55
   

THE BRITISH THREAD II

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 10:10 am
@izzythepush,
got me wrong so why not try to calm down. I SAID that (I was speaking true) I was outof touch with the news for a week or more and missed that the vote HAD ALREADY OCCURED> I guess I have to accept the fact that the public on the islands want to remain with UK.

I thought that the referendum was on March 20=21. I was wrong.
HOWEVER, with time, I still believe that Argentina will prevail mostly because of proximity.

ALL EMPIRES are doomed with foreign holdings or protectoirates. They just dont make sense anymore


Oil is an internationally swapped commodity. Its NOT , as gunga asserts "drill drill to keep foreign oil away" WORLDWIDE markets control supply and price.
Maybe ALL of the FAlkland oil (whenever it is profitable enough to develop) will go to China.

Quote:

In discussing Guantanamo Bay, you seem to think everything is fine as long as it's directed at one state, a state that had the temerity to throw out a bunch of gangsters. All the time you ignore the huge torture camp where people are held without trial indefinitely


I have no idea where youre going here izzy. ALL I said was that it would be the same as having all of Cubas future be decided by a vote at Guantanamo. (I wsa trying to make a comparison, perhaps you missed the point)



Quote:
You ignore Honduras, and look upon the deaths on Pakistani civilians as a minor foreign policy hitch
Where did Isay, or imply anything that you say here? You ascribe people with extreme "self built" modi as long as you can get away with it and dont get called out. Im calling you out.

H-pocrisy, thy name is IZZY
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 10:12 am
@spendius,
SO, youre not actually lying your just babbling. OK, Ill agree with that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 10:14 am
@roger,
Quote:
Only in England would a flapjack involve an oven.
Two countries separated by a common language .

Love it
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 10:24 am
@farmerman,
y ignoring honduras was more ignorance than anything. Ive never figured out how we sent huge numbers of ARMED ATTORNEYS in to opine on behalf of the provisional government after Zeleya was ousted.
We have some of he toughestlawyers on the planet.

Quote:
An employee of the U.S. Law Library of Congress studied the case and concluded that, although the military's decision to send Zelaya into exile was illegal, the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in a manner that was judged to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.[51][52] This conclusion was disputed by lawmakers, Honduran constitutional law experts, and government officials, who requested that the LLoC report be retracted.[
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 11:42 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
a 1000 year old celibacy law initiated by the church itself only so that it can keep all acquired properties of its clergy, upon their deaths.


That's a good idea surely? And celibacy has other purposes and functions. It is an outcome of the poverty vow which resulted from trial and error. The sort of female the poverty stricken priest could attract was thought to be a discreditable association. And it is possible that the humble contemplation of the Divine Feminine is facilitated by the institution. The spiritual, or mystical, element. And, of course, the total rejection of nepotism.

BTW--the Presidentess of Argentina has made on official request to the Pope to intervene in the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Perhaps she will also petition Prof. Dawkins who must be lying low at the moment.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 01:36 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
You ignore Honduras, and look upon the deaths on Pakistani civilians as a minor foreign policy hitch
Where did Isay, or imply anything that you say here? You ascribe people with extreme "self built" modi as long as you can get away with it and dont get called out. Im calling you out.

H-pocrisy, thy name is IZZY


You're doing no such thing. Does using the phrase 'calling you out,' actually mean anything? We're not playing snap or yahtzee, you don't get prizes for calling things out. You said,

FM wrote:
Drones and their usage is an issue that, if pursued with the zeal that Mr Paul introduced, could bring downb a president if hes not wise. Mr Obama is suffering projected damage from the Pakistani flights and the proposed extension of their usage on citizen/terrorists.


That sounds like you view it as a minor policy hitch to me. In any event you're taking a long objective 'Obama's place in history' type of approach to the subject, which, just like the Falklands, completely ignores the human dimension. If you look at your quotation, you actually say very little indeed. It's impossible to deduce whether or not you think drone strikes are a good thing. You've just said too many civilian deaths could be detrimental to Obama's presidency, but there's no indication if you think that's bad. Or for that matter, how many civilian deaths you would consider too much.

Interpreting such a featureless couple of sentences as a 'minor policy hitch', on reflection is actually quite generous. Have a word with yourself, try saying what you actually think about something instead of skirting around the subject.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 02:00 pm
@izzythepush,
Not to speak for FM who can speak for himself, but saying it could affect the presidency doesn't rule out one's dismay at the usage of drones.
I don't go on about them, have said many times on a2k that I hate them. I hate them viscerally, even though militarily I can get how they were developed. I get that in some circumstances they harm less civilians. But given my own views that we place our big feet all over the world in harmful ways even when we think we mean well, I shudder we are there in the first place.

