|
You have to justify what you're saying with some measure of proof chgh. It's silly to assume the lack of evidence proves it impossible but it's equally silly to say "I know people". I'd like to hear your opinion if you had some measure to back it up with.
Though... I may have missed it but did anyone ever address the claim that this is just political maneuvering by the Argentinean PM? There's a lot of interesting discussion here but is there really an issue?
|
Lets see the most important points imo.
- The British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
- Population there has been (mostly) UK since 1833 (know when to give up argentina)
- The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to the UK.
- The inhabitants want to be part of UK
- Argentina has some obscure claim from obscure treaty (Nootka Sound Convention) and that Spain (who never renounced its claim on the island) handed them the island when argentina became independant
- Argentina tried to settle the island from 1820-1833 (without much success) In 1833 UK trew them out.
In short, The conflict started when The UK colony discovered a french colony on the island. France sold its claim to Spain. Both spain and Uk clained the island. UK withdrew its colony for economic reasons (but didnt relinquish its clain). in 1811 spain withdrew from the island. It was uninhabited from than till 1826 when argentina asked for british permission to build a settlement on the island. They tried to colonize it in 1826 and again in 1828. They had a small settlement on the island till 1833. The british asked the argentinians to replace their flag for the british one. They did and left the island. They didn't resist since most soldiers/mercenaries on the island where british. Since than it has allways been a britsh island with british people on it.
I'm sorry, but some countries just dont know when to give up. Besides that, their claim is extremely weak and the island is seen as british territory by the UN and thus they reject the argentinian claim.
|
United States42609 Posts
On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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. "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!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
|
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.
I was just pointing out that the British faced Spanish forces and the person I was replying to said that Spain was busy "dealing" with Napoleon when they were in fact allied and it was the British that were fighting Napoleon so understandably that used up the vast majority of the resources. The same thing happened in 1812 when the US invade British North America, they didn't really have much in the way of defence because there was a slightly bigger issue at the time.
Incidentally the Falklands War was exactly the same, the vast majority of the British army and the entire Royal Air Force stayed in Europe because of that whole cold war thing that was going on.
I'm not saying that the conflicts weren't resolved, I'm just saying that Britain didn't agree to give up ALL it's colonies and territories on one day by an act of Parliament which is what you seemed to be implying, Britain was incredibly gracious in giving up its empire, unlike some other countries.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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. "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!
Can you please drop this attitude. Everyone in this thread but you makes an effort to calmy discuss the topic.
|
On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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. "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! Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again. What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
|
On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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. "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!
Simply because we disagree with you doesn't mean we think we are perfect. Please don't try to paint us as arrogant. The UK has done many things wrong in its history, they are simply not pertinent to this argument.
|
Well read: Excursion to Hell, by Former Lance Corporal Vincent Bramley. What else I can do in a Forum? F *** always an eye on Argentina. Yes of course it is a political maneuver on Argentina. Like its in Britain. You still believe there are goods and bads? Please Pals! Why I end explaining the Argentina reasons?
Nobody else sees that the South Atlantic´s Opera is all a bluff from both sides!
|
United States42609 Posts
On June 21 2011 23:47 Ganjamaster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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. "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! Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again. What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason. I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall. Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
|
On June 21 2011 23:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:47 Ganjamaster wrote:On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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. "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! Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again. What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason. I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall. Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions?
The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize.
Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too. Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
|
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:
Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
|
United States42609 Posts
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:53 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:47 Ganjamaster wrote:On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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! Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again. What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason. I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall. Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve. At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions? The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize. Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
Unfortunately they haven't got irrelevance. They used to have it and then it became an issue when they got invaded. I feel strongly that they should be British but equally I feel just as strongly about my house being part of Britain. The reason my house is irrelevant and the Falklands are not is because of the Argentinian claim. What Cameron is doing by refusing to negotiate on any terms other than self determination is effectively telling the Argentinians to give up and stop trying which is exactly what is needed. The islands need less time in the papers, less money spent defending them, less debate over the rightful owners and less digging up war wounds.
It will be a difficult topic for as long as people keep talking about it. Denying that there is any claim worth negotiating is the correct way to let people on both sides forget the islands exist.
|
On June 22 2011 00:28 MaK UK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:
Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war? it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
|
On June 21 2011 23:28 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote: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!!!
Oh come on, you can do better than that and even I found newspapers from "the 90's" online, they only talk about allegations though. Go on and show proof.
"I know veterans" isnt enough, because their tales probably have grown in the 30 years of telling. So where are those "judgements" you claim which exist? The only thing I found was an article at SPIEGEL online, which says that the Argentinian General Leopoldo Galtieri and some of his buddies were convicted of war crimes ...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html
If both sides have convicted war criminals, who can claim to be better / more ethical than the other?
Wikipedia has only two british people on the list of those convicted for war crimes, it is probably incomplete (no Argentinian people listed, but maybe it only lists those convicted at an international court?), but here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_convicted_of_war_crimes
I think this article describes it best: There have been some hints of war crimes carried out by British troops against Argentine prisoners but no firm evidence.
