HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » Latin America (Group) » South American bloc to ba...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:58 AM

South American bloc to bar Falklands ships: Uruguay

21 December 2011 - 01H15
South American bloc to bar Falklands ships: Uruguay

AFP - A South American trading bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay agreed Tuesday to close its ports to ships flying the flag of the disputed Falkland Islands, Uruguay's president said.

The presidents of the Mercosur countries agreed at a summit here that ships flying the Falklands flag "should not dock in Mercosur ports, and if that were to happen, they should not be accepted in another Mercosur port," Uruguay's President Jose Mujica said.

http://www.france24.com/en/20111221-south-american-bloc-bar-falklands-ships-uruguay

51 replies, 4000 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply South American bloc to bar Falklands ships: Uruguay (Original post)
Judi Lynn Dec 2011 OP
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #1
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #2
Judi Lynn Dec 2011 #3
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #4
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #33
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #36
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #37
CJvR Dec 2011 #41
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #44
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #42
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #43
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #46
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #47
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #51
CJvR Dec 2011 #40
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #5
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #6
CJvR Dec 2011 #8
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #9
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #12
CJvR Dec 2011 #16
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #20
CJvR Dec 2011 #22
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #23
CJvR Dec 2011 #25
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #26
CJvR Dec 2011 #27
ocpagu Dec 2011 #28
CJvR Dec 2011 #29
bemildred Dec 2011 #30
CJvR Dec 2011 #32
bemildred Dec 2011 #45
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #31
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #34
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #35
CJvR Dec 2011 #39
ChangoLoa Dec 2011 #14
ChangoLoa Dec 2011 #15
CJvR Dec 2011 #7
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #10
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #11
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #18
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #38
bemildred Dec 2011 #48
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #49
bemildred Dec 2011 #50
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #13
CJvR Dec 2011 #17
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #19
CJvR Dec 2011 #24
bemildred Dec 2011 #21

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:11 AM

1. Interesting.

Don't know what to make of it yet, but it certainly fits the general tenor of things in Latin America that Latin America has had it with outside (mainly U.S.) interference and is not going to take it any more!

United, they can throw off the bully U.S. and its lackeys, Canada and England. The U.S. and Canada were very pointedly not invited to join the new all-Latin America organization, CELAC, one of whose main purposes is to defend individual countries' sovereignty and independence by, at long last, pulling together as a region and exercising their collective clout.

The Falklands are certainly a sovereignty issue for Argentina. And the Brits have been pushing the dispute by claiming too much of Argentina's oil in the Atlantic near the Falklands and Argentina's coast.

It's worrisome, though, as a potential flash point for U.K. and U.S. joint military action to destabilize, "divide and conquer" and destroy the leftist democracy movement that has swept the region. That's why I say I'm not sure what to think of it. But I'm pretty sure that Argentina's leaders and their allies have thought this matter through quite thoroughly and know what they are doing. It looks like they have jointly chosen this issue as a beginning point for establishing the independence of the region.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:36 AM

2. sounds juvenile to me

would you support similar action against Guyana since Venezuela claims territory there, Belize claimed by Guatemala, San Andres Colombia claimed by Nicaragua??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:50 AM

3. I read probably last week that perception of the Malvinas as British-owned is certainly not shared

by Latin America.

The article stressed emphatically that in the region, the view of the Malvinas as being Latin American land most surely prevails.

I appreciate your comments. Will keep my eyes out for more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:23 PM

4. Is it shared by the people who live there?

 

Why do you want to impose a government on people who don't want it? Do you consider that to be progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 06:33 PM

33. I am sure the people that live there could adapt.

 

Nothing good can come from England's territorial ambitions a short distance from Argentina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 08:00 PM

36. A nice argument for taking away people's freedoms.

 

How would you feel if outsiders told you that you had to live under a government that you didn't want to and they just said "well, I am sure he could adapt"?

