quote:

---

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett released a statement on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands.

She said families of dead Argentine personnel could hold a commemorative event on the islands later this year.

Over 900 people died during the 74-day war, including 255 British servicemen, 655 Argentines and three islanders.

---

Twenty-five years later, the U.K. is still minding its own business off the coast of Argentina.

quote:

---

Tony Blair has said going to war over the Falklands took "political courage" and was "the right thing to do".

---

Too bad he wasn't among the brave fallen.

quote:

---

Interviewed for the Downing Street website last month the prime minister said there had been a "principle at stake".

---

For once Thatcher did something I agreed with at the time. She told Jeanne Kirkpatrick and all the neo-cons in the Reagan administration who wanted to suck up the fascist in Buenos Aires to fuck off.

quote:

---

The economy was doing badly and the fascist general foolishly thought that if they conquered the Falklands, it would boost their popularity.

---

quote:

---

Twenty-five years later, the U.K. is still minding its own business off the coast of Argentina.

---

quote:

---

For once Thatcher did something I agreed with at the time. She told Jeanne Kirkpatrick and all the neo-cons in the Reagan administration who wanted to suck up the fascist in Buenos Aires to fuck off.

---

While at the same time enthusiastically supporting Agusto Pinochet.

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Actually, there was an important principle at stake. Respect for international law which recognizes the Falklands as a British dependency.

---

Certainly the fascist military dictator of Argentina had no right to launch aggression to "resolve" the issue.

But I'm somewhat bemused by the statement that "international law ... recognizes the Falklands as a British dependency".

The Falklands/Malvinas are a colony of the United Kingdom, and as such, one of the targets of the decolonization efforts expressed by the world community throught the United Nations, at least as early as 1965:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX) - Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

quote:

---

The General Assembly,

[...]

Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

[...]

1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

---

quote:

---

That was 42 years ago. It's difficult to see how the Argentinian military fascists' war of 25 years ago somehow gave the British the right to rule over its colony forever. This is the 21st century.

---

Do the Islanders want independance?

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Britain established a permanent colony there in 1833. The Falklanders have the right to vote for who they belong to. They opt for the UK. No surprise since they are British. Currently immigration is changing that with Chileans and others settling there.

Argentina's desire to colonize the islands which are several hundred miles off of their coast is economic. The islands have rich fishing grounds and there is the possibility of oil off shore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Without the consent of the people living on the Falklands Argentina has about as much right to them as the US does to Bermuda or the Bahamas, other products of British colonialism.

---

quote:

---

That's quite possible, but what is Britain's right? "Finders keepers?" The U.N. recognized that British occupation of the Falklands constituted colonial conquest and that it should be the object of decolonization. That could mean independence of the Falklands, or whatever else self-determination produces. It cannot mean that foreigners divine the democratic will of Falklanders in a situation where the British still rule.

---

A noble sentiment, but the question remains, have the residents of the Falkland Islands shown any interest in being decolonized?

Many people in Britain's other colonies showed a desire to throw off the yoke of British imperialism before they were granted independence. I've heard of no Falklander groups which are agitating for indipendence from Britain. Do such organizations exist?

Have there been any incidents(besides the war) in which britain mistreated the falklanders or put there lives in danger?

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

unionist:
....but what is Britain's right? "Finders keepers?"

---

Actually today it is more like what is Britain's responsibility.

The Falklands are self governing; and self sustainable as far as revenue goes. The UK provides their defence and handles their foreign affairs.

Britain's "right" in the Falklands today extends from the desire of the Falklanders to be British.

quote:

---

From Wikipedia:

Sovereignty over the islands became an issue again in the latter half of the twentieth century. Argentina, which had never renounced its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514, regarding the de-colonization of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

---

quote:

---

CMOT Dibbler:
.... the question remains, have the residents of the Falkland Islands shown any interest in being decolonized?