Again: Where is your proof? Any "novels" written by people arent really proof of anything. It isnt me who has failed in finding stuff, it is you who failed in providing stuff you claim exists and claims are no evidence. War is cruel (it has to be so countries dont wage war over minor issues) and war veterans are not to be envied, but not everything you see in war automatically constitutes a war crime.
On June 22 2011 00:33 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:28 MaK UK wrote:On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:
Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war? it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt? Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
And the Argentinians claim to care about them? ROFLMAO ...
Why shouldnt the british care for them?
|
On June 22 2011 00:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:53 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:47 Ganjamaster wrote:On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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! Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again. What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason. I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall. Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve. At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions? The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize. Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too. Unfortunately they haven't got irrelevance. They used to have it and then it became an issue when they got invaded. I feel strongly that they should be British but equally I feel just as strongly about my house being part of Britain. The reason my house is irrelevant and the Falklands are not is because of the Argentinian claim. What Cameron is doing by refusing to negotiate on any terms other than self determination is effectively telling the Argentinians to give up and stop trying which is exactly what is needed. The islands need less time in the papers, less money spent defending them, less debate over the rightful owners and less digging up war wounds. It will be a difficult topic for as long as people keep talking about it. Denying that there is any claim worth negotiating is the correct way to let people on both sides forget the islands exist.
Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go with that strategy Pal!
You will have more and more critics in Latin America every day!!! US changes his position too.
Dont be surprised if start an economic boycott in upcomming years. South America is acting as a block.
|
From the sounds of it Argentina's overall claim is about as valid as the claims to land on the moon that get sold online.
Frankly the entire debate seems to run in parallel to the recent discourse in this thread - a small whiny voice playing the victim to a benign entity that doesn't see what all the fuss is about. It's really hard to sympathise with any Argentinian claim with the way it's presented here.
|
On June 22 2011 00:46 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:28 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:53 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:47 Ganjamaster wrote:On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2011 23:35 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2011 23:07 jello_biafra wrote: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. 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! Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again. What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason. I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall. Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve. At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions? The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize. Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too. Unfortunately they haven't got irrelevance. They used to have it and then it became an issue when they got invaded. I feel strongly that they should be British but equally I feel just as strongly about my house being part of Britain. The reason my house is irrelevant and the Falklands are not is because of the Argentinian claim. What Cameron is doing by refusing to negotiate on any terms other than self determination is effectively telling the Argentinians to give up and stop trying which is exactly what is needed. The islands need less time in the papers, less money spent defending them, less debate over the rightful owners and less digging up war wounds. It will be a difficult topic for as long as people keep talking about it. Denying that there is any claim worth negotiating is the correct way to let people on both sides forget the islands exist. You will have more and more critics in Latin America every day!!! US changes his position too. Dont be surprised if start an economic boycott in upcomming years. South America is acting as a block.
Well have a look at this thread, almost every non-Argentinian is more sympathetic to our cause than yours. You are the people trying to land grab. We may have a poor colonial history in parts, but we have a by and large good recent history of letting colonies become independent countries if they ask for it.
Bottom line is that even if Argentina's claim were valid enough to warrant Britain losing sovereignty over the Islands, there is no reason for them not to then become an independent country.
|
On June 22 2011 00:33 chgh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:28 MaK UK wrote:On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:
Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war? it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt? Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
Please stop making us all look like clowns with your moronic statements. Go back to watching 678 and Tinelli plz, thx.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 22 2011 00:35 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:28 chgh wrote:On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote: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!!! Oh come on, you can do better than that and even I found newspapers from "the 90's" online, they only talk about allegations though. Go on and show proof. "I know veterans" isnt enough, because their tales probably have grown in the 30 years of telling. So where are those "judgements" you claim which exist? The only thing I found was an article at SPIEGEL online, which says that the Argentinian General Leopoldo Galtieri and some of his buddies were convicted of war crimes ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.htmlIf both sides have convicted war criminals, who can claim to be better / more ethical than the other? Wikipedia has only two british people on the list of those convicted for war crimes, it is probably incomplete (no Argentinian people listed, but maybe it only lists those convicted at an international court?), but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_convicted_of_war_crimesI think this article describes it best: There have been some hints of war crimes carried out by British troops against Argentine prisoners but no firm evidence.Again: Where is your proof? Any "novels" written by people arent really proof of anything. It isnt me who has failed in finding stuff, it is you who failed in providing stuff you claim exists and claims are no evidence. War is cruel (it has to be so countries dont wage war over minor issues) and war veterans are not to be envied, but not everything you see in war automatically constitutes a war crime. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:33 chgh wrote:On June 22 2011 00:28 MaK UK wrote:On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:
Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war? it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt? Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!! And the Argentinians claim to care about them? ROFLMAO ... Why shouldnt the british care for them?
Why are you putting so much emphasis in war crimes? What kind proof do you need in a post, a time machine? Read Green Eyes Boys too. Don´t care?
|
On June 22 2011 00:57 Ganjamaster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:33 chgh wrote:On June 22 2011 00:28 MaK UK wrote:On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote:
Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war? it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt? Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!! Please stop making us all look like clowns with your moronic statements. Go back to watching 678 and Tinelli plz, thx.
Chupala nabo! Te interesa tanto quedar bien?
Y si me vas a insultar hacelo en español al menos!
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
