|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 21, 2004 6:29:18 GMT -3
Otto, The protesters represented a wide range of the British public, no doubt about that. What they did not represent was an overthrow of our political constitution.
Over 300 democratically elected MP’s from all political parties made our representations lawfully in Parliament. They voted for the troops to be sent into Iraq. Equally, they could have voted the opposite.
No there were no demonstrations for the ‘pro war’ lobby. No such thing exists, only general public opinion that is exercised through the ballot box. You must understand that not everyone belongs to the Socialist Workers Party, or the Muslim Party of Britain. We are a very diverse country, but one not governed by mob rule. No myth at all about the ‘silent majority’. They were the 59 million you never seen on your TV.
May I also say that we had very strong anti-war demonstrations in 1982 while thousands of Argentines filled the plaza in BA to celebrate the invasion.
Best wishes, John
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 21, 2004 6:57:28 GMT -3
Hello John:
The same distortion plagues all democratic governments; there is no such thing as democracy, just a blank check that is passed from time to time. Once elected the “representants” do as they wish, with no shame at all if their decisions are reflecting or not the ones who elected them.
Nevertheless, there is a way out for some difficult decisions. Your PM could have asked for a referendum regarding the war in Iraq. Why he did not do so? Because he knew the obvious result. He chose to do it as a support to US, not as something he was sure was the general opinion.
What do you think the majority of the British public would choose?
What happened in Spain was a correction of this distortion.
Regarding your observation of the celebration done in Buenos Aires; it was a celebration of a recuperation of part of its own territory without anyone being killed. Something quite different from your “Gotcha” when Belgrano was sink, no?
Saludos amigos, Maquilishuat
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 21, 2004 9:19:13 GMT -3
Otto, Sorry that we are crossing swords, but let’s deal directly with the cause and effect of our national decisions and the wider international scene when these decisions are made.
Writing ‘Blank Cheques’, as you say is not how the government works - at least here. The parliamentary vote which I mentioned earlier would have brought the Blair government down if it had went the other way. That would have resulted in the government in losing confidence of the public. They would have had to go. So consequently Blair put his political life on that vote hoping that all the polls were correct: 60% against the 40% that did not wish British troops on the ground in Iraq. Referendum was considered but decided against by the majority of MP’s. I believe it was only the Liberal Party that who supported the idea of referendum. In any event Referendum is only usually considered where a majority Parliamentary vote is split or where constitutional change on a national level is to be considered. The example here would be the UK changing its money standard from pounds to the Euro, which might happen after the next general election.
Of course the Madrid bombing changed a government in Spain and allowed in an anti-coalition government. No matter what the Spanish people think of this, Al Qaeda viewed this as a distinct operational victory over a democratic country, vindicating the slaughter of so many innocents. Al Qaeda, in all their propaganda, believes the western democracies to be weak. They draw their strength from our weakness and thus insured that further Madrid’s will no doubt happen again. You may know that since the Madrid bombings ETA have once more started their own bombing campaign. You need to ask yourself why?
My observation of the celebration in BA on April 2 1982 matters little to me, if I be really honest. That was a matter for those who days before were protesting in the same place at the excesses of Junta and the 30.000 who they slaughtered. The Junta, like Al Qaeda in so many respects, played to the extreme fears and nationalisms. They, like Al Qaeda ultimately fear anyone with a vote. I also note from your comments that you supported the invasion. Now at least I can better understand your position in my future comments to you. You make your position clear. Also, you mention the Sun with that disgusting headline, “Gotcha” Like so many other ridiculous comments that excuse for a newspaper has made….
….I might mention also La Prenza who reported HMS Hermes and Invincible being sunk almost an a daily basis. Nothing but unintelligent hype for the masses who they think believe every word they write.
Otto, what ever side of the opinion divide we come from one thing is crystal clear to me. To do nothing today just sends a signal to those who think nothing of mass slaughter.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 21, 2004 12:03:11 GMT -3
Hello John:
It is always interesting exchanging opinions with you; having different views enriches our own understanding of the complex world we live in.
