Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

Hunterbiker

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.

Allegedly...

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

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.

Sorry , are you holding Junder or myself responsible for those actions? If not, again, please explain what is the relevance of this?

Busted Flat.

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Allegedly...

I don't wish to derail the thread, just Google British war crimes in Iraq.

K-9

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I don't wish to derail the thread, just Google British war crimes in Iraq.

Stop bringing up Iraq and Afghanistan then, please. Start a new thread if you so wish.

Busted Flat.

K-9 wrote: »

Stop bringing up Iraq and Afghanistan then, please. Start a new thread if you so wish.

Hearts and mindsis what I responded too, as I said I find that expression objectionable, especially in the context it is used by the British army.
I did not bring it up.

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

Of course it would, the argintines speak of resources not land or people, they just want oil,

Britain can hardly hold itself up as an exemplar of putting the rights of people to self-determination before control of resources and territory.

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament ... Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset ... An agreement was signed the year following the coup establishing a new oil consortium in which Britain and the US both had a 40% interest, and which controlled the production, pricing and export of Iranian oil.

Source

British Guiana 1963.

In 1953 Britain overthrew the democratically elected government in British Guiana. The April 1953 elections had resulted in victory for the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) under Cheddi Jagan, a popular, nationalist government committed to a redistributive economic programme intended to reduce poverty. The PPP’s plans also threatened the British sugar multinational, Bookers, which controlled British Guiana’s main export, sugar.

Source

gallag

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Hearts and mindsis what I responded too, as I said I find that expression objectionable, especially in the context it is used by the British army.
I did not bring it up.

I wonder how much of your time you spend obsessing about us British, flattering really :-) I suppose for such a small island nation to shape the world is deeply impressive.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Britain can hardly hold itself up as an exemplar of putting the rights of people to self-determination before control of resources and territory.

All a long time ago, do you think the past should shape things like self determination today?

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

All a long time ago, do you think the past should shape things like self determination today?

If the past is any example to take all we can be sure of is that it will be repeated only it appears that the tables are turning.

For that reason I think it would be in the FI'ers long-term interests to form some sort of working relationship with the Argentines if only for their own sakes.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Do you think these quarter of a million Brits left the UK and went to live in Argentina? Of course not, many will have dual citizenship and family ties to Argentina. Argentina has serious structural problems and hasn't been stable in a very long time.

K-9

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Hearts and mindsis what I responded too, as I said I find that expression objectionable, especially in the context it is used by the British army.
I did not bring it up.

You posted what it means to you and you've acknowledged it was derailing the thread. Don't argue moderation on thread,

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Britain can hardly hold itself up as an exemplar of putting the rights of people to self-determination before control of resources and territory.

Mod:

Both of ye, do not post again on this thread. This thread is about the Falklands.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If the past is any example to take all we can be sure of is that it will be repeated only it appears that the tables are turning.

For that reason I think it would be in the FI'ers long-term interests to form some sort of working relationship with the Argentines if only for their own sakes.

They reluctance to cooperate isn't coming from the islanders, it is Argentina that has ripped up agreements and imposed embargoes.

Argentina are the only ones in this scenario using bully boy tactics.

Happyman42

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.

People keep arguing that it is down to the islanders to solve the dispute, it's patently not, in the only place it matters...the UN. Again, the UN don't recognise the plebiscite if it did, then Argentina could huff and puff all it likes.
The UN recognises the existence of a dispute over the sovereignty, that won't go away because Britain plays fast and loose with the UN, their position has weakened internationally even since 1982 and the Americans are now seriously conflicted because they need to stay onside with any South American alliance.
No amount of stating the 'people have spoken' will change the reality of the situation for the Falklanders, they are to be pitied here, because they are being boxed into an impossible corner.
Despite the referendum and all the jingoistic Daily Mail sabre rattling and because of Britain's duplicitious forked tongue lip service to self determination in one colony while patently denying it in others (Turk and Caicos, Anguila) the Falklanders continue to be in a very insecure place, even more insecure than pre the 1982 war. Because a diplomatic offensive by a South American alliance could force the British hand.

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 Britain to the negotiating table whether it likes it or not.

To my reading of the situation, this is their best option. They are being used as pawns in a resources grab and they really need to see it and see it soon.

gallag wrote: »

All a long time ago, do you think the past should shape things like self determination today?

