Chavez says UK should give Falklands to Argentina

[cal04]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took another swipe at Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, saying Britain should give back the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Chavez, a blunt-speaking leftist known for his anti-American rhetoric, used the same address to prod U.S. President George W. Bush again, calling him a "nut case." Chavez' comment on the Falklands came a day after he told Blair to "go to hell" for saying Venezuela should respect the rules of the international community. His attack on the premier shifted his aim following a new flare-up with Washington, sparked when Chavez last week expelled a U.S. Navy attache for alleged espionage and compared Bush to Adolf Hitler.

On Thursday Chavez said Britain had violated the sovereignty of various nations, citing the case of the tiny Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina, which Britain and Argentina went to war over in 1982. "We have to remember the Falklands, how they were taken away from the Argentines," Chavez said in a speech in the western Venezuelan city of Maracaibo. "Those islands are Argentina's. Return them, Mr. Blair, those islands are Argentina's."

Britain still controls the Falklands, which Argentine troops invaded in 1982, setting off a three-month war against colonial ruler Britain in which hundreds were killed on both sides and more than 1,000 wounded. Blair said during a parliamentary session on Wednesday that countries like Venezuela and Cuba should realise they had much to gain from the principles of democracy. Chavez responded by telling Blair to stay in his place and calling him the main ally of "Hitler Danger Bush Hitler" -- referring to his favourite nickname for Bush, Mr. Danger.

Chavez, a former army officer who took office seven years ago after failing to win power in a 1992 coup, lashed out at Bush anew on Thursday, and said he preferred speaking with former U.S. president Bill Clinton. "Now there's a nut case up there in the presidency of the United States," Chavez said. "He's dangerous to the world because he's capable of dropping nuclear bombs. "Now they're making plans to invade Iran and Venezuela as well. He's crazy, the North Americans themselves are going to have to tie him up because he is capable of destroying half the world and destroying his own country."

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-09T231230Z_01_N09274037_RTRUKOC_0_UK-VENEZUELA-BRITAIN.xml&archived=False

[BayCityProgressive]

1. I agree

The UK are even more guilty of imperialism than the US and also need to be put in their place for the crimes they have committed.

[Taxloss]

17. The Falklanders are British.

I don't mean British subjects - I mean literally British. Argentina has no more claim over the Falklands than it has over New Jersey.

[rman]

29. Because Falkland was taken by the British

The British have as much right to occupy the Falklands as the Dutch had to occupy Indonesia and S Africa: none.

The colonial age never ended. We have violated and are still violating our own convictions of what is just and moral.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. The Falklands were uninhabited when they were discovered. n/t

[rman]

32. doesn't matter. nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. Why should Argentina have a claim to them?

The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. The people aren't from Argentina. The culture has little in common with Argentina. Unless you're willing to give your home to an American Indian (assuming you aren't one) then you've no room to talk either. American Indians at least have some reasonable theory upon which they could claim ownership of your pad.

[1932]

118. The Falklands were a part of Argentina when Argentina became independent.

The UK took them from Argentina shortly afterwards, IIUC.

[ButterflyBlood]

47. sure it does

The examples you cited involved the colonial powers oppressing the indigenous population. The Falklands have no such population, the population are all British settlers, who want to remain part of the UK.

[Taxloss]

42. The Falklands were uninhabited.

The Argentinians have as much or as little claim to the Falklands as Britain does. Argentina's one superior claim is geographical proximity, a lousy way to decide sovereignty. Britain's claim is far stronger - 1800 islanders who are British and want to remain British.

[Stella_Artois]

45. Not really

The Islanders are British, there are no Argentinians there.

The Argentinians invaded in 1982 and attempted to claim it for themselves against the wishes of the inhabitants, and began to move people there.

Why isn't it colonialism when its not done by Europeans ?

[rman]

49. Didn't the British come from Britain, as opposed to from the Falklands?

Falkland became British only because the Brits took it. The fact that it was uninhabited only made it easy to take it.

[ButterflyBlood]

52. Who cares?

They didn't steal it from anyone, there was no indigenous population being oppressed. No one was wronged. I don't see the problem.

[Igel]

56. "Take," as in "settle".

So the question is, then: Do we want the British to return it to nobody? And would Argentina and other South American countries (and their citizens) respect nobody's right to it, ensuring nobody's claim to it, and even going to war to ensure that nobody, and only nobody, was actively living there?

Personally, I find it disheartening that in the centuries since occupation, nobody's never bothered to contest the European claims to the Islands. If nobody would make his (her?) voice heard, perhaps we'd get somewhere. But since nobody's been quiet, others have spoken.

As for the name ... Falklands, Malouines, Malvinas. Whatever. Nobody hasn't named them.

[rayofreason]

57. That is the silliest thing I've read today.

At one time there were no humans anywhere - they had not evolved. When they did evolve they spread, and there were many branches of humans inhabiting various parts of Eurasia and Africa. Our species, homo sapiens, evolved rather late, spread around the world, and all the others were driven to extinction. So in answer to your question "Didn't the British come from Britain, as opposed to from the Falklands?", really no one comes from where they are - they all came from somewhere else, except perhaps for people in a small section of the rift valley where we evolved in the first place.

In some regions (Australia, Americas, Pacific islands, Madagascar) there were no earlier humans. Just as in the Falklands "The fact that it was uninhabited only made it easy to take it." Want to kick the settlers out of the Falklands? Turn it over to the Argentines? How about turning Madagascar over to the South Africans. After all, Madagascar is close to Africa and the austronesian-speaking settlers came from far away Indonesia.

Actually, the best case for possession can be made by the first inhabitants of a region. There are very few of those, and the Falklands is one of those few. Even native Americans would have a hard time with a specific people making claim to a specific place - there has been too much migration. For example, the Navajo and Apache people speak Athabaskan languages with close affinity to languages in eastern Alaska. Linguistic and archaeological evidence would suggest a migration from the Athabaskan homeland to the southwest occurred about 1000 years ago. The word "Apache" is actually a Zuni word meaning "enemy". Shall we put the Navajo people under Zuni rule? After all, aren't they colonists and imperialists?

[rman]

59. i admit

my case is rather weak. as is Chavez's case in this instance.

[VirginiaDem]

93. This has got to be a first.

A Chavez supporter admits a Chavez mistake.
But thank you--it is refreshing to see someone on DU admit a weak point on anything.

