South American Trading Block (Mercosur) Agree to Block British Soverign Flagged Vessels into their P

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by newyorkee

 

USA has its mistakes and crimes.Let Ron Paul come he will clean up the mess.UK they mass murdered 1.8 billion people in India only.

Like I said, completely deluded and in a world of his own.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


You always make me laugh!

reply to post by michael1983l


Read the Monroe Doctrine.All of the Americas belongs to the USA.Not a piece to the colonial british.Secondly,Falklands has large reserves of oil 50-80 billion Barrels.Thus USA must liberate it from British oppression.

reply to post by Twiptwop


wow.....
so england and france has a claim to it over Argentinas natives......yes they are a mix of both European and natives....but really .....England on the other side of the globe has more right....makes more sense for them to have it.....over a country right next to it.....which all of the other countries on the continent agree has claim to it....

its just wrong.....you NEED to get technical and picky to overcome the logical conclusion.....enjoy your land and let others enjoy theirs.....unless you dont care....or are looking for YOUR peoples best interest....

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by newyorkee

 

Kind of the point though, no? This is one of the few cases around the world where there were NO natives. Therefore, under International Law, it really is a case "it's ours because we have a flag in it".

If the people the populate the Islands (from British stock) decide they wish to belong to Argentina then fine, that is their right. However, they don't - they wish to remain British.

Any other argument is really redundant against that.

And what percentage of Argentine population is of European decent.. about 88%.. so it's fine to replace one set of Europeans with another set of Europeans as long as you hate the first lot.

Originally posted by newyorkee
reply to post by Twiptwop

 

wow.....
so england and france has a claim to it over Argentinas natives......yes they are a mix of both European and natives....but really .....England on the other side of the globe has more right....makes more sense for them to have it.....over a country right next to it.....which all of the other countries on the continent agree has claim to it....

its just wrong.....you NEED to get technical and picky to overcome the logical conclusion.....enjoy your land and let others enjoy theirs.....unless you dont care....or are looking for YOUR peoples best interest....

What the # are you talking about? THE FALKLAND ISLANDS WERE UNINHABITED. EMPTY. DESOLATE. LIFELESS. NOT FILLED WITH ANY LIFE OTHER THAN PENGUINS before we arrived. Our people were the first there. There was no "natives".

When we found them, and populated them, ARGENTINA DID NOT EXIST AS A NATION. How can Argentina claim the Islands when they have never, ever been part of Argentina?

Still following me?

The people on those Islands are WHITE, they speak ENGLISH with BRITISH accents. I don't think there are even any Argies living on those islands. They want to be British. Not Argentinian.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003



A few things to bear in mind.

The Falklands had no natural inhabitants, they where barren deserted islands before the Europeans arrived

Argentina was inhabited before the Spanish arrived by the Tribes Of South America

Your country the USA was inhabited by The North American tribes

Your comments are hypocritical

Why don't you piss off and give The US back to it's natural inhabitants

Required reading:-

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Very good point but it basically is just a question of self determination. We all seem to agree that the people of a nation / land should decide what is best for themselves. Therefore we should respect the wishes of the islanders.

I can't see how any sane individual would argue with that to be honest.

You are also right though that it is really just some smoke and mirrors posturing and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by michael1983l

 

Read the Monroe Doctrine.All of the Americas belongs to the USA.Not a piece to the colonial british.Secondly,Falklands has large reserves of oil 50-80 billion Barrels.Thus USA must liberate it from British oppression.

Go for it then if that is how Americans feel..

We never quite finished the spat at the end of WW2, never has the Empirical baton passed from nation to nation without those nations fighting.. perhaps it is time to ensure we end this historical precedent.

reply to post by Twiptwop


yeah no people there sure.....so if you dont have people there you can just move on in even though its in someones territory....


and its the same policy as straight of gibraltar....and there were people there.....they just were replaced by English settlers

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by newyorkee
reply to post by Twiptwop

 

yeah no people there sure.....so if you dont have people there you can just move on in even though its in someones territory....


and its the same policy as straight of gibraltar....and there were people there.....they just were replaced by English settlers

Taken directly from en.wikipedia.org...

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans, but recent discoveries of arrowheads in Lafonia (on the southern half of East Falkland) as well as the remains of a wooden canoe provide strong evidence that they had been visited previously, most likely by the Yaghan people of Tierra del Fuego. It is not known if these are evidence of one-way journeys, but there is no known evidence of pre-Columbian buildings or structures.[citation needed] The islands had no native trees when discovered but there is some ambiguous evidence of past forestation, that may be due to wood being transported by oceanic currents from Patagonia. All modern trees have been introduced by Europeans.

The closest any natives came, was visiting. There were no pre-Colombian buildings. In other words, we found them, inhabited them with our own people, before Argentina existed, displaced no natives and otherwise minded our own business. The people there have been British longer than your people have been Americans.

Ignorant american fool. We even brought the damn trees. I feel sickened every time I think of the fact that you as a nation and people are culturally and historically attached to us.