I disagree with the effect on your type of government a screaming mass of people would have. It was a formidable protest, and it seems that it was done to deafh ears. When was a protest in your country so wide spread? The lack of reaction from your politicians (UK is not alone) reassures my view of a blank check. Even after the reasons to wage this war were discovered to be lies nobody in your government fell. I remember the fallacy of your PM stating he would not apologize for ousting Saddam. Nobody would ask him to do that; the apologize should come from the lies he stated and that were spread by the media. It is quite easy to state this type of reasoning after everything you said before was incorrect (48 hours, remember?).
The lack of a honest reaction from your politicians is shameful (again, UK is not alone on this). This is how democracy does not work; it serves interests. Democracy is just a word, an idea that comes and go and the ones with power abuse. A referendum like the one you are saying, would be a honest approach to silence the protests, not a simple vote from people who were not elected with this type of problem was alive. They should have been humble enough to realize that when they were elected nothing that ressembles a war was at stake, so they could not reflect the public intentions.
About the invasion. I am a pacifist, no doubt about it. The invasion, though done by a non representative junta (which was brought there with lots of help from abroad) was a mistake. A little more of preparation, a bit more of diplomacy and the archipelago would be firm in the Argentina control. I do believe these islands belong to Argentina, and I have stated here (and in the other biased forum) many times that the moment to negotiate is now. The future could bring a no so good surprise to UK and to the Islanders, sorry to say that.
The "Gotcha" was a shame and sad attitude.
You state that doing nothing is a mistake, that we have to do something to prevent whatever you see as a threat. Who gave you the right to interfere in other people lives and in other governments? There is no right only migth, and this poses a serious problem. If someone else has the migth to subdue UK they would feel free to do so, because of the same reasons you use. The "good reasons" the "good faith" could be used by anyone who has the power to do. Can you imagine your beloved country being bombed, and afterwards someone stating in the TV "I do not apologize to oust XXX"? That would be all, no more regrets, no nothing. Can you imagine your beloved friends being called thugs and terrorists just for trying to ger rid your cities of an invader? Can you imagine this same invader telling, after one hundred thousand deaths, that your country is a better place now?
There are o good intentions in a war waged out of your own country.
Saludos amigos, Otto
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 21, 2004 13:08:38 GMT -3
Otto, Well, we are going to continue to disagree as often is the case in our exchanges. This I could put down to perceptions on your part with the full knowledge that my country is fully engaged in the war against terror, while your country is not.
Democracy can never be perfect because it is something that happens in real time. If you have another system more utopian or if your country exercises democracy better then please let me know.
I don’t consider myself to be pacifist, (Perhaps in my next life I’ll wear the saffron robe and practice this as a belief?) No, I’m more of a humanist, because I know how vulnerable most of us are. If we are not dying of obesity, as here in the west, or not dying of hunger, AIDS, malaria, genocide then we are being targeted by some extreme group to die for their cause and their God who is generally a saviour from AIDS, hunger, genocide and the wicked fat west who steals the food from their mouths. That’s not empowerment of course – simply that is being used through the mechanics of fear.
Come mid January the Iraqi people, all of them, will for the first time decades be able to dictate themselves the government of their choice. When this happens then we will have a decent discussion on the policy of UN inaction as opposed to a coalition intervention.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 21, 2004 13:34:11 GMT -3
Otto.
'All it takes for evil to happen is that good men do nothing'
We've all heard that phrase i'm sure and your point that ' Who gave you the right to interfere in other people lives and in other governments?' serves to underline it. If your stance was replicated then there would be no famine relief for Africa, no peacekeeping troops in trouble spots, no protests when any nations government kills scores, hundreds, thousands or even millions of its own people. Ethnic cleansing and genocide would run free all under the covers of 'national soverignty' or 'internal affairs'.
The world has tried that system-it resulted in dictatorships all over the world, right and left wing being ignored and supported. In the Cold War the West supported brutal dictatorships to keep the world free of the Communists. Claims that we shouldnt support these nations and their leaders were dismissed with talk of it being an internal affair for their own people and governments, none of our business. The results? Millions dead, the war 'won' and the clean up may take centurys.
In a perfect world nations wouldnt get involved with other nations affairs-but this world isnt perfect and sometimes force is neccessary.Force against foreign nations. For your protection, others protection or the betterment of that nation. Force used to show that some things are just unacceptable. Are the nations dispensing this pure? No. Is this a good idea? Not really no. But Kurds needed it in Iraq, Jews needed it in Nazi Germany and others have needed and still do need it around the globe.