---

I think it is misleading to think of the residents of the Falklands as having been colonized in the first place.

quote:

---

That could mean independence of the Falklands, or whatever else self-determination produces. It cannot mean that foreigners divine the democratic will of Falklanders in a situation where the British still rule.

---

The democratic will of Falklanders seems pretty clear. They wish to remain part of the UK rather than join Argentina or become independent.

Stockholm has, once again, made some rather misleading remarks. The US pretended to support Argentina, or at least not oppose their claims, but it became clear later that the US administration had provided key intelligence information for the British success.

Attitudes towards the US, even among the most sycophantic boot-licking comprador businessmen, in South and Latin America changed after that. The Gringos were not to be trusted. Their pro-imperialist "solidarity" trumped all else, as the war showed.

quote:

---

Stockholm: If you think the fascist government of Argentina was justified in invading the Falkland islands, despite the fact that the inhabitants of the Falklands had no desire whatsoever to be under the thmb of an Argentinian fascist dictatorship - do you also think Canada should invade St. Pierre and Miquelon???

---

quote:

---

According to Stockholm, the Iron Lady stood up to the hawks in the Reagan administration and, sword in hand, smite the evil Argentines like St. George come back to life. Hip hip hooray!

---

Would the Falklanders have suffered under the Argentinians?

quote:

---

Stockholm: As I recall, in the end the US gave the British some help ...

---

Not in the end but from the start. The US, as I noted already, pretended to be neutral.

quote:

---

Contrary to the attempt by the US to appear neutral in the mediation efforts, the British believed the US would ultimately take their side on the issue.

---

and further,

quote:

---

US support, crucial for any military action, was believed to be ultimately available when required due to the "special" relationship built up between these two nations. When the US finally declared their backing for the British, the military resources made available to them and the psychological effect of increasing international isolation of Argentina did much to strengthen Britain's military position.

---

Source:

Fortunately, the US decided (whatever the motives) to support a democracy that had been illegally invaded by a fascist dictatorship.

I believe however, based on the information presented here,( unless someone can show me
evidence which proves that a group of Falklanders actually wanted their home to cease being a British Colony) that Maggie did the right thing for the wrong reason.

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Just imagine the sequel "The Dirty War Comes to the Falklands"!!

---

quote:

---

CMOT Dibbler: Maggie did the right thing for the wrong reason.

---

Nonsense. Britain did not have to resolve the conflict in the manner that bloodthirsty Thatcherite regime did. Further, there was no real military need to kill all those Argentine sailors in the General Belgrano by British missile ... as the ship was sailing into Buenos Aires port at the time. And so on.

The Brits could have taken a more internationalist approach, involved other countries [other than the secretive support of the US] and institutions like some Canadian by the name of Pearson once did in the Suez.

quote:

---

And independence for 3,000 Falklanders - with all the expense, trappings and responsibilities of statehood - seems a tad impractical...

---

Such a thing is not without precedent. Tonga and East Timor both have tiny populations, yet they are both indipendant states. I just want to make sure that the Kelpers want indipendence before I start advocating for the Falklands to become a sovreign country.

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

So, what do you do when one country launches a totally unprovoked invasion of another?

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

I don't think questions of decolonization hinge, in legal terms, on whether fascists, democrats, monarchists or bolsheviks are in government at a particular time.

The Argentinian fascist junta is long gone and universally condemned - as is their aggressive military adventure of 1982.

But somehow, the issue remains - as it has since the British grabbed the islands in 1833:

Taiana accuses UK of "arrogance gestures" and not complying with UN

quote:

---

On the 25th anniversary of the South Atlantic conflict Argentina accused Great Britain of “arrogance gestures” and of “repeatedly denying international mandates” to dialogue over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
Accusations come the day before the 1982 Argentine forces landing in the Falklands and following a week of escalating announcements by President Nestor Kirchner’s administration including the withdrawal from a bilateral agreement on oil and gas exploration and black listing those companies that operate in the disputed South Atlantic areas.

