Foreign Office fury as Argentina allows thugs to smash up Falklands tour office and U.S. travel firm

[Bacchus4.0]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238033/Foreign-Office-fury-Argentina-allows-thugs-smash-Falklands-tour-office-U-S-travel-firm-cancels-holidays.html


..
Britain has accused Argentina of trying to ‘strangle’ the Falklands economy after it failed to stop a violent raid on a shipping office which handles cruises to the islands.
Two cruise ships cancelled scheduled stops at the islands last week, apparently as the result of the ransacking of the shipping agent’s office in Buenos Aires.
Police were nowhere to be seen as masked thugs wielding clubs smashed plate glass windows, scrawled graffiti and upturned dustbins in the Argentinian capital. No arrests were made.


----------
Former Welsh Guardsman Simon Weston OBE, who survived 49 per cent burns in the Sir Galahad attack in Bluff Cove in 1982, said: ‘This is sly and snidey economic warfare which is the only kind the Argentinian government can wage these days. This is the way she [Kirchner] operates. It’s just cheap and nasty politics from a cheap and nasty politician.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238033/Foreign-Office-fury-Argentina-allows-thugs-smash-Falklands-tour-office-U-S-travel-firm-cancels-holidays.html#ixzz2DwhyT1BV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238033/Foreign-Office-fury-Argentina-allows-thugs-smash-Falklands-tour-office-U-S-travel-firm-cancels-holidays.html#ixzz2DwhOIK1K
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[naaman fletcher]

1. im sure kirchner had nothing to do with it nt

[Bacchus4.0]

2. she's right on it no doubt n/t

s

[Peace Patriot]

3. From the Daily Crap Mail...

"Argentina allows thugs...".

Argentina "failed to stop a violent raid...".

"Police were nowhere to be seen...".

There is no evidence whatsoever that "Argentina" desired this thuggery, committed it, or knew of it beforehand and let it happen. There is no evidence whatsoever that the police had a clue that vandalism was about to happen and deliberately failed to show up and stop it. And, as to the police, who is "Argentina"? Police generally operate under local jurisdictions, answerable to, and taking their orders from, city, county or state officials--not the national government. I have no reason to believe that Argentina is different from most other countries in this respect. So, we are to understand that the president of Argentina, or some agent of the president, informed the local police to stand down as a local business was trashed? Where is the evidence of this? Where is there even the slightest indication that this might be true?

Crap news.

It is also suspicious that the article is accompanied by a photo of two masked men dumping trash at the door outside the cruise ship office, photo identified as "AP." Why didn't the Associated Pukes call the police? And how did the Associated Pukes happen to be there? This photo makes me think that we may be dealing with disinformation. Agents out to discredit Argentina's leftist president contrive the incident, call AP to make sure it gets news coverage, but, of course, don't notify the police that they are about to trash an office in a "false flag" op? Want to discredit the police, too, tie that (police not there) to the president, and wrap it all up in a neat package and deliver it to the Daily Crap?

It wouldn't surprise me.

I want to know what AP was doing there when the incident occurred. If they had a tip that vandalism was going to occur, and didn't tell the local police, are they not complicit in the vandalism? And if they got a tip that a mere protest was going to occur, would they not also check in with the police to find out if the police knew about it and what police plans were (standard journalism procedures)? And if they DIDN'T get a tip, how is it that they happened to be there to photograph the vandals dumping the trash at the office door?

I'm reminded of that infamous photo of the take-down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, early in the war on Iraq, in which it looks like a great crowd is venting their hatred of SH. This photo quickly went around the world as if to show that Iraqis were happy to be invaded. A wider angle photo on that incident showed that there were only a few people there and at least two of them were identified as known paid agents of the Pentagon who had just arrived from guess where...the USA. Too much of the corporate news is just disinformation--contrived incidents, phony experts, highly selective quotations, distortions, omissions and outright lies, designed to manipulate and brainwash the public for the benefit of the rich. And, of course, nothing in the OP article gives the slightest clue as what this dispute between the UK and Argentina is really all about: Argentina's off-shore oil.

[Bacchus4.0]

4. maybe the photo was provided to the AP by someone

You are aware that electronic photos are pretty common and often provided to the media?

In Latin America, the police force is often a federal entity including in the world's most perfect democracy.

Here is Wiki on the Argentinian police: In Argentina the most important law enforcement organization is the Argentine Federal Police (equivalent to the FBI in the USA) with jurisdiction in all the Argentine territory. Argentina is a Federal Republic divided into 23 provinces and one federal district, as a result of this most routine police work is carried out by the provincial police (equivalent to state police in the United States), with the exception of the capital city of Buenos Aires (the federal district), where the Argentine Federal Police also assumes the role of the local police.

The readers of the OP article are well aware what this dispute is all about: Argentina's desire to get at the Falklands'off shore oil.

I can't wait to hear your take on the referendum in March on the Falklands islands when they vote 95% that they are satisfied with being a self governing British territory.

[Peace Patriot]

5. DID AP get the photo from someone or were they there? They don't say.

It's rather an important point on which AP is mum.

I'll grant you your point about the policing of Buenos Aires. I didn't know that (that they are federal police.) But DID the president of the country tell them to stand down? The article alleges this with NO EVIDENCE. Argentina "failed" to stop it. Argentina (the president, the government) "allowed" it to happen. That is a scurrilous accusation for which NO EVIDENCE is presented or even alluded to.

And the Daily Mail picking it up reinforces my suspicion that it was a contrived incident.

I gotta laugh at your point 4, that Argentina wants the Falklands' oil. You don't think the UK wants Argentina's oil? Biggest "coalition" partner of the Bush Junta's war on Iraq?! Tiny island country with almost no oil of its own, that has been messing with the Middle East for a hundred years to get THEIR oil? Yup, oil is BIG issue...for England.

This is a propaganda piece for British imperial nationalism. It says nothing about how the British monarchy acquired "the Falklands" nor about how few island residents are involved (600 families over a huge land area--too small a group to qualify for nation status, according to UN guidelines). It says nothing about the extensive British military presence, which, allied with the U.S., poses a threat to all South American countries. It says nothing about the possible influence that British military presence may have on the small island colony ("Stockholm Syndrome"?). The Crown has been manipulating this colony from day one, and now they are dependent on England. It wouldn't surprise me if they vote to remain a British territory. But, while I DON'T think that such a vote will achieve justice or security for Argentina, I support whatever solution the UN comes up with, so long as it has been fairly devised and arranged. We really don't have much choice in that regard. The UN is all we've got to broker disputes like this and keep the peace.

I hope that there will be an accompanying agreement that includes compensation to Argentina for any English encroachment on their off-shore oil reserves, a permanent settlement about control of the oil reserves (who owns what) and a standdown of military forces on both sides. Argentina was guilty of invading the Falklands back in the Reagan-Thatcher yahoo days. That was an action of the horrible U.S.-backed Pinochet dictatorship, not of the current democratically elected leadership of Argentina. The current leadership--President Cristina Fernandez and her government--will not invade the Falklands, but they do have serious grievances, including Argentina's original claim to the islands (back when they had just won their independence and were just forming Argentina's first government, the British Navy kicked a small Argentine community out and installed British settlers), British encroachment on Argentina's off-shore oil reserves and the big British military presence in the South Atlantic, based in the Falklands.

When the Bush Junta re-constituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (mothballed since WW II), Brazil's president stated that this was "a threat to Brazil's oil." That is how South Americans feel about U.S. and U.K. militaries roaming around their coastlines. It is a reasonable fear, in view of what the U.K. and the U.S. did to Iraq. That is a major reason why most of Latin America supports Argentina in this dispute.

