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

[Moonrakers]

But they don't own it, do they? Not have they ever owned it!

What about my claims to ownership of your car (assuming you have one)?

They think they own it.

BUT THEY DON'T, do they?

Do they own it JT?

Yes

or

No

[Jingthing]

But they don't own it, do they? Not have they ever owned it!

What about my claims to ownership of your car (assuming you have one)?

They think they own it.

BUT THEY DON'T, do they?

Do they own it JT?

Yes

or

No

Good point. It DOESN'T matter. I can't answer yes or no; obviously right now it is with Britain. There is no objective truth here. There is a real conflict with arguments on BOTH sides. So you have a major international conflict with major players (and with Brazil's open support more than ever), this just won't go away quietly. Edited October 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[7by7]

Thinking they own it and actually owning it are not the same.

Historically, Britain's claim is more valid than Argentina's as Britain laid claim to the islands before Argentina even existed. You may say that the Argentinian claim is based upon the previous Spanish claim; but Britain's claim predates even that!

The only country that has an older claim to the islands than Britain is France; and they don't seem to be interested.

So, what say you, Jingthing, to the rights of the islanders; the people that actually live there? Do you think that they count for naught? Do the rights of people who do not live there, and never have, override theirs?

[Moonrakers]

I think it will just go away. It''s a flash in a pan by an under pressure President to whip up support for her cause.

The whole thing smacks of desperation. She is complaining to the UN about a provocative build up of military in the region where it appears to be nothing more than routine exercises. I can't even find this story on the BBC site, it's hardly breaking news if one of the countries most concerned seems not particularly bothered by it.

I can't see Brazil getting too involved. Their economy is booming and they are attracting massive foreign investment outside of the America's. I can't see them wanting to go at odds with one of the world's largest economies and her allies at a time when they are asking for their money. It's easy for them to say they'll support talks, especially when they know that such talks are extremely unlikely to have any impact whatsoever.

"USA are now neutral" I think that's clutching at straws. they have effectively said that they WILL NOT support Argentina.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Moonrakers

[Jingthing]

Thinking they own it and actually owning it are not the same.

Historically, Britain's claim is more valid than Argentina's as Britain laid claim to the islands before Argentina even existed. You may say that the Argentinian claim is based upon the previous Spanish claim; but Britain's claim predates even that!

The only country that has an older claim to the islands than Britain is France; and they don't seem to be interested.

So, what say you, Jingthing, to the rights of the islanders; the people that actually live there? Do you think that they count for naught? Do the rights of people who do not live there, and never have, override theirs?

I grew up on land once claimed by Britain. I think the islanders could live quite well as Argentinians and also massive compensation could be granted as part of a negotiation package. Surely the islanders have rights, but again, what about the oil wealth rape of resources Argentina deems to be theirs? You say Britain's claim is more valid and you are biased, they say their claim is more valid and they are biased, no wonder there was already a war about this.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[Moonrakers]

JT, the FACTS say that Britain's claim is more valid.

I can't even find this on the daily mail site and this king of right wing nationalistic stuff is right up their alley. This is nowhere near as big a thing as you might think it is JT.

[Jingthing]

JT, the FACTS say that Britain's claim is more valid.

I can't even find this on the daily mail site and this king of right wing nationalistic stuff is right up their alley. This is nowhere near as big a thing as you might think it is JT.

I don't accept your judgment just as South America doesn't on this matter. Just stating the FACTS say this or that doesn't cut it. This is of course a bigger deal in Argentina than anywhere else.

[Moonrakers]

Just stating the FACTS say this or that doesn't cut it.

This is where I take my leave from this thread.

[Jingthing]

Just stating the FACTS say this or that doesn't cut it.

This is where I take my leave from this thread.

That's fine. But to be clear, I don't KNOW the objective truth about this. Argentinians are convinced the FACTS support their claim, just like you did. Would just doing that convince you? Of course not.

Also, irrational or not, AFFINITY is indeed the major factor in such conflicts. A Mexican could easily convince me that Mexico deserves to take over California because the USA stole it from them. I may agree they have a compelling argument, but I would still oppose their efforts. Who's right and wrong there? It doesn't matter. It matters that you have conviction that your side deserves the contested thing.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[Tigs]

Jingthing

BTW, does a Manchester United supporter need to give a legal argument to you to justify his affinity towards that club?

Hardly a contentious issue is it, such as those described to you including this one concerning the Falklands, even if you are a Liverpool supporter.