In a long Sunday interview in the Buenos Aires tabloid Pagina 12, Foreign Affairs minister Jorge Taiana criticized parades planned in London for the anniversary as evidence of a typical “arrogance gesture” from Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“What they are planning to do it’s not as he says (Tony Blair) a commemoration but a militaristic victory parade, a typical arrogance gesture”, underlined Taiana.

---

quote:

---

So, what do you do when one country launches a totally unprovoked invasion of another?

---

Form a peacekeeping force. Negotiate with the Argentinians.

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.

---

With 25 years of hindsight though, some good did come out of the conflict. The Argentinian junta had been responsible for the death and torture of tens of thousands of its own citizens in a decade long dirty war.

The Argentinian defeat did much to discredit right wing military juntas throughout Latin America which were previously seen as bulwarks against "Communism" or more competent and less corrupt than civilian governments.

quote:

---

Form a peacekeeping force. Negotiate with the Argentinians.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I...er...well.

If Argentina really does have a valid claim, and if Britain can't garauntee the safety of the kelpers, and if it is garaunteed that the Argentinians will at some point seek a military solution to the problem if negotiations don't
start soon, then I guess keeping the Falklands as a British colony shouldn't be considered as the only option.

What are the other options that have been presented thus far?

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

maybe the Argentinian fascists should have formed a peacekeeping force and tried to negotiate with the British instead of just wantonly invading and oppressing the people of the Falklands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one

---

See the post below this one.

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

What did Thatcher win, other than some elections...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one

---

An appropriate comparison. However whatever Serbias claim is to Kosovo, the reality is that the majority of the population are Kosvar Albanians. This no mean Balkan distinction, as between Croats and Serbs, or even Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Sebs. All Slave devided by failry minor cultural devisions. On the otehr hand ALbanians are very distinct.

Therefore, morally it should be up to the people who live there, not mere national pride, or historic, yet land claims dating back centuries.

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Therefore, morally it should be up to the people who live there, not mere national pride, or historic, yet land claims dating back centuries.

---

Couldn't some sort of an agreement be reached between the Argentinians and the Kelpers whereby the Islanders get to keep the British identity whille allowing the Argentinians to control the Falklands?

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

So, if anyone thinks the Falklands belong to Argentina, does that mean canada ought to invade St. Pierre and Miquelon???

---

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Couldn't some sort of an agreement be reached between the Argentinians and the Kelpers whereby the Islanders get to keep the British identity whille allowing the Argentinians to control the Falklands?

---

Britain occupied these islands in 1833, over Argentinian protests at that time and ever since.

Sending settlers to colonize unoccupied territory is a very nice gesture, but it doesn't make it right.

The United Nations seems to understand this point and has passed many resolutions encouraging a diplomatic resolution of the dispute. The U.K. doesn't seem to care. It does, however, suit their current purposes to glorify their heroic military exploits.

quote:

---

The U.N. has not included St. Pierre and Miquelon in its decolonialization resolutions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

WHY NOT??? France is clearly occupying territory that rightfully belongs to Canada. Its an OUTRAGE!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Why not support delf-determination for the kelpers. If they WANT to remain a British colony, then what right have we to interfere???

---

That's a good idea. I would support it,( in fact I have supported it) if it weren't for the fact that there seems to be some danger in letting the falklans remain a British colony. If someone could reassure me that the dipute betwen Britain and Argentina will not escalate, and that another war between the two countries is a remote possibility, then I will return to supporting the veiw that the kelpers should be left alone.(with their Unionjacks)

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and Dependencies rests on a secure historical and legal foundation. In 1690 the British, led by Captain Strong, made the first recorded landing on the Falkland Islands, which had no indigenous population before the arrival of settlers in the second half of the eighteenth century. The first British settlement was established in 1766. But up to 1833 there was a period of some confusion, when France, Britain, Spain and then the Buenos Aires Government at various times established small, local settlements, none of which endured for more than a few years.

Apart from having a small settlement and penal colony for a short period on the Islands before 1833 (the greater part of this was ejected for 'piracy' by the United States Navy in 1831) Argentina's claim to the Islands is based mainly on her having been a successor to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, which also governed most of modern Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile. In 1833 the British resumed control of the Islands, and from that date they have been in open, continuous, effective and peaceful possession, occupation and administration. The British people who came to live there thereafter became the first permanently established population of the Islands.

Link

---

quote:

---

unionist:
Britain occupied these islands in 1833, over Argentinian protests at that time and ever since.

Sending settlers to colonize unoccupied territory is a very nice gesture, but it doesn't make it right.

---

Agentina's claim to the Falklands is probably no better than the British one aside from the fact that the British established a permanent settlement there and have maintained it for almost 200 years.

This is certainly a poor choice of issues if one wants to oppose colonialism and imperialism. No indigenous people were ever displaced or exploited, and the Argentines and their predecessors were and are every bit as much colonizers and imperialists as the British except in the matter of degree.

What is wrong with standing up for the human rights of the people who actually live in the Falklands and respecting their right of self determination?

If the Falklanders declared independence and set up a republic or a monarchy or whatever and rejected both Argentina and the UK, where would those now supporting Argentina now stand?

Maybe we should crush them just because they are of British stock?

To me it was an open and shut case. A fascist military dictatorship that was guilty of mass muder vs. the world's oldest democracy. it was good against evil pure and simple.

In the end the Argentinian people were the beneficiaries of the conflict and the British people were the losers.

As a result of the war, Thatcher went from being a ridiculously unpopular PM destined to lose the next election - being the Iron Maiden who went on to win two more majorities and took the UK on a neo-conservative nightmare.

As a result of losing the war, the military junta war driven from power in Argentina, democracy was restored and the prisons were emptied of political prisoners.

quote:

---

Stockholm:
The reason I'm ranting about this is that I remember how during the Falklands War, I found it 100% incomprehensible that so many people I knew who were on the "left" were suddenly rehabilitating Argentina from "US supported fascist military dictatorship that killed tens of thousands of innocent people" to "poor oppressed 3rd world country fighting against British imperialism".

---

quote:

---

To me it was an open and shut case. A fascist military dictatorship that was guilty of mass muder vs. the world's oldest democracy.

---

What about Greece?

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The reason I'm ranting about this is that I remember how during the Falklands War, I found it 100% incomprehensible that so many people I knew who were on the "left" were suddenly rehabilitating Argentina from "US supported fascist military dictatorship that killed tens of thousands of innocent people" to "poor oppressed 3rd world country fighting against British imperialism".

---

Or perhaps they jsut thought Britain could have been a little less hair trihhered, and you interpreted that as outright conversion to the dark side, as usual.

quote:

---

They should erect a statue to Margaret Thatcher in Buenos Aires, Had it not been for her, Argentina would still probably be ruled by that murderous fascistic bunch of thugs!

---

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

This is certainly a poor choice of issues if one wants to oppose colonialism and imperialism.

---

We don't have the luxury of choosing. I'd rather not face accusations of being a "Taliban-lover", but I have to support the struggle of the Afghan people against foreign occupation. Likewise, I prefer the U.N.'s position on decolonization, including the Falklands, to the speculation on this thread about whose claim is best.

quote:

---

If the Falklanders declared independence and set up a republic or a monarchy or whatever and rejected both Argentina and the UK, where would those now supporting Argentina now stand?

Maybe we should crush them just because they are of British stock?

---

Is that what you think the opposition to British imperialism in this instance amounts to? Isn't that a little like baiting? Did you borrow that line from Stockholm, in other words?

quote:

---

And why not liberate St. Pierre et Miquelon?

---

Ask the United Nations. I don't pick and choose.

By the way, here's a new story:

Argentina renews claim to Falklands

quote:

---

Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over the islands, which it has done since 1833. [...]

"Once again, we urge the United Kingdom to heed international calls and resume negotiations in the appropriate manner, through the United Nations," Mr Scioli [Vice-President of Argentina] told the crowd.

