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

[Englander]

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

I concur with ianbaggie, here is hoping the same fate is inflicted on here protege Bliar aswell.

[rubl]

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

I concur with ianbaggie, here is hoping the same fate is inflicted on here protege Bliar aswell.

The Baroness Thatcher was/is from the Conservative Party. Tony Blair from the Labor party. Somehow I doubt Tony was a protege of Margaret

[7by7]

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/g...ves-thrives.htm

Not an answer to Englander's point.

Tell us in your own words why you think Hawaiians should be allowed to decide their own fate, but the Falklanders should be forced to accept Argentinian rule against their will.

[Tigs]

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/g...ves-thrives.htm

Not an answer to Englander's point.

Tell us in your own words why you think Hawaiians should be allowed to decide their own fate, but the Falklanders should be forced to accept Argentinian rule against their will.

7by7

After 8 pages, that is the crux question. Come on Jingthing, answer that in your own words. Why should the citizens of Hawaii be allowed to decide their own fate, but the Falklanders be forced to accept Argentinian rule against their will?

A simple question, no side tracking, no excuses, just YOUR answer needed.

[Tigs]

Jingthing

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.

And the bottom line is that George W Bush and Tony Bliar did indeed justify a war on Iraq due to WMDs to the satisfaction of their own people AND many other nations as well, so there must have been some merit to their side of the story in that then, according to you? ... NOT!

[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

I concur with ianbaggie, here is hoping the same fate is inflicted on here protege Bliar aswell.

I do not agree with you,the same as if you were to say the same about Arthur Scargil or Tony ding dong Benn,because you disagree with someones political view is no excuse for wishing them a slow agonising death

[Jingthing]

Jingthing

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.

And the bottom line is that George W Bush and Tony Bliar did indeed justify a war on Iraq due to WMDs to the satisfaction of their own people AND many other nations as well, so there must have been some merit to their side of the story in that then, according to you? ... NOT!

That's a fair point but I think they knew they were lying about what they knew. I can't read minds and tell you how sincerely the Argies believe their own arguments.

[Jingthing]

About Hawaii, let's get real, people. Each and every territory dispute in history has it's own unique history, and it's own unique qualities. If you're asking about Hawaii, to me the differences with Las Malvinas are stark. It is in the middle of a huge ocean, among the most remote land masses on earth. There is a significant land mass when you add all the islands. It has no proximity whatsoever to any other nation, large or small. Before foreigners came it had an old, rich distinct culture and a distinct NATIVE Hawaiian people. They had a monarchy structure. Then the foreigners came and raped them. So of course as an anti-colonialist, I would have liked to see Hawaii become it's own nation. If you think there are many similarities between Las Malvinas and Hawaii, I just don't see it. Totally different history.

[Englander]

.

[Englander]

.

[Englander]

a

Baroness Thatcher was/is from the Conservative Party. Tony Blair from the Labor party. Somehow I doubt Tony was a protege of Margaret

Margaret Thatcher in tongue cheek fashion proclaimed here greatest achievement, was New Labour with war criminal Blair at the helm.

There is no real difference between the Tories and Labour anymore.

[Tigs]

About Hawaii, let's get real, people. Each and every territory dispute in history has it's own unique history, and it's own unique qualities. If you're asking about Hawaii, to me the differences with Las Malvinas are stark. It is in the middle of a huge ocean, among the most remote land masses on earth. There is a significant land mass when you add all the islands. It has no proximity whatsoever to any other nation, large or small. Before foreigners came it had an old, rich distinct culture and a distinct NATIVE Hawaiian people. They had a monarchy structure. Then the foreigners came and raped them. So of course as an anti-colonialist, I would have liked to see Hawaii become it's own nation. If you think there are many similarities between Las Malvinas and Hawaii, I just don't see it. Totally different history.