What about the rights of the Argentinians who claim ownership? If their claims are valid, aren't they now being raped, having their oil money raped by British colonialists?

Point A: Their claims are not valid.

Point B: No they are not being rapes, because they do not own anything.

Point C: Now you are getting to the issue... OIL.

Point D: The North American Indians and Indigenous people all over the world are having their resources taken by Colonialists.

They think they own it. All of South America thinks they own it. You don't really think you own my car so that's a bad example. So there is a REAL conflict whether you like it or not and it ain't going away

Hang on a minute. I happen to think Moonraker's has a point. He thinks he owns your car so what right do you have to challenge that. He thinks he owns it, that seems good enough for me, and I for one offer him my unswerving support in his claim for your car. Would any other Thai Visa members also think that Moonrakers owns the Car that Jingthing says is his? Moonrakers, I feel for you on this one, you have my sympathy, please press ahead with the claim, in fact just send someone to take it, it is yours after all, Jingthing will say he paid for it and has had it a while, but take no bullsh*t, the car is definitely yours, because I know you would like it.. I support you.

I grew up on land once claimed by Britain. I think the islanders could live quite well as Argentinians and also massive compensation could be granted as part of a negotiation package. Surely the islanders have rights, but again, what about the oil wealth rape of resources Argentina deems to be theirs? You say Britain's claim is more valid and you are biased, they say their claim is more valid and they are biased, no wonder there was already a war about this.

Boy they really didn't do a good job of history in the US education system did they? No wonder so many people accept creationism in the states. Let me try and add to your education. You did not grow up (should I stop there?) in a land once claimed by Britain, you have missed a bit! You grew up in a land first claimed by the Vikings, then the Portugese, then the bun fight of European countries trying to get stuck in there. Britain essentially won that particular fight but was turfed out later by first generation Europeans (including rebel Brits) and second, third generation Europeans now claiming to be American. These "Americans' then continued the wholesale slaughter of a race of proud people, the North American Indians. You spent your childhood on a land stolen from another people and stained in their blood. You claim it as your own. Are you going to give it back with your lefty liberal principles? A situation far more severe than the Falklands, that only had birds on them when the French and Brits arrived. Funny how it is called the Land of the Free when the Local population were incarcerated and raped of their lands and livestock, and hardly the Home of the Brave considering the genocide committed against North American Indian and women. All proof really that brainwashing can occur in the years of early education.

The oil is 250 miles from Argentina, their international waters extend for 12 miles.

The claim by Britain is based on documented legal ownership, a bit like your car eh Jingthing?

edited to add

"That's fine. But to be clear, I don't KNOW the objective truth about this. Argentinians are convinced the FACTS support their claim, just like you did. Would just doing that convince you? Of course not."

Well if you don't know the objective facts then stay out of it. The difference is Jingthing, I know the objective facts for UK ownership, there are no Objective facts for Argentinian ownership. Show me one, just one Fact to prove ownership. One Fact to present to a court. You cannot and neither can the Argentinians.

"Just stating the FACTS say this or that doesn't cut it"

A truly remarkable statement that sums up everything you have said, and indeed your whole thought process.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Tigs

[Jingthing]

"Just stating the FACTS say this or that doesn't cut it"

A truly remarkable statement that sums up everything you have said, and indeed your whole thought process.

That does sound bad, but the point was you just can't trust anyone who tells you they have the facts and accept that as the truth. You have to dig much deeper. A human being saying they have the facts is actually just a human being stating they have an opinion. Again, not good enough to call that absolute truth. I think there really is a gray area with Las Malvinas. With a car and I had legal title to it, and some stranger claimed ownership, yes the facts support my claim. But if the car actually had a sketchy history and there were arguments that could be made that it wasn't mine, well, then the title may actually not be definitive proof. Then of course, you would need an objective JUDGE to decide the matter. But with international conflicts, who is to act as a judge that both sides will always accept? That can be a very hard thing.

BTW, I don't appreciate your implication that Americans aren't aware of what happened to the Indians. Typical British pomposity there.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[Tigs]

Jingthing

BTW, I don't appreciate your implication that Americans aren't aware of what happened to the Indians. Typical British pomposity there.

Well for that implication I apologise. But if you were aware,then when drawing your conclusions about what to say concerning the evils of Colonialism, i would have thought you would have taken that in to consideration. Pot calling Kettle and all that.

With a car and I had legal title to it, and some stranger claimed ownership, yes the facts support my claim. But if the car actually had a sketchy history and there were arguments that could be made that it wasn't mine, well, then the title may actually not be definitive proof.

But that is just it, you have legal title to it, as does Britain with the Falklands. If your car had had two previous owners but you had now purchased it and had legal title, could a previous owner claim it as there's? I don't think so, and lets not forget, Argentina was never a previous owner in this farce. There are historical deeds of title, and change of ownership that stretch back through the centuries, which I am sure a dedicated google wizard could find a copy of, to show legal rights.

Please put your logical hat on now and explain how an uninhabited set of islands, 250 miles out to sea, never discovered by anyone until the French happened upon them, can be claimed as theirs by a country that never even existed when the islands were discovered or indeed never existed during decades of British ownership. Forget the emotion, just look at those facts, you don't even have to consider legality, just the very basic facts.Come on Jingthing, fess up, what does your logical head tell you?

It really is a case of 'bwaaaaaah, they have found oil, we want it for our economy, tell them its ours

Edited October 12, 2010 by Tigs

[metisdead]

Maybe this is why a so promiscuous poster has a soft spot for Argentina:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Argentina

[rgs2001uk]

Maybe this is why a so promiscuous poster has a soft spot for Argentina:

http://en.wikipedia....ge_in_Argentina

His sexuality or religion is of no concern to me, however if he has such an affinity towards the country <deleted> is he doing in Thailand?

Pack up and move there, he will be welcomed with open arms I'm sure.

Sure has some complex issues to sort out, lets start with good ole Argentina, bolt hole for Nazi war criminals, Peron era, military junta, facist policies, superiority complex they think of themselves as European as oppossed to Latino, etc etc.

[metisdead]

Maybe this is why a so promiscuous poster has a soft spot for Argentina:

http://en.wikipedia....ge_in_Argentina

His sexuality or religion is of no concern to me, however if he has such an affinity towards the country <deleted> is he doing in Thailand?

Pack up and move there, he will be welcomed with open arms I'm sure.

Sure has some complex issues to sort out, lets start with good ole Argentina, bolt hole for Nazi war criminals, Peron era, military junta, facist policies, superiority complex they think of themselves as European as oppossed to Latino, etc etc.

Agree 100%

[spud1]

Hey Thingy,read the context of the link then comeback with a reasonable argument.

http://www.falklandshistory.org/

[Englander]

What about the rights of the Argentinians who claim ownership? If their claims are valid, aren't they now being raped, having their oil money raped by British colonialists?

Your obviously very slow witted and after 7 pages havent got the basic point that Argentina have no legal entitlement to the Falklands and those now indigenous to the Island do not wish to be colonised by Argentina.

Now as ive written the reasons in as simple form as possible can you stop writing your brainless crap elsewhere, as youve gone beyond being an irritating fool.

[Tigs]

By the way Jingthing, to get over the sentimentality of it all, the Argentinians don't give a crap about the Falkland Islands, they probably won't even set foot on them, they want to head straight for the oil fields, nothing else.

[7by7]

So, what say you, Jingthing, to the rights of the islanders; the people that actually live there? Do you think that they count for naught? Do the rights of people who do not live there, and never have, override theirs?

I grew up on land once claimed by Britain. I think the islanders could live quite well as Argentinians and also massive compensation could be granted as part of a negotiation package.

Supposing the UK claimed the original 13 colonies back, telling the inhabitants that they could live quite well under the British and granting substantial compensation. From what you have said, I can only assume that you would be fine with that.

Britain relinquished it's claim to those 13 colonies after a revolution in which the inhabitants forcibly made clear that they did not wish to be ruled by Britain.

Britain has never relinquished it's claim to the Falklands; and hopefully will never do so until and unless it is the wish of the people of those islands that she does so.

[geriatrickid]

Highlighted are countries which are NOT SOUTH AMERICAN nations --

Countries absent from the list and from whom the UK will most likely receive moral support from are; Barbados, Antigua & Barbado, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Suriname, The Bahamas and Trinidad & Tobago. Honduras has followed the US position. Canada, can be expected to stick to principle and not be afraid of losing influence in Latin America.

Two which are in SOUTH AMERICA -- Suriname and Guyana, sorry those are not important countries.

So you thought you could fool us with that impressive list when the topic was SOUTH AMERICAN support for Argentina, which I have shown is overwhelming.

