|
Beiber is a crime against music.....
Back to left wing comics calling Blair a war criminal.... Ross Noble on some panel show (Have I Got News for You) chaired by one one of Blairs cronies, called him a war criminal, It has been said on the News Quiz and the Now Show, also John Oliver on his podcast has as well.
It's the tone, I suppose.
With Blair it's all regretful and world-weary.
With Thatcher it's more 'rip out the monster's eyes!'
I think with Maggie even though she is considered a tyrant, there is a grudging respect for her from the left.
There is no respect for Blair, he is at best the model of a dodgy used car salesman.
Thing is, the island was empty and then the now independent Argentinians claimed and settled the island. Not only that, but the guy who did so actually had British support to do so in the name of La Plata (I suppose because they were enemies of Spain and the guys were revolting against the Spanish).
Yup. The Argentinian governor sent a letter to the British requesting permission and didn't hear back, so said, "What the hell?" and went off and did it anyway. When the Brits retook the islands he apparently fled, but the Brits were quite impressed by his administration of the islands and asked him to come back, but he'd gotten involved in internal Argentinian politics by that point which ultimately proved his undoing.
So that's where the source of the conflict lies: The matter of who owns the settlement is a historical mess, but it does lend validity to, first, the French claim, then the Spanish claim and latter on the Argentinian claim. Eventually the British took over by force, which was an acceptable method for claims at the time, so in my understanding the British own the island since the 1830's.
Indeed, and all the people who live there now want it to stay that way. The problem with the Argentinian position - that the opinion of the inhabitants doesn't matter and if you had a dodgy claim to some territory 200 years ago you can still claim it - is that you can't cherry-pick it over the Falklands. You have to apply it globally. So Israel would have to flash out of existence, Argentina itself would have to return most of the southern half of the country back to indiginous tribes (as well as giving some of its territory back to its neigbours) and the USA would have to cede the middle third of the continent back to the native Americans. This is such an inherently absurd position that it is beyond belief any serious politician in the world would give it credence.
What would be helpful would be Obama standing up for the democratic principals involved. Instead he just urms and aahs so as not to alienate his Latien American supporters. Pretty pathetic (and his wimping out over the Argentinian issue has seriously damaged the once-impregnable PR image he had over here when he first came to power, not that he particularly cares).
I think with Maggie even though she is considered a tyrant, there is a grudging respect for her from the left.
From the left, maybe, but from The Exploited, never!
I consider her a tyrant but I do have a grudging respect for her rat cunning and mule like stubbornness.
It's funny, in a sick way, but war criminals always get a pass. Bush, Blair, and Thatcher just walk away.
10 years later, apparently, all the people who lied us into the Iraq debacle are saying "If I knew then what I know now, I'd have..."
Except Cheney, of course.
I knew then what I knew then, and I knew they were all lying. How could congress look at the cooked intel and call it truth? Don't they read the papers and all the overwhelming, fact-based evidence that it was a big, obvious lie? They didn't know until later? Please...
It cost thousands of lives and is criminal mass murder by any measure. Yet, to this day, apologists still try to justify it.
This is a f*****-up country.
I once saw a TV interview with Mikhail Gorbachev (who was quite a funny guy) in which it was asked if there had been any sexual tension with Thatcher during their high-stakes summit meetings. Gorbachev immediately said, "NO," very emphatically and looked somewhat distressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love serendipity: Remembering Oscar Romero, El Salvador and Iraq
I love serendipity: Remembering Oscar Romero, El Salvador and Iraq
Thoughtful comparisons. I first learned of "asymmetrical warfare" reading about El Salvador, oddly enough.
Hmmm. Teenaged Doodlebug first became sympathetic to the cause of international proletarian socialist revolution through reading about El Salvador.
Vive le Galt!
Thing is, the island was empty and then the now independent Argentinians claimed and settled the island. Not only that, but the guy who did so actually had British support to do so in the name of La Plata (I suppose because they were enemies of Spain and the guys were revolting against the Spanish).Yup. The Argentinian governor sent a letter to the British requesting permission and didn't hear back, so said, "What the hell?" and went off and did it anyway. When the Brits retook the islands he apparently fled, but the Brits were quite impressed by his administration of the islands and asked him to come back, but he'd gotten involved in internal Argentinian politics by that point which ultimately proved his undoing.
Funny that. I did believe (and still do, heh) that the islands were first settled by the french in 1763 (led by Bougainville).
The spanish crown protested somewhat, and the colony was given back to them in 1767 through a gentleman agreement (no treaty signed, though the viceroy did reimburse the costs of settlement, so it can be argued that the islands were sold).