Bon't worry, Prince William is set to be stationed there in the New year, so I imagine the Islands will be very well protected.

reply to post by Twiptwop


arrogant much.....rude to say the least...

its empire......dont try and justify it.....its dumb...
if there wasnt oil....you wouldnt be there....Argentinians would....why....because they are next to it.,....because it makes sense for them to be there,,,,,

Personally if it wasn't for all the oil, I'd give it back to Argentina..

2 Tours of the place has taught me one thing..

It's a god forsaken hell hole.. A couple of large rocks jutting out of the sea covered in peat bogs.. Not a tree in sight anywhere, rains and snows almost daily and has a constant 20kt wind that blows across it that comes straight from Antarctica. It puts your soldiering skills to the maximum test you really have to dig deep inside, when your wet and freezing for 6 months. Actually sat in the Falklands wishing I was in Iraq gettin shot at.. coz at least it's warm there.

And nothings more fun than navigating inbetween the many mine fields the Argies left in the freezing fog on patrol

Peace

Rock Ape

I know that not all Americans are uneducated about any geography or history ouside of the 600 years or so of the USA. But some of the ignorance by these people is unbelievable, I personally have stood by the USA over the years (even militarily) yet I find myself reading these comments and thinking # you america. Your foreign policy stinks and your people have such a self superiority complex that it makes me physically sick.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by newyorkee

 

USA has its mistakes and crimes.Let Ron Paul come he will clean up the mess.UK they mass murdered 1.8 billion people in India only.

Are you sure you got your facts right there. You haven't have you. Admit it your just anti British idiot.

sites.google.com...

It is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from dire deprivation under the British, notable atrocities including 10 million Indians butchered in reprisals for the 1857 uprising (see Amaresh Misra's book “ “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” –(Volume I -The Road to Delhi; & Volume II- The Long Revolution) ” : warofcivilisations.blogspot.com... ), the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1779 (that killed 10 million Bengalis, 1/3 of the population), 2 centuries of British-imposed famines that killed scores of millions, most notably in the latter half of the 19th century and culminating in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust, the man-made atrocity in which 6-7 million Indians in Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Orissa were deliberately starved to death by the British in the World War 2 Bengal Famine (see the transcript of the BBC broadcast “Bengal Famine” involving me, Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and other scholars: www.open2.net... ; see also Gideon Polya's book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”: globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com... ).
www.countercurrents.org...

newbritishempire.site11.com...

This is more evidence (if more evidence were wanted) of India “moving forward” (to quote the horrible contemporary Newspeak) after suffering 2 centuries of genocidal British rule in which avoidable deaths in India from British-imposed deprivation in the period 1757-1947 totaled 1.8 billion, an Indian Holocaust and an Indian Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. Using census and other estimates of Indian population in these periods, post-invasion excess deaths totaled 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; and 0.4 billion in 1901-1947; this being 1.5 billion in total and 1.8 billion victims if the carnage in the various royalty-ruled Indian British Protectorate States are included.
mwcnews.net...

You are the biggest mass murderers on the entire planet.

Madhusree Mukerjee systematically successively analyzes the background to the Bengali Holocaust in a prologue that deals with British India and the massive recurrent man-made famines, commencing with the 1769-1770 Bengal Famine in which 10 million people died due to British greed. Not quoted is Amaresh Misra’s book “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” that estimates that 10 million people died in British reprisals for the 1857 Indian rebellion. While the appalling famine history of British India is outlined the genocidal aspect is downplayed. Thus it can be estimated from British census and comparative mortality data that 1.8 billion Indians died prematurely less than 2 centuries of British rule. While Mukerjee makes clear the British economic exploitation of India, she downplays the reality that endemic poverty and hunger in India made it possible for a distant island of scores of millions to rule hundreds of millions of disempowered Indian subjects with the help of well-fed sepoys and other collaborators...
mwcnews.net...

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

Very good point but it basically is just a question of self determination. We all seem to agree that the people of a nation / land should decide what is best for themselves. Therefore we should respect the wishes of the islanders.

I can't see how any sane individual would argue with that to be honest.

You are also right though that it is really just some smoke and mirrors posturing and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Although I know it is just smoke and mirrors but I find myself passionate about the defence of the Islanders as it seems the world in general feels they have no right to self determination in the same way people demand it for other nations.

So instead of demanding the Islanders are free from British rule, and open the door to them becoming part of the South America community in the same way the European influence nations in South America have they either want to drive the islanders into the sea or kill them all.

It seems to me a lot of those who think like that also think the Palestinians should be a state free from aggression, while at the same time gleefully demanding the same aggression is imposed on the Islanders.

Originally posted by newyorkee
reply to post by Twiptwop

 

arrogant much.....rude to say the least...

its empire......dont try and justify it.....its dumb...
if there wasnt oil....you wouldnt be there....Argentinians would....why....because they are next to it.,....because it makes sense for them to be there,,,,,

Oh right, I see we populated it in the 1800s because we had a crystal ball which told us that we would locate oil in the 1970s and then finally get access to that oil in 2011. Besides the point that Britain will receive no tax return from this oil, the faulkland Islanders will. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story hey.