[Posteritatis]

68. Liberate the oppressed world! Mankind back to Kenya now!

:silly:


You're right, this stuff about the Falklands being horrifically oppressed by the EEEEEEEEVIL BRITISH is just silly. Most of the arguments for returning the Falklands are little more than "..but .. but.. you're wrong anyway!" at this point.

[Stella_Artois]

77. That is correct

This is normally how uninhabited regions become habited. Britain was uninhabited at once, doesn't mean they are going to move out and hand it to France.

[genie_weenie]

87. That doesn't make *any* sense

Uninhabited means the Brits *don't* have a claim to it?

[IndianaGreen]

35. And African slaves were American property

and the Afrikaaners owned South Africa.

Many British were born in India during the colonial days, are they British or Indian?

[Taxloss]

41. I'm British, thanks, my parents were British.

My birth is registered with the British High Consulate in Calcutta. I can opt for dual nationality if I want but I don't fancy spending two years of national service shivering in a foxhole in Kashmir.

There are no "indigenous" Falklanders. The Falklanders are the descendants of Brits, identify only with Britain, and want to remain British. There is no persecuted Argentinian minority.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. If they love Britain so much...

..then one has to wonder why they have such an aversion to living in the actual country they claim to identify with instead of selfishly having helped push Britain and Argentina into a war over some stupid little group of islands...

Violet...

[PatGund]

92. Check your history.....

The people on the Falklands did not push *ANYONE* into a war. The war was started by the right-wing government of Argentina, who *invaded* the islands.

Cast blame on the people who deserve it, not on the islanders.

As for "aversion", many of those islanders have been their for generations. That's their home. Culturally they identify with the UK, but the Falklands are their home.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. I have, I suggest you check yrs...

All that seems to be happening here is a bunch of folk who think *history* is the soundbytes they glance at on CNN...

For yr information, the Falkland Islanders were one of the most aggressive and stubborn bunch of lobbyists to have existed. While yr 'history' of the islands starts with invasion, there was a shitload of diplomacy between Argentina and Britain in an attempt to avoid a conflict that neither wanted. One of the solutions proposed was a lease-back arrangement for the islands, but the Falklanders used their connections to attempt to put a stop to that. So please don't try and paint those selfish folk as innocent in all of it, coz they weren't...

And if the Islanders are Falklanders, then they're not British as someone else claimed. I've got friends here who culturally identify with the UK, but don't feel the need to have Britain rule us...

p.s. Argentina was a right-wing govt at the time? So was the Thatcher govt...


Violet...

[PatGund]

120. The fact of the matter is -

The people who LIVE on those islands have made it VERY clear. They do not want to be part of Argentina, they want to remain part of the UK. Argentina acted as the agressor here, not the UK.

And yes, both Argentina and the UK were right-wing at the time.

As for history, I've read books on the UK/Argentine war and written papers on the subject for college history classes. A bit more than the "soundbites" you dismiss.

To bring up something nobody else seems willing to answer, France holds on to two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. These inhabited islands are the overseas territory of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and are some of the last traces of New France. They are almost literally surrounded on three sides by Canada - in fact, there's a ferry between Fortune Newfoundland and Saint-Pierre. By your logic, Canada has a MUCH better claim geographically speaking than France does. Yet the inhabitants of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon have stated their desire to remain part of France, and by treaty and desire they remain such. Should their desires be ignored and the islands given over to Canada?? Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying should be done to the Falklands.

[Posteritatis]

99. Uhhhh

In other words, "There's no way my client could have stopped himself, Your Honor! Did you see the skimpy, tight clothing the plaintiff was wearing? He's not responsible, she is!"

[Violet_Crumble]

101. Why are you talking about rape??

That's a very bizarre post...

Violet...

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. It's a very good analogy

You're blaming the Falkland Islanders for getting invaded. You're saying "how dare they live in a place that's nice enough for Argentina to want to invade?" You're blaming the victim.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. No, it's a totally crap one...

Because you don't seem to be actually reading what I said. Rather, yr coming up with something completely weird, which is what you come up with when you say: 'you're saying...'. But if you want me to, I will say that the Falkland Islanders are not the victims at all. They got what they wanted out of it, and they've got blood on their hands from the death of every British and Argentinian troop who died. The real victims are the troops who died, and you should never forget that...

Are you aware that there was a whole lot of very important stuff sometimes called international diplomacy happening that went back decades before the invasion? Is anyone here even aware that Britain had for many years wanted to transfer sovereignty of the Falklands to Argentina? All I'm seeing in this thread is some bizarre sort of British Empire fanclub, and the whole concept of Empire is a wonderful and pure thing..

A good book to read on the Falklands if anyone wants to get beyond the shallow and meaningless 'Britain was the Good Guy - Argentina was the Bad Guy' rubbish is 'The Falklands, Politics and War' by G.M. Dillon. It's a very good book that deals with how the crisis developed, and the diplomatic steps that were taken both before and during the war. There's also a BBC documentary about the invasion and the terrible cost of the stubbornness of the Falkland Islanders, though I can't remember what it's called now...

Violet...

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. Empire? It's self-determination

The Falkland Islanders wanted to remain a British colony. By saying "they've got blood on their hands from the death of every British and Argentinian troop who died", you are blaming the people who were invaded. They didn't ask the Argentinian army to occupy them. You seem to think it was their responsibility to give up their lives and turn themselves over to a country run by a right wing military junta, whose history is totally separate from them, and who even speak a different language. Either that, or leave their homes and livelihoods and try and start their lives again several thousand miles away in a completely different community . Why? To satisfy a military junta. What an unbelievable position for someone to take on DU. "They got what they want" - they got to remain in their own homes, with the same democratic country in charge of them. Is that so much to ask for? Why do you think handing them over to a murderous general would have been a good idea?

Meanwhile, there may have been some British politicians or civil servants who just wanted to be rid of the Falklands, because they couldn't give a shit about the people. But that's hardly an 'empire', is it, if the central government is apathetic about a colony. But to you, 'empire' is a nice buzzword you feel comfortable criticising, so you apply it to a system you want, for some bizarre reason, to get rid of, despite what the people who live there want.

[Taxloss]

109. You've got this completely wrong.

Negotiations weren't going well because the Falklanders were indeed intransigent that they wanted nothing to do with a brutal, unsympathetic, right-wing military junta. (And before you make some clever remark about Thatcher, there is no comparison. Besides, the Islands were and are self-governing, so Thatcher had little to do with their everyday running.)