Similar to that this could affect the presidency, I'll also opine that this can only result in more hatred toward us - two effects that I think are true, but not the main point.

Oh, wait, this is the British thread - but some of the same questions are relevant.

On the Falklands/las Malvinas, I've failed to get the argument - I take you two as both wanting the people to self determine, despite your preferences re who they would pick/who would be allowed to pick.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 02:10 pm
@ossobuco,
The main issue is Farmer's obsession with the notion of empire, which means, in the case of the Falklands, Britain bad Argentina good. Britain doesn't micromanage what's going on in the Falklands, they do that themselves. To all intents and purposes they're a sovereign nation, they choose to be British for protection. Argentina, which controls a lot more square miles than the UK, is acting like an empire. The Falkland Islands are nearly 1,000 miles away from Argentina.

Btw, one difference is I accept the islander's vote. FM seems to question the legitimacy of the vote, he doesn't appear to think the islanders are entitled to have any say in their future. And he's completely ignored the issue of why Argentina refuses to talk directly to the islanders.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 02:14 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

y ignoring honduras was more ignorance than anything. Ive never figured out how we sent huge numbers of ARMED ATTORNEYS in to opine on behalf of the provisional government after Zeleya was ousted.
We have some of he toughestlawyers on the planet.

Quote:
An employee of the U.S. Law Library of Congress studied the case and concluded that, although the military's decision to send Zelaya into exile was illegal, the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in a manner that was judged to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.[51][52] This conclusion was disputed by lawmakers, Honduran constitutional law experts, and government officials, who requested that the LLoC report be retracted.[



This is so typical of you. Chuckling about all the lawyers involved, it was quite a jolly coup after all. All the time completely ignoring/whitewashing the human dimension. This a brief fragment of what went on, see if you find this so damn amusing.
Quote:

Killings, judicial persecution, and threats against farmers, land occupiers and their advocates


On the night of 4/10/12, in a land reclaim occupation that MOCRA (Movimiento Campesino Recuperación Atlántida) was starting at the height of Santa Ana, Atlántida, at land held by CAISESA-Frisco, of one of the Aguán palm giants René Morales, a confrontation between 60 soldiers and 60 farmers (some captured said they were not armed and were forced to go there by others) was had and death toll reported include two farmers (including German Emilio Castillo), and a soldier Luis Alfredo Varela. 18 farmers were detained (including 2 women and 2 minors) and taken to an unknown place. A dozen farmers were reported disappeared. 2 soldiers and 5 guards were reported wounded. Those detained were: Isabel Manzanares Herrera (48), Nelson Ulises Turcios Martínez (20), Olvin Javier Manzanares Cantarero (18), Jorge Alexander Lanza Tablada (29), Andrés Valladares Hernández (52), Andi Cáceres Ríos (18), Rigoberto Alexander Amador Rodríguez (19), Melvin Segundo Gámez Argueta (19), Elvin Alberto Amaya Ríos (25), Berta Alicia Argueta Ramos (42), Maximiliano López Ramírez (48), Norma Suyapa Leiva Hernández (43), Melvin Javier Hernández Oseguera (43), Moisés Suazo Andino (25), Julián Reyes Santamaría (43), Nelson Ariel Castillo (19) and two 17 years old minors.


http://www.sydney-says-no2honduras-coup.net/longer-news-summaries/part-2-october-2012-honduras-coup-summary

McTag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 12:55 am
@izzythepush,

Quote:
he doesn't appear to think the islanders are entitled to have any say in their future.


Except if they're Hawaiian, In Hawaii.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 02:25 am
@McTag,
Maybe he's got his eye on Bermuda.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 07:46 am
@izzythepush,
What is yer overall point in the entire Honduras thing?? You tell me how I should feel and Ill comply (unless I feel youre all full of it).
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 08:55 am
@farmerman,
Your point is that America, unlike the Catholic church, has mended its ways. Which is why you're so unforgiving of the church yet willing to bend over backwards to praise America.

I've pointed out the things that have happened in Obama's presidency which clearly demonstrates that is not the case, chief being interference in Latin America. You also suggest you're moving in the right direction because Obama is a lot better than Dubya. If the Republicans get back in they'll go straight back to Bush era policies.

