Argentina launches lawsuit against Falkland oil drillers

a reply to: boymonkey74

They invaded us remember.

Yeah.

The history of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) goes back at least five hundred years, with active exploration and colonisation only taking place in the 18th century.

...and there's a lot of pseudo-scientific evidence that supposedly proves the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.

a reply to: soficrow

So what about self determination? do you agree that the people living in a place can vote for who they wish to be with or not?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Self-determination? Surely you jest. As I said earlier, I am in Canada, another Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. Don't understand the results of the Canadian vote either. But it's about media manipulation. bribery, social engineering.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: boymonkey74

Self-determination? Surely you jest. As I said earlier, I am in Canada, another Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. Don't understand the results of the Canadian vote either. But it's about media manipulation. bribery, social engineering.

What parts of Canadian policies are in anyway dictated by the United Kingdom? Just interested why you think you are in any affected in your day to day life....... if you were, there wouldn't be a French speaking region

a reply to: uncommitted

We all know the back channels rule.

The Queen's role in Canada

....The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. ...

....The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name.

The Queen is represented in Canada on a day-to-day basis by a Governor General at the federal level and by a Lieutenant Governor in each of the ten provinces. The Governor General is appointed by The Queen upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada while the Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the Governor General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

a reply to: soficrow

Do you honestly think the Queen is sat behind some desk planning and plotting what is happening in Canada or anywhere?.
I think you think that the queen has real tangible power...you are wrong.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: uncommitted

We all know the back channels rule.

The Queen's role in Canada

....The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. ...

....The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name.

The Queen is represented in Canada on a day-to-day basis by a Governor General at the federal level and by a Lieutenant Governor in each of the ten provinces. The Governor General is appointed by The Queen upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada while the Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the Governor General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

So, again, which policies do you think are defined/dictated by the UK? I'm not aware that either the Queen or the UK government have any influence over who is appointed, it's merely a ceremonial thing. It's certainly not a comparable scenario to the Falklands - or do you think otherwise?

a reply to: uncommitted

Appears to me that some colonists of our dear realm carry a bit of a chip on their shoulder....
Odd really seeing that our ex colonies and commonwealth partners have done so well with our help.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: soficrow

Do you honestly think the Queen is sat behind some desk planning and plotting what is happening in Canada or anywhere?.
I think you think that the queen has real tangible power...you are wrong.

Actually, I doubt the monarch has tangible power in Canada -excepting through our founding corporations, which is another discussion. Or maybe not. Fact is, I am disgusted by the symbol of "royalty," and the reality of corporate financial rule. I say to both, "Begone."

a reply to: boymonkey74

Appears to me that some colonists of our dear realm carry a bit of a chip on their shoulder....

Obsolete, extraneous, disgusting and expendable symbol.

Odd really seeing that our ex colonies and commonwealth partners have done so well with our help.

Oh really? You think genocide, raping people, pillaging resources, and smearing the corporate paradigm around the world is help?

...Looks like cultural dissonance to me.

a reply to: soficrow

If you hate British Colonialism so much, why are you living in a country ( Canada) which was a product of The British Empire? Why don't you leave and live somewhere outside the said Empire. Unless you are a Native Indian of course ( which i doubt )

As the saying goes.........If you don't like the product then don't buy it.

You have a smell of complete hypocrisy.

a reply to: soficrow

Point to any power at the time who didn't do all of that?. Sure it's bad but why just blame the British? what about the Spanish? and yes If you look at the lasting effects of the empire the countries do look better off.
But lets get back to the subject eh?
Tell me do you agree with the Falkland islanders right to self determination or not?.

a reply to: soficrow

With all due respect - you can be as disgusted as you want with the Royal Family etc and their real or imaginary powers in Canada, but that isn't the topic under discussion.

This thread is about Argentina taking legal action - just how 'legal' that action actually is very, very dubious - to prevent drilling operations in another nations territorial waters.

Kirchner is quite obviously only doing this to divert away from her total incompetence and mis-management of the Argentinian economy.

Argentina was offered a more than generous offer by the UK government which Kirchner dismissed outright.
This was against the interests of the Argentinian people - as evidenced by the testament of several Argentinian members of ATS in other threads on related issues.

If the offer has been accepted it could have proven a massive boost to the Argentinian economy.
In addition it would have greatly improved relationships and the Islanders would have worked very closely with Argentinian workers etc.
Who knows where this may have led to in the future?
But one thing is certain it would have resulted in a much improved relationship for all concerned.

