Argentine Politics Thread

But the British still legally held the island. Argentina didn't settle it, they showed up at an island that was already claimed. The British just reestablished their claim by showing up and reminding them the island was under British control.

You seem to think that because the British didn't leave a government, they gave it up, and so control passed to the Argentinians. It didn't. Argentina never legally held it. France, then Britain, then Falkland Islanders.

Yes the British have respected the wishes of the desendants of the British seattlers, the murderous, stupid junta that invaded did not, nevetherless, the British occupation of the island was illigal, and Argentina was justified to invade to kick out british presence (even if that went against the islanders wishes), and then, under its own terms grant autonomy to the people there, always respecting their rights and their land.

Your forgetting that the British left in 1774 (no british presence at all but a plaque) and came back in In November 1832.

And about the indians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

Now read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Thats not how sovereignty works. If it were that way the moon would belon to the US (HINT: IT DOESNT)

edited 14th Apr '12 5:21:50 PM by Baff

In any case, if one is to assert that Argentina has a claim on the islands, one has to just completely ignore all of the islands' history from 1833 onwards, including every wish that the settlers have ever expressed in that time. There is no circumstance that I know of where ignoring almost 200 years of history is a good idea when assessing the right of a country or region to self-govern, nor do I know of any instance where completely ignoring the preference of the local populace is the right way to go.

Its a complex issue.

But look at it this way.

You and your family have a house and you decided to make a house in a plot of land right next to your house, which has been left to you by your father (spain),who had a garden there for a couple of years which he visited regularly.

One day you send one of you family members along with some of his friends to the land and he builds a house that is connected with yours, but soon there after he dies. Soon there after a random guy called mr. A comes by and say he owns the land because he left a plaque there 78 years ago while he was passing by and kicks your family out and steel your things, and starts living in your house.

He brings his family along to the rooms he took over, you cant go after your things because he will shoot you.

Mr. A continues to live in those rooms with his family, and you concede that his family has lived there for so long that you cant really kick them out. But, you want to make Mr. A pay still, so one day you go after him, against the desire of the people living in the other rooms, to held him accountable. You get kicked in the ass.

So while Mr. A family isnt responsible for Mr. A actions, Mr. A is still your enemy, and, because your pride has been hurt, and because he stole your stuff, and dismembered your house, you will do everything you can to kick Mr. A from the house next door.

But if Mr. A decided to pay for all the things he stole from you, perhaps pay the rent, then maybe u would cool down and take it easy.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:43:36 PM by Baff

Except you continue to get fundamental facts about the situation wrong due to having proverbial shades on and a serious case of did not do the research.

Well I'm sure Britain paid the price for its alleged crime against Argentina when Argentina took away the lives of 3 civilians and 255 soldiers in an illegal war. The 775 wounded British soldiers; the 10 fighter jets and 24 helicopters; the landing ship, the cargo ship and the amphibious landing craft, and the two frigates and the two destroyers lost are the interest.

Baff, do you realise that the Argentinian actions regarding the islands are actually war crimes under international law?

If Britain wanted to, we could have had a whole world of sanction-based hurt put down on Argentina back in the 80s. They invaded sovereign territory (that of Britain) that they had no legal right to. We had no interest in agressing against Argentina itelf, of course, but legally we certainly could have taken further economic action against them.

Indeed, Argentina is stretching the boundaries of international law right now with its attempts to influence what happens on the Falklands with blockades and embargoes that are of questionable legality, and certainly break the spirit if not the letter of the laws relating to such actions.

And yet you think Britain should apologise? For what? Supporting and maintaining the legal rights of its citizens against hostile aggressors? That's like saying that we should apologise for declaring war on Germany in 1914 under the terms of the Treaty of London, which bade us support Belgium when its territory was invaded. There's no basis whatsoever for such a thing.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:45:33 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

then please refute me.

Thats like steeling something, and then saying you shouldnt have to pay because the police broke your door to get it.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:46:03 PM by Baff

We already have refuted you. You're simply refusing to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you. Or if you are, you're not actually responding to anything anyone else is saying. The evidence is there, please reply to it.

That's funny, I was typing the exact same thing. Nearly to the letter.

Yes, Reply to our answers rather than changing the subject.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:51:45 PM by Joesolo

So instead of getting replies I just get "you are wrong because you are wrong".

No arguments presented. How am I wrong in my accounting of histoy???

Or how was the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland islands a war crime?

Sure it was an act of war (thats so redundant I shouldnt have to say it) but and act of war is not a war crime.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:52:09 PM by Baff

There was no declaration of war, for starters. Argentina simply attacked, and they didn't even have a casus belli beyond their own colonial greed.

The fundamental point is that the Falklands, like any other piece of land, has the right to self-determination, and the people have chosen to be part of the nation they've been in since 1833. You have completely jumped over this point to argue about a questionable claim from before that time, which itself isn't the oldest or in any particular way the most valid claim on the land anyway.

Note, also, that long before the invasion, the international court in the Hague had already determined that the Falklands belong to the UK. Argentina, of course, refused to acknowledge the court at all because they're not interested in international law. They're only interested in their own imperialism, which they can in this case try to hide under convenient geographic trivia that virtually no one accepts.

I will need a source on that.

Ignoring points again. Respond to mine.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:59:22 PM by Joesolo

"Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely redundant in international relations.[1] In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.[2][3] These declarations may have no legal standing in themselves, but may still act as a call to arms for supporters of these organisations."

So yes, there Argentina did infringe in a war crime.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:00:10 PM by Baff

See, was that so hard?

Wikipedia:

Seems that I misremembered: the court wasn't able to give a verdict because Argentina refused to respect the court.

BTW:

This is patently false. Since you entered the thread 3-4 pages ago, you've been offered many arguments which you have almost without exception failed to acknowledge in any way. You can't jump over the arguments you are offered and then complain that you haven't been given an argument. That is arguing in bad faith, and we will not tolerate that in OTC.

If you aren't interested in a fair discussion where both sides respond to the points made by the other side, I'll have to give you an OTC suspension.

If you can't be bothered to read other people's posts or reply to them when arguments are addressed to you directly, I frankly don't know why you're even in the thread.

EDIT: Well, you ninja'd by responding to one argument. That's progress already...

edited 14th Apr '12 6:04:46 PM by BestOf

Now you admit that the invasion of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Panama, Granada, Haiti, Nicaragua, Lebanon were also war crimes.

Not decalring war, is perhaps the least, and quite frankly most openly disregarded and inconsequential crimesof war there is becuase ever going to war is a war crime itself.

Every war since WWII that has not been a UN intervention is thus a war crime. I cant answer to all the arguments presented, since for each argument I do a bit of reading, SO I cant read and anwer all the post, because that would force me to do some massive posting.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:07:47 PM by Baff

Your off topic.

Yea, the Hague can only play negotiator, they can't just make rulings. Since Argentina knows their claims are ridiculous they'll never do it.

EDIT- That means you DON'T WANT TOO. Thats different from can't.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:09:08 PM by Joesolo

Well if you can't be bothered to put in the effort, why should we put in the effort of answering your arguments? Note that people have responded to what you've said. If one side has more and/or better arguments than the other, doesn't that rather imply that that side is winning, unless their arguments are easily refuted (which would mean they're not "better" arguments.)

Ummm... Not really, because it highlights how truly useless such categorization happnes to be.

Best Of, whats happening is that people keep talking to me about self determination, and I keep answering that while the islanders do have the right to decide their destiny, Argentinians have a reasonable excuse to ask reparation from britain, to go to war with it (if we hold Argentina to the same legal standards with which the UK conducts its bussiness aborad), and to negotiate with the Islanders the terms under which the natural resources of the maritime waters that sourround the island should be administered with out them being plundered by the British.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:16:15 PM by Baff

Baff, that's completely rubbish. If Argentina has no legitimate legal claim on the islands, and the islanders have chosen to give Britain full legal authority, then why does Britain have any obligation to pay reparations for anything or negotiate a compromise? If anything, Argentina should be paying Britain compensation for the costs and lives lost in the illegal war they started without having a single viable reason to do so (at least, not one that would get any result other than hysteric laughter in the international courts)

"Argentina wants it" isn't enough of an excuse - I was taught that "I want, doesn't get" when I was five years old, and you're implying here that you don't recognise that Argentina needs to abide by the same principle.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:18:26 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

Because by your own logic, if the Argentinans were to kick the Falklanders (see how I dont call them Malvinenses?), seattle the island with Argentinians, and have their descendants decided the future of the island, then that would be absolutely legal and the Argentinians would not have to anwer for anything they did, neither hold any responsability.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:21:13 PM by Baff