What gives the right? Well, sheer power for one. Couple that with things which clearly should not be tolerated, the powerful nation being 'better' (ie: today this means democratic, free press, etc) and thats what gives the right. Right? No its not a right. But it can be used for right.
Let me ask you straight out Otto-would you let the gas chambers/death camps/extermination keep running in Nazi Germany? Would you ignore the gassing of Halabja by Saddam? Would you ignore the Serb militarys actions in Kosovo? Or the actions of various sides in the Balkans in the early 1990's? Would you think that the suffering of Tibetans is none of your business? Do you ignore what the Janjaweed Militia are doing in the Sudan. Would you ignore Mussolini using Mustard Gas in Abyssinia? Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses? Because these will/would all be ignored if someone else didnt/doesent/should have stood up and said-'This is wrong. It is clearly and plainly wrong and i will try to stop it, using violence if i have to'.
Whilst doing something is often a mistake doing nothing is always a mistake. Several nations already have the might to subdue the UK. Or obliterate us entirely. Yet they dont. Why? Because we too are powerfull? Or because we have too many friends? Or because we havent done anything that many consider, deep down, to make us worthy of such action? Who knows? But if we were invaded and my beloved friends were out beheading aid workers, killing journalists, stirring up religous and civil war, shooting fellow Britishers who wanted to organize an election, setting off bombs all over the place they would be no friends of mine.
The 100,000 deaths figure is not a 'real' figure by the way. It is an extrapolation based on interviews with, i believe, around 60 familys in Iraq. The report was conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine i think, i dont have the details to hand, but its essentially an educated guess.
What kind of country do you think Iraq was before the war Otto? Do you think-as some seem to, im not saying you- that it was a land of peace and plenty, full of the mystery of Arabian Nights and happy people? Because it wasnt. It was a terrible, brutal dictatorship which was run by a man who gassed his own people and had thousands upon thousands killed-much more than the Coalition forces have killed even if 100,000 was correct. Although it is suffering now, Iraq has the chance to be a better place in the future. Not pretty or neat but an opportunity certainly. The old argument about being alive and in chains or dead and free perhaps?
'There are no good intentions in a war waged out of your own country.'
How about freeing (a) people from the rule of a brutal dictatorship? Or should everyone just mind their own business and ignore the screams and pleas?
Re: The Falklands, yes bring on the negotiations. Nobody wants an armed conflict again. But either way, Argentina will have to modify or break its Constitution-be prepared to enter open and honest negotiation or resort to force, both being forbidden under the current Constitution. Hopefully the former will be 'broken' or amended.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Dec 21, 2004 15:34:27 GMT -3
Hutch,
I think I speak for everyone in this forum when I say: Thanks! Thank you for saving mankind. Thank you for not allowing me to think for myself, and above all else, thank you from preventing me and the rest of the second class inhabitants of YOUR planet from committing the sin of wanting to share the wealth and resources the gods gave to you. And please keep protecting us from ourselves. Do not allow us to convince you about the relationship between peace and justice. Many of you are already starting to question your governments involvement in Iraq, contrary to John's assertions. This can't be allowed to continue. What would mankind do without your guidance? Hutch, owning the truth makes you right, but also give you obligations. Never give up Gibraltar, South African diamonds, Malvinas foot step to future South American exploitation and Iraq's oil. 1% of the inhabitants of this planet own 99% of it's wealth. But that's OK, this is the price we must pay for your "protection". We do not need to understand. Keep up the good work.
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Dec 21, 2004 17:08:40 GMT -3
Hello Gabriel
You know, somehow it's our fault. As long as they have the military power, they rule. Look how Britain didnt dare to keep hong kong from china... To set a stupid example...If Argentina had the military power china has, and we would ask the UK government to return the islands back to us, I bet my life they would do so, without giving a sh.. about the islanders. It's too hypocrite to actually believe they are protecting their wishes, Blair is protecting the territory, it must be important for something, who knows, oil, or it could be a good strategy location, I dont know. And, in order to hide all this, they go on speaking of freedom and rights (stupidity that people still believe) and they all fall for it. Here we'll always be separated by our nationalities, which is normal, and correct, because I won't allow any insults to my country the same way british shouldnt allow any to their. But you can be openminded and accept mistakes without making it insulting. I accept we have made some mistakes, I accept we should negotiate, and I accept the rights of the Falkland people to live in the same territory they have lived. Now, does anyone in the british side accept the rights of Argentina or is it just us who have to give up?
