Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

His views are the same as most . That it will only end after both countries talk and agree to something, christ even I don deny that...

But talks can and will only happen as ive always said when Argentina accept the Islanders have a right to self determination and try and improve relations.

Which brings us to another simple question you refuse to answer with any semblence of rationality;
How can Argentina accept the sovereignty of another nation and then go in and negotiate for their sovereignty? Don't you see the ludicriousess of that, just like the UN and I see it?

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. I think that could be what is behind the Latin American support actually.
Two interesting articles here (for their facts, not the rethoric) that might show mmc1 that Britain's intentions may not be all that 'honourable'.
As I said a few times...the unfortunate Falklanders are caught as pawns in a much much bigger game.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/scramble-for-world-resources-battle-for-antarctica/13639


http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/07/the-falklands-the-european-unions-antarctic-key/

And Im sure the Argentines are real honourable arent they, im sure the oil/minerals play no part in their minds :rolleyes:

Now that those articles mentions it, what are your views on Argentinas claims to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?? They have absolutely no links/valid claims to them yet claim them as there own.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which brings us to another simple question you refuse to answer with any semblence of rationality;
How can Argentina accept the sovereignty of another nation and then go in and negotiate for their sovereignty? Don't you see the ludicriousess of that, just like the UN and I see it?

I don't see any joint sovereignty deal being agreed to though.

Too much has happened in recent decades for that. Argentinas aggression and wars of words towards the Falklanders hasnt helped out one bit. I see a deal were Argentina gets 50% of all oil/gas and a similar deal like in N.Ireland where if the majority vote for it then they can become part of Argentina or part of a joint sovereignty deal in the future.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

And Im sure the Argentines are real honourable arent they, im sure the oil/minerals play no part in their minds :rolleyes:

Now that those articles mentions it, what are your views on Argentinas claims to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?? They have absolutely no links to them yet claim them as there own.

I'm not defending the 'honour' of either side.

I have no fact based opinion on their claims or the British claims as I have said earlier.
I have little doubt that it is about access to resources not 3000 odd people's right to self determination. Something you need to ponder as well.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm not defending the 'honour' of either side.

I have no fact based opinion on their claims or the British claims as I have said earlier.
I have little doubt that it is about access to resources not 3000 odd people's right to self determination. Something you need to ponder as well.

Disagree. i've no doubt in recent years the oil has played a part (all governments are the same). They were prepared to hand them over before the war at the end of the day, even though there was talk of oil back then.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Disagree. i've no doubt in recent years the oil has played a part (all governments are the same), but I believe they respect the peoples right to self determination aswell. Gilbralter being a prime example.

Maybe the Irish where way down the list for achieving same? The popultion of The Falklands died here while we waited for them to come to the table and negotiate our rights.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe the Irish where way down the list for achieving same? The popultion of The Falklands died here while we waited for them to come to the table and negotiate our rights.

Totally different scenario. Not even gonna get involved in it as it will go way off topic.

Anyway im off to bed, work tomorrow.

oscarBravo

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Not one country or the UN outside the UK have recognized the squatters referendum.

Oh look, you're back calling them "squatters" again, having repeatedly chickened out of answering my questions about why you call them that.

Maybe this time you'll have the moral courage to defend your use of a pejorative term? Or, again, do I need to dumb down the question for you?

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Is this a slip up by the ambassador," two sovereign states."

The UK and Argentina are sovereign states. Where's the slip-up?

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Totally different scenario.

:rolleyes: The idea you promote of them being 'honourable' would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic for so many former and present colonies around the world.
The Falklanders are just another in a long list of pawns in an imperialist game.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: The idea you promote of them being 'honourable' would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic for so many former and present colonies around the world.
The Falklanders are just another in a long list of pawns in an imperialist game.

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. I disagree though especially on this case. And I already understand Britain has done many thinsg in the past that it can be ashamed off, you will find very few people in the UK who disagree with that.... Things and times have changed though. I also understand it has many things to be proud off.

Anyway it dosen't matter what I say, you will never change your opinion on Britain so Im not even try. Your hatred is the only reason your on this thread to begin with.

And with that I really am off to bed.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. I disagree though especially on this case. And I already understand Britain has done many thinsg in the past that it can be ashamed off, you will find very few people in the UK who disagree with that.... Things and times have changed though. I also understand it has many things to be proud off.

