Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

The Falklands - A New Crisis?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 659 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 19:09:00 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Roger. There is no such thing as a rightful king. The monarchy does not rule by right but by the unwillingness of normally sensible people to get rid of them.

Posted on 28 May 2012 22:37:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 May 2012 22:39:00 BDT
Pendragon says:
On 25 May 2012 the EU started legal proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against Argentina, claiming Argentina stifles imports to protect its own industry. And on 15 May Repsol took the first step in ICSID* legal proceedings seeking compensation for Argentina's expropriation of YPF.

"The EU, the world's largest trading bloc, said that Argentina's recent move to seize control of a division of Spanish energy company Repsol was indicative of the worsening business climate in the country that has been seeking to limit foreign imports for the past 7 years. ... At the end of a drawn-out process, the WTO can impose potentially crippling fines. ... Repsol last week sued Argentina over its takeover of the company's majority stake in the YPF oil and gas producer. Repsol and the investment firm Texas Yale Capital Corp demand that Argentina makes an offer for the stake that Repsol held in YPF. The two want compensation for money lost when shares of Repsol and YPF plummeted after the takeover announced last month."
(From www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UVN8QG1.htm)

(Also see www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47434439/ns/world_news-europe/t/repsol-starts-legal-action-against-argentina/)

Will the wheels soon be coming off Argentine President Cristina Fernandez's wagon?

[* The World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes]

Posted on 14 Jun 2012 09:50:00 BDT
Pendragon says:
The Falklands War ended 30 years ago today, on 14 June 1982.

907 people died during the conflict: 649 Argentine and 255 British servicemen and civilian/merchant sailors, and 3 Falkland Islands women civilians.

http://tinyurl.com/ArgentineDead
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/roh.html

Just a respectful reminder.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 10:21:43 BDT
Lector says:
Thanks for mentioning the merchant seamen. Often they are forgotten about. Many of the males in my own family have served as merchant seamen in many wars and so-called 'conflicts' etc over the decades.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 10:46:12 BDT
Pendragon says:
The sacrifices of the merchant seamen are often overlooked, I agree. It was they who suffered most on the Allied side during the war against the U-Boats in both WW1 and WW2.

The site I referenced lists 9 British merchant seamen deaths, presumably most (all?) when Atlantic Conveyor was sunk.

It seems that the Argentine dead included 16 civilian sailors. It is not immediately obvious to me why they should have been amongst the dead. Does anybody know?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 15:58:23 BDT
Pendragon writes, "On 25 May 2012 the EU started legal proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against Argentina, claiming Argentina stifles imports to protect its own industry."
Should we be backing the EU against another country?
After all Argentina is surely right to protect its industry against the import of destruction.
The EU is promoting its own interests and cares nothing for Argentina's rights.
As usual, the EU is pushing a reactionary foreign policy: it schemed to break up Yugoslavia, it imposes sanctions on Cuba and now it is threatening to punish Argentina.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 21:31:18 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 8 Mar 2013 08:54:38 GMT]

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 07:22:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 07:23:12 BDT
Molly Brown says:
This is all about territorial waters, not about the Falkland Islands. Britain should negotiate with Argentina over that, as I think they have a right to a far greater share of the oil rights than Britain. It's mean't to be for the Falklands Islanders our government keeps saying, so, I'm am expecting the referendum vote from the Islanders to be as follows: Do you want to be a millionaire? YES/NO?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 09:04:31 BDT
Pendragon says:
Hi William

I don't disagree with the sentiments you express in your post.

What is your view on the current economic blockade of the Falkland Islands that has been instigated and orchestrated by Argentina?

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 09:35:29 BDT
No doubt that they're well within their rights to fight back and defend themselves against the oppressive, domineering, war-mongering EU...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 11:20:51 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 11:53:38 BDT
Pendragon says:
William

OK, so you consider the Argentine's economic blockade of the FI to be fully justified.

You probably realise that your IoW analogy is incorrect for a number of reasons, not least that in 1833 it had been inhabited by British people, and had been part of Britain, for centuries. Anyway, I was not seeking a debate on the strength of the FI sovereignty claim of Argentina and Britain.

However, if the Argentine blockade of FI is fully justified, promoting its own interests and caring nothing for the rights of the Falkland islanders, why is any objection to be taken to the EU's actions against Argentina in support of the EU's own interests?