By the way, who else do you think should just adapt to outside rule? Should Vietnam have just adapted to French rule? Should Manchuria have just adapted to Japanese rule? Should Panama have just adapted to US rule?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 08:26 PM

37. New Mexico adapted to US rule.

 

....

What is your point, really?

There is absolutely nothing incredible about one country absorbing a territory of anothers. It has happened with frequency in the past. I mean, it isn't like I am proposing some kind of a crazy theory here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:00 PM

41. Argentina tried that...

 

...and were whipped and shipped home with their balls in a doggiebag.

Most borders are fixed by wars, the Argits lost theirs (don't feel sorry for them, most of their imperial adventures were successful).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 12:14 AM

44. You just restated what I've been saying.

 

What Argentina failed to do in the past is really immaterial to my central point. What matters here is the capability to do what one desires, self-determination be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:07 PM

42. My point?

 

My point is straightforward:

I believe in democracy and self-determination. You don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 12:07 AM

43. That's two points, not one.

 

Of those 2 points, I agree with the first one. But the second one, I don't agree with. Self-determination is something that is used when it is convenient. Great Britain using this as an argument is about as laugh-out-loud an action as State asking for the MQ-9 back.

I am simply being realistic here. Also, there aren't enought Falklanders to put together a viable cause, as there are fewer people living on those islands than there are in any of the 100+ major neighborhoods in Buenos Aires. Their main purpose is to serve as a pretext for Great Britain in that region, that is it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 09:27 AM

46. OK then,

 

so, is it fair to say then that:

1. I agree with self determination as an underlying principle to be fought for, particularly since it has been so long discarded by Great Britain and the other imperial power for so long.

2. You agree with it, but hey, it's no big deal, they'll get over it. right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:01 PM

47. I am acknowledging reality, as history has shown it to be.

 

Self determination of a people only matters when they have the power to make it so. History is full of examples of 'tribes swept away by the winds of time,' absorbed by more powerful actors. I don't see why the few thousand living in those wretched islands ought to be any different. The only thing that will determine this question, really, is the power of Great Britain vis a vis Argentinas' power.

My personal feelings on the matter come from somewhere else: I have a large degree of antipathy towards England, given its long history in the world. The world might be a better place now, had the British Empire never existed, but that is simply an opinion. And, South America is a special place, and I see British and American meddling in that region as a sort of defilement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 08:26 PM

51. I agree with you

 

about Great Britain. I also agree with your first sentence. But, in short, do two wrongs make a right? Because GB was bad, should we subject others to being ruled by people they have no interest in being ruled by?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 09:54 PM

40. Short distance?

 

The Falklands are about the width of the North Sea removed from Argentina, it is harder to trip over them than not to!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:24 PM

5. Are you against self determination

 

by the people who live there? Why do you want to impose on these people a government that they don't want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:24 PM

6. you won't get an answer from her

some are not capable of conducting an informed discussion.

I'll give you an answer though; the Falklands are British. Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on as it never was Argentine territory. their claim is that Spain gave it them upon independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:23 PM

8. Except...

 

...that Spain didn't have anything to give away. The Spanish claim was not exclusive, as admitted by Spain itself when they restored the British outpost previously forcibly removed from the islands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:12 PM

9. I agree, it really wasn't Spain's to give anyway n/t

s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:55 PM

12. It is an outpost that can be used by the UK for military operations in the future.

 

Argentina and Great Britain have a long and tumultuous history.

As far as I am concerned, it is high time for Perfidous Albion to get the hell out of that neighborhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:21 PM

16. Yes clearly...

 

...the British intends to base a million men there and mount Operation Überlord with the 1000 warships of the Grand Fleet and conquer the staggeringly prosperous country Argentina - where the rivers flow with honey and the roads are paved with gold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:19 PM

20. It makes perfect sense, actually.

 

Territory is a strategic asset, isn't it?

Argentina has a long history with Great Britain. Plus, I see this as the realization of the Southern Cone's (Cono Sur, for you civilians) geopolitical hegemony in that region of the world. It is also a part of the further crumbling of the British Empire.

