I'm devil's attorney, need a lantern and some way to produce an evil laughter.
They have to state why they are right. All this shows is that influence and corruption are doing their usual dodgy rounds.
To state it you need to have a conversation which London and Port Stanley refuse to do in spite of even the UN and the US saying they should.
So you admit that the last time we negotiated, Argentina invaded. What kind of precedent does that set for negotiating again?
A bad one prima facie, except that that was done under a US_sponsored military dictatorship whose members have been tried and jailed for crimes against humanity (stealing children, drugging people and throwing them alive into the sea to drown, torture of several kinds, unwarranted executions, etc. etc. by the thousands) since, many of them have died in jail and the rest of them will, too.
The thing is, as I say below, I'd follow a completely different strategy.
So everything that Argentina can't find a use for, we can take off them?
I have a list of items.
Ayn Rand said:
They could get those things by moving to Argentina and becoming Argentine citizens if they wanted, as could any of us. But hey, we are not exactly queuing up to become citizens of your Latin American paradiso.
Have you read my first or second post in this thread, where I posted that it'd be a great option for the Falklanders IF Argentina became a serious country?
The vice-president himself has been caught red-handed in a large-scale corruption scandal and the government's clammed up, mostly because they're afraid someone might make a slip. Obviously this is just a smokescreen, no real plan or solution besides the grand gestures has been proposed.
Please show me where the Falkland islanders wanted to join with Argentina or self-govern under nominal Argentine control because if what your saying is true and there was NO resistence to this and London, Buenos Aires and Stanley all agreed during the negotiations in the 1960s and 70s - why aren't the Falkland Island's a part of Argentina now? Why did Argentina invade them in '82 when their was NO resistance to a diplomatic hand-over? What your saying makes no sense whatsoever. Oh and btw according to the Shackleton report '77 the Falkland island's made a net contribution to our economy and it could be improved further. Also do we always just hand away territory if it becomes "economically unviable" that makes no sense!
The treaty was never signed because the President of Argentina DIED. Did you even read the interview I posted?
Why do I have to prove evidence of something that I didn't claim? No one consulted the Islanders themselves, their government was consulted and they agreed.
The '82 invasion was, but before that the Falkland islanders wanted to remain with Britain in sppite of Argentina and the UK. Unless you provide me with some irrefutable evidence of the Islanders intent to join with Argentina!
*sigh* Again, when did I ever say that the Islanders wanted to join Argentina? I don't have to prove things I'm not claiming, you know.
Quackers said:
Right, so the Falkland Islands and Argentina cooperation in numerous fields is a good thing. Thats hard to disagree with and something we all support - then again it's not the Falklanders who won't let Argentinan ships dock in their ports is it?
Why do you keep bringing up the past? Yes the UK government in the 60s wanted to give the Falklands to Argentina - so what? What bearing does that have on today? You see after imperialist Argentina decided to invade the Falklands - policy changed!
Imperialist? They had territory off their coast invaded and they want it back, it'd be imperialism if they were trying to take Jersey or Orkney.
Quackers said:
Anyway there is actually no point discussing anything with you because your posts make no sense, they are completely random and disjointed and plain weird at the best of times..
My posts make no sense only because any argument I or any others not on your side might post you claim either makes no sense or is irrelevent.
All you do is misrepresent whatever people who disagree with you post, then make fun of them. Or else ignore it, just like you've completely ignored even your very own BBC as posted by Lambert.
Yet another irritating move by Argentina...
"As tensions over the Falkland Islands mount, the transport workers' union in Argentina has said it will delay any ship in its ports which fly the British flag.
They say they will stall vessels entering or exiting by up to six hours"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17064659
It's not a move by the Argentine government itself, but by a trade union.
The opinion of Falklanders not being taken into consideration in the past is no reason for it to be ignored now.
Agreed completely, just because Britain was ready to sell them out in the past doesnt mean their thoughts should be ignored.
Well of course, I'm not in favour of strongarming them into this. I don't agree with most of this charade from either side. Argentina not recognising the Falklands flag in shpping matters is one thing (I'd simply allow them in under the British flag or any other flag of convenience)
I just find it absolutely hilarious how you could just replace Scotland with United Kingdom and United Kingdom with European Union and this video would make David Cameron unelectable:
So his main arguments for Scotland staying -after admitting that Scotland could make it on its own- are the 'great' things achieved together such as the Opium Wars, the slave trade, widespread genocide and linguicide across the world, the Treaty of Versailles, forcing the Turks to join the Axis in WWI to rip off some of their land, etc. etc.; also that it'd be a hassle. And more importantly, that he'd be very sad. Great!
I know I wouldn't. Call me conservative, but if it's part of a state, it should remain part of a state. (Is "sovereignism" a word?) No further separatism either. It's always just a fight for power with people as cannon fodder.
If that could become an universal rule we'd have fewer wars. It can't, of course.
First of all, thanks for your honesty (not many people admit to such positions)
.
I disagree with your general position. The world is
not working and change is needed, many times the best way is to just redraw the borders.
Should Tibet and Xinjiang remain under Chinese oppression? Should the Kurds forever settle down and renounce their wish for a country of their own? If we go back in time for a couple decades, should the Soviet Union have remained the way it was? Farther back in time, should the State of Israel have been created out of separating territory from Palestine? Should said territories have been ripped off the Ottoman Empire? We can go on forever.
ARGENTINA SETS OUT TO WOO SCOTS
ARGENTINA is trying to drum up support from Scotland for its claim to the Falkland Islands.
It is considering sending representatives to join Scottish celebrations of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
First minister Alex Salmond hopes to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 when the country marks Robert the Bruce’s victory over the English and Argentina hopes to use the event to drive a wedge between England and Scotland.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/303261/Argentina-sets-out-to-woo-Scots
Speaking as a Scot this was a double take moment for me... this article can't be serious can it?
Let's see… since Scotland is, unfortunately, not a sovereign state, its government has no say over this matter. If Scotland became a sovereign country (with or without a Windsor as figurehead monarch) it still would have no say unless somehow the Falklands decided to become part of this new independent Scotland instead of a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Either way, waste of time IMHO.
I wasn't claiming it was an act of good faith, nor am I sure this is actually on behalf of the Argentinian government, as opposed to one politico mouthing off (and every country has some of those). But I seriously doubt it's an attempt to try and get Scottish support for the Argentinian stance on the Malvinas (as the Express is pretending) - it's more likely to be just a way of cocking a snook at the English.
Sticking a finger up English arses is a very pleasant thought, but, first of all. Mr. Kunkel is part of the late President Kirchner's friends who are being ousted from power. Some of them will remain if they're sycophantically obsequent enough. Most of them are in the process of being cleared out, it's an internal purge that will go on for the next year or so. Since Mr. Kunkel is onyl one deputy out of over 250, I wouldn't worry too much, especially since Congress has been rendered useless and the Executive has taken over legislation by decree. All Congress does is renew the emergenc laws every year to allow the President to go on decreeing whatever she likes.
But then, today there was a train crash with about 50 dead and over 650 wounded so nobody's paying much attention to a bunch of sheep-and-penguin-covered rocks in the middle of nowhere.
Now, can someone explain to me why a mere three thousand people have so much leverage over London?
And can someone explain to me why Thatcheron's Tories insist on making it seem like Argentina is going to invade? What's this having warplanes escort a civilian plane, while hinting that there might be a submarine with nuclear weapons and all this nonsense talk about having to get a carrier to the South Atlantic? Philip Hammond says Argentina's not a military threat, why keep upping the ante?
And why are Labour being even more of a bunch of dickheads about it?