Quoting Derico (Reply 197): Argentina does not need to engage in any other discussions with the Falklands' inhabitants about absolutely anything.

Trouble is, Derico, most of us on here consider that Argentina's continuing 'boycott' af the Islanders is just plain 'uncivilised'? I would hope that your government will, before too long, accept the 'status quo' and give the Falklanders normal 'trading and travelling' rights, instead of going on effectively blockading them simply because they want to stay British?

Furthermore, there are increasing signs that the Argentinian economy is on its way to a 'meltdown.' Argentina will almost certainly need quite a lot of further help from the IMF this year. If you go on unjustifiably 'persecuting' the Falklanders, you might find that quite a few other countries, especially Britain and the Commonwealth, might be pretty reluctant to contribute to any rescue attempts?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 199): What about the links I posted in Reply 25 which you ignored?

I ignored them because they in no way threaten my statement. The assertion made here time and time again, is that Argentina exterminated the entire native population existing in the current borders of the country. It is a lie, a fabrication, simple as that, and further proof of the complete disregard for the facts when it's about my country.

Quoting mariner (Reply 198): As long as people take those intractable positions, nothing will happen.

Not intractable, just irreconcilable. The UK and Argentina agree in just about nothing, not just the Falklands. And many of the issues will not be potentially resolved for many, many years. Best both governments can do is just go their separate ways, and Argentina's government to stop the incessant obsession over the islands.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 200): rouble is, Derico, most of us on here consider that Argentina's continuing 'boycott' af the Islanders is just plain 'uncivilised'?

We find your purposeful strangling of the people of Iran uncivilized. Funny how that works right? I completely oppose the actions of my government towards the inhabitants, but lets say a future government lifts them. Then... there is still nothing else for Argentina to actually engage with the Falklands.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 200): Furthermore, there are increasing signs that the Argentinian economy is on its way to a 'meltdown.' Argentina will almost certainly need quite a lot of further help from the IMF this year. If you go on unjustifiably 'persecuting' the Falklanders, you might find that quite a few other countries, especially Britain and the Commonwealth, might be pretty reluctant to contribute to any rescue attempts?

Hmm.... Argentina has never been rescued. And there won't be a meltdown. Again, none of you have any basis many things you say.

It's amazing the amount of speculation that is permitted and seen as appropriate here.

[Edited 2013-03-12 21:14:47]

Quoting Derico (Reply 201): Hmm.... Argentina has never been rescued. And there won't be a meltdown.

Read all about it, Derico mate......  "But there is more than belligerent nationalism to the statements coming from Buenos Aires. The government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is using the Falklands as a smokescreen to deflect attention away from more fundamental problems – destruction caused by reckless economic mismanagement, and the worsening isolation of the country from the international community.

"Only a decade ago, Argentina was invited into the elite G20 club. Today, the country is fast becoming the world’s worst financial and legal outlaw. Last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took the significant step of censuring Argentina for its publication of misleading government statistics. This is first time in the Fund’s history that a country has been censured – a damning indictment of Argentina’s departure from accepted standards.

"Its government, while condemning the IMF, said it would withdraw from the World Bank’s investment dispute tribunal, the ICSID. Argentina has over £40bn of cases filed against it due to a record of property expropriation, a refusal to honour contracts, and an unwillingness to respect court judgements. The latest claim hails from Repsol, the Spanish energy company nationalised by Kirchner last year. If Argentina leaves ICSID, the next Repsol will not benefit from such protection. Worryingly, Britain remains the sixth-largest investor in Argentina, and could be left exposed.

"These problems all stem from Argentina’s ongoing refusal to repay its debt obligations. Since its default in 2001, it has ignored more than 100 court decisions to make good on its debt, despite having the ability to pay. Recently, an exasperated US judge said that Argentina must abide by contractual commitments and pay its creditors. Argentina’s rejection has caused concern for the precedent it may set for future sovereign defaults."

http://www.cityam.com/article/argent...-falklands-cover-economic-failures

[Edited 2013-03-12 21:33:48]

Ok. We are melting down. You know better than I do.

(this is amazing)

None of that still have nothing to do with the fact that Argentina was not rescued in 2002, that it has no relations with the IMF today, and won't be asking for any assistance in the future.

And the article is right, Argentina defaulted in 2001. Since it was not rescued, it suffered a massive economic crisis, but it also gained the ability to dictate 100% on its terms how to treat bondholders, companies, and utility rates.