Anyway it dosen't matter what I say, you will never change your opinion on Britain so Im not even try. Your hatred is the only reason your on this thread to begin with.

And with that I really am off to bed.

The appreciation of the realities of a given situation is not hatred.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

1. Fair enough, point accepted. I don't see how it dilutes the questions he raise or the fact that there are issues about the right to self determination and who it applies to.

Well, it removes the all weight that the claim it was published by a university law department conferred.

Happyman42 wrote: »

2. The UN position on the sovereignty issue didn't change because of the war.

The point I was making here was it is a paper from a 2nd year law student. As you might expect, a 2nd year law student isn't yet trained or experienced enough that you can take his paper and use it as proof of your claim regarding self determination.

Happyman42 wrote: »

3. Are Venezeulans automatically wrong or biased just like Irish republicans because they have a contrary view to the British?

I certainly would tar an entire nation as such, that is why I phrased it as I did. Being Venezuelan (and attending a Catholic uni) may or may not have coloured his opinion. Without knowing what weight he puts on South American solidarity, Catholic solidarity and his early education syllabus, it is impossible to know how impartial he may or may not be.

Happyman42 wrote: »

4. A 'Settlement' was reached FIRST and The UN sent a large delegation to monitor the referendum.

Yes and no. At the end of the day, if you are comparing Western Sahara to the Falklands, it is very much the case that Argentina are playing the part of Morocco in that they are trying to grab land on the basis of inheritance from a colonial power and againt the will of the people that live there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I merely presented it as proof that there are very complex issues around who is entitled to 'self-determination, a quick google will find many more.
There are a deluded few on here that think it is a simple cut and dried law that applies to 'everyone'. It simply doesn't.

And it was merely my point that you were telling people to 'read the documents' and linking to the work of a potentially biased law student while passing it off as something greater.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

Well, it removes the all weight that the claim it was published by a university law department conferred.

It's hardly a student rag mag and it has some status.

The point I was making here was it is a paper from a 2nd year law student. As you might expect, a 2nd year law student isn't yet trained or experienced enough that you can take his paper and use it as proof of your claim regarding self determination.

I didn't use it as proof of anything but the existence of complexities around the issue of self determination and the integrity of territorial claims. Which mmc1 claimed didn't exist at the UN. Those complexities do exist, quite pointedly.

I certainly would tar an entire nation as such, that is why I phrased it as I did. Being Venezuelan (and attending a Catholic uni) may or may not have coloured his opinion. Without knowing what weight he puts on South American solidarity, Catholic solidarity and his early education syllabus, it is impossible to know how impartial he may or may not be.

I didn't notice any particular partiality, and his points where backed with extensive sources and bibliography. I would be interested if you could point to some.

Yes and no. At the end of the day, if you are comparing Western Sahara to the Falklands, it is very much the case that Argentina are playing the part of Morocco in that they are trying to grab land on the basis of inheritance from a colonial power and againt the will of the people that live there.

I would think the explusion in 1833 was more pertinent to the Argentinian claim than the inheritance but I'm no expert on the minutae of the claims.

And it was merely my point that you were telling people to 'read the documents' and linking to the work of a potentially biased law student while passing it off as something greater.

The 'documents' I was referring to where the many UN ones I posted. As I say I posted that paper as an example of the fact that I wasn't the only one who believed the 'right to self determination' and who it applied to, was more complex than it applies to 'everyone'.

Busted Flat.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh look, you're back calling them "squatters" again, having repeatedly chickened out of answering my questions about why you call them that.

Maybe this time you'll have the moral courage to defend your use of a pejorative term? Or, again, do I need to dumb down the question for you?

The UK and Argentina are sovereign states. Where's the slip-up?

The Brit side, has always maintained it was entirely a British matter, and had nothing to do with Argentina.

Happyman42

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The Brit side, has always maintained it was entirely a British matter, and had nothing to do with Argentina.

There is no doubt the 'language' is changing on this issue, it's interesting to see how conflicted the Americans are becoming on the subject, with Obama's admin refusing to be drawn into taking a side, even after the referendum.
Oil and resources will always 'conflict' the Americans.

jmayo

murphaph wrote: »

Isn't that one of the reasons the Brits thought they owned Ireland? We're a lot less than 300 miles from Britain but they don't own us. What do you think about places like French Guiana or Martinique?