In addition, the EU action is taking place in a forum where Argentina's rights can be protected, whereas the Falkland islanders have no protection from Argentina's direct action of economic blockade intended to damage their interests and exert pressure in the context of Argentina's territorial claims.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 13:12:23 BDT
ric_mac says:
That's an excellent correlation, Pendragon.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 14:17:59 BDT
Spin says:
Charliost: So you are saying Cromwell was not a religious tyrant who treated the English, and especially the Irish, abominably? And you speak of "myth and propoganda"? Jesus wept.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 15:32:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 15:32:56 BDT
The Falklands are nothing to do with us. The islanders are trespassers on somebody else's land, and have no more rights than any other travellers.
Hands up all those willing to go and fight and be killed for the Falklands.
Well, just go then - we are well rid of you.
Hands up all those who would happily send other people out there to fight and be killed for the Falklands. Armchair warriors, 'laptop bombardiers' as Simon Jenkins called you, are despicable.
Your reply to William Podmore's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 15:52:48 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 16:57:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 16:58:07 BDT
ric_mac says:
< The islanders are trespassers on somebody else's land >

No British forces were sent to fight in the Falklands until the islands were militarily invaded by aggressive forces from a nearby country that did not exist when the British first settled there. It's unlikely that a similar UK taskforce could be mustered in the event of any future invasion -- so it's unlikely any other British forces will be killed there -- but even if such a force were possible it would only be sent if the aforementioned nearby country mounted another aggressive military invasion. The Argentinians didn't have any interest until 1) the islands provided a particularly nasty military junta with a diversion away from their vicious and incompetent rule and 2) the possibility of valuable resources in nearby waters was mooted. I'm sure that the distribution of any consequential wealth throughout the whole of Argentinian society would have been even-handed under Leopoldo Galtieri had the Argentinian illegal siezure of the Falklands been successful.

You ignore the rights of generations of islanders too easily. If the islanders themselves choose to be Argentinian (or Chilean, or whatever) that would be a different story.

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 19:17:28 BDT
Pipkin says:
What I would like to ask, is what do we honestly think Argentine would do with the British settlers, who we are so concerned with?
Annihilate them?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:32:23 BDT
ric_mac says:
Those of us with a liberal Western outlook tend to favour democracy which allows us the chance to *choose* those who have political power and can make decisions affecting our future. Are you saying that privelege is unimportant? Perhaps you'd like to give it up yourself?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:39:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 19:41:20 BDT
"The Falklands are nothing to do with us"

Yes they are - they're British, and the people living there class themselves as British NOT Argentinian (that is aside from the 1 or 2 who changed nationality e.g. Peck)

"The islanders are trespassers on somebody else's land"

Argentina wasn't an independant country until 1816; the British had already occupied and inhabited the Falkland Islands in 1765.

As I wrote before:

1765 the British were settled on one side of the Islands, the French on another. The French left when there was dispute between the Spanish and British over Sovereingty, the Spanish then took control of the French port. The British left due to the American War of Independence causing financial difficulties in upholding the Falkland Islands against the Spanish, and many other colonies, in 1776. Spain withdrew in 1811 due to the move towards independence of the United Provinces of the River Plate and the Peninsular Wars. Once these two nations left, the Falkland Islands were the 'home' of whalers, sealers, fishermen etc. The next claim to ownership after that was in 1820 when an American (Jewett) and his crew were marooned on the islands; he later wrote to the British Explorer Weddell in which he claimed the islands for the British. In 1833, the Argentines sent a force to evict the British - but due to the seamen aboard being predominently British they refused to fight those on the Island, and so, the Argentines headed back without a fight.

The Falkland Islands have never been Argentinian, nor belonged to Argentina in any sense.

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 19:42:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 19:46:49 BDT
Argentina tried and failed to take the island by force 30 years ago.

Argentina's leader gives a lot of sabre rattling over bogus claims, and out of naked greed and avarice, manages to ignore the fact that the Falklanders don't want to be ruled by Argentina. What the islanders actually think is their last consideration, and the same goes for apologists for Argentina's aggression.

Who's at fault, again...?

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 19:44:02 BDT
"Who's at fault, again...?"

