|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 15, 2005 15:13:05 GMT -3
John,
Yes, not only the US supported Cubans against Spain, but US troops fought side by side with Cuban troops in the island. However, at the last victory in Santiago, the US did not allow the Cuban flag to fly with the US flag. This was clearly the beginning of the end of Cuban freedom dreams and the first solid proof that the revolution was inevitable. Fidel finally outsted Batista, a despotic US puppet, like Pinochet or Galtieri.
Why should sanctions of any kind be imposed on Cuba? I hate to be repetitive, but why Cuba and not China?
Anyway, the question about what Argentina might do is purely hypotetical. The right question to ask is: Why haven't the islands declare independance? I believe I know the answer, but I would like to hear your take on this.
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 15, 2005 19:19:48 GMT -3
Hutch
The "British Thieves" thing was written between quotes in case you didnt notice. If you dont have real arguments to defend your statements (I havent seen any posting of you in a long time, so I take it that you really have nothing to say...) then don't start playing me with the morality thing Nora taught you all to use. It's embarrasing for you, you know.....
My best wishes to the """""""""""""""""british thieves""""""""""""""""" (between quotes for blind people)
Noelia
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Mar 16, 2005 8:34:23 GMT -3
Gabriel,
Many thanks for this!
First of all I do not believe that economic sanctions should be used against anyone that has free and open trade with the rest of the world, not unless it has deemed necessary by the UN, as in the case with Iraq, where the UN oil for food programme was rampantly abused by the Saddam regime. A broad international humanitarian approach must always be sought in every case not applied unilaterally as in the case with GW over Cuba.
The sanctions against China are not economic – they are military equipment sale sanctions. At the moment most western countries apply these sanctions (save Russia) However, France, UK and others want to see them lifted but the US want them preserved. I read that GW does not want high military technology being exported to China and US forces being on the receiving end if China invades Taiwan. I think he has a point. (btw; I read that China no longer transmits itself as a communist state – it’s a now a state of Chinese nationalism instead)
The islands will not break the current status quo (being a British Overseas territory) as long as Argentina continues to claim sovereignty of their homes. You know this.
However, the UK, could if it felt, that its own foreign policy was being compromised apply conditions over and above the wishes of the island elect. The UK did exactly this with Gibraltar, and changed the face of relations with the UK and Gibraltar. We now see sovereignty issues shelved and more emphasis on joint economic relations instead. Not a bad thing at all. However, my guess that if any self-determining wish of the islanders was challenged by the UK then the islanders themselves would need to change the structure of their legislature and exchange unelected Governor for elected Chief Minister in order to prevent the UK meddling in their internal affairs that affect foreign affairs. By doing so the islands would then be wholly responsible to the international community for all its actions in the SW Atlantic. The example here is that Gibraltar today must interact directly with Spanish and EU authorities instead of ‘pass porting’ them on the UK as they did in the past.
To my mind the Falklands ‘status quo’ will not last for the long term. It has to end some time and for that to happen sooner Argentina must bring its claim into the contemporary world, see it for its worth, adapt and change to meet the needs of all. This is exactly what Spain did.
Best wishes,
John.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 16, 2005 8:49:14 GMT -3
No, I don't have a lot to say on the Iraq war, USA's attitude to Cuba, et al.
I am still waiting to see all the proofs of Argentinas rights though. Or even a good argument which doesent rely on fragments of third party treatys, rhetoric, vague threats and bits and pieces of history put together.
Posts about the Falklands seem to be rather thin on the ground at the moment so I assume that no one has anything much to say on the issue. Other than repeating what they've said a thousand times already.
"Do the islanders understand that the territory they are living in was once part of Argentina but was stolen, by Britain, who set its own population there?"
If they did recognize this what difference would it make? 'Was once part of Argentina' being very important-Ireland was once part of the UK, Kurile Islands part of Japan, Argentina once part of Spain and so on.
" ...thief that steals to a thief has more rights than the first one..."
Spain stole the New World from its inhabitants, Argentina stole its lands from Spain, UK stole Falklands from Argentina if you want to go about it that way.
"It is part of the continental platform shared with Argentina, it's clearly part of our territory"
Because its near to you? Weak. I guess you must own Chilie then as well as thats near to you. And UK must be owned by France.
"That's not what we're looking for. I dont need any kind of permission to go to Tucuman and I dont see why would I need any to go to the Falklands..."
Sigh. Because the Falklands are not part of Argentine territory and have not been for over 170 years, not many years less than Argentina has been a nation. Maybe one day in the future they will be part of Argentina but at the moment they are not.
"I think the inner problems of Argentina are not bussiness of Britain and your attempt to use them as a justification of the robbed land is not gonna work"
They are of obviously of paramount importance.
1)Argentina either wants the UK to hand many hundreds of people over to Argentina (against their will) who would then be at the mercy of the inner problems of Argentina.
2)Argentina wants the Islanders to decide to want to be part of Argentina and share in the inner problems of Argentina.
Either way your 'corrupt police' would then be the Islanders police.
Either way the people who will be affected have a right to know about and be concerned about Argentina inner workings. You wouldnt had over a Jewish enclave to a nation which had a huge number of anti Semites would you? If Argentina was a wealthy, stable nation then the Islanders would be more well disposed towards the mainland and Argentina would probably have the courage to not just have to rely on threats, petty bullying, etc.
"I will only respect the rights of the islanders when I see someone respecting ours. But so far, I have only see demands to give up the claim. "
Do you respect the rights of the Islanders to live without fear of annexation, the right to choose their own government, the right to freely choose their own destiny? Do you respect the rights which you enjoy and which they want-no territorial claim, do you respect that the people who actually live there may have some rights? Or do you just believe that the rights of Argentina to get territory it was briefly on nearly 200 years ago override all other considerations?
Again, please state out your 'rights' as well as all the proofs of Argentine ownership. Hint-look at the F-M board, stuff by Christina Shepard.
Take care of yourselves.
Hutch
Still waiting for the 'killer argument'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 16, 2005 12:59:43 GMT -3
Hutch Do you actually read what you are writing?  Are you comparing the taking of the Falklands with the colonialism done by Spain when Columbus discovered America? If so, I take from your message that you actually support invading a country and take its land in the 20 and 21th century... I see now why you support the Irak thing. Wow, we are dealing with powerful enemies, not only by their army but because of their beliefs... Everybody says here the islanders cannot sleep safely because they fear ARgentina but they insist in belonging to a country that supports invasions and stealing of territories IN THIS CENTURY if they have the power too... How much hypocresy in this forum. You were doing Ok before Hutch, now your arguments are over, your only chance is to fight..... that is exactly what I wanted to show everybody, I can go on for centuries defending Argentina peacefully with words but you cant do the same with the UK and the Falklands... This shows who is right. Unfortunately the bigger army makes the rules, maybe Otto is right we will have to fight again someday. It's just so sad .. but then it's part of nature, animals also fight for their territories... Regards Noelia |
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Mar 17, 2005 14:32:34 GMT -3
To Everyone,
I think the lack of real debate in both Forums just now is a reflection of the fact that Argentina has absolutely no interest in negotiating or even contemplating any settlement regarding sovereignty other than a total handover.
Under the circumstances then I see that there is really little alternative left for Falkland Islanders other than to consolidate and expand and strengthen their present efforts to ensure their financial, commercial and political independence from Argentina as far as possible for the immediate and foreseeable future.
There is little point in sucking up to an Argentina that simply seeks control for its own sake to fulfil a national self inflicted mythology, and has no regard at all for the human rights and independent way of life of their small neighbour. They will not even agree in principle to allow normal relationships with the Islands but use every opportunity that presents itself to do their best to isolate the Islands from South America whilst at the same time mouthing mealy mouthed platitudes regarding the future ‘interests’ of the Islanders under Argentine rule.
From my point of view unless Kirchner changes his present attitude all bets are off. So it looks like another six years or so before any possible change can take place. We may as well face up to it.
Here is a man who clearly has no idea how to encourage anyone to take an interest or invest without serious risk of loss in his country. He blackmails his neighbours, sets his dogs on investors who in his opinion step out of line, rather than using available political and fiscal measures against them. A man possessed with his own authority who doesn’t seem to have any idea how to secure the long term and only applies short term measures to try and solve his immediate problems. Here again is a man who is slowly losing his way; who in fact who seems to have no idea how to run a country, seemingly set on killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Soon he will run out of geese. Hopefully his voters will sus him out before the next election but I doubt it, his slide to popularism and authoritarianism seems set on its course.
Clearly anyone who invests even a brass farthing in Argentina stands once again a good risk of losing it.
Falkland Islanders would be mad to take their chances with this kind of country.
Regards,
Ernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 17, 2005 16:29:48 GMT -3
Hi Ernie:
I totally disagree with your analysis. I am convinced the lack of debate in this forum clearly demonstrates that the only possible way out of all the problems in the world is that people should worship me and attend to all and every one of my wishes. I pity the fool who invests anything on any idiot who disagrees with my point of view.
I have spoken. May the farse be with you. Sorry I can't stay longer, I must go goose hunting now.
Gabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 17, 2005 16:37:52 GMT -3
Dear All
I might be wrong and I could be disappointed in the future by our president, it has happened before. But so far, I like Kirchner VERY much. Not only about the Falklands issue but about everything, I think he's trying hard to bring Argentina back to life, and that's why other countries dont like him. The US felt safe with Menem, who was sucking up to them and killed Argentina in behalf of american policies. Kirchner seems to be different, and therefore he has not gained the support of the countries that want latinamerica to be their slave. I'm sorry if you dont like Kirchner, the UK, the US and many other countries in Europe have already had their time to be masters of the world, perhaps we are entering the new era and it's latinamerica's turn to be on top. I think brazilians are happy with Lula and we are having good agreements with Chile... Must be scary for those who are rich after our efforts.
Regards
Noelia
|
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Mar 18, 2005 14:03:52 GMT -3
I posted the above remarks the other day in response to current events in Argentina. This does not however mean that I am relinquishing the search for accord between people of goodwill from Argentina and the Falklands. Far from it, as clearly the impasse in the possibility of advancing relationships engineered by Kirchner may last a few years but not forever. This gives more time to seek a just and lasting solution rather than having to comply with unjust demands in a pressurised situation.
Gabriel, I thought you knew me better than that. Thousands of ordinary people have investments in Shell and other companies who invest in Argentina. Kirchners actions are very unstatesmanlike and undemocratic. He clearly has scores he wishes to settle. Shell etc may well be wrong from his point of view but they also have a duty to their shareholders. If Kirchner wants to run a command economy like the Communists did then he will end up the same way, with a rickety country in which nobody will want to invest. Popular measures are great but the popularity soon wanes when the effects begin to bite.
Noelia, A president who uses the mob to assist his rule is only one step away from dictatorship in my estimation.
He could have used fiscal measures against Shell and Exxon but chooses instead to make a personal point.
He is also blackmailing Chile with his gas supplies to further lean on the Falklands.
You can retreat into nationalism and myth if you wish but it will not put bread on your table in the long run.
You can also put the boot into neighbours when you feel you are in a strong position, but don't forget one day for sure the position will be reversed and retribution will ensue like night follows day.
Regards,
Ernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 18, 2005 17:03:57 GMT -3
Hello Ernie
Could you explain this better please? I dont quite understand what you mean...
If shell and exxon (like many other companies that had signed contracts that kill argentina with the son of a b...ch of Menem) insist in sucking our blood until we die, I will the first one to applause Kirchner if he can kick them out of my land. And I think it is AWESOME that, instead of abusing his power, he calls people to help him and boicot these compranies..... he's showing we can rule the country together, like a real democracy.... has Blair ever done the same? If you see dictatorship in here, you're clearly blind, Ernie.
When did we exactly blackmail Chile with gas? As far as I know Kirchner travelled there and reached an agreement with Chile's president (Mr. Lagos?).
You should try to find the news on the internet, news coming from other countries. What you see on TV is corrupted.
Best Wishes
Noelia
|
|
Are you comparing the taking of the Falklands with the colonialism done by Spain when Columbus discovered America?