That's ok they aren't owned by the Brits.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have not sided with the Argentinians on the sovereignty issue, but I do side with them on having it negotiated and sorted out. It took us long enough to get the British to the negotiating table, is it wrong that I emphatise with them?
And again, I too think self determination is of paramount importance, but it cannot be conferred where there is a sovereignty dispute. That is just not feasible and the UN agrees.

I could mention the middle East and use that argument as a basis for saying the people of the West Bank and Gaza strip have no right to self determination as Israel could lay claim to those territories as part of the soverignity of a greater Israel. :rolleyes:

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Not one country or the UN outside the UK have recognized the squatters referendum. It is a joke and the world sees it as such.

"It's like a consortium of squatters voting on whether they're going to continue illegally occupying a building or not."
...

So let me get this, the people living in the Falklands, some who have been there for many 8 to 9 generations are squatters.

And if they are squatters what are the vast majority of the population of Argentina ?
What am I saying, of course they aren't squatters since they aren't British ehh ?

The Islands never had any native inhabitants, and were first settled by France; there was a French settlement at Port Louis on East Falkland from 1764 to 1767 (section 8, fig. 4 below). The islands were formally claimed by Britain in 1765, and from 1766 to 1774, with one interruption, there was a British garrison at Port Egmont on Saunders Island, where ruins still exist (fig. 1). The French settlement was taken over by Spain in 1767, which maintained a garrison at Port Louis for 44 years until 1811. The
present population of the islands is a unique mixture: some families are descended from shipwrecked Danish, Norwegian or Swedish seamen; some are descended from settlers from Uruguay, France, Finland or Gibraltar, but most are of British origin. Many families have lived in the islands for five or six generations, several for seven generations, and a couple even for eight or nine generations.

Now looking at that timline, the French and Spanish have more of a right to the place than the Argentinians ?

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The Brit side, has always maintained it was entirely a British matter, and had nothing to do with Argentina.

And really they are right it has fook all to do with Argentina.
Argentina never owned the place, they never have had any citizens or people living on the islands (bar when they invaded the place in order to keep their junta in power)
Their entire claim is based on the fact that the islands are relatively near them and the people that once owned their country, once had people on the islands and once claimed the islands.

Using that logic then the Israelies do have legitimate claims to West Bank, etc.
Somehow I bet you wouldn't agree with that little argument.

But of course the other side are "the Brits", so they must be in the wrong. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

I could mention the middle East and use that argument as a basis for saying the people of the West Bank and Gaza strip have no right to self determination as Israel could lay claim to those territories as part of the soverignity of a greater Israel. :rolleyes:



:rolleyes:

You go ahead and say what you want, the imperative is that all claims are negotiated fairly to avoid inevitable bloodshed. If we, as Irish republicans, can tell the world anything, it is that.
But we're blood thirsty Brit haters and automatically wrong. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The Brit side, has always maintained it was entirely a British matter, and had nothing to do with Argentina.

Which has what, exactly, to do with your use of the term "squatters"?

asherbassad

RobitTV wrote: »

And what about the Native Americans in south America and argentina? Who were forced from their land and Raped and murdered by the invaders. The current population is nothing more then a planted population just like you think about the Falklands population. :rolleyes:

The current islanders had some 7/8 generations of ancestry on the islands and when Britain regained the islands in 1833 Argentina wasn't even a country and not even in existence. Also in the 1600s Britain was the first country to set foot on the islands.

Also what about our Spanish, French friends? They also owned the islands during the 1700s/1800s for a period of time. Heck! Infact Spain has more of a claim then Argentina.

Nobody seems to understand the true facts of the history and is brainwashed by the propaganda machine in Argentina. They constantly Lie and twist things around to their way of the story which is untrue.

With Hyper-Inflation and a corrupt government and a declining economy no wonder the government in Argentina is trying to get everyone onto the Falklands issue constantly and make it a Major issue.

Well it's probably rather foolish to say who you think has a claim to certain places during the passage of time. Argentina probably does have a legitimate claim to the islands since they are closest to Argentina. Before you explode, and say that by that logic China or maybe Russia should have a claim over Japan, I'm not saying I am fully aware of the entire story of how the dispute evolved. Seems to me that the Brits only want the islands so that they will have territorial access rights to the oil and gas fields in the area. Probably the same with that piece of granite, Rockall, that the seagulls won't even nest on....because it allows the brits exclusive fishing and drilling rights within several hundred km of it.

jmayo

Happyman42 wrote: »

You go ahead and say what you want, the imperative is that all claims are negotiated fairly to avoid inevitable bloodshed. If we, as Irish republicans, can tell the world anything, it is that.
But we're blood thirsty Brit haters and automatically wrong. :rolleyes:

Can I ask where exactly are the similarities between Northern Ireland and the Falklands ?

