Posts by Las Malvinas son Argentinas

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

jamesmahon: You asked me how I personally would benefit from having the Malvinas returned to Argentina, as well as why I feel so strongly about a ‘rock’ (your term, not mine). I answered it several times already, but you do not wish to accept the answer as given. So much for dancing around. I must admit to not having taken it completely literally as asked at first since it seemed to be a silly and somewhat loaded question. No, the return of the Malvinas to my country is not going to be a life-altering event for me. You really spent all that time typing just to get that answer? How this appears to me is some sort of lame ruse to get me to articulate myself on my position, which has been done several times over and which you already don’t support, ridicule it, with the added caveat that I am somehow avoiding the direct question as posed. So your strategy here is to ask a secondary question about my motivations, while waiting to jump on them as irrational with your standard boilerplate logic and snide remarks. Does it really matter to you what my motivations are? How does this have to do with the Malvinas debate in a conventional sense? Irrational national pride is a conclusion you are coming to according to your own speculations. I think it’s irrational to have a Queen who reigns but not rules. My opinion, but I don’t live there and so my opinion is not of much weight on that matter. Likewise, you hardly know anything about Argentina and want to jump the gun by pointing fingers and naming names. There is a principle in play here. In the Malvinas War and in the first Gulf War, which both of our nations participated in, there was the stated principle that military aggression should not be rewarded with territorial gain. I’m motivated by the double standard of 1833 and 1982, and the ignorance of people who see no connection between the two.

But I am heartened by your ever so subtle set-up of your eventual exit from this conversation. You unilaterally declare that you can’t have a conversation with me. I am selfish and despotic. There must be quite a lot of people like that out there, since there are many on the world stage with varying credentials that support what I am saying. But since they don’t agree with your viewpoint, you stick to your labels and offer no documentation to support your claims. It’s a purely lame method of argumentation, and is one built on nothing but arrogance and false reasoning.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

jamesmahon: Apparently you need to be led to water in order to drink. I did answer your question. You just don’t understand it when you compare it to your own personal goals, ideals, and ambitions. You can’t look at this in a conventional manner and apply what your logical principles would dictate. It would be like me trying to speculate why you like to play chess, role-playing games, or whatever it is you do. You are trying to get me to concede a point which is already patently obvious. Short of land speculations or economic investments in the islands that I would personally have to have, the transfer of sovereignty would not make an immediate impact on my life. The islands are a national humiliation, and to remove that stigma would restore some of the original ideals of our nationhood. In our song, the Malvinas March, it speaks of national honour, redemption, and restoration. Like yours, ours is a proud nation that is proud of our southern location, our culture, environment, and contiguity, which the Malvinas form a part. I can explain it further, but I’m afraid you still won’t get it (or choose to not want to get it). After all, you label my feelings as ‘selfish’ when I am trying to explain to you our concept of national honour and pride. Don’t try to impose your own thinking upon mine and assume that what you would naturally think or act would automatically apply to me. I grew up in a different environment and had my own set of experiences. Did your country once have Germany as a possession? Ours once had the Malvinas until they were taken from us.

cofty – It doesn’t take an apt pupil of history to know what the islanders feel. I’ve acknowledged that time and time again. Two wrongs certainly don’t make a right. Unfortunately this leaves our side as the one who makes the complaints, brings documents to world meetings, and left to ponder our actions in 1982. You might have us in check, but you made an illegal move early in the game which directly led to this advantage.

Charliko – I’m sure glad we have your superior researching skills in order to find and post for our benefit a map of South America. I don’t think I could have found one without you. I took your advice and googled the word “South America” and clicked on ‘Images’. Your map did indeed come up, but also several with the following:

Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)

Administered by UK, Claimed by Argentina

I recommend you attempt an exercise in multi-culturalism. Try typing “America del Sur” in the same google window, and see what you will find. After all, “America del Sur” is what the vast majorities of the people in South America call it (Ámérica do Sul in Portuguese) Virtually all say what I posted earlier, and some even go so far as to not even mention the term “Falkland”. Since the only English speaking populations in South America are Guyana and the Malvinas, I think ‘America del Sur’ is a reasonable research term.