Britain has a very ad-hoc attitude to 'self determination' if you are aware of what is happening in Turk and Caicos and Anguila.
Their demands that the Argentines recognise the Falklanders right to it is clearly a stopgap when coupled with their undermining of the Decolonisiation Committee's work.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They reluctance to cooperate isn't coming from the islanders, it is Argentina that has ripped up agreements and imposed embargoes.

Argentina are the only ones in this scenario using bully boy tactics.

To me, Argentina are playing the smarter game.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

To me, Argentina are playing the smarter game.

This is the crux of my difference with you on this matter.
I think that if they continue to put pressure on the Islanders it will backfire. In time they will be forcedto sit down in 3 party talks.

murphaph

Happyman, if the islanders wanted full independence from everyone, would you support that? I mean, why do the islands have to belong to either Britain or Argentina?

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Happyman, if the islanders wanted full independence from everyone, would you support that? I mean, why do the islands have to belong to either Britain or Argentina?

Certainly an option for them, the half hearted attempt Britain tried to get by the UN didn't work though.
The core of the problem is not the Islands themselves but what they represent. I am always curious why people never wonder why successive Argentine governments can capitalise by making a play for the sovereignty of the Malvinas at home. You have to get behind the jingoistic rabble rousing of British media that we are bombarded by to appreciate that they definately represent some sort of cultural importance/significance to ordinary Argentines, indeed across south America. Otherwise you can't say it's a 'populist' move by Argentine governments to 'whip up fervour'. It's a hotspot of colonial resentment which it is the goal of the UN to end. And instead of aiding the ending of that, which the British promised to do, they are making it worse, not just over the Falklands/ Malvinas.
The more I read the more I am coming to that realisation, the last 16 colonies on the list are a sticking point, of that there is no doubt and in every case there is a reason, all you have to do is, follow the money.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

This is the crux of my difference with you on this matter.
I think that if they continue to put pressure on the Islanders it will backfire. In time they will be forcedto sit down in 3 party talks.

You'll need to elaborate on that one, other than some sabre rattling from a British press that is still in love with the war days, the world (that matters) doesn't seem to have taken much notice, or has displayed the fact that they are conflicted on the issue.
It would be interesting to see what happens if other South American countries strengten their support. The discovery of more resources could be a tipping point, the belief that they are there in abundance is why we are talking about this again, make no mistake.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll need to elaborate on that one, other than some sabre rattling from a British press that is still in love with the war days, the world (that matters) doesn't seem to have taken much notice, or has displayed the fact that they are conflicted on the issue.
It would be interesting to see what happens if other South American countries strengten their support. The discovery of more resources could be a tipping point, the belief that they are there in abundance is why we are talking about this again, make no mistake.

I think it's the Argentines that are sabre rattling really and they've been ramping up the pressure a lot more since around the anniversary.

She (lets face it its a policy driven by the current President) has been developing support amongst neighbouring countries and they have expressed a view on it but its not really done anything and she has had a bit of a hissy fit at tge lack of support from her neighbours at times.

She's raised it with the Pope recently and that's going to be a popular move within South America but isn't going to to have any diplomatic effect its pure PR.

I doubt any Country that matters (to the UK) such as the US is ever going to come out and demand (using diplomatic language) that the UK should talk to Argentina. They'll talk about it but won't really mean it..

In a very subtle way the referrendum result gives more scope for the Islanders and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office to quietly work to strengthen their point about the Islanders interests.

The UK is very skilled and experienced at quiet diplomacy behind the scenes. Who knows a bit more work at the UN or with influencial partners and you could see greater recognition for the Islanders as time goes on.

In my mind Argentina will take things a step too far (probably around the time of another unpopular economic policy decision or election) e.g increasing its restrictions on uk flagged or vessals that visit Falkland Waters or flight restrictions etc and Countries will start to voice concern at that point.

Then you'll see TV pictures of air supply efforts from the UK and pictures of empty shelves in Falkland shops and medical emergencies amongst the Islanders - they'll be the new 'Victims' because of Argentine tactics and opinion will turn (more).

The UK will keep arguing that the Islanders will have a say and regardless of previous resolutions its very hard to ignore that point especially if the UN, Pope etc is all about looking after the little guy...

Argentina and the US aren't exactly on speaking terms at the moment and its relationship with Europe isn't great either. It's regional partners will, in time, nudge them to a change in the way they view the Island's population because its position will affect lucrative trade agreements with the US and Europe. Regional solidarity is one thing but
If Argentina's rhetoric impacts on a deal that affects a Brazilian trade deal Brazil will choose Brazil.

It's going to be at a glacial pace but Argentina will negotiate with the existing population in the end.

