Argentina calls on Britain to refrain from holding military exercises in the Falklands

[Jingthing]

As for Obama and Clinton they are a disgrace backing Argentina when young British soldiers are dying fighting Americas wars.

I wasn't even aware that President Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton have made any public statements on the matter. Please share any of that if you can. Seriously, if push comes to shove, I would bet they would do another Reagan, but I don't really know.

(BTW, anguid, cool graphic!)

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Englander]

I wasn't even aware that President Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton have made any public statements on the matter. Please share any of that if you can. Seriously, if push comes to shove, I would bet they would do another Reagan, but I don't really know.

Americans should learn its none of your f'en business, and the British should have instantly pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan to show is distain towards America for supporting Argentinas attempts to colonise free people.

http://www.timesonli...icle7047309.ece

http://www.thefirstp...-argentina-ally

http://www.thefirstp...lands-argentina

Edited October 11, 2010 by Englander

[Jingthing]

it has been a long time now since the redcoats were expelled.

When george Washington crossed the Delaware for winter camp he had 3500 men - 2700 of them were 1st and second generation ENGLISH - learn your facts - the American war of independance was a British civil war fought on American soil.

With regards to the falklands - we have a lot more claim to it than the US has to the parts of Mexico it conquered or the land it took from the native American Indians - your posts are a joke because you dont know history - but then Ronald "raygun" didnt know much when he ordered the invasion of central American countries in the 1980s - your a hypocrite!!

Washington led a revolutionary movement. We were a British colony back then. Washington had soldiers loyal to the revolution and the redcoats were British soldiers, correct, if not, do tell. The original national background of Washington's army is not relevant, as they weren't fighting for Britain in that conflict. Of course there were many British sympathizers in the colonies who didn't support the revolution, and many of them went to Canada.

Where did you get the idea that I approve of all American foreign policy, currently or throughout history? I don't think either Brits or Argies can usually be objective on this Las Malvinas matter, but as an outsider to the active sides, personally I find the Argies side more compelling and I wish them success in future of making the map of South America make more sense.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Englander]

personally I find the Argies side more compelling and I wish them success in future of making the map of South America make more sense.

So you supported a military invasion from Argentina in the 80s by the ruling Junta and the deaths of many young men, good to get your take on it.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Englander

[Jingthing]

personally I find the Argies side more compelling and I wish them success in future of making the map of South America make more sense.

So you supported a military invasion from Argentina in the 80s by the ruling Junta and the deaths of many young men, good to get your take on it.

That's a very good question. No, actually, I think their dictator was a nutcase and he should have known he was sending his boys to slaughter. However, I didn't approve how Reagan reacted to it either, and I also didn't approve of the neo-fascistic showboating Thatcher orchestrated with the victory. Because Argentina was ruled by a nutter at that time, an overt pro Argentina stance would not have been possible, but certainly a more finessed, balanced response would have been that showed more solidarity with South America in general.

I am hoping that over time a peaceful takeover of the islands by Argentina will be possible. All of South America is for that, and I certainly don't consider the Kirchner's (man and wife, wife now in power) to be nutcases at all, rather I think they are very excellent democratically elected presidents. With Brazil and Argentina getting closer, and Brazil having become a major global player and part of the BRIC group (Brazil, Russia, India, China) I think the historical pull will be towards Argentina getting what they want here, not Britain.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Englander]

personally I find the Argies side more compelling and I wish them success in future of making the map of South America make more sense.

So you supported a military invasion from Argentina in the 80s by the ruling Junta and the deaths of many young men, good to get your take on it.

That's a very good question. No, actually, I think their dictator was a nutcase and he should have known he was sending his boys to slaughter. However, I didn't approve how Reagan reacted to it either, and I also didn't approve of the neo-fascistic showboating Thatcher orchestrated with the victory.

