David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

by cofty 182 Replies latest social current

• 

  jamesmahon

  LMAS. Maybe it is the langauge barrier, but you have not articulated yourself at all on this. My viewpoint - as is I think is that of everyone else who has posted on this thread - is that the individuals on the Falklands, having been there all their lives, should have the right to self determination. If that is to have their islands under Argentine ownership, then so be it. I have no right to care less. You think that your rights as simply being born in Argentina (and it would be interesting to know if all your ancestors have been in Argentina as long as most of the Falkland Islanders have lived on the Falklands) to land 500 miles off your coast supercede the rights of the now indiginous population. That is selfish and despotic. If it is not going to make any difference to your life then what are you on here arguing about? Your perceived injustice at how diplomacy and land grabbing was done 200 years ago that has left you with a feeling of national shame. Perhaps you should start a new thread about how you want to give Patagonia back to the natives who were there first? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert.

  If you are going to liken 1833 to 1982 you should also bring in what had gone on previously. But it really does not matter one jot unless you really want to address every instance when a stronger military power staked a claim to land two hunder years ago that someone else thought they owned.

  It is irrational to have a queen and I would get rid of her tomorrow but that is another topic and completely irrelevant here.

  National pride is irrational - pride in the achievements of people from 100's of years ago is as daft as feeling guilt for what they did. Perhaps you would like to say why it is perfectly rational to have national pride? (although this is off topic I think)

  My apologies for using 'boilerplate logic' and snide remarks. How dare I try to look at this from any perspective but your own and use too many words to do that. Let's keep it brief and to the point then. Your national pride is irrelevant to the issue. The right for self determination for any population that so wishes trumps territorial claims of any country. You can't accept that Britain does not want the islands - they just want the islanders want the right to determine who governs them. You continually fail to address any of these points.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  jamesmahon – Then let’s keep it brief. My national pride is irrelevant to the issue. But you are the one who asked me what my motivations were. I didn’t think they were that relevant to the issue then. But you falsely accused me of not answering your question. Thus I explained my motivations. The points you claim I continually fail to address have never been directly asked of me, or they have been referenced to briefly. I was quite clear in the contention previously that the British wanted to get rid of the islands in the period from the 1960s to the early 1980s. If you remember, I mentioned Thatcher’s deputy Nicholas Ridley trying to sell the leaseback option without any luck. If you took the time to read what I wrote instead of jumping to your own conclusions, they this would have been answered for you. I also understand the concept of self-determination as Britain currently understands it. It is all about the islanders. Yup. Must I repeat myself in every posting? If you are serious about contributing to this discussion, perhaps more of a perfunctory read-through of its contents is in order for you.

  Unfortunately, you wanted to know why I felt this way, rather than comparing the two arguments and making your own choice. The fact that my father served in the war doesn’t make the Argentine claim any more valid. The fact that I sense a deep national embarrassment for what is to us a colonial relic doesn’t explain the heart of the issue either. You are the one who asked for it, asked again, and refused to accept my answer. If there is any language barrier, it’s with the one you speak natively. I answered your questions with varying levels of detail, but you already have made up your own conclusions. I could ask you what your motivations are for becoming so heated about this subject, but I, for my part, really don’t lose any sleep over what you might think or are motivated by.

  So you are saying that you have absolutely no national pride in your native country? I think you are confusing this with the extreme nationalism that was prevalent within the 20 th century. What exactly is wrong with being proud of the history and culture of your country? You call it irrational, and qualify this statement by limiting it to ‘100’s of years ago’. So we should only have pride in what is happening right now in this day and age? Who made you the arbiter of this standard? Why should I force myself to be subject to this standard that you say little about other than that it is ‘daft’?

  Your reference to giving Patagonia back is yet another evidence of pseudo-logic which is clearly designed to detract from the Malvinas dispute. That’s what this thread addressed, wasn’t it? If you want to start up such a thread, then you certainly have the right to. You certainly have no trouble having a conversation with someone you claim to be unable to have a conversation with. Weren’t you just leaving? Or are you staying? Make up your mind, then.
• 

  jamesmahon

  Great - if you agree that it is solely up to the Islanders themselves then my apologies for not reading through more of the threads. Glad we are all in agreement and no more need for these Falkland threads anymore. And yes I know you didn't start this one. I still - genuinely - do not have a clue what the heart of the issue is for you. I thought it was about national pride/embarrassment but you say not.