"Too much blood was spilled and that should never be repeated," said the head of the armed forces, Jorge Chevalier.

---

quote:

---

Unionist:
We don't have the luxury of choosing. I'd rather not face accusations of being a "Taliban-lover", but I have to support the struggle of the Afghan people against foreign occupation.

---

Then why not support the struggle of the Falkland people against a foreign occupation by Argentina?

quote:

---

I prefer the U.N.'s position on decolonization, including the Falklands, to the speculation on this thread about whose claim is best.

---

The problem with the Falklands is that the Argentines would be colonizers too, and giving it to Argentina would not be decolonizing it.

What ever happened to a concern for human rights and the right of self determination?

quote:

---

Is that what you think the opposition to British imperialism in this instance amounts to?

---

What is the point in choosing one imperialism over another? Because its British its bad? Despite the UN the Falklands isn't really a good issue to make a case for imperialism against unless one is inherently anti-British regardless.

Please show us the indigenous peoples that were there prior to European contact that have been displaced or exploited.

quote:

---

Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over the islands, which it has done since 1833.

---

And Germany laid claims to other parts of Europe, so what. Claims don't establish rights and Argentina's claims are pretty flakey.

Let the Falklanders decide how they want to be governed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Then why not support the struggle of the Falkland people against a foreign occupation by Argentina?

---

I did, during the Argentine invasion (at least, in my heart - I wasn't demonstrating in the streets). Did something I said suggest otherwise?

quote:

---

What ever happened to a concern for human rights and the right of self determination?

---

That's a separate issue. If Falklanders want independence from the UK, will you support that? What about the North of Ireland? What about Wales? What about Manchester? These issues can't be brushed off through incantations about "human rights".

Likewise, what about Hong Kong? Was it the signed lease that made a difference in your opinion? Was the UK oppressing the people of Hong Kong? Did the people vote to return to China? Did they have a right to vote? Do they now?

I'm not looking for the worst examples of imperialism to condemn. This is just a little thread about the Falklands/Malvinas. It troubles me to see anyone taking Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair's side on this one. They were and are shameless imperialists, colonialists, militarists, bootlickers of the U.S. To posit the 1982 war as one between fascism and democracy is (in my mind) scurrilous.

quote:

---

That's a separate issue. If Falklanders want independence from the UK, will you support that? What about the North of Ireland? What about Wales? What about Manchester? These issues can't be brushed off through incantations about "human rights".

---

What about it??? A solid majority of the population in Northern Ireland is Protestant and has absoluetly no desire to become part of the Republic Ireland. We must recognize the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination. If they didn't want to wake up one morning and be stuck as citizens of some priest-ridden backwater - that is their right.

Wales BARELY voted to have a very weak assembly, let alone to be independent and Plaid Cymru the Welsh nationalst party has never won more than 4 seats out of 32 in Wales. If and when the Welsh want independence, a majority will vote for it and it will happen.

quote:

---

If Falklanders want independence from the UK, will you support that?

---

I don't know about Jerry, but I would.

quote:

---

What about the North of Ireland?

---

Northern Ireland is almost self governing, Wales has shown that they don't really want indipendance. Manchester? Well, there was a time when Northern England was basically its own state. They haven't shown any desire to be indipendent lately.

quote:

---

The Argentinians are asking for diplomatic negotiations, as mandated by the U.N., while renouncing violence and condemning the bloodshed of the past. I think that request is worth entertaining.

---

Ok, but I really believe that the Kelpers should be allowed to maintain there British identity. That's what they want. any treaty must have that provision.

quote:

---

It troubles me to see anyone taking Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair's side on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
I would suggest that it's time for British rule to end. I'm not a Kelper though. My opinion dosen't matter.

---

Fair enough.

You didn't answer my question about Hong Kong. How did that get out of British hands? Did the people vote? Do you think they wanted to join China?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

What about it??? A solid majority of the population in Northern Ireland is Protestant and has absoluetly no desire to become part of the Republic Ireland. We must recognize the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination. If they didn't want to wake up one morning and be stuck as citizens of some priest-ridden backwater - that is their right.