But diplomatic deadlock had nothing to with why Argentina invaded. It was a crime of opportunity - John Nott was making cuts in the Navy and scrapped our only icebreaker in the South Atlantic. A move that, among other things, was supposed to demonstrate Britain's peaceful intentions in the region!

The regime in Buenos Aires was increasingly unpopular at home, and it spied an opportunity to stir up a bit of nationalism by snatching the Islands. Islands that, incidentally, it wanted mainly for purely jingoistic purposes. It was a gamble - they figured that Britain did not have the resorces or political will to take them back.

They reckoned without Thatcher's own boneheaded jingoistic determination to avoid Suez II. And it was an extrardinarily risky operation. Not only did it overstretch our forces globally, had the Argentinians had the good fortune to sink one of our aircraft carriers, the recapture would have been impossible.

So there are only three salient facts here:

1. The Falklanders are self-governing Britons under the British Crown. (Yes, they are Falklanders, and they are British. "British" isn't a race or a strain or a culture, it's a nationality. So you can be both a Falklander and a Briton in the same way you can be both a Scot and a Briton. I'm Indian-born English, and the nationality I identify with is British. British national identity is a very flexible thing.)

2. They have been for six generations. They are the natives of the Falklands.

3. They want to stay that way.

Just try and come up with something that over-rides those simple plain facts. At the same time as we were taking and settling the Falklands, the USA was taking and settling the American West. Would you support handing that back to the Mexicans and the Native Americans?

If you want to criticise late-stage British decolonisation, criticise the fact that we sold out the people of Diego Garcia and Hong Kong, and handed them over to unsympathetic foreign powers, contrary to their wishes.

[yellowcanine]

69. Hmm. New Jersey isn't an island off their coast. The Falklands

are. If a bunch of Brits settled in Key West and claimed it for Great Britain would you say the U.S. had no claim? The Falklands have been claimed by Britain, Spain, France, and Argentina since the 1700s. France had the first settlement, not Britain. Spain took over after France and then came Britain. Britain just happens to be the last ones to control the islands by virtue of their naval power. So you are in essence saying might makes right. Argentina bases its claim on sovereignty on the early Spain claim. As one of the heirs of Spanish territory in South America it would appear to any fair minded person that Argentina's claim based on early settlement is at least as legitimate as Britain's, if not more so. If one adds in the factor of geographic proximity, it that Britain loses out there as well. The ONLY claim which favors Britain is current possession and that is based on military might.

[Taxloss]

71. Errrr ....

... Unless you're a Native American, you're flinging stones in a glass house.

Early settlement is one thing; continued settlement is another.

The bottom line is this: if you took a poll of the Islanders, the overwhelming majority would want to remain British. And I'm not talking 55%, I'm talking 95%. They are British and have been British for generations.

[yellowcanine]

74. Two wrongs, etc, etc, By your reasoning, the British settlers should

have been able to hang onto the "White Highlands" in Kenya simply because of "continued settlement". Similar claims could be made in Rhodesia and South Africa. You call it "settlement". Some call it colonialism. Your reasoning is also a formula for seperatism everywhere as well. Think free Quebec and the Confederate States of America. You might have a point had the Argentinians ever given up their claim to the Falklands. They didn't. And the settlement argument is bogus since the the Argentine settlers who were there in 1831 were forcibly expelled before Britain took over in 1832. Some wrongs cannot be made right again. This is one that could with a little give and take among Britain, Argentina, and the Falklanders. At the least, Argentina should be entitled to some compensation for oil and mineral wealth extracted from and around the Falklands.

[Taxloss]

76. Give and take?

So the Falklanders give up their identity and the Argentinians take over?

Unlike Kenya, the Falklands had no indigenous population. The colonial power here is Argentina, attempting to exert its will over a population of Britons. Either you accept the right of the Falklanders to decide their own destiny, or you don't. Would you like to have your nationality changed by the American government to settle a 170-year-old territorial wrangle with a government that attacked you within living memory?

This is a dead issue. The Falklands belong to the people born there. Find another battle.

[yellowcanine]

79. "This is a dead issue." Obviously not. And it is not MY battle, so no.

It is a battle of basic human rights so everyone has a right and duty to speak. Everyone's "right to decide their own destiny" stops when someone else's ox is getting gored. The Falklanders have possession. That doesn't mean it belongs to them. The "colonial power is Argentinia?" Please don't insult my intelligence. The colonial power is Britain, who took over from the colonial power Spain, who took over from the colonial power France.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. By your definition, Argentina has nothing to do with it at all

Spain was once the colonial power in Chile too. Does that mean Chile should be part of Argentina?

Britain established a settlement on the Falklands before the Spanish (but after the French). Britain never relinquished their claim (but France did sell theirs to the Spanish). After Argentina gained independence from Spain, they claimed the Falklands too. They had no more right to it than Britain. If this were the 1830s, then there might be a case for arbitration. But possession over a long period of time does alter ownership, as, for instance, in the case of the south-western USA.

[Taxloss]

82. What claim does Argentina have?

It would be exerting its power over 1800 people who have no wish to be Argentinian. What overrides their wishes so compellingly, other than cartographic neatness? What are the Falklanders who have lived there all their lives meant to do, pack up and leave? I repeat - what claim does Argentina have?

(PS when will you be handing California, New Mexico, Arizona and half of Texas back to Mexico?)

[Xithras]

89. By that reasoning, the US has a valid claim to Canada.

After all, both territories were claimed by the imperialist British too. Since the US became independent, it should have the "right" to claim neighboring territories once controlled by its colonialist master, right?

The Falklands never belonged to Argentina before the colonial era because there was no Argentina before the colonial era. The Europeans didn't "take" the Falklands from anybody, because they didn't belong to anybody (when the island was first discovered, its only residents were birds and a fox). When Argentina claims it, they're being just as colonialist as anyone else. They want control of a land beyond their own borders (and hundreds of miles across the ocean) which has never been part of their nation other than as a claimed possession. That puts them in the exact same position as Britain, France, Spain, and everyone else who's ever stopped to claim a rock in the island chain. By all reasonable definitions of the term, the FRENCH are the islands native inhabitants, since they were the first people to settle there. Last I heard, France wants no part in this row. Spain actually has a better claim to the islands than Argentina does at this point.