In short Spendi is right on this, America still behaves like an empire, and the church is trying to rid itself of paedophiles. You're the one that's full of it, because you refuse to see things how they are, because your opinions are dominated by your prejudices. In this case anti-Catholic and anti-British.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 09:50 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

What is yer overall point in the entire Honduras thing?? You tell me how I should feel


Are you being serious? I post something about the deaths of innocents and you have to ask how you're supposed to feel. RL would have no problems pointing that out as symptomatic of something else.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 12:59 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

got me wrong so why not try to calm down. I SAID that (I was speaking true) I was outof touch with the news for a week or more and missed that the vote HAD ALREADY OCCURED> I guess I have to accept the fact that the public on the islands want to remain with UK.


Can you clear something up, I know you accept the fact of the vote, but do you accept the islander's right to self determination.

I really find your definition of empire quite unusual, most people, outside America at least, wouldn't view the non independence of Hawaii as an example of the terrors of American imperialism. Most would say the political interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations on behalf of big business, particularly in Latin America, as the worst aspect. Economic imperialism is every bit as corrosive as traditional imperialism, and doesn't look set to peter out any time soon.

Not mentioned the Chagos islanders I see. Now that is a scandal in which both the UK and USA are complicit. We forcibly removed the indiginous population and relocated them in the UK so that you could build a military base. Their court case demanding the right of return is ongoing.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:35 pm
@izzythepush,
Considering that the FAlklands had been pretty much depopulated and then repopulated by Brit vols in the later 1980's, Im not sure what that term even means.

BUT really, what the hell was your whole point in the Honduras coup?

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:38 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Most would say the political interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations on behalf of big business, particularly in Latin America, as the worst aspect.


Exactly. The repopulation of the FAlklands AFTER the 1980's war was about 65% new Brits.
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 11:15 pm
@farmerman,
Found this on the internet.... helped me make up my mind.

