PDA

View Full Version : Argentine President Claims the Falkland Islands



MayberrySaint
04-03-2008, 11:43 AM
It appears that Argentina did not learn anything from their previous butt-kicking...:rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080402/wl_afp/argentinabritainfalklandsdiplomacy_080402201109

Panzerknacker
04-03-2008, 06:12 PM
You call 650 dead butt kicking ??

pfff, is nothing compared with the 58 000 dead of the USA in Vietnam or the 2,5 million of Germany in WW1, and after that both countries embarqued again is very costly wars.

Why we cant do the same ?

In any case is the only thing in wich I agree with Fernandez-Kirchner.

Man of Stoat
04-04-2008, 02:27 AM
That'll be domestic problems at home again then...

Chevan
04-04-2008, 02:45 AM
pfff, is nothing compared with the 58 000 dead of the USA in Vietnam or the 2,5 million of Germany in WW1, and after that both countries embarqued again is very costly wars.

Why we cant do the same ?

.
DO you mean you can start the new war for Islands?:)

Rising Sun*
04-04-2008, 03:20 AM
DO you mean you can start the new war for Islands?:)

No. He just wants to replay the old one. With a different result. :D

After all, it's in Argentina's constitution that the Falkands belongs to them, so there's no reason for anyone to object. ;)


The First Transitory Provision of the Argentine National Constitution of 1994 stipulates:"The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich and the corresponding maritime and island spaces, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and in accordance with the principles of International Law, are a permanent and irrenounceable objective of the Argentine people.” http://www.argentina.org.au/malvinas_islands.htm

Firefly
04-04-2008, 03:48 AM
And here we go back to the old circular argument.

Why should Argentina be allowed to be independent from Spain, but at the same time not allow the Falklands to be independent.

When anyone can give me a satisfactory answer for this obvious anomaly I may believe it. Until then its little more than a whinge and a gripe because 26 years ago some tin pot dictator tried to avert his populations internal crisis by going to war.

Those 650 dead, and over 200 British can directly be attributed to the actions of the Argentinian government.

In fact, by all rights, the relatives of the UK victims should be able to sue Argentina for compensation.

The fact is, Argentina is incapable of seeing sense here and incapable of actually mounting any sort of operation to attack the Falklands. Its all bluster to invigorate the population by yet another flagging government.

I remain open to being proved wrong here.

Kato
04-04-2008, 04:03 AM
And here we go back to the old circular argument.

Why should Argentina be allowed to be independent from Spain, but at the same time not allow the Falklands to be independent.

When anyone can give me a satisfactory answer for this obvious anomaly I may believe it. Until then its little more than a whinge and a gripe because 26 years ago some tin pot dictator tried to avert his populations internal crisis by going to war.

Those 650 dead, and over 200 British can directly be attributed to the actions of the Argentinian government.

In fact, by all rights, the relatives of the UK victims should be able to sue Argentina for compensation.

The fact is, Argentina is incapable of seeing sense here and incapable of actually mounting any sort of operation to attack the Falklands. Its all bluster to invigorate the population by yet another flagging government.

I remain open to being proved wrong here.


Perhaps, Argentinians should wait a bit. Anyway the UK will collapse and get divided into Scotland, England, Wales and Nortern Ireland. England will be semi-Moslem state with the Shariat law. I heard some local Christian bishop had already supported the idea of introducing Shariat. The inhabitants of the Falklands will be happy to join Argentians under those circumstances.

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 04:29 AM
You call 650 dead butt kicking ??

pfff, is nothing compared with the 58 000 dead of the USA in Vietnam or the 2,5 million of Germany in WW1, and after that both countries embarqued again is very costly wars.

Why we cant do the same ?

In any case is the only thing in wich I agree with Fernandez-Kirchner.


So it's okay to get 650 of your kids killed for an idiotic foray to distract people from the corruption and lawlessness of a dictatorship?

And of course the US suffered 58,000 dead, but then again, they gave death back in spades (not that I'm really proud of that particularly). But there was the ROV (semi-)gov't asking for assisstance, whether they deserved it or not to the extent was given is a completely different argument. But I don't recall panicked messages to Buenos Aries by Falkland Islanders asking for the great, benevolent fearless military leaders of the Argentine state to free them from the clutches of Prince Charles' knobbly ears..

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 04:34 AM
Perhaps, Argentinians should wait a bit. Anyway the UK will collapse and get divided into Scotland, England, Wales and Nortern Ireland. England will be semi-Moslem state with the Shariat law. I heard some local Christian bishop had already supported the idea of introducing Shariat. The inhabitants of the Falklands will be happy to join Argentians under those circumstances.

And then the Orange Revolution shall be ripe and the Ukrainians shall rule the world! I knew it!

And I believe the Bishop thing was about allowing Muslims to incorporate some Islamic traditions into court cases involving only Muslims. Something I think the Brit courts allow for every religion..

Rising Sun*
04-04-2008, 04:45 AM
And here we go back to the old circular argument.

Why should Argentina be allowed to be independent from Spain, but at the same time not allow the Falklands to be independent.

When anyone can give me a satisfactory answer for this obvious anomaly I may believe it. Until then its little more than a whinge and a gripe because 26 years ago some tin pot dictator tried to avert his populations internal crisis by going to war.

Those 650 dead, and over 200 British can directly be attributed to the actions of the Argentinian government.

In fact, by all rights, the relatives of the UK victims should be able to sue Argentina for compensation.

The fact is, Argentina is incapable of seeing sense here and incapable of actually mounting any sort of operation to attack the Falklands. Its all bluster to invigorate the population by yet another flagging government.

I remain open to being proved wrong here.

Agreed.

Now that I'm being serious, what I find most disconcerting is PK's flippant approach in #2 to embarking on another war.

It's not consistent with humanity or the way most civilised people want to go, nor is it consistent with his bleatings in other threads about how the British allegedly treated his soldiers during the war.

It's distressing that at a similar interval after WWII and subsequent wars the people in many nations were resolved not to embark on a similar folly, but apparently Argentina is still hot to trot, if PK is representative of majority national feeling. I hope he's not.

Chevan
04-04-2008, 05:29 AM
And here we go back to the old circular argument.

Why should Argentina be allowed to be independent from Spain, but at the same time not allow the Falklands to be independent.
.

I think on that exact reason that allowed the USA to be independent from Britain, but at the same time the Phillipines are not allowed to be independent from USA:)

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 06:51 AM
Mod Note: Thread temporarily closed while the discussion of all conspiracies Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, American Transcendentalist, Sikh, Satanist, Zoroastrianism, and any other world religion are directed here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?p=122005#post122005

Reopened

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 07:28 AM
I think on that exact reason that allowed the USA to be independent from Britain, but at the same time the Phillipines are not allowed to be independent from USA:)

The Philippines are part of the US? Who knew?!

Getting back on topic: I guess one either believes that people ought to be subjugated, regardless of their geographic disadvantage, at point of a gun, or not.

In any case, the US gave the Filipinos their independence in the 1920s or 1930s...

pdf27
04-04-2008, 07:37 AM
And I believe the Bishop thing was about allowing Muslims to incorporate some Islamic traditions into court cases involving only Muslims. Something I think the Brit courts allow for every religion..
Not quite. In civil cases (i.e. those involving disputes over money, property, divorce, etc.) British law allows both sides to choose to submit to binding arbitration. Both sides sit down with an arbitrator and between them work out a settlement that they must agree before they start that they will accept. Some communities - notably the Jewish one - have a religious court using their own religious laws performing this arbitration service, and this is what Rowan Williams was talking about.

What it was really about, deep down, of course was that the Church of England has about 20 seats in the House of Lords, and if religion is kicked out of public life totally will lose them. Hence Rowan Williams has common cause with various Islamists in wanting to see religious law at least paid attention to by Parliament. That isn't going to happen any time soon...

Rising Sun*
04-04-2008, 08:52 AM
In any case, the US gave the Filipinos their independence in the 1920s or 1930s...

Yeah, but it didn't count because they got true independence in 1942 after the Japanese invaded and kicked the Americans out and showed the Filipinos true independence under Japanese occupation. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Panzerknacker
04-04-2008, 08:54 AM
Is not okay to anybody gets kill, I just want to point that is not a terrible loss of life, the country will not disrupt. The same number or perhaps more young people get killed in here in a year with car crash accident caused by the combination of too late party and alcohol.

If the british want to place a lawsuit I think they are in his right, but probably they wont receive a single dolar.

The argument trying to ridiculizate the argentine claim saying that is a cover for internal problems is really laughable, of course to properly realize how ridiculous it sounds you need to be in this side. :rolleyes:

I have better, much better examples of campaings launched for cover of internal problems ( that did not happen in argentina actually) but again I will refrain to post it, i dont to cause unnecessary distress in this topic.

The simple fact is that despite war or not if a world leader if too annoyed by the Argentina claim he would have to erase us from the face of earth, ( that would be to kill 38 million people living here and 750 000 overseas) because the claim is not an invention of any politician but a strong feeling grabbed firmly in every argentine mind and heart.

Rising Sun*
04-04-2008, 09:05 AM
Mod Note: Thread temporarily closed while the discussion of all conspiracies Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, American Transcendentalist, Sikh, Satanist, Zoroastrianism, and any other world religion are directed here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?p=122005#post122005

You didn't mention Scientologists.

Hardly surprising, because the ones you mentioned are all conspiring against Scientology.

Clearly discriminatory against Tom Cruise, John Travolta and others committed to believing in spaceships 'n stuff.

I know this because my E meter just told me.

This is why the mods on this forum suck, because if they weren't so narrow minded we'd have the likes of Cruise and Travolta posting here about inter-galactic wars millions of light years ago, and that'd be, like, you know, really cool and good karma and blow my E meter. And stuff. :D

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 09:35 AM
Not quite. In civil cases (i.e. those involving disputes over money, property, divorce, etc.) British law allows both sides to choose to submit to binding arbitration. Both sides sit down with an arbitrator and between them work out a settlement that they must agree before they start that they will accept. Some communities - notably the Jewish one - have a religious court using their own religious laws performing this arbitration service, and this is what Rowan Williams was talking about.

What it was really about, deep down, of course was that the Church of England has about 20 seats in the House of Lords, and if religion is kicked out of public life totally will lose them. Hence Rowan Williams has common cause with various Islamists in wanting to see religious law at least paid attention to by Parliament. That isn't going to happen any time soon...

Thank you for your clarifications. I was going to find the article but have been side tracked. In any case, I recall a similar thread at another board not too be named in which it was presented in the typical decontexualized fashion and hyped...

Rising Sun*
04-04-2008, 09:39 AM
Is not okay to anybody gets kill, I just want to point that is not a terrible loss of life, the country will not disrupt.

Don't bet on it.

Your country has no experience in living memory of a sustained war outside its borders.

You mentioned the American losses in Vietnam. They were about 100 times yours, over a gradually increasing period of roughly ten years where yours were over a few weeks.

America has recovered rather better from its much worse military, political and social experience than you have from yours, if you represent general Argentine attitudes.

One consequence of your brief experience was that you did not experience the questioning and social and political turmoil which came from being involved in a war which seemed to be going nowhere for years, although your war went spectacularly nowhere in a few weeks

Another consequence is that, if your views are representative, you can maintain the illusion that you were somehow unfairly deprived of a just victory because you never had to experience the self-examination which comes with long involvement in a war which seems to be going nowhere.

The views you express are reminiscent of the post WWI German 'stab in the back' attitude, that if only things had been different (such as the British not 'unfairly' sinking the Belgrano) you would have won. So you still cherish the belief that you're still a contender entitled to a return bout with the world champion, despite getting knocked unconscious and taken to hospital in the fifth of fifteen rounds.

The fact is that, unlike many of us on this board from both Allied and Axis nations from WWII and from involvement in subsequent conflicts, your nation doesn't have any experience of total war or modern war, apart from the Falkands which you think was somehow run unfairly by the enemy.

Argentina's brave declaration of war on Germany a few weeks before the end of WWII, while Brazil was fully committed to the Allied cause and put a proficient division into Italy, and the post-war exodus of Nazis to Argentina, says all that needs to be said about Argentina's experience of a serious war.

And I still find your off hand attitude to deaths in war disconcerting. As 1000 YS has pointed out on several occasions, you've not been in combat and you've never even served. Most men who have served and been in serious wars don't want to see anyone else endure it.

But I bet you see yourself as the flag bearer leading the charge up the beach to reclaim the Malvinas. See how much your nation values you a few years later when you want a new tyre for your wheelchair.

Nickdfresh
04-04-2008, 10:19 AM
You didn't mention Scientologists.

Hardly surprising, because the ones you mentioned are all conspiring against Scientology.

Clearly discriminatory against Tom Cruise, John Travolta and others committed to believing in spaceships 'n stuff.

I know this because my E meter just told me.

This is why the mods on this forum suck, because if they weren't so narrow minded we'd have the likes of Cruise and Travolta posting here about inter-galactic wars millions of light years ago, and that'd be, like, you know, really cool and good karma and blow my E meter. And stuff. :D

You might enjoy this thread which turns into something of a debate with a supposed Scientologist (even though they aren't allowed on the internet).

Starts on post #16 and goes all the way too the bitter end...

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23209

Rising Sun*
04-04-2008, 10:42 AM
You might enjoy this thread which turns into something of a debate with a supposed Scientologist (even though they aren't allowed on the internet).

Starts on post #16 and goes all the way too the bitter end...

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23209

Mate, that is a three ring circus!

LMFAO

ROFLMFAO :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

I think you about nailed it at #244

Perhaps this little gem at #255 should be put on a sticky on this board, for general reference. ;)


You ****ing tool.

I am not interested in proving anything!

Whether or not Psychiatry works or not is irrelevant to me! I have NEVER ever claimed to have proof, and I have told you this repeatedly, yet you still are unable to understand that simple fact!

Pánzon
04-04-2008, 11:08 AM
In a book by Dr. Carl Sagan ( Rip), I remember him telling the story about a meeting of SF writers ( nothig bad with SF, I am a lover of the good one) in which a "bet" was placed as a "challenge" to the assistants to the reunion........

The bet was the by next day, they have to come with an idea for how to make money, without working.......

Ron Hubbard, came with "Scientology"..........

I am sincerely curious about this Scientology thing,,,,, but I will not buy the book, I will not read it.......... will see if I can find anything on the net to at least try to understand what in Gods name this "religion" means......

I remember their facilities in Hollywood CA, from some 20 years ago and it was really an impressive setting........ on Sunset Boulevad I seem to remember.

And I concurr completelly with Tom Cruise being an idiot............ but it is a case of a child, that sovoured the honeys of fame since childhood, remember "legend, the movie"? And since then he has not matured, thinks he is still a child and I am quite convinced that he is a case of obssesive compulsive sindrome. I think that control freaking is part of the mental disorder.......

A sort of Maradona...... to big, too soon, surrounded by slaves all his life and idiotic courtiers who make him think that he is the "last coca cola in the desrt".......

Thanks Gosh Penelope Crúz managed to run away in time..........:D

Pánzon

Lone Ranger
04-05-2008, 05:01 AM
The argument trying to ridiculizate the argentine claim saying that is a cover for internal problems is really laughable, of course to properly realize how ridiculous it sounds you need to be in this side. :rolleyes:

Not really Peron admitted as much to Bill Hunter-Christie in the 1950s.

And the timing so close to domestic trouble over taxation is purely co-incidental.

Nickdfresh
04-05-2008, 09:32 AM
Whether or not it is "ridiculous," it is commonly accepted knowledge here that the Argentine junta was in trouble, and needed a galvanizing national event to get their people behind them...

Firefly
04-05-2008, 04:31 PM
The Uk, or more precisely England used to own Calais. Does that mean we should make the French give it bacK?

What possible use would the Argentinians have for the Falklands? The people there are used to being there, what Argentinian would want to go there and what would they do with it.

Its just all inane childish blustering politics to keep harking back to a claim that's over 200 years old.

The Falklands should be made an independent nation with UN guarantees backed up by a small British garrison (as long as the Ilanders pay for its upkeep).

Remember Saddam and his Kuwait invasion? If you support Argentina getting the Falklands then you must have supported Iraq getting Kuwait, after all that was in essence the same point of view. (It actually wasnt, but thats how it was portrayed).

Anyway, its not the UK, but the UN that condemned Argentina's invasion, this essentially means that the whole world says its wrong while Argentina says its right. See any thing wrong with this?

Let the people do what they want with their own lives and worry about what your doing with yours....

Lone Ranger
04-05-2008, 04:40 PM
Thought there was absolutely no connection with Argentine internal politics.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23476296-5005961,00.html

"Ms Kirchner's comment came as she faces her own woes, battling against farmers who have barricaded roads in a protest against a stiff tax hike on soybean exports."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080402/wl_afp/argentinabritainfalklandsdiplomacy_080402201109

"The comments came as Kirchner faces her own woes, battling against farmers who have barricaded roads in a protest against a stiff tax hike on soybean exports.

The conflict has created shortages of meat and other staples in Buenos Aires and elsewhere, and tested the social fabric, with pro- and anti-government supporters holding dueling rallies."

Rising Sun*
04-06-2008, 07:56 AM
In case it hasn't been linked before, here's Maggie's version of how it happened from the British end.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/search/displaydocument.asp?docid=109110&doctype=1

Rising Sun*
04-06-2008, 07:59 AM
The Uk, or more precisely England used to own Calais. Does that mean we should make the French give it bacK?

Yes.

You should.

When did the French ever fight for English interests?

Giving it back is the least they could do for England saving them in WWI and WWII. :D

Rising Sun*
04-06-2008, 08:14 AM
What possible use would the Argentinians have for the Falklands?

Macho national pride.

It's not about anything more since they lost the Falklands War.

Not least because Argentina doesn't have any great international feats of arms with which to honour itself, while the Falklands defeat is a continuing embarrassment which can be corrected only by a victory there, to somehow restore national honour.

It's just another species of the same disputes like the Kuriles or the Spratly Islands, but with less sense, if that's possible.

Rising Sun*
04-06-2008, 08:39 AM
Actually, my last post was wrong in linking the Falklands to things like the Spratlys and Kuriles.

The latter have strategic or other important as well as as symbolic significance for the contestants, where the Falklands don't have anything but symbolic significance for Argentina.

32Bravo
04-06-2008, 11:41 AM
You call 650 dead butt kicking ??

pfff, is nothing compared with the 58 000 dead of the USA in Vietnam or the 2,5 million of Germany in WW1, and after that both countries embarqued again is very costly wars.

Aah, the numbers game.




Why we cant do the same ?




You can!....will you be there, or will it be others that make up the numbers?

Chevan
04-07-2008, 12:15 AM
Actually, my last post was wrong in linking the Falklands to things like the Spratlys and Kuriles.

The latter have strategic or other important as well as as symbolic significance for the contestants, where the Falklands don't have anything but symbolic significance for Argentina.


That's true the Kurilas are OUR.Becouse of strategic meaning in region.
For Japs this is only the "symbolic sugnificance" ( and additional space-living).
BTW we are going out of topic constantly.
So lets vote - has Argentine the right to calm islands back or not?
If the the ONLY PZ wants it back- we could close thte theme.:)

Panzerknacker
04-08-2008, 06:39 PM
So lets vote - has Argentine the right to calm islands back or not?
If the the ONLY PZ wants it back- we could close thte theme


It would be nice sometime that you write in plain english and no that kind of sanskrit. :rolleyes:

The right or wrong of the Argentine claim in very subjetive to say the list.
For the argentines it would be totally right and for most of the britons awfully wrong.

Something is true, the claim is a state policy, that means wathever the political colour of the ruling party in Argentina the reclamation has continue and will continue until we can get some kind of arrangement or solution.

The annoying part of all this is the British coming here to vacations, hunting or study understand it all wrong, everytime the issue in touched they start to feel nervous like somebody going to mistreat them or to burn a union jack in the main square, that never happen.

Is not a claim against them or the islanders, but in favour of a solution to an historical conflict.

Rising Sun*
04-09-2008, 06:39 AM
It would be nice sometime that you write in plain english and no that kind of sanskrit. :rolleyes:

One of the things I like about this forum is the interchange between people from different nations, whose different viewpoints and knowledge challenge and educate those from other nations.

Another good thing is the tolerance shown for people whose first language isn't English but who post in understandable if not perfect English.

Which includes you, PK, because you make a tool of yourself by using your own imperfect English to slag Chevan for his English.

If you can't post in Russian, then don't slag Russian members who post in English which, unlike your native Spanish, uses an alphabet and grammar entirely unrelated to English and which is much harder for Russian than Spanish or other Romance language speakers to master.

Chevan
04-11-2008, 12:39 AM
One of the things I like about this forum is the interchange between people from different nations, whose different viewpoints and knowledge challenge and educate those from other nations.

Another good thing is the tolerance shown for people whose first language isn't English but who post in understandable if not perfect English.

Oh mate i doubt the our retired, very informative dictaror even care to search tolerance and interchange between peoples from other nations.:rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
04-11-2008, 03:26 AM
Oh mate i doubt the our retired, very informative dictaror even care to search tolerance and interchange between peoples from other nations.:rolleyes:

And helpful. Don't forget helpful. ;)

Pánzon
04-11-2008, 03:17 PM
As somebody explained before, the recovery of the sovereignty over the islands is a "national policy" and it is sort of "imbedded" into the Argentine soul. Therefore, "presidential statements" on the matter should be taken as compromisses of the office.

However, most of the Argentines think that the push of 1982 was unnecessary and it affected maybe for ever any kind of negotiation. But at the same time they will continue discussing the matter and trying to recover the islands forever and ever by peaceful means, "manu military" was never a serious possibility and the story proved it, it took a "crazy two" ( Anaya and Galtieri. and a complacent Lami Dozo that had to compromise his force to battle the British task force with little and perhaps no warning at all) for that to happen.


In any case, one day there will be some progress, hopefully.......

Pánzon.

Lone Ranger
04-11-2008, 03:43 PM
Panzon,

No offence but there'll never be any progress whilst Argentina pursues a policy of riding on the backs of the islanders at any opportunity it gets. Your Government's policy is antagonistic and counter-productive.

Firefly
04-13-2008, 05:22 AM
I still cant understand why Argentina can claim to want to recover something it never owned?

Rising Sun*
04-13-2008, 05:48 AM
I still cant understand why Argentina can claim to want to recover something it never owned?

Perhaps it's like George Mallory and Everest: Because it's there.

And the more they can't climb it, the more they want to.

There's not a lot of rationality in most extra-national or extra-racial territorial ambitions by any nation. Just territorial ambitions.

Rising Sun*
04-13-2008, 06:12 AM
I still cant understand why Argentina can claim to want to recover something it never owned?

Like many other parts of the globe, territorial disputation has been a popular pastime in Latin America.

Argentina has been prominent in such disputes but these have generally been resolved by agreement or arbitration, which makes the Falklands ambitions and war even more aberrant. http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks27/chap2_27.html

Rising Sun*
04-15-2008, 06:38 AM
It's interesting to compare current strong nationalistic views about the Falklands War, such as PK expresses, with contemporary reports which were more in the nature of sweeping the event, and the poor Argentinians who fought in it, under the carpet.


THE FALKLAND SOLDIERS: ARGENTINA FORGETS QUICKLY
By EDWARD SCHUMACHER, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: August 13, 1982

Two months after Argentine forces surrendered to the British on the Falkland Islands, this nation appears to have all but forgotten its nearly 11,000 war veterans.

It has done little to eulogize its 600 dead or console its 1,300 wounded. There have been no medals awarded to any survivors. Few veterans' benefits are available. And the army is still studying the matter of compensating those who suffered crippling wounds.

The psychological effects on many of the soldiers, most of whom were teen-agers drafted for the cause, have been apparent since the day they came home from the 10-week war, according to psychiatrists. Parallels to Vietnam

The psychiatrists say they have detected parallels in the reception received by United States veterans of the Vietnam War, but have found that the Argentine experience is worse in many ways. This country is smaller, the war was closer, and the cause, however brief, was more nationally heartfelt.

''Instead of being received as heroes, they are told the defeat was their fault,'' Humberto Mesones, a psychiatrist doing volunteer work in military hospitals, said in an interview.

''It helped that this war did not last so long,'' he added. Democratic and Undemocratic

The draft here is democratic, an honest lottery, but the assignments afterward are not. Many of the white sons of the middle class draw office jobs. But most of the fighting men for the Falkland war were one-year conscripts from poor and working-class families. Many came from the provinces, their dark, straight hair and wide cheekbones revealing their Indian ancestry.

Without a war tradition to draw on -the Falklands was Argentina's first war in this century - many of the young men went not knowing what to expect and came back shellshocked and traumatized. Psychiatrists and parents report that many of the veterans are plagued by nightmares of British shelling and of comrades being killed or mutilated. One survivor of the torpedoed cruiser General Belgrano committed suicide.

The cold shoulder that the veterans have received has been part of the larger mood of a defeated country trying to forget the war altogether. Renewed concern about the economy, with its growing recession and triple-digit inflation, has replaced the Falklands, or the Malvinas as they are known here, as the subject overheard in buses, on elevators and along this city's busy cosmopolitan streets. 'They Feel Shame'

''People are not talking about the Malvinas and its consequences because they feel shame,'' former Foreign Minister Oscar Camilion said in an interview.

At a recent mass for the survivors, the officiating monsignor compared the ordeal of the Argentine prisoners-of-war following their surrender to the ordeal of Christ bearing the cross. The pews were half-empty. Only one television crew rattled around inside the church.

A navy officer, standing on the almost empty steps of the church after mass, shrugged wanly and said, ''It appears that we have been forgotten.''

There have been some small gestures of support. The City of Buenos Aires recently announced that veterans of the war would be exempt from city taxes for the next five years. The army also awarded a week's leave to each of the soldiers who fought on the Falklands.

But the lack of concern for the veterans is seen in many ways. There have been no hometown dances and ceremonial barbecues, for example. There is not one national war hero, not even among the daring pilots who fearlessly attacked Britain's superior fleet and sank six of its warships. Questions and Anger

Many Argentines contend they were misled by the military to expect victory. They question now whether the Government should not have been more conciliatory in negotiations with Britain in the early weeks of the crisis.

If there is any public emotion it is anger against the military, an anger enhanced by returning soldiers' tales of food and ammunition shortages and some cowardly officers.

A recent cover of Siete Dias, a popular weekly magazine, showed a dead Argentine soldier lying on the Falklands with his helmet on a stick beside him.

''Whose fault was it?'' the cover asked, showing in a small inset a picture of the Argentine commander on the islands, Brig. Gen. Mario Benjamin Menendez. General Defends Surrender

General Menendez, a soft-faced man of 52 years, has been mostly silent since returning as a war prisoner one month ago. He and a number of other senior officers who fought on the islands have been relieved of their posts. They have been put on standby while a commission of five generals conducts an inquiry into the war.

However, in recent army-approved interviews with Argentina's three leading weekly general-interest magazines, the defeated general praised the British commanders and defended his own actions.

He declined to discuss tactics but said he had made the decision to surrender on his own, without consulting Buenos Aires. He also said that he remained convinced it was the right decision and that he did not feel a sense of guilt or a slur on his professional capacity. 'Tell Me What We Did Wrong'

But for all the general's apparent certainties about what happened and why, many of the conscripts remain confused and anguished. ''Nobody has explained to us why we lost,'' Juan Guerrera, an 18-year-old who fought on the islands with the air force, recently told Argentine reporters.

''I think they should tell me what happened. Maybe I was a bad soldier. I don't know. But I need somebody to tell me what we did wrong.''



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E05E2DF1E39F930A2575BC0A964948260

Rising Sun*
04-15-2008, 07:04 AM
Something often overlooked is:


The Falklands War was not only legal and just, it also had positive consequences for the people of Argentina. The defeat of the invaders hastened the fall of Galtieri and his brutal military junta and paved the way for the return of democracy and the rule of law. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21486074-7583,00.html

It's curious that nowadays some of those given liberty by the fall of the junta won't allow the same liberty to the Islanders, but are determined to subject them to a dictatorial takeover reminiscent of the junta.

Pánzon
04-15-2008, 08:23 AM
It's curious that nowadays some of those given liberty by the fall of the junta won't allow the same liberty to the Islanders, but are determined to subject them to a dictatorial takeover reminiscent of the junta.

Just wanted to say that the "Nation" of Islanders are about a couple of thousands..... not enough to fill a high school auditorium...... considerably less than the once inhabitants of the Diego García group of islands.

Those very few Islanders have also "benefitted" a lot since the war........ they have become 1st class citizens of the UK, they use Sterling, not a local currency as until 1982, they got an international airport, the business derived from the garrison...... they pressed for and they got their own "fisheries" backed by the RN........

And many thanks for getting Argentina from the Generals, I thought it was mainly due to the blood of countless Argentines that fought them for years..... Yes, the defeat helped, but the inmediate retreat to "winter quarters" was long into the boiling..... finaly, democracy won.

The Islanders have the freedom of ....... remain British...... as many British live happily in Buenos Aires and the mainland......... they may want to become Argentine?, no problem, Argentina already considers them Argentines by born ( ius solis ) Do they want double nationality, you are welcome.....

All their rights would be respected, believe me.... Argentines considers them well, even if you do not believe me.................. their propperties rights will be respected and I am sure they would have as much autonomy as possible...

But they want to be a 2,000 inhabitants independent country? Gulp! With an ongoing dispute over the sovereignty of the islands more than a century and a half old?

I do not think things would change that much for the islands........... maybe they will double the population?........... there is plenty of space....... and they will have the emotion of being serious candidates fo the FIFA world cup every 4 years !:D

Argentina would treat their "lost sisters" as a sanctuary, I am sure.......sorry, more than sure.

So, all the aforementioned was posted in the best of faiths and sincerily.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

Rising Sun*
04-15-2008, 08:29 AM
Just wanted to say that the "Nation" of Islanders are about a couple of thousands..... not enough to fill a high school auditorium...... considerably less than the once inhabitants of the Diego García group of islands.

Those very few Islanders have also "benefitted" a lot since the war........ they have become 1st class citizens of the UK, they use Sterling, not a local currency as until 1982, they got an international airport, the business derived from the garrison...... they pressed for and they got their own "fisheries" backed by the RN........

And many thanks for getting Argentina from the Generals, I thought it was mainly due to the blood of countless Argentines that fought them for years..... Yes, the defeat helped, but the inmediate retreat to "winter quarters" was long into the boiling..... finaly, democracy won.

The Islanders have the freedom of ....... remain British...... as many British live happily in Buenos Aires and the mainland......... they may want to become Argentine?, no problem, Argentina already considers them Argentines by born ( ius solis ) Do they want double nationality, you are welcome.....

All their rights would be respected, believe me.... Argentines considers them well, even if you do not believe me.................. their propperties rights will be respected and I am sure they would have as much autonomy as possible...

But they want to be a 2,000 inhabitants independent country? Gulp! With an ongoing dispute over the sovereignty of the islands more than a century and a half old?

I do not think things would change that much for the islands........... maybe they will double the population?........... there is plenty of space....... and they will have the emotion of being serious candidates fo the FIFA world cup every 4 years !:D

Argentina would treat their "lost sisters" as a sanctuary, I am sure.......sorry, more than sure.

So, all the aforementioned was posted in the best of faiths and sincerily.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

I don't doubt or dispute your sincerity in anything you've said.

But the reality for the Islanders the last time Argentina occupied their land was rather different.

I never said the Islands were a nation. Although given some of the joke 'nations' admitted to the UN, they could just about qualify. If the sheep were counted, they'd be in for sure. :D

Pánzon
04-15-2008, 01:41 PM
Hi Rising Sun,


But the reality for the Islanders the last time Argentina occupied their land was rather different.

Did not agree a while ago that it was mainly a "gentlemen war".... that the most heard from the Islander was complaints that some Argentine troops "shitted in they barns"?

So.......... what is the "reality for the Islanders" last time Argentina was sovereign there? Anybody raped? Somebody is "missing" from their records? I heard that even when they sacrificed a lamb or two, they paid the owners. And no "Argie SS" roaming around.........

How does it compare to Churchill´s invention in the Boer Wars of the "concentration camps". where all Boers were confined for the duration of the conflict to avoid them replenishing or supporting the Boer troops in the "veld"? Or pass information? I say this without the purpose to offend..... but..... the Argentine soldiers were as far as I know little less than gentlemen......

It is incredible how the Islanders remember those excretions in the barn and not the Landing strip, the gas instalations and all the "shows of goodwill" that Argentina was offering them for years before the conflict? In a way exercising the duties that their "sovereign nation" was not fulfilling?

For decades, perhaps more than a century, the only way for an Islander to have surgery was to fly to Argentina........ Now they have "new brothers" in Chile.

Cheers to all,

Pánzon.

Lone Ranger
04-15-2008, 02:47 PM
A couple of points Panzon.

The relationship with the islanders was not entirely benevolent. The activities of your Major Patricio Dowling for one, I know he was sent home in disgrace thanks to the actions of Carlos Bloomer-Reeve but it still happened. Bloomer-Reeve had to rebuke Dowling for clubbing a man to the ground for no reason.

Your forces also expelled islanders simply because they had spoken out against Argentina; Bill Luxton and his entire family were unceremoniously deported and dumped on the British consulate. When that proved internationally embarrassing your forces resorted to internal exile in West Falkland. Then there is the case of Goose Green where all of the islanders were herded into the recreation hall and imprisoned for weeks without adequate provision for food, water, blankets or sanitation.

You know the Falklands are a small community and this does get around and they have long memories.

Secondly, the population of the Falklands is completely immaterial to the question (which btw is about double what you wrote). They've been there a long time, some of them predating the British Return in 1833 as, contrary to Argentine propaganda, Vernet's settlers were not expelled from the islands. They do get to have a say in their own future and I'm sorry but the way you airily dismiss their views is part of the problem.

And you fail to recognise that they have developed a distinctly different culture that is totally unlike that of Argentina. Apart from anything else, why would they wish to swap the stability of the British economy for the turbulence of the Argentine one. Furthermore would you allow them to keep their fishing income, or would that be swallowed by the Argentine Government?

You also insist that you would respect their rights and their property. Yet as part of its sovereignty claim Argentina asserts that they have no rights. Seemingly you can't see the contradiction in those two statements.

You also talked about the airstrip and the oil supplies brought about by the communications agreement. Well the airstrip was actually paid for by Britain for a start. The whole idea of the Communications Agreement was to bring the islanders and Argentina closer together.

You're also wrong about always being dependent upon Argentina. Historically, the Falklands were always close to Uruguay thanks to the activities of Samuel Fisher Lafone in the mid-1800s. The communications agreement cut that link

So yes, Argentina may have been friendly up to a point in the '70s, you forget that your navy fired on an unarmed British survey ship in 1976. You forget that was a conspiracy between the FCO and Argentina to create a situation where the British could get rid of the islands. The war has created a situation where the islanders want absolutely nothing to do with Argentina and the activities of the Argentine Government only serve to antagonise them further.

Di Tella's approach to the islander may seem to have been a bit naive to some but in truth it went far further toward a rapprochement than the hawkish comments by Tianna and Kirschner, or more recently by your current president.

Finally, to be frank Panzon, Argentina's claim to the Falklands is none existent. Someone familiar with the history can pick it to pieces in a matter of minutes. Rather it has become a cause celebre that is very convenient for uniting the Argentine population as only the "Malvinas" and football can. Its more useful to maintain the status quo than it is to truly solve the problem. I notice in your posting that, sadly even you who I regard as quite sensible, blame the islander, when in fact it is Argentina that is the architect of its own misfortune on this issue.

royal744
08-30-2013, 07:26 PM
I think on that exact reason that allowed the USA to be independent from Britain, but at the same time the Phillipines are not allowed to be independent from USA:)

What nonsense! The Philippines are independent, LOL. They were only a US possession for about 50 years. I expect better from you Chevan.

royal744
08-31-2013, 11:20 AM
Yes.

You should.

When did the French ever fight for English interests?

Giving it back is the least they could do for England saving them in WWI and WWII. :D

Geez. But then, what should the English give the French in exchange for the French divisions that sacrificed themselves in front of Dunquerque allowing the British to escape? And on and on and on...