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

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
I read ATS forum since 2009, but this is the first time I posted something, ahem...

Then allow me to welcome a long time lurker with a point by point disection of why you are talking out of your arse.

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
Sir, this is awful. I'm from Argentina, and reading all of this bullsh*t about Malvinas really make me upset. British people living there in Malvinas? it's ok, They want to be British? I guess that's fine too.

That is all that matters. People have brought up the whole UN decolonisation thing, but this does not apply as there was no indigineous people, therefore the settlers have a right to self-determine, which they have in a vote in 70's. You are of course aware that the entire of North and South America was built on colonisation. I'll tell you what, we'll give you the islands as soon as you decolonise Argentina.....

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
Actually, Cristina doesn't want them out of the islands or anything, much less start a friggin' war with UK while there are a f*ck ton of submarines and battleships moving around the islands pointing their cannons toward this way.

There is a single sub and a single Frigate bobbing about at the moment, with a battalion of Marines and a single squadron of Typhoons. Hardly a "f**kton".. We haven't operated battleships since the 50's either. What "Christina" (here on she shall be known as "The Cow") wants is control over the natural resources regardless of what the actual occupants of the islands desire.

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
It's like they're trying too hard to pull all of this mess to have the perfect excuse and nuke the whole country, just because 'Argentina is hostile, they're trying to stole my vacation house, so I'll throw of my almighty military power hurr.'

Hmmmmm... Prior to your last "heroic" attempt at taking the islands, we had 80 Marines there. They still held off your several thousand strong invasion force for quite some time and inflicted caualties despite taking none, but I digress..

The only reason we have ANY military of note down there is because of YOU. If you hadn't of invaded and if you didn't make periodic threats and gestures, we wouldn't have troops there. We even had an agreement with you to share the wealth, but The Cow pulled out of that. Nice one.

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
You know what? The people may be British, but the islands belongs to Argentina.

No, they don't. They never have belonged to Argentina. The only time you had any control was in 1982 and that last all of 3 months before we sailed halfway round the world, in ancient ships and passenger liners, promptly kicking your sorry arses off in humiliating fashion.

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
Check out Google Maps if you don't believe me.

Oh well, that settles it then. Google says so, it must be true. Google Maps says I have a red card parked in my driveway, but I don't even drive!

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
This 'legal' stuff is poitless,

Actually, this "legal stuff" is not pointless. Quite the opposite in fact. It is everything!

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
UK can't claim the islands as theirs being over 10,000km from here.

Distance means nothing. Otherwise the French would have to give up Guyana, the Duth the Antilles, the US the Virgin Islands, Peurto Rico and Hawaii, the Russians Sakhalin, the Japanese various islands in the Yellow Sea... You get my point...

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
What would happen if I'm going to claim China as mine because 'HEY! I have this paper (which I printed this morning), and it says China is mine, so get out of here you asian people'. I'd be probably dead by now.

That is as stupid as it is absurd and not even remotely analalgous to this situation. To make you analogy work, it should read more like "I have this peice of paper which I printed 200 years ago, before you even existed". Argentina has no valid claim whatsoever.

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
Maybe all of you know about the conflict 31 years ago. Blah blah, excuse excuse....

We don't base our claims on the War in 1982, but rather the fact we settled the uninhabited islands after Spain gave up their claim and prior to Argentina even existing.

Originally posted by MagicianYoh
British leads just want to feel powerful facing weaker countries and make money with our resources using the people living there as a shield.

It's not your resources. How are they "your" resources? I might as well say you use my resources every time you shag you girlfriend or wife. I should be shagging your missus, not you. That is what you are saying.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


You have proven nothing apart from the fact you're a plank that cannot count. It isn't remotely possible that the UK was responsible for the deaths of 1.8 Billion people during that period, as that many people didn't even exist.

Anyway, thats all I am saying on the matter, I like to commune with Humans, not puddles of barely concious ooze.

reply to post by stumason

You are the biggest mass murderers on the entire planet.
Really ,Even indian NCERT estimates 150-250 million is minimum.Stop personal attacks as I have provided proof and you haven't .

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...

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...

list of british genocides and warcrimes:
www.countercurrents.org...

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


Make your own thread, stop derailing this one.

