New Falklands War Brewing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite unlike the American's when we sent you Brits packing....while allowing the Germans to stay.
As we are coming up a referendum why not wait and see what the people decide and then Keesje wont have an argument then
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Whatever happens in the coming months, we can't do anything until we have proccured enough green kit after all these years in 'light tan'. Silvermans et al must be looking forward to the business coming their way if it kicks off.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we are coming up a referendum why not wait and see what the people decide and then Keesje wont have an argument then
Claiming "self determination" proved insufficient sofar. Probably because it assumes the current inhabitants are the rightfull, historic owners. Most of the world seems to put question marks around that.
China Post:
The Falkland Island Road Show has come to the United Nations, with all the political trappings of drama, hyper-nationalism, and self-righteous moralizing. The focus remains on the future of this windswept British territory in the South Atlantic claimed by, and also once invaded by, neighboring Argentina.
DefenseManagement.com:
'If lost, the Falklands would be extremely difficult to re-take'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but feel that the current Argentine approach might have been better timed if it had come before they invaded. They hastily tried the fighting option, (rather than talking) clearly got a good thumping and as such surely the issue is closed thereafter?...spoils of war and all that!
And anyway I wonder what the native South Americans think about their Spanish occupiers.
And anyway I wonder what the native South Americans think about their Spanish occupiers.
And anyway I wonder what the native South Americans think about their Spanish occupiers.
Last edited by longer ron; 6th Jan 2013 at 19:38.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claiming "self determination" proved insufficient sofar. Probably because it assumes the current inhabitants are the rightfull, historic owners. Most of the world seems to put question marks around that.
It's not about Keesje, but the rest of the world, including friends and allies. And no, it won't stop after the referendum the Brits created.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spelling
So I take it you class the Dutch Antilles the same way if say Venezuela disputed their vote and lets face it they are a lot nearer to Venezuela than the Falklands are to Argentina.
The Antilles have 100 x as many inhabitants as the Falklands. Is that really important for this issue? Well, hell, yes, of course! And they have a real economy too. Not some constructed totally dependent survival economy.
And Venezuela, Curacao has a good cooperation with them. They have oil, Curacao the habors, refeneries. Presently Venezuela's state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) operates a number of oil refineries on the island. Win-win pragmatism beyond the British Falklands?
Last edited by keesje; 6th Jan 2013 at 22:02.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We would honor the Antilles independence as soon they want to. They love to bash the Netherlands but so far hold-off from independency.
The Antilles have 100 x as many inhabitants as the Falklands. Is that really important for this issue? Well, hell, yes, of course! And they have a real economy too. Not some constructed totally dependent survival economy.
And Venezuela, Curacao has a good cooperation with them.
Keejse wrote
It doesn't matter if 'it' continues after the referendum. The current Argentine Government can bump their gums and pull stunts all they like but it will change absolutely nothing.
Kirchner will likely be gone in 2015. I can't see the constitution being changed to allow her a third term? If you think anything will change, or should, because of the current hype and gum bumping then you are sadly mistaken. I can see that it is hard for you to come to terms with but that is the reality of the situation. Have you tried writing to Kirchner? Perhaps you can give her some tips and advice for her next stunt?
It's not about Keesje, but the rest of the world, including friends and allies. And no, it won't stop after the referendum the Brits created.
Kirchner will likely be gone in 2015. I can't see the constitution being changed to allow her a third term? If you think anything will change, or should, because of the current hype and gum bumping then you are sadly mistaken. I can see that it is hard for you to come to terms with but that is the reality of the situation. Have you tried writing to Kirchner? Perhaps you can give her some tips and advice for her next stunt?
TEEEJ,
while its entirely true that Kirchner will be gone in 2015, her legacy (along with corruption, nepotism, economic chaos etc..) is going to be that in order to get elected, future candidates for the Argentine presidency are going to have to wave the flag and bang the drum to some extent - and that they are then held hostage by that rhetoric when the normal rough and tumble of Argentine politics sees demonstrators on the streets.