[Edited 2013-03-12 21:43:08]

   This would be like Chamberlain coming back from meeting Hitle rand declaring peace in our times...

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 190): but it just doesn't work like that when negotiating with Argentina on this issue

Quoting mariner (Reply 189): I said I;d stop, but you seem to have missed the point. Britain holds all the cards, Britain would make the rule. If Argentina doesnl' like it, than, as I said many posts ago, then it is Argentina;s problem and it stays as it is.

On the contrary, I understand the point perfectly well - it's just that I think that position makes the total non-negotiation of severeignty completely right, regardless of whether Britain could 'make the rules' or not.

Quoting mariner (Reply 189): Does that mean we shouldn't look for a diplomatic solution to an effective impasse?

Not at all, which is why the UK has repeatedly said that we're here any time for talk, just not on sovereignty, and why we don't tend to talk in bellicose terms on the subject.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 205): Not at all, which is why the UK has repeatedly said that we're here any time for talk, just not on sovereignty, and why we don't tend to talk in bellicose terms on the subject.

I am not suggesting they give up sovereignty - share some of it, perhaps, or aspects of it, but not abandon.

Although I dread to think how much blood and treasure Britain has expended defending sovereignty, often pointlessly. See Suez, above.

I am not optimistic here. As I said in my first post about this:

Quoting mariner (Reply 158): It is extraordinary to me that two supposedly civilised nations are in such perpetual antagonism, these days, over a tiny island in a vast ocean.

I think Argentina's aggressive and possessive attitude is a daffy dream of an imagined past and I think Britain has wrapped itself in a cloak of higher morality - of which the referendum is now part and which a number of nations in the world will not recognise for fear of their own disputed territorial claims.

It all becomes too nationalist for me - and I am a child of the empire.

mariner

.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): How about the British desist from Antarctica? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

What hypocrisy are you talking about?

The British Antarctic Territorial claim predates other countries claims, including Argentina's, by about 30 years (British claim 1908, Argentinian claim 1942, Chilean claim 1940).

The British claim to the Falkland Islands predates Argentina's by a couple hundred years.

Both territories had no indigenous populations.

Seems fairly consistent to me. The only difference is that there is an international treaty covering Antarctica which suspends international claims - which Britain has signed, but reserved the claim if the treaty is withdrawn from (which is perfectly legal and correct).

You don't simply get to claim an area of land as yours because its close to you.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): Tell me... How is it that the British government can issue "Argentine identity cards"? (which are not even called that). That story has been proven a hoax and even if it was remotely true, it still does not mean a handover would have ensued, that is utter speculation on your parts.

Again you just dont understand do you . You need to check your facts before posting. The above statement just shows that you dont understand the statement that was made.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): And btw, it would help your cause if you knew the actual population of Argentina, 40 million, not 45.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 142): But, according to them which are 45 million people

Then you would need to quote the person that I was replying to . It does nothing to my cause. Clutching at straws will not help yours.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): How about the British desist from Antarctica? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The hippocrisy is actually in your statement. I suggest you read up on the claims by different nations including YOUR own nation. Some of their reasons behind their claim is laughable.

Quoting moo (Reply 207): You don't simply get to claim an area of land as yours because its close to you.

Might be worth putting this map on here:-

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/channel.htm

The (British) Channel Islands are far closer to France than the Falklands are to Argentina. But the situation is accepted by both sides. And, as it happens, I've visited Western France quite often, and people told me that, in business terms, the British Channel Islands actually helped their own tourist trade - it resulted in more British holidaymakers visiting France, and gave tourists from the rest of Europe the option of a day trip to 'part of Britain' to add variety to their holidays. Helped that most of the ferries operating in both directions were French..........

I really do think that Argentina would be well advised to drop their insistence on gaining the 'Malvinas' and instead restore to the Falklanders the conveniences that they previously enjoyed (and paid Argentina for) - particularly things like education, medical care, and onward air transport. At the moment all those benefits are flowing to Chile, not Argentina.......

I say we just cut all diplomatic ties to Argentina, recall the ambassador and let them stew in their own juices.

Their country is a financial and political festering boil, and while we the British try to reason with them, the boil gets bigger. It should be allowed to burst and send the country into a hard tail spin then the population can see they have been governed by a bunch loons.


Hopefully with the vote, this will also keep Obama quiet, as he along with Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have been sitting on the fence, or was Obama playing to the voters who originated from South America?
Hopefully with this vote, Obama will keep quiet now, as the islanders have shown who they want, and its always being preached in the U.S.A about the ritght to self determination.