What you are saying has naff all to do with the topic and this will be my last post in this thread addressing you. By all means make your own thread and I will merrily come along to rip apart your arguments piece by piece. Until then, shut the fudge up.

reply to post by stumason


Ok, I forgot the timeline when I said oil.
But you asked "What Invasion"?? I think when a country colonise another country it is a form of invasion, right?!
Have you ever wondered why your country is very rich?? Let me see... it is because a lot of natural resource was stolen from other countries. But by your point of view I am wrong, and we americans must beg for your royal forgiveness...

reply to post by stumason


I've just read that post and I was smiling throughout, great breakdown of all the ridiculous points made, I didnt have the patience myself! Star.

reply to post by Tiradentes

Ok, I forgot the timeline when I said oil. But you asked "What Invasion"?? I think when a country colonise another country it is a form of invasion, right?! Have you ever wondered why your country is very rich?? Let me see... it is because a lot of natural resource was stolen from other countries. But by your point of view I am wrong, and we americans must beg for your royal forgiveness...

Unless the Penguin Nation has an official seat at the UN there was no invasion. The Islands were desolate and the hardy British Folk settled there before even Argentina was a twinkle in a Spanish guys eye.


I'd rather a civilisation take the natural resources and utilise them then have them sit unused for years while the locals decide if they want to advance or not.

This isn't just a British thing either, were I alive when the Romans Invaded Britain I would support it, the romans used british resources to strengthen Rome but left a great legacy that still influences the western world today. So do the British through the Common wealth of Nations.

Originally posted by Tiradentes
reply to post by stumason

 

Ok, I forgot the timeline when I said oil.
But you asked "What Invasion"?? I think when a country colonise another country it is a form of invasion, right?!
Have you ever wondered why your country is very rich?? Let me see... it is because a lot of natural resource was stolen from other countries. But by your point of view I am wrong, and we americans must beg for your royal forgiveness...

what part of the US are you from tiradentes (if you dont mind me asking)PM if you just dont want to post here. ....I thought you were Argentinian..??...arent you?
(sory if you already said it I am kinda fried yet still entertained by this thread....

Originally posted by Tiradentes
But you asked "What Invasion"?? I think when a country colonise another country it is a form of invasion, right?!

Yes it is. Now, kindly point out to me which country we colonised in order to obtain control of the Falklands Islands. Obviously as an American (not sure if you mean US or in general) you may not be familiar with maps or where countries are in the world.....

Originally posted by Tiradentes
Have you ever wondered why your country is very rich?? Let me see... it is because a lot of natural resource was stolen from other countries. But by your point of view I am wrong, and we americans must beg for your royal forgiveness...

Partly down to having an Empire which sent raw materials back to the UK for manufacture into high value goods for sale.

But then, we were already very rich prior to the Empire, due to our export of our own natural resources. England was wealthy in the middle ages from Wool trading, for example. We also traded in our own fine China (some of the best int he world), Tin, Copper, Gold etc.

How do you think we got rich enough to even begin to think about having an Empire? Also, don't forget the industrail revolution took off in the UK due to the ready,LOCAL supply of coal and iron ore, which then fuelled our steel industry, again with our own resources.

I might suggest you look at the history in the entire context, not the little snippet from the 19th century you seem to be looking at. We were already rich and powerful prior to even setting foot in India or Africa.

reply to post by Jon Quinn


Cheers dude... I foolishly volunteered of OT tonight and I am rather bored, so when this thread popped up I knew I'd have something to do!

Just a quick comment, Sheffield where I was from in the 18th/19th Century produced over 75% of the entire worlds steel supply. That is how empires are built.

reply to post by stumason


Ok, I am not an expert in maps, but I am familiar with the positions of the countries. And I say americans in general.
It can be a desolated island or whatever.
But think if this island was near to your country or continent, and Argentina went there to dominate. What do you think your government would do??
You to think through the others point of view too. Not only yours.
Ok that you were already rich, but those explorations gave a boost to UK economy.
One more thing, do not be so blind loyal to your country. It is not good for you.

reply to post by stumason


as usual You provide no evidence.

Originally posted by Tiradentes
It can be a desolated island or whatever.

If an island is uninhabited and is outside the territorial waters of another country, under international law it is fair game. The only thing you have to do is live there (a year and a day I think is the benchmark) to claim it.

Originally posted by Tiradentes
But think if this island was near to your country or continent, and Argentina went there to dominate. What do you think your government would do??