Regarding your racism accusations, you are way off base and you know it. I have written nothing about the racial issues in South America. You are correct Argentina is mostly a European descent country and there is racism there as there is everywhere including Britain and Thailand, my feeling about Las Malvinas has NOTHING to do with race, if it was mostly Indian PERU, I would feel exactly the same way.

Whoa Joe.

Your headline read, OAS assembly gives full support to Argentina’s Malvinas claim

The list I provided were those OAS nations not supporting the Malvinas claim.

There's an understanding about reopening up borders established during colonial periods and that is to move on. If you follow through on your convuluted logic, then Canada has a greater legitimate claim to large swathes of the USA. The British colonial government ceded large tracts of territory under duress. Do you recall your President Polk and the Oregon Territory, which was originally British? The Americans threatened to attack Alberta and to seize a large part of British Columbia. The British hoping to avoid another war, despite the asswhooping adminstered by loyal subjects of the crown when the Canadians repulsed the US aggressors and burnt down Washington DC. Canada had its land stolen by aggressive Americans, and yet you don't see Canadians running about saying let's invade, let's go brutalize some sheep farmers on a barren island completely unrelated to Canada. The US occupies lands which it had no historical ties to. The British settled barren vacant lands that no one really wanted, certainly not the Spanish that were in Argentina at the time.

[ianbaggie]

BTW, does a Manchester United supporter need to give a legal argument to you to justify his affinity towards that club?

Thats the point your missing - if he goes on the Liverpool web site and rubishes Liverpool and TELLS everyone Hes a Man Utd fan - he has to accept to be called a few names - STOP TROLLING Y'ALL!!

[ianbaggie]

JUST READ THESE TWO STATEMENTS TO SEE WHY WE SHOULDNT TAKE JINGTHINGS COMMENTS AS BEING THOSE OF ANYONE OLDER THAN 14!! These from the same post!!

"Two which are in SOUTH AMERICA -- Suriname and Guyana, sorry those are not important countries.

SO NOW YOU HATE SURINAM AND GUYANA AS WELL AS BRITAIN - you can see where US foriegn policy comes from. THEN THIS WAS COUPLED WITH THE INCREDIBLE

"Regarding your racism accusations, you are way off base and you know it. I have written nothing about the racial issues in South America." - ermmmmm you just did y'all

JUST REFLECT ON THOSE 2 STATEMENTS TOGETHER FOR A MINUTE!!

statement 1 + statement 2 = jingthings argument - duhhhhhhhhhh!

[ianbaggie]

BTW, does a Manchester United supporter need to give a legal argument to you to justify his affinity towards that club?

Of course not; but being a Man U supporter does not effect the rights of others to support whomsoever they wish.

As said before, the overriding concern must be the wishes of the inhabitants of the islands.

They do not want to be Argentinian nor ruled from Buenos Aries.

Yet you would impose that upon them against their will.

That is closer to fascism than anything you could accuse Thatcher or Reagan of doing!

What about the rights of the Argentinians who claim ownership? If their claims are valid, aren't they now being raped, having their oil money raped by British colonialists?

OK Im a Brit - but I - i claim the USA because my Great Great Grandfather fought at Gettysburg - if you dont give it to me my rights are being raped - oh my god when will the penny drop!!!!

[ianbaggie]

But they don't own it, do they? Not have they ever owned it!

What about my claims to ownership of your car (assuming you have one)?

They think they own it. All of South America thinks they own it. You don't really think you own my car so that's a bad example. So there is a REAL conflict whether you like it or not and it ain't going away.

UNFORTUNATELY I RATHER THINK YOU'RE NOT EITHER!!

[Jingthing]

I was asked to provide links backing up my claim that South America supports Argentina on the Las Malvinas matter which a poster called bunk. I wasn't asked to provide proof about the Caribbean or Central America, the challenge was SOUTH AMERICA. I proved my assertion with a link referring to OAS which goes beyond S. America and then a poster acts like I didn't prove my point as some Carib and Central American nations hadn't shown support. So there was a misunderstanding here, I DID prove my point about SOUTH AMERICA. Regarding the two minor countries that actually were in South America that had not shown support, I did call them insignificant countries indeed because they are small, politically and economically minor countries compared to the big important countries there like BRAZIL and CHILE. I wasn't even thinking about race, and the implication that calling Suriname and Guyana minor countries is racist is simply a crude troll. So, enough of that.

The examples about the US colonies are absurd. Las Malvinas have a CLOSE PROXIMITY to Argentina. Britain doesn't and Britain doesn't have a close proximity to the US state of North Carolina either. If you were talking about the Catalina islands off California, you would be closer to an apt comparison. Every time Argentinians look at map of their country they see a thorn in their side, those islands which are shown on their maps as Argentinian, but they of course know they are now held by Britain, that far off former colonial power.

A poster supplied a link obviously written by Anglo people to rebut the detailed Argentinian justification for ownership of Las Malvinas at the LSE. You say there is no such detailed argument from the Argies, but clearly there is. Of course it is a biased justification and their interpretation is going to different than the English side. Does that automatically make the English interpretation of history correct? I don' think so.

Another point, if this was all cut and dry, black and white, good and evil, and not actually a real grey area as I believe, why did the USA express NEUTRALITY on the matter? If Argentina had no historical/ethical case at all, especially considering the closeness of Anglo-American relations and the relative chilliness of American-Argentinian relations, why didn't the US just say, we oppose the Argentinians on this?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Jingthing

[Tigs]

Another point, if this was all cut and dry, black and white, good and evil, and not actually a real grey area as I believe, why did the USA express NEUTRALITY on the matter? If Argentina had no historical/ethical case at all, especially considering the closeness of Anglo-American relations and the relative chilliness of American-Argentinian relations, why didn't the US just say, we oppose the Argentinians on this?

OIL It's called 'hedging your bets'

Why are examples of US colonies absured? You say because the Falklands are in close proximity to Argentina. So your argument is on proximity. A good job Spain and Morocco don't destroy each other because they are only 15 miles apart. A good job Israel doesn't want to lay claim to Cyprus because it is only 225 miles away, or god forbid the Lebanon at 165 miles away. The Falklands are 250 miles away from Argentina

Hawaii, isn't close to the USA! Why have the USA claimed that? Hawaii is 2000 miles from the US mainland. How does that work Jingthing? The USA wanted a staging post in the middle of the pacific, so just ... took it' and it was inhabited, and it was British discovered. American businessmen just decided to overthrow the King kept it as a republic for 4 years and then the US claimed it as their own. If you look at a map of America Hawaii isn't even visible, it is 2000 miles away. Just how can it be a state. And lets face it this is modern day robbery, becoming a state in the 1950's.

Your arguments can only be rational if they can be applied to other cases, yet time and time again, you refuse to acknowledge that the very examples you are spouting, deem your very own countrymen as illegal occupiers of the largest landmass ever stolen. But your blinkers just don't allow you to see that? How sad to have 1 dimensional vision.

So, as I know you get lost in posts of more than 2 paragraphs. My question. How can the US lay legal claim to Hawaii?Given all your arguments concerning Argentina and the Falklands, and that Argentina is close to them, and Britain is not (a schoolboy argument don't you think?). How far away is too far away? Is 2000 miles too far to call an island a 'State'? Particularly when the locals want all those American asses of their Island.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Tigs

[Jingthing]

Personally, I think Hawaii should have been their own country, and that was certainly a possibility before. Each historical case is of course different. Proximity is a factor but not the only factor. But the bottom line is that Argentina can indeed justify their ownership claims to the satisfaction of their own people and many other nations as well, so there must be some merit to their side of this. Of course might is right is usually the biggest decisive factor, isn't it? Mexico may justly claim California based on legal/historical arguments, I think their case is excellent, but they aren't going to get it, and they aren't even silly enough to try.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Jingthing

[Englander]

Personally, I think Hawaii should have been their own country, and that was certainly a possibility before. Each historical case is of course different.

You really are confused, so you believe Hawaiians should be left to run their own island and shouldnt have been colonised, but Falkland Islanders should be colonised against their will by an aggressor.

[nontabury]

Actually I think its EXCELLENT that the BARONESS isnt well - I hope she dies a long slow agonising death in about 6 months just like British industry did under her "Government" - By the way Im a Falklands veteran!!

shame on you

[Jingthing]

Personally, I think Hawaii should have been their own country, and that was certainly a possibility before. Each historical case is of course different.

You really are confused, so you believe Hawaiians should be left to run their own island and shouldnt have been colonised, but Falkland Islanders should be colonised against their will by an aggressor.

Tell that to the Hawaiian nationalists, mate.

http://current.com/green/92583915_hawaiian-sovereignty-movement-survives-thrives.htm