Meanwhile... debt of Argentina, several of its provinces and several of its banks gets downgraded further into junk status. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/argentina-ratings-idUSL2N0ME1NI20140317 http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/154860/moodys-lowers-ratings-for-argentine-provinces But never mind, we can still drone on about Las Malvinas: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/ar...ld-powers-double-standard-in-crimea-malvinas-
England still had to show the world it wasn't a decrepit middle sized has Been country. So they invaded with the help of there masters the US. That iron hag thatcher sure needed a wag the dog war too boost her popularity.
Yes, it's well known that Thatcher called her pal Galtieri and asked him to invade so she could have a "wag the dog" war to boost her popularity.
Are you suggesting the government needs to remember and speak up of Malvinas when we're doing well economically and forget about them if we are not?
Well, that's not exactly what happened according to wikipedia but, to answer your question, I'd say if you can count them just using your fingers and toes, that's probably not enough.
I'm suggesting that "remembering and speaking up for the Malvinas" is a useful distraction from more important issues. Realistically, the only way "Las Malvinas" will become part of Argentina is if the Falkland Islanders choose it. But why would they choose it when, for example, (i) every word that drips out of Kirchner's mouth is one of hostility; and (ii) the Argentinian economy continues to be a basket case?
Well, I disagree. And the application of the "Self-determination of the people" and the "implanted population" is what we have been discussing since the creation of the United Nations and through 95 pages of this topic, so going there would be just going in circles. But there is the question of Crimea though, that you shun off on your previous post. What do you think about Crimea's referendum? (I'm not asking with double intentions, i'm really interested)
Do we know what the true result was? I heard that, in one district, they had in excess of 120% of the people voting. A measure of the strength of their feeling in the matter, presumably Anyway, the thing is that almost ALL the populations of the Americas, both North and South, are 'implanted populations' so not sure you want to argue that particular point, do yer?
Well, i guess there's a difference when the colonies fight an Independence War against the imperialist countries that implanted them in the first place and create a new independent nation within that territory. A new State/Nation that declares its independence and have its own constitution. And then you'd have to see which countries back then recognized this new State/Nation, as England did Argentina's back then, to keep the flow of the commerce going, and before invading the Islands. But hey, if you're talking about the native americans, then I have nothing to discuss, you'd be absolutely right. Then again, when one is talking about international rights and sovereignty, one holds oneself to discuss about international law and the countries that accept it. Cause then other might argue (argue, not hold as the ultimate truth) that the native americans have all gone though insertion and are all citizens of the independent countries, and that the natives from US are US citizen, the natives from Mexico are Mexico's citizens, and so on throughout all America... About Crimea, I don't want to go to that degree of detail, I'm just asking as a principle. Let's say the elections were absolutely fair and there was without a shred of doubt a majority of Crimea's people that voted to be part of Russia. Do you accept that? Is that vote to be considered because Crimea's people don't want to be part of the, let's say, Ukraine's basket-case economy or any other reason they may have? Does the country that will ultimately govern the Crimean territory depends on a referendum result alone? If so, why? If not, why not?
I think the principle would be the same as that for Scotland, namely that if a referendum were held in accordance with the UK's laws and the result was for independence then Scotland should become independent based on that referendum. Ditto Quebec way back when. The Crimea situation is a little more complex in that there is an "option" for them to join another country, but assuming that a referendum were held in accordance with Ukrainian law and the vote was to leave Ukraine or join Russia then that should be the result. Kirchner's comparison with the Crimea referendum is a poor one in that it's way from clear that the referendum was held there in accordance with Ukrainian law or absent duress from Russian forces present in the Crimea. Additionally there was no ballot option for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. The nearest comparison for the Falklands would be if a referendum had been held during the two months of Argentinian occupation in 1982, with the ballot containing two options "join Argentina" or "become independent".
Who says it needs to be in accordance to ukrainian law? Isn't self-determination of the population above ukranian law? (I'm asking you, not telling you)
Oh, really? So if a couple of fellas break into your house and throw you out and then have an argument and split up, one of them can argue, 'Well... I'm HERE now so you can't have it back' Can they? You'd be happy with that, would yer? If you've read through this thread you'd have seen I've already answered this point. The fact is that, morally, the Falkland Islanders have MORE right to the Falkland Islands than any Argentine of European descent has to Argentina. Frankly, the point about them fighting a war of Independence makes their case WORSE, not BETTER as they then lose the ability to argue that 'It wasn't me guv'.
Sorry, but you misinterpreted my earlier post. I was talking about the 19th century Independence Wars, not Malvinas War. Malvinas 1982's wasn't an independence war, just a maniac drunk bastard adventure. And yeah, of course that wasn't me guv.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends what degree of self-determination is in Ukrainian law and what degree of negotiation has occurred between Crimea and Ukraine.
Her response was bs and you know it. She acted like the home islands itself were under invasion. Sending a force 6k miles away and for men to die for nothing was for he prestige and rise her own popularity. Bs war.
I'm just guessing but I think M was being sarcastic. I don't think he REALLY thought Galtieri was Thatcher's pal.
I hated Thatcher with a passion but The Falklands was something she got right. So fvck Galtieri for the unfortunate side effect that it made her popular.
Yeah, I've said before that she grabbed the opportunity with both hands to improve her sagging opinion poll ratings. She was, until that point, Britain's most unpopular PM... only exceeded later on by Fuzzy Blair after the Iraq war débâcle. But that doesn't change the fact that, even if someone else was in charge, they'd have had much choice. You can't have tin-pot fascists invading places and just let them get away with it... which is why house of commons voted for the action, why it was backed by the US and why countries like China and Russia abstained in votes in the UN. Of course, that's different from that nice Mr. Putin who's a tin-pot fascist but one with nuclear weapons and a fecking great big army... not to mention all that lovely gas we're so fond of So, yeah... it was a tragedy for the Argentines... almost as much as it was for the British who had the silly cow for several more years* * That's one bit where E66 and I might just disagree
Funny that Blair was hating after Iraq war but still won in a landslide in the 2005 general election. Would you say it was because of pathetic opposition at the time (Howard/weak Tories)
Well they voted for it as well, didn't they, so it wasn't really an issue one way or the other. The only other option would have been the liberals and, as we have a first past the post system, everyone thought there wasn't any chance of them getting in so it was a wasted vote. The other point is that Blair was actually a very plausible politician and could argue his case effectively. Unfortunately voters are taken in by people like that and, let's be honest, the truth is there WAS 10 years of continued economic growth from '97 till 2007. Of course, we've realised since that it was based on everyone borrowing money, (although not the government particularly... the tories are wrong about that), but the dangers of that weren't obvious at the time.
Fine points and I agree. The opposition (Tories) were pathetically weak during Blair reign (Hague, IDS, Howard) maybe if the Tories didn't lurch so far too the right they would've at least have been a respectable but they weren't. I always wondered why Kenneth Clarke didn't win the leadership role he was more dynamic and pro-EU compared to the rest of the Tories. Blair was a good snake oil salesman but when the alternative is shit there isn't anywhere elsewhere to go. I think the Falklands were a pointless war, a war too boost the popularity of both unpopular regimes. Argentines have no real attachment toward it and neither do they British. The oil found there is at such low levels to make it a non-issue.