Are there people living on the Falklands who want to live under Argentian rule ?
Oh wait there may be three out of 1500 odd.

Were the Falklands part of an Argentian country ?
Ehh NO.

Are the Falklands part of the Argentian land mass ?
Ehh No.

Have the Falklands ever belonged to a country called Argentina or ever had Argentians living on them ?
Eh NO.

BTW if a referendum was held tomorrow in Northern Ireland where the majority of the people (not even the collosal majority as in the Falklands) voted to become part of the Republic of Ireland and leave British rule, would you still claim Britain had a right to ignore the will of the people and demand ownership of the area ?

If you state otherwise then your whole argument to date is purile nonsense and is basically double standards which would point to basing your viewpoint on the parties involved.

asherbassad

RobitTV wrote: »

Falkland Islanders go to the polls today to vote on whether they want to stay British amid increasing tensions with Argentina over the sovereignty of the territory.

The tiny community is expected to overwhelmingly back retaining its status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.

Authorities in Port Stanley hope the result will send a clear message to Argentina as it ramps up its rhetoric over the islands it calls Las Malvinas. Outside observers are being brought in to monitor the referendum in order to prove it is free and fair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9920348/Falkland-Islanders-vote-on-staying-British-today.html

They have the legal rights of international law to choose their own future as citizens of these Islands. Argentina acts like they don't exist and makes the situation worse then it should be. Hopefully this vote will finally put this to rest one way or another!

Seriously though, these referenda are just theatre. The British only suggest such exercises in "democracy" when they are assured of the outcome. They would never have had the slightest interest in votes in places they had to hold by force. If people's national aspirations are really so important to the Brits then why didn't they ask the Iraqis to have a referendum prior to the invasion. "Vote yes/no if you want us to come and bomb your country to powder"

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

Can I ask where exactly are the similarities between Northern Ireland and the Falklands

The British.

Are there people living on the Falklands who want to live under Argentian rule ?
Oh wait there may be three out of 1500 odd.

Were the Falklands part of an Argentian country ?
Ehh NO.

Are the Falklands part of the Argentian land mass ?
Ehh No.

Have the Falklands ever belonged to a country called Argentina or ever had Argentians living on them ?
Eh NO.

All of those questions have been dealt with already. Maybe read the thread and you will find that a major part of the Argentinian claim concerns their explusion from the island in 1833.
(and please, I'm not that interested in what you 'think' of that claim. That needs to be sorted between the British and Argentinians.

BTW if a referendum was held tomorrow in Northern Ireland where the majority of the people (not even the collosal majority as in the Falklands) voted to become part of the Republic of Ireland and leave British rule, would you still claim Britain had a right to ignore the will of the people and demand ownership of the area ?

If you state otherwise then your whole argument to date is purile nonsense and is basically double standards which would point to basing your viewpoint on the parties involved.

The peoples of N.I. have a right to self determination enshrined in an international agreement achieved after negotiations between the two sovereign governments, The Falkland islanders DON'T because there is a dispute over the sovereignty of the islands themselves and no such agreement exists. That is why they can have 100 referendums and nobody including the UN, will take any notice, if the islanders want security of tenure they need to get behind the persistant and unequivocal call for negotiations. If the British are so sure of their claim, what exactly are they afraid of?

jmayo

Happyman42 wrote: »

All of those questions have been dealt with already. Maybe read the thread and you will find that a major part of the Argentinian claim concerns their explusion from the island in 1833.

You basically ignored all those questions because they highlight how different the situation between NI and Falklands is.

BTW if you are going to play the "we were here first card" then the French can tell the British and the Argentinians to fook off.
Of course using that mindset the Jews can tell the Palestinians to fook off as well.
Now see how stupid your little argument looks.

You do know the British were there before the Argentinians or Spanish ?

Of course according to some of your fellow thinkers, that doesn't count since the Brits are only squatters unlike the Spanish, Italians, Irish, German, etc descendants that live in Argentina.

Happyman42 wrote: »

(and please, I'm not that interested in what you 'think' of that claim. That needs to be sorted between the British and Argentinians.

And we all know what you think, Britain wrong anyone else right.

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

You basically ignored all those questions because they highlight how different the situation between NI and Falklands is.

BTW if you are going to play the "we were here first card" then the French can tell the British and the Argentinians to fook off.
Of course using that mindset the Jews can tell the Palestinians to fook off as well.
Now see how stupid your little argument looks.

I am not arguing who should be there or who should not, which you would know had you taken the time to read what was being said. Like the UN (and having seen what happens when governments don't take responsibilty and do what has to be done) my belief is that Britain and Argentina should sit down and negotiate before anybody else gets killed.

Of course according to some of your fellow thinkers, that doesn't count since the Brits are only squatters unlike the Spanish, Italians, Irish, German, etc descendants that live in Argentina.



And we all know what you think, Britain wrong anyone else right.

I haven't expressed an opinion on the two claims as I can't examine the evidence. There's an awful lot of people who think Britain are automatically right, just because they say they are, which is curious.
I have addressed those questions a number of times on the thread, which you don't seem to have read. I am not even sure you have made yourself aware of the competing claims, judgng from what you say.
And I see you can ignore questions too when it suits.
If the British are so sure of their claim, what are they afraid of, why don't they call the Argentinian's bluff and enter negotiations?


If they had any real concern for the Falklanders then that is what they would do so they could live a life of some security, instead of backing closed shop referendums that mean nothing.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe read the thread and you will find that a major part of the Argentinian claim concerns their explusion from the island in 1833.

It is worth noting that no civilian was removed by the British. 4 Settlers did leave of their own volition (two men and their wives), but they were Uruguayan and Brazilian. In fact, after the British ship left in 1833 (after expelling the Argentine garrison) there remained;

22 remained at Port Louis: 12 from Argentina (8 gauchos, 3 women and 1 child); 4 were Charrúa Indians from Uruguay; 2 were British, 2 German, one French and one from Jamaica.

From; http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right_PP.pdf Yes the people that created the file are British historians but it is all well researched and sourced. Unlike the Argentine propaganda that motivated them.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is why they can have 100 referendums and nobody including the UN, will take any notice, if the islanders want security of tenure they need to get behind the persistant and unequivocal call for negotiations. If the British are so sure of their claim, what exactly are they afraid of?

If the British are sure of their claim then they are right not to entertain calls for negotiation. Why would you negotiate over something you properly own?

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

If the British are sure of their claim then they are right not to entertain calls for negotiation. Why would you negotiate over something you properly own?

If I were a Falklander, I'd be more concerned about my staus in the UN than who saw me as British or not.
I know this will be seen as 'Brit hating' again, but looking at the history of the negotiations that have happened and what was considered at the time of the war, it seems to me that the British have always looked at the options that favoured them most and the Falklanders didn't really come into it, that would make me, as an islander, very nervous indeed as the political world changes around me, particularily in South America and America. Like our own governments, the British don't always do what they pay lipservice to.

Happyman42

Some interesting reading here for those who claim that Britains policy on colonies is even handed and in the best interests of their inhabitiants.
Don't see the Telegraph or Daily Mail having hissy fits about what is going on in these territories. It's particularly significant that an opposition leader immediately takes up the cause of the deposed government. And it's also interesting that finally we have an explanation of why the British and others might portray the Decolonisation Committee as anachronistic and outdated.
It's 'Self determination for everyone, we say can have it' it seems.

Britain, working with France, the Netherlands, the United States, Morocco, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, and Australia, has sought to diminish the role of the United Nations’ Special Committee on Decolonization in speeding independence for the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories recognized by the committee, which includes the Turks and Caicos and another Caribbean island where Britain has re-stamped its colonial imprimatur, Anguilla.

http://overseasreview.blogspot.ie/2013/03/caricom-to-engage-british-on-turks.html

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/03/17/self-determination-for-falklands-but-nowhere-else-in-the-remaining-british-empire.html

* and BTW I have already googled to see if there is bias in these reports, while there is a 'attitude', there is no doubt that these issues are real.

jmayo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not arguing who should be there or who should not, which you would know had you taken the time to read what was being said. Like the UN (and having seen what happens when governments don't take responsibilty and do what has to be done) my belief is that Britain and Argentina should sit down and negotiate before anybody else gets killed.

Claiming the UN wants some form of negotiation is really saying shag all.
It is there little nod to South American members.

BTW as another poster has said why would Britain negotiate ?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I haven't expressed an opinion on the two claims as I can't examine the evidence. There's an awful lot of people who think Britain are automatically right, just because they say they are, which is curious.

And there are a lot of people, particularly around these parts who automatically think Britain is wrong because it is Britain.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have addressed those questions a number of times on the thread, which you don't seem to have read. I am not even sure you have made yourself aware of the competing claims, judgng from what you say.
And I see you can ignore questions too when it suits.
If the British are so sure of their claim, what are they afraid of, why don't they call the Argentinian's bluff and enter negotiations?

FFS why would negotiate about something that is not up for negotiation ?
Handing over the islands to Argentina where 99.8% of the inhabitants disagree.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If they had any real concern for the Falklanders then that is what they would do so they could live a life of some security, instead of backing closed shop referendums that mean nothing.

So to show concern for the Falklanders they should basically ignore their will ?

Perhaps you were the one advising the eejits that came up with the hair brain scheme where the Cyprus bailout should be funded by raiding the savings of ordinary Cypriots ?

Happyman42 wrote: »

If I were a Falklander, I'd be more concerned about my staus in the UN than who saw me as British or not.

Who really gives two fooks about UN status.
Yeah the UN have an opinion/position on Palestinians and where has that gotten the Palestinians.
The UN had a position on Bosniaks or more precisely Bosnian Muslims, but that did fook all good when they allowed the safe haven in Srebrenica, that was supposedly under their protection, to fall into the hands of ratko mladic and his so called army.

The UN had a position on Rwanda and that did fook all use for the near million people that were massacred over the course of a few months.

The UN have proven time and again they can't do anything meaningful to save anyone.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I know this will be seen as 'Brit hating' again, but looking at the history of the negotiations that have happened and what was considered at the time of the war, it seems to me that the British have always looked at the options that favoured them most and the Falklanders didn't really come into it, that would make me, as an islander, very nervous indeed as the political world changes around me, particularily in South America and America. Like our own governments, the British don't always do what they pay lipservice to.

So are you saying the Falklanders would be better under a country which had a murderous regime 30 odd years ago, spent most of the 20th century flipping between tinpot rulers supported by their wives and military juntas and which has been an economic basketcase falling from it's former glory.
About the only thing they have achieved is being forward thinking in allowing same sex marriage.
Maybe that explians the three votes ?

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

Claiming the UN wants some form of negotiation is really saying shag all.
It is there little nod to South American members.

BTW as another poster has said why would Britain negotiate ?

Well then, if the UN is ignored, then the conflict and subsequent threat to peace remains. And more importantly, relations continue to deteriorate in the region.

And there are a lot of people, particularly around these parts who automatically think Britain is wrong because it is Britain.

I repeat, I don't know who is right or who is wrong on the sovereignty claim.

FFS why would negotiate about something that is not up for negotiation ?
Handing over the islands to Argentina where 99.8% of the inhabitants disagree.

Which is the great tragedy of colonisation, sooner or later you will have to face the hard choices, by your own accord or by force. Some of us think it can be achieved without the needless carnage.

So to show concern for the Falklanders they should basically ignore their will ?

Perhaps you were the one advising the eejits that came up with the hair brain scheme where the Cyprus bailout should be funded by raiding the savings of ordinary Cypriots ?

I don't like bullies of any sort.

Who really gives two fooks about UN status.

I would, if I saw my former protector steadily diminishing in political strenght and influence and I was aware of their duplicitious foreign policy in other similar colonies.

Yeah the UN have an opinion/position on Palestinians and where has that gotten the Palestinians.

Huge support around the world where they formerly had little, support that at least partly ensures the Israelis have to temper and control themselves and are in some way answerable.

The UN had a position on Bosniaks or more precisely Bosnian Muslims, but that did fook all good when they allowed the safe haven in Srebrenica, that was supposedly under their protection, to fall into the hands of ratko mladic and his so called army.

The UN had a position on Rwanda and that did fook all use for the near million people that were massacred over the course of a few months.


The UN have proven time and again they can't do anything meaningful to save anyone.

I am as critical of the UN when it makes tragic mistakes but I think it is the only game in town. If only all countries where equal and didn't have self serving vetos, it would be able to operate properly. Maybe if those with a veto listened more to what it is saying?

So are you saying the Falklanders would be better under a country which had a murderous regime 30 odd years ago, spent most of the 20th century flipping between tinpot rulers supported by their wives and military juntas and which has been an economic basketcase falling from it's former glory.
About the only thing they have achieved is being forward thinking in allowing same sex marriage.
Maybe that explians the three votes ?

250,000 British people living and prospering on the Argentinian mainland can't be wrong, can they?

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well then, if the UN is ignored, then the conflict and subsequent threat to peace remains. And more importantly, relations continue to deteriorate in the region.




I repeat, I don't know who is right or who is wrong on the sovereignty claim.




Which is the great tragedy of colonisation, sooner or later you will have to face the hard choices, by your own accord or by force. Some of us think it can be achieved without the needless carnage.




I don't like bullies of any sort.




I would, if I saw my former protector steadily diminishing in political strenght and influence and I was aware of their duplicitious foreign policy in other similar colonies.

Huge support around the world where they formerly had little, support that at least partly ensures the Israelis have to temper and control themselves and are in some way answerable.

I am as critical of the UN when it makes tragic mistakes but I think it is the only game in town. If only all countries where equal and didn't have self serving vetos, it would be able to operate properly. Maybe if those with a veto listened more to what it is saying?



250,000 British people living and prospering on the Argentinian mainland can't be wrong, can they?

there are not 250,000 britains living in argentina, there is only 7,000,250,000 quote is of british decent,its like saying everyone in ireland is british, the UK and argentina cannot hold talks as the UK says it has to have the OK from the falkland islanders first, and argentina cannot hold talks unless the outcome gives them the islands[,its in their constitution ] so who would ever sit down in talks when the outcome is already decided by one party ? ,i know happyman

Busted Flat.

getz wrote: »

there are not 250,000 britains living in argentina, there is only 7,000,250,000 quote is of british decent,its like saying everyone in ireland is british, the UK and argentina cannot hold talks as the UK says it has to have the OK from the falkland islanders first, and argentina cannot hold talks unless the outcome gives them the islands[,its in their constitution ] so who would ever sit down in talks when the outcome is already decided by one party ? ,i know happyman

So the people of British decent do not consider themselves British.
Have you a link for that. It puts a lie, to the squatters on the rocks, claim.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

there are not 250,000 britains living in argentina, there is only 7,000,250,000 quote is of british decent,its like saying everyone in ireland is british, the UK and argentina cannot hold talks as the UK says it has to have the OK from the falkland islanders first, and argentina cannot hold talks unless the outcome gives them the islands[,its in their constitution ] so who would ever sit down in talks when the outcome is already decided by one party ? ,i know happyman

Somebody is keeping a count, many Irish have some ancestors that where British, but nobody has a figure for it, they are all assumed to be Irish.
Even at 7000, that over twice the population of the Falklands, living and not complaining about life in Argentina.
And constitutions can be changed as the result of fair and equal negotiations, as we know.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Somebody is keeping a count, many Irish have some ancestors that where British, but nobody has a figure for it, they are all assumed to be Irish.
Even at 7000, that over twice the population of the Falklands, living and not complaining about life in Argentina.
And constitutions can be changed as the result of fair and equal negotiations, as we know.

There's more Irish people living in London than Galway, so why not rejoin the UK?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There's more Irish people living in London than Galway, so why not rejoin the UK?

Or they should have self determination? Fairs fair like.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Or they should have self determination? Fairs fair like.

They do. They are entitled to vote and elect representatives.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They do. They are entitled to vote and elect representatives.

Not to Dáil Gaillimh though or whatever else they fancy.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not to Dáil Gaillimh though or whatever else they fancy.

If there comes a time the Galwegians can get 99.8% of Londoners to vote in favour of joint Dail Gailimh then I would happily support their right to do that.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If there comes a time the Galwegians can get 99.8% of Londoners to vote in favour of joint Dail Gailimh then I would happily support their right to do that.

The Galwegians are a group, a population, the Londoners should just cede them their own nation. Everybody has a right to self determination after all, because the UN forgot to future proof against secession when they allowed the Falklanders to self determine.
It's a free for all.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Galwegians are a group, a population, the Londoners should just cede them their own nation. Everybody has a right to self determination after all, because the UN forgot to future proof against secession when they allowed the Falklanders to self determine.
It's a free for all.

