Argentine Malvinas/Falklands cartoon special

[Vnomad]

Because it's the same "we want what you have and we will threaten your way of life until we get it" attitude that the Argentinians are projecting today.

That's simple rhetoric and nothing else. Argentinian claims to the land aren't recent. The only difference is Britain has decided its victory in the 1982 war was an end to the dispute. Everyone else seems to disagree.

'We've gassed your pets, kindly take the hint'. Now that's a 'threaten your way of life' attitude.

What has Argentina officially said?

Please enter a dialogue.

The same applies to Tierra del Fuego, or is that "a different story".

Well as far the Falklands sure they're similarities.

For example the same British backed unelected abusive military Argentinian junta was involved in both conflicts. The Chileans had the privilege of getting their own British backed unelected abusive military junta headed by Pinochet. Though only their dictator got to enjoy tea with Margaret Thatcher.

I can't see the similarities with the Chagos Islands though.

As far as the Chagos Islands goes, they should be paid handsomely for what has happened to them.

Who's to say £650 isn't a handsome payment. They can forget about going home though. Only the Americans get to live there, party there, damage the environment of the 'marine reserve', and illegally torture kidnapped terror suspects at their base curiously named - Camp Justice.

[Griffon39]

That's simple rhetoric and nothing else. Argentinian claims to the land aren't recent. The only difference is Britain has decided its victory in the 1982 war was an end to the dispute. Everyone else seems to disagree..

Uhh... I dont. These islands have been part of the United Kingdom for some 200 yrs by now. Why the heck should the Brits give them away to anyone?

The Brits have fought over this land and won square and fare. What amazes me more though is how the Argentinians still bother to bitch about it. What do they need these wind-torn rocks for anyway?

Im sure Argentina is a very nice country with wonderful ppl and all, but Im all for the UK in this case. Get over it....

[TooCool_12f]

What do they need these wind-torn rocks for anyway?

for the sake of the argument, one may ask the brits the same question

argentina may say it's on their doorstep, but the UK...

[Vnomad]

Uhh... I dont. These islands have been part of the United Kingdom for some 200 yrs by now. Why the heck should the Brits give them away to anyone?

Surely there's some middle ground between 'give them away' and 'get the Argies to concede their stand'. Northern Ireland has been a part of United Kingdom, for what ... 700 years, but an acceptable honorable solution to the Troubles was achieved nonetheless.

The Brits have fought over this land and won square and fare. What amazes me more though is how the Argentinians still bother to bitch about it. What do they need these wind-torn rocks for anyway?

The unfortunate implication of that is that it'll be the Argentinians'/South Americans', if and only if they can fight for it and win it square and fair.

Im sure Argentina is a very nice country with wonderful ppl and all, but Im all for the UK in this case. Get over it....

'Get over it' is not a pragmatic stand to take an international dispute. And pragmatism is what keeps the govts of former colonies from keeping grudges even while some of their citizens (like Quadbike for example) feel there is a score to be settled. Pragmatism keeps wars from happening and diplomats in business.

[obligatory]

I think he was referring to You when he said "get over it"
In international politics the stance is, as you pointed out,
either, "gimme/do what i want or suffer the consequences"
while the other side will inevitably answer
"just bring it on and i'll pay you back seven-fold"

[Vnomad]

I think he was referring to You when he said "get over it"

I'll let him clarify that.

In international politics the stance is, as you pointed out,
either, "gimme/do what i want or suffer the consequences"
while the other side will inevitably answer
"just bring it on and i'll pay you back seven-fold"

That's how you solve disputes at high school. Countries prefer to engage in dialogue.

[Pterosaur]

Surely there's some middle ground between 'give them away' and 'get the Argies to concede their stand'. Northern Ireland has been a part of United Kingdom, for what ... 700 years, but an acceptable honorable solution to the Troubles was achieved nonetheless.

The difference is that the people of Northen Ireland is divided on the issue, the people of the Falklands are not.

The unfortunate implication of that is that it'll be the Argentinians'/South Americans', if and only if they can fight for it and win it square and fair.

They cant, because international laws prevents Argentina to get hold of the Falklands with a military solution unless the British attacks Argentina first.

'Get over it' is not a pragmatic stand to take an international dispute. And pragmatism is what keeps the govts of former colonies from keeping grudges even while some of their citizens (like Quadbike for example) feel there is a score to be settled. Pragmatism keeps wars from happening and diplomats in business.

Get over it would help Argentina since it can invest its time and energy on more creative things.

[ppp]

Please enter a dialogue.

So when is Argentina entering a dialogue over Tierra del Fuego?

for the sake of the argument, one may ask the brits the same question

argentina may say it's on their doorstep, but the UK...

You can wipe that smile off your face mate! If Britain loses the Falklands to Argentina, you can kiss goodbye to French Guiana as that's next, and the French government know this all too well.

Surely there's some middle ground between 'give them away' and 'get the Argies to concede their stand'. Northern Ireland has been a part of United Kingdom, for what ... 700 years, but an acceptable honorable solution to the Troubles was achieved nonetheless.

The unfortunate implication of that is that it'll be the Argentinians'/South Americans', if and only if they can fight for it and win it square and fair.

