Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 15, 2004 10:24:53 GMT -3
The UK has said many, many times that everything is up for negotiation. Except FI sovereignty. That’s a matter for the Islanders. Will Argentina one day listen to what it’s told?
“This has to be a joke...I cant believe you think Argentina does not recognise human rights when you can watch CNN and find British soldiers humiliating Middle Eastern people. I feel so offended by this statement that keeps appearing in British postings that I cannot answer it right now. I m sorry.”<br> So you dodge the issue then. I feel that this is an issue, which has to be tackled. To begin with-when here is an argument and the UK is on the back foot then it may say ‘well what about the killings of the Junta?’. The Argentine side then says ‘stop bringing in things which happened in the past and answer the question!’. And that’s what we see here. Instead of addressing the issue brought up-namely that Argentina ignores the human rights of the FI- the events in the Middle East (or from NI, the past, etc) are brought up to show that the UK is hypocritical and therefore unable to even mention the human rights dimension. Well done-of course the UK is hypocritical, nations invariably are. For example- *China is anti imperialist but has brutally colonised Tibet in a textbook manner *The USA supports free trade but brought in steel tariffs *France urges nuclear restraint and non-testing but they tested atomic bombs in the pacific as recently as the late 1990’s. *Spain wants Gibraltar but hangs onto bits of Morocco
According to your logic its as if that nations that have ever broken human rights once are unable to talk about them ever again or apply them in any situation. Which is absurd. By that logic one can say that Argentina is always unstable because they have such economic turmoil and are always an economic basketcase. Now that’s been true in Argentina’s recent past but that does not mean that its true forever in all situations and that there should be no Argentina economists, that Argentina can give economic/trade advice to anyone ever, anywhere, etc.
In reference to Iraq you can read British newspapers and see British troops being arrested and charged for mistreating the natives, British rules of engagement being challenged in our courts and complaints from Iraqi militants that the British are too restrained for their liking.
What I’m saying is that because nations act in a certain way in a certain time at a certain place does not invalidate that nations ability to act in a contrary way in a different time and place. Yes, the UK has broken human rights on countless occasions. But that does not mean that the UK is always guilty of this at all times and that we can not accuse others of violating them. After all Argentina has broken human rights and yet still talks about and uses them doesn’t it? Don’t try and use such arguments as a shield to avoid facing up to truths. Inn this case that Argentina still does not even recognise that the FI exist, let alone that they might have any of the rights that you and I would want to have.
Re: shared soverignty. In order for it to be more than UK/FI giving Argentina something for nothing (or as a reward for failure) perhaps Argentina should try to make itself more important to the FI? Perhaps as a friendly local nation with close economic and diplomatic ties?
“I really dont care who we should talk to.. The UK or the FI would be the same for me...”<br> Thats great. If only your government(s) had the same opinion.
Protection of freedom? If you mean protecting a small community from a clearly aggressive, hostile foreign power so that they can live in peace in the way they want to then the UK is protecting their freedom. Argentinas hostile actions only make her the ‘bad guy’ people need to be protected from. And that makes it all the easier for the UK to justify her position and stay in the area to reap resource benefits, have a presence in the area, etc. It seems that Argentina is Argentinas worst foe when it comes to the Falklands issue.
“...so it's ok for the FI to be a colony of the UK but it's a matter of human rights when it comes to Argentina..”<br> Whether its ok is a different issue but at the moment the FI are a colony of a nation they share a close relationship with. They dont want to be a colony of Argentina though (a nation with a different culture, history, past, etc) which is what they would become under Argentine forced domination.
Dantec:
“The real reason why Britain wont talk about the Soverignty issue? Any attempt to talk is an admission of aknowledgement of an Argentine case on the soverignty issue.”<br> As John said this isnt true. After all it was the British government which mooted the idea of ‘leaseback’ in the past. Would the UK do this if they didnt want to ever admit that Argentina may have a case? Britain won’t talk about the soverignty issue as shes said many time sthat that is only for the Islanders to decide.And this has been said to Argentina many times.
“...then a legal case can be taken up by the Argentines...”<br> What legal case and where would it be taken up? Argentina has so far refused to take the issue to the ICJ.
“The fact the the British discussed soverignty would seen in a court that the british accept in principal the argentine soverignty claim.”<br> The British already have acknowledged an Argentine soverignty claim. They just dispute its worth, value and place in todays World.
Whew! What a lot that was. Apologies for the length. Best to all,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 15, 2004 18:13:01 GMT -3
Hello Hutch First of all, I want to make something clear. My ideas and postings, do not represent the ideas of my countrymen, only mine. Some may agree with me and some may not. And Regardless how much I would like to rule this country I am not part of the government, and, my suggestions, are not part of the government's agenda. The reason why we have created these kind of forums is to try to solve between us, the conflict of the Falklands, the most friendly way as possible since our governments seem not to be able to negotiate. So, the suggestions I mentioned, did not come from the government of Argentina, but from argentinean people. You posted: On one hand, we have the FI trying to be completely independent, and asking to be taken as the only part to negotiate with. I dont oppose to this, if it is their whish. But if so, the UK has to step back and do not participate anymore, and the FI government has to open its doors to negotiation, forgetting the idea of Argentina droping the claim because that would not be a negotiation. We know we're going to lose, since we too want the complete sovereignty over the islands, but, the question is, are the FI ready to lose something too? They must ask themselves this question before starting negotiations. As for me, I would remove the constitutional clause, if I see that our rights, which seem not to be ever respected or considered, are not in danger. I dont dodge the issue. Tell me why the INVASION of Irak being the US and the UK supposedly democratic countries is accepted while the invasion of the Falklands (which I do not support) being Argentina under a dictatorship is a big unforgettable and unforgivable crime. NO, this is according to YOUR logic... Argentina does not recognize human rights because a crazy military took over power and invaded the islands 22 years ago. Exactly, nor is Argentina.... and we have broken less rules than you... OK the Falklands are not a prize we are supposed to win. They are territories that have been stolen, and, our failure, as you call it, is based on the tremendous difference of power between the UK (supported by the rest of the owners of the universe) and us. We did pretty well, though, I m very proud of those who fought there. But I still do not support wars, winning or losing them. Lives lost for any cause is always a mistake. We are discussing safely in these forums, why cant politicians do the same without risking our family's lives? However, we would be very mistaken if we try to "seduce" the Falklanders to like Argentina. You cannot separate the people from the land, I can... I'm very sorry if their government settled them in a stolen land, but, I cant do anything more than welcome them into my country... I dont know what's the big difference, I just want to talk to someone, but it has to be one or the other, not everybody together... No, protecting irakies from the bastard Saddam... I bet he was not worse than the british troops killing women and children. You wont find anyone online friendlier than me, but I am also very patriotic and I must ask you to stop calling Argentina "hostile" and "agressive" as if we were a threaten to the planet. I cant allow this kind of deception and degradation to my country. Especially when you know very well it's not true. Perfect. Nobody is forcing them to learn spanish and dance tango.. But what does it have to do with our stolen territories? ?' Best Wishes Noelia
|
|
|
Post by dantec on Sept 15, 2004 21:07:54 GMT -3
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply to my post.
You are right Britain was prepared to negotiate prior to prior to 1982. However i referring to the period after 1982. The point I am making is that yes what the islanders want is being comsidered, but history would say including after 1982, that poilitics is the most important factor when setting FI policy.
John your points about positive British and Argentinian relations does not go unocticed. It's in both countries international dealings that the maintain good relationship. Both countries have shown a lot of maturity in moving forward after 1982.
i do not believe that Argentina needs to address the issue of Soverignty with the islanders, when it's Britain that holds soverignty of the islands. But I do agree that the argentinian government should not marginalise the islanders at all. Assist and provide for them when ever possible. Expose any FI intransigence towards argentina and see beyond the tit for tat games played in the past.
When you refer to the invasion you should put a date on it. the 1833 invasion or the 1982 invasion?
Regards Daniel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Sept 16, 2004 10:00:36 GMT -3
Daniel, Thanks! Yes, I take your point about 2 way dialogue between Argentina and the islands post 1982. But all should understand, conclusively, that the UK, in its relations with British Overseas territories, (not just the FI’s) is guided by the wishes of the inhabitants – through their own elect. This is a fundamental aspect of liberal democracy.
Now that said, the UK has stipulated that for this arrangement to be successful then all British Overseas Territories must respect and adhere to, ‘the best interests of British Foreign Policy’ This meaning that British Overseas Government activity should not compromise or undermine that policy to the detriment of the UK.
Now all British Overseas territories have economic, cultural and even domestic relationships with their near neighbours. This normal and expected.
Take the case of Gibraltar. Thousands of Spanish nationals cross the border every week to shop and to work. The same occurs with Gibraltarians going the other way. Importantly, despite all the acrimony over UK/Spanish sovereignty, Gib does relates very well with Spain over close economic matters, especially in the tourist trade.
The same relationship could be build up with the Falkland Islanders. That’s why I have forwarded, ad naseum, that Argentina and the islands can co-exist and talk directly to each other.
I think the Argentine government understands this and will be looking for ways to ease tensions, where they exist. The onus is also on the FIG to do likewise.
“When you refer to the invasion you should put a date on it. the 1833 invasion or the 1982 invasion?”<br> Sorry Daniel but I wasn’t around in 1833 but was most certainly around in 1982. You need to talk to others in this forum if you wish to discuss the pros and cons of that far away era.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 16, 2004 10:35:18 GMT -3
Noelia.
You are quite right, of course. None of us here can claim to represent our respective nations or even the majority of our countrymen. We are here in a personal capacity to talk, debate and even argue over issues that politicians do not. Hopefully we can all understand each other a little better at the end of the day.
“On one hand, we have the FI trying to be completely independent...”<br> I don’t see that they are trying to be completely independent. They are caught in a post colonial trap whereby independence is an option open to them but not one they seem to be rushing for. What I do see is a desire for them to be able to determine for themselves what their future would be. After all, if they wanted to be independent they could be so tomorrow but there seems to be no real thirst for that. The UK can not just ‘step back’ at the moment because we have a responsibility to them and are not going to abandon them. Part of that responsibility lies in allowing them to choose their own future, free from harassment or intimidation.
Are the FI ready to lose something? Well, what would you suggest? If the situation was reversed and you were a Falklander what would you be prepared to ‘lose’ in a negotiation? The constitutional clause is a stumbling block though and I think it is important that this is recognised on the Argentine side.
“...our rights, which seem not to be ever respected or considered...”<br> Again, I look forward to seeing these rights clearly laid out when you have the time.
As for the Iraq/Junta invasion issue- the Argentine Junta of 1982 was a brutal military government (decried as ‘illegitimate’ and ‘unrepresentative’ by Argentina) which invaded a peaceful internationally recognised foreign sovereign territory to shore up their domestic support in the face of social and economic problems. In Iraq a notoriously brutal dictator in violation of UN Resolutions was toppled by US/UK on the basis of WMD, human rights and the extension of democracy into the region. Now the reasons for the US/UK invasion can be disputed and argued over but the fact is they were performed by a)democratic governments not dictatorships b)Iraq was given plenty of warnings about what would happen if it did not comply with the UN and was given much time to do so c)US/UK have gained nothing but lost a lot (including international and domestic support) for their actions and it was not to shore up their position d)Junta invaded for itself pure and simple. The same can not be said about US/UK in Iraq.
It is not an unforgivable and unforgettable crime but an event which still rankles as Argentina seems unable to face up to what the Junta did in its name in regard to the Falklands. Time will tell what happens to US/UK over Iraq.
Refusing to face up to the actions of ones own state because of what another, different state has done/is doing is dodging the issue.
“NO, this is according to YOUR logic... Argentina does not recognise human rights because a crazy military took over power and invaded the islands 22 years ago.”<br> Noelia, what I was saying was that you appeared to be claiming that because the UK is involved in some dubious action in the Middle East then it was unqualified to point out to Argentina that its actions violated the human rights of a third party. I made no claim that Argentina today ignored human rights because of the events of 22 years ago, or has no right to invoke their use because of those events. You are the one saying ‘ UK is doing X in Y and is therefore unfit to tell A that it is doing B in C’. If what you have said (“I cant believe you think Argentina does not recognise human rights when you can watch CNN and find British soldiers humiliating Middle Eastern people”) is applied then no one can ever criticise anyone else ever, because all nations are guilty of anti human rights/prejudiced/.etc behaviour. I accept the wrong actions of the UK in Iraq but Argentina can not use that as an excuse to avoid looking at its own policy in regards to the Falklands today, under a democratic government.
“Exactly, nor is Argentina.... and we have broken less rules than you...”<br> That’s just what I’m saying. And there's no prize for ‘breaking less rules’, apart from a sense of self-satisfaction. So lets leave the Junta and Iraq and the distant past out of this whenever we can.
“OK the Falklands are not a prize we are supposed to win. They are territories that have been stolen, ... “<br> The Falklands is not a prize it is a home to 2000 people. You say they were stolen, the World says ‘So what?’. The nations of today are almost all comprised of land ‘stolen’ off other peoples, nations and so on. USA with swathes of Mexico, Poland with East Prussia, Australia the whole nation, S America a continent which was redivided again later, UK the Scots/Welsh/Irish, Israel with Palestine, Russia with the Kurile Islands, China and Tibet, etc. Trying to get the global community to turn the clock back to 1833 to assuage Argentina’s feelings of injustice is useless. Why? Because it’s not going to happen-the stability of nearly every nation on the planet would be threatened by such a precedent. Especially when the territory in question is not an integral part of either Argentina or the Spanish Empire it claims inheritance from. No, saying it was stolen will not help Argentina’s cause. It could be the true feeling of the nation and may even be true but as a line of argument it is a dead end. Negotiation is Argentina’s only hope and a path it does not want to seem to follow.
“...and, our failure, as you call it, is based on the tremendous difference of power between the UK (supported by the rest of the owners of the universe) and us....”<br> Plus Argentina’s failure-and that is what it is- to show the Islanders that they would be better off with Argentina or convince the World/powerful nations that this is an important issue in need of resolution or even an issue that is that big in Argentina outside of domestic policy concerns by the government of the day.
“We did pretty well, though, I m very proud of those who fought there.”<br> Yes, the Argentine military did well. If the real Argentine military had been sent instead of so many conscripts and you had had more Exocets, the Navy had stayed out of port then who knows how it could have ended up? Didn’t an elite Argentine unit stay on the Chilean border during the war? Be proud of your dead as its your right, but not the cause they died for-the power dreams of a corrupt military dictatorship which condemned so many young men, trained soldiers as well as conscripts, to their deaths in order to stay in power. There was of course a different feeling in Argentina regarding the ‘national reunification effort’ or whatever it was called but we must separate the myth from the reality-namely that the Junta did this for its own reasons, not for the interests of Argentina and her people. We must, all of us, be careful of using the deaths of yesterdays soldiers to justify the deaths of todays or tomorrows.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 16, 2004 10:35:30 GMT -3
“However, we would be very mistaken if we try to "seduce" the Falklanders to like Argentina.”<br> Why? Aren’t you proud of your nation and its achievements? Why this aversion to showing this? Or do you prefer your policy’s of failure, which can give the thrill of self-righteousness? Why this proud attitude which makes it impossible to say to the FI-‘Look, we’ve got everything you could need, we’re closer than the UK, why not come to our schools, university’s, sporting arenas? We’ve opened the border completely between us and won’t hinder your development in any way. We’d still like to have sovereignty over the Islands but we accept you’re not ready for that. However, once you’ve gotten to know us we’re sure you’ll be impressed and will think again.’ Would that really be such a horrible policy to follow? Not macho maybe but still...
“No, protecting irakies from the bastard Saddam... I bet he was not worse than the British troops killing women and children.”<br> Changing the subject instead of addressing the issue again? You’re right of course, British troops only kill women and children and then on purpose not accidentally. Because we’re evil. Please, do try to avoid caricature.
What you have displayed here is just ignorance about Saddam and his regime- "Along with other human rights organisations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
Civilian deaths alone put Saddam far in advance of what the UK/US have done. There have been many deaths in Iraq under the coalition occupation but it is no longer systematic, ordered genocide of Kurds, Marsh Arabs and others, no more poison gas attacks, no more elimination of whole villages, the pursuing of weapons projects at the expense of food and medicine, etc. Turn on the TV and you might see protests against the US/UK and the current Iraqi government. Protests over human rights, soldiers being arrested, illegal detentions, torture, etc. Protests against them and efforts to bring them into the light, all impossible under Saddam.
“I must ask you to stop calling Argentina "hostile" and "aggressive" as if we were a threaten to the planet. I cant allow this kind of deception and degradation to my country. Especially when you know very well it's not true.”<br> I understand how it must be upsetting to hear your nation, which you are indeed very patriotic towards, being talked about in this manner. It hurts just as hearing that my nations soldiers are killing women and children does. But have a look at Argentina’s policy towards the Falklands. I’m not making any kind of point about its relations with the rest of the planet, just towards the Falklands.
Is Argentina friendly towards the FI and deal directly with them whenever possible? Does she make an effort to be friendly, to be liked, to help out their neighbour, to demonstrate how peaceful, how wealthy, how stable, how well fed she is and wish to share this with the FI? Does she encourage communication, travel and links on all levels between the FI and herself? Does she engage with the Falklands in order to get to know them better? Does she put her sovereignty claim to one side, while not dropping it, in the interests of friendship?
Or is Argentina neutral towards the Falklands, dealing mainly with London but with the FI when necessary? Does she not obstruct the FI but not go out of her way to help? Does she treat the FI not exactly as an equal (due to their relative sizes) but at least as someone else to be dealt with? Does she keep the yearly announcements of sovereignty but not push the issue in the interests of a stable relationship?