You claim you don't like bully's and yet write umpteen posts supporting the rights of a bully. It's people that equal sovereignty and like it or not the people of the Falklands choose not to have anything to do with the Argentines, that's it end of story, no need for negationations, the choice has already been made, by the people. Go over the heads of the people then you run the risk of forcing a government on the people of the Falklands which is dictatorship or forcibly removing the people which is ethic cleansing which is a crime under the UN. The falklanders have already experinces Argentinian rule and they didn't like it, from forcibly being told to change what side of the road they drive to the argentines trying to force the islanders to speak Spanish and these are just 2 very basic examples of how not to win hearts and minds.

Busted Flat.

junder wrote: »

You claim you don't like bully's and yet write umpteen posts supporting the rights of a bully. It's people that equal sovereignty and like it or not the people of the Falklands choose not to have anything to do with the Argentines, that's it end of story, no need for negationations, the choice has already been made, by the people. Go over the heads of the people then you run the risk of forcing a government on the people of the Falklands which is dictatorship or forcibly removing the people which is ethic cleansing which is a crime under the UN. The falklanders have already experinces Argentinian rule and they didn't like it, from forcibly being told to change what side of the road they drive to the argentines trying to force the islanders to speak Spanish and these are just 2 very basic examples of

how not to win hearts and minds.

The Brit army are good at that, ask the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who were tortured, maimed and murdered, over the last few years.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The Brit army are good at that, ask the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who were tortured, maimed and murdered, over the last few years.

And the relevance of your post is?

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And the relevance of your post is?

Whenever I hear Brits talk about hearts and minds, it disgusts me. When that post was written about 2 hours ago, I was looking at Sky news, and this came up.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=brit+abuse+in+iraq+latest+on+inquirey&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CGkQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.ae%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fmiddle-east%2Finquiry-opens-into-torture-and-murder-by-british-troops-in-iraq&ei=Yg5KUZe8H47KtAbnhoCIDQ&usg=AFQjCNHJKuwFe9DhfCoEWBBtTJlQLBKRiA

It was not my intention to derail this thread, but I find it objectionable to hear defenders of the Brits come up with hearts and minds. They would not know the meaning of the words.

Chuck Stone

I think it's in the long term interests of the Falkland Islanders to form some sort of working relationship with Argentina.

As the leaders of Latin America and the European Union (EU) prepare for their seventh biennial summit in the Chilean capital Santiago this weekend, the region is enjoying unprecedented stability and prosperity.

The EU-Latin American relationship has been somewhat turned on its head. These days, it is the Europeans who are grappling with austerity measures, joblessness and an intractable debt crisis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21146858

Ultimately if S.Am continues to develop and form continent wide consensus on security and other matters then it could force Britain to the negotiating table whether it likes it or not.

Busted Flat.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think it's in the long term interests of the Falkland Islanders to form some sort of working relationship with Argentina.



Ultimately if S.Am continues to develop and form continent wide consensus on security and other matters then it could force the Britian to the negotiating table whether it likes it or not.

That is direction it is heading, but you just can't get through to some people.
It is a south American problem, and that is where it will be decided.

gallag

Busted Flat. wrote: »

That is direction it is heading, but you just can't get through to some people.
It is a south American problem, and that is where it will be decided.

Sure we will have all that lovely oil drained out by then anyway and the super rich faulklanders can buy a new island somewhere warmer.

Busted Flat.

gallag wrote: »

Sure we will have all that lovely oil drained out by then anyway and the super rich faulklanders can buy a new island somewhere warmer.

They don't have to buy, just do what their ancestors done, and squat in someone else's garden.

junder

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The Brit army are good at that, ask the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who were tortured, maimed and murdered, over the last few years.

So because the British army allegedly mistreated people it's ok for Argentina to mistreat the falkland islanders ?

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

Sure we will have all that lovely oil drained out by then anyway and the super rich faulklanders can buy a new island somewhere warmer.

The FI's status would probably be more stable if there was no oil at all.

Busted Flat.

junder wrote: »

So because the British army allegedly mistreated people it's ok for Argentina to mistreat the falkland islanders ?

Read my post 543, where I was asked to clarify it. Try and keep up with current events and investigations, they are far from alleged.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The FI's status would probably be more stable if there was no oil at all.

Of course it would, the argintines speak of resources not land or people, they just want oil, thats why I am amazed some of the posters on here are happy to see the self determination of a people dismissed so that a war mongering formour colonist country can profit of the innocent 9th generation islanders. 9th generation squatters has the be the stupidest thing I have read.