Argentina withdraws from Falklands agreement.
Enforcement of language laws under force of arms ? Some might call that a War crime although banning languages is always the first step towards genocide. You could ask why they wanted to ban the English Language . Some might argue that placing land mines in civilian populated areas and farms is a war crime . The banning of English might not be considered a war crime by some , but it certainly is grounds for a fight .
Certainly sending poorly trained conscripts on a fools errand might not be considered a war crime , but using a machine gun to kill while flying a white flag is just dastardly sneaky cowardice . RIP Colonel H .
Certainly sending poorly trained conscripts on a fools errand might not be considered a war crime , but using a machine gun to kill while flying a white flag is just dastardly sneaky cowardice . RIP Colonel H .
I think I was wise not to get into politics and I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play. For me they are both wrong, but I am not going to say more. I don't want to waste my time with both of you, let alone with the vocabulary you use.
On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.
Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.
On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.
Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.
The following 3 users liked this post by Marcantilan:
I think I was wise not to get into politics and I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play. For me they are both wrong, but I am not going to say more. I don't want to waste my time with both of you, let alone with the vocabulary you use.
On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.
Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.
On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.
Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.
We can blame each other for all kind of acts, but the fact remains, if Argentinian forces had stayed on the mainland, none of them would have occurred. That said, time moves on and usually heals old wounds, but to this day Argentina continues to harass the islanders who continue to live under the shadow of a belligerent neighbour. Blaming the junta for the situation is valid, but we're way along the track from 1982 and the best way to mend fences is to just leave your neighbours in peace.
The following 3 users liked this post by minigundiplomat:
I think I was wise not to get into politics and I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play. For me they are both wrong, but I am not going to say more. I don't want to waste my time with both of you, let alone with the vocabulary you use.
On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.
Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.
On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.
Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.
what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.
[QUOTE=212man;11480869]I agree, but sense some innate naivety
I struggle to understand:INNATE: (of a quality) which you are born with, or which is present naturally:
NAIVETY: trust based on not having much experience:
I struggle to understand:INNATE: (of a quality) which you are born with, or which is present naturally:
NAIVETY: trust based on not having much experience:
langleybaston:
You have been with this forum since 2009, about the time I joined, and you still can't figure out how to use quotes properly?
you need to close that quote from 212man with a `[/quote]` so that it displays properly.
As to 212man's assessment of Marcantilan's two points:
I was once told that 'where you sits determines what you see' and I think there's some merit in that old adage.
Marcantilan is from Argentina, so of course his point of view will be informed by that.
You have been with this forum since 2009, about the time I joined, and you still can't figure out how to use quotes properly?
you need to close that quote from 212man with a `[/quote]` so that it displays properly.
As to 212man's assessment of Marcantilan's two points:
I was once told that 'where you sits determines what you see' and I think there's some merit in that old adage.
Marcantilan is from Argentina, so of course his point of view will be informed by that.
The following users liked this post:
Marcantilian: apologies for the injustice to your tranquility consequent to the grotesque characiture that you must endure when purchasing your pescado y papas fritas. Had it been Megan, perhaps the offence to the senses may have been less, but that is uncertain.
You indicate that the great majority of Argentinian citizens consider the Falkland Islands to be rightfully Las Malvinas, a part of the Republic of Argentina. My own delving into history suggests that may have a populist basis only rather than a historical claim to sovereignty.
The missed opportunities for harmony and prosperity are quite remarkable in this area, but, as it stands, it appears that the claim for sovereignty of the Islands by Argentina has more to do with proximity and the potential effect on EEZ resources than legal rights.
Rightly or wrongly, Argentina was born out of the consequences of colonial rapaciousness. 1812-1818, a measure of statehood resulted, from emancipation from the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata (VRP), not unreasonable at all. The VRP had coloured the map of the time with the islands being a part of the VRP, however, there was no legitimate claim at that time changing the 1690 English claim. A French claim for sovereignty stemming from settlement from 1764-1766 was passed to the Spanish, with the UK being expelled in 1770, by the Spanish. The UK returned in 1771, with the Spanish and UK not settling the sovereignty issue at that time. The US raided the place in 1831 and then left... The UK came back and retained a permanent presence from January 1833 onwards.
On 1 occasion
- Aug 1829- Dec 1831 - the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (UPRP);
Dec 1832- Jan 1833 - Argentine Confederation.
- April 1982-June 1982 - Argentina
The predecessor of Argentina, UPRP, of which arguably Argentina being the surviving state, if this had happened a century and a bit later, under UN Charter rules and not colonial, grab 'em hold 'em rules, may have had a say for a year and a half, but then they were routed by... the US Navy of 1831, the USS Lexington. Thereafter, the UK belatedly realised that as they had the first claim from 1690 to the rock, they reasserted sovereignty which was not opposed by the good ol' U.S. of A.
The population of the rocks are... predominately British, only the British would see merit in living in a cold, damp, miserable isolated rock of hard scrabble, that being very much an English or Scottish or Irish forte. It is akin to living in the Outer Hebrides, without the hope of good scotch nearby or tasty peat to eat. As a tourist destination, it is great for penguins, and survivors of antarctic disasters, but not much else. Pretty sure that the beaches of Port Stanley are not on the top 10 bucket list destinations for summer vacations for the inhabitants of Rio. The draw card for the Malvinas is.... not the history, it is the potential resources that may exist and that are known to exist in the region. Personally, I think it is such a fragile ecosystem that it should be retained as a world heritage, and have the EEZ maintained as a sanctuary area, for flora and fauna. There is precedent for that, the Galapagos, and the central pacific area of Kiribati, Phoenix Islands Protected Area, PIPA.
Anyway... if you have a basis for a claim that Argentina may have that survives the USS Lexington's actions in terminating a prior claim, please provide that.
It seems that the rocks have been forgotten by much of history, and that they come out on occasions where a rallying cause is needed by the incumbents in power to bolster national support. Seems like an unfortunate state of affairs, At present, self determination would be appropriate under the UN Charter, but that would invariably result in the population that is overwhelmingly of UK descent desiring to retain the current position as a part of the UK. After the Brexit shambles, perhaps they would prefer to be part of Spain, or France, there is better weather there to go and enjoy a break from the fearful fifties.
IMHO.
PS: Marcantilian, you have retained dignity and cogent arguments throughout this topic, it's a pity that the govt's involved cannot follow your example.
Gracias por su paciencia
Last edited by fdr; 8th Aug 2023 at 08:34.
[QUOTE=langleybaston;11480907]not sure why you needed to use 19 words to express what I did with 2……..
Hello,
I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.
I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.
The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.
Best!
I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.
I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.
The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.
Best!
Hello,
I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.
I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.
The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.
Best!
I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.
I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.
The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.
Best!
But, I agree, you are not the Argentinian government and I have no wish to argue further. Best wishes and enjoy the Mendoza Malbec
https://www.timescolonist.com/busine...-squid-4583201
There is some common concerns and threats that might require some political consensus to protect the economic interests of both parties .
Sorry for the link mods , but it does show collaboration can lead to consensus for mutual benefit towards peace and prosperity .
Also it highlights the inability of Argentina to patrol the waters it has legitimate claims on against fishing pirates .
There is some common concerns and threats that might require some political consensus to protect the economic interests of both parties .
Sorry for the link mods , but it does show collaboration can lead to consensus for mutual benefit towards peace and prosperity .
Also it highlights the inability of Argentina to patrol the waters it has legitimate claims on against fishing pirates .
I think the legal position of sovereignty (which, if you read the history, is quite complex) is something of a red herring. Both governments have made their position clear, are supported by their respective populace, and are extremely unlikely to be influenced by any legal arguments from outside. The way forward is to find ways for the two countries to work together in whatever areas we can, at both individual and governmental levels. Fitliker highlights one area which might benefit from some international cooperation, and at the individual level we're very lucky to have Marcantilan on the forum, aswell as some people who were there in 1982. They're more than able to discuss the situation without pushing each others buttons, and the rest of us should follow their example.
Hello,
I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.
I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.
The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.
Best!
I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.
I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.
The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.
Best!
Marcantilan, I did not mean for my question to cause you grief, thank you for your forbearance, was merely interested in the man in the street thoughts rather than what politicians have to say. As fdr has said,
Marcantilian, you have retained dignity and cogent arguments throughout this topic.
Gracias por su paciencia
Gracias por su paciencia
" maintaining the region as a preservation area would seem to be an equitable solution."
but the people in these countries want the same lifestyle as those in Europe & N America - someone has to provide the cash and I doubt that anyone in say the USA or Germany would pay serious money to Argentina, Chile or Paraguay just to raise their living standards
They'll have to use their own resources - Argentina for axample has one ofthe world's biggest shale gas plays, Chile is a metal paradise
but the people in these countries want the same lifestyle as those in Europe & N America - someone has to provide the cash and I doubt that anyone in say the USA or Germany would pay serious money to Argentina, Chile or Paraguay just to raise their living standards
They'll have to use their own resources - Argentina for axample has one ofthe world's biggest shale gas plays, Chile is a metal paradise