Regards Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Dec 21, 2004 18:30:33 GMT -3
Hola Noelia: "They" have answered your question many times. If we start negotiating by saying the islands already belong to us, then what is there to negotiate? On the other hand, if we allow them to use the islanders "wishes" as a third party, then what is there for us to negotiate? We remain in a Catch 22 situation, which is what they want. They know that we will never renounce to our claim and they don't care. As a matter of fact, they are milking the situation, same as our politicians. The status quo is beneficial to both parties, and this is the reason it is allowed to exist. The best thing for us to do is nothing. Just sit and wait for South American unification. Time is on our side. We are a long way from comparing ourselves to China. China is a unified force, we are not. Our presidents still allow bussinessmen to dictate the rules, instead of answering to a higher call. King Nestor didn't bother to go to Peru, you know, he is very busy... , and at the moment we seem to be having a cat fight with Brasil over tariffs (wasn't Mercosur created for the purpose to deal with this?). Sorry for the frustration attack, I made the mistake of reading La Nacion today Un abrazo, Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 22, 2004 1:52:02 GMT -3
Hello Gabriel:
I was preparing a lenghty answer for both Hutch and John, but you have done in a few good words!
Anyway, Hutch's answer was so full of fallacies that I could not choose which absurd to addess first.
So the first world countries are after a just and fair world order, no? Talking about utopias... Am I the only one who sees the word OIL in this sad war?
Saludos amigos, Otto
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 22, 2004 5:46:22 GMT -3
Hello Hutch:
You wrote:
'All it takes for evil to happen is that good men do nothing'
We've all heard that phrase i'm sure and your point that ' Who gave you the right to interfere in other people lives and in other governments?' serves to underline it. If your stance was replicated then there would be no famine relief for Africa, no peacekeeping troops in trouble spots, no protests when any nations government kills scores, hundreds, thousands or even millions of its own people. Ethnic cleansing and genocide would run free all under the covers of 'national soverignty' or 'internal affairs'.
If I understood you correctly your country runs a type of World Justice Department that trials, condemns and executes everything according to your principles and your points of view. Let us take a close look on that.
Who put dictators in third world countries? Who has done that interested just on the countries resources? Take Iran, for example. A democratic elected government was thrown up and what? Of course it was nobody’s business, just your business. Take Brazil. A democratic elected government ousted while a fleet of several warships were in our coasts, just for the case, you know. It seems now that the private sector is also interested on this type of business, Thatcher’s son tried to do something in Africa, no? Was everything for the good cause against some evildoers? Are you naïve? So you decide what is good, the morale and so on. If it just happen to be some business interests going on it is a coincidence, nothing more, correct?
Now you bring the holocaust into question. I do not have the information, but it seems that nothing was done during the war against this absurd. It was discovered after the war. So you may skip this subject from the reasons why you were engaged on WWII. Now your straight question about the gas chambers can be brought to the right perspective, and the fallacy behind it, no?
Then you provide some examples of war crimes, plenty of them. What about the depleted uranium being used NOW in Iraq? Crimes are crimes, no matter who perpetrate them.
The convenience you use, what a joke. Elections in Iraq? Do you know that the Soviets tried the same in Afghanistan? What was the result? You elected the Mujaheedin as freedom champions, the same ones that now are a kind of a headache, no?
What was Iraq before you bombed it to a pre-industrial level? Well, we all know, it was governed by someone you put up there. Remember the Iraq-Iran war and who you supported?
OK, no negotiations over the dispute. Probably you think Argentina should accept this forever. I see things differently, anyway. But probably it is too much for those who think that they run a World Justice Department.
So you do not trust your own New England Journal of Medicine. But we may trust your reasoning, of course.
Saludos cordiales, Maquilishuat
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 22, 2004 6:17:17 GMT -3
All.
I havent got time to answer properly now-too much work, but thanks for the replys and the moral outrage. I think that the point of what I was saying has been missed and other areas which I was not talking about have been dragged in, ie: oil, antiglobalisation,etc. I'm not saying theyre not connected to it but they were not was i was talking about.
