Conquer Club

saxitoxin wrote:If it is as innocent as that, the Britishers will have no objection to surrendering all oil rights to the surrounding ocean in exchange for keeping the rocks. They won't so they'll have to deal with having them taken away. Life isn't always fair. That will be a valuable lesson the Falklanders can take with them on the refugee ships as they sail back to England.

The oil is under the bits of the sea that belong to the Falklands. I know it's much more affirming for your hatred if you're allowed to believe that the UK is being nasty and that Argentina is in the right, but this isn't the case.

comic boy wrote:

qwert wrote:well you are British, these mean that these topic are not neutral, im not a british,and im not argentine citizens, so i have neutral view.
You have subjective oppinion,so all these topic are irelevant. Your last post are so stupid claim "we came first ,and these is our territory" , that why half of Countires in world whas in British Empire, and need hundred of years to finaly liberated from British Tyrant Rule, and these cost milions and milions of murder civilian from British Crown.

You worry about the recent war crimes of your own countrymen and let us worry about those awful imperialistic warmongers of ours.

Mine countryman can not compete with war crimes of UK,and US, unfortunatly all International court of justice are joke, that why US leave Iraq.because iraq dont want to sign threaty where US soldiers will be protected from any criminal prosecution.
Us and UK are protected from any commited war crimes,who are even when we speak now hepend in Afghanistan.
Mine country solve all these, and all suspect for war crimes are in Hague, when will yours be prosecuted for war crimes?

qwert wrote:US leave Iraq.because iraq dont want to sign threaty where US soldiers will be protected from any criminal prosecution.

I'm going to have to ask you to reference that one.

saxitoxin wrote:

Ray Rider wrote: Other nations bullying the UK about the islands doesn't give Argentina any right to them. As I said, what right does Argentina have to the islands? And when did Britain illegally seize the islands "by right of arms"? There are 3,000 people living there who have lived there for generations and are happy with British rule. Why not allow them to continue?

If it is as innocent as that, the Britishers will have no objection to surrendering all oil rights to the surrounding ocean in exchange for keeping the rocks. They won't so they'll have to deal with having them taken away. Life isn't always fair. That will be a valuable lesson the Falklanders can take with them on the refugee ships as they sail back to England.

Don't pretend you don't know about territorial waters. If a nation owns coastal lands, they also own the local waters and any resources therein. You still haven't answered my question, what right does Argentina have to the Falklands? I listed three that the British have (continual rule for 200 years, the inhabitants are happy with their rule, and they have defended the islands against unwanted aggression). What've you got? I'm genuinely interested to know.

Saxi no doubt has some obscure and moderately inaccurate/misquoted fact, chosen purely because it fits his idea of a world in which the US snidely undermines everyone else and Europe loses heavily as a result.

barackattack wrote:

qwert wrote:US leave Iraq.because iraq dont want to sign threaty where US soldiers will be protected from any criminal prosecution.

I'm going to have to ask you to reference that one.

The US doesn't acknowledge the authority of the ICC. Our soldiers are not allowed to be tried by foreign courts at all. If a US soldier commits a crime then he is tried under the USMCC. Iraq as a condition for signing base leases wanted the right to prosecute US soldiers for crimes against Iraq citizens. This is a violation of US law.

In fact, if another country tried to arrest and try one of our soldiers it would be an act of war.

It's not so much that US soldiers are "protected" from any criminal prosecution, it's that US soldiers will be tried by US military courts for any crimes they may commit.

Google is your friend. Look it up.

Sorry, your link's broken.

Ray Rider wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Ray Rider wrote: Other nations bullying the UK about the islands doesn't give Argentina any right to them. As I said, what right does Argentina have to the islands? And when did Britain illegally seize the islands "by right of arms"? There are 3,000 people living there who have lived there for generations and are happy with British rule. Why not allow them to continue?