Mariner, I understand that when you talk about a joint governance you have a positive, constructive wishful thinking, but you are missing very important points, that are real, hard facts.
1.-You said the islanders will be benefit making " a great deal" with this ... well let me tell you, if you check the comments sections of the ( serious ) newspapers in Argentina, you will see that at least 50% of the Argentinians think that the Kelpers have absolutely nothing to win from any kind of relation with Argentina. The crime rate, the inflation rate, the corruption levels, the lack of a serious plan to develop the country, the financial war between the central government of CFK and the Provinces, the restriction of basic rights ( the last one : There will be only one credit card allowed in the supermarkets, controlled by the government, no more VISA, MASTERCARD or similar will be allowed ).... These are just a few examples of the reasons cited for the people who recommend the kelpers to stay away from Argentina ( this is people LIVING in Argentina, ergo, knowing the hard reality of the country ).
2.- You expect " a peaceful solution to the conflict " ....well, sadly, there are certain positions from certain politicians in this region that are just absolutely rigid and leave no space to any hope for a practical solution of the conflicts, conflicts that are, by the way, pretty artificial, since there is only one side who has the rights, and the other part is just complaining against a reality that is just impossible to change in the next centuries. Look at the Bolivian claims against Chile. There is a treaty signed in 1904. There is a hard reality ( Antofagasta is Chilean territory ). There are gestures of good will from Chile to facilitate the trading of Bolivian goods through Chilean ports, with big investments ( in tangible infrastructure like ports, roads and rails ) from the Chilean side of the border. What do you hear from "the other side", Bolivia ? We want sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean. We want Antofagasta back. Our way or nothing. Well, with that position, the answer from Chile will be, for ever, NOTHING. I can assure you that, CFK, has exactly the same rigid position regarding the Falklands, and I found the British government has been really polite indeed. Just recently the Foreign Ministry of Argentina ( Timmerman ) visited London, but refused a meeting with his British counterpart because the Islanders representatives will be present in that meeting. Even more, they had the bad taste of publishing a diatribe against the U.K. in British newspapers. In this two examples of Bolivia Vs. Chile and Argentina Vs. U.K. , you can see very clearly that there is one side making an effort to take constructive ways, and other side saying "my way or no way".... the funny ( or sad ? ) thing is, the ones that are denying any flexibility to go forward, have not any chance of getting nothing by other ways like a military action or a demand in international courts, they just CAN'T win.

Quoting Derico (Reply 203): Ok. We are melting down. You know better than I do. (this is amazing)

The amazing thing here is that you don't see the reality. That reality is not constructed by RussianJet, or me, or any other member here. The reality is very easy to check with a very basic knowledge of economy. Is not me who says this, just make a Google search for any financial expert of any prestigious publication ( you can choose between The Economist, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Financial Times, America Economia, Bloomberg.....) All of them, ALL, have the same conclusion after a calm, emotionless analysis : The recipe for a meltdown in Argentina is absolutely clear. You have high inflation with small ( if any ) growth, a desperate intent of price control ( something that has failed miserably, for centuries, in every country or society that took that way ), a notorious crisis in the supply of energy ( necessary for growth ), an extremely low foreign investment, low level of reserves in the Central Bank and lots of payments ahead ( and as you know, the chance of an adverse result in the New York Courts in a couple of weeks could make all this scenario much much worst) .... all the signs are there.

Add to that, all this problems are managed by a megalomaniac woman who frequently demonstrates her ignorance in basic aspects of general knowledge ( do you remember when she said that the water formula was H - 2 - ZERO ? )
Here is her last jewel in the string of contributions to the modern science :

" The Diabetes is a desease of the rich people, they get Diabetes because they eat too much and have a sedentary life"

See to Believe :

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1562658-l...betes-que-causo-revuelo-en-twitter


Rgds.
G.

[Edited 2013-03-13 05:51:30]

[Edited 2013-03-13 06:19:39]

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): What atrocious record?

I'll give you a hint: ask these protesters.

Quoting mariner (Reply 206): I am not suggesting they give up sovereignty - share some of it, perhaps, or aspects of it, but not abandon.

I understand not abandon, but you can't seriously claim that shared governance isn't giving something up. I understand your points perfectly, but simply disagree with them.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 213): I understand not abandon, but you can't seriously claim that shared governance isn't giving something up.

Agree entirely, Russianjet. Sorry if it's boring, but I can't resist quoting a long-standing and apt British 'phrase or saying':-

"Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile........"

Quoting mariner (Reply 173): Once again, I am suggesting joint governance - as happened in the New Hebrides between those ancient enemies, Britain and France

Quoting mariner (Reply 169): Once again, it seems Britain was prepared to do it before:

The British government has, at times, had a less than honourable intentions. Take Blair/Hain/Straw. As part of their plan to ally with Spain in the EU to take on the Franco/German axis, they offered joint sovereignty of Gibraltar without bothering to consult the Gibraltarians. This led to the 2002 referendum where only 186 voted for joint sovereignty versus 17900 against.

It proves that we still have to be vigilant, especially where scumbag self-serving politicians are involved!

Quoting moo (Reply 207): Seems fairly consistent to me. The only difference is that there is an international treaty covering Antarctica which suspends international claims - which Britain has signed, but reserved the claim if the treaty is withdrawn from (which is perfectly legal and correct).

So now you, A Falkland Islander, says some geo-political treaty trumps self-determination. In essence, Argentines in Antarctica are not entitled to self-determination because of a treaty and because of British territorial expansionism, in 2013.

Says it all right there, and right here:

Quoting OA260 (Reply 208): The hippocrisy is actually in your statement. I suggest you read up on the claims by different nations including YOUR own nation. Some of their reasons behind their claim is laughable.

Self-determination is something the UK only believes its own citizens are entitled to. Cultural supremacism, seems to me.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 211): Foreign Ministry of Argentina ( Timmerman ) visited London, but refused a meeting with his British counterpart because the Islanders representatives will be present in that meeting

Since when do foreign ministers of two countries meet trilaterally? Does a British minister go to other nations and those nations bring a third party to the talks? The UK has no interest in talks with Argentina, fair enough. Argentina with its actions has made it clear it doesn't either, so no side is guilty there.

Quoting aloges (Reply 212): I'll give you a hint: ask these protesters.

The the UK government has an atrocious record too, right? Or anyone forget the massive riots? Or more recent large protests? Not just the UK: France, Italy, of course Spain, etc. How about the major protest in Chile during the current government. So those governments have been atrocious too, right?

This is typical ideological myopia. Only the protests that validate your worldview are indicative of failure. Those protests that do not are seen as "subversive".

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 211): you can choose between The Economist, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Financial Times, America Economia, Bloomberg.....)

Those are laughable news organizations when it comes to the Argentina issue. The financial media has for years tried to destroy Argentina by planting rumours, and falsehoods, in order to provoke a crisis. Their concern is that the bankers don't control Argentina, and that gets them all upset.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): Yes, I know. You are always right, everyone else always wrong.

Oh yes, everyone else is always wrong when Argentina decides they are. See what I mean - unless Argentina accepts the internationally recognised facts there is no way forward here.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): There is nothing to talk about, that's why the offer of "talk" by the UK is rightfully dismissed.

So why then, barely a month later, is your president appealing for the UK to enter into a dialogue? The hypocrisy is laughable.

Quoting mariner (Reply 198): Is she playing politics with it?

Most definitely. She has ruled out military action, but the 'diplomatic' action is a great way to stir up nationalism to divert from other issues.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): Tell me... How is it that the British government can issue "Argentine identity cards"? (which are not even called that). That story has been proven a hoax and even if it was remotely true, it still does not mean a handover would have ensued, that is utter speculation on your parts.

Well in that case I'm sure you are able to furnish us with a credible independent source demonstrating that it's a hoax.


Dan  

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 217): Oh yes, everyone else is always wrong when Argentina decides they are. See what I mean - unless Argentina accepts the internationally recognised facts there is no way forward here.

Then you have that view about Argentine "facts", why can't I have the same view about British facts?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 217): So why then, barely a month later, is your president appealing for the UK to enter into a dialogue? The hypocrisy is laughable.

It's not hypocrisy, its OCD. CFK wants dialogue about sovereignty. The UK cannot entertain that and abandon its citizens. So of course CFK is asking for dialogue, but not about anything else conceivable in the agenda.

Since talks on control of the islands are not feasible, then there are no need for talks at all. What does Argentina need to sit down and talk with the F.I's about? They have control over their area, waters, and resources.

[Edited 2013-03-13 07:58:12]

Quoting Derico (Reply 216): So now you, A Falkland Islander, says some geo-political treaty trumps self-determination. In essence, Argentines in Antarctica are not entitled to self-determination because of a treaty and because of British territorial expansionism, in 2013.

Didn't Britain claim that part of the continent long before Argentina?

Quoting Derico (Reply 218): Then you have that view about Argentine "facts", why can't I have the same view about British facts?

Just because the facts support the British side of the debate does not mean they have been manufactured to suit by the British and are only believed by them, as you are apparently assuming. One set of facts is international recognised, but to hell with those because Argentina has their own version of history.

Quoting Derico (Reply 218): It's not hypocrisy, its OCD.

No, turning down a meeting and then complaining that you aren't being given a meeting is definitely hypocrisy. In international diplomacy you deal with the hand you have, throwing it away and then complaining about it is pointless.


Dan  

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 219): Didn't Britain claim that part of the continent long before Argentina?

You keep making my point. I will now say it plainly: hypocrisy of the 1st order.

Aren't you British posters the ones who in this very thread where saying that "borders" change over time? That the "now" is what should be considered?

Yet here you are, holding on to expansionist ambitions by use of long ago developments. The facts on the ground today are that at best there are 100+ British in Antarctica. The British abandoned the area in 1899. Argentina has been there since 1904 every single day, no other country comes close. There are between 500-1000 Argentines in Antarctica throughout the calendar year.

If the Antarctic Treaty (a cover for territorial ambitions) was abrogated, then it is very clear the UK would use force to ethnically cleanse the Argentines.

I am basing this scenario on the logic displayed here by British forum members and the history of the UK, plus the actions of their government today.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 220): No, turning down a meeting and then complaining that you aren't being given a meeting is definitely hypocrisy. In international diplomacy you deal with the hand you have, throwing it away and then complaining about it is pointless.

You have no interest in honest debate then. So I guess you would tell your Prime Minister to come to Argentina even if he were required to dress in a military era costume kneel down and shuffle through the streets towards the port as if it was 1807 all over again. Deal with the hand you have, right?

So I'll leave it here.

[Edited 2013-03-13 08:22:30]

Argentina should have claimed it before the UK then.  

The argument is not inconsistent with the Falklands issue.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 222): Argentina should have claimed it before the UK then.   The argument is not inconsistent with the Falklands issue.

LOL.

I didn't expect you to understand. I honestly believe you when you claim to see no inconsistency.

So what you are saying is because you claimed something first, you can expel anyone you want afterwards, screw their self-determination.

When did the UK expel anyone?

Quoting Derico (Reply 216): So now you, A Falkland Islander, says some geo-political treaty trumps self-determination.

Not really - I'm saying that claims exist, the Argentinian claims are predated by the British claims, and those claims are suspended on part of an international treaty *BOTH* parties have signed.

Quoting Derico (Reply 216): In essence, Argentines in Antarctica are not entitled to self-determination because of a treaty and because of British territorial expansionism, in 2013.

Quoting Derico (Reply 216): Self-determination is something the UK only believes its own citizens are entitled to. Cultural supremacism, seems to me.

I'm not saying that at all. However, there are no Argentinians on Antarctica which are not part of a government outpost or base - there are also no permanent residents, as the base personnel gets rotated out every year.

So when you show me a permanent resident, then we shall talk about that permanent resident having the right of self determination.

Quoting Derico (Reply 216): The the UK government has an atrocious record too, right?

On some issues, yes, of course! But do you see them deflecting from that via some harebrained idea that, say, the Faroe Islands son británicas? No. They may have bought into GWB's insanities, but boy have they learnt from it... quite unlike CFdK.

Quoting aloges (Reply 226): but boy have they learnt from it... quite unlike CFdK.

Last time I checked all members of the British government during the Iraq war are free men and in fact making money out of their war of aggression violating article 1 of the UN of not using war preemptively. Blair himself is a peace envoy. And his actions led to many war and human rights violations in that country.

Our military leaders during the Junta are in jail. Pinochet was a senator for life... Seriously, how do you expect me to take anyone here seriously when I look at the facts and you people deny Argentina having done ANYTHING positive, in any category or subject?

Imagine if China had invaded Japan out of fear of them getting WMD (nukes). I don't think their leaders would be permitted to travel the world, exactly.

Quoting moo (Reply 225): Not really - I'm saying that claims exist, the Argentinian claims are predated by the British claims, and those claims are suspended on part of an international treaty *BOTH* parties have signed.

Did Argentina have the option not to sign? No. This is all so convenient, for you. In the end, you get away with it because of military might. But you are morally bankrupt.

So to summarize this thread,

1. Argentinians are incompetent people
2. Argentinians are extremely dumb for choosing the current government.
3. Argentina is a stupid third-world country that has no future whatsoever.
4. Argentinians are terrorists.
5. Spanish speakers (and specifically Argentinians) should not be allowed to say Las Malvinas, because its offensive against the British.
6. Argentinians are hopeless
7. Argentinians who believe the Falklands should belong to Argentina have absolutely nothing between their ears.
8. Argentinians are usually proud of their country, and that's terribly bad. Only British people are allowed to be proud of their country.
9. The British should teach Argentinians about their country, because Argentinians obviously have no idea about their country.

Heck, just attack Buenos Aires, if you are as brave as you think you are.

Only in A.net do you read this kind of stuff.

Self determination is not that straight forward in some cases. I am aware that this thread is not about Gibraltar, so I apologise for the slight tangent here.

In the case of Gibraltar, the Treaty of Utrect basically states that if Britain no longer wants Gib, control would be passed to Spain. They probably did not consider in 1703 that 300 years later, rather than just a military base, there would actually be 30000 people calling it home, the "native" Gibraltarians. Technically Gibraltar (Gibraltarians are British citizens) belongs to Britain, not the Gibraltarians, so any change of sovereignty could only be to Spain and not Gibraltar.

Probably the only time in recent memory when Spain may have been "encouraged" to either drop its territorial claim or amend the Treaty would have been prior to its entry into the EEC, but it didn't happen.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): So to summarize this thread

CamiloA380, in quite a long post, you don't mention the Falkland Islanders once. Even though (unlike any Argentinians) they've lived on the islands for more than a century.

So please 'expand' your summary - and tell us all, what is your just 'solution' for them?

Quoting Derico (Reply 227): Seriously, how do you expect me to take anyone here seriously when I look at the facts and you people deny Argentina having done ANYTHING positive, in any category or subject?

"We people"? I don't agree for a second that Argentina has never "done ANYTHING positive" and I'm positive that nobody else does, either. The problem here is the posturing over the islands.

Camilo, that's almost point for point what I have said for years here.

10. All Argentines are Nazi lovers (forget Argentina allowed Jews in mass to migrate, when their nations were busy turning ships like the St. Louis away.... but we are the Nazis)
11. Argentines, we don't learn from our history (our Junta leaders are in jail, those of other countries are free men... Bush and Blair are free men... but we are the ones who don't learn)
12. Argentina exterminated their natives, to the last man (forget the egregious level of this charge, but it comes from people out of Canada, Australia, USA, etc... this kind of posturing would seem almost implausible even in a parody play).
13. Argentines are all cheaters (Maradona is a cheater, then we all must be... we probably all snort the white stuff too... and Latins are "divers", remember the World Cup threads)

I'm glad someone else finally stands up. AR385 did too a couple of years ago. We don't agree on some things, but he also saw this same pattern.

You would think Argentina had caused a World War or something, or had once a far-fledged, anti-democratic, anti self-determination, culturally supremacist empire in the past 400 years, to get so trashed and unfairly painted.

[Edited 2013-03-13 09:14:12]

I noticed you've ignored my question there.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): So to summarize this thread,

Some Argentinians are far too easily offended.

Yours,
Mr Gerry Kraut

Quoting aloges (Reply 231): "We people"? I don't agree for a second that Argentina has never "done ANYTHING positive" and I'm positive that nobody else does, either. The problem here is the posturing over the islands.

I can only go by the comments that are actually written and have been written, over the course of time. Never has one been positive.

It's not a matter of being offended... did you even bother reading what is said here? Again, read my list. You would not be offended by that?

[Edited 2013-03-13 09:18:12]

RomeoBravo,

As I understand, the UK uprooted people from an island in order to build a runway. To this day they have not been returned to their homes.

[Edited 2013-03-13 09:19:41]

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): Heck, just attack Buenos Aires, if you are as brave as you think you are. Only in A.net do you read this kind of stuff.

Not really- it's actually quite common on the internet to feel as you do. It's very hard for a lot of people to separate criticism of their government and criticism of their country. In a written medium it's especially difficult because people take shortcuts, like saying "Argentina" or "Argentinians" when they actually mean "the Argentinian government".

However at the same time the Argentinian government's position shouldn't be immune from criticism. If you disagree with that criticism it's usually better to provide a reasoned argument rather than pout and sulk. It doesn't advance the debate much.

Quoting Derico (Reply 221): You have no interest in honest debate then. So I guess you would tell your Prime Minister to come to Argentina even if he were required to dress in a military era costume kneel down and shuffle through the streets towards the port as if it was 1807 all over again. Deal with the hand you have, right?

Oh no, the condition we placed on the meeting back in February was even more draconian than that - a representative of the Falkland Islander's had to be present. Tsk, shame on us for being so unreasonable as to invite them, the internationally recognised population, to the table... after all Argentina doesn't consider their existence valid.  

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): So to summarize this thread,

So to summarise your post: you really haven't understood, or chosen to understand, anything. And there have been some very detailed and informative posts in this thread.

Quoting aloges (Reply 231): "We people"? I don't agree for a second that Argentina has never "done ANYTHING positive" and I'm positive that nobody else does, either. The problem here is the posturing over the islands.

Exactly, I don't think anybody here is suggesting that.


Dan  

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 236): However at the same time the Argentinian government's position shouldn't be immune from criticism.

With all due respect, you haven been here long enough to say that.

People here morally condemn Argentina for being a refuge for Nazis, and their countries in the same time period openly hired them to boost their military-science establishment. They do the same about the natives, and their countries engaged in more extreme extermination. They condemn us as cheaters in sport, but the vast majority of cheaters in the Olympics are North Americans and Europeans. They say Argentina does not care about the Falkland's inhabitants, of not focusing on the "today", but they cling to claims to other lands made over a century ago and then demand we forget the present and focus on that past.

Why can't people see that I would see some major hypocrisy and fake moral indignation alarm ringing off?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 237): Oh no, the condition we placed on the meeting back in February was even more draconian than that - a representative of the Falkland Islander's had to be present.

You are equivocating. Why does a Falklander need to be present in a ARG-UK bilateral meeting? Does a Bahamian sit in a US-UK one? A Faroe in a UK-Denmark? Sorry, but your argument is a two-legged table.

[Edited 2013-03-13 09:30:29]

Quoting Derico (Reply 235): I can only go by the comments that are actually written and have been written, over the course of time. Never has one been positive.

That'll be your selective memory at work.

Quoting Derico (Reply 235): It's not a matter of being offended... did you even bother reading what is said here? Again, read my list. You would not be offended by that?

I did actually read through quite a bit of this thread... in a hotel room in Buenos Aires, no less. However, the positive things that I have to say about that city ended up on postcards; you won't find them in a thread on the Argentine government's stance on the Falkland Islands.

As for being offended by the British, I think we Germans might be a fair few steps ahead of you in that respect - if we took The Sun etc. seriously. Which we don't.

Quoting Derico (Reply 238): People here morally condemn Argentina for being a refuge for Nazis

...which makes it all the more confusing that it's you who started (and keeps) mentioning the Nazis in this thread.

Quoting Derico (Reply 238): You are equivocating. Why does a Falklander need to be present in a ARG-UK bilateral meeting? Does a Bahamian sit in a US-UK one? A Faroe in a UK-Denmark? Sorry, but your argument is a two-legged table.

Does the US claim sovereignty over the Bahamas? Does the UK claim sovereignty over the Faroes? Sorry, but your comparison is nonsense - due to the actions and claims of your own government.

[Edited 2013-03-13 09:36:11]

Aloges, I'm entitled to my opinion (which has been picked up by now multiple posters). Your comments on postcards are irrelevant. The constant pushing of half-truths and at times outright lies about Argentina's history or culture in fact does become pernicious if it is NEVER backed up by any counter feed-back, either positive, or rebutting the things that are said unfairly. I don't see how you expect me to sit by when I read stuff like "Argentina exterminated the natives"... and this from people of a country that have a guy like Aguero and Tevez playing in their league.

They sure look like blond-blue-eyed SS grandchildren, that came to Argentina thanks to the fact the natives were totally exterminated...  

Quoting Derico (Reply 235): As I understand, the UK uprooted people from an island in order to build a runway. To this day they have not been returned to their homes.

There are parts of everybody's history not to be proud of. That, along with the Iraq war, constitute two which I am not proud of. The important thing is recognising that and not making the same mistakes again.


Dan  

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 242): There are parts of everybody's history not to be proud of. That, along with the Iraq war, constitute two which I am not proud of. The important thing is recognising that and not making the same mistakes again.

