Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

[GreecePwns]

Americans must want to ethnically cleanse Cuba, then?

Stay brave and independently minded, Sym.

The occupation of the islands has been reduced to a defenseless position. Notice how the only ones on the side of the UK Government in this thread are the ones that it governs.

[saxitoxin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see?

Symm - do you think President Fernandez should release her birth certificate?

[Symmetry]

Americans must want to ethnically cleanse Cuba, then?

Stay brave and independently minded, Sym.

I think Americans have wanted a lot of different things from Cuba over a long period of time. Supporting dictators sympathetic to the US, trying to cause civil wars within the nation when dictators were unsympathetic.

Do you think that the US should control who is in charge of Cuba? It's pretty close to the US, after all. Or would you support a democratic referendum, a truly democratic referedum, from the people of Cuba, as to whether they should choose their own government, or go back to the historical dictatorship of Batista, simply because the US liked him better than the Castros?

[GreecePwns]

Popular revoutions are valid (Castro). Unpopular revolutions (military coup etc.) are not (Batista).

Truly democratic referenda are valid (Cyprus). Referenda where voters are hand-picked from a pool of supporters and all other excluded are not (Falklands).

[BigBallinStalin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

[Symmetry]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

Probably a fair stance, although I didn't have the slippery slope argument in mind- it's not generally a good argument in international diplomacy, either as a defence or an accusation towards the other side. Especially when governments can change so quickly.

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

[saxitoxin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and ran away giggling.

The UK looks like a total basketcase in the eyes of the international community because it refuses to speak 2-words to Argentina. It's like a grade schooler giving his parents the silent treatment.

surely you're just trolling at this point

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant. As you know by now, my standpoint is that we should listen to the point of view of the people who live there. Ignoring them, as President Fernandez did at the UN, is simply ignoring the fact that people live there and deserve a right to make a choice.

As I have said, the Argentinian government seems to want to ignore the viewpoint of the people who have lived there for hundreds of years. A wiser policy would be to engage with them, rather than to pretend that they turned up a few days ago and claimed it as a British colony.

[saxitoxin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant.

Talking implies something other than sending a written statement to the other party via newspaper editorial saying you refuse to discuss the matter and then threatening to blow them to smitherines.

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant.

Talking implies something other than sending a written statement to the other party via newspaper editorial saying you refuse to discuss the matter and then threatening to blow them to smitherines.

Was that what the articles from the Falkland Islands that I posted said? No, not at all. Maybe even look at what the Islanders said at the UN, that the Argentinian delegation ignored.

They're worth a look Saxi.

[BigBallinStalin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

Probably a fair stance, although I didn't have the slippery slope argument in mind- it's not generally a good argument in international diplomacy, either as a defence or an accusation towards the other side. Especially when governments can change so quickly.

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

Isn't the foreign policy of the Falklands de facto controlled by the UK? From what I recall, the immigration policy is set by the British government. If the Falklands' foreign policy is dictated by the British, then ARG has to deal diplomatically and militarily with the UK and through other organizations, e.g. UN.

[saxitoxin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

lolwut

The entire issue exists because neither Britain nor her "Falkland Islands" province is willing to talk to Argentina. Faced with pleas for discussion, Britain responds like an utter nutjob by screaming that they'll blow Argentina to smitherines and there is "NO NEGOTIATION!"

Argentina has repeatedly asked for dialog; the UN vote earlier last month was to demand Britain enter dialog. President Fernandez, exasperated, tried to physically push a letter into Cameron's hands at the UN and he clenched his fists and walked away.

surely you're just trolling at this point

I've often posted articles by Falkland Islanders, which you have deemed irrelevant.

Talking implies something other than sending a written statement to the other party via newspaper editorial saying you refuse to discuss the matter and then threatening to blow them to smitherines.

Was that what the articles from the Falkland Islands that I posted said? No, not at all. Maybe even look at what the Islanders said at the UN, that the Argentinian delegation ignored.

They're worth a look Saxi.

Nations discuss things with nations. Argentina will speak with Britain regarding Las Malvinas, not the "Falklands Government", not the Milton-Keynes Town Council - with another nation. Nations talk with nations and only nations. To demand anything else is humiliating and without precedent in diplomacy.

This is what talking is:
We will send a representative of the rank of minister or higher to Mexico City on August 1 at 1:00pm. We hope to see your similarly ranked representative there as well. The government of Mexico will arbiter our discussion at which we will find areas of common ground.

Britain refuses to talk/negotiate. Only threaten war.

[Symmetry]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

The incentives for launching an amphibious and naval war against England are different from the incentives faced by ARG policymakers on the issue of banning flights from a small, economically insignificant "country."

I could see tension escalating to a war; however, this seems unlikely in the near future because there's plenty to still fight about, diplomatically. I'll get worried toward the end of the geopolitical play.

Probably a fair stance, although I didn't have the slippery slope argument in mind- it's not generally a good argument in international diplomacy, either as a defence or an accusation towards the other side. Especially when governments can change so quickly.

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

Isn't the foreign policy of the Falklands de facto controlled by the UK? From what I recall, the immigration policy is set by the British government. If the Falklands' foreign policy is dictated by the British, then ARG has to deal diplomatically and militarily with the UK and through other organizations, e.g. UN.

Foreign policy is indeed set by the British government, immigration is, as far as I can tell, not. I assume things work in a similar way in the US- that the foreign secretary (Secretary of State?) does not control immigration.

As always, I'm up for correction and discussion.

[BigBallinStalin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

So, since we've agreed that the UK is in charge of the Falklands foreign policy, then we can agree that the de facto decision-maker on the sovereignty of the Falklands is actually the UK (e.g. he who holds the guns, makes the rules--unfortunately). Since this is the case, then it's pointless for ARG to engage in diplomacy with the Falklands. ARG's only effective choice is to deal with the UK.

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

So, since we've agreed that the UK is in charge of the Falklands foreign policy, then we can agree that the de facto decision-maker on the sovereignty of the Falklands is actually the UK (e.g. he who holds the guns, makes the rules--unfortunately). Since this is the case, then it's pointless for ARG to engage in diplomacy with the Falklands. ARG's only effective choice is to deal with the UK.

And since you've accepted that the UK has accepted that the decision is up to the Falkland Islanders, you accept that the best policy is for the Argentine gov't to talk to them?

Or listen to them, if that's too diificult?

Or allow Argentinians and Falkland Islanders to visit each other, if listening is too tough?

Or acknowledging that people live there, if all of the above fails?

Would any of those work?

[saxitoxin]

IIRC the US state of Arizona tried to create its own immigration policy to keep all the brown people out and the US central government said only they could enact immigration law.

It sounds like Symm, you're saying, under the UK system local governments can do whatever they feel is necessary to keep brown people from ruining the Aryan fun. That's fine but I fail to see the need for juxtaposition.

[Symmetry]

IIRC the US state of Arizona tried to create its own immigration policy to keep all the brown people out and the US central government said only they could enact immigration law.

It sounds like Symm, you're saying, under the UK system local governments can do whatever they feel is necessary to keep brown people from ruining the Aryan fun. That's fine but I fail to see the need for juxtaposition.

What do you mean by "brown" people?

[saxitoxin]

IIRC the US state of Arizona tried to create its own immigration policy to keep all the brown people out and the US central government said only they could enact immigration law.

It sounds like Symm, you're saying, under the UK system local governments can do whatever they feel is necessary to keep brown people from ruining the Aryan fun. That's fine but I fail to see the need for juxtaposition.

What do you mean by "brown" people?

Sorry, what do you people call them - "Diegos", is that right? Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all the latest racial epithets.

[BigBallinStalin]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

So, since we've agreed that the UK is in charge of the Falklands foreign policy, then we can agree that the de facto decision-maker on the sovereignty of the Falklands is actually the UK (e.g. he who holds the guns, makes the rules--unfortunately). Since this is the case, then it's pointless for ARG to engage in diplomacy with the Falklands. ARG's only effective choice is to deal with the UK.

And since you've accepted that the UK has accepted that the decision is up to the Falkland Islanders, you accept that the best policy is for the Argentine gov't to talk to them?

Or listen to them, if that's too diificult?

Or allow Argentinians and Falkland Islanders to visit each other, if listening is too tough?

Or acknowledging that people live there, if all of the above fails?

Would any of those work?

Why should ARG abide by the UK's choice, which would definitely lead to a favourable outcome only for the UK through unfair historic circumstances (from ARG's perspective)? ARG can't accept this because their main issue is one of legitimacy, which to them the Falklands lacks, and that's an issue the UK wishes to avoid.

Imagine if saxitoxin took your apartment and gave it to his friends. You say, "Hey, give it back; it's mine." Sax says, "No, I can't. You'd have to ask my friends." ...

So, they're at a standstill. UK selects one option and refuses to compromise and threatens to use its military, which I think ARG did so as well, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, ARG sought redress through the UN, which led to nothing as the UK folded its arms and refused to compromise. Depending on some UN resolution, we might see some things change. But even then the UN holds little sway over UK foreign policy, unless the US/NATO or maybe the EU add their "advice."


Basically, from our perspective, it depends on whether or not you view the Falklands' claim to that land to be legitimate or acquired through ill-will. If it's legitimate, then of course the Falklanders should choose. If it isn't, then who knows, that answer varies.

[saxitoxin]

[Symmetry]

IIRC the US state of Arizona tried to create its own immigration policy to keep all the brown people out and the US central government said only they could enact immigration law.

It sounds like Symm, you're saying, under the UK system local governments can do whatever they feel is necessary to keep brown people from ruining the Aryan fun. That's fine but I fail to see the need for juxtaposition.

What do you mean by "brown" people?

Sorry, what do you people call them - "Diegos", is that right? Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all the latest racial epithets.

Who do you mean by "you people" and who do you mean by "them"?

[Symmetry]

I hope that Argentina opens itself up a little more to the Falklands, and constructs a decent dialogue. Too much of the debate on the side of the Argentinian government seems directed against the UK, where they could simply go for diplomacy and talk to the Islanders.

So, since we've agreed that the UK is in charge of the Falklands foreign policy, then we can agree that the de facto decision-maker on the sovereignty of the Falklands is actually the UK (e.g. he who holds the guns, makes the rules--unfortunately). Since this is the case, then it's pointless for ARG to engage in diplomacy with the Falklands. ARG's only effective choice is to deal with the UK.

And since you've accepted that the UK has accepted that the decision is up to the Falkland Islanders, you accept that the best policy is for the Argentine gov't to talk to them?

Or listen to them, if that's too diificult?

Or allow Argentinians and Falkland Islanders to visit each other, if listening is too tough?

Or acknowledging that people live there, if all of the above fails?

Would any of those work?

Why should ARG abide by the UK's choice, which would definitely lead to a favourable outcome only for the UK through unfair historic circumstances (from ARG's perspective)? ARG can't accept this because their main issue is one of legitimacy, which to them the Falklands lacks, and that's an issue the UK wishes to avoid.

Imagine if saxitoxin took your apartment and gave it to his friends. You say, "Hey, give it back; it's mine." Sax says, "No, I can't. You'd have to ask my friends." ...

So, they're at a standstill. UK selects one option and refuses to compromise and threatens to use its military, which I think ARG did so as well, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, ARG sought redress through the UN, which led to nothing as the UK folded its arms and refused to compromise. Depending on some UN resolution, we might see some things change. But even then the UN holds little sway over UK foreign policy, unless the US/NATO or maybe the EU add their "advice."


Basically, from our perspective, it depends on whether or not you view the Falklands' claim to that land to be legitimate or acquired through ill-will. If it's legitimate, then of course the Falklanders should choose. If it isn't, then who knows, that answer varies.

Hmm, I think that you are perhaps not aware of the full circumstances. Argentina already enshrined its sovereignty over the islands in its constitution when it changed it 1994.

The compromise on the UK side is "let the Falkland Islanders decide". If you want to see an example of the British government doing something similar with a vote that would see independence from Britain, I can only again refer you to the Scottish referendum.

[GreecePwns]

1994? What happened in 1994? I don't know. I Google searched the constitutional changes, and found nothing mentioning the islands ata all, only changes in the government itself. What I do know is this, which is what we agree on:

UK Gov't: Hey Luis Vernet, you can go to Falkland Islands.
Vernet: Will you protect me until you start your own territory?
UK Gov't: Okay, yeah, whatever. We don't really plan on going there or anything, but we'll do that. Sure. Okay.
United Provinces Gov't: Hey, Vernet. I hear you're going to las Malvinas. Wanna go for us?
Vernet: Sure.
---5 years later+, Vernet has settled there and even had a child----
United Provinces Gov't: Hey, Vernet. Wanna be governor of las Malvinas?
Vernet: Sure
UK Gov't: Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. That's our island now.
US Gov't: Yeah, that's our ally's island.
United Provinces Gov't: Nope. We've been here for a while now. It's too late to claim it.
US Gov't: Oh yeah?
---Vernet sinks US ships near las Malvinas, significant damage done to the settlement---
UK Gov't: Oh yeah?
---UK takes the settlement---

[Symmetry]

1994? What happened in 1994? I don't know. I Google searched the constitutional changes, and found nothing mentioning the islands ata all, only changes in the government itself.

Imma gonna stop you there, cos at this point you've either gone into one of your amateur dramatic dialogues and you're trolling, or you weren't able to find this with a simple search using google and wikipedia:

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

You'll find the relevant section under constitutional changes, referring to 1994, assuming you're not trolling.

A tough search, I know.

[BigBallinStalin]

Looks like the Brits abandoned it, Spain took control, then nobody, then the Argentinians, then the British.

Finder's keepers?

But then,


So, the Brits had Vernet stake part of a claim on the Falklands. Then he got feisty, so the Brits sent in the military.

Then,

On 2 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at the Spanish settlement at Port Louis to request that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and for the Argentine administration to leave the islands. While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January. The colony was set up and the islands continued under a British presence until the Falklands War.

The Brits took the whole island by force, which is similar to saxitoxin and his friends coming into your house, taking it, then only letting certain people live in it. If there's a dispute, then the friends of saxitoxin will vote on it...



Later it even states that "In 1823, the Argentines granted land on East Falkland to the merchant Luis Vernet." But how can the Argentinians grant such claims if the Islands were never "theirs"?


Basically, this is a story where ARG declares its own sovereignty and claims lands which its military could not prevent foreign armed forces from taking. The question becomes: "is right by conquest legitimate?"