caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Nov 28, 2004 20:12:56 GMT -3
“Si te dicen que yo he muerto, desconfía...!”<br>
We ‘dare’!
Dear friends,
Once again I pleasently take my cyberpen to write you all, regretting not to be able to do it as frequently as I should and would prefer to.
I follow your writings in the free forum regularly (I don’t visit Nora’s propaganda pseudo-forum anymore). I’m appalled at noticing the blind assurance some British members seem to enjoy regarding that nothing will ever happen in the islands, that this status quo cannot and will not be changed. Argentina suffered a set back in 82 and that settles everything, does it not? How would we dare?
We dared expulse you from Buenos Aires in 1806, after your surprise take over. We dared forced your forces –under command of HM “Governor of South America” (a VERY suggestive title...) - to incoditional surrender in 1807. We dared rebelled and won a long continental war to liberate ourselves, Chile and Perú from colonialism, keeping the flame when all other rebellions in the Americas had fallen under the weight of Spanish arms –Mexico, Venezuela and Chile-. We dared proclaim independence in that most terrible moment, not only from the Castillian Crown, but “from any other foreign domination” –meaning YOU-. We dared said “no” to your pretentions in spite of your naval blockades (and overwhelming superiority). We dared not to accept your usurpation of 1833, not even in the moment of our mayor weakness and your bigger power. We dared make you know that “para los argentinos, la Patagonia tiene dueño” –“for Argentineans, Patagonia has an owner”- when you instructed your ambassador in Buenos Aires to get info regarding what would it be our reaction to a disembark in the Patagonian mainland. We dared to rise our voice and influence to block US intentions in the Panama Congress. We dared to rise our voice and press hard enough to compell you (and your accomplices) to stop your brutal bombing of Venezuela and to lift your naval blockade (you are in the habbit of making brutal bombings from time to time – always for a high moral reason, of course-). We dared decided not to send our men to die in your place during your WWII in spite of terrible pressures. We dared to open fire against a vessel of HMG attempting to send a landing party in Antártida Argentina (the only armed incident in the history of the White Continent) whithout the proper and necessary consent of our authorities (you raised back your boats with your people and sailed away). We dared to open fire to the Shackleton mission. We dared to full disobbey the US order for a world grain embargo to the former Soviet Union.
In spite of all the antecedents of being a ‘daring’ nation, you were fully convinced that Argentina would never ‘dare’ to make any attempt to retake what is ours.
¡SURPRISE! (¿?) We ‘dared’ to take the islands. President Ronald Reagan, then the most powerfull man in the world, made a last minute phone call to Buenos Aires to order us not to ‘dare’. Guess what happened? We dared... When you committed the crime of the Belgrano thought that after that stroke we wouldn’t ‘dare’ to fight. Two days latter HMS Sheffield got the massege that we would ‘dare’.
We suffered a serious setback in 82 against you and your ally (your master, nowadays), not basically different to the even more serious and risky defeat of Cancha Rayada: “The Spaniards had not avanced a single step – they are in the same trench”. Thus General Don José Francisco de San Martín – Padre de la Patria y Libertador de América- descrived the Spanish strategical situation after that set back The next act was to be played at “campos de Maypo” (Maipú)...
You feel now very, very happy, believing that nothing can modify your splendid isolation, because – you can bet it- after the ’82 setback, ARGENTINA WILL NOT DARE...
Shhh!... Keep dreaming...
Javier
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Nov 30, 2004 7:43:21 GMT -3
Javier, Who 'dared' on your behalf?
Fascists, Nazis mass murderers. Are you being a propagandist for these regimes that you seem to take pride in?
I actually think that the Argentine people showed much daring when they returned their own country to democracy. Shame that you failed to list this as an achievement worth mentioning.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Nov 30, 2004 8:45:15 GMT -3
My, what a nation of heroes and giants Argentina is.
Nice to see you about Javier. I think that in relation to the 1982 conflict it was not so much a case that it wasnt believed that Argentina would 'dare' to attack but that she wouldnt be so stupid to do so.
We were friends together in a conflict against the USSR and friends besides that. Why would a friend, a strong friend of the USA go to war with another of the USA's friends and a better one at that? It was obvious that the UK would retaliate with force, that she would use her diplomatic power to get the move condemned at the UN and get all her friends on side. Who would support Argentina in what was a brutal military dictatorship invading another nations internationally recognized territory? You had some support. most of it verbal. No, it was not 'they'd never be so brave' but 'they'd never be so stupid'.
I see you claim some exploits that predate the existence of Argentina as a nation as being Argentine. Why? To pad out your history? It doesent need that. After all it wasnt until 1853 that Justo José de Urquiza was appointed as the first President of the Argentine Republic. For the early fighting the UK was not fighting Argentina but the Spanish Empire.
"We dared decided not to send our men to die in your place during your WWII in spite of terrible pressures."
Or was it because a military coup of 1943 was clearly in favour of Germany and Japan?
"We dared to full disobbey the US order for a world grain embargo to the former Soviet Union."
Thus supporting a clear dictatorship and allowing it to endure-how noble. I thought only the USA and UK did that?
The 'crime' of the Belgrano is not recognized as such by anyone really, aside from those whose children were killed on it to satisfy Argentine nationalism. Even the Captain says his ship was a fair target.
You are the one who is dreaming Javier. Dreaming of a glorious 'return' to the FI either given to you by other nations, taken from the FI/UK by force or humbley handed back by UK. You prefer to dream rather than talk and negotiate.Argentina will not dare? Hopefully Argentina will not be so stupid twice and lives can be saved by talk. Get out of the past and into the present if you want to shape the future. Or just go back to making lists-lists of why UK is evil and Argentina the best nation in the world ever, but always beseiged by spies and enemys.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Nov 30, 2004 9:34:33 GMT -3
Hutch ,
You seem to be repeating innacuracies stated by members of another forum. First, Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816, so what Spanish Empire were you fighting in 1833? Very convinient argument, but not true. Second, Argentina did "support" the Axis, as you put it, but also "supported" the Allies, since it was NEUTRAL. Do you understand the word "neutral"? So much England bought from Argentina during WWII that she was very heavily in debt at the end of the war. And John, the "Facists and Nazis" you are referring to were trained by the US and on the CIA payroll. Henry Kissinger is wanted by the justice of several Latin American countries as a direct result of investigations into the dissapearances. Why do you insist on ignoring this facts?
Gabriel
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Nov 30, 2004 13:53:57 GMT -3
Gabriel.
I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth. I never gave any dates for what I was talking about but to be clear- Javier stated two dates which he was implying were notable for the actions which Argentina took: "We dared expulse you from Buenos Aires in 1806, after your surprise take over." "...incoditional surrender in 1807"
By your own hand Argentina did not exist then, so Javier was 'padding' Argentine history with pre Argentina events to try and make a point. Spanish Imperial history?
( i'm not sure off the top of my head so could you please tell me in what year did the land become known as the seperate nation of Argentina? Was it 1816? )
"And John, the "Facists and Nazis" you are referring to were trained by the US and on the CIA payroll."
Will Argentinas past always be blamed on others?Or will we continue to see the same attitudes from Argentina as we saw in France and Germany and the UK/USA post WW2.
To wit: 'No French supported the occupation/Vichy, we were all in the Resistance'
'Most Germans did not support the Nazis, they were an abberation of Germany'
'The UK and USA fought the war single handed and were almost solely responsible for victory'
These attitudes prevailed for decades after the war until they were deconstructed by new generations who challenged the old, comfortable assumptions. And many did not like what the results were, despite their truths.This will happen in Argentina in the coming decades, i have no doubt.
The brutal regimes in S America could not have survived without the support or tolerance of a large number of people in all sections of society. No matter how much foreign aid is poured in, no matter how repressive the state, if there is not significant domestic support then the regimes collapses. See Iran for example. Argentina can not blame others for its past forever but can only mitigate and show the circumstances in context, but at the end of the day was Argentina still not run by Argentines? Many of whom went out to celebrate when the unrepresentative, illegal government pulled on their heart strings by landing troops on the FI?
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Nov 30, 2004 16:00:45 GMT -3
Hi Gabriel, Sorry, you can’t away saying that Argentina, or indeed Brazil was neutral during WWII. Both countries played a very dangerous game indeed. They toyed with the freedom was being so desperately fought for. No such freedoms existed then in S America where, until very recently, the ’strong man’ was admired. Whether that was Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Tsi Tung and more recently tacit support for Saddam, probably because he was diametrically opposed to the US. A bit like Che no doubt!
You not were neutral - you all liked the uniforms too much.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Nov 30, 2004 19:23:23 GMT -3
Hutch,
I am not blaming others for our mistakes. It is you who wrote: "Or was it because a military coup of 1943 was clearly in favour of Germany and Japan?" Peron was a royal jerk, a supreme racist and a formidable two face liar, among his other great attributes. He was only in favor of his own stolen fortune, not Germany, England or even Argentina, contrary to what many of my paisanos would like to believe. But I better stop here. I wouldn't want you to accuse me of blaming him for my own faults. What you wrote "The brutal regimes in S America could not have survived without the support or tolerance of a large number of people in all sections of society." is absolutely true, and it can also be applied to the British Empire. Now you understand why we want you out of the South Atlantic.
Gabriel
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Nov 30, 2004 19:32:30 GMT -3
John,
Mao, Stalin and Saddam? I don't know where you get your information, but I suggest you try another source. Maybe a dictionary with more than 100 words. You know, “Liberal” is not a synonym of “Bolshevik”, and “Neutral” is not the same as “Nazi”, even if the dictionary was printed in London. As far as liking the “strong man”, that practice has been vindicated just a few days ago in the Northern Hemisphere.
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 1, 2004 7:11:52 GMT -3
Gabriel, I simply refer, that until quite recently, S. American presidents had a liking for Jack Boots and be-medalled uniforms. They only differed with Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin and Saddam with style and cut of uniform.
Best wishes, John.
[
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Dec 4, 2004 14:47:15 GMT -3
Dear John,
Your quotes:
“Whether that was Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Tsi Tung and more recently tacit support for Saddam, probably because he was diametrically opposed to the US. A bit like Che no doubt!
You not were neutral - you all liked the uniforms too much.” [END OF QUOTE]
“I simply refer, that until quite recently, S. American presidents had a liking for Jack Boots and be-medalled uniforms. They only differed with Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin and Saddam with style and cut of uniform.” [END OF QUOTE]
Your Churchill used to adress his letters to Mussolini begining thus: “DUCE!” Have you seen any photo of smiling Stalin and Churchill given presents each other (like your King’s stalingrad sword) and spliting the world between themselves? No? What a pity!
I invite you to have a look to a world famous photograph (the original is to be found at the Imperial War Museum) of Theheran conference (november 1943) where your good old Comrade Stalin is seated at left in uniform (with only ONE condecoration), President F. D. Roosevelt is in the middle in a dark, stripped suit and your good old Prime Minister Winston Churchill is in FULL UNIFORM, with PLENTY, plenty condecorations (Sir Antony Eden is behind him)
By the way, I’ve seen many times the Prince of Edinburg in naval uniform. I’ve also seen HM the Queen in uniform (when young) in some military parade (was it not with one of the “Queen’s own” regiments?)
There is surely a strong popular support for the Iraqui people along the world (not with YOUR FORMER GOOD ALLY, Saddam), who is fighting a new war of independence against your brutal aggression. YOU GASSED THEM in the XXth century (Churchill approved that treatment to “natives”) and had used depleted uranium against them nowadays. AND YOU PERSONNALY APPROVE...
But of course, we are the fascist (not you)... RULE BRITANNIA, RULE THE WAVES! HAIL BRITANNIA!
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Dec 4, 2004 14:49:27 GMT -3
Dear Hutch:
Malvinas are not not “another nations internationally recognized territory” (meaning British): not even the USA recognise it as such. ALL latinamerica recognise it as an Argentinean territory.
Your mention to Urquiza as our first president is pathetic. Not only he was not part of our first government (the “Primera Junta de Gobierno”) but not even the first to rule under the title of “president”: Have you ever heard about Bernardino Rivadavia?
NONE OF THE FACTS I MENTIONED PREDATES ARGENTINA AS A NATION, AS YOU SAID.
Your quote:
”Thus supporting a clear dictatorship and allowing it to endure-how noble. I thought only the USA and UK did that?” [end of quote, making reference to the grain embargo)
We didn’t supported anybody. We just refuse to obbey US orders. That is called independence. By the way, maybe you remember you were a close ally of the Soviet Union at the times of good old Stalin. You even split the world between yourselves in Moscow conference, Teheran conference and Yalta. Of course you forgot to ask the world about it: that is widely known as “·devotion to the self determination principle”.
Your quote:
“You prefer to dream rather than talk and negotiate.Argentina will not dare? Hopefully Argentina will not be so stupid twice and lives can be saved by talk. “<br> Hutch, IT IS US who had asked for negociations since your usurpation and ethnic cleansing of 1833. IT IS HMG who refuses: you are “not ready”. That lead to the 1982 battle. You keep refusing any negociation: LIVES CAN BE SAVED BY TALK. SIT DOWN AND NEGOCIATE!
Your quote:
“Many of whom went out to celebrate when the unrepresentative, illegal government pulled on their heart strings by landing troops on the FI?”<br> The landing was supported by ALL the political spectrum, including such people as Arturo Humberto Illia! Do you know why? Because the Malvinas cause is a NATIONAL CAUSE, it is not related to any particular government BUT TO ALL OF THEM AND THE WHOLE NATION.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Dec 4, 2004 14:50:43 GMT -3
GUESS WHO REALLY LOVES JACKBOOTS?