I didnt say that we ran a world justice association, or that the UK was a pure and noble nation. I was making a general point about the use and abuse of power and the consequences of not using that power.
The main thrust of the post though was this and it was not answered, instead it was avoided, dodged, other points were brought in, crude sarcasm was used- if you see a government persecuting its people to a terrible degree should you step in and do something if you can, using force where neccessary? Or should you ignore it as it is not your nation, therefore none of your business?
Take this as a general moral point, not an argument about whether to get involved in an oil/resource war, like the one in Iraq. A general moral question about whether a nation should use force.
Re: Argentians cliam. As i have said elsewhere i think that i (and others) need to see Argentinas claim laid out properly and clearly once and for all. I've heard 6 different arguments from 6 different people at 6 different times so im a little confused.
"OK, no negotiations over the dispute. Probably you think Argentina should accept this forever..."
No, as i have said, i think Argentina-if it actually wants negotiations, not just a handy population distraction measure- should want to come to the negotiating table with an open mind, behave like a decent neighbour to the Falklands and get to know the people who have lived there in peace for nearly 200 years. Follow Spains current example for instance instead of letting macho pride get in the way.
Best to all,
Hutch
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 22, 2004 10:12:59 GMT -3
My mistake, it was The Lancet. Heres an extract from the introduction-
Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6 months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.
Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.
Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.
I can't post too much because of copyright laws but its on The Lancets website. Its not a case of not trusting it but its just an educated guess backed up with random samples, not a definitive figure. You dont have to trust my reasoning no. I never said you did but i do offer another point of view.
Hutch
ps-New England Journal of Medicine is an American not a British periodical
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 22, 2004 11:42:35 GMT -3
Back again! Work really does seem to come in swings and roundabouts, never know whats going on. Anyway, before i post a quick message, Merry Christmas to you all! Hope you have a good one with family and/or friends.
I realize that i probably come across to some as an unreconstructed, white, middle class, Western, 1st World proto imperialist. And though theres no doubt some truth to that its not all true. Circumstances and history influence ones world view, and all of ours are consequences of our environment and education. What matters is that one is aware of this and try to explain ourselves clearly. I know i fail in this sometimes.
Gabriel- No thanks are neccessary, you're welcome. Likewise i wont thank you for going off on a self rightous tangent instead of responding to my post to Otto. The fact of the matter is, that some people do need protecting-not from themselves but their own governments. Governments often act badly and sometimes evily and i happen to believe that when something can be done, it should be. The UN believe something somewhat similar.
Now would you care to put aside your points and answer a question I asked-"Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses?" If you believe that nothing would give any nation the right to judge and intefere in Argentinas domestic affairs, thats ok. But if you believe that such actions should be stopped then you believe in foreign military intervention in a nations internal matters under certain circumstances. A yes or no will do.
You're right about the Catch 22. Clause 3 in the Argentine Constitution effectively means it would be illegal for Argentina to take part in open negotiations about the future of the FI as the outcome of said negotiations is prejudiced and Argentina can only accept one outcome. The UK/FI would and could not enter negotiations with a party which has already determined under its domestic law what the only outcome can be as it is pointless.
Sit and wait for S.American unification?Rather than try and make it happen? We've been waiting in Europe for century's and it only happens under the sword it seems before, but the EU may be slowly getting there . Time is on your side? Dont be so sure. It could mean that Argentina ends up trying to get back a territory it hasnt run for 300, 400, 600 years at some point in the future. That would be only slightly less time than Argentina herself has existed and even harder to justify.
Noelia- The UK handed Hong Kong over to China because China is powerfull, militarily strong, growing in economic strength and we had an agreement to hand HK over to them-all things missing from Argentina at present, yes. Thats why it was handed over briefly, but the main element was the agreement to hand over after the lease was up. And HK wasnt just handed over-it has certian guarantees from Beijing regarding local democracy as its a Special Administrative Region (for what they're worth). The UK ensured that when we left there was more democracy in HK than the rest of China for a minimum of 50 years. HK is a democratic thorn in the side of Red China and it already defies Beijing on some issues. Perhaps it can 'contaminate' the mainland with the thirst for a say in politics? Or perhaps it will be cruched by the Peoples Security Services.
I have asked to see Argentinas 'rights' several times and repeat this again, as part of my wanting to see the entire Argentine argument laid out clearly. Maybe its been posted elsewhere on the site and ive missed it?
