reply to post by theubermensch
Wow. The world is openly forming two teams.
Rebels vs Imperialists.
And who are the Imperialists here?
The nation protecting and defending a people's inalienable Right to Self-Determination or a country and it's allies that wants to impose it's rule on
a territory it has no legal, moral or historic right to and in contravention of the UN Charter?
reply to post by PrecogPsychicSensitive
let the UN deal with it... you seem to like UN justice most of the time.
The Right to Self-Determination, is that such an alien concept to someone from 'the land of the free'?
Or is 'freedom' only applicable for those that agree with you and your narrow minded view of the world?
Oh really??? Like the English claimed Australia, killed the Aborigines, then stole their land??? How many other countries have England done this
Slightly inaccurate and a bit rich coming from an American!
As much as I depise the UN.. maybe they should sort it out?
Yes, I agree.
As laid out in the UN Charter
reply to post by woodwardjnr
The UN CharterIn 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942
twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at
the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.
Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR). Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
my friend, calm down - no-one is going to war over this.
Kirchner and now Chavez are simply mouthing predictable soundbites to deflect from their domestic failings and to boost their international
The Argentinian Air Force wouldn't get off the ground and their Navy would be obliterated as soon as they left port.
They know that and we know that.
Any escalation, if at all possible, would be met in kind.
It's nothing but political rhetoric and maneuvering.
The only people who are going to miss out and suffer just to feed politicians ego's and ambitions will be the ordinary Argentinian people.
reply to post by mkgandhas
It was time that the world community said enough and demanded that the british monarchy return the stolen islands to the democratic govt of
Zzzzzzz.....same old hatred and nonsense.
It has nothing to do with 'the british monarchy' who are a complete irrelevance and who have nothing to do other than ceremonial duties in the
governing of the UK or it's Overseas Territories.
And how can something be 'stolen' from someone who never owned it?
reply to post by starchild10
I think we should do a deal with Argentina but building in some sort of protection for those who want to remain.
What, like offer Argentina a full share of the oil development in The Falklands area despite them having no legal claim whatsover?
This would provide a massive boost to the Argentinian economy etc, boosted Argentinian profile on the world stage and greatly improved relations
between Argentina and The UK and The Falklanders themselves.
That's right, we did that but Kirchner turned down that very generous offer.
edit on 6/2/12 by Freeborn because: typo's etc