You forget to mention that in 1823 Britain officially recognized Argentina as a country and the 1925 Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty where Britain, once again, recognized Argentina and all its territory. We already had claimed Malvinas by then and had published ads in European papers, including the London Times, in 1821, regarding us considering the Malvinas as part of our territory. Great Britain was aware of this and said nothing or tacit recognition under international law; it is a clear-cut and shut case. Why do you think that Great Britain is invoking “Self-Determination” and not “Historical Rights,” the strongest kind of rights in international law? Actually, Great Britain has gone from Historical Rights, to Exclusionary Rights (being in possession of the Islands for a long period of uninterrupted time,) to Self-Determination, the weakest of all three? Best regards, Evil Kondor |
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Jun 24, 2004 10:27:03 GMT -3
EvilKondor.
I would like to know where you heard that Thatcher is planning a political comeback. She cannot speak in public, she is very frail, she had to record the speech she gave at Reagans funeral (her closest and best political friend- if she could have given a speech, that would have been the time), she would have no hope of being elected to a single seat as her legacy is very controversial,let alone head of her party as her political life is over. She is admired by some elements in the Labour and Tory partys but there is no way-that i can see or have heard of-that she is planning a political comeback. She is politically as well as physically incapable.
As for political tomb, if an agreement was broached between the UK and Argentina then she may kick up a fuss but she would be incapable of doing anything about it and her support would be l;imited. Her legacy is still so fresh and controversial that her support for a candidate can be a hinderance rather than a help.
She does not cast a shadow over UK politics the way Bill Clinton does in the USA.
"...in 1823 Britain officially recognized Argentina as a country and the 1925 Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty where Britain, once again, recognized Argentina and all its territory. We already had claimed Malvinas by then and had published ads in European papers, including the London Times, in 1821, regarding us considering the Malvinas as part of our territory."
But did the UK-who by the 1925 Treaty had been the owner of the FI for decades-regard the Falklands as being part of Argentine territory? If not, and it seems clear that they didnt, then Argentina can not claim this as proof of ownership. Out of interest-were the Falklands clearly stated a
Mexico used to own Texas and California as well remember. Just because a Treaty is signed once doesent mean it will be held to forever unfortunately.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Jun 24, 2004 10:30:45 GMT -3
Sorry-got posted too early. To conclude-
But did the UK-who by the 1925 Treaty had been the owner of the FI for decades-regard the Falklands as being part of Argentine territory? If not, and it seems clear that they didnt, then surely Argentina can not claim this as proof of ownership. Out of interest-were the Falklands/Malvinas clearly stated as being a part of the territory that Argentina was claiming as its own?Was there an implicit statement about them?I have wondered this for a while.
Best,
Hutch
|
|
|
|
Post by jessefoxlet on Jun 24, 2004 12:43:11 GMT -3
. " Unlike youngters in the UK who have NO IDEA that there are a couple of islands in the south atlantic named Falklands, and that they belong to their country. Regards Noelia What gives you that idea ? Your concept of the UK education system, and the UK publics knowledge of geography is completely wrong. At least you are right about the name of the islands, and I presume by the verb "own", you mean has sovereignty over them. |
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jun 25, 2004 12:46:43 GMT -3
Jesse
Believe it or not, we live in the very same planet. If we could organize a contest between argentine and british teenagers about the Falklands, you'd see many of you have no idea of what they are.
You, yourself, were saying before they were not americans. Where are the Falklands located according to your education? In Asia?
SAkura
|
|
|
|
Post by jessefoxlet on Jun 25, 2004 14:50:37 GMT -3
You, yourself, were saying before they were not americans. Where are the Falklands located according to your education? In Asia? SAkura As I replied to Ernie earlier :- I know exactly where the Falklands are ! I was refering to the poulation not being American, or if you wish to be pedantic I admit I should have been more specific. Does "not of American descent" make you happier ? |
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jun 25, 2004 16:51:15 GMT -3
Not really. Because I am a "NOT OF AMERICAN DESCENDANT" but yet I am still american, since I was born in this continent.
Regards
Sakura of SouthAmerica
|
|
|
|
Post by jessefoxlet on Jun 27, 2004 15:30:53 GMT -3
Not really. Because I am a "NOT OF AMERICAN DESCENDANT" but yet I am still american, since I was born in this continent. Regards Sakura of SouthAmerica And I was born on a cross channel ferry (English Channel), Does that make me half English and half French ? Or does it make me a mermaid ? Don't ask me what nationality the ferry belonged to, it's superfluous. |
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jun 27, 2004 17:34:11 GMT -3
Jessefoxlet, Probably makes you ACrossJessyFerrycan  Sea Eagle |
|
