james_woods - I'm actually having to keep Firefox open for this thread alone. It appears one of the posters is using formatting that is making it impossible for the thread to show up clearly on IE9.
Very frustrating!
Cedars
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
The Islanders want to be British! Wow, thank you for your enlightening comment! I never realised that until now. Perhaps you missed my comment of “The Islanders were descended from and had immigrated from an occupying power which had invaded a territory of another nation!” All that aside, I see no need to try and put the toothpaste back into the tube on this one. It doesn’t cleanse the entire British claim any more than a gangster who tries to launder money. Sovereignty gained by guns, bayonets, and Royal Navy ships isn’t too firm a ground to be building a society if you ask me. But alas, you have done so, and us losers need to go back to our homes and pound some sand over it. That’s all fine and dandy. It makes for some great speech and high-fives back in your pubs, but if I were in your position, I would find it a lapse of morality. As Roger Waters once put it,
"You hit the target, you win the game from bars 3000 miles away. We play the game with the bravery of being out of range. We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range. We gain terrain with the bravery of being out of range."
But oh yes, the islands never were really ours anyway. Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia. If that’s how you get through the night and through your diplomatic soirees, then please don’t let an Argentine get in your way. One thing you still can’t take from us that is ours is our freedom to speak out and protest what we consider a huge injustice of history. So, in that train of thought….
Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
-
cedars
Thanks, I'm glad that's made you go back to your home and pound sand if that's what you enjoy doing! At least that way nobody embarrasses themselves by defending the policies of a government that is desperate to deflect attention from its own failures.
By the way, I notice you neatly side-stepped my Mexico analogy. So should the US return the parts of Texas that were taken by force using "guns and bayonets", or is it one rule for America, another rule for the UK?
Cedars
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Oh, a sidestep on the Mexico analogy? Point, cedars! Lame ‘gotcha’ points, but I stuck a rude finger in the direction of the British lion, so I guess I deserve such quiz show questioning. I try to respond to relevant points and not unrelated information designed to distract from the real issue. But since you asked…
This one’s easy. Mexico actually signed a treaty with the US and accepted 15 million dollars and a further 3.25 million in other compensation. It’s called the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Argentina never ceded the Malvinas by treaty, nor was offered or accepted any compensation for the takeover. Try again? This time with a colonial takeover with no subsequent treaty ceding rights or compensation granted. I can already hear the scrambled and hasty typing in the wiki search window. Good luck.
-
cedars
Your version of history is very different from mine. It makes the mexican wars with america seem very ammicable. One wonders why so many were killed in a conflict that was sorted out by a simple treaty! My, how history changes depending on your political agenda.
By the way, I feel flattered by my new nickname - the British lion! I hope it catches...
Cedars
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
That’s too bad, because I was beginning to enjoy playing this quiz show game. Can I choose to ignore your false analogy about Mexicans and Americans being killed in a war somehow being related to the British takeover of the Malvinas, or am I somehow ‘sidestepping’ that?
I’d like to be called the Malvinas fox. Or since the islands were “French”, then perhaps…
Le renard des Malouines
-
dgp
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is the legal mechanism whereby Mexico recognizes it lost a war and gives up any rights over the lands north of the river Bravo (Grande for you native English-speakers). In simple terms, it's the equivalent of "Winners keepers!" A war of conquest became a fact of international law by way of a treaty and some money. The Mexican War is not a good analogy because that never happened regarding the Islands in Question.
-
cedars
You can choose to ignore it, but that would be much easier if it wasn't DIRECTLY APPLICABLE!
I'd check your wikipedia article if I were you. It's the one that begins with the words...
"The Mexican-American War, also known as the First American Intervention, the Mexican War, or the U.S.-Mexican War, was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution."
You can read on from there. It certainly doesn't portray the incident as the friendly tea party that you describe...
Cedars
-
cedars
dgp - how is it not a good analogy if, as you say yourself, it was a case of "winners keepers"?
Emilie is arguing that the islands in question were once Argentinian, but that the British forced them off the islands in an armed conflict. Substitute Mexico for Argentina, substitute the Texas prairie for the Falkland Islands, and substitute the United States for Britain, and you have a pretty fair analogy.
Cedars
-
Chariklo
It might, just might, be a fair analogy, cedars, if the islands had indeed once been Argentinian, but they were never that.
See posts above, including, and notably, this .pdf
http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history6.pdf
and especially besty's useful and graphic chart on page 7 of this thread.