I am hoping that over time a peaceful takeover of the islands by Argentina will be possible. All of South America is for that, and I certainly don't consider the Kirchner's (man and wife, wife now in power) to be nutcases at all, rather I think they are very excellent democratically elected presidents. With Brazil and Argentina getting closer, and Brazil having become a major global player and part of the BRIC group (Brazil, Russia, India, China) I think the historical pull will be towards Argentina getting what they want here, not Britain.

History has proven its British soil, though with cowardly fairweather friends like the EU nations and America we are well and truly on our own, which is no problem.

And as for your comment on Thatchers "neo-fascistic showboating" for winning a war we never asked for, well you exaggerate for starters, but what do you expect her to do say nothing .... though there were some in her govt who thought the brave soldiers who were involved in the sinking of the Belgrano should have gone to trial, id imagine if you were a British politician youd be of a similar traitorous ilk.

[Jingthing]

The land that now contains Washington D.C. USED to be part of a British colony, as did much of the world. Things change.

I wouldn't assume that the US government is against you on Las Malvinas, I am just speaking as a private person, I hope you can make such distinctions, if not, that's scary.

Next ...

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[onnut]

The land that now contains Washington D.C. USED to be part of a British colony, as did much of the world. Things change.

I wouldn't assume that the US government is against you on Las Malvinas, I am just speaking as a private person, I hope you can make such distinctions, if not, that's scary.

Next ...

Your Wrong! and do you know what, I think it would be disgracfull if the US Government did not help us in some way if war does break out. The US have been very lucky to have recieved help from many countries in Iraq, if they had not recieved any help it would of been another Vietnam cock up.

[Jingthing]

The land that now contains Washington D.C. USED to be part of a British colony, as did much of the world. Things change.

I wouldn't assume that the US government is against you on Las Malvinas, I am just speaking as a private person, I hope you can make such distinctions, if not, that's scary.

Next ...

Your Wrong! and do you know what, I think it would be disgracfull if the US Government did not help us in some way if war does break out. The US have been very lucky to have recieved help from many countries in Iraq, if they had not recieved any help it would of been another Vietnam cock up.

Don't get your panties in a twist, mate. We have yet to see anyone post any information on the position of the current US administration on the Las Malvinas matter, so I wouldn't make any assumptions about that without some information. I understand your argument of tit for tat, Britain helped in Iraq, so the US should be obligated to help Britain. If for some reason Obama does feel more like I do, then it would be a really tough call. But I don't know how Obama feels on this. I reckon he would back Britain though.

[rgs2001uk]

No, I am not a product of British colonialism. Don't take me for a Canuck. That mentality doesn't exist among Americans; it has been a long time now since the redcoats were expelled. As far as the issues concerning Las Malvinas being over, you are deluding yourselves. South America won't forget this, EVER, and now has some powerful nations with much more international clout such as Brazil (pro Argentina), Chile (pro Argentina, previously anti-Argentina), and of course Venezuela (very pro Argentina). Brazil of course being the most important.

I am at all surprised or bothered that some people are outraged by a pro Argentina position being taken here. If this was an Argentinian forum and someone supported the British on this, I expect the blowback would be even more toxic. Again, it shows there are indeed two sides here, but most of you have only been exposed to the pro UK propaganda on this.

Note -- hopefully this can someday be resolved PEACEFULLY. Don't take my support of Argentina as support for a new war.

Would be interested to know your point of view on Israel being dismantled and handed back to its rightfiul owners.

Wonder what views such liberal thinkers as Obama and Hilary have on the matter.

I am not a product of Zionist American propoganda so may have a differing opinion on those who are.

[onnut]

Actually I reckon Britain should put the Great back into Great Britain and go it alone IF war breaks out. sure maybe a few more losses but it would show the world that we are still a force to reckon with.

[Jingthing]

Would be interested to know your point of view on Israel being dismantled and handed back to its rightfiul owners.

Wonder what views such liberal thinkers as Obama and Hilary have on the matter.

I am not a product of Zionist American propoganda so may have a differing opinion on those who are.

Glad to talk about such topics on any threads related to Israel and Palestine. Not this one.

[rgs2001uk]

Would be interested to know your point of view on Israel being dismantled and handed back to its rightfiul owners.