[Xithras]

88. Your history is wrong.

Technically, the Dutch were there first. Either way, the English originally laid claim to the island in 1690, the French were the first to settle it in 1764, and the British established a colony on the second island two years later. Spain claimed the islands in 1766 and destroyed the British colony. Britain came back a few years later, established another colony, and eventually abandoned it after a few years. The Spanish abandoned their colony in 1811, deciding that it was too much trouble to maintain.

Argentina claimed the islands in 1816 simply because they were uninhabited, and ignored the two big brass plaques that had been left there (one stated the island belonged to Spain, and the other to Britain). They lie 300 miles off the Argentine coast and the Argentines wanted it to control naval rights. The island was used as a prison when Britain showed up in 1833 to take the island back again. The Argentine "colony", which was really just a prison camp with a schooner to protect it, was handed over without a fight and the prisoners were taken back to Argentina. The English then became the first to actually develop a permanent and stable colony on the islands, bringing in civilians with the intent to turn it into their home.

Argentina is odd when it comes to claiming things, because they also claim Georgia and the Sandwich islands, even though they're more than 1000 miles away from Argentina, and even though they're uninhabitable and technically lie closer to Antarctica than they do South America. Why? Because if you control the islands, you control South Atlantic trade. Control that and you get all sorts of power in the world marketplace.

When it comes right down to it though, Argentina's claim is no more valid than any of the other nations. The land wasn't taken from anybody, so the ultimate decisions comes down to its residents. Those residents want to remain as part of Britain, so that's what should happen. Argentina's historical claim may be equally as valid as Britains, but given that equality the opinions of the islands residents have to be considered as a tiebreaker.

[genie_weenie]

91. The only claim that favors ownership of ANY land is

based on military might. Take a look at every nation in the world including shudder Iraq, America and the Levant. Now, tell me which of those places is controlled by the descendants of the first men to claim the land.

Might makes right is the basis for all land ownership claims in the world.

[savemefromdumbya]

104. but isn't time to give the Falks up?

[Taxloss]

110. Why?

[savemefromdumbya]

115. What use is a land so far away?

we are done with the colonies

[Taxloss]

116. We don't "use" it.

The Falklanders do.

[PatGund]

70. Nope....

The Falkland Islands were completely uninhabited when the first English Settlers arrived. No previous claim at all. The people in the Falklands are British by culture and choice, and have stated repeatedly their desire to remain part of the UK. If they had any desire to become part of Argentina, I suspect the UK would have let them go their own way ages ago.

The Argentines, led by a right-wing leader at the time, tried to capture the islands *against* the express will and desire of it's population. They were repelled. And, in the case, rightly so. By treaty and by the desire of the inhabitants, the Falkland Islands are part of the UK.

It may interest you to know that France holds on to two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. These inhabited islands are the overseas territory of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and are some of the last traces of New France. They are almost literally surrounded on three sides by Canada - in fact, there's a ferry between Fortune Newfoundland and Saint-Pierre. By your logic, Canada has a MUCH better claim geographically speaking than France does. Yet the inhabitants of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon have stated their desire to remain part of France, and by treaty and desire they remain such. Should their desires be ignored and the islands given over to Canada?? Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying should be done to the Falklands.

[Canadian_moderate]

2. I don't like Bush

However, that does not mean I care for anything Chavez says.

Fuck Bush and fuck Chavez. I side with neither.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. I really

don't know enough yet about Chavez. I haven't heard of him doing anything very undemocratic. Also, it seems he has helped the poor in his country. The fact that he once tried to take power with a military coup gives me pause though.

[Jayhawk Lib]

7. I have not heard...

What has he done for the poor in his country??

Some one on DU a while back posted some polls that said the US was ranked 14th on standard of living or something like that. I looked up Venezuela and they were something like 200th.

[Judi Lynn]

25. You're going to need to start reading, like some of the rest of DU'ers

to find out what you really need to know. If you had even been reading D.U. at all, you would have seen the answer to your first question TONS OF TIMES. TONS. You've got to take some initiative yourself.

When Hugo Chavez was elected, the poor in his country were profoundly poor. You need to do some reading about that to actually understand what you need to know about it. How could he have pulled them out of that depth of poverty in a few years? The majority of Venezuelans are extremely poor, have been extremely poor for ages, and the country is ruled by a tiny, very wealthy group of people who own almost everything. Sharp, deep divisions between the wealthy and everyone else.

Here's an article most DU'ers who have participated in these Venezuela threads have read recently. It would help if you took a look at it as well:

Economic Growth is a Home Run in Venezuela

By Mark Weisbrot

CARACAS - "Viva Chavez," shouted Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, as the team celebrated its World Series sweep last week. Guillen is Venezuelan, and a national hero in this country of 25 million people who seem to believe that they too, along with Chicagoans, have won the World Series.

His cheer for the country's leftist President Hugo Chavez might have caused some reaction just a year or two ago. But these days it went largely unnoticed, despite the continuing hostility between the Chavez government and the Bush administration. Relations between the two governments have been sour since the Bush administration supported a military coup against Chavez in April 2002, as well as a failed attempt to recall him last year.

But Chavez' popularity is now among the highest of any president in Latin America, with a 77 percent approval rating, according to the latest polling.

A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.

Although Chavez talks about building "21st century socialism," the Venezuelan government's economic policies are gradualist reform, more akin to a European-style social democracy. The private sector is actually a larger share of the Venezuelan economy today than it was before Chavez took office
~ more ~

http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_11_01.htm

[Judi Lynn]

24. He led a coup against a Venezuelan President who required his state police

to fire into a crowd of protesting poor people who had been informed he had raised the price of their transportation and electricity beyond their means to pay. It's mentioned in this timeline, and hopefully you'll remember it:

Timeline: Venezuela
A chronology of key events

~snip~
1973 - Venezuela benefits from oil boom and its currency peaks against the US dollar; oil and steel industries nationalised.

1983-84 - Fall in world oil prices generates unrest and cuts in welfare spending; Dr Jaime Lusinchi (AD) elected president and signs pact involving government, trade unions and business.

1989 - Carlos Andres Perez (AD) elected president against the background of economic depression, which necessitates an austerity programme and an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots, in which between 300 and 2,000 people are killed, martial law and a general strike.

1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

The numbers on the people shot down in the streets are 300 and much higher. President Carlos Andres Perez's administration made the 300 number the official number they admit killing. The population indicated it's far. far higher.