Maquilishuat- I'm afraid you didnt understand me correctly, but that may be due to a lack of clarity on my behlaf. I thought i'd made it clear that the UK is not pure and noble. But that 'World Justice Department' already exists and Argentina is a part of it. Its called the United Nations. You know-it judges nations, sends troops to Peacekeep, accuses people of crimes and trys to arrest them to put them on trial, send them to prison, kills people, etc. Its imperfect and corrupt but its the closest we've got yet to your WJD.
But will you answer my questions? I'll narrow it down to one like with Gabriel-"Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses?"
I'm not naive enough to believe it was all done out of the goodness of our hearts but there are other ways of doing things. If we really wanted Iraqs oil to flow and that was the most important thing, what would have been the most intelligent thing to do? Make a deal with Saddam or his sons. He/they stay in power as long as the oil flows out. Cheap, if not free to arrange and Saddams the USAs guy again in power until he dies.
And yet he was toppled, costing the USA alone over 1000 deaths, $200 billion and much political emnity, with the essential collapse ofn Iraqs oil producing capacity. Does the idea of deposing a dictator offend you that much?There are usually multiple reasons for why nations take actions and yes, they are often motivated by greed-but there can be good consequences of these actions, which is what your viewpoint of isolationism misses and actually works against .
I never said we fought WW2 to stop the Holocaust, i was asking you if you would have taken action to stop it or whether you would have hid from it?
DU shells are effective but very dubious, yes. Have they been declared illegal weapons? Its odd really-they kill the enemy soldiers fast and enemy civilians slowly.
So look at what i'm saying-i happen to believe that the stance which says "Who gives you the right to interfere in other people lives and in other governments?" is a way of hiding from things and tacitly encouraging nations to act however they want in their own borders with no fear of consequences.
Forget Iraq, et al, for the moment and see if you can answer my question "Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses?" for thats the crux of my argument i suppose.
Best to all and seasons greetings,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Dec 22, 2004 12:44:46 GMT -3
Noelia/Gabriel, (et al)
First, Happy Christmas and New Year Greetings to everyone. (My Grandchildren have already exhausted most of my energy!) I hope you all have a prosperous and healthy New Year.
Noelia, I do see things from your point of view even if with a very different perspective. Argentina has its claim to the Falklands written into its present constitution so it seems to be illegal for it to negotiate any other solution other than a Falklands/British surrender. Ireland, for instance removed a similar part of its constitution, to facilitate a peace settlement for Northern Ireland. This slow business is still proceeding and will succeed, but all these things take time and are not instant. On the other hand there is no recognition from your side that the UN Charter and resolutions actually give the Falklands the right to choose its own future. This is lost in Argentina's spin and propaganda.
Hong Kong like Gibraltar are different to the Falklands. They are both subject to previous Agreements. In the case of Gibraltar it looks like three party talks between equals are to take place. (A good example of pragmatism and realism as opposed to nationalistic fervour). Most of Hong Kong (The New Territories) was due to be returned to China by Treaty in 1999. The two parts were apparently so intertwined commercially and infrastructurewise that it would have been very difficult to separate the two. China apparently was not at all keen to have Hong Kong back at the time because of the variance in cultures so a friendly deal was agreed. British commercial interests as a result have expanded and prospered both in Hong Kong and China to mutual benefit. Your own unfriendly (national) attitude is in stark comparison to this.
Hutch, From the British side it is fully in compliance with the UN in its treatment of a possible future for the Falklands. It does and can talk to Argentina about all Falklands matters that Argentina is prepared to talk about in the way of cooperation and development and will talk about any matter including relationships to solve the Sovereignty claim other than talking about handing the Islands and Islanders over to you a foreign power unfriendly to them. The UN calls for a solution to the disputed claim, it does not call for a surrender to your point of view.
In general Argentina's view of negotiation is incompatible with the UN request for a solution because it displays and allows for only one outcome. Therefore there is nothing at present to talk about.
To quote a saying used in this Forum and others, a journey begins with the first step. Unfortunately your country wishes to complete the journey without taking any steps at all and with complete disregard for the wishes of its possible fellow travellers. Even if you only give this a passing thought it is a completely unacceptable and arrogant way to proceed on any journey if one wishes it to be a peaceful and productive passage.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|