Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:38 am

Chariot of Fire wrote:Hardly a comparison is it. One honours the dead of two world wars, who gave up their lives fighting for the Allied cause. The other commemorates the dead of a hostile invasion force which deprived the indigenous people of their freedom.

LOL - what freedom? The UK doesn't permit them to vote in parliamentary elections. The so-called "Falklanders" are a BP prop, despite all the teary-eyed appeals about "freedom" and "self-determination." What a load of garbage. The BP/Tory regime actually have Britons conned into that bullshit.

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Viva La Raza.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:55 am

The UK cannot surrender the Falkland Islands as this would diminish the power projection capabilities of the Royal Armed Forces. As a result, the UK's power in the geo-political realm would decrease, which is unacceptable. The EU and the US need a friendly ally in an area which may require a close use of force in order maximize the security of the EU, the US, Canada, and all peace-loving countries nearby Argentina. Also, a loss in the Falklands would signal to other countries that it is acceptable to infringe upon the UK's territory in other areas. For the sake of national security of the UK, EU, and North America, this cannot stand.

Furthermore, Argentina has no right to infringe upon the sovereignty of the UK and ruin the prosperity which the peaceful citizens of the Falkland Islands enjoy. All British subjects shall continue to the enjoy the benefits granted within the UK's extensive trading network. An Argentinian takeover would violate the property rights of the Falkland Islanders, disconnect them from the low transaction cost arrangements with the UK trading network, and ultimately lower the real income and wealth of all Falkland Islanders. Considering Argentina's past economic policies, the people of the Falkland Islands will suffer even more so in the short- and long-run from such disastrous central planning.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:02 am

LOL - what freedom? The UK doesn't permit them to vote in parliamentary elections.

This is your argument?

You're pathetic.

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:07 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:The UK cannot surrender the Falkland Islands as this would diminish the power projection capabilities of the Royal Armed Forces. As a result, the UK's power in the geo-political realm would decrease, which is unacceptable. The EU and the US need a friendly ally in an area which may require a close use of force in order maximize the security of the EU, the US, Canada, and all peace-loving countries nearby Argentina.

By changing US official references from "Falklands" to "Malvinas", voting in favor of OAS Resolution 62 demanding UK negotiation and publicly stating the US only recognizes British "de facto" control of Malvinas and not sovereignty, Obama has signaled the US will not take this course.

He has done this because (1) you are right that the US will only act in its own interests, however, (2) the US interest is now in appeasing Argentina.

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:08 am

Chariot of Fire wrote:
LOL - what freedom? The UK doesn't permit them to vote in parliamentary elections.

This is your argument?

You're pathetic.

tick-tock-tick-tock

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:15 am

saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The UK cannot surrender the Falkland Islands as this would diminish the power projection capabilities of the Royal Armed Forces. As a result, the UK's power in the geo-political realm would decrease, which is unacceptable. The EU and the US need a friendly ally in an area which may require a close use of force in order maximize the security of the EU, the US, Canada, and all peace-loving countries nearby Argentina.

By changing US official references from "Falklands" to "Malvinas", voting in favor of OAS Resolution 62 demanding UK negotiation and publicly stating the US only recognizes British "de facto" control of Malvinas and not sovereignty, Obama has signaled the US will not take this course.

He has done this because (1) you are right that the US will only act in its own interests, however, (2) the US interest is now in appeasing Argentina.

1. The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years.

2. Obama and, before him, Bush have wanted to conclude the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It was stopped by joint Brazilian-Argentine-Uruguayan action in 2005. Negotiations for a restart - and favorable votes by former opponents - depend on a demonstrated commitment of the US to Pan-Americanism.

3. The US is interested in hemispheric security and preventing China from gaining a greater foothold on its doorstep. Argentina will seek out allies that supports its cause. This can be (1) Venezuela-Bolivia-Ecuador-Cuba, or, (2) United States. The U.S. will take steps to ensure scenario two.

4. The UK has companies capable of deep sea drilling. Argentina does not. Once Argentina secures control it will license the oil franchise in the EEZ. The U.S. maximizes revenue potential by seeing a US-friendly Argentina control South Atlantic oil. It minimizes revenue potential by seeing a US-friendly UK control south Atlantic oil.

But But BUt But, SAAAXIII!!!! That's not fair to the UK!!! Have you no Social Justice?

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:20 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The UK cannot surrender the Falkland Islands as this would diminish the power projection capabilities of the Royal Armed Forces. As a result, the UK's power in the geo-political realm would decrease, which is unacceptable. The EU and the US need a friendly ally in an area which may require a close use of force in order maximize the security of the EU, the US, Canada, and all peace-loving countries nearby Argentina.

By changing US official references from "Falklands" to "Malvinas", voting in favor of OAS Resolution 62 demanding UK negotiation and publicly stating the US only recognizes British "de facto" control of Malvinas and not sovereignty, Obama has signaled the US will not take this course.

He has done this because (1) you are right that the US will only act in its own interests, however, (2) the US interest is now in appeasing Argentina.

1. The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years.

2. Obama and, before him, Bush have wanted to conclude the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It was stopped by joint Brazilian-Argentine-Uruguayan action in 2005. Negotiations for a restart - and favorable votes by former opponents - depend on a demonstrated commitment of the US to Pan-Americanism.

3. The US is interested in hemispheric security and preventing China from gaining a greater foothold on its doorstep. Argentina will seek out allies that supports its cause. This can be (1) Venezuela-Bolivia-Ecuador-Cuba, or, (2) United States. The U.S. will take steps to ensure scenario two.

4. The UK has companies capable of deep sea drilling. Argentina does not. Once Argentina secures control it will license the oil franchise in the EEZ. The U.S. maximizes revenue potential by seeing a US-friendly Argentina control South Atlantic oil. It minimizes revenue potential by seeing a US-friendly UK control south Atlantic oil.

But But BUt But, SAAAXIII!!!! That's not fair to the UK!!! Have you no Social Justice?

Well I do. I think the squatters should be given very adequate compensation for relocation expenses. They should at least get an airplane ticket from B.A. to London, 3 months stipend, guarantee for purchase of their properties by the Argentine government at no less than 50% fair market value and a £500 Tesco gift card.

But that can only occur if Britain decides to negotiate. If the squatters have to be evicted by police action they will get nothing. This is why the path of peace is preferable and we should all pray Britain stops signaling her desire for a war she cannot hope to win, all for the sake of Tory donors from BP.

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:40 am

A fantastic letter in today's UK Independent that every bloodthirsty, savage Briton should read. This shows that there are many reasonable people in the UK, they're just not in government.

It is depressing to read that the British ambassador to the United Nations has given the Secretary General on our behalf a rather obviously selective account of the history of the Falkland Islands and British claims to sovereignty (report, 4 February).

While one can have no quarrel with the emphasis on the right to self-determination of the islanders, it is important to remember that the United Nations links this right closely to policies in favour of decolonisation.

Furthermore, it is grossly unjust to treat Argentina now as a potentially belligerent power, when the regime of the generals is long gone, and when their government only seems to be asking for discussions about sovereignty.

As every reader of the Franks report on the Falklands conflict knows, such discussions were formerly our government's policy, The Falkland islanders did not object to talks on condominium in 1974, nor exclude discussions on sovereignty in 1977, nor yet reject leaseback in 1980. They do not seem to have protested when the Argentines built them their first runway and provided them with medical supplies, petrol at mainland prices or free secondary education in Argentina if their children wanted it.

The shift in British policy back then seems to have come about because the Conservatives were low in the polls and resorted to banging the imperial drum to increase their support. In consequence we alienated public opinion in many parts of the world and exasperated our allies. It is to be hoped that our representatives avoid further confrontational gestures now, and above all reread the Franks report before they muddy the Falklands waters.

NIGEL GLENDINNING

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/le ... 12079.html

by **Chariot of Fire** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:50 am

Or they may just be serving their own interests.

"Nigel Glendinning is an Honorary Fellow of the Hispanic Society of America; Honorary Doctor of the Universities of Southampton and the Complutense in Madrid"

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:54 am

Chariot of Fire wrote:Or they may just be serving their own interests.

"Nigel Glendinning is an Honorary Fellow of the Hispanic Society of America; Honorary Doctor of the Universities of Southampton and the Complutense in Madrid"

He's a British citizen. Doesn't he have any political rights of self-determination? Or just the smelly, pale sheep farmers?

"Oi, guvn'r! Ye either be with us [the Tories] or ye be against us!" - is that it?

by **Qwert** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:26 am

""The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years. ""
Yes i belive that Germany and France now have more influence then UK. Economicaly Germany hold EU together. Withouth Germany EU will probably colapsed.

by **comic boy** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:49 am

qwert wrote:""The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years. ""
Yes i belive that Germany and France now have more influence then UK. Economicaly Germany hold EU together. Withouth Germany EU will probably colapsed.

You are correct about Germany but France has become its poodle every bit as much as the UK has in respect of the US.

by **Qwert** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:37 am

comic boy wrote:
qwert wrote:""The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years. ""
Yes i belive that Germany and France now have more influence then UK. Economicaly Germany hold EU together. Withouth Germany EU will probably colapsed.

You are correct about Germany but France has become its poodle every bit as much as the UK has in respect of the US.

Well with new economic agrement,Germany seek Allies,and only Britain and Chech Republic refuse these agrement. In these way France become closer allies then Britain. Germany want to jobe be done,France are ready to do dirty works,Germany are pleased with that.

by **comic boy** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:52 am

qwert wrote:
comic boy wrote:
qwert wrote:""The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years. ""
Yes i belive that Germany and France now have more influence then UK. Economicaly Germany hold EU together. Withouth Germany EU will probably colapsed.

You are correct about Germany but France has become its poodle every bit as much as the UK has in respect of the US.

Well with new economic agrement,Germany seek Allies,and only Britain and Chech Republic refuse these agrement. In these way France become closer allies then Britain. Germany want to jobe be done,France are ready to do dirty works,Germany are pleased with that.

Lets put it this way , Cameron will still be in power next year but Sarkosky wont be

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:54 pm

qwert wrote:""The former US ambassador, Philip Lader, once said the UK will only be useful to the US so long as it has a leading role in the EU. Reinforced by Cameron's recent decisions, it does not. It's unclear if it will even be in the EU within 5 years. ""
Yes i belive that Germany and France now have more influence then UK. Economicaly Germany hold EU together. Withouth Germany EU will probably colapsed.

Well, that 5 year estimate could flip to UK's favor. Germany and France are playing a very dangerous game with their expansionary monetary policies. (I mean the independent and enlightened ECB's policies!)...

They might devalue the Euro to a point where the rising prices of consumer goods in relatively lesser developed EU member-states would offset the benefits of using the Euro.

Also, the potential for an incident similar to Greece's still looms in other countries--notably Portugal, Italy, and Spain. It really depends on how much debt those countries incur, how structural their unemployment is, how much future inflation will affect their domestic prices, etc. Remember, these countries can't print money to escape debts or generate revenue without taxing its people (like the US is doing).

At this point, the future is highly uncertain, so the UK could become the economic leader of the EU, or the Euro might be abandoned. It depends on too many variables at this time. Hell, it might be even better for the UK to leave the EU (sinking ship, perhaps).

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:58 pm

Sorry, guys, I tried. The UK's warlike stance is very difficult to defend. It'll amount to repeating the same arguments, ignoring the opposition's reasonable arguments, and invoking a slippery slope as defense (first, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar would be next!, etc.)

Aside from some quibbling points offered by saxitoxin, I pretty much agree with his stance.

If you're offended, it might be due to an inner turmoil from your nationalist sentiments.

The best option to me would be to give the Islanders a choice and some compensation for leaving. If Argentina develops that island's oil industry, then the people would greatly benefit from the real growth in that island's economy.

That's most reasonable to me, compared to bombing and killing people because a government doesn't wish to relinquish its territory.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:00 pm

Hell, it might be even better for the UK to leave the EU

This.

by **aad0906** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:07 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:The best option to me would be to give the Islanders a choice and some compensation for leaving. If Argentina develops that island's oil industry, then the people would greatly benefit from the real growth in that island's economy.

Giving the Islanders the choice is exactly what the UN wants and what the UK wants. And the Islanders have chosen to remain under British protection and not to become Argentinian. If the majority of the Islanders wishes to leave or to become Argentinian then I am sure the UK government would respect that. Also, I think the Islanders don't need the Argentinian government to develop any oil industry. All they have to do grant a lease to any oil company that wishes to explore (and it doesn't even have to be BP).

