Mr B please learn some history before you start posting on this subject
A Malvinian???!!! FFS do you know how long the Argentians were on the Island? The Argentinian colony lasted from 1820-1833, all of 13 years before they were expelled by the British.
The Islands were unihabited until it was discoverd in circa in 1590 by John Davis and it was not explroed until 1690 by Captain Strong (both Englishmen), in the following centuries varoius British, Spanish and French colonies were established all of them short-lived and the Islands were again unihabited from 1811-1820. When a newly independent Aregntian set up a small colony only to be thrown off 13 years later by the returning British.
The main crux of Argentina’s claims is not their short-lived colpony tho’ but a claim of inheirtance to the previous Spanish claim to the Islands.
By any objective standard Argentina has little to no rightful claim to the Islands, it’s laughable that Zapper should accuse those who disagree with this of nationalism, as the only reason i can think that anyone could really think that the Argentinians have a real claim to the islands is nationalism.
Myself, i think that the people who inhabit the Islands should have the right to decide who rules them, if that’s Argentina fine, but it isn’t.
MC Master of Ceremonies: If you’d taken the time to read through the thread, you’d understand my information came from Argentina’s recent dialog in the United Nations. His word, not mine.
I could say my backgraden is imbued with Malvinas culture, it would be just as meaningless.
The Argentianin claim was pretty much inactive until the 1960s, but the truth is Argentina might of got them if it hadn’t of been for their nationalists posturing as to tell the truth a few tiny rocky islands in the South Atlantic are probably more trouble than their worth to Britain (and to be honest that not much use to Argentina either, though the possibilty of exploitable off-shore oil might of changed that for both Britain and Argentina). Now they will probably never get them or there will certainly be no Briotish government willing to commit poltical suicide by handing the Islands over, at least while the Falklands war is in living memory.
When the historical reasons wouldn’t fly, I’ve also heard the (in my opinion equally flaky) argumentation that Argentina being closer to The Falkland Islands hold natural sovereignty.
Well what do you know?! I agree with both London and MC. The days of wonder and miracles are truly not over! As for the OP: A more reasonable request would be for the UK government to demand an Argentinan apologized for “The Hand of God”.
1-Ceuta and Melilla have been an integral part of Spain since before there was a country by the name of ‘Morocco.’ So a “geographically clear Morocco” has never included Ceuta and Melilla. Besides, national borders are not bulit on aesthetics. Contrast the above with the history of Gibraltar.
2-For the same reason I agree that Gibraltar – my own nationalistic feelings and historical perspective aside – should have the right of self-determination and not be reincorporated to Spain against their wishes. So for as long as Ceuties and Melillenses wish to remain Spaniards, Spain has the duty to respect and defend their wishes.
So what? What’s that got to do with President Kirchner’s pledge to negotiate the sovereignty of the Malvinas?
To date, his promise to his people has yielded: [ul][]A 20-year-long, public debate over the nuclear weapons []Current international press coverage on the mistakes made by Britain A forced admission, by the British, of its deployment of nuclear weapons in the Falkland War[/ul]An effective politician who keeps his word and can drive the British government into a corner. Sounds like someone to emulate.
By the same token - says he, ignorant of nearly all South American history - I presume ‘England’ (as was) occupied the Islands some time before Argentina (as a nation) existed - or not ?
Do you think his methods has moved Argentinian sovereignty of Falklands one inch closer? Even if true, being forced into a corner or public humilated is hardly a recipe for an amiable solution to the problem. Mr. Kirchner has only succeded in moving his own stated goals further into the future. Someone to emulate? Hardly.
Perhaps he should be concetrating on more pressing issues like Argentina’s first round exit in Wolrd Cup 2002 (:D)?
Seriously though, it was actually The Guardian Newspaper which forced this admission and it’s not really that damaging to the British Government domestically (apart from the obvious fact that there is a different British government no-one really cares that much in the UK that the British government considered deploying anti-submarine nuclear arms in the Falklands) and even internationally it’s not of great importance.
If you want to talk about British miscondcut in the Falklands war the sinking of the Belgrano is a much, much better case, though I’d say much, much worse acts have been committed in war than the sinking of enemy miltary shipping outside of the defined war zone.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Mr. B *
To date, his promise to his people has yielded: [ul][li]A 20-year-long, public debate over the nuclear weapons []Current international press coverage on the mistakes made by Britain A forced admission, by the British, of its deployment of nuclear weapons in the Falkland War[/ul]An effective politician who keeps his word and can drive the British government into a corner. Sounds like someone to emulate. [/li][/QUOTE]
“20-year-long, public debate”? He’s only been in office since May. Up to your usual standard of precision in English though.
“drive the British government into a corner”? What corner?
London_Calling: Look at MC’s post a little earlier.
Yes, it doesn’t take a very long look at an atlas to find examples where “it’s near, it’s ours” argument falls to pieces.
You really are an out and out twat, aren’t you Mr B?
You make a statement such as “President Kirchner, a Malvinan”, without thinking for a second what you’re actually saying.
When the stupidity of this is pointed out to you, you begin scrambling for an excuse. Just how little straw you have to clutch at becomes apparent when you then resort to as blatant a piece of politico-speak as “imbued with the Malvinas culture.”
Now for anyone who frankly can separate black and white, the statement you have quoted most certainly does not equate to “a Malvinian”.
But worse than that, it doesn’t make any sense at all. Now as you are quoting this statement you clearly feel it’s true - so how about explaining what it means. What Malvinas culture is there to be imbued in, for starters. Is he referring to the rather brief period, from 1820 to 1833, when Argentina had a small penal colony there? Do you think that’s the culture he’s imbued in?
Or is he referring to the current Malvinas culture - do you think he views himself as a British citizen, with no urge at all to be an Argentinian?
You tell me. Or alternatively, you could just admit that you are basically talking a load of bollocks.
Firstly, because of your reference to my earlier use of “precise,” I am honored that you have taken the time to absorb my thoughts. Considering this, it is gratifying that your only quibble with my positions and citations is my posting of the straw-word Malvinan.
Secondly, I’d like to answer a question.
To answer this, I will direct you to any of the number of interviews or biographies of President Kirchner. Barring that knowledge, I’m relying on your understanding that Mr. Kirchner is older than 20 years of age and has been actively supporting sovereignty movements since prior to his tenure of office.
Thirdly, I’d like to answer another question.
The British government was forced into a corner. It admitted to deploying nuclear weapons aboard the ships. That’s a fairly unprecedented admission, according to casdave’s post regarding the depth charges. Now, thanks to the admission, the Argentines have fuel for their fire; they have been asserting – for 20 years, since the end of the war – that nuclear weapons lie on the ocean bottom with the sunken British ships.
Finally, my assertion that he is an effective politician stands. President Kirchner has made a mockery of the British government. The British government’s obfuscating spin – on the forced admission that it deployed nuclear weapons in the Falkland War – is somewhat stupefying, yet not exactly a surprise in our current time.
So it comes to this: to whom is the greatest spin directed? The Argentines or the British? Is this really about a demand for an apology, or just a way to raise British hackles?
The islands were a source of minor territorial dispute between Spain and England, with France also playing a role. With claims and counterclaims, along with Papal Bulls – how aptly named – Spain did happen to be in legal and administrative possesion of the islands (mid 1700 to early 1800) at the time Argentina adquired its independence under the name of ‘United Provinces.’ The Argentines then named their own administrator to the islands as part of their “inherited” territories. That is basically the source of their claim – one of direct “lineage” so to speak.
What happened afterwards – or even before – depends on your historical sources and their own slant.
So no, I wouldn’t say the Malvinas/Falklands reflect the situation of Ceuta/Melilla vis-a-vis Morocco.
Gary Kumquat: unless you return to civility, this will be the last time I reply to your posts in this thread. You are making a fool out of yourself with your ranting and gratuitous namecalling. Despite your repeated ad hominem attacks and anti-American insults, I have shown you politeness and good faith. Please return the courtesy.
In one of your earlier responses, you ridiculed the italics I applied to the word “Americans.” Yet you have conveniently omitted my italicized use of “Malvinan.” I could again call you on inconsistency and deception, but I will refrain from doing so. (Further, it’s expressly NOT “Malvinian,” an important distinction.)
Malvinan describes the group of people who advocate the sovereignty of the Falklands. (TwistofFate was fairly close to the truth.) Americans are North, South and Latin.
And I didn’t exactly “come scrambling for an excuse.” If you had read the United Nations report I’d cited, you would know my assessment was spot-on. Besides, I didn’t hurry to clear it up; you, MC and everton had plenty of time to kick the word around and divert yourselves by attacking the argument for a change.
Tell me, what sort of complete drooling moron piously claims civility and courtesy in the same post they call someone a ranting fool? Hypocricy is an unattractive trait even in a fuckwit such as yourself.
By the way, “anti-american insults”? Tell you what, how about quoting one thing I’ve said in this thread that could be construed as such, you lying wank.
Oh for fucks sake, what the hell are you wittering about now? I asked you why you had italicized Americans, you didn’t reply…and somehow me not asking you again about your complete lack of understanding of grammar is…what, exactly?
Tell you what, you provide one valid source backing your definition of the word Malvinan then. A quick google search reveals precisely no instances of such.
Because otherwise I would have to conclude that you are blatantly fabricating information in an increasingly ridiculous attempt to justify an illogical position.
Or to put it another way, you are a lying, idiot wanker. Put up or fuck off.
WinstonSmith, Mighty_Girl: I’m sorry, I should have realized that the phrase could be misunderstood. What I’m tying to say is that I believe that the geographical location and the Spain heritage are valid arguments, and seems logical to me they should belong to Argentina. Chile, Uruguay or Brasil could be arguable. But England had no rights (to my knowledge) over them. They attempted to invade the continent and did so with the Falklands, and though that’s the way the world goes (or went… or goes? ;)) it’s not logical to me, I don’t think it’s the way it should be. Of course, I’m biased for being Argentinean (mostly, for being product of Argentinean culture), but I believe I would think the same if not.
Now, at the present day, Malvinas can’t be part of my country. It is simply full of British :), they don’t want to be part of Argentina. And I even think that Kirchner would have a tough time if the UK suddenly gave the islands. So no, I don’t want that now, and I don’t think that will be plausible in any near future.
Argentina has allowed Uruguay (“la Banda Oriental”) to split and become a different country, has shared Tierra del Fuego (I don’t remember the name of the entire peninsula) half and half with Chile, but Falklands/Malvinas are a sore that reminds of invasions, colonialism and slavery. I’m sorry for being so dramatic, but the Queen has wreak havoc in these lands (not only my country). And if you don’t like my whinery (does this word exist? :s), I’m not forcing you to read this.
My first pit thread and I fail my attack :’(
Jajajaja that ain’t going to happen
Since I started reading all these differents points of view of the war, in the SDMB, I have wander how much of this ‘exclusion zone’ is true. I even started thinking it could be just an Argentinean argument.
– Spain did happen to be in legal and administrative possesion of the islands (mid 1700 to early 1800) at the time Argentina adquired its independence under the name of ‘United Provinces.’ The Argentines then named their own administrator to the islands as part of their “inherited” territories. That is basically the source of their claim – one of direct “lineage” so to speak.