This dispute is occurring amidst a much bigger struggle, northern hemisphere vs. southern hemisphere--the U.S., Canada and the U.K., with the EU sometimes involved, sometimes not, vs. the Latin American countries that they have been egregiously exploiting for half a century, from installing bloody dictatorships to inflicting them with ruinous World Bank/IMF loans. The southern hemisphere, especially South America, is in rebellion against this domination. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is part of this huge, historic, region-wide rebellion and it very much needs to be seen in this context, and ALL fears allayed in the course of resolving the dispute. A mere vote of the island colony can't do that. It has to involve much more--Argentina's and South America's underlying grievances and fears.

I just want to say a word about Argentina's boycott of the Falklands--this cruise ship business. Argentina has every right to control its trade, in whatever ways that its democratically elected government decides and for whatever reasons. Every country in the world holds that right, legally. It is a very big part of what governments do--regulate trade. It's certainly ironic that the U.K.'s biggest ally, the U.S., is doing to Cuba what the U.K. is complaining about Argentina doing to the Falklands--a secondary boycott, that is, if a ship stops at the Falklands, it can't come to Argentina. If a ship stops in Cuba, even for just a small bit of trade goods, it is banned from U.S. ports, no matter what flag the ship is sailing under, no matter its origins and no matter that the bulk of its trade is somewhere else. I rather think that this is Cristina Fernandez's point--do this to Cuba and we'll do it to the Falklands. (That is something else that Latin America is united about--recognizing and trading with Cuba.)

This is a sovereignty issue--and the Falklanders are just going to have to live with it, if they remain a British territory and Argentina chooses not to trade with them. They can appeal to the tender mercies of the British moneyed class to help them out, if they're so broke by a few cruise ships not arriving. I get the feeling we're being royally conned, though, not only about President Fernandez's "thuggery" but also with its portrayal of the islanders as poor, helpless little sheep-herders that she is beating up on.

[Bacchus4.0]

6. wow, where to begin?

well, it wouldn't suprise me one bit if those thugs WERE the police or government officials.

Contact AP on their sources if you are interested.

1. The British laid claim to the islands prior to Argentina even existing as a country
2. Considering Argentina's past agression, British military presence is justified. they have a base of about 1200 soldiers. Info is just a google search away
3. They will vote to remain British and justice and security for Argentina is irrelevant. They are worried about justice and security for themselves.
4. The island can hold its own referendum without interference from the UN. Its not up to the UN.
5. Pinochet was Chilean not Argentine
6. Falklanders are not going to vote based on Latin American countries grievances against the US. The vote has nothing to do with the US.
7. The UK does not have an embargo against Cuba
8. The islanders are not poor starving sheep herders. Ever SINCE the war they have developed tremendously thanks to selling of fishing concessions in their waters.
9. Yes, from Argentina's perspective its all about the oil, they want it.

[Peace Patriot]

8. A discussion of your points...

1. The British laid claim to the islands prior to Argentina even existing as a country

Not true. The British landed colonists on the islands just as Argentina was forming its first independent government, and was deliberately taking advantage of the turmoil of the revolution against Spain to extend its imperial borders thousands of miles from England in the South Atlantic.

---

In 1820, newly-independent Argentina claimed sovereignty, and later founded a settlement. Britain established control over the islands in 1833 in support of its own earlier claim to sovereignty, and expelled the Argentine garrison. Most Argentine settlers left gradually thereafter. The Britons who then settled came to make up the islands' first permanent population.

Argentina continued to press its claim to the islands, which intensified in the 1960s. In 1965 the UN designated the territory as a "colonial problem" and called on both countries to negotiate a solution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/4087743.stm

---


2. Considering Argentina's past agression, British military presence is justified. they have a base of about 1200 soldiers. Info is just a google search away

Argentina's past aggression was committed by a horrible U.S.-funded, trained, backed military junta, not by the present democratically elected government. Peace is the hallmark of the leftist democracy revolution in South America. Cristina Fernandez, like her husband (prior president) Nestor Kirchner, is closely allied with all the other leftist leaders of this political revolution, and none of them would countenance another such invasion, nor would Fernandez ever do such a thing or ask them to support it. The British government is after the oil. It takes a whole lot of oil to fuel their navy and their horrid participation in U.S. wars. Who has the Kirchner or Fernandez governments invaded? No one. Who has the U.K. invaded? Iraq. Afghanistan. Who is aggressive? There is NO justification for the U.K. military presence in the Falklands. They should never have grabbed the Falklands from Argentina to begin with, and they should have pulled out long ago, when democracy was established in Argentina, with a peaceful agreement on the oil reserves and other matters. They are the ones that are not to be trusted NOW.