Our land, your people is relative to the reader. Not true in your case, true in my case. Your premise is predicated on your belief that Argentina does not have a valid claim, while mine asserts the opposite.

Unfortunately your ‘facts and documents’ omit the damning information found in the British Foreign Office archives. Lord North renounced all claims to the islands in the 1700’s. The British head of the American office commissioned a study which found that there was no formal British claim to East Falkland until 1829, shortly before the invasion. These are my facts and documents, and my sources are two British authored books about the Malvinas – one by Simon Jenkins and Max Hastings “The Battle for the Falklands”, and the other by the Sunday Times of London “War in the Falklands”. While you casually mention ‘facts and documents’, you provide no bibliographical sources. Did you ever go to college? Your paper would be returned to you with a stern admonition.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

cofty - I'll concede you that point if that was the only reason the islanders didn't want union with Argentina. But it's obvious to me that the 1982 war was and is the main obstacle for them. In that frame of mind, I can understand their reticence.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

Yes, both times. It's the first time (1833) that you keep on forgetting. Rule Britannia! To hell with anyone who has the misfortune of getting in the way.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

Where'd you find that map? Most maps have 'Islas Malvinas' in brackets underneath 'Falklands'. I can post a map too with the desired results. But why bother? What does it prove? Geo-political posturing? The map you posted looks like it was pulled from a grade school textbook.

The people might be yours, but the land is ours. At one point in time, the British Foreign Office agreed with that assessment. When it became obvious that you couldn't amputate the occupants from the land, the tone suddenly changed.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

I answered your question in a succinct manner, but I guess you need an answer with more detail. I have a personal connection to this dispute. My father fought in the Malvinas War. Many did not come back, and even more are traumatised by the experience. La nación a sus héroes. When I look at the history involved, it was an unnecessary war in two ways. The junta that planned and executed it was desperate and misinformed. It guaranteed continued British control, rather than advance a claim in a better light. The second reason is that there was no logical reason why Britain needed these islands in the first place. A lot of suffering has resulted due to imperial exploits. It makes a difference to me because I love my country, and see this land as a integral part of my own. I hope this explains it better for you.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

Thus the Argentine argument for the Malvinas became less potent due to the time involved. The self-determination principle is a strong one, but it's also the only one on that side. The colonial takeover of the Americas is a deeper issue altogether. The British sack of the Argentine garrison at Puerto Luis was unecessary and consisted of a more naked colonial aggression. They seemed to have wanted them just for the sake of having them. The colonies in North America were established to shelter religious refugees. What were the Falklands about? They didn't even know what to do with them until decades later.

I would hope that our worldwide community is based on laws set down in the Geneva and Hague conventions. It's still a valid legal title, and one which can be solved a lot easier than inviting the Incas, Aztecs, and the Aborigines back to the negotiating table.

The Malvinas were the only dish on our plate. Take an introspective look at the world map and you'll see what I mean by 'buffet'.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

Actually, the UK still has a significant slice of Ireland that it keeps under the guise of 'self-determination'. The Ulster Plantations were founded in what was once the most Gaelic section of Ireland. It is not me who needs to come to terms with imperialism. Your comments betray a particular apologist nature.

I was referring to the legality of settling a land militarily conquered, not just a blanket conparison to Israel/Palestine. Is a settler population a legal precursor to owning the land under international law? That's the question which was posed. Since the answer is obviously no, then it comes as no surprise as to why I can't get a straight answer on that one.

To say that the Malvinas were already established as British conveniently ignores the Treaty of Utrecht and the agreement Lord North signed with the Spanish government. How can British title to the land be 'established' when sovereignty was renounced several times by treaty, and all they had to prove it was a short lived military post at Port Egmont? There was no British establishment in the Malvinas. If there was, then why did they have to go to Puerto Luis, a settlement the British had absolutely no connection with to take formal control of the islands? If they were simply re-establishing sovereignty on deserted islands, then why didn't they go back to Port Egmont and do it? To do so would ignore the Argentine garrison at Puerto Luis.

Though it certainly wasn't intended as a compliment, I am flattered to be compared to an accomplished woman, regardless of my disagreement with a few of her stances on the issues. Fernandez is simply doing her job - representing the people of Argentina. People act like she's taking a pistol into international conferences. All she was doing is bringing documents to support her position on talks. Her confrontation with Cameron was initiated by him. If you read the Spanish language materials on the meeting, you get the distinct impression that Fernandez didn't want to bring up the issue directly to Cameron. He forced the issue, and taken aback, she tried to hand him documents. It's apparent that she wasn't prepared for such a confrontation. I don't know why she didn't accept the letter from the islanders. I would guess that she felt that to accept it would be a tacit acknowledgement of the FI government, which Argentina does not recognise. Since we do recognise the UK, that was the more appropriate channel. But since I am not Fernandez, I can't speak for her anymore than you can speak for Cameron.

I trust Simon Jenkins as an authority on the matter sue to his diligent research into the Foreign Office's own admissions on the subject. It's not like he's just some random jounalist. My point is, you can't paint everyone who supports the Argentine position as a propagandist. You might even say that today, Fernandez has more support for their position than Cameron does. It's not an issue that is going away, as much as some would like it to. Our history is short, and 1833 is our defining point as a nation. A foreign power took what was naturally and legally ours, and this injustice continues to this day. What seems to others as a strange and misguided attempt to right historical wrongs, this is a flesh and blood issue for us. It's quite easy to 'move on' when your imperial stamp is an established fact on most of the world. Others don't have that luxury.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

I give a damn because the world is not a buffet table where you can take as much as you want. I've been to this 'rock' you speak of. Have you? Defend your imperial adventures all you want. Attack the messenger as a government propagandist at your pleasure. There are many outside my country who have no connection to the place that feel the same way as I do. If that's the case, then Argentina must have a pretty large payroll.

182

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty in

cameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.

- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

Ah, the false logic of 'you guys did it too, way back when'. I love it when the greatest offenders of imperialism try to teach a lesson in morality to a republic founded in revolt to her own colonial masters. The Incan empire only touched a small portion of the northwest, BTW. Argentina was largely devoid of indigenous population, which is reflected in our largely European ancestry. So sure, we'll settle the bill with the 'Incas', so as long as you settle your debts with... hmm, let's see... the list is pretty long there and is a hodge-podge of North American Indians, Africans, Aborigines, Polynesians and... well, you get the point. Fine, we are all guilty of a colonial transgression at one point or another. Argentina is guilty by association with the Spanish Viceroyalty, but I'm confident that there is scant reference then or now to an Argentine "Empire". I can think of one empire that has had quite a few imperial adventures with Argentina. Hmmm.... the name eludes me right now.

Administration and sovereignty are two different things. You can have a British administration which runs local affairs, with a parent government which handles all external affairs. Kind of like the current situation with the Malvinas. But hey, looks like the folks there don't want it. Forcing it on them and expressing an opinion that the legal title to that land is dubious are two different things. So if we in Argentina ever have to deal with an 'Incan' revolt, then I guess we had it coming. Likewise, when you see Argentines complaining about the Malvinas, you can chalk it up to the same principle. It's the price you pay for settling on disputed land.

I suppose the poor Palestinians have a good 60 or so years left on all claims of sovereignty in their land, since by then all Palestinians directly displaced by the Israelis would be in the ground by then. What a noble concept. Kick people out from their land, ship in your own people, and take a vote after all refugees have turned to dust.