In between, the islands were claimed for the english crown in 1765 by captain John Byron. Supposedly unaware of the french settlement, he founded Port Egmont. This sparked the Flakland crisis of 1770-1771, during which the english settlers (squatters from the other side POV) were ousted by the spaniards, and was ended by a settlement signed in London stating that "this engagement to restore port Egmont cannot, nor ought, in any wise, to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine, otherwise called Falkland's islands". The english crown kept Port Egmont, the spanish one the rest of the islands.
In 1776, the englishmen left Port Egbert (and the Falklands), having more pressing matters to attend in other colonies.
In 1820, Argentina (in fact, its predecessor the United Provinces of Rio Plata) claimed the islands. I'm not aware of any letter sent to an english governor, as the islands were devoid of inhabitants at this date.
In 1833, the english crown (now at the height of its imperial power) came back to claim the whole of the Falklands (not just Port Egbert).
History can be misused as a political tool. We should strive to keep our facts right, even when they don't go in our way. I am willing to discuss hard historical facts, not bended ones. IMHO, neither the english claim nor the argentinian one are crystal clear, but the argentinian one seems to come slightly ahead...
In 1823 Luis Vernet was granted fishing rights to the Falklands Islands. An initial landing failed. In 1826 he returned to the islands. Aware that the islands were claimed by the British, he sent a letter to the British consulate asking for permission to do this. In 1828 he was granted more power by the Argentinian government to establish a colony, but he also didn't want to antagonise the British so again asked permission to establish a settlement. The British consulate this time replied, asking for a full report on the islands and extending interim permission to settle them. They also told Vernet that if the British returned to the islands, the colony would be protected from reprisals.
In 1830 the Argentinian government recognised Vernet as the governor of the Falkland Islands. However, the British at that time noted that they were still in ownership of the islands. Whilst the Argentinian government (or more accurately the government of the Republic of Buenos Aires) contested this, Vernet himself distanced himself by saying he was interested only in commercially exploiting the islands, not colonising them. The Brits seemed dubious about this and sent a taskforce to reclaim the islands in 1833. The British recognised the existence of the Argentinian colony on the basis that Vernet had British permission to be there and even invited him to return (and accepting his advice by letter on how to settle the islands, due to his familiarity with them), which he declined. The Brits kept the colony itself intact (rebuilding those initial buildings that had fallen into disrepair) and employed Vernet's deputy (who had been British all along) until he was killed a year or so later.
Basically the controversy extends from this one guy playing both ends against the middle and him recognising the British prior claim to the islands whilst serving as a representative of the Argentinian government (which, as governor of a territory, he was). If he hadn't done that, the situation would not be as disputed as it is.
IMHO, neither the english claim nor the argentinian one are crystal clear, but the argentinian one seems to come slightly ahead...
That's fine, but in actuality the islands have been continuously inhabited by the British for 180 years and the entire population wants to remain British or, at worst, become fully independent. The Argentinian position - that this is irrelevant - is hugely problematic for dozens of countries around the world as extending that rule to everyone would result in many countries losing territory (including the USA and Argentina itself) against the will of the people who live there. That makes zero logical sense.
Sure it makes LOGICAL sense. A group of people who want to govern themselves really should be allowed to, at least if we mean what we say about democracy and such like yadda yadda. It is POLITICAL sense it doesn't make.
In 1823 Luis Vernet was granted fishing rights to the Falklands Islands.
And baby seal clubbing rights. Don't forget the baby seals.
COz I'm just a teenaged doodlebug baby!
Listen to Iron Maiden baby, with me...
He just wanted to go clubbin' with the seals. Don't be too harsh on him.
In 1823 Luis Vernet was granted fishing rights to the Falklands Islands. An initial landing failed. In 1826 he returned to the islands. Aware that the islands were claimed by the British, he sent a letter to the British consulate asking for permission to do this. In 1828 he was granted more power by the Argentinian government to establish a colony, but he also didn't want to antagonise the British so again asked permission to establish a settlement. The British consulate this time replied, asking for a full report on the islands and extending interim permission to settle them. They also told Vernet that if the British returned to the islands, the colony would be protected from reprisals.
In 1830 the Argentinian government recognised Vernet as the governor of the Falkland Islands. However, the British at that time noted that they were still in ownership of the islands. Whilst the Argentinian government (or more accurately the government of the Republic of Buenos Aires) contested this, Vernet himself distanced himself by saying he was interested only in commercially exploiting the islands, not colonising them. The Brits seemed dubious about this and sent a taskforce to reclaim the islands in 1833. The British recognised the existence of the Argentinian colony on the basis that Vernet had British permission to be there and even invited him to return (and accepting his advice by letter on how to settle the islands, due to his familiarity with them), which he declined. The Brits kept the colony itself intact (rebuilding those initial buildings that had fallen into disrepair) and employed Vernet's deputy (who had been British all along) until he was killed a year or so later.
Basically the controversy extends from this one guy playing both ends against the middle and him recognising the British prior claim to the islands whilst serving as a representative of the Argentinian government (which, as governor of a territory, he was). If he hadn't done that, the situation would not be as disputed as it is....
Sure. But at the time, and even later on when he was governor, he didn't represent the argentinian government and hadn't power to discuss claims of sovereignty. He just a private guy seeking fishing rights and knocking at all the doors just to be sure.
I certainly wish that particular problem was settled fifty years ago, when argentino-british talks were opened. Now that oil has been found, it could sour wery quickly.
For the record, I have no particular qualms about the british empire seizing the Falklands in 1830. At the time, it was one of the admitted means of empire building (you got rights on some land 1) by settling it first, 2) by giving the boot to the guy who settled it first, 3) or by some treaty, as a war spoil or a plain sell).
We all have more pressing matters to attend than the pope's opinion on that topic, such as the palestinian gordian knot, or the syrian meltdown.
I think they should have an international proletarian socialist revolution.
I belive Indigenous people from north to south america have been terrible mistreated all this years. But unlike the malvinas, giving all the terrytory to the aborigines seems imposible.
How about we start by Argentina turning over to the indigenous every acre of land it took from them after 1834? Or even just everything it seized in the Conquista del desierto in the 1870s?
(Of course, in such a case, the argument from geographic propinquity on the Falklands would favor the new indigenous peoples' state, simply making that question more complicated. Especially since Argentina considers the Falklands part of the Tierra del Fuego province, the rest of which it would give up as part of the decolonization.)
Impossible, you say? Well, perhaps impractical, given how thoroughly the lands have been settled by the colonizers. Though how impracticality somehow removes the overpowering stench of hypocrisy from Argentina crying "Colonialism!" I'm afraid I don't see.
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.
|
|
After being verbally attacked by a Brit here over the Falklands (which I'd barely heard of) I say just let Argentina have em.
Finally, someone who truly understand discussions on the internet!
If someone verbally attacked you in support of equal rights for people regardless of ethnicity, would you then become a racist out of spite?
I'm just trying to understand your logic.
I belive Indigenous people from north to south america have been terrible mistreated all this years. But unlike the malvinas, giving all the terrytory to the aborigines seems imposible.How about we start by Argentina turning over to the indigenous every acre of land it took from them after 1834? Or even just everything it seized in the Conquista del desierto in the 1870s?
(Of course, in such a case, the argument from geographic propinquity on the Falklands would favor the new indigenous peoples' state, simply making that question more complicated. Especially since Argentina considers the Falklands part of the Tierra del Fuego province, the rest of which it would give up as part of the decolonization.)
Impossible, you say? Well, perhaps impractical, given how thoroughly the lands have been settled by the colonizers. Though how impracticality somehow removes the overpowering stench of hypocrisy from Argentina crying "Colonialism!" I'm afraid I don't see.
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.
Sooooo... Antarctica, then? With new Argentinian indigenous people settlements all the way down into the death zone around the pole? Sounds wonderful! At last the indigenous population gets the land they need...
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.Sooooo... Antarctica, then? With new Argentinian indigenous people settlements all the way down into the death zone around the pole? Sounds wonderful! At last the indigenous population gets the land they need...
Could also be a nice impetus for the colonization of the Moon.
Indian reserve on the Sea of Tranquility, anyone ?
More seriously, the Falkland issue IS a legal quagmire. The british had people on them for a century, which amounts to something. But theit initial claim seems to lay on a letter some fisher guy sent to them, among others, just to be sure he could net whatever it is to be netted over there without being harrassed. I call that a fishy legal claim (pun intended).
Given that the United States repeatedly displaced entire nations from land that they had occupied for millennia, not to mention that the Brits themselves did so at Palestine, this doesn't give the sheep herders of the Falklands any special status.
Not sure on your meaning here. My point was that the Argentinians seemed to be cherry-picking one specific usage for their philosophy (which is that the current status of a region is irrelevant, if someone had a half-baked claim to it 200 years ago, that's all that matters) and ignoring everything else. In fact, if that is their position than it should be applied fairly and equally to everyone, which is completely impractical.
