Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

[Symmetry]

Then I'm baffled, why bring up the comparison at all? If it's not about railroads, why ask me to compare the Falkland Islands to building a railroad?

It's a valid comparison inasmuch as it exposes the hypocrisy of the Britisher regime's protestations of "self determination" when they annually and happily use force to evict more people than live in all the Malvinas with no second thought about "self determination", but babbling on about the cost effectiveness of it is off-topic and evasive.

That cleared nothing up, other than confirming your place in the "Valid Comparisons" thread, if I could be bothered to resurrect it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Saxi reads xkcd?

Huh, who knew.

[saxitoxin]

Saxi reads xkcd?

Huh, who knew.

I do not know what that is ... I am a star in the Santa Barbara Community Theater's Gilbert & Sullivan Society and played the role of The Lord High Executioner in our 2011 mounting of "The Mikado" where I was warmly reviewed by Barbara Klepp, arts critic for the Santa Barbara Press Telegram.

[GreecePwns]

Do the people who live there not get a say? It seems only fair to post their views too.

The people of the so-called TRNC don't deserve a say in Cyprus' affairs because they are not a separate people, no matter what they say. They are Turks who moved (or were moved, I'm not sure which) there in order to prevent the annexation of Cyprus to Greece for various reasons (namely, they want to compete with Greece over Aegean trade).

The people of the so-called Falklands don't deserve a say in the Malvinas' affairs because they are not a separate people, no matter what they say. They are Brits who moved there in order to prevent the annexation of the Malvinas to Argentina for various reasons (namely, they want the oil the Malvinas contain).

With the Falklands, I think there's a different story at play. Perhaps one that you might be familiar with given the Cypriot situation. A group of islanders, living peacefully, are invaded by a foreign military junta. In this case of course, we're talking about the Falkland Islanders being invaded by an Argentinian military junta, rather than Cyprus being annexed by the military junta of Turkey at the time.

I would also like to see a normalisation of relations between the Falklands and Argentina, but desecrating war memorials and ignoring the democratic wishes of the people who live there is not the way to go. You seem to have learned the wrong lessons from Cyprus, and would like to see the situation repeated in the Falklands.

This is a really well-constructed cop out. The islanders in Cyprus who wanted to be annexed to Greece were not just shipped in to do so. This is not the same as the Falklands in this case, the TRNC is. The British-who-just-happened-to-relocate-to-the-islands do not have a democratic say in the future the Malvinas (whether they've been there for generations or not), the same way the Turks-who-just-happened-to-relocate-to-the-island do not have a democratic say in the future of Cyprus (whether they've been there for generations or not).

[Symmetry]

Do the people who live there not get a say? It seems only fair to post their views too.

The people of the so-called TRNC don't deserve a say in Cyprus' affairs because they are not a separate people, no matter what they say. They are Turks who moved (or were moved, I'm not sure which) there in order to prevent the annexation of Cyprus to Greece for various reasons (namely, they want to compete with Greece over Aegean trade).

The people of the so-called Falklands don't deserve a say in the Malvinas' affairs because they are not a separate people, no matter what they say. They are Brits who moved there in order to prevent the annexation of the Malvinas to Argentina for various reasons (namely, they want the oil the Malvinas contain).

I've got a fair amount of sympathy for the Cypriot situation- I have close friends who are Greek Cypriot and close friends who are Turkish Cypriot. Both seem more akin to one another than Turkish or Greek non-Cypriots. In other words, I see a Cypriot identity, common to both sides. That said, I have much more sympathy with the Greek side of the argument, and Turkish intransigence on the issue is frustrating.

I'd like to see both sides reconcile and share the Cypriot identity.

With the Falklands, I think there's a different story at play. Perhaps one that you might be familiar with given the Cypriot situation. A group of islanders, living peacefully, are invaded by a foreign military junta. In this case of course, we're talking about the Falkland Islanders being invaded by an Argentinian military junta, rather than Cyprus being annexed by the military junta of Turkey at the time.

I would also like to see a normalisation of relations between the Falklands and Argentina, but desecrating war memorials and ignoring the democratic wishes of the people who live there is not the way to go. You seem to have learned the wrong lessons from Cyprus, and would like to see the situation repeated in the Falklands.

This is a really well-constructed cop out. The islanders in Cyprus who wanted to be annexed to Greece were not just shipped in to do so. This is not the same as the Falklands in this case, the TRNC is. The British-who-just-happened-to-relocate-to-the-islands do not have a democratic say in the future the Malvinas (whether they've been there for generations or not), the same way the Turks-who-just-happened-to-relocate-to-the-island do not have a democratic say in the future of Cyprus (whether they've been there for generations or not).

Thanks for the compliment, I guess, but it was not a cop out. You're restating your former arguments, which I hope you realise I read and understood. Perhaps you'll do me the favour of reading my post, and replying to it rather than dismissing it out of hand.

[Edit] I've restored the full text of the post you were replying to.

[Chariot of Fire]

Inescapable fact: The Falklands were claimed by Britain and colonised by settlers decades before the state of Argentina ever came into existence. So what jurisdiction can Argentina possibly have over these islands or its people?