3. They will vote to remain British and justice and security for Argentina is irrelevant. They are worried about justice and security for themselves.

What a stupid remark--that "justice and security for Argentina is irrelevant"! It is certainly not irrelevant. It is central to resolution of this conflict and to the welfare of the entire region. That's like saying that justice and security for Egyptians is irrelevant to Israel. Peoples and states exist in a CONTEXT. Endless care and painstaking diplomacy are required to keep regions stable and to promote the common welfare. Every issue imaginable arises and needs to be negotiated between peoples and states--passports, fishing rights, immigration, military and civilian communications, access to and ownership of resources, import/export rules, travel, port access, airport rules, borders, environmental concerns and on and on. This is REALITY, not some rightwing fantasy of "We've got ours and to hell with you!"


4. The island can hold its own referendum without interference from the UN. Its not up to the UN.

Yeah, they can do that and get boycotted. Good luck to 'em. OR the Falklanders and their masters in London can engage in diplomacy and negotiation, with the UN as the only entity capable of being an "honest broker" in difficult disputes involving nations. Really, it's the British who are being thugs. They want to TAKE the oil, just like they did in Iraq--and they are using these 600 families as their ready excuse to edge further and further into Argentine waters.


5. Pinochet was Chilean not Argentine

Oops! My bad! Was reading about both; my brain wires crossed. Argentina was run by a horrible, U.S.-backed military junta headed by Leopoldo Galtieri during the Argentine invasion of the Falklands.

The U.S., under Nixon, Ford and later Reagan, backed the military juntas in Argentina and encouraged murder, torture and other repression, with training, political support, "dirty war" ops and massive military aid.

---

Central Intelligence Agency documents released in 2002 show that Argentina's brutal policies were known and tolerated by the United States State Department, led by Henry Kissinger under Gerald Ford's presidency, and that the Argentine military knew the U.S. supported the repression.[162]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

---

President Carter tried to stop U.S. support for these horrible juntas, then...

---

The Reagan Administration... reversed the (Carter) administration's official condemnation of the junta's human rights practices. The re-establishment of diplomatic ties allowed for CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service in training and arming the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinista government. The 601 Intelligence Battalion, for example, trained Contras at Lepaterique base, in Honduras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

---

Here's an interesting example of the CIA/LatAm fascists' false flag ops during "Operation Condor" in Argentina--they planned a kidnapping and then blamed it on an entirely made-up communist group. This is very typical of the methods used by the CIA and fascist forces in Argentina and Latin America, to discredit leftist groups and advocates of the poor. We have seen these methods used by fascists time and again in Latin America. Was this vandal attack on the cruise ship office (the OP) a similar false flag op to discredit Argentina's leftist president? That is a very distinct possibility.

---

False flag actions by SIDE agents

During a 1981 interview whose contents were revealed by documents declassified by the CIA in 2000, former CIA and DINA agent Michael Townley explained that Ignacio Novo Sampol, member of CORU anti-Castro organization, had agreed to commit the Cuban Nationalist Movement in the kidnapping, in Buenos Aires, of a president of a Dutch bank. The abduction, organized by civilian SIDE agents, the Argentine intelligence agency, was to obtain a ransom. Townley said that Novo Sampol had provided $6,000 from the Cuban Nationalist Movement, forwarded to the civilian SIDE agents to pay for the preparation expenses of the kidnapping. After returning to the US, Novo Sampol sent Townley a stock of paper, used to print pamphlets in the name of "Grupo Rojo" (Red Group), an imaginary Argentine Marxist terrorist organization, which was to claim credit for the abduction of the Dutch banker. Townley declared that the pamphlets were distributed in Mendoza and Córdoba in relation with false flag bombings perpetrated by SIDE agents, which had as aim to accredit the existence of the fake Grupo Rojo. However, the SIDE agents procrastinated too much, and the kidnapping finally was not carried out.[108]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

---


6. Falklanders are not going to vote based on Latin American countries grievances against the US. The vote has nothing to do with the US.

