Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Falkland again: Tory anger at Argentina 'blockade' of Falkland Islands
french stratege    2/17/2010 9:46:46 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/17/falkland-islands-oil-argentina-uk-sanctions http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251609/Argentina-blockade-Falkland-Islands-oil-rights-sparks-row.html
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
french stratege       2/17/2010 9:51:30 PM
 
Sabre-rattling over Malvinas oil serves a useful political purpose for Argentina's President Kirchner. But she's no Galtieri
  The Tories have called for Argentina's ambassador to be given a dressing down after Buenos Aires asserted control over the waters around the Falkland Islands.

The move would effectively grant it the power to blockade the British-ruled archipelago in an escalation of the row over the disputed territory.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, secretary of the all-party Parliamentary group on the Falklands, today called for Argentina's ambassador to be given a dressing down over the decree and told not to meddle in Falklands affairs.

He said: 'I hope the Foreign Secretary will call the Argentine ambassador in an tell them this is unacceptable behaviour.

'It is 28 years since the Falklands War and it has been made clear to Argentina that they have no say over the Falkland Islands or their territorial waters and they should not try to interfere with them.'

He added: 'Any attempt by Argentina to claim any sort of rights of sovereignty over that region is something we should take very seriously.

'I don't think we should appease Buenos Aires - we found out what happens last time.'
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Monroe Doctrine   2/17/2010 10:08:46 PM
Understand?

 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       2/18/2010 12:45:17 AM

Understand?

What about it?  When it comes to our British cousins we tend to turn a blind eye when they assert themselves in their colonies.  If anything we went against the Monroe Doctrine by actually helping the Brits take back the Falklands in 1982.  This hurt our standing with the Latin American countries, but we couldn't get away without taking sides so we chose to help the British retake the Falklands by supplying them with fuel, weapons, and materials.  If the Argies decided to reassert themselves and take back their "Malvinas" I seriously doubt we would stop the Brits from sending Her Majesty's Royal Navy across the Atlantic to kick them off again. 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       2/18/2010 6:21:16 PM



Understand?





What about it?  When it comes to our British cousins we tend to turn a blind eye when they assert themselves in their colonies.  If anything we went against the Monroe Doctrine by actually helping the Brits take back the Falklands in 1982.  This hurt our standing with the Latin American countries, but we couldn't get away without taking sides so we chose to help the British retake the Falklands by supplying them with fuel, weapons, and materials.  If the Argies decided to reassert themselves and take back their "Malvinas" I seriously doubt we would stop the Brits from sending Her Majesty's Royal Navy across the Atlantic to kick them off again. 
And what a correct decision to support us Brits that was.
 
How many South American countries have supplied troops to fight alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
What goes round, comes round.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/18/2010 8:30:13 PM
Falklands were empty and UK populated them.
They are British as isle of Man, or Polynesia or Guyana for French are as french than Provence.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Monroe Doctrine   2/18/2010 11:39:20 PM

Falklands were empty and UK populated them.

They are British as isle of Man, or Polynesia or Guyana for French are as french than Provence.


Means you have no say. It will be settled by the parties involved, including the US.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/19/2010 1:59:41 AM

Understand?






 
Bwahahahahaha!  Sheeyit, Hamilcar, you didn't think Frenchy wanted to HELP, did you?
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       2/19/2010 4:01:58 AM




Falklands were empty and UK populated them.



They are British as isle of Man, or Polynesia or Guyana for French are as french than Provence.






Means you have no say. It will be settled by the parties involved, including the US.

The Monroe Doctrine is utterly irrelevant as
1. It postdates European control and settlement of the island.  The Monroe Doctrine, even if it has relevance to Washington, explicitely states that its policy only refers to future European activities in Latin America not the status quo including a commitment to not interfere in existing European colonies.
 
2. The US commitment to stop a spread of European control in Latin America was balanced by a commitment by the US to not interfere in European conflicts.  This was breached long ago.
 
3. Territory is to be controlled by those who legitimately own it.  There are very robust arguments for why the current inhabitants of the Falklands are the legitimate owners.  If the United States wanted less European influence in South America it ought to have thought twice about destroying the Argentine settlement on the Falklands which enabled the British to reassert control there.
 
4. Those who legitimately own land have the right to determine the institutions that govern them.  This is clear from the US Declaration of Independence which in my view is the greatest political document of all time.
 
The current inhabitants' claim to the Falklands is far superior to that of anyone elses and the Argentine's need to leave them be. 
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Its a one way doctrine.   2/21/2010 1:16:27 AM









Falklands were empty and UK populated them.







They are British as isle of Man, or Polynesia or Guyana for French are as french than Provence.














Means you have no say. It will be settled by the parties involved, including the US.



The Monroe Doctrine is utterly irrelevant as


1. It postdates European control and settlement of the island.  The Monroe Doctrine, even if it has relevance to Washington, explicitely states that its policy only refers to future European activities in Latin America not the status quo including a commitment to not interfere in existing European colonies.

 

2. The US commitment to stop a spread of European control in Latin America was balanced by a commitment by the US to not interfere in European conflicts.  This was breached long ago.

 

3. Territory is to be controlled by those who legitimately own it.  There are very robust arguments for why the current inhabitants of the Falklands are the legitimate owners.  If the United States wanted less European influence in South America it ought to have thought twice about destroying the Argentine settlement on the Falklands which enabled the British to reassert control there.

 

4. Those who legitimately own land have the right to determine the institutions that govern them.  This is clear from the US Declaration of Independence which in my view is the greatest political document of all time.

 

The current inhabitants' claim to the Falklands is far superior to that of anyone elses and the Argentine's need to leave them be. 

 

 

 



 

Read.
 

The Monroe Doctrine

from President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:

At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburgh to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor, and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers....

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal, to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked, that the result has been, so far, very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly, in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere, we are, of necessity, more immediately

 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       2/22/2010 3:28:12 AM




The Monroe Doctrine is utterly irrelevant as






1. It postdates European control and settlement of the island.  The Monroe Doctrine, even if it has relevance to Washington, explicitely states that its policy only refers to future European activities in Latin America not the status quo including a commitment to not interfere in existing European colonies.


that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers....          ......With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.
 



2. The US commitment to stop a spread of European control in Latin America was balanced by a commitment by the US to not interfere in European conflicts.  This was breached long ago. 
 
 
..Breached in 1898



 

3. Territory is to be controlled by those who legitimately own it.  There are very robust arguments for why the current inhabitants of the Falklands are the legitimate owners.  If the United States wanted less European influence in South America it ought to have thought twice about destroying the Argentine settlement on the Falklands which enabled the British to reassert control there.
 
 
The United States has already explicitely acknowledged the superiority of the British claim by supporting the latter in their war against Argentina.  Hence, Washington itself has revealed the irrelevance of the Monroe Doctrine.



 

Read.
 
 
Already past tense prior to your citing.

 
   You need to remember that in real history  during the 19th Century the United States and Great Britain were enemies. 


 
   As opposed to 'unreal' history?  Who could forget the British burning Washington DC to the ground.
 
 

 

Sysops, this software formatting really stinks.

 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics