|
Post by Sea Eagle on Oct 6, 2004 11:13:24 GMT -3
Maquilishuat :
'And remember, the sole argument is that UK seat and negotiate this extant absurd.'
The sinner is Argentina who will only talk about a timetable for handover, this is their only position and requires a total UK surrender. This is not possible. Their position in actuality is the 'Big Lie' whilst pretending to the world to be reasonable.
The other BIG Lie is the Argentine 'Malvinas Myth' and the grounds on which they claim the Islands a false set of premises that would not be accepted in any other part of the world. So why in the case of the Falklands. Over the years it has become like the Greek Mythology growing in the telling but with no basis in definable fact.
Both Argentina and Brazil have taken territory by force from Paraguay for instance which they still hold on the flimsy basis of conquest and award. Lets not be two faced.
Noelia:
You cannot separate the land from the people. If there were no people in Argentina there would be no Argentina would there. Yours is a position based on a false premise.
The people who live in Argentina make the country just as the people who live in the Falkands make their country.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Oct 6, 2004 14:59:29 GMT -3
Hola Ernie,
Yes, this is an absurd, and to negotiate is by no means to establish a timeplan for any handover. It would be a start to acknowledge the legimacy (or not) of the Argentinean claim. Both countries could present their reasons and documents supporting their claims and reach an agreement of how the next steps might be devised to end this absurd.
It is quite interesting that you mentioned the sad war Brasil, Argentina and Uruguay had with Paraguay in the past. There is a very interesting book that studies this war, and the conclusion, guess what, this war was forced by UK to protect their empire interests. After the conflict every and each country involved had a huge debt with UK. It seems that UK start wars to defend their interests and afterwards a British citizen mentions it as if UK had nothing to do in this past massacre.
Now, with just one side owning the world media is very interesting to observe how history is being rewritten.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Oct 6, 2004 15:00:02 GMT -3
Hola Ernie,
Yes, this is an absurd, and to negotiate is by no means to establish a timeplan for any handover. It would be a start to acknowledge the legimacy (or not) of the Argentinean claim. Both countries could present their reasons and documents supporting their claims and reach an agreement of how the next steps might be devised to end this absurd.
It is quite interesting that you mentioned the sad war Brasil, Argentina and Uruguay had with Paraguay in the past. There is a very interesting book that studies this war, and the conclusion, guess what, this war was forced by UK to protect their empire interests. After the conflict every and each country involved had a huge debt with UK. It seems that UK start wars to defend their interests and afterwards a British citizen mentions it as if UK had nothing to do in this past massacre.
Now, with just one side owning the world media is very interesting to observe how history is being rewritten.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Oct 12, 2004 14:33:11 GMT -3
Hi Otto,
I agree the Paraguayan War was a very sad episode in history.
My understanding also is that it was about trade and Paraguay's fears that it was to be excluded from world trade by the new Government in Uruguay installed with the help of Brazil. True also that it was Paraguay (or Lopez) that declared war on the other three nations, justified or not.
No doubt it was about trade, most European and world conflicts usually were in the 19th Century. No doubt all four countries were in debt to the then World Superpower the UK just as most of Europe ended up in debt to the USA in WWII, particularly the UK, not because the USA started the war, it did not, but simply because it was the world power with the financial clout.
I do not believe that there was any great plot by the UK against Latin America at the time it was simply a war of its time as bad and sad as any other.
However Latin America cannot keep on using the excuse that it was 'the big boy that made them do it' just like the UK cannot say the US made them enter the Iraq war now. Leaders at all times have choices, their collaboration in events good and bad is crucial, even a 19th century war between Latin American countries cannot take place just because the 'Big boy' said so. You have to take responsibilty for your own part in all events they cannot just happen on their own or because someone else says so. Time to mature in this respect I think.
However Argentina and Brazil both annexed territory from Paraguay as a result of their conquest of Paraguay given some 'legitimacy' by a US President arbitrating in favour of Argentina and Brazil at a later date. A defeated Paraguay, depleted of Male population (reportedly only 28,000 adult Praguayan males were left alive after the war, the last stand being fought by brave children throwing rocks at the Argentine soldiers with death being their only reward for their bravery) could barely raise a whimper of a protest at the time.
I believe nobody is presently making a fuss about the return of these territories. I am surprised, given the context of the annexation. Though of course Bolivia is now making a fuss about its 19th century lost territory to Chile. Perhaps 'people who live in glass houses should not throw stones' as we say here.
It would be good if, following my Falklands Protocol ideas, that the UK, Falklands and Argentina, could set aside the claim for a period to discuss all aspects of relationships between the Falklands and the mainland, establishing normality and stabilty for all. This way we could obtain a framework of agreement in which to discuss Argentina's claim in a reasonable tone instead of that country shouting, posturing and blowing hot air for internal political gain and demanding immediate action. Whats the rush, if they continue as they are following Kirchner's and Bielsa's agenda their 400 years will soon pass, maybe even Argentina will be almost forgotten by then!
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Oct 12, 2004 22:00:34 GMT -3
Hi Ernie,
A couple of points. The anexation of territories from Paraguay is similar to the example of Israel and Syria. Both Paraguay and Syria started the wars. Hardly a comparison from territories gained by invading colonial powers, if that's what you are trying to imply. It is also my understanding that Bolivia became a land lock country as a result of a war between Chile and Peru. Again, I don't understand your comparison scenario. Perhaps you could explain the meaning of your "glass houses" comment.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Oct 13, 2004 12:43:37 GMT -3
Hi Noelia.
Thanks for your good wishes. We skipped Summer here and went straight to Winter, but its my favourite season so im not too bothered. Meant i was unprepared for the cold though!
About the constitutional and legal situation of the FI in regard to the UK, I see you are a bit confused. And understandably so as it is rather complex- England is one nation in the UK. The others are Scotland, Wales and (maybe Cornwall). Northen Ireland is also a part of the nation state known as 'The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That is what the UK actually is, a federation of sorts of different nations, England the most famous. Australia is not a part of the UK. Australia is a seperate soverign nation. However-it has Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and a UK appointed Governor as the Queens representative. Australia is also a member of the Commonwealth but in no way at all is it a part of the UK. In this regard it is like Canada.
The FI are not a part of the UK either, they are a UK dependent territory (or whatever the current term is). This essentially gives them full free reign in domestic affairs but foreign and defence policy is handled by the UK from London. Like all such territorys (i believe) they have the power to decide their future under self determination.That power is not in Whitehalls hands but in their own.
"But you seem very interested in your ONLY "proof" about what the islanders want to be..."
Well ive seen the lists that have been posted before. And they all-as far as i know- clearly point to several facts A)the English have a long association with the FI. B)the English made some of the first sightings, landing and settlements on the FI. C)The English never explicitly announced they renounced all claim to the FI. D)Argentina was a very late comer to the FI. E)Argentina failed to establish any stable, long term, widely recognised and accepted settlement on the FI. F)The FI were never an integral part of the Spanish Empire, the Vice Royalty or the Argentine Republic. G)Spain never 'gifted' the FI to Argentina and Argentina has no evidence that this was ever intended. H)The English claim on the FI predates the existence of Argentina.
"There was no UN Resolution against invading Iraq " "Oh yes there was."
Can you please provide evidence of this? As far as i know there was no UN Resolution against invading Iraq, which had been threatened with 'serious consequences' if they did not comply with the UN. Please provide the UN Resolution which forbade military action against Iraq prior to the invasion.
"Where were you when we had our dictators here killing people"
Well, we were fighting something called 'The Cold War' to try and determine the fate of the entire planet. So were you and we were allies in that struggle. The Junta may have been terrible but, unfortunately, at that time it was thought better to have a vicious right wing dictatorship on your side, than a viscious communist dictatorship against you. You can't just compare Argentina late 1970's with Iraq 2004. You're ignoring all the context that created the situations in which the events happened.And in understanding history, context is vital.
"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"
No, its a failure pure and simple. Japan/Germany/Italy lost WW2 and don't say 'well maybe it was a failure'. It was a failure end of story. Argentina lost. The performance of the Air Force was great but still, Argentina lost and you can't try to dress that up at all.You may have gained 'respect' but had to lose many young mens lives to do so and be the aggressor and put back the cause of 'national reunification' many, many years.
"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."
Yes, keep on claiming them and saying 'they are ours and we dont have to do anything to try and get them back' but dont be surprised when this policy brings yet more failure. You can say that they are yours all you like but that doesent make it true. You do have to 'win' them because no one is going to give them to you and you can't take them. Argentinas only hope is establishing an open, friendly, free relationship with the Islanders and taking it from there. Your conviction is worth nothing whereas actions would be priceless.
"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?"
I dont understand this. What are you alluding to?
"...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? "
I was mixing up two points here. Essentially-
If Argentina wants to be given the FI by UK Government ("If you want us to hand over 2000 of our people...") then Argentina would have to be wealthy, stable, prosperous, democratic, peacefull and friendly towards the FI. Pretty obvious right? Theres no onus or pressure on the UK to give Argentina the FI so we'd want to amke sure they would be ok, especially if the transfer was going against their wishes.
This is not likely to happen. So whats the other option?The FI want to be a part of Argentina. In that case the same criteria would apply. Only sensible that you would want to be a part of stable, prosperous nation right?
So you see which ever way you look at it-from UK Government or Stanley- Argentinas richness or poverty, or stability is of paramount importance.
"That is definetely NOT being agressive"
Individual Argentine people may not be aggressive but their government is openly hostile, aggressive,arrogant and dismissive towards the Islanders.
Got to dash.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 13, 2004 17:20:45 GMT -3
Hello Hutch So you like winter? I hate it, I can't wait for summer to come (and why not admit it, going out on vacation too, I'm so tired ) but what I want the most is to wear T-shirts and short pants, I cant stand sweaters anymore! These paragraphs are becoming difficult to respond in an organized way, but let's see what I can do: 1) About the items you listed: Correct. Being the population of the FI british, and according to their wishes, they still wanna be, it is perfectly understandable that the English have a long assosiation with them. Well, the same way you reject our proofs about the spanish handing the land to Argentina, I won't believe this other point of view. It could be equally a lie as you claim ours to be. Okay, this is confusing. If the English are claiming the Falklands, in order to negotiate, who should Argentina talk to then? The English or the FIG ? Oops, I dont understand this one... Can you tell me what it means please? We had our settlement that was kicked out by a stronger country. Are you saying that, even in 2004, with a decolonisation comitee watching over us, it is still correct that a military stronger country keeps a land that was stolen from a weaker one? Who says so? We believe it was part of the territory owned by Spain when we were their colony. No, they never gifted us anything, we earned it, along with our independence But it doesnt predates the existence of Spain and their colonies overseas. ----------- It was a difficult task this one, because I've heard about the United Nations on TV but never looked it on the internet. However I've found something: "International Law: The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be "pre-empted." The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees" This article was taken from: www.avizora.com/atajo/informes/usa_textos/0005_costos_invasion_irak.htm Item III - Costs to the World ---------------------- Well Ok, if it is for you, I cant do anything to change your mind. For me, having a corrupted democracy, people starving, huge external debts and high levels of crime, THAT is a failure.....losing a war is just a sad episode, like the whole war itself, I would be hipocryte if I say I dont care we lost it, I do, I would have wanted to win the war and recover the Falklands, but, although that was impossible, I still think it was not a failure. I mean, middle eastern people (not all of them, of course, but many of them, compared to western people, the percentage is amazing) seem not to care too much about giving their lives for a cause they believe must be done. For instance, the hijackers of the planes, that crashed them against the WTC, they knew they were going to die as well, but they went on with the original plan. Why didnt some of these people crashed a couple of bomb cars against Saddam's house if they hated him so much? It's a silly example but you know what I mean, dont you? Saddam wouldnt had been able to stop a massive terrorist attack against him. Okay, gladly you opened a new thread about "the land not the people" so I wont bother you here with this topic, but, according to my crazy argentinean point of view, the UK government shouldnt oblige the FI to be part of a nation they dont want.... When I say "we dont want the people" it doesnt mean we will kick them out of the FI if they're given to us, it means, they can stay there, keep their british citizenship and speak english...Argentina only wants to own the land, to add it as part of the argentine territory, as a new province, and to freely travel there as many times as we want. I really don't see what's so complicated about this... We are not asking for the empty land, we just dont mind what the people living on it, want to do with their lives. Yeah but the big difference is we are not trying to convince Germany to be part of Argentina.....we are claiming a stolen territory, so it's not like we have to WIN them as a prize for being good boys, it's our right to own them... The 1982 government was agressive. This one is anything but agressive. But I think that calling us agressive is a way to close another door to our claim. Is part of the fear that if Argentina actually starts a friendly exchanging with FI, then it will turn the claim stronger, so I understand if you want to call my nation agressive. I think exactly the same about the FI. Okay... my fingers ache of typing, copying and pasting. See you next post Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Oct 14, 2004 6:44:24 GMT -3
Noelia,
I posted this on another Forum so dont take the wording personally but I don't have time to adjust the words just now.
Some true history for you:
The Name Falklands comes from the name given to the Sound between the two Islands in 1690 (Whilst Spain was sleeping) by British Captain Strong after which the name Falkland Islands was applied to the whole of the group.
The French name of Îles Malouines was given to the islands by Frenchman Bougainville on 5 April 1764 when he took possession of the Islands in the name of the French King Louis XV - Malouin being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Malvinas is derived from the French adjective.
So you didn't actually have a name for the Islands yourselves but borrowed the French one.
Nothing wrong with having two names for one place but don't get too superior about the name you use as it came later than the British and the French names.
Malvina was a popular female name once in the Falklands but I guess not since your misjudged invasion.
Just to expand your knowledge a little:
First British Landing and survey in the Falklands 27 January 1690
First British Declaration of Possession by Commodore John Byron 11 January 1765
First Spanish Act of of Possession by Ruis Puente 1 April 1767
First Declaration of Possession on behalf of the United Provinces in South America by the American Pirate Jewitt 6 November 1820.
First Appointment of Governor, Vernet, by Buenos Aires Temporary Delegate Rodriguez 10 June 1829.
Vernet left his post in October 1831 and never returned.
USA destroyed the Settlement at Port Louis on 28 December 1831 and declared the Islands 'free of all government.'
Argentine Republic established 1861
If you can dispute any of these dates I would be very surprised.
So the British claim and settlement preceded both the Spanish and the United Provinces claim.
Some points -
1. Why the necessity for an act of possession in 1820 if you were so sure the Islands were legally inherited from Spain?
2. Why would your act of possession be more valid than the British one in 1765?
3. On the same basis as you declare your act to be valid the British Act of possession must therefore also be valid following the French abandonment as it prededed the Spanish act in 1767.
4. After the American destruction of Port Louis there was no further established, recognised or effective or even basically functioning government in the Falklands until the British reiterated their possession in 1833.
5. If you are convinced that you can legally re-establish possession after a gap of a number of years absence for whatever reason, why can not the same rule apply to the Brtitish?
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 14, 2004 16:47:56 GMT -3
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Oct 15, 2004 7:24:12 GMT -3
Noelia,
Interesting to read and I do read as much as I can about the Argentine point of view. My reading of Spanish is improving all the time.
Hmm. I don't like the 'implants' bit, if we were implants so are you of course.
The main point we disagree on is the sovereignty issue. I cannot on my life understand why Argentina requires sovereignty, this seems to me a very old fashioned and retrograde ambition. Normal relationships, true partnership anthing else you like but why sovereignty? It really puzzles me. To me it is undignified for a nation like Argentina to demean itself by pursuing and harrassing a small nation with intent to extinguish its very existence.
I once said to someone in the early days of the other Forum 'If I agreed to give you sovereignty if it were in my gift as an act of conciliation' (perhaps not those exact words) 'would you then also as an act of conciliation give it back to me, we could then work together as a partnership with neither side being superior to the other'
I think he thought it was an exciting idea but too much to bear and beneath Argentina's dignity to be a partner of such a small nation, or something like that.
You see having an overlord is not acceptable in this day and age but true partnership in my opinion is a possibility where nobody loses face and everyone is a real winner.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Oct 15, 2004 8:58:17 GMT -3
Gabriel,
I had not forgotten your post. Territories annexed as a result of agressive war are not as of right nor automatically legally part of the aggrieved nation. The question would be where would this action stop. 40,000 square miles? A quarter of the defeated offending nation? A half? Or what proportion?
The Saarland for instance was still disputed by Germany and France, and eventually after two agressive wars by Germany the territory was allowed a free choice by the vote of its people (1959 I think). They chose Germany and this was accepted.
The Falklands was the victim of an agressive annexation by Argentina in 1982 (describe it another way if you will). But in my estimation, and I believe ultimately by the UN, it has the right to choose its own fate. Never mind the implant argument which could equally be applied to those who were implanted by Spain on native territory. The Falklands was of course empty territory.
Glass houses? An idiom. Well it in this instance means when you are in the same position yourself be careful with the arguments you throw, they are just as likely to break your own windows as mine.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 15, 2004 14:09:29 GMT -3
Hello Ernie
Unfortunately, I cannot speak for my government, but I am one of those who agree to share sovereignty, with the FIG or the UK govt. So, if you give the sovereignty to me, YES, I would give it back to you, and we could share the territory.
You wrote
To us, it is undignified for a nation like Argentina, being stolen and abused by another nation, and not being able to recover what we think it's ours. It happened to many countries, but unlike them, we're not giving up.
You see this as if we were a spoiled nation wanted to fight for free.... We see this as if an abusive nation like the UK felt they could steal any territory they like, because their army just could do it.
It's difficult to look through another's eyes, but it's very important to do it if we want to understand each other's point of view...
Regards Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Oct 25, 2004 11:22:07 GMT -3
Noelia.
Yeah, i love winter. Give me rain, wind and snow over burning heat any day. Typical North European!
"Correct. Being the population of the FI british, and according to their wishes, they still wanna be, it is perfectly understandable that the English have a long assosiation with them."
No arguments there then. The English/British have been involved with the FI, and have had a claim on them, since before Argentina existed.
"Well, the same way you reject our proofs about the spanish handing the land to Argentina, I won't believe this other point of view. It could be equally a lie as you claim ours to be."
This point of view takes into account the actual facts not wishes.There is no document anywhere that i know of which explicitly says that Spain hands over control of the FI to Argentina. Nothing. There is an interpretation that this happened but no actual proof,treaty,document that i know of. Unlike the the fact that the English were among the first to see, chart, name, claim and settle the FI-that is simply accepted historical fact.
"Okay, this is confusing. If the English are claiming the Falklands, in order to negotiate, who should Argentina talk to then? The English or the FIG ?"
The UK government has said time and time again that soverignty can only be decided by the Islanders.The English claimed the FI in the past. But it is the FI who will decide their future. How is this hard to understand?
"Oops, I dont understand this one... Can you tell me what it means please?"
I meant that Argentina is not involved in most of FI history, which makes the claim seem odd really:obsessing over a territory which your country has had very little actual contact with. England, Spain and France were the involved nations. Much, much later a country which would become known as Argentina became involved in the issue but even then had control of the Islands for less than 10 years. Argentina can claim no rights of sighting, discovery, landing, first settlement, first claim, long term settlement/tenure or treaty/document legitimizing its claim to other involved powers. Nothing other than the assumption that Spain somehow handed contol to Argentina.
"We had our settlement that was kicked out by a stronger country. Are you saying that, even in 2004, with a decolonisation comitee watching over us, it is still correct that a military stronger country keeps a land that was stolen from a weaker one?"
You were kicked out by, essentially, the USA when they levelled the settlement. Then the place was taken over by another power with a previous claim. Is it correct?-its just the way the World worked/works and hopefully Argentina will one day realize this.Right or not its a simple fact and is the foundation for most nation states today. See Israel, USA, Poland, Spain, China, Russia, Argentina, et al. Argentina is not special and will get no special treatment.
"Who says so? We believe it was part of the territory owned by Spain when we were their colony"
An integral part of the Spanish Empire? How many ports were established there by the Spanish? How many towns and citys?How many thousands of troops were based in this integral part, this lynchpin of the Spanish Empire? How many settlers were sent there? How often did the Spanish Kings think and talk about this vital area?How well were they defended? How long was the war by the S American rebels to seize this vital area?
No, the FI were never an integral part of the Spanish Empire, just another area they claimed. Like half of the world. As for being an integral part of Argentina, only psychologically. If they were part of the mainland and extended half way into Patagonia, then that would be integral territory. But some islands hundreds of miles away from the mainland with no substancial history of Argentine involvement are not integral, other than in hearts and minds.
"No, they never gifted us anything, we earned it, along with our independence"
You earned it? From who? Who decides what a nation 'earns' when it becomes independent with a bloody war? No, nothing was 'earned' nor could it be. What territory could be taken away from the Spanish Crown was taken, wrested from them and made a new country.
But of course you use a contradictory argument:
"...the spanish handing the land to Argentina..." "No, they never gifted us anything, we earned it, along with our independence"
So which was it? You can't maintain that Argentina was both given the FI and at the same time Spain never gave you anything. You may well have won your independence but it was won through violence and amounted to taking what you could get from Spain. Nothing more or less.
"But it doesnt predates the existence of Spain and their colonies overseas."
No it doesent but are we dealing with Spain or Argentine here? Argentina. Which is proud of being an independent nation which won its freedom but at the same time seems to rely entirely upon its ex-colonial master to provide it with legitimacy in some of its affairs.
Re: UN Resolution. As far as i can see thats not a UN Resolution forbidding the use of force against Iraq. Its a post war decision that the use of force violated the UN Charter, a very different issue but a serious one none the less. You will not find a UN Resolution forbidding force against Iraq-there wasnt one.How could there be when USA/UK are both veto powers?
Got to go, post more later.
All the best,
Hutch.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Oct 25, 2004 12:43:42 GMT -3
Back again!
".....losing a war is just a sad episode, like the whole war itself, I would be hipocryte if I say I dont care we lost it, I do, I would have wanted to win the war and recover the Falklands, but, although that was impossible, I still think it was not a failure."
The war which Argentina started- +Destroyed any goodwill in the FI towards Argentina +Pushed back the chances of negotiation by decades +Killed off any chance of the UK forceing/bribeing the FI towards Argentina +Made Argentina the aggressor in the worlds eyes +Gives justification for a good sized UK military base in the S Atlantic +Gave an emotive excuse for anti-Argentine forces to deny Argentina any contact with the FI for decades. +Led to hundreds of young Argentines being killed for no reason other than a nationalistic dream
The war was a total failure for Argentina and played right into the hands of the 'Fortress Falklands' faction. Until all who were there when an Argentine military dictatorship launched an unprovoked, unneccessary war have died then relations will always be fractious.It may have made macho sense and given a sense of pride but it was diplomatic suicide.
"Why didnt some of these people crashed a couple of bomb cars against Saddam's house if they hated him so much? It's a silly example but you know what I mean, dont you? Saddam wouldnt had been able to stop a massive terrorist attack against him"
I'm just going to pick up on this point. After 1991's war Saddam knew he was targetted for assasination by CIA, MOSSAD, MI6, those of his own staff who wanted to replace him, his men who wanted a reward from the USA, etc. He survived decades of assassination attempts, open wars and the like, never staying in the same place more than a night. He had no 'house' where car bombers could have struck.No one knew where he was including most of his staff most of the time. The issue is not as simple as you make out as no one knew where to strike even if they evaded his security service to stay alive long enough to do it. If the USA with all their satellites couldnt find him then what chance Islamic terrorists?
I hope that when you get the time you will flesh out your 'just the land, not the people' idea on the other thread i started.
"Yeah but the big difference is we are not trying to convince Germany to be part of Argentina.....we are claiming a stolen territory, so it's not like we have to WIN them as a prize for being good boys, it's our right to own them..."
Why bring in Germany? Yes, you are claiming a territory. And doing nothing to actually achieve this aim and plenty to make it harder to achieve.You do have to 'win' the FI as how else will you get them?You can think its your right to own them all you like but once again you're playing 'I'm The King Of The Moon! Bow Down Before Me!'. No ones listening and no one cares. If you want to 'win' the FI then try and 'win' the Islanders over to your side, rather than play a game on your own.
No one and no organization is ever going to hand the FI to Argentina because she claims they were 'stolen'. Argentina will get no where repeating this claim, but backwards. When Argentina is ready for friendly relations and maybe even open negotiations she will find the UK and FI ready and waiting.
" The 1982 government was agressive. This one is anything but agressive"
Is this government friendly? No. Is this government neutral? No. Therefore... Aggression is not just shown by shooting guns after all.
"Is part of the fear that if Argentina actually starts a friendly exchanging with FI, then it will turn the claim stronger"
The historical claim would have exactly the same strength as before. But a weight of FI wanting closer relations with Argentina would change the relationship.Is Argentina brave enough to take such a dangerous step?or is friendship still below her dignity?Is she so afraid of the fragility of her claim that it will collapse if she shows some kindness?
"...so I understand if you want to call my nation agressive. I think exactly the same about the FI."
Again, how is the FI aggressive to Argentine? 2000 people somehow scare tens of millions?
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 25, 2004 18:37:50 GMT -3
Hello Hutch
You won't believe what this forum program did to me! After I wrote 300 pages copying and pasting and answering your posting, when I clicked "submit" it said it was too long, and erased the whole thing! I have to write it all again....Luckily I had written it in word, so it's just copying and pasting again. Anyway, I was saying that I love hot weather, beaches and sunny days, but here, our beaches are windy and the sea is freezing, even in summer. Luckily I'm travelling to Mexico in january, where you have 30-days sun guaranteed...Mexico has some of the best beaches in the world I think, and the people are amazingly friendly.
Okay here I go again, I'll have to use 2 different postings for this.
Since my answer is related to “the land not the people” issue, I’ll answer this one (and others) in the new thread you opened.
According to you, the US kicked our settlement off the FI. So, what was it? A gift from a son to its mother land? That makes even less sense than our point of view. Our proofs are historical facts as well, but british keep saying historical facts are not important, at least not as important as the islanders’ wishes. Everything seems to be careful prepared for the UK to keep the FI no matter what.
It’s not hard to understand, it’s just that sometimos you make it a little contradictory. Sometimes we’re not discussing about the islander’s rights, but about the rights of the UK.. If the UK is only protecting its colony, why interfere in the negotiations then. The UK should stay quiet and only protect the FI in case dangerous Argentina attacks again....otherwise, let them speak by themselves, I am open to listen to their opinions.
Argentina is very envolved in the FI history. In fact, we are one of the little countries of the world (if not the only one) who keeps claiming the territory. Here, the Malvinas are an important part of our history and every new generation of argentines knows perfectly about them, and is taught to defend our rights to recover them. That is far more than I can say about the british kids, I’d bet new generations have no idea what on earth are the FI, even those whose fathers fought there.
Again, you’re saying that it is correct going to a country, kicking its people out of the territory and claim it as yours? What was wrong with our attempt in 1982 then? We tried to do exactly what you’re saying it’s correct...
So, in order to own a land you MUST set people, cities and ports there?.... Our patagonia was empty for many years during the spanish/italian inmigration but no other country claimed it as its..... I dont see what you mean..
I dont see what is so difficult to understand. How come having a protectorate miles away from England is acceptable for you but the FI being part of Argentina, and previously part of the big colony Argentina and its islands was (from Spain) is not accepted? Something is making no sense here.
** continues below **
|
|