Yes. a totally different History. but you have to apply YOUR arguments to both. So I think you agree that if the Hawaiians want to declare independance. they should be entitled to do so as that is their wish. So now the question of the Falkland people. They wish to remain British, so therefore they should be allowed to do so..?

You are an anti-colonialist. yet the Americans are Colonials. Just what do you think the Argentinians are? They are settlers, they are colonials, and the colony they took over, now known as Argentina was not in existance when the British Colonised the Falklands.

There is little more to discuss. The Falklands are British, they should remain British. It matters not a Jot who the Argentinians persuade otherwise (read, what oil consessions they will promise for a friendly vote!)

your reply concerning the Bush Blair persuasion of their people

That's a fair point but I think they knew they were lying about what they knew. I can't read minds and tell you how sincerely the Argies believe their own arguments.

Is a nonsense. You constantly change the goal posts, and from what you write, I can only assume that you have extensively studied Edward Lear, and have adopted his style. Of course Bush and Blair knew they were lying, the fact is with reference to your post, they persuaded everyone else that their falsehoods were true, including other Nations. You seem to think from your words in that post that the Argentinians must have some merit in their claim, because they have persuaded other nations and their own people that the Falklands belong to them. It is bullsh*t.

[Moonrakers]

About Hawaii, let's get real, people. Each and every territory dispute in history has it's own unique history, and it's own unique qualities. If you're asking about Hawaii, to me the differences with Las Malvinas are stark. It is in the middle of a huge ocean, among the most remote land masses on earth. There is a significant land mass when you add all the islands. It has no proximity whatsoever to any other nation, large or small. Before foreigners came it had an old, rich distinct culture and a distinct NATIVE Hawaiian people. They had a monarchy structure. Then the foreigners came and raped them. So of course as an anti-colonialist, I would have liked to see Hawaii become it's own nation. If you think there are many similarities between Las Malvinas and Hawaii, I just don't see it. Totally different history.

So you're not willing to answer the question then?

[Jingthing]

I thought I answered it. Oh well ...

[tw25rw]

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.

What does it matter though? Argentina posessed the islands for about 2 months in the last 200 years (in 1982). No one is both opposed to British sovereignty and willing and able to back it up militarily.

[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.

What does it matter though? Argentina posessed the islands for about 2 months in the last 200 years (in 1982). No one is both opposed to British sovereignty and willing and able to back it up militarily.

Right. Might is right. Haven't you ever rooted (American meaning) for the underdog?

To me, tragic melancholy is much more appealing than smug brassiness.

[Ulysses G.]

I hate to say it, but the Brits are the underdogs nowadays. Give the Falklands back to the British!

[Tigs]

Jingthing

See, you can't even identify an Underdog correctly! From the first audition, Susan Boyle was odds on favourite to win.

I thought I answered it. Oh well ...

Not even remotely.

This has turned in to a hamster wheel.

Why is there no emoticon for banging your head against a brick wall?

[Jingthing]

Jingthing

See, you can't even identify an Underdog correctly!

Is your middle name Adhominen?

[tw25rw]

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.

What does it matter though? Argentina posessed the islands for about 2 months in the last 200 years (in 1982). No one is both opposed to British sovereignty and willing and able to back it up militarily.

Right. Might is right. Haven't you ever rooted (American meaning) for the underdog?

To me, tragic melancholy is much more appealing than smug brassiness.

Not for her.. Can't stand the sight of her.

[Tigs]

Jingthing

See, you can't even identify an Underdog correctly!

Is your middle name Adhominen?

No but it would be rather fetching as a middle name! But if you would present an argument for people to play against, they would not be forced to play the person would they? Anyway, guess we have done this one to death. Thanks for the sport<_< Rule Britannia!

[rubl]

a

Baroness Thatcher was/is from the Conservative Party. Tony Blair from the Labor party. Somehow I doubt Tony was a protege of Margaret

Margaret Thatcher in tongue cheek fashion proclaimed here greatest achievement, was New Labour with war criminal Blair at the helm.

There is no real difference between the Tories and Labour anymore.

I stand corrected, but have a bit of a problem with the 'war criminal' part. No offence, difference of opinion I guess.

[7by7]

About Hawaii, let's get real, people. Each and every territory dispute in history has it's own unique history, and it's own unique qualities. If you're asking about Hawaii, to me the differences with Las Malvinas are stark. It is in the middle of a huge ocean, among the most remote land masses on earth. There is a significant land mass when you add all the islands. It has no proximity whatsoever to any other nation, large or small. Before foreigners came it had an old, rich distinct culture and a distinct NATIVE Hawaiian people. They had a monarchy structure. Then the foreigners came and raped them. So of course as an anti-colonialist, I would have liked to see Hawaii become it's own nation. If you think there are many similarities between Las Malvinas and Hawaii, I just don't see it. Totally different history.

Correct, Hawaii had an indigenous population before the USA colonised the islands and forced them to become part of the USA. A colonisation which the US government has since recognised as illegal and apologised for (United States Public Law 103-150); wont grant them their independence, though!

The Falklands have an indigenous population. They may have only lived there since the 18th century, but the islands were devoid of human habitation before then (as were the Hawaiian islands before migrants from Polynesia arrived around the 11th century). They do not want to be colonised by Argentina, they want to remain British. As a professed anti colonialist, I would have thought that you would have supported them in this.

So, will you answer the question you have previously dodged ("Which one?" I hear people ask, as you have dodged so many!)

Namely, why do you feel that the Falkland Islanders should be forced to accept Argentinian rule against there will?

The geographical argument doesn't work. If the islands were in the mouth of the River Plate your argument may have some merit; but they are not, they are 460 kilometres (290 miles) away! Uruguay is much closer than that to Argentina, just across the river; should they cede their independence to Buenos Aries? Ridiculous!

The historical argument doesn't work. Britain settled and claimed the Islands before Argentina existed, and before the then colonial power in that part of South America, Spain, made any claim.

Your only other argument is that the people of Argentina 'feel' that the islands are theirs. How many, I wonder? All? very unlikely. Most? I doubt it. A small but vocal minority is probably closer to reality. The people of the Falklands don't feel Argentinian, they feel British and want to remain that way.

So, I ask again, why would you impose Argentinian rule upon them against their wishes?

[Englander]

a

Baroness Thatcher was/is from the Conservative Party. Tony Blair from the Labor party. Somehow I doubt Tony was a protege of Margaret

Margaret Thatcher in tongue cheek fashion proclaimed here greatest achievement, was New Labour with war criminal Blair at the helm.

There is no real difference between the Tories and Labour anymore.

I stand corrected, but have a bit of a problem with the 'war criminal' part. No offence, difference of opinion I guess.

Its mainstream thinking in the UK these days, if youve time google "Tony Blair War Criminal", there is plenty of compelling evidence, even words coming from his own mouth, and he is an extremely intelligent man who realises exactly what hes saying.

Never has there been a Prime Minister despised so much so many, even Thatcher who in my area helped create 25% unemployment by shutting heavy industry such as coal mining and shipbuilding ruining entire towns isnt so despised.

[rubl]

I stand corrected, but have a bit of a problem with the 'war criminal' part. No offence, difference of opinion I guess.

Its mainstream thinking in the UK these days, if youve time google "Tony Blair War Criminal", there is plenty of compelling evidence, even words coming from his own mouth, and he is an extremely intelligent man who realises exactly what hes saying.

Never has there been a Prime Minister despised so much so many, even Thatcher who in my area helped create 25% unemployment by shutting heavy industry such as coal mining and shipbuilding ruining entire towns isnt so despised.

Did some yahoo-ing (my preferred search engine since DEC started AltaVista around 1995) and found interesting articles. Oldest from 2003!

From this quick read-up it seems especially Tony's Labor voters got upset, but can't confirm.

I guess I have to change my opinion from 'a bit of a problem with war criminal' to 'no comment till read more'

[Tigs]

I stand corrected, but have a bit of a problem with the 'war criminal' part. No offence, difference of opinion I guess.

Its mainstream thinking in the UK these days, if youve time google "Tony Blair War Criminal", there is plenty of compelling evidence, even words coming from his own mouth, and he is an extremely intelligent man who realises exactly what hes saying.

Never has there been a Prime Minister despised so much so many, even Thatcher who in my area helped create 25% unemployment by shutting heavy industry such as coal mining and shipbuilding ruining entire towns isnt so despised.

Did some yahoo-ing (my preferred search engine since DEC started AltaVista around 1995) and found interesting articles. Oldest from 2003!

From this quick read-up it seems especially Tony's Labor voters got upset, but can't confirm.

I guess I have to change my opinion from 'a bit of a problem with war criminal' to 'no comment till read more'

I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see someone, when given more information and facts on a subject they had an opinion on, change and modify that opinion, as a result of considering all the additional info. How grown up and mature. Jingthing, take note!!

[Jingthing]

About Hawaii, let's get real, people. Each and every territory dispute in history has it's own unique history, and it's own unique qualities. If you're asking about Hawaii, to me the differences with Las Malvinas are stark. It is in the middle of a huge ocean, among the most remote land masses on earth. There is a significant land mass when you add all the islands. It has no proximity whatsoever to any other nation, large or small. Before foreigners came it had an old, rich distinct culture and a distinct NATIVE Hawaiian people. They had a monarchy structure. Then the foreigners came and raped them. So of course as an anti-colonialist, I would have liked to see Hawaii become it's own nation. If you think there are many similarities between Las Malvinas and Hawaii, I just don't see it. Totally different history.

Correct, Hawaii had an indigenous population before the USA colonised the islands and forced them to become part of the USA. A colonisation which the US government has since recognised as illegal and apologised for (United States Public Law 103-150); wont grant them their independence, though!

The Falklands have an indigenous population. They may have only lived there since the 18th century, but the islands were devoid of human habitation before then (as were the Hawaiian islands before migrants from Polynesia arrived around the 11th century). They do not want to be colonised by Argentina, they want to remain British. As a professed anti colonialist, I would have thought that you would have supported them in this.

So, will you answer the question you have previously dodged ("Which one?" I hear people ask, as you have dodged so many!)

Namely, why do you feel that the Falkland Islanders should be forced to accept Argentinian rule against there will?

The geographical argument doesn't work. If the islands were in the mouth of the River Plate your argument may have some merit; but they are not, they are 460 kilometres (290 miles) away! Uruguay is much closer than that to Argentina, just across the river; should they cede their independence to Buenos Aries? Ridiculous!

The historical argument doesn't work. Britain settled and claimed the Islands before Argentina existed, and before the then colonial power in that part of South America, Spain, made any claim.

Your only other argument is that the people of Argentina 'feel' that the islands are theirs. How many, I wonder? All? very unlikely. Most? I doubt it. A small but vocal minority is probably closer to reality. The people of the Falklands don't feel Argentinian, they feel British and want to remain that way.

So, I ask again, why would you impose Argentinian rule upon them against their wishes?

Your only other argument is that the people of Argentina 'feel' that the islands are theirs. How many, I wonder? All? very unlikely. Most? I doubt it. A small but vocal minority is probably closer to reality. The people of the Falklands don't feel Argentinian, they feel British and want to remain that way.

Polling shows 84 percent mate.

Almost 84% of those surveyed said “the United Kingdom is violating Argentina’s sovereign right to the islands.”

http://www.argentinepost.com/2009/10/most-argentines-say-falklands-are-important-issue.html

Your big question is too loaded and divorced from the larger context of the issue to bother to answer, so I ask you, when did you stop beating your wife?

[rubl]

Its mainstream thinking in the UK these days, if youve time google "Tony Blair War Criminal", there is plenty of compelling evidence, even words coming from his own mouth, and he is an extremely intelligent man who realises exactly what hes saying.

Never has there been a Prime Minister despised so much so many, even Thatcher who in my area helped create 25% unemployment by shutting heavy industry such as coal mining and shipbuilding ruining entire towns isnt so despised.

Did some yahoo-ing (my preferred search engine since DEC started AltaVista around 1995) and found interesting articles. Oldest from 2003!

From this quick read-up it seems especially Tony's Labor voters got upset, but can't confirm.

I guess I have to change my opinion from 'a bit of a problem with war criminal' to 'no comment till read more'

I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see someone, when given more information and facts on a subject they had an opinion on, change and modify that opinion, as a result of considering all the additional info. How grown up and mature. Jingthing, take note!!

I may have an opinion on all and sunder, but not all equally 'set'. Not being English / British I have no strong opinion on Tony Blair. Having been in Thailand since 1994 I may also have lost touch somewhat. All this makes it easier to modify an opinion. I try, but not always succeed to be open-minded. When I really feel 'strong' about a subject I would definitively need rock-solid proof before even accepting I might be wrong. What can I say, I'm human after all

[Englander]

I stand corrected, but have a bit of a problem with the 'war criminal' part. No offence, difference of opinion I guess.

Its mainstream thinking in the UK these days, if youve time google "Tony Blair War Criminal", there is plenty of compelling evidence, even words coming from his own mouth, and he is an extremely intelligent man who realises exactly what hes saying.

Never has there been a Prime Minister despised so much so many, even Thatcher who in my area helped create 25% unemployment by shutting heavy industry such as coal mining and shipbuilding ruining entire towns isnt so despised.

Did some yahoo-ing (my preferred search engine since DEC started AltaVista around 1995) and found interesting articles. Oldest from 2003!

From this quick read-up it seems especially Tony's Labor voters got upset, but can't confirm.

I guess I have to change my opinion from 'a bit of a problem with war criminal' to 'no comment till read more'

Look at how the Brits are prepared to back the Falklands on here, youd struggle to find one person in the UK who'd defend the Iraq invasion (i kind of did before the event, even though i believe in small military that only defends our soil) or the way the Afghan war has been messed up, once the truth came out about the public being lied to. Most people including many parents of the dead soldiers hold him personally responsible for the pointless deaths of soldiers.

Here are a couple of parents views - http://thescotsman.s...-for.5730113.jp

However he's more likely to win a Nobel Peace Prize then ever go to trial on war crimes, but there is genuine evidence much coming from his own mouth that there is a case against him.

[7by7]

Your only other argument is that the people of Argentina 'feel' that the islands are theirs. How many, I wonder? All? very unlikely. Most? I doubt it. A small but vocal minority is probably closer to reality. The people of the Falklands don't feel Argentinian, they feel British and want to remain that way.

Polling shows 84 percent mate.

Almost 84% of those surveyed said "the United Kingdom is violating Argentina's sovereign right to the islands."

http://www.argentine...tant-issue.html

Lies, damned lies and statistics! However, for the sake of argument, I will accept the figures. Still doesn't make it right, though. A survey in the 1930s would have shown that more than 84% of Germans supported Hitler!

Your big question is too loaded and divorced from the larger context of the issue to bother to answer, so I ask you, when did you stop beating your wife?

Yes, it is the big question, and yet again you have dodged it.

It is not, though, loaded. It is quite simple. You say that a poll has shown that 84% of Argentinians asked support the Argentine claim; I would bet the farm that 100% of Falkland Islanders don't; that 100% of Falkland Islanders want to remain British, or if not British then independent of anyone.

You support taking that away from them, you support forcing them to live under Argentine rule; you say that their right to determine their destiny is not as important as the 'feelings' of people who do not live on the islands and never have, people who live at least 290 miles away; you say that it is 'divorced from the larger context.' Yet you won't say why.

Is it because you haven't thought this through properly and wont admit it?