Your stance in this debate seems to be merely one of Brit-bashing - the country acting as guardian/protector to a potentially disenfranchised population regardless of the cost or the impracticalities of the situation - rather than looking subjectively at the wishes of the indigenous people.

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

[Symmetry]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

Not really. Disputed territories are different from occupied territories.

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

Not really. Disputed territories are different from occupied territories.

So, occupied territories (like the Malvinas) are never in dispute?

[Symmetry]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

Not really. Disputed territories are different from occupied territories.

So, occupied territories (like the Malvinas) are never in dispute?

The thing is BBS, you would like to be like Saxitoxin. Saxi would have edited my post, or simply ignored it. He would have a clever riposte, and would know what a riposte is.

I don't mean this as an insult, or indeed as a compliment, but you're no Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

Inescapable fact: The Falklands were claimed by Britain and colonised by settlers decades before the state of Argentina ever came into existence. So what jurisdiction can Argentina possibly have over these islands or its people?

Your stance in this debate seems to be merely one of Brit-bashing - the country acting as guardian/protector to a potentially disenfranchised population regardless of the cost or the impracticalities of the situation - rather than looking subjectively at the wishes of the indigenous people.

Another inescapable fact: Britain has no significant diplomatic support for the occupation and, within five years, will no longer have the military capability to defend Malvinas.

Either they negotiate now and all get lavishly compensated or they get the boot in five years and get nothing. That's it. Two options.

[saxitoxin]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

excellent point

[Symmetry]

See BBS, that's how a pro works.

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

Not really. Disputed territories are different from occupied territories.

So, occupied territories (like the Malvinas) are never in dispute?

The thing is BBS, you would like to be like Saxitoxin. Saxi would have edited my post, or simply ignored it. He would have a clever riposte, and would know what a riposte is.

I don't mean this as an insult, or indeed as a compliment, but you're no Saxi.

I don't see how your reply is relevant; it was a "0/10" question-dodge. If you'd like to talk about the Style of Saxitoxin, please make a new thread.

I just provided a new way to look at the legitimacy of this foreign affair, and so far, the similarity holds.

Maybe a good counter-argument would be getting over your fixation with saxi and me?

[Symmetry]

Isn't the British exportation of citizens to Malvinas similar to Israel's settlement program?

Basically, a country ships its people into an disputed territory, and after a sufficient number have been inserted (and a sufficient number have been excluded--Palestinians, Argentinians, etc.), then the country can exert a more "justifiable" claim to the territory.

Not really. Disputed territories are different from occupied territories.

So, occupied territories (like the Malvinas) are never in dispute?

The thing is BBS, you would like to be like Saxitoxin. Saxi would have edited my post, or simply ignored it. He would have a clever riposte, and would know what a riposte is.

I don't mean this as an insult, or indeed as a compliment, but you're no Saxi.

I don't see how your reply is relevant; it was a "0/10" question-dodge. If you'd like to talk about the Style of Saxitoxin, please make a new thread.

I just provided a new way to look at the legitimacy of this foreign affair, and so far, the similarity holds.

Maybe a good counter-argument would be getting over your fixation with saxi and me?

Maybe, but sadly, not so.

[Chariot of Fire]

Inescapable fact: The Falklands were claimed by Britain and colonised by settlers decades before the state of Argentina ever came into existence. So what jurisdiction can Argentina possibly have over these islands or its people?

Your stance in this debate seems to be merely one of Brit-bashing - the country acting as guardian/protector to a potentially disenfranchised population regardless of the cost or the impracticalities of the situation - rather than looking subjectively at the wishes of the indigenous people.

Another inescapable fact: Britain has no significant diplomatic support for the occupation and, within five years, will no longer have the military capability to defend Malvinas.

Either they negotiate now and all get lavishly compensated or they get the boot in five years and get nothing. That's it. Two options.

Funny thing, but pride, freedom and one's rights obviously mean a great deal more to the islanders than someone waving a chequebook in front of them. Maybe that's a foreign concept to saxitoxin, given his stance on their fate?

As for military potential, it's apparent from quite a few of saxitoxin's posts that he's out of his depth when it comes to assessing a nation's capabilities. Whilst there have been cutbacks to UK military spending and the decommissioning of obsolete matériel there has been no cessation in the advancement of technology. The Royal Navy now boasts far superior weaponry than the Argentinians can muster, e.g. the Class 45 destroyer - the most advanced in the world - which can engage and destroy more targets than five of its predecessors firing simultaneously. So there's scant evidence of 'strength in numbers' when advanced technology can do the job. It's called progress.

[Ray Rider]

I debated this issue with Saxi at the beginning of this thread until he took this position:

I don't really care if there's a legal basis or not for Argentine claims to the Malvinas...I'll support Argentina regardless of any basis in law or ethics for their claims.

I'm surprised that others are still trying to reason with him when he has that kind of bias on this issue.

[Symmetry]

I debated this issue with Saxi at the beginning of this thread until he took this position:

I don't really care if there's a legal basis or not for Argentine claims to the Malvinas...I'll support Argentina regardless of any basis in law or ethics for their claims.