  It is my opinion that pride or shame in the actions of others that happened to live on the same patch of land I did before I was born is irrational. I am entitled that opinion. Happy to argue with you over the logic of my position. I never said I was forcing you to accept it. Think I will start that other thread.
• 

  Chariklo

  Your reference to giving Patagonia back is yet another evidence of pseudo-logic which is clearly designed to detract from the Malvinas dispute. That’s what this thread addressed, wasn’t it?

  I think you'll find that the thread began as a news item about David Cameron and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

  But then, in the month you've been here, we've seen you time and again falling back on ad hominem; the classic tactic of those in a weak position.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Splendid James, the best of luck to you on the other thread.

  The confrontation between Cameron and Fernandez is about the Malvinas dispute. What were they arguing over? Penguin rights?

  I find it difficult to accept an ad hominem accusation from the same person who was goading on and defending another poster who was bringing personal information as a method to embarrass me. Now that was ad hominem, and there wasn’t any attempt for a short period of time between the two of you to actually discuss facts. When the conversation wasn’t going quite the way you wanted, you openly longed for him to return to the discussion, ostensibly in order for him to continue to attack me personally. Ad hominem actually means that you attack the person in a personal manner rather than his/her words or the positions taken. I’ve dutifully answered all questions directed at me, and my dissents are detailed. The posters to me don’t matter, but their words do. There’s a huge difference in outlook. I don't take it personally. My heartrate doesn't climb, and I am a calm and measured person in real life. I enjoy discussing this subject not only to express my side of the dispute, but make up my own mind about the counter arguments presented.
• 

  slimboyfat

  If Argentina is primarily interested in the rights to oil and gas around the islands then I think they have a far stronger case there. They should concentrate on that issue and forget the absurd argument that Falklanders have no right to self-determination because of a two hundred year old document.

  The ironic thing is that it seems many in the British establishment were coming round to the idea of some staged hand over of the Falklands in recent years, even despite the war thirty years ago. But the posturing of the Argenitinian president has truly set that back. She is not doing her country any favours at all.

  If Argentinians imagine that the British people are eager to hold on to the Falklands and enjoy sticking it to the Argentinians then they are dead wrong. On the whole they'd probably rather divest themselves of the Falklands and were relatively close to doing so before 1982. The Argentinians have their own incompetent governments to blame for much of the fiasco.
• 

  soft+gentle

  I think both leaders are posturing - David Cameron only a little less than the Agentinian leader.

  Maybe we need a football match to settle the dispute. On second thoughts perhaps that would give the other side an unfair advantage
• 

  NomadSoul

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK2z5-cceP4&feature=fvwrel

  Soft+Gentle, it was settled already. Lol
• 

  soft+gentle

  I think you are right nomad soul
• 

  NomadSoul

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_v_England_(1986_FIFA_World_Cup)

  Argentina v England , played on 22 June 1986, was a football match between Argentina and England in the quarter-finals of the 1986 FIFA World Cup at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. The game was held four years after the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom and was a key part in the already intense football rivalry between both nations. It was also a match which included two of the most famous goals in football history, both scored by Diego Maradona . His first, after fifty-one minutes, was the infamous Hand of God goal, in which Maradona scored a goal by using his hand. His second, after fifty-four minutes, saw him dribble past six England players, Beardsley, Reid, Butcher, Fenwick, Butcher (again), and finally goalkeeper Peter Shilton. In 2002 this was voted Goal of the Century by FIFA.com voters. Argentina won the game 2–1 and went on to win the 1986 World Cup with a victory over West Germany in the final. Maradona won the golden ball for player of the tournament whilst England's goalscorer on the day, Gary Lineker , won the golden shoe for being the tournament's top scorer.