Kirchner might well be an odious, vicious hag who uses the FI to distract the Argentine population (not that well it must be noted, so to be effective she has to go further than she currently has...), but she is also something of a captive of the Argentine political psyche - she can't win any political argument on domestic politics unless she is seen to be 'strong' on the FI. her jabberings have put the next Argentine president in the same position, only more so...
while its entirely true that Kirchner will be gone in 2015, her legacy (along with corruption, nepotism, economic chaos etc..) is going to be that in order to get elected, future candidates for the Argentine presidency are going to have to wave the flag and bang the drum to some extent - and that they are then held hostage by that rhetoric when the normal rough and tumble of Argentine politics sees demonstrators on the streets.
Kirchner might well be an odious, vicious hag who uses the FI to distract the Argentine population (not that well it must be noted, so to be effective she has to go further than she currently has...), but she is also something of a captive of the Argentine political psyche - she can't win any political argument on domestic politics unless she is seen to be 'strong' on the FI. her jabberings have put the next Argentine president in the same position, only more so...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News
The Foreign Ministry rejected the recent “military threats” coming from British Prime Minister David Cameron in relation to the UK’s “illegal occupation of the (Malvinas) islands" that began 180 years ago.
“The aggressiveness present in the British Prime Minister’s words ratify the complaint filed by the Argentine Republic before the United Nations regarding the militarization of the South Atlantic and the possible presence of nuclear weapons brought by the colonial power,” the ministry said in a statement.
The government office also added that the Argentine population “urges Mr. David Cameron not to make use of the peaceful and legitimate claims we make against the usurpation of part of our territory and colonialism as an excuse to maintain the arms industry instead of solving the severe social crisis Europe is going through.” “People need more employment and less war,” the statement reads
“The aggressiveness present in the British Prime Minister’s words ratify the complaint filed by the Argentine Republic before the United Nations regarding the militarization of the South Atlantic and the possible presence of nuclear weapons brought by the colonial power,” the ministry said in a statement.
The government office also added that the Argentine population “urges Mr. David Cameron not to make use of the peaceful and legitimate claims we make against the usurpation of part of our territory and colonialism as an excuse to maintain the arms industry instead of solving the severe social crisis Europe is going through.” “People need more employment and less war,” the statement reads
(Héctor Marcos Timerman is an journalist, sociologist, political and human rights activist, diplomat, and current Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, was ambassador the USA too)
keejse,
What exactly was the point of that quote? Minister of Foreign Relations? More like government spin doctor, or in the old days more like propagandist.
Why don't you actually read the quote you have provided and de-construct it dispassionately point by point?
What "military threats" is the UK making? The UK has a small defensive force on the Falklands, which has a belligerent neighbour who has already once tried to take the islands by armed force. The UK military assets on the Falklands are of no threat to the country of Argentina. As a nation the UK is cutting its armed forces, and there has been no increase in forces deployed to the Falklands. Are these "military threats" simply statements that the UK will defend the islands if anyone tries to take them by force? I don't see how the word threat applies to such a statement.
"Illegal occupation of the islands" - one could debate this at length, using today's standards to analyse actions that took place 200 years ago is an approach that could be considered somewhat flawed. No doubt one could then equally argue that the Spanish and Portuguese "occupation" of South America would be considered "illegal". But for a country of "illegal" occupiers to accuse another of such an act is hypocrisy itself, without even debating if it is correct or not.
"Possible presence of nuclear weapons"? A nice provocative statement, no doubt the gentleman saying it will use the excuse of the word "possible" to justify it. Yes, the UK is a nuclear power, but a simple examination of the UKs remaining nuclear weapons will illustrate the absurdity of the statement.
Maintaining the arms industry instead of solving the social crisis in Europe? As I said earlier, a simple examination of the reduction in UK armed forces, men, material, bases, etc that has both taken place recently and is planned, shows that statement in its true light!
All in all this is nothing but another emotive, misinformed, (deliberately?) inaccurate statement from a politician pushing his own/party/country agenda - and his previous credentials (e.g. human rights activist) don't alter that fact! Is your quoting of it supposed to lend it some extra credence?
