Skip to main content

On Chavez's un-Socialistic criticism of British claims on the Falklands

Argentina rallies regional support over Falklands

I can understand Hugo Chavez stating that the ‘time for empires was over’ in his bid to support Argentina’s claim over the Falklands. However, is he also stating that proximity, or previous ownership of the said Islands is enough to legitimise a claim.

Then, would Saddam’s efforts to reclaim Kuwait a couple of decades ago, or China’s claim on Tibet and Xinjiang, or the Zionist claim on Palestinian land, be justified as well? And if all this is well and fine, then should the Falklands islands be returned to the Patagonian Indians whom may have reached the islands before European explorers? Or should a large portion of Argentina be returned to the descendants of the Incas who conquered present-day northwestern Argentina?

And what about Argentina’s claim to a vast expanse of ocean stretching to the Antarctic and including those waters upon which the Falkland islands are perched. Should Argentina, being next to the ocean, be allowed to appropriate a large expanse of it just because the other south American lands are not. What does Chavez have to say about this. I thought he was a socialist? And yet he seems to be on the side of the ‘haves’ who are claiming more on the basis of nothing other than proximity.

Chavez, and the similar minded ought to ask themselves if they believe that the ‘time for empires was over’ or that only empires based on proximity of the lands and waters should be accorded legitimacy.

C’mon el Presidente, let’s hear it.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…