|
@chgh
You know, I'm reading up on the Belgrano. Now, I know Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all, but it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that Britain and Argentina were at war after Argentina, for whatever reason, attacked British territory. The exclusion zone was imposed for neutral ships and both sides knew that being anywhere near the Falklands was a justification for being attacked, especially if it is judged as being a threat. The British Navy judged it a threat and reacted accordingly. Lives were lost, always a sad thing, but expected in times of war?
I'm seeing your arguments but you are denying the rights of the Falklanders. The Falklands belong to them, if anybody, and they are British by choice. They have always been, since they were there. I cannot claim to know what happened two hundred years ago, but as I said before, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is now, and the heritage these people have. Also, again you dismiss their wishes with this notion of aboriginal - by that argument, as others have said, should those descended from Europeans across Argentina leave and give the country 'back' to the aboriginal Amerindians? This notion of aboriginal is simply not a useful argument. The British settled the islands with a permanent settlement. Argentina, as far as I know, did not. The Falklands have been British for two hundred years, but Argentina would completely ignore the previous two centuries and make it Argentinian, based on 'legal' claims from dubious sources centuries ago, and through geographical claims which aren't recognised by any international definitions. The Falklands lie outside of Argentinian waters - by what right do they claim the islands? I'm also unsure of when the majority of the UN decided the Falklands were Argentinian - can you point me towards that particular decision? And again you mention that this is simply the Argentine claim. I'm sorry but just because Argentina ratifies this claim in a constitution does not make it fact.
|
On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 19:08 Rossweazel wrote:On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote:
Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil, Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious) One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to! No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_Plata
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
|
On June 21 2011 22:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:05 sc4k wrote:On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote:
Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. haha, wow this was really well expressed, absolutely could not have said it better myself. When the guy a few posts up said Argentinians hate the UK and blame us for war crimes...my head was so full of fuck I simply could not think of a way to articulate a response. I'm not Argentinean and consider myself fairly impartial in the matter. I don't know enough about the war to give you facts about whether or not the UK reacted proportionally. However, I do know that the feelings in Argentina about the Falklands (and the English) there are pretty strong and yes, the English do get blamed for warcrimes (real or imagined). No, the Falklands really mean absolutely nothing to anybody. They are a group of barren rocks in the middle of the Atlantic and probably can't even support enough sheep to hold their (meagre) population. However, Argentineans are a very proud people and they feel the Falklands belong to them: that is why the invasion in 1982 was popular and an excellent way of distracting the populations from the horrible atrocities committed in internal politics. It was unfortunate for them that the British government also needed a distraction from their failed internal economical politics and war was the result. A lot of Argentineans view the war as injust and neo-colonialism as they feel the invasion was justified. As such they feel that the sinking of the Belgrano battleship was an unprovoked act of violence. I need to reiterate that I do not agree and am reporting on what I was told during my time in Argentina. Personally I think that invading the Falklands was an act of war and the sinking of a warship was a part of that war. Regardless, however, it is quite obvious that the Falkland war didn't help resolve the conflict over the islands one bit: both countries have since been more convinced than ever that that useless pile of rocks in the middle of the Atlantic belongs to them.
Have to say the islands are extremely important to those that live there. And whatever was happening in Britain at the time, do you really think there would be a time when Britain would ignore an invasion of British territory?
|
On June 21 2011 22:39 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:37 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:On June 21 2011 21:23 MulletMurdoc wrote:
A better economy?
A better way of living?
Better human rights? -
A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world?
I agree with your post, just to address the questions though: No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world) I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war. It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war. On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote:
The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map. I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though... Anyway, damn you Spain and your rogue colonies! On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote:
thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies.
. It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories. Here's a list of our "colonies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories Strange way of thinking for someone with Jello Biafra as a nickname!!! You love your queen Sir? Haha, I don't love the queen no but I don't particularly object to her. I respect my country and the rights of its citizens though.
F*** I cant angry with you!!!! I like too much your nickname!!!
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face...And always wear the happy face!!!
|
|
|
On June 21 2011 22:49 ElPeque.fogata wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote:On June 21 2011 19:08 Rossweazel wrote:On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote:
Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil, Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious) One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to! No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel. Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_PlataAnd while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
Hah we suck. The red coats were to hide the blood.
|
United States43991 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:29 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote:
Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
I can't believe I'm even having this argument but okay. Argentina invaded British soil in an unprovoked act of aggression, purely for the purpose of taking land from the indigenous British inhabitants. The ship was a part of attack. If sinking the ship is criminal then how illegal was the invasion itself?
This is like a petty street thug coming into the house of a championship boxer to murder them in their sleep, getting their ass handed to them and then claiming assault.
|
United States43991 Posts
Is that an Act of Parliament?
|
But...we didn't sign that. It's a non-binding UN resolution (so not ours) which we abstained from. Spain too, I note
Does the Falklands really count as a colony anyways? Would Jersey, or Guernsey, or the Isle of Man count as colonies, then?
|
On June 21 2011 22:49 ElPeque.fogata wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote:On June 21 2011 19:08 Rossweazel wrote:On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote:
Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil, Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious) One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to! No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel. Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_PlataAnd while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States"
No.
|
On June 21 2011 22:54 Sanctimonius wrote:But...we didn't sign that. It's a non-binding UN resolution (so not ours) which we abstained from. Spain too, I note Does the Falklands really count as a colony anyways? Would Jersey, or Guernsey, or the Isle of Man count as colonies, then?
