1°) los colimbas
2°) los pilotos de la F.A.A.
3°) los miles y miles de ciudadanos que colaboraron de una u otra forma, sin saber a ciencia cierta que la dictadura los defraudaría una vez más.-

Saluti per tutti,
Carlos Federico Poli
Quilmes, Buenos Aires
"El traje de madera que estrenaré todavía no ha sido plantado"; "el cura que me dará la extremaución no es todavía monaguillo." (Joaquín Sabina)
1 2 3
Comparto absolutamente.
Las Malvinas son argentinas.
RLunfa
"RLunfa" ha scritto nel messaggio
snip
Las Malvinas son argentinas. RLunfa[/nq]As far as I remember the British presence in the Falkland Islands dates much before the Argentinian: the Britons arrived down there in the 18th Century, Argentina became independent in 1816 and started claiming the Islands short after. Besides, I read that the English would leave the Islands, if the local population decided this, but this has never happened. As the dispute is still tough, I would like to know more about it: why do you think these islands belong to Argentina? Out of geographical or historical reasons? I would like to know also if the fact you claim these islands to be Argentinian justifies a military occupation and then a war.

Apart form the responsibilities of the Argentinian military, which at the time deeply manipulated most of your people's opinion, not to speak of all of the others who had other opinions and for this "sin" just disappeared. Ciao!
Giampietro
http://www.giampietrostocco.it
As far as I remember the British presence in the Falkland Islands dates much before the Argentinian: the Britons arrived ... people's opinion, not to speak of all of the others who had other opinions and for this "sin" just disappeared.

The Falkland Islands were in fact discovered by French navigator Binnot Palmière de Gonneville (who came from the breton port of Saint-Malo, from which the name "Malouines" then "Malvinas" derives) in 1502-1503, who sighted them but did not come to land. After being sighted by many navigators, the first colony is installed by Bouganville, who claims the land for France in 1764. The colony was given by France to Spain by treaty in 1766 in exchange for 25.000 pounds sterling. The posession can be said to have passed from Spain to Argentina under the "succession of states" rules. Argentina exerted sovereignty until 1833, when the British took possession by force.
The arguments for the return of the Islands to Argentina can be summarised in three groups:
1) Historical: the Islands were taken by force from Argentina, whoinherited them from Spain.
2) Geographical: it exists a territorial continuity between argentinianmainland and the Islands, while it is clear that there is none between them and the British mainland.
3) Political: the islands are from a legal point of view a colony, andnot part of the British territory. Therefore, since the international community has accepted that decolonisation should proceed, the maintenance of the statu-quo is not acceptable.
Nevertheless, there is a strong argument against the return of the Islands to Argentina: the islanders would not vote for it. Although the policy of the Lanusse gvernment in the 1970's won large support among the islanders, the jingoistic leanings of the peronist governments 1973-76 and the policies of the military governments made the islanders fearful of what could happen if the islands were returned.

As for the importance of the Islands in argentinian internal politics, being italian I guess you should know the role that "irredentism" plays. It has provided politicians with a single issue on which everybody can agree (or at least, pretend it does) without taking any risks. It makes quite a good subject for endless speeches, countless celebrations and special holidays, and all sort of nazionalistic manipulations of history.
Cheers
Mario "the froggie"
"usenet" (Email Removed) ha scritto nel messaggio
As far as I remember the British presence in the ... who had other opinions and for this "sin" just disappeared.

The Falkland Islands were in fact discovered by French navigator Binnot Palmière de Gonneville (who came from the breton port ... be summarised in three groups: 1) Historical: the Islands were taken by force from Argentina, who inherited them from Spain.

Then it is a matter of opposite forces, the British and the Argentinian, acting on these Islands?
2) Geographical: it exists a territorial continuity between argentinian mainland and the Islands, while it is clear that there is none between them and the British mainland.

That appears true to me, even if I can't help thinking of Corse in the Mediterranean:
it was sold by the Genoese to the French, but geographically it is Italian. Should
Rome raise claims on Corse? With the risk that an Italian Corse could work as
a possible fracture factor, as Corse inhabitants speak a dialect that is close to the
Sardinians. Sardinia and Corse could then go by themselves, and gaining Corse
for Italy could reveal itself as a damage. Falkland Islands are a quite different topic,
but nevertheless...
3) Political: the islands are from a legal point of view a colony, and not part of the British territory. Therefore, since the international community has accepted that decolonisation should proceed, the maintenance of the statu-quo is not acceptable.

Well, not a colony anymore, but part of the British Commonwealth. Or not? It is just like USA raised claims on Turks and Caicos, that still are British, based
on the undisputable fact that these islands are closer to USA than to UK.
Nevertheless, there is a strong argument against the return of the Islands to Argentina: the islanders would not vote for it.

Why that?
Although the
policy of the Lanusse gvernment in the 1970's won large support among the islanders, the jingoistic leanings of the peronist governments 1973-76 and the policies of the military governments made the islanders fearful of what could happen if the islands were returned.

No one could blame them for this, I am afraid...
As for the importance of the Islands in argentinian internal politics, being italian I guess you should know the role that "irredentism" plays.

Wait a minute: Italian irredentism was based on an undoubtably Italian root of the regions that Italy claimed, Trentino and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Falkland inhabitants
still speak English and feel themselves to be more English than Argentinian. Or not?
It has provided politicians with a single issue on which everybody can agree (or at least, pretend it does) without taking any risks. It makes quite a good subject for endless speeches, countless celebrations and special holidays, and all sort of nazionalistic manipulations of history.

I can imagine...
Ciao!
Giampietro
http://www.giampietrostocco.it
NON CAPISCO; parlate in italiano Grande Bugiardelli.-
PRIMO DI TUTTO, NEL SECULO 16 ERA NEL ISOLE MALOUINES LOUIS BOUGENVILLE; DOPO LA FRANCIA HA RICONOSCIUTO NEL REGNO DI SPAGNA I DOMINIS DELLE ISOLE, PRIMA CHE INGLESI, OLANDESI EDA ALTRI.-

Saluti per tutti,
Carlos Federico Poli
Quilmes, Buenos Aires
Mi mensaje está en español así que en ese idioma responderé. Intentaría hacerlo en italiano o en francés.
Nunca en lengua pirata.
RLunfa
"RLunfa" ha scritto nel messaggio
Mi mensaje está en español así que en ese idioma responderé. Intentaría hacerlo en italiano o en francés. Nunca en lengua pirata. RLunfa

Non ti pare, allora, di esagerare un po' con questa storia dei pirati? Ho scritto in inglese solo per rendere le cose più facili, ma se vuoi parliamo la mia lingua, per me va ancora meglio.
Ribadisco quello che ho scritto: occupare militarmente le isole vuol dire fare un'operazione da imperialisti. E' come se gli USA occupassero le Turks and Caicos, perché sono più vicine a loro che ai britannici. E se anche ci fosse un diritto ereditato dalla Spagna, non sarebbe più giusto
chiederlo agli abitanti delle isole, se vogliono stare con l'Argentina? Mi risulta che tra peronismo e dittatura preferiscano tuttora stare coi cosiddetti "pirati". O no?
Ciao!
Giampietro
http://www.giampietrostocco.it
The Falkland Islands were in fact discovered by French navigator ... taken by force from Argentina, who inherited them from Spain.

Then it is a matter of opposite forces, the British and the Argentinian, acting on these Islands?

I'm not sure to understand your question. What did you think it was ? Some strange secret conspiracy ?
2) Geographical: it exists a territorial continuity between argentinian mainland ... that there is none between them and the British mainland.

That appears true to me, even if I can't help thinking of Corse in the Mediterranean: it was sold by ... and gaining Corse for Italy could reveal itself as a damage. Falkland Islands are a quite different topic, but nevertheless...

Well, of course Italy could raise claims to Corsica (and even more, to Niza). And it did so during Mussolini leadership. But I do not think the two situations could be compared. Franco-Italian borders are the result of a complicated history of border dispute among neighbours. The UK and Argentina are NOT neighbours. Moreover, as I stated below, the Falkland Islands were never incorporated into UK territory. They were and remain a colony, while Corsica is part of the French territory.
3) Political: the islands are from a legal point of ... should proceed, the maintenance of the statu-quo is not acceptable.

Well, not a colony anymore, but part of the British Commonwealth. Or not?

Not. Commonwealth members are sovereign states. The Falklands are not.
Nevertheless, there is a strong argument against the return of the Islands to Argentina: the islanders would not vote for it.

Why that?

I explained that below:
Although the policy of the Lanusse gvernment in the 1970's ... fearful of what could happen if the islands were returned.

No one could blame them for this, I am afraid...

The question is not to find who to blame. It is a fact.
As for the importance of the Islands in argentinian internal politics, being italian I guess you should know the role that "irredentism" plays.

Wait a minute: Italian irredentism was based on an undoubtably Italian root of the regions that Italy claimed, Trentino and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Falkland inhabitants still speak English and feel themselves to be more English than Argentinian. Or not?

Italian irredentism was as absurd as the Argentinian one. What on earth constitutes an "italian root" ? You should remember that Italian unification came at the end of the XIXth century, and that Italy had not been a single country before since the days of the Roman empire. So what would be the criterion to state that Trentino of Friuli wre of "undoubtably Italian root" ? What would the borders of european countres become if everybody acted on that kind of nonsense ?
It has provided politicians with a single issue on which ... special holidays, and all sort of nazionalistic manipulations of history.

I can imagine... Ciao!

My pleasure!
Mario "the froggie"
Mostrar más