It's bound to happen, sooner or later. Especially with England turning itself into one large, poverty stricken Detroit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:28 PM

22. Before...

 

...the Argies went to war the British precense down there was a company of Royal Marines and an old Antarctic patrol ship schedueled to be withdrawn. Once Argentina's imperial ambitions becomes clear then Mount Pleassant got built. If there is a large British military capability down there it is because the Argentinian invited them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:39 PM

23. "Argentina's imperial ambitions"?!!?? OHMYGOSH

 

That was early 1980s.

This is the 2010s, 30 years later, and with a seriously reconfigured world scene. I don't really buy all those specious arguments about the self-determination of the Falklanders, especially not when they come from England-apologists.

The new context, as has been pointed out elsewhere, may involve oil. I think that it might also involve the leftward lurch of ALL OF SOUTH AMERICA. The USA has lost its influence in the region, and has re-activated the US Navy's Fourth Fleet to 'Combat Terrorism.' Things are likely to heat up in the future, so the real Empire needs to keep the Poodle's Kennel well stocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:41 PM

25. Well...

 

...what would you call a policy aimed at annexing a territory that clearly does not want to be annexed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:48 PM

26. My stance is that this argument has no bearing on the matter.

 

International politics do not really bow to starry-eyed idealisms like "Self-determination." No one should be this gullible when it comes to these matters.

What should be done here is an examination of the issues surrounding the present global scene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 03:10 PM

27. One of the more...

 

...spineless post I have seen.

Was there a point to that waste of electrons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:46 AM

28. Actually,

 

it's quite a good question.

Would it hurt to just answer it without playing the desqualification game?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:07 AM

29. Except...

 

...that there is no question in the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:01 AM

30. Colonialism? Imperialism? Business as usual? Payback? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:19 PM

32. Except...

 

...the Argentinians were too weak and feeble to pull it off so now they are reduced to pathetic whining , crying and sulking like a four year old who didn't get what he wanted in the toy store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 02:32 AM

45. I'm just explaining that there are lots of things that you can call it.

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:17 AM - Edit history (1)

That being an answer to this question: "...what would you call a policy aimed at annexing a territory that clearly does not want to be annexed?" There are a variety of different names for it, depending on how you want to frame it.

I doubt that this is going to lead to a military confrontation, this time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:05 PM

31. specious arguments about self determination?

 

So what do you think about self determination in general? Do you think that people should have the right to it? No offense, but it sounds to me like you believe that certain countries have the right to rule over people that don't want to be ruled by them, kind of like what the west did to latin america for centuries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 06:39 PM

34. Great Britain, complaining about imperialism?

 

Consider Hong Kong, for instance. That was a symptom of Great Britain losing yet another piece of its colonies. Everyone in HK went under Chinese rule, including the colonizing Brits that had lived for however long.

There really isn't anything that states that the Falklands shouldn't also the torn away from this anachronism, Great Britain. And good riddance too, as I can't wait to see it be reduced to a miserable backwater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 07:04 PM

35. Huge Difference

 

HK was a part of China, and was full of Chinese. It was taken from China by force. So, it's right that it goes back to China.

The falklanders are not Argentinian, and are not native Argentinians. Argentina has no claim that it more legit than Britians.

Also, the Falklanders would rather be British than Argentinian.

You, however, despite appearing on a democratic forum, want to force them into a government that they want no part of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 09:45 PM

39. Really!

 

When pushed a bit the best argument you can come up with is "because I don't like the UK!"

You really need something a bit more convincing and less childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:12 PM

14. Self determination is a relative principle

Just for the sake of the argument : )....

Let's imagine a referendum in 2089, after three decades of an unprecedented economical crisis in the US.
In California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida... states where BTW hispanic countries have a legitimate historical claim... asking people if they want to exit the US. No discussion there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChangoLoa (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:12 PM

15. Remember

just for the sake of the argument!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:20 PM

7. Yeah!

 

You damn foreign imperialists stay out of our imperialism!

