Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Robbo, Jun 19, 2011.
Have to pronounce Africa in a gap yah way there but I'll let it slide.
Cheers, my first ever.
it shows, dont do it again
just kidding, my english is no good enough to know if two words rhyme
I still can't quite believe that Sean Penn gave a statement on the Falklands situation, it's like something out of Team America.
Apparently Hugh Jackman is going to make a statement solving the global financial crisis this afternoon.
The fear is that it will involve large dancing fighting robots.
That's depressing. Why don't you cheer us both up by writing a list of the good things about Africa now?
Incidentally, looking at that list, the worst thing for me is corruption, wherever it is I fecking hate it.
The opportunity is currently there for Africa at the moment to dig itself out of a hole, we're at a stage in the world order where it has its own future in its own hands but the way China, India and Brazil are developing and are changing global economic dynamics as we know them it isn't clear how that will affect the remnants of the developing world for better or worse.
Having said that there is great promise at the southern tip of the continent right now - South Africa continues to grow robustly, I have mentioned Botswana on a number of occasions before, Namibia is one of the more sensible African countries whilst Angola is positively booming. There hasn't been in time in modern history where large parts of the continent are developing at such a sustained rate - Ghana is going through a bit of an oil boom itself at the moment which seems to be the order of the day at the moment.
A list of good things about Africa? The words of a man who's never visited the dark Continent clearly.
Apparently that we're not South America?
No, the sense of community in many parts of Africa I love. The wonderful wildlife and scenery. The diverse and rich cultural history. And the fact that it will always be home. This is enough for me and always will be.
Africa certainly does not have its future in its own hands, the power of foreign nations, especially the West, is still very much present all across Africa. Most of the Africans I know who still reside there also despise the Chinese now. They're getting themselves involved in everything. Personally, I'm not all that bothered. Whether we're controlled by West or East, what's the difference? We'll be shafted either way.
Any economic growth, which recently in Africa tends to go straight into the pockets of the elites and rarely helps the people, is always dependent on more powerful economies and organisations. And when the IMF and World Bank tell Africa to jump (or impose structural adjustment programmes), Africa says how high (or deep). The decisions of these kinds of organisations can set back improvements by decades.
Africa could do a lot worse than a 'rise of the new left' of their own. A very necessary counterweight to the neoliberalism that went before it in South America, some countries Brazil (Uruguay and a couple of others too) have even been able to keep a leftist flavour but measured to work in a capitalist system (one of the big successes of Lula in Brazil is providing a good blueprint for the rest to follow).
Depending on how Venezuela goes this October (I think) we could see the end of the more radical left wing governments in the region, for more moderate one's like we see in Brazil.
Here's his update from the 23rd -
Sean Penn: The Malvinas/Falklands
"This is not a cause of leftist flamboyance nor significantly a centuries-old literary dispute. But rather a modern one, that is perhaps unveiled most legitimately through the raconteurism of Patagonian fishermen. One perhaps more analogous to South Africa than a reparation discussion in South Carolina. As a result, we must look to the mutual recognition of this illusive paradigm by both countries."
Possibly one of the most pretentious, pompous articles I've ever read.
What next, Rob Schneider on Darfur?
WTF?!? Pseud's Corner ahoy!
What I'd do to have leaders even half as good as Lula across Africa. And yes, it would be nice to have leftist leaders across Africa, democracy or no, would likely do a great deal more for the population than the utter imbeciles we have now.
what? he is in character, "the wrath of my name is sam"
It's Penn's fault, he suggested not letting cruise ships dock now!
I can't believe that's genuine; someone satirising celebrities with political aspirations couldn't have written anything more amusing.
It got slightly better as it went on. Slightly. But the first half sounded like Lefty sixth form angst at work.
Is this even legal?
BBC News - Falklands tension: Argentina 'turns away' cruise ships
i think not, in fact, i read somewhere that the law used by the authorities to stop the ships was clearly not aplicable to this case, it was writen for war vessels or fishing ships without permits
but what do you expect? we have a shit goverment that is using the malvinas/falklands issue to try to recover some of the reputation they are losing after taking harsh economic meassures
why cannot both sides sit down with the Falkland representatives and come to an agreement. all sides need to concede something.
going to war..again...would be the worst thing for all parties.
Why does Britain need to concede anything? What exactly could it concede?
We could concede that we are pig-headedly sticking to our guns, that we're not a Catholic country, and, therefore ,that we don't care what a 16th century Pope said.
