Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

[GreecePwns]

Americans must want to ethnically cleanse Cuba, then?

Stay brave and independently minded, Sym.

The occupation of the islands has been reduced to a defenseless position. Notice how the only ones on the side of the UK Government in this thread are the ones that it governs.

[saxitoxin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see?

Symm - do you think President Fernandez should release her birth certificate?

[Symmetry]

Americans must want to ethnically cleanse Cuba, then?

Stay brave and independently minded, Sym.

I think Americans have wanted a lot of different things from Cuba over a long period of time. Supporting dictators sympathetic to the US, trying to cause civil wars within the nation when dictators were unsympathetic.

Do you think that the US should control who is in charge of Cuba? It's pretty close to the US, after all. Or would you support a democratic referendum, a truly democratic referedum, from the people of Cuba, as to whether they should choose their own government, or go back to the historical dictatorship of Batista, simply because the US liked him better than the Castros?

[GreecePwns]

Popular revoutions are valid (Castro). Unpopular revolutions (military coup etc.) are not (Batista).

Truly democratic referenda are valid (Cyprus). Referenda where voters are hand-picked from a pool of supporters and all other excluded are not (Falklands).

[BigBallinStalin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

[Symmetry]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

Probably a fair stance, although I didn't have the slippery slope argument in mind- it's not generally a good argument in international diplomacy, either as a defence or an accusation towards the other side. Especially when governments can change so quickly.

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

[saxitoxin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and ran away giggling.

The UK looks like a total basketcase in the eyes of the international community because it refuses to speak 2-words to Argentina. It's like a grade schooler giving his parents the silent treatment.

surely you're just trolling at this point

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant. As you know by now, my standpoint is that we should listen to the point of view of the people who live there. Ignoring them, as President Fernandez did at the UN, is simply ignoring the fact that people live there and deserve a right to make a choice.

As I have said, the Argentinian government seems to want to ignore the viewpoint of the people who have lived there for hundreds of years. A wiser policy would be to engage with them, rather than to pretend that they turned up a few days ago and claimed it as a British colony.

[saxitoxin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant.

Talking implies something other than sending a written statement to the other party via newspaper editorial saying you refuse to discuss the matter and then threatening to blow them to smitherines.

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant.

Talking implies something other than sending a written statement to the other party via newspaper editorial saying you refuse to discuss the matter and then threatening to blow them to smitherines.

Was that what the articles from the Falkland Islands that I posted said? No, not at all. Maybe even look at what the Islanders said at the UN, that the Argentinian delegation ignored.

They're worth a look Saxi.

[BigBallinStalin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

Probably a fair stance, although I didn't have the slippery slope argument in mind- it's not generally a good argument in international diplomacy, either as a defence or an accusation towards the other side. Especially when governments can change so quickly.

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

Isn't the foreign policy of the Falklands de facto controlled by the UK? From what I recall, the immigration policy is set by the British government. If the Falklands' foreign policy is dictated by the British, then ARG has to deal diplomatically and militarily with the UK and through other organizations, e.g. UN.

[saxitoxin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant.

Talking implies something other than sending a written statement to the other party via newspaper editorial saying you refuse to discuss the matter and then threatening to blow them to smitherines.

Was that what the articles from the Falkland Islands that I posted said? No, not at all. Maybe even look at what the Islanders said at the UN, that the Argentinian delegation ignored.

They're worth a look Saxi.

Nations discuss things with nations. Argentina will speak with Britain regarding Las Malvinas, not the "Falklands Government", not the Milton-Keynes Town Council - with another nation. Nations talk with nations and only nations. To demand anything else is humiliating and without precedent in diplomacy.

This is what talking is:
We will send a representative of the rank of minister or higher to Mexico City on August 1 at 1:00pm. We hope to see your similarly ranked representative there as well. The government of Mexico will arbiter our discussion at which we will find areas of common ground.

Britain refuses to talk/negotiate. Only threaten war.

[Symmetry]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

Probably a fair stance, although I didn't have the slippery slope argument in mind- it's not generally a good argument in international diplomacy, either as a defence or an accusation towards the other side. Especially when governments can change so quickly.

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

Isn't the foreign policy of the Falklands de facto controlled by the UK? From what I recall, the immigration policy is set by the British government. If the Falklands' foreign policy is dictated by the British, then ARG has to deal diplomatically and militarily with the UK and through other organizations, e.g. UN.

Foreign policy is indeed set by the British government, immigration is, as far as I can tell, not. I assume things work in a similar way in the US- that the foreign secretary (Secretary of State?) does not control immigration.

As always, I'm up for correction and discussion.

[BigBallinStalin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

So, since we've agreed that the UK is in charge of the Falklands foreign policy, then we can agree that the de facto decision-maker on the sovereignty of the Falklands is actually the UK (e.g. he who holds the guns, makes the rules--unfortunately). Since this is the case, then it's pointless for ARG to engage in diplomacy with the Falklands. ARG's only effective choice is to deal with the UK.

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

So, since we've agreed that the UK is in charge of the Falklands foreign policy, then we can agree that the de facto decision-maker on the sovereignty of the Falklands is actually the UK (e.g. he who holds the guns, makes the rules--unfortunately). Since this is the case, then it's pointless for ARG to engage in diplomacy with the Falklands. ARG's only effective choice is to deal with the UK.

And since you've accepted that the UK has accepted that the decision is up to the Falkland Islanders, you accept that the best policy is for the Argentine gov't to talk to them?

Or listen to them, if that's too diificult?

Or allow Argentinians and Falkland Islanders to visit each other, if listening is too tough?

Or acknowledging that people live there, if all of the above fails?

Would any of those work?