"The vote has nothing to do with the US."? Wrong again. It has everything to do with the U.S./U.K. aggression alliance, their mutual behavior as imperial entities ("might makes right"--to hell with the UN and international law) and Latin America's fears and concerns. The UK has decided to LIMIT the vote and all discussion to what 3,000 people want, ignoring millions of others, but that does not make the millions of others and their concerns go away.

Latin Americans are extremely concerned about their own sovereignty WITH VERY GOOD REASON. The U.S. has been the worst violator of Latin American sovereignty in the modern era. And the U.S. is not just allied with the U.K.; it has been deeply collusive with the U.K. on the invasion of other countries, directly, by war, very recently, and by economic "hit men" working for the transglobal banksters and corporations that have been spawned by the U.S. and the U.K. moneyed classes (and, to some extent, the EU).

Falklanders may stick their heads in the sand and refuse to grasp what is happening in Latin America and cozy up to their distant Big Brother and its military but they have to live in the WORLD, and in the South Atlantic, not far from the coast of South America. You don't know, and I don't know, what they may base their vote on. (What--did you poll them?) Nor does anybody know what legal legitimacy any vote they hold on this matter will have, if it is NOT monitored by the UN, nor their viability as a "territory" of the U.K. in complete isolation from their nearest neighbors. For a friendly, amicable solution in the interest of all parties, diplomacy and negotiations are absolutely essential. They can vote all they want, but if the justice and security concerns of Argentina are not addressed, they will continue to be boycotted by the entire continent of South America, and probably by Central America as well. Is that a solution? It is not.


7. The UK does not have an embargo against Cuba

Right, no direct embargo--but under Blair, as a consequence of Blair's love of Bush's wars, a significant reduction of trade with Cuba and other hardline, Bushwhack punishments...

---

The UK is the sixth largest economy in the world and the third largest economy in the European Union. It is the seventh largest importer and the 11th largest exporter in the world. In spite of this, the level of trade between Britain and Cuba is derisory. Exports to Cuba totalled an abysmal $14.4m (£8.9m) in 2009 while imports came to a pathetic $15.8m (£9.8m). Compare this to September 1958 when the UK government exported 25 fighter jets to General Batista's dictatorship. The equivalent value today – at around £40m a plane – would equate to an annual UK export to Cuba of around £1bn.

It is tempting to explain the lack of commercial activity between our two countries as a legacy of the cold war. However, back in 1986, Cuba constituted the UK's fifth largest market in Latin America. Furthermore, UK trade with Cuba is dwarfed by other EU countries including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands. Indeed, in 2008, the UK was only the 11th largest exporter of goods to Cuba from the EU.

It is therefore more appropriate to view the level of trade as a direct consequence of policy adopted by consecutive UK governments. In particular, the Blair government – as a result of closer ties with the Clinton and Bush administrations – took an increasingly aggressive and hard-line stance against the island. Blair was a keen advocate of the EU common position – which suppresses trade and exchange with Cuba – while, in 2003, the UK was instrumental in blocking Cuba's entry into the Cotonou agreement which gives trade preferences to former European colonies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/08/cuba-uk-relationship-agreement


8. The islanders are not poor starving sheep herders. Ever SINCE the war they have developed tremendously thanks to selling of fishing concessions in their waters.

I was being ironic. I KNOW they are not "poor starving sheep herders" with all that land (size of Northern Ireland) for just 3,000 people, and all those resources, and the tender loving care of the British ruling class, who want a military base in the South Atlantic for God knows what the U.S. "Southern Command" has in mind, and--duh--for the oil. As for the fishing, that, too, is a matter of aggravation for Argentina. The squid that Falkland licensees take out of the Atlantic begin life in River Plate in Argentina. The Falklanders are prospering by taking Argentine fish and furthermore by taking squid and other fish in waters that are in dispute.