That'd be a start surely.
what do you care? i dont care, you shouldnt too
this are the kind of things that makes polititian careers blossom and poor people die
for over what?
let's supose there are gazillions of barrels of oil, so? do you think any of that money will go to your pockets?
it wont, it will go to the already megabillionaires that will be even richer
if the people of every country showed their leaders they don't want to die just to make some rich guy richer -and that's what the wars are fought for- we could be a happy world
I'm with Sean Penn on this.
Britain is happy with its position, it is the Argentine government that insists on making this a political issue. If Kirchner wasn't constantly threatening the people of the islands and their right to self determination, people in Britain wouldn't even be thinking about the Falklands.
They don't have a right of 'self-determination' they're not an indigenous population but a bunch of colonists from 8,000 miles away.
So what would it be then? After Argentina takes control of the territory against the wishes of its inhabitants...forcibly remove the islanders from their homes? Occupy the islands against their wishes and keep them at gunpoint as they go about their lives? Ship in thousands of Argentinian citizens to politically and culturally overpower the islanders?
Those are the three options if you believe the islands should be handed over to Argentina against the wishes of the people.
mate, the argentinian military has the fire power of a small USA town in 4 of july
we cant threaten shit, you know what is going to happen to argentina and it's seudo foreign policy on this matter? we will recieve a lot of moral suport from the UN and our south american friends,
all those "friends" will keep trading with Great Britain, Europe and Asia, while we, the amazing argies, that think we know it all, will be blocked
because that's the next step and the only conclusion for what argentina is trying to do with great britain
but at least, we can avoid a war that we cant fight,
exactly! what the feck will we do with the falkalnders? tell them they are argies? and then, what?
the fact is we can't recover the islands, all the goverment can do is proclaim we are beign usurped, trying to recover the popularity that is rapidly losing
What kind of twisted thinking is that?
Being 'indigenous' should not offer political privilege in this day and age. Somebody who has spent his/her entire life in a particular place has just as much of a right to call it his/her home as somebody whose ancestry in that territory goes back far enough to be classed as 'indigenous'. It's not even the case that an indigenous population was dispossessed to make way for them - there never was an indigenous population, as you know.
I agree that the Falklands issue is being raised in Argentina purely for reasons of political gain for the current administration. That's what I mean - it is not the British who are particularly bothered about the islands, it is the Argentines. Britain doesn't want anything to change, so it would like for the issue to just go away.
It's amusing that some leftists are using the language of the European far-right to disparage an innocent group of people. 'You are not indigenous, therefore your opinion does not count'.
I think that Pete needs to have a good hard think about what he is saying.
Clearly the leftist stance should not be one that involves displacing a people against their wishes for reasons of nationalist sentiment.
There aren't any indigenous people of the Falklands, are there? I guess you could see who could bribe the penguins to see which side they liked better.
You could say the same about Argentina itself.
There was never any indigenous Argentine population on the islands. How come you give more weight to the wishes of the descendants of Spanish and Italian colonists than you do to those of the descendants of British colonists?
No one is indigenous, we've just been there and had a settlement there longer than Argentina has existed which for some reason the Argentine argument refuses to acknowledge and instead considers the mercenary group under the river plate company (the majority of which were British mercenaries) who inhabited the islands and were kicked off them by the USA and the fact that they were given them by the Spanish who had no control over them at the time as de facto evidence of their own argument.
Petestorey in this thread is just being idiotic who has the view that the islanders are just some local brit bods living over there raising sheep, not people who have for generations lived there all of their lives, as did their parents, and their parents parents and so on. Either that or he does recognise this and has decided to hell with what they say and their rights. Even though they have as much claim on the land as Argentina has on it's own land.
The really stupid thing is, if the Argentinean government would drop their stance of sovereignty they would get every thing want, the oil, the fishing and so on as the Falklands needs Argentina to make any industry truly work. If they don't, I guess we could do something us Brits are very good at, and lay down a fair few thousands miles of pipeline across the world again but at a huge expense, the cost, possible environmental impact, damage to international relationhips would be incredibly high, as opposed to a pipeline say to a refactory on the Argentinean coast. There's also the fact there isn't enough people on the islands capable of operating the oil rigs for the next 20+ years. The employees would have to mostly come from the mainland. Argentina keeps accusing us of avoiding the diplomatic route yet we will more than happily engage with them, as will the Falklanders once they drop the sovereignty issue. Do it this way and in 20-50 years time the majority of the population of the islanders would be Argenitinean anyway and then they can have a referendum to join the mainland country. Just keep your mits of South Georgia.
He does this every so many pages, gets proven that he's wrong, stays out for a while then says it again.
This reminds me of Joey's letter in Friends when he used Thesaurus a little too eagerly.
Separate names with a comma.