THE EU OF COURSE !!! ;)

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 06:28:45 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Hardly, but they might have to learn Spanish, which is a pretty tough punishment.
:-)

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 12:28:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2012 12:32:36 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Ric Mac,
Thanks for your reply.
So you really think that when the 40% of us actually vote; we make decisions as to who has political power over us? How old are you? Because I am old enough to remember 'many' Governments, and I can tell you now that nothing changes, choose who Governs us. They are all the same people, from the same club!!!!!
We still have to get up in the morning, keep our heads down, and tote that bale to pay the taxes for the 'Boys Club' to play games with. Wheeling and dealing to get the maximum effort out of us for the least cost.....to give them maximum profit!
Tell me please: what priviledge would you like me to give up? The priviledge of breathing; or the priviledge of calling myself British?
So in effect you are telling me that those who choose to go and live in China, give up the priviledge of being British? I don't really think so....
As Molly says, they might have to learn Spanish as part of their curriculum, which they probably have any way, being in such close proximity to Argentina. Just as we have French?
If the Argentine Government are so bad - then how come they arn't emmigrating en masse??
It is just a red herring thrown in to inflame your British Pride in Possession and you have fallen for it.
The actual reason the problem has risen it's head again is: that now there are confirmed oil resources.... Nothing to do with people..... ALL ABOUT THE OIL!

Eyes shut? Eyes open!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 15:59:37 BDT
Pendragon says:
"The Falklands are nothing to do with us."

They are something to do with us. Irrespective of the arguments about territorial sovereignty, the approx 3,000 people who live there are British. They want to remain British.

"The islanders are trespassers on somebody else's land ...".

They are not, and it isn't.

When Argentine military forces invaded the FI in April 1982, the UN Security Council passed resolution 502 on 3 April 1982. Amongst other things, this resolution "demand[ed] an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands" and gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing the UK to claim the right of self-defence. This was because the UNSC accepted that Argentina had invaded British territory and was shooting at British citizens.

In any event, the 1850 Convention of Settlement between Argentina and Britain ended Argentina's claim to the Falklands (full title "Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship").

Every year from 1833 to 1849 Argentina had formally protested the possession of the FI by Britain, thereby keeping the Argentine claim to the FI current and alive. The introduction and the ratification document of the Convention speak of "putting an end to the existing differences" and to "the settlement of existing differences" between Britain and Argentina, and the title and Article VII say that "perfect friendship" or "perfect relations of friendship" between Britain and Argentina are restored by the Convention. So, once the Convention had been ratified, "the existing differences" (including the FI) between Argentina and Britain had been settled and "perfect friendship" between the two countries had been restored. That meant that Argentina agreed that its claim to the FI was settled by the Convention, which naturally brought an end to the Argentine protests, only one further protest being made in the rest of the 19th century (in 1888), and no renewal of the pre-1849 protests until 1941.

Unless and until, as a result of negotiations rather than bully boy [girl] tactics, it is agreed otherwise, the FI are as British as the Isle of Wight.

"... and have no more rights than any other travellers."

They have the rights that follow from what I have said above.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the point we were discussing.

So, to repeat the question:

You consider that the Argentine's economic blockade of the FI in selfish promotion of Argentina's interests is perfectly acceptable, yet the initiation of legal proceedings by the EU (in support of its own interests) against Argentina in an internationally established forum is objectionable.

How do you reconcile these two positions? If the Argentine action is justified, why is the EU action not also justified?
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 27 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
EU Referendum Poll of Polls 84 2 minutes ago
Jeremy Hunt. 0 4 minutes ago
Is Sport News? 1601 6 minutes ago
What will happen next after the current Labour meltdown? 35 10 minutes ago
Whats next for the EU? 60 21 minutes ago
Come on Iceland.... 59 37 minutes ago
Is "traditional" UK politics on the verge of extinction? 23 51 minutes ago
Should all those who voted LEAVE boycott the BBC over their biased coverage of the EU Referendum. 9 53 minutes ago
Referees at the EUROs have been instructed by the EU and UEFA to deal harshly with England and remove them quickly. The BBC are said to be in support of teaching all the thuggy England brexiteers a lesson. 4 1 hour ago
It's economics Jim but not as we know it 43 1 hour ago
Another day, another celebrity paedophile 158 2 hours ago
Emily Thornberry....a true Klingon... 12 2 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  659
Initial post:  2 Feb 2012
Latest post:  27 Feb 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions