Things are much better now!

[caton]

Dear members,


Happy new year!

I include an article by the British press (any other one is of course guilty of anti British bashing)

Hutch, your quote:

“We know what was in Iraq in the past-a violent dictatorship of a minority over a majority which shot, raped and gassed its own population while its rulers lived in luxury, having previously been supported by the West”<br>
Please read the article and you will note that they are better now: they are bombed, shot, ‘baptized’ with depleted uranium and RAPED, but by foreigners like the valiant soldiers of Her Majesty Government. Oh, yes, I know that there are still no news about gassing, but don’t lose your hopes and give your soldiers some extra time..

I suppose Jhon keeps seeing “ordinary people taking control of their destinies”. How nice...


By the way, how many children has HMG killed today?

Best – Javier


PS to MCO boy: 1) What does MCO mean? 2) It isn’t strange that you “desire the right” in that design of yours. Of course, you DESIRE what you DO NOT have. Right is absent in your usurpation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

'Britain's Abu Ghraib': troops face torture evidence in courts martial
By Tony Paterson in Berlin
10 January 2005
Photographs of British troops allegedly torturing Iraqi prisoners and forcing them to perform sexual acts will serve as key and potentially d**ning evidence in the courts martial of four soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers which open in Germany today.
The four are charged with assault and indecent assault for alleged incidents at a warehouse in Iraq in 2003 which have been described as "Britain's Abu Ghraib". They face imprisonment and dismissal from the armed forces if convicted.
Fusilier Gary Bartlam, 19, will be court-martialled at the regiment's base at Hohne, about 30 miles north-east of Hanover, today. The courts martial of Corporal Daniel Kenyon and Lance Corporals Darren Larkin and Mark Cooley will follow at Osnabrück on Wednesday.
Fusilier Bartlam, from Dordon in Warwickshire, was arrested in Britain in summer 2003. Staff at a photographic store in Staffordshire tipped off police after they were disturbed by so-called "trophy snaps" of the soldier's time in Iraq that he had asked them to develop.
The 25 pictures are reported to show one soldier standing on an Iraqi prisoner who appears to be lying in a pool of blood. Another allegedly shows a gagged Iraqi hanging from the arms of a fork-lift truck controlled by a grinning British soldier. The prisoner is cut down and shown falling heavily. Others are reported to show a soldier preparing to kick the head of an Iraqi lying on the ground. Others are alleged to show Iraqis being forced to perform sexual acts with each other and on a soldier.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed that the photos would be used as evidence but it was not clear whether they would be released for publication.
The MoD has banned photographers from attending this week's courts martial. "There is a long-standing ban on photography or filming around military courts," the ministry said.
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed last year that 75 investigations had been launched into allegations of soldiers' mistreatment of Iraqis. Thirty-six cases involved the deaths of prisoners. They include the cases of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist who died of injuries after being arrested by soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and that of Abd al-Jubba Mousa, 53, a head teacher in Basra who died after he was allegedly beaten with rifle butts by Black Watch soldiers in May 2003.
A Red Cross investigation at the same time showed there had been "systematic abuse" of prisoners and revealed that British soldiers had stamped on the neck of a man who died in their custody. MPs have criticised the Government for the "extensive delays in investigating allegations of abuse, brutality and humiliation".
The only published pictures purporting to show British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners were printed by the Daily Mirror last year. They turned out to be fakes.

[caton]

Ooops!

The article belonged to The Independent!

J

[Hutch]

Happy New Year to you Javier,

I hope you didnt spend too much of the Christmas period reading British newspapers and British history.

I've read the article, its carried in several newspapers over here. Disgracefull stuff which should not have happened.

But you know what the significant thing is? These soldiers were arrested, are being tried and may very well go to prison for their crimes if found guilty. That didnt happen under Saddam did it? Yes, crimes have been committed but those responsible are being publicaly tried for it which was rather rare in pre war Iraq.Public justice is being done on the abusers, who committed their crimes in a nation long used to secret trials and executions. Hardly an example of a ruthless, evil occupying power is it?

Did i say that things were better? No. I said that they have a chance to get better and they do-a real chance now that they are not ruled by a dictator, whose right to rule his people as he sees fit is something you seem to defend.

Gassing? What gassing? You mean the gassings that Saddams regime did in the past?And will never be able to do again

How many children has HMG killed today? I've no idea. How many has it saved? I've no idea of that either. Neither do you of course but it was a rhetorical question wasnt it?

And Javier, youre the one who 'desires' what he does not have-the Falklands or any sign that you will ever have them. How frustrating it must be for you. Despite all the 'support' Argentina has, all the bits of paper signed by your nations friends saying they support you, all the declarations from your supporters, all your diplomatic power the Falklands are as far away from Argentine soverignty as ever. Have you ever stopped to think why? Or is it too easy to lay the blame on others and look to the past? Have you ever thought that Argentianas policy is fatally flawed? A policy of confrontation has brought Argentina nothing but failure.

But of course the Argentine state isnt actually serious about getting the FI. It is was, if the FI were truely an indivisible, vital, integral part of Argentina then she would actually do something about it. Like make it an important part of her foreign policy rather than a once a year statement, some low level talk at the UN and general bullying of the Islanders. But no-successive Argentine governments are happy to use the FI as a shiny coin with which to distract the electorate and show patriotic credentials. Beat the drum now and again and thats it. If they can get the FI then great- but they risk nothing, make no attempt to negotiate and expend no real effort on the issue.

Perhaps if the Argentine government took the claim seriously the UK would.

All the best.

Hutch

[caton]

Dear Hutch,

Your quote:
“How many children has HMG killed today? I've no idea. How many has it saved? I've no idea of that either. Neither do you of course but it was a rhetorical question wasnt it?”<br>
How many have you saved? None. You carry war to them, you killed or mutilated them, or their parents, destroyed their houses, the water supply, the factories where their parents worked, the schools where they studied. But you are making an effort for the oil to keep flowing to your markets... IT WAS NOT A RETHORIC QUESTION. You wouldn’t think it rethoric if it were YOUR CHILDREN who were being killed! HOW MANY HAS HMG KILLED TODAY?

Your quote:

“. I said that they have a chance to get better and they do-a real chance now that they are not ruled by a dictator, whose right to rule his people as he sees fit is something you seem to defend.”<br>
How nice! You fully destroyed their country so they have a “real chance” to “get better”! Do the 100 000 dead have that chance too? Your attempt to accuse me of supporting your good old former close ally and buyer of your chemical weapons Saddam is pathetic...

Your quote:

“Hardly an example of a ruthless, evil occupying power is it?”

Sure, that’s why people in Irak LOVES YOU. Do you remember those times before your aggression when your government said that people would receive you with flowers in the streets...?

Your quote:

“Gassing? What gassing? You mean the gassings that Saddams regime did in the past?And will never be able to do again”<br>
No, I mean the gassing HMG did to the “natives” in Irak between both world wars. Your good hero Sir Winston Churchill (who loved and respected so much freedom and self determination) strongly supported it. Unfortunately, you can do it again (alass, you have useed the depleted uranium against them both in 90 and now, DON’T YOU REMEMBER?).

Your quote:
“But you know what the significant thing is? These soldiers were arrested, are being tried and may very well go to prison for their crimes if found guilty. That didnt happen under Saddam did it?”<br>
These soldiers were arrested only because one of them sent his films to a photoshop and a decent civilian fulfilled his moral duty. WHAT ABOUT THE MILITARY? What about that soldier’s superiors and fellow comrade of arms? Nobody knew about those rapes and abuses? Why were they not arrested by their superior immediately after they happenedç? BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR NORMAL PRACTICE IN IRAK. As it happened with the US torture chambers at Abu Gahirb, nothing happened after it trascended the torturers.

And now, let’s go to “the strange dog incident” (if you read “Silver Blaze” will understand what I mean): the true HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT thing is not the trial of the plain soldier, the last in the chain (anyway, he must be judged) but the omission to sent to trial the people truly responsible from his immediate superiors TO THE TOP.
What I am refearing to?
To “LEADERS, ORGANIZERS, INSTIGATORS AND ACCOMPLICES participating in the FORMULATION OR EXECUTION of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes [meaning crimes against peace and war crimes] are responsible FOR ALL ACTS PERFORMED BY ANY PERSONS IN EXECUTION OF SUCH PLAN.”<br>
Please, read the full text I include as addendum. It means that the people who unleash this carnage should be trial and HANGED as were nazi leaders Goering (he avoided the execution by taking poison), Ribentropp, Rosenberg, Bormann (in absentia), Streicher, etc. Please note that they were trialed and executed by a crime that wasn’t established as such when it was carried out (“Crimes against peace”) in spite that the “nullum crimen sine lege, nula poena sine lege”. Imagine the sentence of a neutral tribunal to your GOOD Prime Minister Bliar. Do you know why that will not happen? Because you win...



Best,

Javier

[caton]

Addendum

QUOTE:

“II - JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6


(...)
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsability:

a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the acomplishment of any of the foregoing;
b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill tratment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory , murder or ill-treatment of prisioners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity,
c) (...)

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”<br>
[END OF QUOTE] (1)


(1) SOURCE: “Julgamento em Nurenberg, epílogo da tragédia” by Leo Kahn, Brazilian edition by Editora Renes Ltds, Rio de Janeiro, 1973 (in Portuguese), first published by Ballantine Books Inc, New York, 1972. The text quoted in it’s original English (not traduced from Portuguese). Leo Khan was born in Germany, 1909, and obtained a Degree in Right and History in the universities of Colonia (Cologne, Köln) and Berlin, where he obtained a Doctorate in Right. He emmigrated to England in 1937 and after IIWW he became Chief of Historical Manuscripts of Wienerd Library of Harvard and from 1964 on, Chief Archivist and Director of the Foreign Documents Centre of the Imperial War Museum of London.

[caton]

Dear Hutch,

It is true WE DON’T HAVE THE ISLANDS (though they belong to us)
It is also true YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

Your quote:
”Falklands are as far away from Argentine soverignty as ever. Have you ever stopped to think why?”<br>
Yes. Everybody knows the answer: because you are military stronger than us.

Your quote:

“Perhaps if the Argentine government took the claim seriously the UK would.”<br>
The fact that you keep a “Fortress Falkland” policy shows your government takes it serious.

My friend, keep that attitude of yours of splendid isolation and keep refusing any negotiated settlement if you want. But please, don’t cry in the future the fate of the islanders as you are crying today the fate of your settlers in Zimbabwe!

Regards - Javier

[Hutch]

Javier.

I guess the hundreds of millions of pounds the UK gives in aid-especially in
regard to the Asian Tsunami- doesent go to saving lives then? Or the people
saved from ethnic extermination by HM military in the Balkans and other areas?
You do like to demonise your opponants dont you? I suppose it makes it easier to
hate them, which is what I see a lot of coming from you at times. Maybe i'm
wrong, but you certainly come across as the most vitriolic poster on the site
and often the one who indulges in wasting peoples time on outbursts and tangents rather than trying to discuss the matter at hand.

See earlier posts on the inaccuracy of the 100,000 dead. Even if that were a
true figure-which is is not-then it is still less than Saddam killed.

"Your attempt to accuse me of supporting your good old former close ally and
buyer of your chemical weapons Saddam is pathetic..."

Well you seem to place yourself in support of his right to rule so what else am
I supposed to think? You were opposed to any action against him for any reason
at all it seems, thus you essentially support him. Other posters on this site
have declared that there is never justification for inteference in another
nations internal affairs no matter what-even if that is genocide which is what
Saddam committed. Do you support that chain of thought?

"...your government said that people would receive you with flowers in the
streets...? "

Similar to how Argentina thought in 1982 that the UK would not fight, that the
USA would support you, that the UN would be on your side or that the Falklanders
would welcome you? The UK is not the only nation to invade somewhere and think
things would be different. Can you back that claim up as well? I don't remember
HM Gov saying that would happen.

Then you flop back to the early 20th Century again. In order to 'prove' yet
another facile point.

I havent read that book you talk of, but i'll have a look for it. What about the
military? Well perhaps they are not all powerfull and don't know and see all?But
caught they were and are facing a very public trial. Higher ups should be held
accountable for sucha buse yes, but as the trial has only just started we will
have to see where it goes. Out of interest how many offenders form the Junta days in Argentina have been brought to trial. I know Spains trying someone at the moment.

It is significant for the troops who committed the acts to be arrested as it
shows that such actions are not tolerated and shows this publically.

You are right about one thing-history and the law is written by the winners.
Fair? Not really no. True? Absolutely. So if you want change, try and be a
winner.