Imperial entities EXPAND. That is the history of the British Empire, and that it what got Blair so excited about the Bushwhacks--the "glory days" returning, where England just TAKES what it wants, in that case by kissing up to the U.S. and riding in on its wars And Cameron is following the same line. They are encroaching on Argentina's oil and fishing reserves. And they sent their biggest warship and the "Duke of Cambridge" to the Falklands to emphasis their bully power to do whatever they want. And they have adamantly refused to negotiate with Argentina on this half a century old dispute nor to abide by international negotiation, laws and agreements, including their own signing of the UN Charter. They are behaving exactly like the Bushwhacks: "We don't need no stinking badges!"


9. Yes, from Argentina's perspective its all about the oil, they want it.

And it should go to...British Petroleum?

-------------------------

A few other informative articles:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3170/will-new-falklands-dispute-with-latin-america-lead-britain-to-war-in-2012
http://www.travellerspoint.com/guide/Falkland_Islands/

[Judi Lynn]

9. Beautiful research you've shared with those of us who want to know the truth! You've shown a light,

where right-winger prefer darkness, so people will just take their word for it!

Thank you for taking the time to add truth and intelligence to the subject.

[naaman fletcher]

10. nice sleight of hand on number 1.

The first British claim goes back to 1690, so Bacchus was correct an you are incorrect. Nice try, though.

[Peace Patriot]

13. You're counting every water stop of a British ship as British-owned?

The Dutch actually discovered the Falklands. Thereafter, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, French, British and other ships used it as a water stop and no one really settled there until Argentina did, in its first year as an independent nation, and then were forcibly evicted by the Royal Navy. The British 1690 claim is ridiculous.

--

...the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.[16] The first reliable sighting is usually attributed to the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600, who named the archipelago the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century.[17]

In 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare en route to Puerto Deseado was driven off course and reached the Falkland Islands instead, landing at Bold Cove. Sailing between the two principal islands, he called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition. The island group takes its English name from this body of water.[18]

In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.[19] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[20] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[21]

In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements.[21][22] Upon withdrawal, the British left behind a plaque asserting Britain's continued claim. Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on his departure, left behind a plaque asserting Spanish claims. The remaining settlers were withdrawn in 1811.[21]

In 1820, storm damage forced the privateer Heroína to take shelter in the islands.[23] Her captain David Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina) and read a proclamation claiming the islands.[23] This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later after the proclamation was published in the Salem Gazette.[23] After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and from Great Britain.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

----------------------------

This history of multiple imperialists roaming round the South Atlantic prior to Argentina's independence in 1820 does not entitle any of the imperialists to a sovereignty claim over the Falklands (known in South America as the Malvinas). There was no settlement at all until 1764 and then French, Spanish and British imperialists began their various disputes, claims, temporary colonies, "plaques," withdrawals and so forth. It was not until 1820 that any legitimate claim was made, and that was by the newly independent Argentine government (the United Provinces of the River Plate). The British have kept the islands by force ever since, against the legitimate claim of a legitimate South Atlantic country, today using a tiny colony of 3000 people and 2,000 military personnel to assert its hegemony.

The Argentine military junta was wrong to invade the Falklands in 1983, but that doesn't mean that the British claim is right or just or fair to Argentina NOW. In "realpolitik," the British "own" it because of the presence of their military and bully power. In all justice, they do NOT own it, and all of South America agrees with Argentina on this point. The question is, how will the dispute be resolved--by continued British bully power allied with U.S. bully power amidst British refusal to negotiate and continued encroachment on Argentine waters for oil reserves and fishing? Or will the U.K. and its big partner, the U.S., join the international community in seeking peaceful resolutions of such problems, in the institution that THEY created for that purpose, the UN, and that they spit at, in 2003, when they invaded Iraq to steal their oil?

That, really, is the biggest question as to the Falklands: Will the U.S. and the U.K. re-join the community of lawful countries and re-commit to world peace, or do they just go on bullying, interfering, killing and taking?

The 3,000 British colonists involved in this dispute cannot avoid and ignore the bigger implications of British imperialism, the issues of justice and security for Argentina (and South America), and the hugely important matter of world peace, ANY LONGER, or, if they do, they are merely pawns of "the Crown"--which is pretty much their status at the moment. The British ruling class has shown no mercy to their own people in England--80% of whom opposed the Iraq War, and whose common sense about war and bankruptcy were ignored and defied by their government! My guess is that the Falkland colonists identify with this warmongering British ruling class partly because of the horrors of the Argentina military junta in 1983. That is understandable, but that artificial fascist creation--the U.S.-backed Argentina military juntas--is OVER. Argentina, in alliance with all of South America, is now fervently and permanently democratic--with far, far better democratic institutions than those of the U.K. and the U.S.

The vast majority of Argentines support their government and its Falkland claim and oppose war. They are seeking a PEACEFUL resolution of this dispute and scofflaw England and its PM Cameron refuses even to talk to them, refuses even to negotiate a framework for peaceful resolution. They are relying on British military power, backed by the U.S., to hold this claim.

When fascist elements in the U.S. government and military supported the rightwing military coup in Honduras in 2009, and President Obama would not, or could not, stop them, Brazil's president said, "The U.S. has not changed." The same could be said of the U.K. The U.K. has not changed. Both are still relying on bully power in the interest of their real rulers--transglobal corporations, banksters and war profiteers. Both continue to inflict "austerity" on the poor while the rich get richer. And that is who the Falklanders are relying on to keep an area the size of Northern Ireland--and its oil, fisheries and other resources-- in the hands of 3,000 people, as well as harrying the waters of Argentina.

To create justice and security for everyone concerned--for millions of people in Argentina and multi-millions in Brazil, Uruguay and other South American countries--not to mention the IGNORED majorities in the U.K. and the U.S.--the workers, the poor, the elderly, the sick, the young, the middle class, who are forced to pay a huge price for U.K. and U.S. military adventures--in the lives of our young people, in extremely unfair taxation and in "austerity" (looting and loss of public services), and for the 600 families in the Falklands--is what the United Nations was created for. In such a dispute, the U.K. acting unilaterally is unacceptable to Latin America and should be unacceptable here and in England.

Rightwingers and war supporters often try to narrow issues down to their pre-programmed "talking points." We saw a prime example of this on the WMDs that weren't in Iraq. They tried to keep the issue very limited to that question and then to keep that issue fuzzed up with lies and bullshit long enough to invade Iraq, slaughter at least a hundred million people and get the oil contracts signed by a puppet government. 'Fooled ya! No WMDs! Ha-ha on you!'

On the the Bushwhacks and the uber-rich looting the country with wars and tax cuts for themselves, and sending the world economy into a tailspin, the "talking point" is now "the fiscal cliff"--a completely phony narrowing of economic issues so they can loot the country and the poor even more!

Bacchus' narrowing of the issue of the Falklands to only what the 3,000 colonists want is very similar. Of course they deserve the respect, rights and protections that all people deserve. But what, say, if Texans voted to secede from the U.S.? What of the rights of Texans who vote no? What of the rights of everyone else in the U.S. who would be adversely affected by such a secession? The federal government, in responding to such a vote, must take everyone's rights and the good of the whole into consideration--as must the UN in dealing with similar situations among countries and disputants within countries where split-up or secession is an issue.

The Falklanders can't see the whole. The much bigger population of Argentina can't see the whole (because they are a claimant), nor can the U.K. which brings imperial interests to the situation. This is NOT a narrow issue in which the U.K. and the Falkland colonists can arbitrarily choose their own interests and to hell with everybody else. The new, independent, democratic South America is not going to let them do that. Brazil and Uruguay have already joined the blockade of ships, air travel and trade. This is a VERY IMPORTANT matter to them. The issue therefore belongs in the UN. There is no other entity that can broker an agreement.