As you saw, the President against whom Hugo Chavez led the coup was also impeached for embezzlement and corruption.

[Militant_Left]

3. A good question to ask everyone is...

if Argentina were willing to go to war for the land, and so was the UK, whose side would you be on...and would your support be more than mere words from 1000s of miles away.

That land belongs to the indigenous people of the land, and no one else.

[catmother]

5. there was a little war over it back in the late 70s or early 80sl

[Militant_Left]

10. Thanks for telling me about my own history.

Sorry if it's not white enough for you.

[catmother]

13. what the hell are you talking about? your history? not white

enough? what's your problem?

on edit: if it's your history why don't you tell us about it?????

on edit: i'm still waiting for an answer. :bounce:

[Bacchus39]

20. Argentina is whiter than Britain

Che Guevara was from Argentina and he was white. is that white enough for you??

[savemefromdumbya]

105. and people got killed

[Johnyawl]

6. there were no indigenous people in the Falklands...

the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered. The current inhabitants of the islands are descendants of British settlers, and they overwhelmingly wish to remain British.

[Militant_Left]

11. And how close would uninhabited land have to be to the UK

for them to claim it even if it were never inhabited by the British?

[Centered]

96. is it uninhabited now??

then the race is on!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. How do you define indigenous?

They were possibly sighted by Spanish expeditions, though the British were probably the first Europeans to land on them (though there's archaeological evidence that South Americans may have visited it at some stage); the French put the first settlement on them, then the British put one there too; the French sold their settlement to the Spanish, who then chucked out the British. Argentina got independence, and the settlers went with Argentina; then the British chucked them out. All the inhabitants have been British for the past 170 years.

[Posteritatis]

21. Considering the "indiginous people" are British...

Another Argentine invasion of the Falklands would be to me exactly the same as if they landed troops in Wessex.

[Taxloss]

43. The indigenous people are British. n/t

[Phoonzang]

8. Do the people of the Falklands want to join Argentina?

Seeing as how they're almost all of British decent, I seriously doubt it.

I know I'm in a minority here, but I'm still suspicious of Chavez. Somethings just not..."right" about him. Because he's Bush's enemy doesn't mean he's my friend. How the hell does a political party win nearly 100 percent of the vote anyway?

[Taxloss]

18. No, they don't.

By an overwhelming majority.

And why should they? They prosper nicely under the Crown. They're the richest people in the world by some measures.

[Darranar]

27. It didn't.

Chavez's party won about two-thirds, and that was with an opposition boycott.

[Phoonzang]

80. So they did...my mistake n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

106. No

[wakeme2008]

9. On this I will disagree with Chavez

The ppl of the Falklands are British citizens and while they may want to be independent, they would NOT want to be part of Argentina.

[Pavulon]

14. Who Cares

The only reason this guy gets print is because of his mouth and the oil he sits on. Any one heard from mugabe.

[corporate_mike]

15. Chavez is not in charge of internation affairs, is he?

Why is he looking for conflict?

[rman]

33. I think nations are in charge of inter-nation affairs (or at least

they should be). Chavez is the head of a nation, so his opinion is as relevant as the opinion of any other head of state.

[Solo_in_MD]

94. He does seem to be doing a lot of swaggering

Sometimes I find his actions and statements amusing, but as I was reminded recently they are really geared for internal and regional consumption and lose their context with us. The Falklands is a good example of that. Historically British with British citizens living there, Argentina has no legitimate claim. Anyone with an understanding of their history realizes that. But by backing Argentina, Chavez builds regional reputation.

[Eugene]

16. Chavez's position on the Falklands is nothing new in Latin America.

Most of Latin America believes that the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
belong to Argentina. The United States also supported that position
before the 1982 Falklands War.

The viewpoint is nothing new, but making in issue of it is divisive.
Hugo Chavez has enough enemies without picking a fight with Europe.

[catmother]

19. i would think that the people in the falklands should have a vote

as to which country they want to be part of.

[ButterflyBlood]

48. They'd vote overwhelmingly for the UK

Probably over 99%. That's what happened in Girbralter when Spain demanded such a referendum. The Falklands have no indigenous population, there are no Argentinans living there, just British.

[High Plains]

22. Chavez says a lot. He's very provocative.

And DU always rises to the bait.

[corporate_mike]

98. Venezuelan population below poverty line : 67%

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

[f-bush]

23. I agree-Britain stole it!

[Codeine]

31. Stole it from who? n/t

[Stella_Artois]

46. Birds

The only inhabitants at the time.

[ronnie624]

26. "Chavez, a blunt-speaking leftist

known for his anti-American rhetoric,..."

The Bush administration is America? :shrug:

[JawJaw]

28. Chavez wrong on this one, I think

The population of the Falklands have had British traditions for generations, and overwhelmingly want to remain British subjects. I don't think there's much more that needs to be added...

Also, the British government has poured big money into strengthening defences on the Islands. They aren't going to kiss that goodbye anytime soon.


I think the Ilois people of Diego Garcia have a far more valid case for reparations and the return of their homeland which has essentially been turned into a permanent US aircraft carrier. They were treated shamefully by the British. (Although their island does provide a handy piss-stop for George and Condi when they go on their foreign adventures)

[Bridget Burke]

36. Another viewpoint: "Admiral William Brown"

In the Empire days of old when they murdered for gold
And paraded it around the streets of London
Oh no human rights were given to the natives dead or living
"Las Islas Malvinas, Argentina"

In the Argentine he died Father Fahey by his side
'57 was the year his country mourned him
A hero of the nation he's remembered with elation
Throughout the world where freedom still abounds

And the Southern Cross take note where bold Willie Bullfin wrote
The Irish still support you Argentina
With the Empire tumbling down let no Paddies back the crown
"Las Islas Malvinas, Argentina"

www.eirefirst.com/a.html

Now, now, folks--I'm not saying there should be another war. Indeed, the people of Las Islas Malvinas ought to let the world know their preference. But England had a long history of imperialism in the more southern parts of South America. Not that we ever learned it in school. Eduardo Galeano's "Memory of Fire" trilogy is an excellent way to catch up on the history & legend of the Americas--with a Southern orientation.

www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393317730/qid=1139577287/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-8003467-1033556?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Alas, so many in this thread don't really care about the people involved. But they are totally insulted that Chavez dare speak his mind.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. The people of the Falklands are British.

And by a large margin would like to remain part of Britain. It's not an issue of an oppressed people.

[Bridget Burke]

40. I said that the Islanders should have the final say!

At least 70% of them are descended from the English. And they were given full British citizenship after the War--regaining rights stripped from them by the British Nationality Act of 1981.

But I don't recall Maggie Thatcher's concern for the Islanders so much as her determination to hang on to one of the last scraps of Empire. The War gave her popularity quite a boost. At least it led to the fall of the military government of Argentina--good allies of the USA, even if people kept disappearing.

We know a bit about our country's questionable history in Mexico & Central America. But studying European imperialism in South America helps us understand Chavez's statement. How many in this thread are less concerned with the Islanders' wishes than the words of that dirty Commie Chavez, friend of the Thug Castro!

[ButterflyBlood]

53. Most people here do not hate Chavez

It just so happens that we disagree with him in this instance. Never seen anyone bash him or call him a commie.

It's true Thatcher probably had no concern over the Islanders, but that doesn't change the fact that's what they want. You say the Islanders should have the final say, and I agree, but don't be shocked if any such referendum shows 99%+ support for remaining to Britain (just like the one in Gibralter did)

[Bridget Burke]

61. Yes, but the predictable Chavez-haters are irritating.

On this thread & so many others.

Let the inhabitants of those desolate rocks fly whichever flag they wish. (Do the sheep get to vote?)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

64. "Do the sheep get to vote?"

I don't know over there but here definitely.

[happyslug]

38. Enough of this, the nearest city, landfall etc is Argentina

And sooner or later that will prevail. One of the reason the US oppose Castro is that Cuba is to near New Orleans to be in Hostile hands. The same with the Falklands, it is to near the River Plate for Argentina to accept the Falklands in Hostile hands. Furthermore, unlike Cuba, the Falkland really have no economy except for it being a Coaling station for the old British Navy (and not needed since Coal stopped being used and the British Navy retreated from the far east). The British took the Falklands in the 1830s as a coaling station/supply depot (Steam Ships were just coming into use, but sail was the dominate means of sea transport for another 40 years) but the Falklands lost whatever economic value it had when the Suez and Panama Canals were finished ending any need for a supply base in the South Atlantic.

Since 1900 the Falklands has been an expense for Britain, costing way more to keep than any revenue produced by the Island. These costs could be cut but that means trading with Argentina WHICH EVERYONE KNOWS WILL LEAD TO ANNEXATION BY ARGENTINA (and thus opposed). The Falklands had some value during WWII do to the Italian/German presence in the Mediterranean, but that was only for Three years at best and most ships by that time held enough fuel that stopping at the Falklands was NOT needed (Unlike the days of sail where the need for Fresh water would require a stop at the Falklands or the River Plate, with the River Plate the preferred stop over point).

My point here is who first settled the Falklands, who took it from whom, and who have claims to it are really unimportant. What is important is the issue does the economic advantage of holding the Falklands worth continued hostility with Argentina over the Falklands? The answer to that question is NO and has been no since the Panama Canal was finished in 1912. Given that situation Britain should abandoned the island and the islanders told to survive without any support from Britain. Once that is done the Islanders themselves will join Argentina since it is the nearest place to buy thing they need and to sell their products (Wool from their Sheep) and may even get a Military Base from Argentina to protect the River Plate.

As to Thacher and the Falkland War, remember Thacher was in the middle of her fight with the British Coal Unions and was facing defeat over her Economic Policies (and the only reason she became Prime Minster was the Labor Party Split into two, one becoming the Social Democratic Party of Britain). Given this lack of support for her economic Policies she had a window of opportunity to impose her economic plan on Britain, that window was provided by the North Sea oil coming on line making Britain an oil exporter (with increase revenue do to the oil exports, much to the US). The problem for Thacher was this was NOT enough to get her re-elected. Than the Argentina Junta that had been ruling Argentina ran into its own economic problems. As an unelected Government the Junta could NOT make the cuts in social programs without riot or revolution, but also could not fund the social programs. Faced with this problems and growing unrest to the Argentina's economic problems the Junta decided to re-take the Falklands. The Junta hoped this act would unite the Country behind them and thus have the people accept the hard economic decisions that were needed.

Once the islands were taken, Thacher saw her opportunity to get re-elected. She became a war Prime Minister, had the British Navy and Army re-take the Falklands and then run as a war-winning Prime Minister. The Argentina Junta helped her by sending men but no supplies to the Island. This would have been a good policy if the other side do not intend to fight but once Thatcher decided to re-take the island Argentina had to many men and to few supplies (and an unsecured Supply line given Britain' much largest Naval Force). What Argentina should have done was ship additional supplies to the Island and withdraw some if not most of the soldiers on the island. The problem was the Economic Policies of the Junta had basically meant they was no supplies to ship AND any withdraw of men would be seen as a sign of weakness (Opening up Argentina to the people to demand Democratic Rule). Thus Britain with a well supplied but smaller military defeated the larger, but much worse supplied Argentina Army (This is also what happened to the US Army in the Philippines in 1942, the US sent Soldiers but no Supplies hoping shipping of soldiers would discourage a Japanese Invasion, it did not and the lack of Supplies lead to the lost of the Philippines).

As to how the war was run, the Argentinean Junta lost the war (and lost its hold on Argentina which restored Democracy to Argentina). Thacher was re-elected to continued her attacks on the British Unions. Notice neither side really considered the Falklands vital to they side. The Falkland was just a political football to kick around for domestic nationalist purposes by BOTH SIDES. Neither side addressed the issue of who really should rule the Falklands and Britain has continued to do so (Thorough Argentina has offered to buy out the present inhabitants of the Falklands if they agree to annexation by Argentina, an offered declined by the people of Falklands even through several British citizens said if they were Falkland islanders they would took the offer).

All said and done the Falklands is just a Flash point between Britain and Argentina, a flash point with no advantages to Britain and as such should be abandoned by Britain.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. I don't think you know much about the Falklands

since you have got several things wrong. The Falklands have no significance for the River Plate at all - they're at the other end of Argentina, about 1000 miles away :



The islands' economy is now based on fishing, and is thriving:

The economy was formerly based on agriculture, mainly sheep farming, but today fishing contributes the bulk of economic activity. In 1987 the government began selling fishing licenses to foreign trawlers operating within the Falklands exclusive fishing zone. These license fees total more than $40 million per year, which goes to support the island's health, education, and welfare system. Squid accounts for 75% of the fish taken. Dairy farming supports domestic consumption; crops furnish winter fodder. Exports feature shipments of high-grade wool to the UK and the sale of postage stamps and coins. The islands are now self-financing except for defense.

GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $25,000 (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fk.html#Econ

Britain is not a 'hostile power' to Argentina. But the inhabitants of the islands want to remain British, and the British government has an obligation to allow them to - which means, given Argentina's continued claim, keeping a military presence there. Doing otherwise would be abandoning British citizens to an external military threat. Any time Argentina feels like acknowledging the rights of self determination of the islanders, the whole argument can be finished.

[dmallind]

44. Nor much about UK politics either

The Social Democrats came out of the distant-third Liberal party with a few defectors from both Labour and Conservative, not a split from Labour. It did not exist at all when Thatcher was elected in 1979 before the Falklands - when the Tories won 339 seats out of 635 and were nowhere near defeat. Thatcher gained even more seats in 1983 when the SDs and Libs were in an alliance, but still fell in third place and did not determine the PM spot. Same again in 87. The SDs and Libs merged only after that election, but were still a 3rd place finisher. In fact the only way it's even possible to imagine the Libs or SDs, combined or separately (they were never connected to or an offshoot of Labour - ever) having an impact on who became PM is if they had never existed AT ALL and could be imagined, wrongly, to have been able to supply all their votes to Labour. While Conservatives under Thatcher always won under a plurality rather than a majority of the general plebiscite, that is the norm in Britain, where the Libs were a stronger 3rd party than the US has seen in many decades, and other fractional parties such as the SNP could be counted on to pick up a few seats too. There never was a coalition or original unified oposition that could have, or would have, prevented Thatcher from being elected or re-elected.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. One correction

The SDP did come from the Labour party - the 'Gang of Four' (Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers) were all ex-Labour cabinet members, who felt the Labour party had gone too far to the left. They did soon ally themselves wit hthe Liberal party and, as you said, merge with the after the 87 election.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,,1694319,00.html

[happyslug]

73. My point was Thacher used the War to defeat a divided opposition

NOT the exact details of British Politics. Thacher was in a weak position given her economic policies in Britain but the opposition (Labor, Liberal and SD) just could NOT get their act together to defeat her. Thacher than used the Falkland War to get elected for another six year term to consolidate her economic policies.

[savemefromdumbya]

108. THATCHER ARRANGED THE FALKLANDS WAR!

just like Blair arranged the Iraq war.

[Posteritatis]

112. ...Thatcher arranged for Argentina to invade the Falklands? (n/t)

[happyslug]

72. Except for Defense????

That like saying my town is self sufficient except for the County Court System. i.e. THAT IS NOT SELF-SUFFICIENCY, as that term is normally used. Please also note the population of the island is less than 2200 people and they are protected by a Reinforced Infantry Battalion (including attached Artillery). I can make any country self-sufficient by putting in one soldier to every 2 subjects when the subjects are NOT paying for the Soldiers. Britain by keeping that reinforced Battalion on the Falkland increased the economic activity by 1/3. The troops will spend so much money in the local Taverns, etc. They wives (Britain tend to have a professional army) will rent out houses and spend money in the area. All of this increases economic activity in the Falklands at no expense to the Falklands.

Second, Argentina is like Russia, Canada and Greenland on world maps, do to the curvature of the Earth and that maps are flat, any country as it approaches the Arctic or Antarctic Circle look bigger than what it is and what things toward the circle look further away from the Equator than what they really are. The same with the Falklands and Argentina, it is closer to the River Plate than it looks at that map, in fact it is within air attack and even a Patrol boot attack distance (i.e. you do not need large sea-going ships to go from the Falklands to the River Plate, large boats are sufficient). The Falklands are only 300 miles from Argentina, they are Americans who commute from home to work daily such a distance (not many but a few).

Third, while the Falklands are further South then was imped in my post, all that makes it more of a threat to the Straits of Magellan, which stills makes who ever hold the islands a threat to Argentina commence.

Fourth, while the Falklands are "self-Sufficient" a lot of that depends on the trade that has increased since about 1990 with ARGENTINA. With the recent decline in Argentina's economy I doubt that Self-Sufficient will last for long. This is further complicated do to the overlapping (and unresolved) disputes regarding fishing rights. Roughly 1/3 of the fishing area claimed by the Falklands is also climbed by Argentina independent of the Claim Argentina has on the Falklands (Economic rights extend 200 miles by treaty, the Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina, thus you have a huge overlap of claim that has NOT been resolved).

Finally you missed my whole point, you became so tied up with the trees of what the Falklanders want you failed to see the forest that the island is off South America. The problem is that the Falklands are to close to Argentina and that is a simple fact of life. Sooner or later that fact will make the Falklands Argentinean and the best way is for Britain to do so on terms it can agree (Much like how Britain turned over Hong Kong to the Chinese). Hong Kong did not want to go under Beijing, but it agreed to for it knew sooner or later it will have to and preferred to do so on its own terms than as a conquered province. The same with the Falklands, sooner or later Argentina will get the Falklands, and its best course of action would be to do so on terms it can get from Argentina instead of by the Argentineans taking over.

[Ediacara]

75. I disagree on a few points

The map projection really doesn't matter in this case.  Here,
this is a link to a conic projection, which does show
distances rather correctly:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/argentina_pol96.jpg

The Falklands are over 1700 km from the Rio de la Plata (not
the River Platte, which is in Nebraska).  They are only about
300-400 km from Tierra del Fuego.

Additionally, I find your contention that proximity will lead
to annexation troublesome.  The example of St Pierre and
Miquelon was already given (roughly 13 km from Newfoundland),
and to that I could add the Channel Islands (roughly 20 km
from France), Pt. Roberts WA (a penninsula that is part of the
United States despite being physically attached only to
British Columbia), Kepelauan Anambas and Kepelauan Natuna (two
island groups that are part of Indonesia despite being in the
South China Sea, less than 200 km from Malaysia and surrounded
by Malaysia on all sides).  Shall we all expect these
territorial oddities to become part of their nearest
neighbors?  My answer is no, and I don't think the Falklands
are a special case.

[PatGund]

121. I forgot about that one!

I brought up Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, but completely forgot about Point Roberts, Washington!