---

Been to Ireland lately? Geez.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Have you two jokers ever entertained the notion that you could both be right? And wrong? That Argentina never should have taken military action to secure the Falklands AND that the Iron Lady completely overreacted to the situation when a diplomatic solution was probably available (and preferable)?

---

I entertained the notion that when Joker #3 happens on a thread in a raunchy mood and decides to wade in, he should scan the previous posts before making a public fool of himself.

Here is some of what I said above about Argentina taking military action:

quote:

---

Certainly the fascist military dictator of Argentina had no right to launch aggression to "resolve" the issue.

---

quote:

---

It's difficult to see how the Argentinian military fascists' war of 25 years ago somehow gave the British the right to rule over its colony forever.

---

quote:

---

The Argentinian fascist junta is long gone and universally condemned - as is their aggressive military adventure of 1982.

---

In response to Jerry West, who had the some of the same reading skills issues as you do:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Then why not support the struggle of the Falkland people against a foreign occupation by Argentina?

---

quote:

---

I did, during the Argentine invasion (at least, in my heart - I wasn't demonstrating in the streets). Did something I said suggest otherwise?

---

quote:

---

The Argentinians are asking for diplomatic negotiations, as mandated by the U.N., while renouncing violence and condemning the bloodshed of the past. I think that request is worth entertaining.

---

ETA I see now that there was an Argentine settlement at one time, but it doesn't appear to have been the first one.

[ 03 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
I'm curious about the Argentine claim to the islands - doesn't seem to arise from an initial displacement by the British, no idigenous Argentines. Is proximity it?

---

quote:

---

What about it??? A solid majority of the population in Northern Ireland is Protestant and has absoluetly no desire to become part of the Republic Ireland. We must recognize the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination. If they didn't want to wake up one morning and be stuck as citizens of some priest-ridden backwater - that is their right.

---

My god! The Ulster Unionists have infultrated Babble!

[ 03 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Argentina is essentially a country of Spanish colonials (much like Canada is a country of English and French colonials)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If they didn't want to wake up one morning and be stuck as citizens of some priest-ridden backwater - that is their right.

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

My god the Ulster Unionists have infultrated Babble!

---

quote:

---

If you were a non-Catholic in northern Ireland, why on earth would you ever want to be forced to be a citizen of a country like that?

---

[ 03 April 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Yes, why live with xenophobic backward policies of the Irish church when you could live with the xenophobic backward policies of the Orange legislaters in Belfast?

---

In the early 70s Ulster was placed under direct rule by Westminster in order to make sure that those Orangemen had no power.

quote:

---

Ireland NOW seems to finally be getting into the 20th century...

---

quote:

---

It's the 21st century, and Irland dosen't seem to be entering the 21st century, it is entering the 21st century, complete with reformed abortion laws

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

What reformed abortion laws? The only way to get an abortion in Ireland is to take a boat to England! I think they make have made ateeny-weeny reform that now allows a woman to have an abortion if she faces certain death if she gives birth and that's about it.

---

quote:

---

I think it's very unfair of you to use feminism as a stick to beat the Irish with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The islands were the object of intercolonial rivalry between France, Spain and Britain from the mid-18th century. Spain ruled the islands from its headquarters in Buenos Aires from 1774 until abandoning them in 1811, in the prelude to Argentinian independence. When Argentina achieved its independence in 1816, it claimed the islands as being a simple transfer from the colonial rulers to the newly-independent inhabitants. For the next 17 years, it exercised its sovereignty over the islands in various ways, including contracting-out fishing rights and establishing a military garrison - which the British expelled when they launched their invasion of the islands on January 2, 1833.

---

But surely we must consider the right of the Falkanders to self-determination to be paramount over Argentina's claim.

Um, yeah, and with that, I'll be closing this thread, without imprisoning anyone.