Well, that's the whole point isn't it? Argentina says the Falklands are an illegitimate act of colonization and thus occupation of their territory. The UK says it was never Argentina's to start with and thus not a colony, but simply the appropriation of a piece of barren land, albeit rather far from home, but geographical distance is deemed irrelevant. With all the mess this has created it's rather hard to say who's right. Furthermore it begs the question whether it even matters (as Falkland inhabitants obviously consider themselves British as does the British empire). However, seeing as there's still diplomatic negotiation going on about it, a war was fought over it not too long ago and there is still quite obviously bad blood between Argentina and the UK because of it, it quite clearly has political significance, even if there is no other reason for trying to resolve the issue.
|
On June 21 2011 22:48 Sanctimonius wrote:
@chgh
You know, I'm reading up on the Belgrano. Now, I know Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all, but it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that Britain and Argentina were at war after Argentina, for whatever reason, attacked British territory. The exclusion zone was imposed for neutral ships and both sides knew that being anywhere near the Falklands was a justification for being attacked, especially if it is judged as being a threat. The British Navy judged it a threat and reacted accordingly. Lives were lost, always a sad thing, but expected in times of war?
I'm seeing your arguments but you are denying the rights of the Falklanders. The Falklands belong to them, if anybody, and they are British by choice. They have always been, since they were there. I cannot claim to know what happened two hundred years ago, but as I said before, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is now, and the heritage these people have. Also, again you dismiss their wishes with this notion of aboriginal - by that argument, as others have said, should those descended from Europeans across Argentina leave and give the country 'back' to the aboriginal Amerindians? This notion of aboriginal is simply not a useful argument. The British settled the islands with a permanent settlement. Argentina, as far as I know, did not. The Falklands have been British for two hundred years, but Argentina would completely ignore the previous two centuries and make it Argentinian, based on 'legal' claims from dubious sources centuries ago, and through geographical claims which aren't recognised by any international definitions. The Falklands lie outside of Argentinian waters - by what right do they claim the islands? I'm also unsure of when the majority of the UN decided the Falklands were Argentinian - can you point me towards that particular decision? And again you mention that this is simply the Argentine claim. I'm sorry but just because Argentina ratifies this claim in a constitution does not make it fact.
I think you're right about that! Dont know if that really is a war crime. Before angry hahaha I wrote about it. For me it was a deliberate act to dont stop war. The UN had declared a ceasefire remember?
I respect the rights of the islanders. Why you think I dont? I believe in a diplomatic solution. Put a fucking flag of Argentina with the British in those islands. Leave the island to the Falklanders! and collaborate together in everything else. Or at least that Britain respected the UN resolution. Or even better: What if Britain simply says Argentines was right, we stole the islands in 1833, but now things are different, we cant leave! Something better than denying it all and accuse us of all!
|
I just want to point out that that the people living on the falklands havent done any war crimes, it's like if your dad was a pedophile so everyone accuses you of being a pedophile.... it makes no sense.
Stop trying to cloud this stuff up with shit that happened 200 years ago, literally no one is being hurt from the fact that they're living there and being so aggressive about this is just gonna make it 10x worse...
|
There isn't even anything to argue except that the islands are "close" (really? so the UK and Ireland are actually French?)
It just falls conveniently into the myth that the south american are mediocre brecause they opressed by the major powers.
|
On June 21 2011 22:47 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:35 Rabiator wrote:On June 21 2011 22:29 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote:
Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer. Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument. Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
|
On June 21 2011 22:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:29 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote:
Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer. I can't believe I'm even having this argument but okay. Argentina invaded British soil in an unprovoked act of aggression, purely for the purpose of taking land from the indigenous British inhabitants. The ship was a part of attack. If sinking the ship is criminal then how illegal was the invasion itself? This is like a petty street thug coming into the house of a championship boxer to murder them in their sleep, getting their ass handed to them and then claiming assault.
Wasn´t a war crime Pal! I wrote before what I think! you committed others in that war.
A military junta, a dictatorship is that invaded the Falklands. You support that dictatorship until 1982. How about our rights then Great Great Britain! Where were you? Maybe doing business with the dictators of Latin America? Sorry if one turned against you!
|
On June 21 2011 23:07 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:49 ElPeque.fogata wrote:On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote:On June 21 2011 19:08 Rossweazel wrote:On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote:
Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil, Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious) One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to! No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel. Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_PlataAnd while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion. You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon? And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
|
On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 22:47 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 22:35 Rabiator wrote:On June 21 2011 22:29 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote:
Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer. Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument. Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links. Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides. Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I probably know more veterans than your I think!
For you is a lie, there´s no war crimes b´cause you can find it on Google???. Well done detective!!!
|
On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote:
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I think he understood this as "just make allegations by yourself." 
edit: damn nested quote
|
On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:07 jello_biafra wrote:On June 21 2011 22:49 ElPeque.fogata wrote:On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote:On June 21 2011 19:08 Rossweazel wrote:On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote:
Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil, Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious) One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to! No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel. Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_PlataAnd while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion. You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon? And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France." Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point. Show nested quote +"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No. Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