Wonder what views such liberal thinkers as Obama and Hilary have on the matter.

I am not a product of Zionist American propoganda so may have a differing opinion on those who are.

Glad to talk about such topics on any threads related to Israel and Palestine. Not this one.

Think you have been in Thailand too long, they call it conflict avoidance.

Strange attitude seeing as you introduced N.Ireland into the discussion, not in any way influenced by your views on Kennedy rather than histroical facts are we?

Never mind trust you arent a product of the Hollywood versions of world history, buts thats a discussion for another thread, how John Wayne saved the free world from those nastie commies. How Chuck Norris sorted the VC out, dare say I could go on, but others have already pointed out an alternative version of events than is probably taught in the American schooling system.

[Tigs]

It sounds like you don't want to hear the opposite side voiced, and you don't have the right to demand that.

Inflammatory? Only if you perceive any dissent from the majority in that way (that's your issue, not the dissenters). Racist? No, of course not, what a cheap shot. Wrong? Maybe, that's an opinion, there is no objective reality in a clash like this.

N. Ireland is off topic and no I won't get into that here.

If you have good cause to think a particular post violates the rules here, use the REPORT button.

Jingthing, at no point have you given the opposite side of the story. You have been presented with clear legal evidence that the Falklands were never Argentinian, yet you say they should belong to them...Why? Explain why the island, full of British people and has been British for Hundreds of years, prior to which it never belonged to Argentina. Why, in your opinion should it now belong to Argentina? What legal, even Moral grounds are there for handing the Islands over when they have NEVER belonged to Argentina.

Oh but there is objective reality. It is the reality you have been presented with concerning History and the law, you are the one presenting a purely subjective argument.

Regards you refusing to comment on N. Ireland, you were the first person to bring the subject up on this thread. You mentioned the conflict, but now when challenged on it, you claim it is thread drift. So why did you mention it in the first place?

Onnut

If only! If there are any more public statements of lack of support for the UK concerning the Falklands, All Military assets should be withdrawn from Afghanistan with immediate effect, and all American military bases on UK soil should be told to pack up and leave.

The US would favour all that oil in the hands of the Argentinians, because it knows it has a chance of controlng them, and that all the operating licences will go to US oil giants.

Bast**d Politicians!!

Edited October 11, 2010 by Tigs

[personchester]

Many of you Brits sound so smug about this. You've got all of South America against you. That is not a fringe group of people.

But we have the Falkland Islanders with us. They wish to remain British.

Yes, the Falkland's inhabitance would like to remain under British rule, unfortunately that puts the UK under pressure to protect them from any Argie invasion as was the case in 1982. and that is rather expensive for Britain in both blood and money, the UK has to keep a military garrison there in order to prevent a new Argie invasion, Britain wants to get out of the Falkland's but the people there want allow it.

Britain has the same problem with Gibraltar v. Spain who want it back, the people of Gibraltar also don't want Britain to leave, although most of them are of Spanish inherency, the reason for this is probably the benefit of the British welfare social service.

In addition, Britain has the same problem with Northern Ireland, the UK has tried for the last 30 years to find a way to unite the "NORTH" with the "Irish Republic" in order to get rid of the terrible problems, the majority of the "NORTH" refuse this totally

but the minority of the "NORTH" want unification, yet the Irish Republic is not keen to support this since it would then have to deal with the internal problems of the "NORTH" and Britain would be free of it.

This is the price Britain has still to pay as a past global super power, who at its high point controlled 12 % of the globe, and the sun never went down within British colonial territory.

[Jingthing]

Would be interested to know your point of view on Israel being dismantled and handed back to its rightfiul owners.

Wonder what views such liberal thinkers as Obama and Hilary have on the matter.

I am not a product of Zionist American propoganda so may have a differing opinion on those who are.

Glad to talk about such topics on any threads related to Israel and Palestine. Not this one.

Think you have been in Thailand too long, they call it conflict avoidance.

Strange attitude seeing as you introduced N.Ireland into the discussion, not in any way influenced by your views on Kennedy rather than histroical facts are we?

Never mind trust you arent a product of the Hollywood versions of world history, buts thats a discussion for another thread, how John Wayne saved the free world from those nastie commies. How Chuck Norris sorted the VC out, dare say I could go on, but others have already pointed out an alternative version of events than is probably taught in the American schooling system.

Your characterization of my political views is absurd. You are talking about some kind of brainwashed kind of American that is a figment of your imagination, nothing at all to do with me. Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Again, things can and do change over time. I think Gibraltar and Las Malvinas are different cases and likely different future outcomes.

BTW, your wasting your time trying to troll bait me into a discussion about Ireland. I mentioned that as an example and aside, and never intended to spark a detailed discussion. So don't bother.

I get your legal/historical argument. I am sure it has merit. However, on the macro level the historical drive of South Americans to expel all colonialists ain't chopped liver either, and overall, they won that fight. Argentina wants to finish it.

Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Palacios

Don't make me out to be some kind of traitor to Britain when I have no allegiance to Britain. Much of the side taking on this issue is based on affinity anyway. Brits I would assume are almost all for The Falkands being British. South Americans are almost all for Las Malvinas being Argentinian. I feel a greater affinity towards South Americans than Brits, sorry if that is a problem for some of you.

I do realize Britain (stupidly) acted the USA poodle in Iraq. I really wish you hadn't!

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[onnut]

Onnut

If only! If there are any more public statements of lack of support for the UK concerning the Falklands, All Military assets should be withdrawn from Afghanistan with immediate effect, and all American military bases on UK soil should be told to pack up and leave.

The US would favour all that oil in the hands of the Argentinians, because it knows it has a chance of controlng them, and that all the operating licences will go to US oil giants.

Bast**d Politicians!!

eh! I never even thought of that one happening! That is a scary thought, and a huge possibility. greedy bastards!

[Tigs]

Jingthing

However, on the macro level the historical drive of South Americans to expel all colonialists ain't chopped liver either, and overall, they won that fight. Argentina wants to finish it.

So there we are full circle again. The Americans as defined today are colonialists, would you give up (or expect your fellow countrymen to give up) the country and all move out because the North American Indians want the place back? I state again, there were no Argentinians on the Falkland islands. The Falkland Islands were NEVER part of Argentina. Perhaps just start by giving California back to the Mexicans.

I feel a greater affinity towards South Americans than Brits, sorry if that is a problem for some of you.

regardless of your affinity or what the South Americans would see as advantageous, there is NO legal right for them to claim the Falklands. End of Story

Edited October 11, 2010 by Tigs

[Jingthing]

Jingthing

However, on the macro level the historical drive of South Americans to expel all colonialists ain't chopped liver either, and overall, they won that fight. Argentina wants to finish it.

So there we are full circle again. The Americans as defined today are colonialists, would you give up (or expect your fellow countrymen to give up) the country and all move out because the North American Indians want the place back? I state again, there were no Argentinians on the Falkland islands. The Falkland Islands were NEVER part of Argentina. Perhaps just start by giving California back to the Mexicans.

I think the best option now is for the USA and Mexico to merge into one country and attack Canada. It would be interesting to see if the commonwealth countries would come to Canada's aid. Their money is getting too strong, action must be taken.

:wacko:

Translation, this thread is about Las Malvinas.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

regardless of your affinity or what the South Americans would see as advantageous, there is NO legal right for them to claim the Falklands. End of Story

That's funny. Actually, it depends on who the judge is. I am sure in all Argentinian courts, they would judge Argentinian rule of the islands LEGAL.

You're right this is an endless loop. However, I don't really believe most Brits are for what they are for because of legal reasons. I think it is simply affinity to the islanders, so I don't think this moral high ground argument goes very far. Affinity is the big part of the conflict on both sides.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Tigs]

I am sure in all Argentinian courts, they would judge Argentinian rule of the islands LEGAL.