Still it is probably mostly a PR stunt, I doubt that there are many Falklands flagged ships except smaller local vessels that wouldn't dock in SA anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:23 PM

10. In reply to points above, I think the dispute is mostly about the oil...

...between the islands and the Argentine coast.

--

"In October 2007 a British spokeswoman confirmed that Britain intended to submit a claim to the UN to extend seabed territory around the Falklands and South Georgia, in advance of the expiry of the deadline for territorial claims following Britain's ratification of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. This claim would enable Britain to control activities such as fishing within the zone, in areas not conflicting with the Antarctic Treaty. Argentina has indicated it will challenge any British claim to Antarctic territory and the area around the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. Argentina made a similar claim in 2009, and the United Kingdom quickly protested against these claims.

In 2009, when delegates from the Falkland Islands were invited to the World Summit on Fishing Sustainability, the Argentine delegation protested and walked out of the conference. In February 2010, the Argentine government announced that ships traversing Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands would require a permit, as part of a dispute over British oil exploration near the Falklands. The British and Falkland governments stated that Falklands-controlled waters were unaffected.

The islands are a British Overseas Territory which, under the 2009 Constitution, enjoys a large degree of internal self government with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good government and taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs."


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

--

The Falklanders have dubious claim to being self-determining, since the British government--and thus entities like BP and world banksters--control foreign policy and "defense." They are tied, without choice, to horrors like the war on Iraq. They are a COLONY! They are also thus an outpost for U.S./U.K. trouble-making in the region. The U.K. doesn't seem to have an independent foreign policy any more--Blair saw to that. So, if the U.S. corporate rulers and war profiteers finally instigate their second oil war (or, given Libya, third oil war)--in Latin America--Falklanders will have no choice but to be a launching pad.

Reading the history of the Falklands--which Latin Americans call Islas Malvinas--the islands were a disputed territory from the beginning of the Colonial period, with mostly Spain and Great Britain fighting over domination of the islands. Great Britain's having won this colonial dispute doesn't, in my opinion, settle the matter of who should govern the islands. The islanders do NOT have full self-determination, cannot control their own foreign policy and cannot defend themselves as an independent country. Also, I don't know the history of elections and opinion polls that have presumably determined what the people of the Malvinas want. Is it like England, where 80% of the people opposed the war on Iraq and got dragged into any way? I.e., ruled by an hereditary elite that has financial/military interest in remaining loyal to the Queen?

The British government seems to have violated agreements made in the 1970s-1980s respecting Argentina's ocean and coastal rights, and, of course, given today's realities, this is much more about oil than it is about fishing. So there are two questions not one: 1) Self-determination of the people of the Falklands (who are mostly English speaking and British); and 2) Argentines' right to control sovereign resources. As to the latter, currently it appears that Falklanders--or at least the Falklander elite--are benefiting from British military power as to bullying Argentina out of its resources. And, as to the former, should they have the "right" to do that--to depend on a Colonial power to enrich them with Argentine resources?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:53 PM

11. how do you know they are tied without choice to Britain?

has there ever been a referendum by the islanders on independence? self-determination actually implies options. they have apparently chosen to remain British subjects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:58 AM

18. I said they are tied without choice to horrors like the war on Iran...

...which 80% of the people of England opposed and which they got dragged into anyway and so did the people of the Malvinas, who also had no choice. The people of the Malvinas do NOT control their own foreign policy nor the British military. Their "self-determination" is extremely limited.