"a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of
a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
acomplishment of any of the foregoing;"

How many members of the Argentine government/Junta/military were arrested under
this?

This certainly wasnt happening in Iraq when Saddam was in power was it? How
would you arrest him if you didnt go to war to get him? He gassed, killed,
invaded, tortured, murdered far more than UK/USA but would still be in power
untouched but for the invasion. Now he faces justice.


"Yes. Everybody knows the answer: because you are military stronger than us."

Thats it? I thought Argentina had the support of all of S America, the UN and
just about everybody in the World? If this is true then Argentina has the worst
most incompetant foreign relations/diplomatic service in the World and should be ashamed of it. With all that support it still comes down to the UK having a better military? Has Argentina no diplomatic capital anywhere? In that case how will the situation ever change in Argentinas favour (even with all her undoubted full support of so many)? As with even massive changes in military budgets, the UK could still turn BA into molten glass (in a very worst case scenario of course, i could never see it happening ever)? You can't just rely on the old 'you are stronger than us' line. If one is weak then one uses ones brains and friends. Why can't Argentina do that?

The fact that you keep a 'Fortress Falkland' policy shows your government takes
it serious.

The threat that Argentina might fall prey to nationalistic opportunists who launch a war for no good reason again? Yes, you could say that threat is taken seriously. But thats not what I was talking about was it? No, I was pointing out that appart from bullying some people who can't fight abck Argentina does nothing to try and get the Islands. The Argentine government(s) do not approach the situation seriously so there is no need for the UK to initiate anything.

"My friend, keep that attitude of you"rs of splendid isolation and keep refusing
any negotiated settlement if you want. But please, don’t cry in the future the
fate of the islanders as you are crying today the fate of your settlers in
Zimbabwe"

Splendid isolation? Isolated because of Argentina. Argentina is the one who wishes to isolate the FI and then control them-the FI dont want to be isolated. Argentina is the nation that refuses to even acknowledge that there are people living on the FI, but still tries to isolate them. The FI can only react to Argentine actions. Its painfully clear that Argentina can not negotiate anyway-look at the Constitution. There is no way to enter into negotiations with a nation which has pre determined the outcome of the negotiations. What negotiated settlement can there be with Argentina? She doesent produce any to be talked about, other than total handover. Bravo Argentina for painting itself into a nice, patriotic coner.

And then you resort to threats. Again. It really is very tiresome and shows a lack of depth and imagination. And you wish Argentina to be like Zimbabwe? Seizeing land off the rightfull owners, many of whom bought their farms post independence, indulging in rape, torture, ethnic cleansing?

You make me sad Javier. When you're not making me laugh. I've said it before and i'll say it again-its your type of attitude (not you personally) that keeps a settlement from happening with your easy resorting to threats, insults, distraction, lack of historical context, refusal to compromise and so on. If only you would try to convince people instead .Still, you're far better than Esteban.

All the best.

Hutch

[Maquilishuat]

Hola Hutch:

Again you are using fallacies in your reasoning. This one is quite easy to spot, it is called "You too Fallacy". As usual you never get to discuss the facts being presented, you just submerge everything on this fallacy evoking the Argentinean Junta (BTW, it was put there, guess by whom?).

Look at this fallacy example:

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

Does it sound familiar?

Saludos, Otto

[Hutch]

Otto.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. At all. Please explain. The last time you tried to point out the 'fallacies' in my post you were inaccurate and were argueing a seperate point and ascribing me a tactic that I was not using.

Hutch

[caton]

“Let the blood fell on your heads” [Pontius Pilatus]



Hutch,


1) The only reason for intervention in Kossovo was to weaken Russia (a country you cannot attack directly) by attacking her historical ally in the balkans (that is known as “indirect approach” and has always been very popular with british startegists). Maybe you can explain me why you didn’t move a finger for Bosnia. There is an ethnic cleansing now going on in Kossovo under your protection, as the Serbs are been harrassed.

2) Your quote: “See earlier posts on the inaccuracy of the 100,000 dead. Even if that were a true figure-which is is not-then it is still less than Saddam killed.” Well, was it not the Red Cross who forwarded the figure of 100,000? Of course , we should consider than none non-British source is to be trusted....and that you keep adding to the count each and every day. Oh, you are much better than your former ally Saddam because you killed less! CONGRATULATIONS! But of course you are counting ONLY the people you have killed in Irak in this last invassion... Anyway, don’t feel dispirited: you are going for Iran sometime in the next two years (a good chance to better your figures). Do you consider the destruction of a whole country too? I perceive you don’t make a comparison between your torture of prisioners and Saddam’s but YOU SHOULD: everybody knows that your torture chambers smell better.

3) Your quote: “Other posters on this site have declared that there is never justification for inteference in another nations internal affairs no matter what-even if that is genocide which is what Saddam committed. Do you support that chain of thought?” HAVE YOU EVER HEARD about the UN CHARTER? Was it not signed by Britain?

4) Your quote: “Similar to how Argentina thought in 1982 that the UK would not fight, that the USA would support you, that the UN would be on your side or that the Falklanders would welcome you? The UK is not the only nation to invade somewhere and think things would be different. Can you back that claim up as well? I don't remember HM Gov saying that would happen.” Hutch, one thing is the speculation regarding what your enemy’s moves will be and quite another the propaganda to justify the war (weapons of mass destruction flying at one hour order, people who would receive you as liberators, etc). Regarding our Malvinas, nobody told us we would be received as liberators by the usurpers. Oh, you don’t remember HMG saying that would happen? Don’t you either remember your Defense Minister statying that Irakis mothers of dead children would BLESS you because of you they would finaly “enjoy” freedom? DON’T YOU? Do you remember YOUNG ALI, without his legs and arms and with both parents KILLED BY YOU? Have you already FORGOTTEN HIM? And he is not the only one!

5) Your quote: “What about the military? Well perhaps they are not all powerfull and don't know and see all?But caught they were and are facing a very public trial. Higher ups should be held accountable for sucha buse yes, but as the trial has only just started we will have to see where it goes. Out of interest how many offenders form the Junta days in Argentina have been brought to trial. I know Spains trying someone at the moment.” HMG military COVERED UP everything, as they did with the KENIAN RAPES (have you read it?). They didn’t saw anything... HAD IT NOT BEING because one of your soldiers sent his marvelous films TO A CIVILIAN photo shop at home, nothing would have been known and any accusation against your “liberating” soldiers by Irakis ot whoever would have been dismissed with your ussual disdain as “anti british bashing” (as happened regarding the shooting of prisioners by the Para regiment in Malvinas). Please note that PM Bliar is fully responsible, because “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.” Regarding your wonder about “how many offenders form the Junta days in Argentina have been brought to trial” note that ALL high ranks (including the highest of all, the members of the Juntas themselves) have been put to trial.

6) Your quote: “How many members of the Argentine government/Junta/military were arrested under this?” [meaning Crimes against Peace]. Of colurse none, because there was no crime against peace ON OUR PART in Malvinas. We occupied a part of our own territory (by the way, do you also have a claim in irak?) WITHOUT KILLING ANYBODY and in order to force you to a NEGOCIATED AND PEACEFULL resolution of the dispute. I hope you note the difference between that and the shattering of a sovereign country, it’s occupation, the killing of 100 000 civilians and the brutal repression of the resistance to your occupying armies. And you are planning to go for Iran now... HMG sunk the Belgrano to sink the Balaunde Terry proposal. Then, and only then war really broke. That was a crime against peace!

7) Your quote: “This certainly wasnt happening in Iraq when Saddam was in power was it? How would you arrest him if you didnt go to war to get him? He gassed, killed, invaded, tortured, murdered far more than UK/USA but would still be in power untouched but for the invasion. Now he faces justice.” WHO ARE YOU TO ARREST HIM? WHO ARE YOU TO DESTROY A COUNTRY TO ARREST SOMEBODY? Let the Irakis do it. By saying he did it “far more than the UK/USA you are admitting you did it too. So, what makes you better than him? Should someone harrased your country to arrest PM Bliar? Why don’t you arrest those who provided the gas or the chemicals? Some of them live in your own islands. Another is easy to find, as he is the Defence Minister of a very, very close ally of yours...


(To be continued)

[caton]

(Continuation)


8) Your quote: “I thought Argentina had the support of all of S America, the UN and just about everybody in the World? If this is true then Argentina has the worst most incompetant foreign relations/diplomatic service in the World and should be ashamed of it. With all that support it still comes down to the UK having a better military? Has Argentina no diplomatic capital anywhere? In that case how will the situation ever change in Argentinas favour (even with all her undoubted full support of so many)? As with even massive changes in military budgets, the UK could still turn BA into molten glass (in a very worst case scenario of course, i could never see it happening ever)? You can't just rely on the old 'you are stronger than us' line. If one is weak then one uses ones brains and friends. Why can't Argentina do that?” Yes, we have their support. It doesn’t mean that they would fight for us. You see, THE WHOLE WORLD was against you invassion to Irak, but you did it. Why? Because the USA is stronger and nobody wants to be bombed. Yes, you were (are) stronger than us and you had US military support for your operations (including logistical and satelite intelligence), because your CONVENTIONAL power alone was not enough. YES, you can turn BA into molten glass. That’s why nuclear proliferation is unavoidable, we need to be able to turn London into molten glass too, in order to avoid your blackmail. What would had been your “very worst case scenario”? The sinking of your carriers? See my posting about your nuclear blackmail.

9) Your quote: “Splendid isolation? Isolated because of Argentina.” So, it seems we use “ones brains and friends” after all (see your quote in point 8). Does your own remark answer your question about our “diplomatic capital”? (see again your quote in point 8).

10) Your quote: “Argentina is the nation that refuses to even acknowledge that there are people living on the FI, but still tries to isolate them. The FI can only react to Argentine actions.” You are wrong. We DO accept there is people living there whose INTERESTS –but not their WHISHES- should be taken into account as DOES THE UN RESOLUTION 2065 (which you are refusing to obbey). The FI cannot react or do anything as it is not a part in the dispute. Between the UK and Argentina.

11) Your quote: “And then you resort to threats.” Oh, are you not the same person that wrote that the UK could still turn BA into molten glass in a very worst case scenario?

12) Your quote: “And you wish Argentina to be like Zimbabwe? Seizeing land off the rightfull owners, many of whom bought their farms post independence, indulging in rape, torture, ethnic cleansing?” No. I mean that even our patience has a limit. We can assure all the islanders properties by a peacefull hand-over. We have not the intention to expulse anybody. But again, even our patience has a limit. I made no menace. I just wanted to make pretty clear that you should not cry the consecuences of your very acts. Regarding Zimbabwe, let’s remember that the 1% white population owned 40 % of the land in the ’80. By year 2000, whites (much less than 1% now, I don’t have the figure at hand, but plenty whites emigrated and the country population rose 60 % from 80 to 2000) owned 28% of the land, including 60% of THE BEST FARMLAND. By a happy chance, most whites have both Zimbabwean AND British passports. Of course it is a terrible drama for the people involved. What are the ultimate causes of their suffering? British imperial policy (again!). Sooner or later we will get the islands back.. Why not learning of past mistakes and sit and negociate? Do you want some islanders in the future to pay the price because of your policies? By the way, your mention of “indulging in rape, torture, ethnic cleansing” seems to be a description of some of your own policies applied in different parts of the world (Ireland, Bengal, South Africa, Malvinas, Irak, Kenia, etc)...

13) Your quote: “You make me sad Javier. When you're not making me laugh.” Oh, yes. Naturally, you are sad for me and happy for Irakis... Your comment makes me remember tha fable of the fox and the grapes. What a pity you couldn’t prove any of my historical data to be wrong. Keep trying.


Best - Javier




PS: by the way, who is Esteban?

[caton]

Dear Hutch,

As you know, during 1982 one of the Royal Navy’s strategic nuclear submarines (those with nuclear warheads, unlike the one who sunk ARA Belgrano) entered the South Atlantic OUTSIDE Soviet Union range and INTO Argentinean range (it seems HMG was not very sure about retaking our islands). We know what it mean. We’ll not commit the same mistake twice. Should negotiations arrive to a dead end again and the day of a Goa solution arrive, you will not be able to nuclear blackmail us. Argentina has the capability of building nuclear weapons since 1976. As you all know, we have also ballistic missile technology. Our OWN technology, we don’t need to buy it to anybody. To build nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and to mount them in submarines is not a technical problem but just a political decision. That would put Southampton, London, Birmingham, and Edinburgh under range and it will prevent your nuclear blackmail. Yes, I know we officially renounced to nuclear weapons. Israel also say they have not them. It seems we are following their example and not India’s.

As I have said in my posting “Opened Options to the United Kingdom and Argentina” that we are willing to make a lot of practical concessions, to give ample guarantees and to respect the 2000 Kelpers traditions and way of life (in that posting I included a long list of consessions). We prefer a peaceful solution and are willing to make sacrifices to that, BUT NOT SOVEREIGNTY.

Don’t over-estimate Argentina. As they say in Old Castille, “NO ENEMY IS SMALL ENOUGH”<br>.
Our defeat in the 1982 battle did not change our mind, on the contrary, we have never been more resolved in this our National Will that after this lost battle. If you could not compel us to “drop the claim” on 14th June 1982, what make you feel you’ll be able to do it in the future?


Best - Javier

[Johnmcd]

Javier,
Extraordinary posting – even by your standards. Are you actually stating that the British ‘blackmailed’ the fascist Junta by deploying ISBN’s in the South Atlantic? If so, I would dearly love to read your sources.

Your highly individual position on the islands is certainly not the position of your government. There will be no further war over the islands and it’s preposterous even to allude to this. If anything is going to happen it will be a further reduction of the British garrison based on the islands. Also, this year may well see civil flights re-established between the islands and the mainland and broader relationships developing. This may not be to your liking, but then again you were not keen on the Iraqi’s voting – fact is you don’t really like the democratic process – do you! So, stop hankering over the days of ‘the strong men’ in uniform and all this nonsense about losing the battle as if there is still a war to concluded with the winner presently undecided.

Let’s face it Javier the Falklands is a low key subject now – no one really takes the issue seriously now, except the islanders. Fact is that it has been low key since 1982 and a forgotten subject by the Argentine population as a whole. They don’t care anymore! The only people who mention the subject, it appears, is those who think they sunk HMS Invincible and slaughtered a British army as they landed at San Carlos. It all nonsense!

But it takes guts to speak of peace and co-operation, to identify differences, recognise and acknowledge them and then move on.

Best wishes,
John.
Btw: if you ever decide to nuke Southampton please give me a heads up first!.

[Maquilishuat]

Hola John:

Since the seventies BOTH Argentina and Brasil have nuclear capability. When Brasil was out of the non-proliferation treaty it was close to detonate a nuclear device on Serra do Cachimbo, when the Americans spotted our site and forced President Collor to dismantle it. But both countries, decently and courageous, decided to join the treaty in an effort to ban these madness from South Atlantic. Probably you don't know but Argentina and Brasil have an agreement to verify each others installation. Also, when Brasil achieved control of the full cycle, Argentina was the first country to be informed.

Well, this was done, but the Tlatelolco Treaty, in my view, i just a power freezing for several reasons;

1. All countries which already had these weapons should agree on a schedule to dismantle their arsenals. This was never done. On the contrary, countries like France have perfected their nuclear force with several detonations in the Pacific.

2. Other countries joined the nuclear club, making the treaty less effective;

Moreover, the simple possession of a deterrent force is enough to scare wannabe invaders, which are very popular nowadays.

Attacking Argentina would mean attacking Brasil, if you already have not been informed.

But my view is slightly different; these islands will be returned in the first economic crisis in the UK.

Saludos amigos, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Hi Otto,
I remember you mentioning the Tlatelolco treaty before when UN monitors were about to inspect nuclear plant in Brazil. (I don’t know what they reported afterwards)

Well, both Russia and the US have recently re-started their joint talks on nuclear disarmament, prompted no doubt by Russia developing new generation ICBM’s. Non-proliferation is a bit of a joke though. I’m absolutely sure that nuclear weapon technology is out in places that are beyond any control. Al Qaeda springs immediately to mind. God forbid!

France?

Well France is just… France – they simply do what suits their own national mood, especially if it upsets the US

There is no danger, of course, of the UK attacking Argentina. Let’s just not go there!

There might well just come a time when a future island government will integrate themselves into a SW Atlantic economy. However, at the moment the islands appear to hedging their whole future on a single company that has share holdings currently matching the islands whole GNP. Quite a tenuous state of affairs for the small island population who never stop telling anyone who will listen that they are self-determining. Well, self-determination means taking stock control of your future and not having some remote CEO doing it for you – and that’s what will happen.

Best wishes,
John.