Self-Determination is a cornerstone of the United Nations Charter.

If Canada were to show a desire to break completely from the UK and The Commonwealth then, as sad as I would be to see them go, I would still respect their Right to be governed how and by whom they freely choose to be governed.

Accusations of colonialism by the Argentinian government is really pretty ironic considering their own history.

a reply to: Freeborn

My apologies. I was simply answering direct questions. As dubious as it may appear to be on the surface, I think Argentina does have a right to claim the Falklands as their territory. With respect to Falkland Islanders right to self-determination - as I told boymonkey, while the idea of self-determination is a noble ideal it's a joke in terms of practical application. In any event, most of the 2800 Falkland Islanders are of British descent (genocide? racial cleansing? forced emigration?) so of course they voted for the Commonwealth.

a reply to: alldaylong

Unless you are a Native Indian of course ( which i doubt )

My name is sofi crow. Why would you doubt my ancestry? btw - Turtle Island was here long before the British Empire came along. Just like the Falklands. btw - You should drop your reliance on ad hominem attacks. Totally unbecoming.

a reply to: boymonkey74
I think the notion of self-determination is a fine ideal, but practically speaking, a joke. Especially when applied to a colony of settlers where the original inhabitants are so "gone" they are described as never having existed. Genocide and forced emigration are useful tools for "disappearing" people. ...Wonder what the real story is?

a reply to: soficrow

My apologies. I was simply answering direct questions.

No need to apologise, all is good.

As dubious as it may appear to be on the surface, I think Argentina does have a right to claim the Falklands as their territory.

We'll have to agree to differ.....and possession is 9/10th's of the law etc.

But they have no legal or moral right to the Islands

With respect to Falkland Islanders right to self-determination - as I told boymonkey, while the idea of self-determination is a noble ideal it's a joke in terms of practical application.

Why?
Are you saying that the Islanders wishes count for nothing?

In any event, most of the 2800 Falkland Islanders are of British descent (genocide? racial cleansing? forced emigration?) so of course they voted for the Commonwealth.

Err, well exactly.
There is no-one of Argentinian heritage because Argentinians have never lived there.....ever.

The islands were uninhabited before the UK staked a claim on them.
Only UK nationals have ever even attempted to develop a permanent settlement there.


Is that colonialism?
Yeah, I guess so.
But not at the expense of some indigenous population - the islands were barren and uninhabited, except for a few penguins.

There was no genocide, no racial cleansing or forced emigration because no-one lived there.

Unlike Argentina itself - a nation that owes its very existence to Spanish colonialism and the subjugation and some would say genocide of indigenous people.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: soficrow

Just found this thread of yours

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have French Blood. All now becomes clear.

Your hypocrisy grows louder with each of your threads.

On colonialism.

The British claimed an uninhabited island and islands (South Georgia et al) and settled the Falklands. No-one was harmed.

The Spanish, and later Argentineans, made their nation on the brutal repression of the natives and the theft of their land. The Patagonia genocide was perpetrated by Argentina.

Taking the Falklands from an unwilling population is further Argentinean colonialism.

How can Argentina accuse Britain of colonialism when they want to (er) colonise the Falklands themselves.

Is this hypocrisy of the highest order?

Also, nothing to do with Canada!

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Freeborn

In any event, most of the 2800 Falkland Islanders are of British descent (genocide? racial cleansing? forced emigration?) so of course they voted for the Commonwealth.

WTF? Are you aware of any history of the Falklands, or Argentina come to that? Who on earth do you think was racially cleansed - the penguins?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Freeborn

In any event, most of the 2800 Falkland Islanders are of British descent (genocide? racial cleansing? forced emigration?) so of course they voted for the Commonwealth.

WTF? Are you aware of any history of the Falklands, or Argentina come to that? Who on earth do you think was racially cleansed - the penguins?

Well, there was Vernet's very small settlement, which was a total disaster - the settlers from the United Provinces of the Silver River hated the place as they thought it was a bit of an armpit and were delighted when the USS Lexington raided the place in retaliation for the capture of US sealers, wrecking it so much that they left with the Lexington, leaving behind a grand total of 24 people. Then there was the penal colony in November 1832. Which saw the garrison mutinying just after they landed. When the British returned in January 1833 the members of the tiny (and very squalid) settlement were encouraged to stay. In 1840 official settlement began.