You are entitled to make mistakes. You are not entitled to then cast judgement on others making similar errors, especially when you have yet to rectify your own. In fact the UK government has not even said "we were wrong on Iraq".

Quoting Derico (Reply 238): You are equivocating. Why does a Falklander need to be present in a ARG-UK bilateral meeting? Does a Bahamian sit in a US-UK one? A Faroe in a UK-Denmark? Sorry, but your argument is a two-legged table.

And until you understand what is wrong with this statement, you will not understand why people do not take yours views seriously and why people have so many negative views about the Argentine government's policy towards the Falklands.


Dan  

Quoting Derico (Reply 227): Did Argentina have the option not to sign? No.

Uhm, I'm sorry but who was holding a gun to your head at the time? Argentina was one of the original 12 countries to sign, there was no threat, there was no duress, you signed voluntarily (and infact have held the headquarters of teh Antarctic Treaty Secretariat since 2004).

So yes, you had an option not to sign, but you signed.

There was no war at the end of which you were forced to sign, there was no threat of military action.

Quoting Derico (Reply 227): This is all so convenient, for you. In the end, you get away with it because of military might. But you are morally bankrupt.

And here is where it becomes pointless to discuss anything with you.

It might seem a strange concept, but some (many infact) British Subjects don't agree with the military intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan - there were mass protests about both infact.

However, while there have been several pushes for prosecutions of the politicians involved (whom, I might add, were voted out at the last election - we didn't have to topple a military dictatorship), there has thus far been no legal basis to conduct a prosecution as Blair et al did infact conduct themselves correctly under British law, and there has been no approaches of a legal manner from an international court.

Quoting Derico (Reply 238): Why does a Falklander need to be present in a ARG-UK bilateral meeting?

Because the UK chooses to allow the Falkland Islands to be self governing, and as such allows them to represent themselves in matters that affect them.

Quoting Derico (Reply 238): Does a Bahamian sit in a US-UK one?

Yes, actually, when there is any topics which concern the Bahamas - a government representative does indeed take part in US-UK meetings.

Quoting Derico (Reply 238): A Faroe in a UK-Denmark?

And yes, again when there are any topics which concern the Faroe Islanders, they are invited to send a representative to be involved in the meeting.

Quoting aloges (Reply 240): Does the US claim sovereignty over the Bahamas? Does the UK claim sovereignty over the Faroes? Sorry, but your comparison is nonsense - due to the actions and claims of your own government.

Ahhh... ok. Well, but then the UK could simply have said: we will meet with you Mr. Timmerman, but the issue of the Falklands is taboo. Not a word about that. However, if you wish to talk about that issue, I will have to call a recess until a representative of the Falkland Islands is present.

That's simple right?

Quoting Derico (Reply 246): Ahhh... ok. Well, but then the UK could simply have said: we will meet with you Mr. Timmerman, but the issue of the Falklands is taboo. Not a word about that. However, if you wish to talk about that issue, I will have to call a recess until a representative of the Falkland Islands is present. That's simple right?

Well, considering the entire point of the meeting proposed was to discuss the Falkland Islands situation, it seems a little pointless to make the Falkland Islands a taboo subject...

The British and Argentinians have had many meetings in recent years where the Falkland Islands were not discussed, and those meetings went without issue.

Quoting moo (Reply 245): Uhm, I'm sorry but who was holding a gun to your head at the time? Argentina was one of the original 12 countries to sign, there was no threat, there was no duress, you signed voluntarily (and infact have held the headquarters of teh Antarctic Treaty Secretariat since 2004).

There is no choice. You sir are not being honest. Had we refused, we would have faced severe sanctions, which btw you do know economic sanctions are an act of war.

The government of the time had no interest in signing such a disastrous treaty.

You have the example of the attempt by the European and North American nations of creating the concept of the "Southern Ocean". Argentina was forced to reject the proposal, out of 28 nations that voted yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean

So then we were called "pariah", for voting against a designation that in effect would formally cut-off Argentina from the Antarctic by virtue of a fake ocean that would make any Argentine claim of territorial continuity into the Antarctic obviously untenable (if an ocean separates the two). Thankfully, we are not as naive as in the past.

Quoting Derico (Reply 243): You are entitled to make mistakes. You are not entitled to then cast judgement on others making similar errors, especially when you have yet to rectify your own.

That is the ultimate hypocrisy in this thread, simply brilliant. Naturally as you are speaking from the moral high-ground, the Argentine government have apologised for the illegal Falklands invasion then. Oh wait...


Dan