As to what Cameron said:
BBC News - David Cameron: 'Falklands will choose its own future'
What exactly was the point of that quote? Minister of Foreign Relations? More like government spin doctor, or in the old days more like propagandist.
Why don't you actually read the quote you have provided and de-construct it dispassionately point by point?
What "military threats" is the UK making? The UK has a small defensive force on the Falklands, which has a belligerent neighbour who has already once tried to take the islands by armed force. The UK military assets on the Falklands are of no threat to the country of Argentina. As a nation the UK is cutting its armed forces, and there has been no increase in forces deployed to the Falklands. Are these "military threats" simply statements that the UK will defend the islands if anyone tries to take them by force? I don't see how the word threat applies to such a statement.
"Illegal occupation of the islands" - one could debate this at length, using today's standards to analyse actions that took place 200 years ago is an approach that could be considered somewhat flawed. No doubt one could then equally argue that the Spanish and Portuguese "occupation" of South America would be considered "illegal". But for a country of "illegal" occupiers to accuse another of such an act is hypocrisy itself, without even debating if it is correct or not.
"Possible presence of nuclear weapons"? A nice provocative statement, no doubt the gentleman saying it will use the excuse of the word "possible" to justify it. Yes, the UK is a nuclear power, but a simple examination of the UKs remaining nuclear weapons will illustrate the absurdity of the statement.
Maintaining the arms industry instead of solving the social crisis in Europe? As I said earlier, a simple examination of the reduction in UK armed forces, men, material, bases, etc that has both taken place recently and is planned, shows that statement in its true light!
All in all this is nothing but another emotive, misinformed, (deliberately?) inaccurate statement from a politician pushing his own/party/country agenda - and his previous credentials (e.g. human rights activist) don't alter that fact! Is your quoting of it supposed to lend it some extra credence?
As to what Cameron said:
BBC News - David Cameron: 'Falklands will choose its own future'
Last edited by Biggus; 7th Jan 2013 at 10:50.
'The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it.'
(Goebbels.)
Keesje! You can escape! It isn't too late.
(Goebbels.)
Keesje! You can escape! It isn't too late.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus, a quick look at the news
Britain will fight to keep the Falklands: David Cameron - Livemint
Nuclear sub on Falklands patrol... as the flames of fury continue in Argentina | Mail Online
No, more against the usual knee jerk reactions to discredit the messenger if one doesn't like, but can't ignore the message (e.g. the childish miss piggy references)
Ignored in this post, a few weeks ago Queen Elizabeth Land was named, overlapping claims with Chile and Argentine. Probably there is a great storyline for that one too, but I'm afraid it will only be effective for local consumption. The rest of the world wonders why this huge territory under South America must be claimed by the UK and why this isn't old fashioned colonialism (grabbing what isn't yours if you can).
Queen Elizabeth Land: Argentina 'Reject' Antarctic Territory Name Change To Honour Monarch
I'm not for Argentina taking the Malvinas or the UK claiming Falklands 8000NM away, but I felt a bit of international perspective might help to get a more balanced picture.
What "military threats" is the UK making?
"Possible presence of nuclear weapons"
Is your quoting of it supposed to lend it some extra credence?
Ignored in this post, a few weeks ago Queen Elizabeth Land was named, overlapping claims with Chile and Argentine. Probably there is a great storyline for that one too, but I'm afraid it will only be effective for local consumption. The rest of the world wonders why this huge territory under South America must be claimed by the UK and why this isn't old fashioned colonialism (grabbing what isn't yours if you can).
Queen Elizabeth Land: Argentina 'Reject' Antarctic Territory Name Change To Honour Monarch
I'm not for Argentina taking the Malvinas or the UK claiming Falklands 8000NM away, but I felt a bit of international perspective might help to get a more balanced picture.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Keesje, I cannot believe your total hypocrisy on this issue. You contend that Argentina has a valid claim on the Falklands, denying the islanders a say while thinking its ok for the Dutch to keep hold of Aruba because their people expressed a wish to stay part of the Netherlands.
As for a nuclear sub on patrol, it is nuclear powered not (necessarily) nuclear armed.
As for a nuclear sub on patrol, it is nuclear powered not (necessarily) nuclear armed.
'I'm not for Argentina taking the Malvinas or the UK claiming Falklands 8000NM away, but I felt a bit of international perspective might help to get a more balanced picture'.
I thought that might be the case Keesje thus the lighter tone of my post. However there are many people who feel very strongly for reasons I was going to post but couldn't find the appropriate photograph.....
It showed my late Father in law sitting on his M10 tank destroyer after the battles at the Meuse-Eschaut canal. Shortly before entering the Netherlands. Now move that on to 1982....
I thought that might be the case Keesje thus the lighter tone of my post. However there are many people who feel very strongly for reasons I was going to post but couldn't find the appropriate photograph.....
It showed my late Father in law sitting on his M10 tank destroyer after the battles at the Meuse-Eschaut canal. Shortly before entering the Netherlands. Now move that on to 1982....
Last edited by Spiney Norman; 7th Jan 2013 at 11:33.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spiney, many wars are started on the bandwagon of historic events and rights . It worked for centuries.
There are no survivors to tell the truth and you're free to give past events specific interpretations and educate the younger generation its their historic duty to their people and heritage to do the right thing.
Past generations were drilled to obey, don't ask questions and make the family proud. Religion provided a helping hand.
Only in modern times millions of informed minds can, without risking their existence, ask publicly for those politicians to come down to earth and stop their history cherry picking. Because they just did some fact finding and its non-sense.
There are no survivors to tell the truth and you're free to give past events specific interpretations and educate the younger generation its their historic duty to their people and heritage to do the right thing.
Past generations were drilled to obey, don't ask questions and make the family proud. Religion provided a helping hand.
Only in modern times millions of informed minds can, without risking their existence, ask publicly for those politicians to come down to earth and stop their history cherry picking. Because they just did some fact finding and its non-sense.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Spiney, many wars are started on the bandwagon of historic events and rights .
Similarly we're not threatening to start another one, just cautioning that they really wouldn't be wise to start another one, for the same reason.
Last edited by ORAC; 7th Jan 2013 at 12:49.
keejse,
I tried to keep my English as simple as possible. Regarding your first comments in post 1019...
As I said:
HOW IS SAYING YOU WILL DEFEND YOURSELF IF YOU ARE ATTACKED A THREAT?
WHAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAS THE UK GOT LEFT? - AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, NUCLEAR POWERED IS DIFFERENT FROM NUCLEAR ARMED!
I never said anything about miss piggy, don't tar everyone with the same brush!
Your own link is emotive:
Britain will fight to keep the Falklands: David Cameron - Livemint
Yes, the headline says "Britain will fight to keep the Falklands", what does the first line down say "Cameron insists that Britain would defend the Falklands with military force". Every government in the world retains the right to use force in defence of its terrority/people, hardly a provocative or unusual statement!
You go on about shooting the messenger. How about you actually read, and digest, the message for once!!
I tried to keep my English as simple as possible. Regarding your first comments in post 1019...
As I said:
HOW IS SAYING YOU WILL DEFEND YOURSELF IF YOU ARE ATTACKED A THREAT?
WHAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAS THE UK GOT LEFT? - AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, NUCLEAR POWERED IS DIFFERENT FROM NUCLEAR ARMED!
I never said anything about miss piggy, don't tar everyone with the same brush!
Your own link is emotive:
Britain will fight to keep the Falklands: David Cameron - Livemint
Yes, the headline says "Britain will fight to keep the Falklands", what does the first line down say "Cameron insists that Britain would defend the Falklands with military force". Every government in the world retains the right to use force in defence of its terrority/people, hardly a provocative or unusual statement!
You go on about shooting the messenger. How about you actually read, and digest, the message for once!!
Last edited by Biggus; 7th Jan 2013 at 12:14.