Or does Argentina ignore the inhabitants of the FI totally? Does she demand negotiations while not having a negotiation policy, enshrine peaceful annexation into her constitution, try and hinder and retard the FI at all steps, take petty actions to cause inconvenience to the Islanders and try to drag others into the dispute? Does she bring up the sovereignty claim as often as possible in as many forums as possible?
As far as I can see, the Argentina’s government towards the Falkland’s is both hostile and aggressive and there are clear signs of this but I accept that this may just be my opinion. Can you see how Argentina does may not come across how you see her to the Islanders?
“But what does it have to do with our stolen territories”<br> Clearly everything. They don’t want to be a colony of another, foreign nation and as much as you may dispute it, they are the ones who will decide whats going to happen to their homeland. Would you like to be? If we said ‘We’re in charge of Argentina now. You don’t have to eat roast beef and Yorkshire pudding but we run your government’ would that be acceptable to you? Of course not. It seems like you still can’t see that there are actual people who like on the FI and have done so for many years.
Another monster post!
Best to all, Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 18, 2004 15:25:47 GMT -3
Hello Hutch
I've been in bed the last 3 days, that's why I couldnt come online to reply. Now I came back, everybody has move to another post!!! But I want to continue on this one until it gets clear for both of us. After all, changing opinions and discussing is the best way to get to know each other.
So, here I go, you posted:
I agree. But we must define, what stuff is the UK going to manage and what stuff is not.. Because you are confusing us... Some say "Talk to the FI government" and then some others say "No, it's up to the UK".. Regardless of what my government, which I do not represent, thinks, I would like to know WHO I should talk to, if I had the power and/or permission to negotiate. Not both governments, but only the FI or the UK...
You already told me you were going to reject, or let's say, "not recognize as rights" the proofs I was going to show, so why bother...
Shall I remind you that, the US and the UK did not obey United Nations resolutions against invading Irak? Why do some countries have permission to violate United Nations orders and some do not?
I dont refuse to face up the actions. Those who talked to me before, know very well I was, am and will be always completely against war. And in fact, I am completely convinced that the Argentine government, as a proof of Argentina's good will and friendship, should apologize officially for a war no one wanted to fight. A killing is a killing, and it's always a mistake, be the Falklands, be Irak or whatever.. You should apologise to the Iraki people too for destroying their city... We were trying to recover what's ours, the same way you tried to recover their "peace".. We both acted wrong. And we both should apologize. Yet, you'll think Saddam was a tyrant, the same way we wont drop the claim, because we're conviced we're right.
The reason I keep bringing on the topic of Irak, is because it is the most clear way to show you, that things are not the way everybody wants to make us believe they are. Rules, are set for some countries, and some others seem to have permission to violate them. I would give anything I have to talk to a native Iraki, one of those who has lost everything, family, house, etc.-.. and ask him if he's happy now being free from Saddam of if he prefered having his family with him, his city and his house..... I know the answer, although you wont ever believe it... Unfortunately, the media have a big power, and, what they tell you is probably not the same they are showing down here...
Of course the world says "so what"...If we depend on the world to help us, we can give up now.... The reasoning of territories being acquired off others, is very convenient.... why did the UK respected the treaty of Hong Kong and gave it back to China then? After so many years, Why didnt china give up Hong kong? Well, maybe China is way too dangerous to go against them, and nobody wanted a 3rd world war.....but Argentina, is just a pain in the ass, but nothing more...
If the UK refuses to recognize our proofs as proofs, being them ethnical, geographical and political......can you imagine what would happen if all of our claim were based on the whishes of the Falklanders to become Argentinean? Again, I wouldnt oblige them to be part of our country, nor to leave their houses, but the territory belongs to Argentina, and must be given back.. Losing a war is not a failure, giving up against a bigger enemy for fear is a failure.
I absolutely agree. Again, I am completey against wars, and, if I had the power to stop them I would. It's very easy for politicians to sit back and watch on CNN what's the war going on while our people is dying for stupid causes that can be solved in many other ways. But again, in order to be solved, both parts have to be ready to get something and to lose something... As for Argentina (I only speak for me) I would agree to share the sovereignty.... would the FI government agree too? If not, what is their option?
I am completely proud of Argentina. But again, we dont have to WIN the Falklands, we believe it's our right to own them and so, we're not going to seduce anybody. WE can try to seduce bolivians to be part of Argentina, because it's the only way we could get Bolivia as part of Argentina (no thanks.....it's just a silly example) but not the Falklands which we believe are already ours..
Alright, then stop calling Argentina agressive and hostile, when you know very well we are not. I am not ignorant of what Saddam did, and , if he's in prison, which I doubt, he absolutely deserves what happens to him. But, between to bad things, you have to choose the softest, and I strongly believe Saddam's regime was softer than the invasion to Irak and all the deadly riots we're witnessing now.
ARgentina's policy towars the Falklands? OK, as far as I know, we're managing the issue peacefully, and by peacefully I mean no war. Where is the agression and the hostility in here?
I do make the effort to be friendly and peaceful. But I have no need to demonstrate anything else, our richness or poverty, and or stability is not of your bussiness.... We dont deserve the territory for being a good or a bad country, we deserve the territory because it's ours and we are claiming it back...
You asked me to think like a Falklander before, now I ask you to think like an Argentinean: Did the FI not obstruct EVERY way of friendship we have had in the past? We have starting to feel stupidly friendly already...
We must respond with hostility and agressivity to hostility and agressivity.... being friendly is not being an idiot....
[glow=red,2,300]THEY[/glow] dont have to be. I said (according to me) they can remain as british citizens if they want to, but we want the territories to belong to Argentina...
speaking of monster postings!..
Regards, Noelia
Well, it's quite difficult for me to think about being on the other side. With the support of a member of G8 and such a powerful country, I would stick to everything I would, knowing a little country like Argentina (little, compared to the UK, and I'm not meaning the lenght of territory) cannot do anything against me. However, I 'm not stupid, and I understand perfectly that, given the choice, between being part of the poverty of latinamerica, or being part of the UK, I would chose being part of the UK. But, if for only a minute I could be sincere about this, I think a Falkland Islander could think sincerely too and say "Well, our people have been settled here many years ago and this territory was stolen from Argentina....d**n, these people have some rights to be angry".... I've never heard any comment like that..
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Sept 20, 2004 8:37:43 GMT -3
Noelia, I hope you have now fully recovered. I can personally understand that ‘Argentine’ people might have once felt upset at not achieving their ambition to include the Falklands in their territory. However the territorial claim was made by your precursor state The United Provinces of the River Plate that had proposed boundaries that are vastly different to modern day Argentina, losing and gaining much territory before becoming the present entity. So I cannot feel much sympathy for a state that moans so much about the ‘loss’ to a previous state which never ever came into being in its original proposed format. It was forever an unfulfilled dream. Not all Argentines agree with your point of view apparently as you will see if you read the following link: www.falklands.info/history/82neverargentine.html Also in referring back to your remarks concerning France and Germany’s relations to the rest of Europe after conflict, I would have to say that the similarities that exist though superficial are surely ones of frustrated territorial ambition. The major difference, apart from there being no comparison whatsoever in the scale and ferocity of the conflicts, is that both France in 1815 and Germany in 1945 accepted their defeat and effectively abandoned their previous European territorial claims and expansionist ambitions. Argentina has done no such thing therefore your comparison is not a valid one. Argentina was militarily and morally defeated on the question of sovereignty regarding the Falklands in 1982 but refuses to accept the real political outcome of that defeat. With regard to Iraq your conflation of two separate arguments also is invalid as there is no comparative connection between the two propositions, other than that perhaps the British action in both instances, Falklands and Iraq, was partly to free a local population from a dictatorship. Also it is clear that the majority of Iraqis are now being killed by fundamentalist terrorists of many nationalities who see an opportunity to pursue their mad dream of a world dominated by fundamentalist Islam and Iraqi people who have lost power as a result of the downfall of Saddam Hussein and now seek to defeat any move towards democracy simply to restore the subjugation of the majority of Iraqis to exercise their own minority interests. I do not deny that the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq could have been handled much better than it has, but this does not add any validity to your comparisons. What should happen now is that Argentina and the UK in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions should sit down together with representation from the Falklands, as they should have done as soon as possible following Argentina’s defeat, and define fully the terms of the ongoing relationship between themselves and the Falklands in view of the conflict outcome. The UN resolution to which I refer I quote as follows: “The United Nations General Assembly has adopted Resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6 and 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 etc., which recognise the existence of a dispute of sovereignty related to the question of the Falkland Islands and ask the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to find the means to resolve peacefully and definitively all the aspects related to the future of the Falkland Islands in accordance with the United Nations Charter.”Nowhere does it say that the United Kingdom should negotiate any handover of sovereignty to Argentina merely that they should resolve peacefully and definitively the dispute. The Falklands is on the UN list of territories to be decolonised, therefore the UN does not recognize definitively the continuance of either UK or Argentine sovereignty, which leaves all options open, as you must well know the UN says decolonisation should be achieved in the following manner:- (I have extracted this from my own Faklands Protocol of 2002) 2. UN Charter and Resolutions
2.1. Chapter XI ‘Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories’ i.e. “territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”; Article 73 introduced the principle that: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories..”
2.2. UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 says:-
‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’:
Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire.”<br> 2.3. UN Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 also says; Principle VI:
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.”<br> 2.4. All of the above options in Principle VI, (a), (b) and (c) encompass the total of future conceivable possibilities for the Falkland Islands accepting the basic precept that the Falkland Islands is a Non-Self-Governing Territory or ‘other territory which has not yet attained independence’ in the terms expressed in UN Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960. This clearly includes independence, free association or integration with either the United Kingdom, Argentina, or another country if that is what the inhabitants of the Falklands wish, naturally depending on the acceptance of the chosen Country.Of course where it says “the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount” it means the interests of those inhabitants as those people see them, not ‘taking the interests of the inhabitants into account’ as Argentina sees them as she falsely interprets this clause. Plus it seems to me you cannot ‘cherry pick’ one section of the UN decolonisation resolution (even when bastardizing it) without accepting the rest. This is being too ‘clever’ by far. I know you see only one possibility as an outcome to the dispute, integration with Argentina, The UN, and I suspect the majority of the individual nations of the world, sees all the several possible options and these are undoubtedly the basis the UN sees for negotiations between the UK and Argentina as they have clearly specified. So if these were the basis of the negotiations, not just ‘HAND IT OVER TO A TIMETABLE’ then I would be happy with them. I am sure that in light of the foregoing you would agree with this as a reasonable person. Best wishes, Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 20, 2004 15:09:05 GMT -3
Hello Ernie Yes, thank you, I'm well again now. It's just this winter that refuses to leave. Tomorrow, spring is supposed to start here, and we're having such a cold weather yet... anyway... First of all, I wanted to tell you that, I dont completely agree with the link you gave me. I dont know who is this guy Carlos Escude but either he's not living here or he's in such a hurry to sympathize with the islanders. What he says is not correct. I dont know ANY single person who wouldnt want to get the Falklands back. We all realize that, another war would be awful and that we dont have the military power to face the UK, but, believe me, cab drivers DO want them back, just as the rest of the population. We just want them back peacefully. He says " The great majority of these politicians know that the Falklands will not be Argentine again, but they choose not to acknowledge this for fear of losing votes. " That is absolutely true. I wouldnt want a politician who gives up such a claim like this one, to rule the country. If he gives up on this, what can we expect from him/her with the rest of the desicions to take...... You posted (after your first quote about the UN resolution) What is then, the United Kingdom proposing to finish this dispute...? You also said that, the UK were helping the Falklands get free from a dictatorship, just like they did in Irak. They are really good guys, arent they? The whole planet must be mistaken then when we watch Baghdad in ruins and people died. It seems like the wars of ones are approved and the wars of others are condemned... I just wonder who is judging this....and the obvious answer is: the G8 group. Wars started by any of them are approved, wars started by any other country, are punished. This is what freedom is about. You posted: Excellent! so would I. Then, let's play for a while you're the FI government and I am Argentine President, let's sit down and discuss the possibilities. Remember, total sovereignty for any of us is out of the agenda. We have to think another option. Regards Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Sept 21, 2004 10:18:58 GMT -3
Noelia, Well of course this is not a game to be played between you and I alone, in fact not a game at all. What I am pointing out is that Argentina uses the UN Committee of 24 as a platform for promoting its claim to the Falklands but as far as I can tell has so far shown no willingness itself to follow the rules set down for decolonisation by the same Committee which I have outlined in the previous posting. They are not my personal ideas but stem from the Charter and Resolutions of the UN to which both the UK and Argentina subscribe. When I wrote the Falklands Protocol in 2002 I dont recall that you were taking part in any discussions at that time on the FM but it was fairly well received by quite a lot of people on both sides at that time with the usual caveats. I cannot post it here as there a limit of 10,000 characters per posting. The links to the FM Archives are here for the full final text:- English Version gentoo.net/engboard.mv?parm_func=showmsg+parm_msgnum=1014868Spanish Version gentoo.net/espboard.mv?parm_func=showmsg+parm_msgnum=1002165At the time I did not pursue its publication or attempt implementation any further a) for reason of waiting to find out the attitude of the new Argentine administration when elected and since that b) for some personal reasons. If I am to seriously discuss possibilities with yourself and your countryfolk I need to know that you fully subscribe to the format for a solution as set down by the UN. It is a very clear format and in fact does allow for complete sovereignty for either side, as well as other possibilities. From my point of view neither side can pick and choose other options. You have called for the UN's wishes to be observed over Iraq do you agree to the same regarding the Falklands. What do you say? Best wishes, Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 21, 2004 13:23:09 GMT -3
Hi Ernie
Just a quick answer before going to work (I dont have the time now to read the protocol, but I promise I will as soon as I have the time when I'm back!)
You posted:
Before 9/11 I would have respected United Nations in any request, even when I still thought it was not an impartial institution. But, after being witness of how the United States of America attacked Irak against UN orders, an institution supposed to keep peace on Earth, I feel like respecting their orders would be political suicide for Argentina.
It works for everybody or it works for no one. Rules cannot be applied to some countries and not to others, I hope you agree with me on that.
Best Wishes Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Oct 5, 2004 8:43:41 GMT -3
Noelia.
I have also spent a lot of time in bed ill. Perhaps I caught something from you through the internet? A real computer virus! You're right that discussing and the interchange of ideas is the best way for us all to get to know one another. So here we go again...
On the question of 'who would you talk to' if you had the power to negotiate, then I hope that you would follow what the UK government has been saying fopr a long time-talk to the Islanders re: soverignty (over their land) and to the UK about other (external) matters. I think that a problem on the Argentine side is that there is sometimes confusion about how the FI is run, where supreme authority lies, etc. Simply put, the UK can not and will not ignore the rights of the Islanders to solve the dispute, that power is reserved for the Islanders. Likewise the FI governement can not take certain decisions as they are reserved by Westminster. Has Argentina ever studied the constitutional and legal position of the FI in relation to the UK i wonder?
"You already told me you were going to reject, or let's say, "not recognize as rights" the proofs I was going to show, so why bother"
Rights and proofs are two different things but maybe this is a trick of translation/language. I told you I was not interested in a long dull list of historical events, sightings of the FI, landings, etc. We have all seen them before and what they show is (from my pooint of view at the moment at least) that Argentina was a very latecomer to the FI issue, did not exist for the first part of their history, that there were claims by other nations on the FI before Argentina was a nation, that Argentina failed to establish clear control or ownership of the Islands, did not clearly inherit the Islands from the Spanish if such a thing was even possible and so on. Argentinas proofs are, to say the least, debatable but i would like to see them laid out in a 'definative' version. I think theres a Spanish version over at the F-M Forum at the moment. Javier used to be into posting things like that. What i was interested in was the 'rights' you were talking about when you said :
"Did Falkland islanders ever think about ARgentina's rights, just for a second..." "If you deny our rights..." "As I told ERnie before, everybody speaks about their rights, what about ours?"
I meant rights as in 'the right to self determination' or 'the right to have a say in who your government is' (British arguments for including the inhabitants of the Islands in discussions about their future, something effectively denied by Argentina), and i thought you had similar 'rights ' to claim-and i could not imagine what these could be-but i think we had crossed wires here.
"Shall I remind you that, the US and the UK did not obey United Nations resolutions against invading Irak? Why do some countries have permission to violate United Nations orders and some do not?"
There was no UN Resolution against invading Iraq just as there was no resolution to invade Iraq. Iraq had been told it would face 'serious consequences' if it failed to obey the UN and fail it did so it paid the price. Why do some countries have permission to violate United Nations orders? Sheer power, for one. Of course Argentina violated the UN Resolution 502 in 1982 and did their bit to undermine the UN. Still, a brutal dictator in violation of UN Resolutions was overthrown.
"I would give anything I have to talk to a native Iraki, one of those who has lost everything, family, house, etc.-.. and ask him if he's happy now being free from Saddam of if he prefered having his family with him, his city and his house..... I know the answer, although you wont ever believe it... "
You know the answer? Lucky you. Of course its guaranteed that he would have had his family, city and house under Saddam. As long as he wasnt a Kurd, Marsh Arab, relative of a political opponant, someone that Saddams son wanted to rape, someone who displeased the regime or a Shia or any one of many catagorys who Saddam would exterminate on a whim. Youre displaying the tendency of people who go 'Well the dictatorship was really bad but at least the trains ran on time, there was order and jobs.' Which is even easier to do when you live far, far away from the danger, watch the news and realize you know how Iraqis feel.Very common beliefs in much of Europe post 1945 and again post 1991. Would you put a price on political, religous and personal freedom Noeila, coming from a nation which was under a dictatorship in recent memory? Is the ability to vote and say what you think and criticize your nations leaders worth any blood at all? Yes, there are deaths and chaos in Iraq but freedom isnt free and peace isnt pretty. MAybe it would have been easier to sit and let a brutal dictator continue to repress and kill his people but maybe the Iraqis deserve better than a genocidal ex CIA backed thug who has killed thousands with chemical weapons.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Oct 5, 2004 8:44:14 GMT -3
"...why did the UK respected the treaty of Hong Kong and gave it back to China then?"
Because we had a treaty with them to hand HK back. And we honoured that even though a significant part of the population didnt want us to.
"After so many years, Why didnt china give up Hong kong..."
Because they knew that when the lease was up they would get HK back.
"Well, maybe China is way too dangerous to go against them, and nobody wanted a 3rd world war....."
Yes, also correct. We had a treaty to hand it back and they are powerfull. None of which is true in relation to UK-FI-Argentina, partly because Argentina refuses to approach negotiations honestly.
"If the UK refuses to recognize our proofs as proofs, being them ethnical, geographical and political"
Geographical-the FI are close to Argentina and should be a part of Argentina. Utter nonsense and clearly an absurd line of reasoning. Should Cuba belong to Mexico, Japan to China, New Zealand to Australia, etc? This is a total dead end argument.
Political-the FI were under loose Argentine control for less than 10 years. They are not an integral part of Argentinas territory and were never an important part of the Spanish Empire which did not 'bequeth' them to its rebel colonys.
Ethnical-I assume you mean ethical. Well what has that got to do with national boundrys? Its not ethical that the Americas were stolen from their native people, that Germans had to leave E Prussia or that Russia still hold the Kurile Islands. Ethical arguments will and do get Argentina no where as all nations have dirty hands. And to give the Islands to Argentina would not be ethical as the inhabitants-occupation 170+ years-do not want to be a colony of Argentina.
UK refuses to see these as 'proofs' because they are not. They are history lessons and curios at best which end with Argentina begging to be treated differently than all other nations on the planet becasue they are somehow 'special'. Honest negotiation is the only way Argentina will get any say over the Falklands.
If your claim was based on the wished of the Islanders to be a part of Argentina (with your other 'proofs' as well) then it would be much, much stronger and that is, i think, obvious. Think about it. BA and Stanley agree-how could the UK say 'no'?
"Losing a war is not a failure, giving up against a bigger enemy for fear is a failure."
Losing a war is a failure. To say anything else is to indulge in romantic wish making, the kind which hails Dunkirk a 'victory'.
"But again, we dont have to WIN the Falklands, we believe it's our right to own them and so, we're not going to seduce anybody"
Yes, you do have to. You can believe they are yours all you like but you may as well sit in your house and declare yourself King Of The Moon-no ones listening and no one cares. If i wanted to buy the house over the road would i go and talk to the owner or sit in my chair saying that its mine? Believe they are yours as much as you like and continue the Argentina policy of failure, becvaus the simple fact is that it is quite clear that they are not Argentinas at the moment or for any real length of time ever in the past. In Argentine hearts they may be but in reality they are not.
"Alright, then stop calling Argentina agressive and hostile, when you know very well we are not."
Look at Argentina policy towards the FI over the last 30 years. Is it friendly, neutral or hostile?Argentina is the aggressor over the FI. Probably because you believe they are yours, but Argentina is still the aggressive power. Aggression and hostility are not just manifested by throwing bullets around. The absence of a war does not mean peace. Its a simple question-is Argentina (the nation with all the power to change the situation) friendly towards the FI or not?
"But, between to bad things, you have to choose the softest, and I strongly believe Saddam's regime was softer than the invasion to Irak and all the deadly riots we're witnessing now."
If you believe this then you know absolutely nothing about Iraq or Saddams reign.
"...our richness or poverty, and or stability is not of your bussiness.... "
If you want us to hand over 2000 of our people, then yes it is very much our business.
"...Did the FI not obstruct EVERY way of friendship we have had in the past? We have starting to feel stupidly friendly already..."
What ways of friendship? Do you mean the 'Sunshine(?)' policy of before? That was, at best, to try to repair the damage done to relations by an unprovoked and unneccessary war started by the Junta. By friendly do you mean not allowing the FI to take part in theat recent cricket competition, banning flights,ignoring the fact the the Islanders exist and things like that?
"We must respond with hostility and agressivity to hostility and agressivity.... being friendly is not being an idiot...."
The FI are being hostile and aggressive? How? Surely they are just trying to protect themselves from a neighbour who wants their land? Is Argentina afriad of the Islanders? What can the FI possibly do which is hostile and aggressive to Argentina? They may not roll out the red carpet for you but thats not that odd is it?
"...dont have to be. I said (according to me) they can remain as british citizens if they want to, but we want the territories to belong to Argentina..."
How would such a scheme work? Land belongs to...who under this scheme? Would the British citizens of this land be allowed to buy it?Is foreign ownership of Argentina land allowed? What if this was accepted and then all the land was bought up by Falkland Islanders who refused to sell to mainland Argentines?Or would Argentine deprive those Islanders who already own land there of their property? Who colonists be sent from Argentina?Would an embassy be established on the Islands? Waht if they decided that the deal was erroding their identity and they declared themselves independent and appealed to the UN for aid? Do you have a worked out scheme for this split?
"Well, our people have been settled here many years ago and this territory was stolen from Argentina....d**n, these people have some rights to be angry".... I've never heard any comment like that.."
Youve never heard that because they dont believe it. They dont believe it was stolen from Argentina, partly no doubt due to a British claim and settlement there before Argentina even existed. Out of interest on a similar note have you ever heard any Argentines say 'This national obsession of ours is stupid. We run some Islands for under a decade nearly 200 years ago and we're still trying to get it back against the wishes of the people who live there?Havent we got better things to worry about'?
I've got to go now. All the best to you and others,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 5, 2004 14:14:57 GMT -3
Hello Hutch
I'm sorry you were in ill, it's autumn there so it's your turn to suffer the cold weather. I'm waiting for the summer desperately, I miss T-shirts and short pants a lot!