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. You seem to live in a world of 19th century gunboats

If Argentina had not recently invaded the Falklands, and was not still laying claim to them, then there would be no need for a large military force there to defend them. That is why they are not able to pay for their own defence. If they were unthreatened by their larger neighbour, like, say, Bermuda, they would be self-sufficient.

As has been shown, it is indeed about 1000 miles from the Falklands to the River Plate. They are closer to Cape Horn, but that does not make them a "threat to Argentina commerce". Britain is not a pirate nation. It doesn't steal ships on the high seas. Unless Argentina is planning on declaring war on the whole world, the proximity to Cape Horn means nothing. Britain didn't even attack Argentinian merchant shipping in the war.

The trade with Argentina is small:

Main trade partners: UK, Spain, Chile and France.
...
Despite the improvement in relations with Argentina, trade between the islands and the mainland is small and most trade is still conducted with Britain.

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/data/flk/flk490.asp

The rest of your point seems to be that sooner or later, Argentina will invade again, so it's better to surrender the islanders now. Personally, I would find abandoning the inhabitants like that cowardly, and I think it's an insult that implies the Argentinians are bound to resort to force. I think they're better people than that - it was an act of desperation by the junta before, and the longer peace continues, the less the Argentinians will think they have 'unfinished business'. Argentinian governments still keep their claim because it's a relatively easy way of keeping a few voters happy; but as the relatives of those who died in the war themselves die out, it will mean less to the Argentinian people. Islands all over the world survive with a larger neighbour.

Hong Kong was a different case - the international treaty meant that a large part of Hong Kong was due to return to Chinese hands. Historically, Hong Kong was Chinese. Neither of those apply to the Falklands. There's also the reality that China is a very powerful nation with leaders willing to use force, that could have completely cut Hong Kong off if they wanted. In an ideal world, I would have liked to see the Hong Kong inhabitants get to choose their destiny too, but it wasn't possible. Argentina, being a smaller country, a hundred times further away than China from the respective islands, could not do the same to the Falklands. We have the opportunity to allow the inhabitants to choose their own future.

I am frankly amazed to see someone on DU argue that they should be totally ignored. Do you have no wish for democracy?

[rayofreason]

85. nice post

[Solo_in_MD]

95. I never expected to see a Mainfest Destiny argument here on DU

[ButterflyBlood]

50. I disagree with Chavez here

The Falklands have no indigenous population,. They're all British settlers, and want to remain British. Plus Argentina doesn't have any better of a claim to them.

One of the things that kind of irritates me is that lots on the left seem to side with Argentina in that war. The Argentina right wing military dictatorship went down because of their defeat there, which is certainly a good thing in my view, and more important than the whole "Smash European Colonialism" view on the left. Sure, I'm no fan of Thachter either, but at least people weren't "disappeared" under her.

[dmallind]

54. Good point

One of the most irksome traits of the far left of the Dem party (and even further left) is the tendency to kneejerk support in any dispute the "most typically historically oppressed" side, or conversely the "furthest away from being righ white and industrialized". It's frustrating that they can't see this is exactly as blind and exactly as invalid as the wingnuts kneejerk support for the side that is closest to rich white and industrialized.

What happened to deciding issues based on facts rather than on historical transgressions? Even then historical transgressions seem to stop mattering when they stop being the sins of rich white Europeans. If you want to talk about bloodthirsty empires Central and South America have seen some of the nastiest, but there's no concern there about who did what to whom hundreds of years ago.

Sometimes it is possible (although I grant you it's probably a minority of the time) for nations that historically were oppressors to be right. After all, the old empires and emperors are no longer in power.

[truebrit71]

51. Tell you what, we'll give the Falklands back, right after the US gives...

...back California, Texas, Arizona, etc etc etc...

On this particular issue Chavez can kiss my hairy British Arse....

[Bacchus39]

55. when Venezuela gives up its claim to Guayana, the Brits

will give up the Falklands.

Chavez hypocrite.

[Flanker]

58. Your hatred of the man clouds your logic

Venezuela has claims to over half of British Guyana, they do not control it however.

Argentina has claims to the Malvinas, they do not control it either.

There is 0 hypocracy.

[Ignacio Upton]

60. Guyana is an independent country, no longer part of Britain

Maybe you are thinking of French Guiena, which is still a colony.

[Bacchus39]

65. no I am thinking of Guyana

Venezuela claims most of Guyanese territory as their own.

[Bacchus39]

66. Guyana is now independent

and Venezuela certainly has no say so over the Falklands.

[Briar]

62. This was a response to a Bliar jibe at Chavez:

"Blair said during a parliamentary session on Wednesday that countries like Venezuela and Cuba should realise they had much to gain from the principles of democracy."

Since Chavez has considerably more popular support than Bliar (who holds office having won about a quarter of the votes of the electorate) and can claim far more democratic authority than the poodle, he has a right to be miffed.

[400Years]

67. Yes, Venenzuela is far more democratic than Britain

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genie_weenie]

84. Why can't the Faklands be made their own country?

Why do they have to go to argentina? Why can't the people of the Faklands decide?

[Posteritatis]

86. I don't get why people keep thinking they *haven't* decided. (n/t)

[HuckleB]

97. Falkland/Malvinas history by wikipedia.

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

Alas, the Malvinas issue has been used by a number of Argentinian dictators as a distraction for the people of Argentina. While some continue to be distracted by it, most could give a rip about the Malvinas.

[goforit]

107. Yes!!!.....I've always disagreed with the imperialism of the red coats.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Would you like to join the 21st century

or are you happy living 200 years in the past? "Red coats"? Bugger me, who do you think leads the British army - the Duke of Wellington?

The Falkland Islanders want to remain a British colony. They don't want to be Argentinian. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until 240 years ago. There were some desultory squabbles amongst a few countries, which ended up, 170 years ago, with the British in charge. The present inhabitants have developed what there is there. They feel like keeping it. Is that too much to ask?

[goforit]

114. Time will tell

[High Plains]

117. I'm embarrassed to say I read all the way through this thread

What a useless discussion of a conflict a quarter century ago that shows no signs of flaring up again.

[nolabels]

119. I mate, and give Scotland back too

:rofl:


http://zajko.blog.sme.sk/c/10102/Goticke-kompozicie-a-Utok-skotov.html

[SoCalDem]

122. Chavez needs to concentrate on Venezuela

He's starting to sound a bit like George, what with suggesting how other countries run things:)