That is not how it happened though, is it? Your taking an arse about face view of this, in so far that your basically saying becuase Argentina exists now, our claim from before Argenina even existed isn't valid anymore. It is like living in a house next to an open field and then someone builds next door, then annexes your driveway.

Lets just have a quick recap, there was a lot of tussling on the islands, but then in 1766 we settled and had a brief spat with the Spanish but they left after the Spanish gave up their claim to the islands. We left 1774 due to economic pressures, but left behind a plaque asserting our claim. The island was then home to pirates, bandits and other ruffians until the Yanks kicked them off, some River Plate General pipes up in 1832 but is forced to leave by the British and we establish a second colony in 1840.

Now, considering our claim stems from 1766 and Argentina didn't exist unitl 1810, and their claims are based on Spanish claims, which the Spanish withdrew prior to Argentina becoming independant, there is no valid claim now was there us turning up outside their country and taking an island they barely even knew was there, let alone had settled.

Originally posted by Tiradentes
You to think through the others point of view too. Not only yours.
Ok that you were already rich, but those explorations gave a boost to UK economy.
One more thing, do not be so blind loyal to your country. It is not good for you.

Argentina has a point of view on this subject, the British speak from historical fact and international Law

I'm not blindly loyal, but I am also not going to roll over because some silly old bint in a backwater part of the world wants to kick us off an island that is rightfully ours.

I like to call that bint president Barbie, I don't understand how any country could be represented by someone like her, its embarassing. The facts are which I'm sure have been stated a thousand times by now.

Britain has the strongest Legal Claim.

Britain has the strongest Ethical claim

Britain has the strongest Political claim.

Britain has the strongest Historical claim.

Brtain has the strongest Military claim.

Argentina has the strongest Geographical claim.


The argument is lost.

Glorious England...I just saw that,,,,,funny....lol

I hail from the Glorious Kingdom of England.....(mist of a wave crashing upon the shore in the background)
(does the captain morgan thing with his leg over a large boulder, and gazes into the horizon as if seeing the very gods moving the sky along its path) lol

no pun man.....just sharing some random thought that crossed my mind when I saw that and made me smile....lol

if your all done arguing about how our country has raped the world allow me to point out why numbers such as 1.8 billion are -thought- to be true. 'the crusades'. nuff said. we know 1.8 billion is wrong but it doesn't bloody matter does it.

not sure exactly what else to say here, britain also had the biggest 'claim' on america before britain was turned upon in revolution, disregarding entirely the native people of the lands, again, why would the govt give 2 damns about the people, are you really that hopeful? they don't even give a damn here in the uk, whats so special about that island?

I think ricky gervais had the best point about 82 that i've seen, if I recall something about the war equivilent of holding a midget at arms length and slapping them in the face, except the slaps are artillery shells. (because our guns outrange the mexicans...argentines...whatever...human is one race, get it already before I cap you one -_-)

A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag

Is there something illegal about it, in international law?

If not, what is this talk about war between UK and Argentina?

If it is, shouldn't all the countries of the trading bloc be held equally responsible for it?

It certainly appears that these countries want to convince the residents of the Islands to side with Argentina and not the UK. If the Islands' economy is dependent more on the countries of this bloc than the UK and they can successfully ruin it without resorting to anything illegal, the residents will have to reconsider their choice to stay with the UK. It is definitely pressure tactics, but if it is not illegal, not sure what the problem is.

Perhaps the UK can find some way of keeping the Islands' economy going without their fishing vessels having to dock in the ports of the bloc?

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Twiptwop

 

typical british denial of warcrimes.

It is demeaning to us indians that you and your empire committed mass genocide on us and murdered 1.8 billion of us.Atleast admit your warcrimes and apologize to India.

You are a disgrace to a country we brought civilization too. You can only speak english, have trains, nuclear power, vast wealth and all that sht because of what the British Empire did back then.

Should every German born post 1945 appologize for WW2 and be made to pay for it?

I doubt you are Indian, you sound like a western hating Muslim rather than an Indian.

Apologise, get off your high elephant and back to driving my taxi you soft lad.

The funny thing about this whole original OP is the fact that it is Spanish Registered Fishing Vessels that are being stopped from landing within those countries and that they only have to lower their Falkland Island Ensigns and raise the British Red Ensign to be able to legally enter the so-called embargoed ports to off-load. So it is a bloody farce as usual