Oh for Gods sake! BUT IT CANNOT BE LEGAL! THEY HAVE NEVER EVER OWNED IT!!

They tried to claim it as part of the Spanish Colony, which was huge, but the Brits had the Falklands. International waters start 12 Miles of a countries coastline. The Falklands is 250 miles from Argentina, it is unlikely the 'natives' even knew of it's existence, and when Argentina became Argentina it was known of and wanted as part of Spanish booty. The Argentinians had never been there, they even sent an American to go and claim it. I can't make it simpler. It has been thought for years it was rich in resources, hence the 1982 debacle, and now they are starting again, no doubt confident with the dwindling UK military and the support both overt and covert from the USA.

[Jingthing]

Was the original Spanish colonization legal? This is a land and yes resources dispute. Throughout history legality has had very little to do with these kinds of disputes.

I don't know that what you imply about discreet support of Argentina by the USA is true as I haven't seen anything about that. I would be surprised, though pleased.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[rgs2001uk]

I am sure in all Argentinian courts, they would judge Argentinian rule of the islands LEGAL.

Oh for Gods sake! BUT IT CANNOT BE LEGAL! THEY HAVE NEVER EVER OWNED IT!!

They tried to claim it as part of the Spanish Colony, which was huge, but the Brits had the Falklands. International waters start 12 Miles of a countries coastline. The Falklands is 250 miles from Argentina, it is unlikely the 'natives' even knew of it's existence, and when Argentina became Argentina it was known of and wanted as part of Spanish booty. The Argentinians had never been there, they even sent an American to go and claim it. I can't make it simpler. It has been thought for years it was rich in resources, hence the 1982 debacle, and now they are starting again, no doubt confident with the dwindling UK military and the support both overt and covert from the USA.

There is no point in having a dog and barking yourself.

Just invite a delegation of the dignitaries over for a tour of the nuclear facilites in the UK.

Never mind a dwindling military, arm up some Vulcans and be done with it, they wont be so gobby after seeing those at the end of a runway.

[Englander]

I am sure in all Argentinian courts, they would judge Argentinian rule of the islands LEGAL.

Oh for Gods sake! BUT IT CANNOT BE LEGAL! THEY HAVE NEVER EVER OWNED IT!!

On another thread he mentioned being banned from a fish and chip shop in Jomtien, i was curious to know as to how someone could possibly get banned from such an establishment, its become very clear now.

[Jingthing]

I am sure in all Argentinian courts, they would judge Argentinian rule of the islands LEGAL.

Oh for Gods sake! BUT IT CANNOT BE LEGAL! THEY HAVE NEVER EVER OWNED IT!!

On another thread he mentioned being banned from a fish and chip shop in Jomtien, i was curious to know as to how someone could possibly get banned from such an establishment, its become very clear now.

It had nothing to do with Las Malvinas. I regularly enjoy British restaurants in Pattaya and just finished watching the Tudors television series. Quite a violent, juicy history you Brits have, the moral high ground, gotta love it.

[personchester]

OMG, I didn't dispute the reports of the history here, I simply correctly asserted (check it if you like) that I never said that Britain invaded ARGENTINA. I did say that Britain invaded Buenos Aires, which it did. I also said that Argentina (which it is true did not exist at the same time that Britain invaded Buenos Aires but I never said it did) has never invaded London, which is true, they have never done that in history. If you check my posting record, I have admitted errors many, many times, but I won't on this thread on those points, because there was no error on these points by me. You seriously want me to apologize/confess for an error that I didn't make? That is silly.

Also, to be clear. Obama was born in the USA. I never said the USA has always or usually been on the side of South Americans, or Central Americans, or even North Americans (Mexico is a North American nation). I personally wish the USA had been a better neighbor with all of the Americas though, and understand Argentinian resentment over the position Reagan took. I certainly do not represent US foreign policy now or in the past, or suggest my views reflect majority American opinion. For some things, like feeling the Iraq war was a big mistake, yes they do, but for Las Malvinas, they don't.

Yes it is true the Argies now want the oil. But there is more to it than this, and for a country like Britain which cynically raped much of the globe of its natural resources with colonialism, I don't quite see that being a position of the moral high ground.

About Cuba, I don't see Cuba being the same thing, as Cubans aren't a colony, they have for a long time been a sovereign nation. The USA has wanted Cuba to be in their sphere of influence though, that is true.

Jingthing,

you are a product yourself of Britains Global Colonialism. I do not know where your forefathers came from but I bet they were not Native Red Indians! you are living in a country that Britain colonised years ago.

actually, the people living on the Falklands have been there for 300 years, if another country wanted to take over now I think that is a bit off. think of it like this, what if the French or Spanish decided they wanted America all of a sudden?

The Falklands belong to England and that is final.

NEXT!

During WW2, the "Three Major Power" conference in Gibraltar in 1943 between Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, when unconditional surrender for Germany was set up, Stalin proposed and demanded territory from Germany that had been with Russia some 350 years ago.

President Roosevelt replied to Stalin that he could not agree to this because it was "time-wise" too long ago in history, then he said loudly, turning his face to Churchill (on the large round table) with a big sarcastic smile, if I were to agree with your request "Joe" (Stalin) ... then "Winny" (Churchill) would claim our American territory back, and he kept laughing, and laughing loudly, whilst looking at Churchill.

Churchill, was a respectful supporter and lover of the British empire, and regretted very much (like most upper classes in the UK) the loss of America and his face looked very depressed when Roosevelt made those laughing comments to him.

Roosevelt was well aware that Churchill would be very upset by the laughing sarcastic comments he made about the Brits loosing America, and Churchill's sadly smiling face was reflective of this, but Roosevelt did not care, on the contrary, he enjoyed doing it, in 1943 Roosevelt and Stalin were both powerful and controlled the war, Britain was no longer regarded in the same way, as a result Churchill was the common subject of jokes made by Stalin and Roosevelt.

Perhaps now, leaders of the "Red Indians" the original territory owners, should make a request at the UN in New York to get their land back, after all it was stolen from them in a violent manner, and then order the melting pot of the American population to leave America and return to the countries of their forefathers, they would then perhaps also demand adequate payments in order to get compensation for the killing of all the buffalo's they had ... What !.

Edited October 11, 2010 by personchester

[mca]

Actually I reckon Britain should put the Great back into Great Britain and go it alone IF war breaks out

Never mind a dwindling military, arm up some Vulcans and be done with it, they wont be so gobby after seeing those at the end of a runway.

Sniff.....You boys are making me proud......

Diplomacy?

Back in the days Britain's idea of diplomacy was letting the opposition have a broadside from the starboard cannons. And a bloody good job too!

Basically any PM who relinquishes the Falklands to the Argentinians better have his bags packed come next election.

Bunch of inbred sheep shaggers clinging to a rock in the South Atlantic sure. But they're our inbred sheep shaggers on our rock.

Edited October 11, 2010 by mca

[Jingthing]

Perhaps now, leaders of the "Red Indians" the original territory owners, should make a request at the UN in New York to get their land back, after all it was stolen from them in a violent manner, and then order the melting pot of the American population to leave America and return to the countries of their forefathers, they would then perhaps also demand adequate payments in order to get compensation for the killing of all the buffalo's they had ... What !.

Was that supposed to be humorous? If so, nope.

[onnut]

Actually I reckon Britain should put the Great back into Great Britain and go it alone IF war breaks out

Never mind a dwindling military, arm up some Vulcans and be done with it, they wont be so gobby after seeing those at the end of a runway.

Sniff.....You boys are making me proud......

Diplomacy?

Back in the days Britain's idea of diplomacy was letting the opposition have a broadside from the starboard cannons. And a bloody good job too!

Basically any PM who relinquishes the Falklands to the Argentinians better have his bags packed come next election.

Bunch of inbred sheep shaggers clinging to a rock in the South Atlantic sure. But they're our inbred sheep shaggers on our rock.

+1 for you. This made me laugh out loud!