Please do not re-write what I say.

i also said that I don't know the history of elections or opinion polls which established the will of the people of the Malvinas. I do know, however, that such things can be manipulated. I need further information. The only information I have currently is from Corporate Ruler news sources. Are they reliable? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 08:29 PM

38. My rule of thumb, concerning propaganda, is that the exact opposite is often truer.

 

In the case of the Falklanders, I really don't think it matters if they want to remain in those islands as colonizers or not. What matters are resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:08 PM

48. Yes, I tend to thiink of it as informing me of what the parties in question are afraid of mostly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:16 PM

49. The Irony Beast destroys everything in its path. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:21 PM

50. Simple minds see the world in simple ways. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 04:35 PM

13. Tied without choice

 

So we are in agreement then that we should simply let the Falklanders vote on weather or not they want to be British, Argentinian, or independent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:52 PM

17. LOL!

 

The Argits pissed on any existing treaty when they invaded the islands, and those treaties were very favorable to Argentina since London at that time was actively trying to give the islands away. Argentinian stupidity is hardly the Falklanders fault and just as an example of how far London had gone there was a § stating that the Falklanders (UK citizens) would never have to serve as conscripts in the Argentinian army!!!

As for not being able to defend themselves, that is a very Wilhelmine world view to have. Like Belgium and Luxemburg in 1914 - seems you agree with the notion that only great powers have a right to exist.

Argentina have been adamantly opposed to any referendum on the Islands or the locals having any say on the matter of the Islands status because while the outcome on some marginal issues might be in doubt there have never ever been any doubt that the Falklanders will give the Argies the finger - particulary since Argentina have been sulking since the war and have tried to make life as miserable as possible for the Falklanders (as if they would notice more misery, you have to be a masochist to live there in the first place).

No one disputes Argentina's right to control her own "soverign resources" only her right to control the soverign resources of others. Perhaps the Argits should try to develop their own assets rather than whining over the Falklanders developing their's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJvR (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:39 AM

19. Thanks for the info in your comment...

...and I would greatly appreciated some reliable sources on it, especially on what the people of the Malvinas want and why there has been no plebiscite about it.

I am absolutely not saying that "only great powers have a right to exist." Please don't twist what I say. What smaller sovereign countries generally do, to defend themselves, is form alliances--within their region and, of course, by becoming members, in their own right, of the United Nations. They may also establish their own military which, in alliance with other countries and in cooperation with their militaries, would protect their independence. Falklanders have none of these choices. They cannot defend themselves because they have NO control over their foreign policy and NO control over the British military. They have NO sovereignty and their "rights" as a country are greatly attenuated. Do they have a right to give their sovereignty away to the Queen (i.e., to England's rich/corporate elite)? That depends on how democratic they are. And that is something else I don't know enough to judge. Are they run by a traditional royalist elite? Do they have an exploited, disregarded underclass, like England? How "free" are they, to make that choice?

Regarding the history of the Falklands--the Falklands War and before--Argentina has been so incredibly messed with, by the U.S. government's support of fascists, torturers and murderers, and by the World Bank/IMF and its powers (U.S./U.K.), that it isn't fair to accuse the "Argits" of "stupidity." Argentines, as a people, have only recently achieved democratic control of their country. Prior decisions were NOT democratically controlled. And considering how successful their elected leftist governments have been at severing World Bank/IMF control of their economy and putting Argentina on a prosperous, social justice path, and also considering how successful the people of Argentina have been, at establishing their own civil and human rights, "stupid" is not the word for them and their leaders. "Smart" is.

One thing that I DO know about this situation, and that is that England has expanded its claim to the oil between the Falklands and Argentina's coast. And another thing I know is that there have been TWO wars, thus far--Iraq and Libya--instigated by the U.S./U.K. war profiteers, to get control of more oil. They also appear to be preparing for a third oil war (Iran) and there is considerable evidence that they intend a fourth oil war--in Latin America, which would probably unfold in the Caribbean and Central America, to gain control of Venezuela's oil. THAT is why the recent former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, stated that the U.S./Bush Junta reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (mothballed since WW II) "is a threat to Brazil's oil."

I repeat that there are TWO issues in this dispute: 1) the rights of the people of the Malvinas, and 2) the oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:27 PM

21. Time to bring back the "Iron Hen"?

The question would seem to be what is the UK going to do about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread