As soon as the OAS becomes even slightly relevent to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I’m sure the vote will effect our stance…
Why are you so keen to have a couple of islands where none of the residents want you?
I see Argentina continues with their “charm” offensive and then they wonder why the Islanders tell them to “get stuffed”.
You know the Islanders might wish to have closer relationships with South America if perhaps they were allowed to have any sort of relationship with the OAS. But since the OAS refuses to recognise them as Argentina would fling its rattle from the pram probably not.
The Islanders aren’t even allowed to compete in the South American games, well not exactly true, they could if they competed as Argentines but as thats known to be unacceptable to them it amounts to the same thing.
You really don’t get it.
My intention with the last post is to show that Argentina is not alone in his legitime claim.
Why are you so keen to have a couple of islands where none of the residents want you?
I have a better and more modern example of a military involved in a conflict far more bloody and complicated than the 1982 war, in a country that none of the residents like him and with no solution in the near future, even more that military is not commanded by a dictatorial “junta” but for a democracy ( even there is still some blue blood people in that country)…but for respect to the people who is fighting there (several of them members of this forum) I will not mention further details.
I see Argentina continues with their “charm” offensive and then they wonder why the Islanders tell them to “get stuffed”.
Always better than a bombing offensive.
this is amazing … but true ,Panzerknacker
I/m supporting the respect to the members of our forum ( who is fighting in Iraq) but nevertheless i have to say the British involvement in this pro-Israel adventure is more then disputable then the Argentinians claims for the Falklands;)
This is pure dual standarts to blame the " Argentinian junta" for the couple pitiful islands and at the same time participate in the full scale war agression ( for the alien interests) the whole country.
Just IMO
Always better than a bombing offensive.
But sometimes the bombing offensive ( that could kill a handreds thousands civil peoples ) could safe the millions?
Don’t you understand it already?
The difference is that we don’t want to own Iraq… surely that is obvious?
The ones I met were pretty happy to see us.
So why did you come in Iraq?
May y be you wish the “own oil fields” in Iraq;)?
If serious i/m sorry for the Britains who was simply deceived by the biased mass media histeria and “CIA datas” but … i readed somewhere about british average IQ ( it was one the highest in the Europe and more then in USA) so i think you should think before believe something, right;)
Just kidding…
Of course you don’t. Who in sane mind would want such responsibility!
You will laugh sir but when nazy come to the Ukraine they at the first moment also saw the “happy faces”. And when the Red Army “liberated” the Eastern Europe they also saw the mostly “happy peoples”.
Do you know what this means for them indeed;)
I think the problem of Washington strategy to “install the democraty by the wearpon” is not the best shoice for the Iraq peoples who belong the other specific religion and ancient culture.
Even the most richest arabian states like Saudi do not chosed the western democraty model. So it silly to demand it from the poorest Iraq IMO.
This is conflict of civilisations but question is … have we the right to determine what is better for them?
Cheers.
I’m sorry, did I miss Britain declaring any part of the Iraq British territory? Did I miss our setting up a permanent colonial administration, and declaring that we would occupy it militarily permanently?
Chevan, do you know what an absolute monarchy is? Royal families in absolute monarchies tend to choose for absolute monarchies, so your argument is like “Germany didn’t choose for a democracy between 1933 and 1945” (although, having voted for Hitler, this argument is stronger than yours about Saudi, although after the “enabling act” it was only Hitler who did any choosing).
Just do not misundertand me MoS.
I did not wish to touch your national feelings. It is not my point.
But to your questions … i think you should agree that the aims of coalition was to change the gov of Iraq by the military means,right? This is obvious fact , thus the whatever were the palns of occupation of Iraq for the long time or not is not such importain.
From the pure international law it was an agressive military offesive - the attempt to capture the independent state. May be for the oil , may be for defence of Isreal - does not matter.( i heared for instance the Bush promised the everybody who join the coalition the right for the development of the Iraq oil fields, for instance the Poles get a such promises)
So there is no any doubt thw agressive intentions toward the Iraq really were.
Chevan, do you know what an absolute monarchy is? Royal families in absolute monarchies tend to choose for absolute monarchies, so your argument is like “Germany didn’t choose for a democracy between 1933 and 1945” (although, having voted for Hitler, this argument is stronger than yours about Saudi, although after the “enabling act” it was only Hitler who did any choosing).
Really is the Nazy supporting in Germany a better agrument then my?
I/m doubt. The Germany was a part of Europe that was simply ill (temporary) by the Hitler.
So the liberation of Germans ( as European) was a real positive act( although very hard for us).
But from whom do you wish liiberate the Arab world sir?
Cheers.
Agreed, my friend. 
However, where is the evidence of sanity in anything to do with getting into Iraq?
Or, bearing in mind the thread topic, Argentina getting into the Falklands?
The German people voted for Adolf Hitler. Nobody voted for the house of Saud.
I’m sure if you organised a free and fair referendum in Saudi they would vote for a democracy over their current absolute monarchy.
Anyway, back on topic more or less: Argentina wants to directly rule the Falklands, in Iraq the coalition replaced an absolute dictatorship with a democracy and did not interfere with who could run for office (there were plenty of loony Islamist parties), or who could vote (the insurgents tried very hard to keep people at home though).
If it wasn’t for the insurgents, we might have been gone by now.
True they could vote for democraty free if… they forget about its past and religion.
Their past and presents is the monarchy - and it hold the oreder and peace intide the state. Does it like you or not - this is their choise.
Try to demolish it and you will get the situation like in Iraq- absolut anarhy and civils and religion war.
Anyway, back on topic more or less: Argentina wants to directly rule the Falklands, in Iraq the coalition replaced an absolute dictatorship with a democracy and did not interfere with who could run for office (there were plenty of loony Islamist parties), or who could vote (the insurgents tried very hard to keep people at home though).
The insugrements were not such succesfull if they have no the supporting among the people.
And this is not the “democraty” when the peoples died much more then during the “absolute dictatorship” - this is a pure anarchy.
Whetever you try to say as justification of this situation.
Cheers.
I’m not so sure.
It’s hard overnight to alter centuries of a particular culture that has no experience of democracy, and one where layered segments of society depend for maintenance of their current existence upon continuation of the current regime. There is also the significant factor that there are family, clan and tribal aspects in a country which operates on medieval principles, and which principles are the exact opposite of everything that underpins the individualistic bases of Western democracy.
It’d be rather like trying to convince the Japanese in 1940 to ditch the god emperor and institute democracy. It was just unthinkable.
But sometimes the bombing offensive ( that could kill a handreds thousands civil peoples ) could safe the millions?
Don’t you understand it already
Sorry Chev, but I am still unable to understand that :neutral:
The ones I met were pretty happy to see us.
Good for you,it dont seems to be the rule.
How many islanders were happy to see the Argentines?
I would wager that they could be counted on the fingers of less than one hand…
That’s exactly what i mean Rising Sun.
I/m too unable to understand it.
It was just irony
How would Argentinians respond to Chileans or Brazilians, or Falkland Islanders, having in their hearts that they are entitled to occupy and exploit Argentina, and taking steps to achieve it?
Doesn’t there come a time when reality overtakes emotional historical claims which deny to the FI people the same rights which Argentinians want for themselves?