If it is as innocent as that, the Britishers will have no objection to surrendering all oil rights to the surrounding ocean in exchange for keeping the rocks. They won't so they'll have to deal with having them taken away. Life isn't always fair. That will be a valuable lesson the Falklanders can take with them on the refugee ships as they sail back to England.

Don't pretend you don't know about territorial waters. If a nation owns coastal lands, they also own the local waters and any resources therein. You still haven't answered my question, what right does Argentina have to the Falklands? I listed three that the British have (continual rule for 200 years, the inhabitants are happy with their rule, and they have defended the islands against unwanted aggression). What've you got? I'm genuinely interested to know.

the Treaty of Madrid ... UK recognizes Spanish control of Malvinas; Argentina is the political successor of Spain in the southern cone

Besides, the Americas are the rightful territory of La Raza. Any American nation has a fundamental right to remove infestations and squatters. If the Falklanders don't like it they can file a lawsuit from the comfort of the Red Cross tents in London they'll be living in two years from now.

I'm surprised you and I aren't on the same page on this. When was the last time I agreed with a foreign policy position of the US/Canada?

I'm surprised you and I aren't on the same page on this. When was the last time I agreed with a foreign policy position of the US/Canada?

Since your newly found occupation in customer service?

nietzsche wrote:I don't like Argentinians, they think they are the last coke in the desert.

Don't trust nietzsche. He's president of the Mexican Andrew Lloyd Weber fan club.

saxitoxin wrote:the Treaty of Madrid ... UK recognizes Spanish control of Malvinas; Argentina is the political successor of Spain in the southern cone

Besides, the Americas are the rightful territory of La Raza. Any American nation has a fundamental right to remove infestations and squatters. If the Falklanders don't like it they can file a lawsuit from the comfort of the Red Cross tents in London they'll be living in two years from now.

I'm surprised you and I aren't on the same page on this. When was the last time I agreed with a foreign policy position of the US/Canada?

The Treaty of Madrid discussed North America, the islands of the Caribbean, and guaranteed both nations' rights to navigate the Atlantic. Where does it talk about the Falklands? And if you think Argentina's right is based on inheritance from Spain, then why aren't you arguing for Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, etc to be thrown in with Argentina too? That was part of the viceroyalty.

lol at your second paragraph. Alright folks--all 360 million+ of you whites, immigrants, and descendents of them--time to pack up and move out! We're giving this place back to La Raza!

It's true, you almost never agree with any American/Canadian government policy, however you do seem to have more deep-seated resentment against the Brits. Where are the Brits, anyway (besides Barrack)? They should be the ones arguing for their country here. I'd prefer UK sovereignty over the islands to Argentinian sovereignty any day, but it's not a big deal...fun to discuss though!

Ray Rider wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:the Treaty of Madrid ... UK recognizes Spanish control of Malvinas; Argentina is the political successor of Spain in the southern cone

Besides, the Americas are the rightful territory of La Raza. Any American nation has a fundamental right to remove infestations and squatters. If the Falklanders don't like it they can file a lawsuit from the comfort of the Red Cross tents in London they'll be living in two years from now.

I'm surprised you and I aren't on the same page on this. When was the last time I agreed with a foreign policy position of the US/Canada?

The Treaty of Madrid discussed North America, the islands of the Caribbean, and guaranteed both nations' rights to navigate the Atlantic. Where does it talk about the Falklands? And if you think Argentina's right is based on inheritance from Spain, then why aren't you arguing for Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, etc to be thrown in with Argentina too? That was part of the viceroyalty.

lol at your second paragraph. Alright folks--all 360 million+ of you whites, immigrants, and descendents of them--time to pack up and move out! We're giving this place back to La Raza!

It's true, you almost never agree with any American/Canadian government policy, however you do seem to have more deep-seated resentment against the Brits. Where are the Brits, anyway (besides Barrack)? They should be the ones arguing for their country here. I'd prefer UK sovereignty over the islands to Argentinian sovereignty any day, but it's not a big deal...fun to discuss though!

Hey, there's really not much to discuss. The people who live there should decide. I'm not sure Argentina is exactly trying to endear itself to the people who've lived there for generations, and there's a fair amount of distrust. Unfortunately, a bit like the US relationship with Cuba, there's always a bit of nationalist political capital that can be gained from an Argentinian or British politician being belligerent on the issue.

Seems strong, but just suggests a political weakness.

Ray Rider wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:the Treaty of Madrid ... UK recognizes Spanish control of Malvinas; Argentina is the political successor of Spain in the southern cone

Besides, the Americas are the rightful territory of La Raza. Any American nation has a fundamental right to remove infestations and squatters. If the Falklanders don't like it they can file a lawsuit from the comfort of the Red Cross tents in London they'll be living in two years from now.

I'm surprised you and I aren't on the same page on this. When was the last time I agreed with a foreign policy position of the US/Canada?

The Treaty of Madrid discussed North America, the islands of the Caribbean, and guaranteed both nations' rights to navigate the Atlantic. Where does it talk about the Falklands? And if you think Argentina's right is based on inheritance from Spain, then why aren't you arguing for Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, etc to be thrown in with Argentina too? That was part of the viceroyalty.

Honestly? I don't really know - I had to bing-dot-com that because I don't really care if there's a legal basis or not for Argentine claims to the Malvinas (according to this, the Treaty of Madrid affirmed the Nootka Sound Conventions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_s ... onventions). I'll support Argentina regardless of any basis in law or ethics for their claims.

• I'm happy now to see MERCUSOR mulling their options for a naval quarantine of the Malvinas if Britain continues to warmonger by refusing to negotiate as required by the OAS. This seems like the best military option. If the islands are blockaded they could be forced to capitulate without the potential for bloodshed of a land invasion. Now that Britain has no more aircraft carriers left (all of them being sent to scrap by Gordon Brown to pay for votes by building youth centres) with which to break a blockade, Brazil's new French-built carrier São Paulo could be the ideal flagship for a Pan-American Task Force.

Obama's position on all this is almost enough to make me support him in 2012. (not quite, though, as I know he's just doing this to buy Argentine, Brazilian and Uruguayan support for the revived FTAA treaty - but, hey, whatever it takes)

Newly declassified documents show Reagan phoned Thatcher to demand Britain stop attacks and withdraw to negotiate with Argentina, even as Britisher troops were advancing on Stanley! This was Reagan when Argentina was run by a junta and was a South American pariah ... imagine how much support Obama is going to give Britain when Argentina has a democratically elected government and unanimous support of the OAS. They'll be lucky if he doesn't lob a nuke at the Cadbury factory! LMAO!

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526

qwert wrote:

comic boy wrote:

qwert wrote:well you are British, these mean that these topic are not neutral, im not a british,and im not argentine citizens, so i have neutral view.
You have subjective oppinion,so all these topic are irelevant. Your last post are so stupid claim "we came first ,and these is our territory" , that why half of Countires in world whas in British Empire, and need hundred of years to finaly liberated from British Tyrant Rule, and these cost milions and milions of murder civilian from British Crown.

You worry about the recent war crimes of your own countrymen and let us worry about those awful imperialistic warmongers of ours.

Mine countryman can not compete with war crimes of UK,and US, unfortunatly all International court of justice are joke, that why US leave Iraq.because iraq dont want to sign threaty where US soldiers will be protected from any criminal prosecution.
Us and UK are protected from any commited war crimes,who are even when we speak now hepend in Afghanistan.
Mine country solve all these, and all suspect for war crimes are in Hague, when will yours be prosecuted for war crimes?

In my country all the trees are made of cheese and you get a free virgin with every 2 beers during happy hour......La La La

The pirate-in-chief William today arrived in the occupied Malvinas, forcing the Argentine people to burn Union Jacks in Buenos Aires and attack branches of the HSBC Bank as a show of national resistance. Argentine Foreign Minister Taiana called the presence of William in the Americas a "grave and extreme provocation."

Brazil has announced her aircraft carrier São Paulo is putting to sea with her escorts to discourage further UK threats against the peace-desiring people of South America. Chile will also be cancelling regular airline flights to the occupied Malvinas. It's imperative for hemispheric peace that Britain end her warmongering and obey the unanimous resolution of the Organization of American States by coming to the table to negotiate a timetable for the evacuation of the Malvinas. The OAS is considering placing on Britain a deadline for the start of evacuation negotiations. It is in Britain's best interest it not get to that point.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/febr ... ain-is.php
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1445324-el-p ... a-malvinas
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/articl ... n-minister
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... yment.html
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmark ... 2/id/38937

saxitoxin wrote:They'll be lucky if he doesn't lob a nuke at the Cadbury factory! LMAO!

won't happen. Kraft owns Cadbury now.

Just wondering, does the current presidente have any policial problems at the moment? Because that is usually the time the sabre rattling start, to divert attention away from internal troubles and to really the people behind the government (which is what happened in 1982).

aad0906 wrote:Just wondering, does the current presidente have any policial problems at the moment? Because that is usually the time the sabre rattling start, to divert attention away from internal troubles and to really the people behind the government (which is what happened in 1982).

Good point and, yes, Prime Minister Cameron has many domestic problems with a shaky coalition government. Refusing international calls for negotiation and dispatching William to the Malvinas to stir up trouble may be an attempt to get Britons behind their government and shore-up political support at home.

aad0906 wrote:Just wondering, does the current presidente have any policial problems at the moment? Because that is usually the time the sabre rattling start, to divert attention away from internal troubles and to really the people behind the government (which is what happened in 1982).

Argentina is still suffering from a severe recession which occurred around the 2002 and (last time I check the charts) till 2008. I'm not sure if their economy is recovering, or what, but that situation provides good context for understanding Argentinian politics.

The White House has ordered David Cameron to report to Washington for instructions on a variety of matters, it is reported today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 278275164A

This is announced the same day the Brazilian navy leaves port in a show of Pan-American solidarity with Argentina and - ironically - is scheduled to begin 2 weeks prior to the 30th anniversary of the surrender of Stanley Government House by the Royal Marines (despite that they outnumbered the attacking Argentine commandos by a 2-to-1 ratio ... an unpopular and rarely repeated factoid).

Buenos Aires Readies for 30th Anniversary Surprise ... San Martin Style!


BFF!!! Presidents Obama and de Kirchener

The USA founded on the blood and built on the bones of the native tribes supports the continent of south America, descended from imperial invaders that almost exterminated the original populations, in their demand that some previously uninhibited islands 300 miles from their shore are handed over to them. Supports Argentinian demands that the islanders, descended from people who were there before most US states existed, be denied their democratic rights to choose their own government. And they bleat about British colonialism? You couldn't make it up.

Obama is proving he's as ignorant and unprincipled as many feared. And how does the USA, still the most racist and insular society in the developed world, feel about having to buy support from central and south America? I thought you only liked the diegos if they wre working as servants for you?

Qwert you may feel you're objective but you are clearly prejudiced.

generalmighty wrote:Qwert you may feel you're objective but you are clearly prejudiced.

What?

generalmighty wrote:The USA founded on the blood and built on the bones of the native tribes supports the continent of south America, descended from imperial invaders that almost exterminated the original populations, in their demand that some previously uninhibited islands 300 miles from their shore are handed over to them. Supports Argentinian demands that the islanders, descended from people who were there before most US states existed, be denied their democratic rights to choose their own government. And they bleat about British colonialism? You couldn't make it up.

Obama is proving he's as ignorant and unprincipled as many feared. And how does the USA, still the most racist and insular society in the developed world, feel about having to buy support from central and south America? I thought you only liked the diegos if they wre working as servants for you?

All reasonable points the Falklanders can mull over on the refugee ships. There will definitely be some lawsuits post-evacuation, no doubt.