I'm surprised that others are still trying to reason with him when he has that kind of bias on this issue.

I've never been a big fan of Saxi's "Argentina should inavde, you Brits are pussies" line within this thread, as it panders towards a certain kind of mindset. Mainly Saxi's mindset- creation of artificial conflict.

[saxitoxin]

Inescapable fact: The Falklands were claimed by Britain and colonised by settlers decades before the state of Argentina ever came into existence. So what jurisdiction can Argentina possibly have over these islands or its people?

Your stance in this debate seems to be merely one of Brit-bashing - the country acting as guardian/protector to a potentially disenfranchised population regardless of the cost or the impracticalities of the situation - rather than looking subjectively at the wishes of the indigenous people.

Another inescapable fact: Britain has no significant diplomatic support for the occupation and, within five years, will no longer have the military capability to defend Malvinas.

Either they negotiate now and all get lavishly compensated or they get the boot in five years and get nothing. That's it. Two options.

Funny thing, but pride, freedom and one's rights obviously mean a great deal more to the islanders than someone waving a chequebook in front of them. Maybe that's a foreign concept to saxitoxin, given his stance on their fate?

As for military potential, it's apparent from quite a few of saxitoxin's posts that he's out of his depth when it comes to assessing a nation's capabilities. Whilst there have been cutbacks to UK military spending and the decommissioning of obsolete matériel there has been no cessation in the advancement of technology. The Royal Navy now boasts far superior weaponry than the Argentinians can muster, e.g. the Class 45 destroyer - the most advanced in the world - which can engage and destroy more targets than five of its predecessors firing simultaneously. So there's scant evidence of 'strength in numbers' when advanced technology can do the job. It's called progress.

This has been detailed earlier in this thread. The commander of Task Force 82 himself said on the BBC that "Britain has precisely no capability to retake the Falklands (sic)." Believe whatever lines Cameron and Brown feed you about how the Type 45 is powered by energon and can transform into an Autobot, it won't matter soon. This is all a waiting game.

Britain is pissing away the future of the kelpers by pounding the violent, undiplomatic "no negotiation" line as it plays well to a domestic audience who need to be distracted from social spending cuts.

Thatcher agreed to the Peruvian propsal for Peru-US-German judgment on future sovereignty. It was Argentina who rejected negotiation. So, despite the lofty statements designed to tug at the heartstrings of Albion, we know the Britisher regime will negotiate the future of the kelpers when the cameras are turned off.

[saxitoxin]

Since it, apparently, bears repeating, this is the agreement Margaret "No Negotiation/Self-Determination" Thatcher signed onto - without consulting the kelpers - and would have been implemented had the Belgrano not been sank in a dastardly attack. If Thatcher agrees to this, God knows what Cameron, Brown and that frat boy running Labour today are willing to agree to if the screws really get tightened ...

The belligerent parties agree the following, with respect to the question of the Falklands / Malvinas islands:

(1) An immediate ceasefire, concurrent with:

(2) Mutual withdrawal and non-reintroduction of forces, according to a schedule to be established by the Contact Group;

(3) The immediate introduction of a Contact Group composed of Brazil, Peru, The Federal Republic of Germany and the United States into the Falklands / Malvinas Islands, on a temporary basis pending agreement on a definitive settlement. The Contact Group will assume responsibility for (A) Verification of the withdrawal; (B) Ensuring that no actions are taken in the Islands, by the local administration, which would contravene this interim agreement; and (C) Ensuring that all other provisions of the agreement are respected

(4) Britain and Argentina acknowledge the existence of differing and conflicting views regarding the status of the Falklands / Malvinas Islands;

(5) The Contact Group will have responsibility for ensuring that the two Governments reach a definitive agreement prior to 30 April 1983.

This very courageous British woman (sadly she just passed away a few months ago, in December) stood-up to Thatcher on the Belgrano war crime, causing her to go into a tailspin and simply start repeating her talking points (which is why I'm pretty convinced Symmetry is Thatcher's multi):

"YOU MUST ACCEPT THIS, MRS. GOULD! DO YOU ACCEPT IT? BUT, YOU MUST!"

[saxitoxin]

President Fernandez today offered to send Spanish-language teachers to Malvinas at no charge to begin the process of integration that will allow the islanders to get along well as productive members of Argentine society in the future once transfer is complete.

http://www.itn.co.uk/home/44755/Argenti ... +Falklands

President Fernandez went on to note:
"It's not an Argentinean cause, it's a regional cause. The United Kingdom, by not wanting to have a proper dialogue with Argentina, it's (turning) its back on Latin America as a whole."

[Chariot of Fire]

I refuse to enter any more debate with someone so ignorant as to use the word 'Britisher' as an adjective.

[BigBallinStalin]

Go forth, my spies, and operate.

[Symmetry]

The poor man's Saxi strikes again, after everyone else has left! How could they leave? Mutley brought pictures!

[BigBallinStalin]

So, about Britain's settlement expansion in Malvinas: care to justify that?

That's pretty fucked up, but I guess if your nationalist sentiments are strong enough, then anything is justifiable.