Dear colonialist members,
I see you make mention again to “fascist” and “jackboots”<br> Let’s have a look to who are the real ones:
I suppose you will find the mention to the famine in Ireland (Irish genocyde) as too boring (that famine conveniently affected Catholics and so helped to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland, an incomplete 'cleansing' the GOOD OLD ORDER OF ORANGE SEEMS TO LAMENT), the fate of Acadians 'too old' etc, so I'll keep myself to the XXth and XXIst centuries alone.
First of all, I would like to mention what was not a war: the Bengal famine, where 'about' TWO MILLION PEOPLE were left to die of HUNGER. While that 'happened', British troops and settlers in India were of course not short of food (or whisky), but WHO CARES? Those who died had dark skin... We can also speak about the brutal Biafra War (with children with inflated bellies), where British oil interests weighted so much... Nice, isn't it?
But let's go to a surely incomplete list of conflicts in which Britain fought from XXth Century on:
1. Smashing of the 'Boxers' in Peking, 1900 [ahh, self determination!]. 2. Bombing of Venezuela (1902) 3. Boer War (35000 dead) and Boer genocide by the good old butcher Lord Kirtchener of Khartoum 1899-1902 (28000 civilians, mostly women and children, died in that very British invention: concentration camps). 4. Invasion of Tibet, 1904 [ahh, self determination!]. 5. IWW: about 8 650 000 dead. 6. Irish Rebellion (1919-1923) [ahh, self determination!]. 7. Smashing of the Transvaal rebellion (1914-1915) [ahh, self determination!] 8. 'Amritsar's bloodbath' (1919) [ahh, self determination!]. 9. Intervention in the Russian Civil War [ahh, self determination!] 10. Smashing of Moplah (1921) [ahh, self determination!]. 11. Shanghai, 1925 [ahh, self determination!]. 12. IIWW: about 55 000 000 dead 13. Invassion of Persia -nowadays Iran-, (1941) 14. Irak Rebellion (1943). 15. India (1945-47) 16. Palestine (1945-48) 17. Arabia (1948-59) 18. Aquaba (1949) 19. Malaya (1948-60) 20. Korea (1950-53) 21. Kenya's Mau Mau Rebellion (1952-60). 22. Egypt (1956) 23. Cyprus (1955-59) 24. Aden (1955-67) 25. Radfan (1955-67) 26. Hong Kong (1956, 1966 & 1967) 27. Vietnam (1962-75) 28. Borneo (1962-66) 29. N. Ireland (1969 - today) 30. Oman Dhofar (1969-76) 31. Malvinas (1982) 32. Gulf War (1991) 33. Bombings of Irak (1991- 2003) 34. Yugoslavia (1999) 35. Sierra Leona (2000) 36. Afghanistan (2001- today) 37. Irak (2003 –today)
In the same time lapse, Argentina occupied the islands usurped to her by far away Britain WITHOUT KILLING ANYBODY. Britain choose force (that’s the true reason of the Belgrano crime) and a battle followed, where we DEFEND ourselves and our territory, a battle that we unfortunately lost.
Please note that while we had that only armed conflict in our OWN territory, Britain fought at least THIRTY SEVEN, from Tibet and Shanghai to Persia and Venezuela! Can be any doubt of who makes of war and sacking a means of life? Why cannot we pretend to retake what was taken to us by such a coloNal power? Why should we renounce to what is ours?
WHO ARE THE REAL NAZIS, MASS MURDERS AND JACKBOOT LOVERS? Not only HMG is to blame. Please note that our common friend John fully supports the present colonial war at Irak.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Dec 4, 2004 14:54:41 GMT -3
Dear all,
Have you noticed that my original posting was not really been answered? No mention by our pro British members about the core of my message.
“There is not worse blind that he who doesn’t want to see...”<br> best - Javier
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 5, 2004 8:04:06 GMT -3
Javier, Again, you are ornamenting history. Perhaps, because in 1943 at the Tehran Conference, we were plotting to over throw your fascist allies?
I wore my medals quite recently on a civilian suit, though the Royals wore uniform. They like me all served in the military and are entitled to wear medals that they earned in service of their country. They like me, do not run the country though - we leave that to the civilians WHO WE VOTE for.
The Iraqis will do the same come next month. Everyone will have the vote, even the so called insurgents - if they so wish.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Dec 5, 2004 15:50:11 GMT -3
John,
I perceive the difference. Uniforms, medals and jackboots by British means democracy, by non British, fascism.
War of aggressions by the British, "fight for freedom", by non British "Crimes against peace".
Use of radiactive weapons against civilians by the British is ' limited and responsible', by others an irresponsible and horrendous crime.
The blitz on London a war crime, the phosporus bombing of Hamburg 'the unpleasent and unavoidable" side of war.
Bombing of civilians by the British, "collateral damage" by any other one (except your allies, of course) crime against mankind.
The list is long...
|
|