We can, as individuals, perhaps say, "Aw come on! Live and let live!" (though the U.K. is not doing that--they are provoking Argentina by encroaching on their resources). Let England have its little bit of imperial glory. Let its navy and its royal heirs futz around in the South Atlantic as in the days of old. Let the Falklanders wave their flags, herd their sheep, become oiligarchs and mess with Argentina now and then on the territorially imprecise ocean. I am not crazy about territorial disputes, I loathe war (and don't much like blockades either) and I am all for ad hoc people solutions that most often occur when militaries are taken out of the picture. But it is not up to me. This is a matter of serious concern to OTHERS, including multi-millions of South Americans.

It is very likely in the best interest of the Falklanders to reach a negotiated, amicable settlement with Argentina, but the U.K., with its corporate/imperial interests, stands in the way. They are both the defender of the Falklanders and the biggest obstacle to discussion and settlement, because it might mean loss of profits for the uber rich and/or loss of a strategic military location, or less profit, or less of a military presence--diminution of "the Crown," and Lord This and Lord That might be unhappy. in any case, this dispute is not going to go away because the U.K. or the Falklanders wish it away. It is not a narrow issue. It is quite a large and complex issue with ripples all round the world. And if the immediate parties can't settle it--if one is unyielding and won't even talk about it (in this case, the U.K.)--it belongs in the United Nations.

[Bacchus4.0]

11. lets try again

first, I'll just note you previously supported the Falklanders rights on self-determination. You inquired as to the islanders preferences. Well, that is going to happen now so it appears you are backtracking and agree with Argentina that the inhabitants don't have the right to determine their form of government.

1. from your same link: Note that Britain's claim precedes Argentina's by decades.

Britain claimed the whole of the Falkands in 1765, while France transferred its settlement to Spain in 1767. Although Britain withdrew from its settlement in 1774 on economic grounds, it never relinquished its claim to sovereignty.

Spain abandoned its settlement in 1811 when it withdrew its garrison to the South American mainland in order to help quell colonial rebellions, leaving the islands uninhabited apart from occasional visits from British and US fishing vessels.

In 1820, newly-independent Argentina claimed sovereignty, and later founded a settlement. Britain established control over the islands in 1833 in support of its own earlier claim to sovereignty, and expelled the Argentine garrison. Most Argentine settlers left gradually thereafter. The Britons who then settled came to make up the islands' first permanent population.

2. Argentina was the country that invaded the Falklands. Given Cristina's continued insistence and odd media stunts on the Falklands issue, the islanders remain concerned about Argentina's intentions. They are not assuaged by the existing government of Argentina. They are wary of Argentina no matter who is president.

There is complete justification for the UK military presence in the Falklands given Argentina's aggression. The UK is simply claiming what is theirs, actually supporting the islanders' self-determination. Its Argentina who is trying to claim what is not theirs.

3. The islanders are not voting on justice and security for Argentina.

4. The Falklanders have already established their referendum date and the referendum question has been drafted and is circulating for public comment currently. The Falklanders decide that matter, not the UN.

5. Confirmed that Pinochet is Chilean.

6. The Falklanders are voting on their status in relation to the UK. Argentina has no input in that vote nor do other Latin American nations. The islanders are not voting on multilateral issues between the US and UK and Latin America

7. In your previous response, you stated that Argentina had the sovereign right to determine its trade policy with the Falklands or any other nations. So I would throw that right back at you regarding the UK and Cuba. Its their right to determine who and how they trade with.

8. The English empire is not expanding.

9. The Falklanders determine the disposition of their resources.

[naaman fletcher]

7. I love it

Those poor falklanders, manipulated by the British moneyed class. If only they knew better they would vote to be part of a nation that would lie about inflation and make them financial prisoners.

Also, when the British re-asserted sovereignty they allowes the exisiting Argentines to stay.

[Bacchus4.0]

12. yeah, and frankly 180 years of continuous habitation trumps anything else. n/t

s