History
Although there’s evidence that Patagonian Indians may have reached the Falklands in canoes, the islands were officially discovered on August 14, 1592 by John Davis, master of HMS Desire, during an English naval expedition, although a 1522 Portuguese chart indicates knowledge of the islands. The Falklands’ Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, derives from early French navigators from St Malo, who called the islands ‘Les Malouines’ after their home port.
No European power established a settlement until 1764, when the French built a garrison at Port Louis on East Falkland, disregarding Spanish claims under the papal Treaty of Tordesillas that divided the New World between Spain and Portugal. Unbeknownst to either France or Spain, Britain set up a West Falkland outpost at Port Egmont, on Saunders Island, in 1765. Spain, meanwhile, discovered and then supplanted the French colony after an amicable settlement. Spanish forces next detected and expelled the British in 1767. Under threat of war, Spain restored Port Egmont to the British, who only a few years later abandoned the area – without, however, renouncing their territorial claims.
For the rest of the 18th century, Spain maintained the islands as one of the world’s most secure penal colonies. After it abandoned the colonies in the early 1800s, only whalers and sealers visited, until the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (as Argentina was formerly known) sent a military governor in the early 1820s to assert its claim as successor to Spain. Later, a naturalized Buenos Aires entrepreneur named Louis Vernet initiated a project to monitor uncontrolled sealers and sustainably exploit local fur seal populations.
Vernet’s seizure of three American sealing vessels, Harriet, Superior and Breakwater, in Berkeley Sound triggered reprisals from a hotheaded US naval officer, Captain Silas Duncan, commanding the corvette USS Lexington, who vandalized the Port Louis settlement beyond restoration in 1831. After Vernet’s departure, Buenos Aires kept a token force there until early 1833, when it was expelled by Britain. Vernet pursued his claims for property damages in British courts for nearly 30 years, unsuccessfully.
Under the British, the Falklands languished until the mid-19th century, when sheep began to replace cattle, and wool became an important export. Founded by Samuel Lafone, an Englishman from Montevideo, the Falkland Islands Company (FIC) became the islands’ largest landholder. Other immigrant entrepreneurs occupied all other available pastoral lands in extensive holdings by the 1870s.
Woolraising was very successful and spawned similar operations in South America. Nothing stood in the way of sheep: the warrah, the island’s only native mammal, was wiped out; bounties were placed on birds felt to be a threat to sheep; and the native tussock grass was soon devastated by overgrazing. By the late 1800s, the island’s ecology was tottering and the amount of exhausted land needed to sustain each sheep was growing. The deliberate introduction of cats and the accidental introduction of rats devastated small bird populations.
Land overuse brought problems, and so did land ownership. From the 1870s to the 1970s, the islands were a near-feudal society with landowners in London – absentee landlords, often exhibiting all the bad qualities those words imply – caring only about the bottom line, while the islanders were essentially poorly paid laborers. Since all the land had been parceled out in the early days of British rule, islanders could not acquire any. Even publicly owned land was minimal; apart from a few outlying islands, the Falklands today are almost devoid of parks and reserves.
Things began to change in the late 1970s when the sale and subdivision of large landholdings was encouraged in order to slow high rates of emigration. Change has become even more rapid since 1982. Prior to the Falklands War, there were only about 35 farms in the Falklands, and the islands’ population was declining steadily. Now there are about 90 owner-occupied farms averaging about 12, 000 hectares. Unfortunately, encouraging local farm ownership coincided with a steep long-term drop in wool prices, so many of the new Falkland landowners have been struggling.
During the long years of unchanging pastoralism, the two world wars were the Falklands’ only major interruptions. In WWI, the Battle of the Falkland Islands was fought southeast of Stanley. The biggest intrusion on island life, however, came with the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina in 1982.
Argentina and Britain restored diplomatic relations in 1990, but since the war, most Falklanders want little or nothing to do with Argentina. Argentine politicians regularly boast that the islands will soon be Argentine once again, but British officials insist they won’t hold negotiations on the islands’ sovereignty until the Falklanders ask for them.
Following the war, Britain showed greatly renewed interest in the islands. Falklanders received full British citizenship, and Britain also allowed the Falklands government to declare a Conservation and Management Zone around the islands, giving the Falklands control over fishing and oil-exploration rights in that area. Britain had refused permission for this previously for fear of irritating Argentina.
The Falklands remain a colonial anachronism, administered by a governor appointed by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London. In local affairs, the eight-member elected Legislative Council (Legco) exercises power over most internal matters. Four of the eight members come from Stanley, with the remainder representing Camp. Britain controls defense and international relations.
Many books about the islands have been written since the 1982 war, but the most readily available general account is the third edition of Ian Strange’s The Falkland Islands (1984), which covers the islands’ geography, history and natural history. To get the most out of your visit, pick up A Visitor’s Guide to the Falkland Islands (2005), by Debbie Summers, a native Falklander. Published by Falklands Conservation (www.falklandsconservation.com), it’s filled with color photos, excellent maps and interesting facts.
AD


Read more: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/falkland-islands/history#ixzz2O3P5hvBk
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 02:28 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Exactly. The repopulation of the FAlklands AFTER the 1980's war was about 65% new Brits.


Where did you hear that? Was it the same place you were told that most islanders weren't bothered about being Argentinian?

You've got a track record of posting incorrect information, (attitude of islanders, date of vote,) so I don't think anything you claim should be taken at face value. And before you ask I'm not going to do your research for you, post a link that backs up your claims for once.

In any event do you think that removing 65% of the population from the vote would affect the result in any way? How long should someone have to live somewhere before their opinion matters?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 02:45 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
BUT really, what the hell was your whole point in the Honduras coup?




Really, you need me to spell things out to you? I've been quite clear throughout, unlike you, who tells me to flip flapjacks and EhBeth to argue with Setanta when faced with facts you don't like.

There are two points I made about the Honduran coup, both of which are fairly obvious, but I'll keep things simple.

First of all you told Spendi that, unlike America who was cleaning up its act, the catholic church was still engaged in cover up and the protection of paedophile priests. The coup in Honduras clearly demonstrates that America has not cleaned up its act.

The second point is that you pontificate about British imperialism, but limit your criticisms of American imperialism to a theoretical discussion about the status of Hawaii. The truth is that American agridollars buy up vast stretches of land in Latin America, and force the population to work for a pittance, no different from the excesses of any absentee landlord. When push comes to shove America supports the rights of the wealthy plantation owner over the native population, and will even engineer a coup to keep the fabulously wealthy happy.

You are the hypocrite in this respect, because, far from being an anti imperialist, you welcome the pernicious economic imperialism that America practices day in day out, even to the point of making lame jokes about lawyers, and refusing to deal with the reality of deaths and 'disappearances,' in a bloody coup all for the benefit of rich Americans.
 

Related Topics

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE BRITISH THREAD II
  3. » Page 640
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 10:33:06