Ukraine Thread

[Sarmatian]

I don't really support the Argentine position (actually, to be perfectly frank, I don't care. Arguing about a few pieces of rock in the middle of nowhere... Is there something I'm missing? Gold? Oil?).

My point is that there's nothing about anti-UK military pack, or even a concerted diplomatic effort about it in the treaty or even in the article. It's just cheap sensationalism. It's too stupid to be even called propaganda.

"Supporting dialogue" is the oldest trick in the book when you want to not say anything. Like literally every country in the world supports direct dialogue of Belgrade and Pristina. Those who recognized Kosovo and those who didn't it. You can't go wrong with "supporting dialogue".

[Brenus]

“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation… To make a Nazi a killer, he just has to be a good Nazi. To make a Communist a killer, you have to pervert the ideology in the name of realism.

“I hope it is not equating Putin's produce with the Scripture.” l, no…

[Gilrandir]

This is unfortunately Argentina's "discussion" on the issue of Falklands from my point of view.

Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas, imperialistic scum!"
Britain: "Mh, our colonies have the right to self-determination, what do you say, Falklanders?"
Falkland: "No thanks, we like being British, Britannia rules the seas!"
Britain: "Well, this is awkward, don't want to be an independent country?"
Falkland: "Nope, we like it here."
Britain: "Sorry Argentina, we had a referendum, they overly whelmingly want to remain British. I tell you what though, we will make them independent in all but name, we will work on some co-operation plans about the area, and lets things carry on well."
Argentina: "FFFFF-U Britainnia! Imperialistic scum bag, you own part of Argentina, it is OURS, I tell you, OURS!!!"
Britain: "Err... calm down a little there, the people there have decided..."
Argentina: "THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS! Of course Brits will want to be Brits! It is Argentina land!"
*Argentina invades the Falklands, then gets its ass handed to it by Margaret Thatcher*
Britain: "Seriously... what the f- was that?, Argentina?"
Argentina: "Islas Malvinas is OURS!!! I will even write it in Constitution, we will scorn you forever, Britannia! Empire Scum!!"
*Now to the Modern Day*
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas!! Scumbag"
Britain: "No"
Argentina: "Such imperialistic scumbag, you won't even discuss the issue! the issue where we say we want it and you give it us!"

This is all very witty, but it's a pity we don't have an Argentinian here to voice his take on the issue.

My point is that there's nothing about anti-UK military pack, or even a concerted diplomatic effort about it in the treaty or even in the article. It's just cheap sensationalism. It's too stupid to be even called propaganda.

I think one should not focus here on the propagandistic character of the article (which is obvious). It is the sense of it which is important.
Being largely ostracized elsewhere, Putin tries to find others who hold themselves wronged by G 7 members and pretend to form new alliances to see if that can make them nervous.

“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation… To make a Nazi a killer, he just has to be a good Nazi. To make a Communist a killer, you have to pervert the ideology in the name of realism.

Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions.
But whatever ideology might be behind some practice, it is the latter that is to be evaluated in the first place.

[Gilrandir]

The SWIFT offensive has started?
http://rt.com/business/253649-crimea...blocked-swift/

[Beskar]

This is all very witty, but it's a pity we don't have an Argentinian here to voice his take on the issue.

Probably say "That is stereotypical of a British imperialist scumbag."

[Gilrandir]

Probably say "That is stereotypical of a British imperialist scumbag."

Unlike you, I don't humiliate people just for fun. To be impartial one should hear both sides of the story. Am I asking too much?

[Sarmatian]

No, but...

Let's face it, it's a couple of pieces of rock that Britain got during it's imperialist past and doesn't have any justification for keeping, but likewise, Argentina doesn't have any justification for demanding. They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them.

In those situations, I tend to support what those who live there actually want, and they seem to want to stay with Britain.

[Gilrandir]

No, but...

Let's face it, it's a couple of pieces of rock that Britain got during it's imperialist past and doesn't have any justification for keeping, but likewise, Argentina doesn't have any justification for demanding. They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them.

In those situations, I tend to support what those who live there actually want, and they seem to want to stay with Britain.

Did they ask local penguins and gannets? Their votes could have drastically changed the outcome of the referendum.

[Brenus]

"They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them." And not forgetting that the Spanish name of Malvinas comes from the French Malouines, coming itself from the inhabitants of St Malo, harbour from where the 1st fishermen (les malouins) coming from this town, having semi-permanent shelter for the fishing season... I don't remember really who lost it to whom and when, but it was a succession of owners, all becoming owner by war and conquest.
And to be fair, the inhabitants want to be English, and I don't see real reason why the island should be Argentinian, even I do not approve the vocabulary used by the English to speak about the Argentinians...

[Brenus]

"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).

[Beskar]

I don't really support the Argentine position (actually, to be perfectly frank, I don't care. Arguing about a few pieces of rock in the middle of nowhere... Is there something I'm missing? Gold? Oil?).

It was originally a distraction by Argentina's Military Junta due to really crap economical issues at home. The whole "let's distract the population and invade" somewhere mechanism. Since Falklands as you adequately described it as being "pieces of rock in the middle of no where" they thought it would be successful and the British would simply surrender the territory.

Well, they were wrong. Whilst as you described, no one really cared about the 'pieces of rock in middle of no where' except for the population of those rocks who are British. Britain tried to pawn them off, obviously not wanting the diplomatic trouble, but as they were British citizens, with a say, they voted to remain part of Britain. So like it or not, Argentina just attacked British citizens (though I believe it is dual-citizenship, afterall, they are independent all but in name, basically).

This is obviously made the Falklands a manner of pride and principle, and stopped a lot of the proposed 'co-operative agreements' with Argentina, especially as Argentina are steadfast in their position of "this is ours". This is also complicated that to spite the Falklands, they made it part of their constitution that the President has to press the claims of Argentina over the Falkland islands. This is why you keep hearing about it regularly, because the President has to do it by law.

Though, as for Oil, a few years ago, they did discover some large oil fields near the Falklands which haven't been touched yet and this has given a bigger imperative to press that claim.

[Sarmatian]

If the Argentinians acquire them in the future, I imagine their reaction would be something akin to...