'Get over it' is not a pragmatic stand to take an international dispute. And pragmatism is what keeps the govts of former colonies from keeping grudges even while some of their citizens (like Quadbike for example) feel there is a score to be settled. Pragmatism keeps wars from happening and diplomats in business.

Why should Britain enter a dialogue? It has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Argentina wants dialogue as it has something to gain and nothing to lose. You must really think we are all rather stupid... And of course when you say "dialogue" that is actually code for "give in to Argentina's demands for shared sovereignty leading rapidly to a handover of the islands to Argentina"

In any case, let's not drift from reality to fantasy. The reality is the islands are British, and unless Argentina is going to invade them, that is not going to change, no matter how much you beg us for dialogue on an internet forum

[Vnomad]

[QUOTE=Pterosaur;1878023]The difference is that the people of Northen Ireland is divided on the issue, the people of the Falklands are not.

The majority of the population was in favour of continued existence as a part of the UK. It was pragmatism not principle, that brought the British govt. and all parties to the negotiating table with the UK and Ireland making constitutional amendments and supporting the formation of the N/S Ministerial Council. Everyone recognized that an honorable solution to the dispute would leave everyone better off in the long term.

They cant, because international laws prevents Argentina to get hold of the Falklands with a military solution unless the British attacks Argentina first.

My point was winning a war fair and square cannot a definitive end to the dispute.

Get over it would help Argentina since it can invest its time and energy on more creative things.

That isn't a valid argument. I could say the same about plenty of issues - Russia, Libya, Afghanistan, Scotland etc. The UK for example should stop victimizing Iran. Point is, you have be practical as well.

[Pterosaur]

Everyone recognized that an honorable solution to the dispute would leave everyone better off in the long term.

I fail to see what good it will do to the people living on the Falklands. They are happy being British.

My point was winning a war fair and square cannot a definitive end to the dispute.

From a legal standpoint the issue was settled when Argentina lost the war.

That isn't a valid argument. I could say the same about plenty of issues - Russia, Libya, Afghanistan, Scotland etc. The UK for example should stop victimizing Iran. Point is, you have be practical as well.

What good have the Falklands issue done for Argentina? Nothing, the sooner they give up on the issue the better for them it will be.

[Vnomad]

So when is Argentina entering a dialogue over Tierra del Fuego?

Already did. In 1984, after the formerly British backed abusive military junta lost power.

Why should Britain enter a dialogue? It has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Argentina wants dialogue as it has something to gain and nothing to lose. You must really think we are all rather stupid... And of course when you say "dialogue" that is actually code for "give in to Argentina's demands for shared sovereignty leading rapidly to a handover of the islands to Argentina"

Again.. why does Britain have diplomatic delegations in South America if it plans to ignore their opinion.

Unless one is viewing it from the rather extreme right end of the spectrum, negotiations are negotiations, nothing more nothing less. They don't need to have winners and losers.

In any case, let's not drift from reality to fantasy. The reality is the islands are British, and unless Argentina is going to invade them, that is not going to change, no matter how much you beg us for dialogue on an internet forum

You're not making the decisions in the British govt., so I have nothing to beg you for.

As far as reality goes, the UK can afford to ignore all of South America only to a point.

[obligatory]

Point is, you have be practical as well.

Good idea.
So is it practical begging for candy on an Aviation forum ?
Is it practical hoping someone is going to help you steal candy if you aren't gonna share the loot ?

While tools of war like fighters are an extension of politics and so will be mentioned from time to time, you've been constantly begging for 8 pages now,
and counting...

[Vnomad]

I fail to see what good it will do to the people living on the Falklands. They are happy being British.

A solution does not preclude that from continuing.

From a legal standpoint the issue was settled when Argentina lost the war.

Err.. no it didn't. While my knowledge of international law isn't noteworthy I'm fairly certain that's not the case.

What good have the Falklands issue done for Argentina? Nothing, the sooner they give up on the issue the better for them it will be.

For that matter what has avoiding negotiations after 1982 gained Britain? Its not served its relations with the South and Central America well. Its military presence in the region will eventually bringing it to loggerheads with an assertive Brazil is opposed to any foreign power having a continued strategic footprint in the region.

[Vnomad]

Good idea.
So is it practical begging for candy on an Aviation forum ?
Is it practical hoping someone is going to help you steal candy if you aren't gonna share the loot ?

While tools of war like fighters are an extension of politics and so will be mentioned from time to time, you've been constantly begging for 8 pages now,
and counting...

No one's forcing you to listen.

[Pterosaur]

Err.. no it didn't. While my knowledge of international law isn't noteworthy I'm fairly certain that's not the case.

Because international laws prevents land snatching in 1982.

[ppp]

Vnomad, the problem with what you are saying, is that you are writing statements which are effectively empty and meaningless, because they are far too abstract. Saying "let's be practical" or "let's have a dialogue" mean nothing! You've got to state what the advantages are for each side, and what the eventual aims of each side would be. I think you are quite vague on this intentionally, since even you realise that Britain has everything it wants, and Argentina has nothing to really offer Britain, and so there is zero motivation to negotiate. I know you've given some reasons, but they are either empty and abstract or non-reasons. An example of the former would be "better relations with Argentina", and an example of the latter would be "so Argentina doesn't have to declare war on Britain". I get the impression we are going in circles and wasting bandwidth here