BigBallinStalin wrote:That's most reasonable to me, compared to bombing and killing people because a government doesn't wish to relinquish its territory.

Huh, a government (the Falkland government?) should relinquish it's territory if another government (Argentina?) threathens to bomb and kill it's people? If Britain had done that in 1940 I would have spoken German now. I like Germans but... nein danke. Fortunately Argentina hasn't threathened to bomb anyone yet and I don't think they will.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:16 pm

aad0906 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The best option to me would be to give the Islanders a choice and some compensation for leaving. If Argentina develops that island's oil industry, then the people would greatly benefit from the real growth in that island's economy.

Giving the Islanders the choice is exactly what the UN wants and what the UK wants. And the Islanders have chosen to remain under British protection and not to become Argentinian. If the majority of the Islanders wishes to leave or to become Argentinian then I am sure the UK government would respect that. Also, I think the Islanders don't need the Argentinian government to develop any oil industry. All they have to do grant a lease to any oil company that wishes to explore (and it doesn't even have to be BP).

I'm not talking about "choice by committee" or "choice by majority rules," but an actual choice with compensation. If we understand each other correctly, the "choices" offered have been the ones I mentioned in quotes.

Maybe having a vote for self-governance would be most ideal (has there been one?).

As far as legal barriers to trade are concerned, the UK and Argentina may set up equally inaccessible barriers to trade for the Falklands (as in both sides would favor particular companies while setting up arbitrary barriers in order to block out certain competition).

aad0906 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:That's most reasonable to me, compared to bombing and killing people because a government doesn't wish to relinquish its territory.

Huh, a government (the Falkland government?) should relinquish it's territory if another government (Argentina?) threathens to bomb and kill it's people? If Britain had done that in 1940 I would have spoken German now. I like Germans but... nein danke. Fortunately Argentina hasn't threathened to bomb anyone yet and I don't think they will.

That's good, but from what I've heard, the UK is threatening to do so.

From what I recall, the Falkland government doesn't really exert any real authority in this issue. Are they diplomatically recognized as a member of the UN (i.e. have statehood status?).

by **everywhere116** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:21 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:From what I recall, the Falkland government doesn't really exert any real authority in this issue. Are they diplomatically recognized as a member of the UN (i.e. have statehood status?).

Why would they be if they're a British territory?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:33 pm

everywhere116 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:From what I recall, the Falkland government doesn't really exert any real authority in this issue. Are they diplomatically recognized as a member of the UN (i.e. have statehood status?).
Why would they be if they're a British territory?

I'm open to being surprised.

by **the carpet man** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:58 pm

the falklands government is the uk parliament. they don't have any seperate governance (other than some minor local stuff like a mayor or whatever)

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:25 pm

the carpet man wrote:the falklands government is the uk parliament. they don't have any seperate governance (other than some minor local stuff like a mayor or whatever)

good point - their government is a parliament to which they aren't permitted to elect representatives

UK talks of "self-determination" -- however, it's commonly accepted that local rights of self-determination are limited to the question of independence, not affiliation (why the UN doesn't consider Puerto Rico a U.S. colony - because they had a referendum on independence - but does consider the Virgin Islands a U.S. colony ... they haven't had a referendum on independence [they have but didn't get the required 50% turnout]).

Sealand.

edit: note, even if they did have a referendum on independence, they would need to prove to the community of nations an independent Malvinas could fulfill the obligations of a nation-state -- it's very unlikely an island of 2,000 people could be a viable state

by **saxitoxin** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:26 pm

Argentina on-course to triple military spending -
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/01/arg ... klands-war

Britain on-course to continue biggest defense cuts in history -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

Scottish politician calls on UK government to withdraw warships from Malvinas -
https://twitter.com/#!/JohnFinnieSNP/st ... 2423067649

Spain walks out of negotiations over Gibraltar -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... place.html

France demands UK cede Cornwall -
http://joyerickson.files.wordpress.com/ ... =300&h=264

by **Frito Bandito** on Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:07 pm

Please, don't anyone answer or even read saxi's links! It's all done for his amusement, when you wrestle with a pig, or an idiot, or whatever... you both come out,... well you know:)