Anyway, again what I see from your response is the typical british defensive action. I still don't see any new proposition to solve the conflict except Argentina droping the claim. You just took some time to dramatically reject all my points with some contradictions. Look at this:
"Has Argentina ever studied the constitutional and legal position of the FI in relation to the UK i wonder? You know...I admit that, at least for me it was kind of difficult to understand the british government. I used to call "England" to the whole United Kingdom until I realized that Australia was also part of it and it wasn't even close to England. However, here in Latinamerica we have the example of Puerto Rico, which is a free state associated to the United States. Not a colonial territory though, but the example works fine. So I do understand what is like having territories all over the world. The difference is, that, some time in the past, when Britain took control over Australia (let's use Australia as example...), nobody did or could complain about it, and nobody has complained about it from that time until today. But when the Falklands were taken from Argentina, we did complain, and we still are... The trick of the free associated territory works only if the original owners have given up and they have already forgotten or lost interest over the territory. That's not our case.
"I told you I was not interested in a long dull list of historical events, sightings of the FI, landings, etc." But you seem very interested in your ONLY "proof" about what the islanders want to be...How can that be more important than our proofs / rights ? Or who decides which one is more important...I think the problem here is not about the proofs, but about who is judging the situation... I wonder what would happen to the Falklands if Brazil judged the situation and took a desicion... Being the Falklands self-ruled, Argentina and Brazil, all in the same continent, why not let them take the decisition....and may the Islanders seduce the brazilians so they leave them as british.....
"I meant rights as in 'the right to self determination' or 'the right to have a say in who your government is' " We definetely are not going to agree in this. Because I do think self determination is important and I do understand their whishes to be British and I do respect them. But what you can't understand is that Argentina ONLY WANTS THE TERRITORY!!! they can live there if they want and remain as british citizens if they want (we have many british citizens in the Patagonia who haven't changed their nationalities). I know you're going to reply you can't understand the fact of the territory without the people, but do an effort....If I could understand what is like having colonies overseas in 2004, with a decolonisation comitee around, you can understand we only want the land. The inhabitants are absolutely free to choose their destiny..
"There was no UN Resolution against invading Iraq " Oh yes there was. Doesnt Britain study about United Nations before a war? United Nations said the proofs of the existance of weapons of mass destruction was not enough (sure, because there were not any weapon...) and so, it prohibited the US to attack Irak......Of course Emperor Bush had his own plans and didnt obbey.... I havent seen yet any punishment to the US for that....or to the UK for helping them...
"I would give anything I have to talk to a native Iraki..." Yes I know the answer. Americans and British really think the world must be thankful to them for being saviors of the planet but no one seem to realize that the world doesnt want to be saved...We fear Bush far more than Saddam... How can be possible that the biggest part of the planet is against what happened in Irak and you just dont care! Just as you dont care about Argentina's opinion about the Falklands. It's good having power, but it makes you so blind sometimes, and being blind makes you weaker at the end. ( I meant "you" as a country, not you personally)
"Yes, there are deaths and chaos in Iraq but freedom isnt free and peace isnt pretty. MAybe it would have been easier to sit and let a brutal dictator continue to repress and kill his people " Where were you when we had our dictators here killing people? Dictators that led us to a bloody war against YOUR people... It is not irresponsible to have such power and actually CHOOSE who are you going to help for your convenience...
"Losing a war is a failure. To say anything else is to indulge in romantic wish making, the kind which hails Dunkirk a 'victory'. " Depends on the point of view. The war was meant to be lost from the beginning. Nobody with a brain could ever have thought Argentina could have beaten the UK in a war, and especially a war on water. Nobody expected to win. At least not anymore when the british forces were on their way. However, it was still a good battle (if there is any good in a battle...) and I dont think it was a failure....on the contrary, I think we gained a lot more of respect from other countries after that war.
""But again, we dont have to WIN the Falklands, " "Yes, you do have to. " No, we dont have to. The islands are not a prize. They are (according to our point of view) stolen territories that we must keep claiming and so we will. This battle is far more difficult than the one of 1982 (but less bloody at least) because we're fighting against the popularity of a country like England, well-known all over the world.. Ask someone in Mongolia where in the planet is Argentina... 100 dollars he won't know....but I'm pretty sure he'll know where's the UK..... So, if you ask that very same person if the Falklands belong to Argentina (what is that..) or to the UK , what do you think he's going to say?
"Argentina is the aggressor over the FI." Argentina WAS the aggressor. Defending our points of view and trying to get back territories we think were stolen is not being agressive. You may not like it, but it's not being agressive.
"If you believe this then you know absolutely nothing about Iraq or Saddams reign." I know perfectly what he did. And I'm glad he's in jail. But yet I cannot see how people that have no fear to crash themselves on a plane against the WTC, couldnt got rid of Saddam if they wanted to.... Isn't that very strange?
""...our richness or poverty, and or stability is not of your bussiness.... "
If you want us to hand over 2000 of our people, then yes it is very much our business." What? I thought you said the Falklands were self-determined? How come the UK is going to hand over the people as if they were cattle?? Again, the neverending point....we dont want the people!!! of course I believe they have the right to choose, but the territory is ours, and I would invite them to stay there anyway. It's not like we're going to kick them to the sea...
"The FI are being hostile and aggressive? How? Surely they are just trying to protect themselves from a neighbour who wants their land?" Just take a look at these forums. How many people from Argentina do you see.. How many British and how many Islanders (only Ernie at the time and he's not living in the Falklands anymore) It seems we are the only ones interested in friendship and peaceful solutions. That is definetely NOT being agressive.
"They dont believe it was stolen from Argentina" We dont believe they are British.....so who is right.?
Best Whishes! Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Oct 6, 2004 10:20:04 GMT -3
Hola Noelia,
You wrote
Nobody with a brain could ever have thought Argentina could have beaten the UK in a war, and especially a war on water.
There are other ways on winning a war, the idea of an economic threat is sound and everything points in that direction. This is, of course, no new in the world scenario, we may remember the many embargoes posed by the rich nations. Maybe it is time for them to prove their own poison. And remember, the sole argument is that UK seat and negotiate this extant absurd.
Referring to other types of war, this is also an option, as some countries always say, all options are on the table. All we have to do is to wait, as you know superpowers come and go.
My position, I always like to point out, is not a belligerent solution, but I would be naive to think that the seeds of another war are not in place.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|