Argentina's argument is to their own detriment, as much as anyone else's.
And baby seal clubbing rights. Don't forget the baby seals.
Actually, if the seals and penguins want to put a claim for the Falklands into the UN, they would have a much stronger case for them then anyone else :)
After being verbally attacked by a Brit here over the Falklands (which I'd barely heard of) I say just let Argentina have em.
I'm sorry to hear that, but it's a bit of a hot potato issue in the UK, mainly because:
1) 258 British citizens (255 soldiers and 3 civilians) were killed needlessly.
2) British forces were forced to kill 649 Argentinian soldiers, which was outrageous because Britain and Argentina - outside of this issue - have had many periods of getting along very well.
3) Because of her claiming the victory, we got another seven years of Margaret Thatcher as PM.
It wasn't a war we wanted, against an enemy we didn't particularly dislike, incurred casualties nobody wanted and had severe political consequences at home.
Now that oil has been found, it could sour wery quickly.
This is the real reason, alongside the political issues, that Argentina has blown the issue up again. There was a deal on the table that would actually have meant most of the oil processing and production could have been done through Argentina (as the nearest major coastline), which would have significantly boosted the Argentinian economy as well as the British. Unfortunately, they chose to reject it out of hand and will now get nothing.
As for how sour it's going to get, the answer is not very. The Argentinians have never rebuilt their military since 1982, whilst Britain has, and what was once parity (until the French cut off their supply of Exocet missiles) is now completely one-sided. The four Typhoons on the island could wipe out the entire Argentinian air force and navy without breaking a sweat. There will be no second Falklands war unless the Argentinian government goes completely insane.
|
After being verbally attacked by a Brit here over the Falklands (which I'd barely heard of) I say just let Argentina have em.Finally, someone who truly understand discussions on the internet!
If someone verbally attacked you in support of equal rights for people regardless of ethnicity, would you then become a racist out of spite?
I'm just trying to understand your logic.
No, because I care about equal rights. I didn't give a damn about the Falklands (and I suspect most Americans don't). If someone were to ask me what I think I say let the Argentine folk have it.
It's pretty simple. I've not met a jerk from Argentina yet but I've met at least one from Britain.
Give Guantanamo back to Cuba.
Absolutely. There's not even any real debate there. The original lease expired ten years ago, the renewal was held at gunpoint and both were only for a naval base, for as a prison. The USA is in material breach of the agreement and has been for years.
The problem is that the US government won't do anything at all to legitimise the post-revolutionary Cuban government, so this will not happen until that government falls. You'd think after 54 years it might be time to move on, but apparently not.
No, because I care about equal rights. I didn't give a damn about the Falklands (and I suspect most Americans don't). If someone were to ask me what I think I say let the Argentine folk have it.
If you care about equal rights, then why do you think that a nation that has never possessed these islands (the whole claim stems from before the country even existed) has more of a right to them than the people who have lived there generation on generation for 180 years? The two statements seem mutually contradictary.
It's pretty simple. I've not met a jerk from Argentina yet but I've met at least one from Britain.
I can assure you that jerks are everywhere :)
(* hoping not to become #2 * )
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.Sooooo... Antarctica, then? With new Argentinian indigenous people settlements all the way down into the death zone around the pole? Sounds wonderful! At last the indigenous population gets the land they need...
Eh. I expect it's more likely the indigenous people would cut a deal where they traded the claims to the British (who also claim all the lands I mentioned) in exchange for something actually useful to them which the British want to get rid of anyway. Say, Northern Ireland.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.
Hey! Part of the Argentinian slice of Antartica overlaps with part of our Chilean slice of Antarctica! We have actual people living there (which may or may not be mingling with the penguins. We're still not sure, but some think they ought to get voting rights, at least for the bigger penguins).
Argentinian natives can settle on the British overlapping of the Argentinian claim. We have... stuff to do with ours. Technical stuff. You wouldn't understand.
The problem is that the US government won't do anything at all to legitimise the post-revolutionary Cuban government, so this will not happen until that government falls. You'd think after 54 years it might be time to move on, but apparently not.
Carter was making progress toward normalizing relations with Cuba in the late Seventies, but the nation had the choice between an uncharismatic rightwinger who might have had a few screws loose but wasn't fat crackling evil and a dementia-addled brownshirt type and went with the latter. Because that's the kind of joint this is.
But, how about merely making other territorial grants in compensation? Say, give the indigenous peoples Argentina's claims to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Argentine slice of Antarctica. It's certainly not impossible or even impractical for Argentina to surrender those claims, it would at least be partial compensation for those Argentina ruthlessly colonized, and the indigenous peoples who get the grant of claims can go and work out their own modus vivendi with the British.
Hey! Part of the Argentinian slice of Antartica overlaps with part of our Chilean slice of Antarctica! We have actual people living there (which may or may not be mingling with the penguins. We're still not sure, but some think they ought to get voting rights, at least for the bigger penguins).
Argentinian natives can settle on the British overlapping of the Argentinian claim. We have... stuff to do with ours. Technical stuff. You wouldn't understand.
Australia claims 2/3rds of Antartica... We have worked very hard to keep it an unspoilt wilderness and make sure that only scientific research goes on there, we very proud of the treaties we helped put in place to prevent mining and resource greedy countries from f~@$ing the place up.....
All of a sudden, I feel a lot happier.
Look, Citizen Firbolg, I'm even linking anti-Maggie tunes!
Vive le Galt!
So instead I'll just say that I have never quite understood the venomous hatred Bieber gets... That's like going around bashing on Sesame Street.
"I'd school you with the back of my hand, but in Germany we don't hit little girls."
The RIP Margaret Thatcher thread got locked just I before I posted this.
While your attempts to mediate and establish some some respect and decorum for this RIP thread are admirable CA and some what out of character ;-) especially for Ms Thatcher, people are going to vent.
The Baroness is held in a special level of loathing and contempt by a majority of citizens of the UK.
While she is held with respect in the US for her foreign policy and "Iron Ladyness", the reality for a majority of Britons and Northern Irish during the 80's was unemployment, police heavy handedness, and unfair taxation (the reason you Yanks booted the British out in the first place).
She got so extreme and so unpopular her own party rolled her Australian style.
The people who posted the RIP knew a negative reaction would come because she is such a divisive figure, they can be mature and accept that alongside the respects paid that there will be venomous criticism of the woman especially from people who lived under her rule and live with her legacy or they can use it as an opportunity for confirmation bias and political point scoring.
The RIP Margaret Thatcher thread got locked just I before I posted this.
While your attempts to mediate and establish some some respect and decorum for this RIP thread are admirable CA and some what out of character ;-) especially for Ms Thatcher, people are going to vent.
Oh, believe me, I know. Hell, you can go to the first page of this thread and see that I was calling for Hanging Thatcher before I even knew she was sick.
But if people had taken my advice, that thread would still be open and (prediction) this one won't be closed shortly.
This is actually on-topic, as Thatcher's victory in the Falklands War in 1982 was the SOLE reason she won the 1983 General Election (whilst Labour's complete and total internal disarray in 1979 and 1987 was the reason for their failure then).
Of course, Thatcher did the right thing (as almost everyone in the UK agrees) in fighting the war, and even showed admirable restraint (not a sentence usually associated with her) against her government ministers and party members who wanted Britain to both launch attacks against Buenos Aires and force the country into crippling reparations afterwards (the latter was probably impossible anyway, given lukewarm British support in the UN, but the former was eminently achievable) and restricting the conflict to the single issue. Also, her own admirals expressed severe doubts about if a fleet operating 8,000 miles from home base could succeed in such a conflict and she had to force them to carry out the operation against their own judgement, which took some considerable force of personality.
However, what made Thatcher a great leader in the area of warfare (both in the Falklands and in the Cold War stand-off against the USSR) made her a terrible domestic politician, the exact same problem Churchill had (and the inverse of Blair, whose peacetime policies were at least well-meaning, whilst the second there was a whiff of military action his judgement would fly out the window). She was authoritarian and almost dictatorial in a government system designed for cooperation and ruling through consensus, and showed how that system could be used for her own purposes (Tony Blair learned a lot of lessons there).
Of course, Thatcher did the right thing (as almost everyone in the UK agrees) in fighting the war, and even showed admirable restraint (not a sentence usually associated with her) against her government ministers and party members who wanted Britain to both launch attacks against Buenos Aires and force the country into crippling reparations afterwards (the latter was probably impossible anyway, given lukewarm British support in the UN, but the former was eminently achievable) and restricting the conflict to the single issue.
Well, I don't pretend to have any insight into the minds of the international plutocracy, but I don't know if the Reaganauts would have allowed a full-blown war between two of their staunch Cold War allies. There was a whole insurgency in Nicaragua to run, and a civil war in El Salvador, and "our" English-speaking cousins warring with some of "our" stooge dictators in South America would have made a real goat rope of the situation and God only knows how many leftist guerrillas and Liberation Theologists would have run amuck if Britain and Argentina really got into it.
I wouldn't hold my breath.