Next big flashpoint will be the World Cup and FIFA won't tolerate any political fun and games here (assuming England qualify - as like many other people they probably don't really associate Scotland, Wales, NI as being really involved...) and then there us the Olympics....oh hang on Argentina earned a rebuke from the IOC last year so not exactly bessie mates there either.

Aughrim1691.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If the past is any example to take all we can be sure of is that it will be repeated only it appears that the tables are turning.

For that reason I think it would be in the FI'ers long-term interests to form some sort of working relationship with the Argentines if only for their own sakes.

What a load of absolute and utter bollocks that is. The Islanders have just voted overwhelmingly to stay as a British overseas territory. There is nothing the Argentine government can do about it.

They have the moral and legal right to self determination. They have voted for liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they see it. Time for some people to get the leg over the fence and get over it to be honest.

jmayo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am always curious why people never wonder why successive Argentine governments can capitalise by making a play for the sovereignty of the Malvinas at home.

Actually it only started being raised after the formation of the united nations in 1945.
Before that Argentina didn't appear to have much of a problem with the Falklands being British.
But I guess they were pretty rich in the early 20th century to bother. :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have to get behind the jingoistic rabble rousing of British media that we are bombarded by to appreciate that they definately represent some sort of cultural importance/significance to ordinary Argentines, indeed across south America.

And you reckon the Argentinian government haven't indulged in jingoistic rabble rousing ?
Somehow I wonder how many ordinary South Americans give a sh** about what Argentina want.
I can just guess what the Chileans think.
Maybe some don't like old European powers still having a little bit of South America but that would be it I would guess.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Otherwise you can't say it's a 'populist' move by Argentine governments to 'whip up fervour'.

It has been proven that it is usually raised as a diversionary tactic.
You do know that was why the junta invaded the place when they did ?

BTW if Argentina are so concerned about removing colonies then perhaps for a start they can start breaking up their own country and hand back the likes of Patagonia to the indigenous people that they took it off from
the 1870s onwards ?
And seen as they are so concerned about who was a former inhabitant of places they might invite back descendants of the people they chased into Chile at the beginning of the 20th century ?

It is more than a bit hypocritical to be complaining about Britain and it's colonisation hisotry when they themselves have done likewise.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I think it's the Argentines that are sabre rattling really and they've been ramping up the pressure a lot more since around the anniversary.

She (lets face it its a policy driven by the current President) has been developing support amongst neighbouring countries and they have expressed a view on it but its not really done anything and she has had a bit of a hissy fit at tge lack of support from her neighbours at times.

I think what has brought this to world attention again is the hamfisted referendum, the shipping embargo wasn't really noticed by world media.

She's raised it with the Pope recently and that's going to be a popular move within South America but isn't going to to have any diplomatic effect its pure PR.

Agreed, but I think it was media picking up on what he said 2 years ago? that brought the pope into it. Cameron's ott response wasn't really helpful.

I doubt any Country that matters (to the UK) such as the US is ever going to come out and demand (using diplomatic language) that the UK should talk to Argentina. They'll talk about it but won't really mean it..

If the Falklanders aren't worried about a dramatic shift in the tone of what is coming out of Washington and the overt cosying up to South America then they are being extremely foolish and politically naive. Reagan was not happy with Britain responding militarily in 82, I think America is applying much more diplomatic pressure behind the scenes.

In a very subtle way the referrendum result gives more scope for the Islanders and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office to quietly work to strengthen their point about the Islanders interests.

The UK is very skilled and experienced at quiet diplomacy behind the scenes. Who knows a bit more work at the UN or with influencial partners and you could see greater recognition for the Islanders as time goes on.

I think you only have to look at Bank Qi Moon's website to see that the attitude in the UN hasn't changed at all.

In my mind Argentina will take things a step too far (probably around the time of another unpopular economic policy decision or election) e.g increasing its restrictions on uk flagged or vessals that visit Falkland Waters or flight restrictions etc and Countries will start to voice concern at that point.

The difficult thing about that is if it continues to be a blockade by an alliance of South American states.

Then you'll see TV pictures of air supply efforts from the UK and pictures of empty shelves in Falkland shops and medical emergencies amongst the Islanders - they'll be the new 'Victims' because of Argentine tactics and opinion will turn (more).

The UK will keep arguing that the Islanders will have a say and regardless of previous resolutions its very hard to ignore that point especially if the UN, Pope etc is all about looking after the little guy...


Argentina and the US aren't exactly on speaking terms at the moment and its relationship with Europe isn't great either. It's regional partners will, in time, nudge them to a change in the way they view the Island's population because its position will affect lucrative trade agreements with the US and Europe. Regional solidarity is one thing but
If Argentina's rhetoric impacts on a deal that affects a Brazilian trade deal Brazil will choose Brazil.

It's going to be at a glacial pace but Argentina will negotiate with the existing population in the end.

Next big flashpoint will be the World Cup and FIFA won't tolerate any political fun and games here (assuming England qualify - as like many other people they probably don't really associate Scotland, Wales, NI as being really involved...) and then there us the Olympics....oh hang on Argentina earned a rebuke from the IOC last year so not exactly bessie mates there either.

I agree that it is a diplomatic game to be won or lost. The Falklanders will gain the sympathy of those who don't understand the complexities (those people who are huffing and puffing about moral rights etc etc)but they are not the people with the power to change things. Morals don't come into it, and despite the lipservice paid by Britain to 'moral rights' it is clear to anybody with a smattering of world knowledge that they are talking tongue in cheek. It will be pragmatism that will change the situation.

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

Actually it only started being raised after the formation of the united nations in 1945.
Before that Argentina didn't appear to have much of a problem with the Falklands being British.
But I guess they were pretty rich in the early 20th century to bother. :rolleyes:



And you reckon the Argentinian government haven't indulged in jingoistic rabble rousing ?
Somehow I wonder how many ordinary South Americans give a sh** about what Argentina want.
I can just guess what the Chileans think.
Maybe some don't like old European powers still having a little bit of South America but that would be it I would guess.



It has been proven that it is usually raised as a diversionary tactic.
You do know that was why the junta invaded the place when they did ?

BTW if Argentina are so concerned about removing colonies then perhaps for a start they can start breaking up their own country and hand back the likes of Patagonia to the indigenous people that they took it off from
the 1870s onwards ?
And seen as they are so concerned about who was a former inhabitant of places they might invite back descendants of the people they chased into Chile at the beginning of the 20th century ?

It is more than a bit hypocritical to be complaining about Britain and it's colonisation hisotry when they themselves have done likewise.

I'd be highly critical of Argentina too and how they have handled this over the years. My point is, though, throughout this thread, that it is primarily British intransigence, in the face of and contrary to the UN committment to end colonialism, that is at fault. Evidenced by the downgrading of their participation in the work of the Decolonisation Committee, which is not just because of the Falklands but also to do with their activity in other colonies, where they are actively denying 'self determination'.
The UN, and the world are not stupid, hence, they haven't capitulated to the hollow moral outrage coming from the British. The islanders of the Falklanders are caught in between a rock and a hard place as a result.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

 The islanders of the Falklanders are caught in between a rock and a hard place as a result.

They are. The reason is that it' s currently Argentina's big issue. The Us is currently veing non- commital and us trying to keep everyone happy.
George W never made a statement on The Falklands as it was not a big deal then. Even hosting numerous Pan American events attended by Argentina didn't get it spoken about.

The current Argentinian President is using it as a smokescreen. That won't go on forever.

A UK Government that sits down to talk to Argentina without the Islanders is going to destroy that party's electability for a long time to come. If anyone was going to do that it woukd have been (New) Labour but they knew what would happen and pulled back from dealing with Gibralter as a result.

We just see the World from a different viewpoint.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd be highly critical of Argentina too and how they have handled this over the years. My point is, though, throughout this thread, that it is primarily British intransigence, in the face of and contrary to the UN committment to end colonialism, that is at fault. Evidenced by the downgrading of their participation in the work of the Decolonisation Committee, which is not just because of the Falklands but also to do with their activity in other colonies, where they are actively denying 'self determination'.
The UN, and the world are not stupid, hence, they haven't capitulated to the hollow moral outrage coming from the British. The islanders of the Falklanders are caught in between a rock and a hard place as a result.

Where is the UK denying anyone the right to self determination?

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

We just see the World from a different viewpoint.

True.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Where is the UK denying anyone the right to self determination?

This stuff doesn't seem to get the moral outragers in the Daily Mail etc excercised too much, so you have to look a bit harder for it. Loads more out their on 'independent of mind' Google if you are bothered to look or if you think it is biased.

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

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

getz

Busted Flat. wrote: »

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.

i am of irish decent with a irish surname,born in england.so you think i am irish? there are,many people living in the republic with a british surname from a british ancestor,so in your eyes they are british,get real

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

True.



This stuff doesn't seem to get the moral outragers in the Daily Mail etc excercised too much, so you have to look a bit harder for it. Loads more out their on 'independent of mind' Google if you are bothered to look or if you think it is biased.

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

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

Seriously?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Certainly an option for them, the half hearted attempt Britain tried to get by the UN didn't work though.
The core of the problem is not the Islands themselves but what they represent. I am always curious why people never wonder why successive Argentine governments can capitalise by making a play for the sovereignty of the Malvinas at home. You have to get behind the jingoistic rabble rousing of British media that we are bombarded by to appreciate that they definately represent some sort of cultural importance/significance to ordinary Argentines, indeed across south America. Otherwise you can't say it's a 'populist' move by Argentine governments to 'whip up fervour'. It's a hotspot of colonial resentment which it is the goal of the UN to end. And instead of aiding the ending of that, which the British promised to do, they are making it worse, not just over the Falklands/ Malvinas.
The more I read the more I am coming to that realisation, the last 16 colonies on the list are a sticking point, of that there is no doubt and in every case there is a reason, all you have to do is, follow the money.

So what do the islanders represent?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think what has brought this to world attention again is the hamfisted referendum, the shipping embargo wasn't really noticed by world media.


Agreed, but I think it was media picking up on what he said 2 years ago? that brought the pope into it. Cameron's ott response wasn't really helpful.


If the Falklanders aren't worried about a dramatic shift in the tone of what is coming out of Washington and the overt cosying up to South America then they are being extremely foolish and politically naive. Reagan was not happy with Britain responding militarily in 82, I think America is applying much more diplomatic pressure behind the scenes.


I think you only have to look at Bank Qi Moon's website to see that the attitude in the UN hasn't changed at all.


The difficult thing about that is if it continues to be a blockade by an alliance of South American states.



I agree that it is a diplomatic game to be won or lost. The Falklanders will gain the sympathy of those who don't understand the complexities (those people who are huffing and puffing about moral rights etc etc)but they are not the people with the power to change things. Morals don't come into it, and despite the lipservice paid by Britain to 'moral rights' it is clear to anybody with a smattering of world knowledge that they are talking tongue in cheek. It will be pragmatism that will change the situation.

Regan was so against the Brits retaking the Falklands that be offered the British the use of a us aircraft carrier and gave the the British the latest generation if sidewinder missiles which unlike the previous generation of missiles which had to be locked on from the rear of the target aircraft the new generation could be targeted from any direction and where most certinly a game changer.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Regan was so against the Brits retaking the Falklands that be offered the British the use of a us aircraft carrier and gave the the British the latest generation if sidewinder missiles which unlike the previous generation of missiles which had to be locked on from the rear of the target aircraft the new generation could be targeted from any direction and where most certinly a game changer.

Once they decided to send the task force, America got behind them. But not before Reagan tried strenuously to pesuade Maggie not to and seek a diplomatic resolution. Read the released papers.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Once they decided to send the task force, America got behind them. But not before Reagan tried strenuously to pesuade Maggie not to and seek a diplomatic resolution. Read the released papers.

Wow, a world leader asking two countries to settle their differences peacefully and not go to war.

That's a shocker.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wow, a world leader asking two countries to settle their differences peacefully and not go to war.

That's a shocker.

Yeh, at least they didn't lie through their teeth about WMD's and such, just to go along for the ride and feel all colonial again.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh, at least they didn't lie through their teeth about WMD's and such, just to go along for the ride and feel all colonial again.

Ooh, that wouldn't happen to be true colours showing there would it?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ooh, that wouldn't happen to be true colours showing there would it?

Absolutely, anti-colonialist to my marrow.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, anti-colonialist to my marrow.

Unless those colonialists are Argentinians, obviously.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Unless those colonialists are Argentinians, obviously.

only 1% of the native population of argentina are left,most of them were driven out or murdered by the junter and the bodies never found,

Happyman42

Two wrongs never make a right, in any true moralizer's book.

Britain has been asked 40 times by the UN to 'do the right thing' and negotiate over sovereignty in the interests of peace and security n the region. They haven't, therefore Britain is in the wrong and with more and more resources been found those tensions and threats to the peace will increase, Anybody with an ounce of sense and genuine concern would see the dangers of this to the Falklanders .

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two wrongs never make a right, in any true moralizer's book.

Britain has been asked 40 times by the UN to 'do the right thing' and negotiate over sovereignty in the interests of peace and security n the region. They haven't, therefore Britain is in the wrong and with more and more resources been found those tensions and threats to the peace will increase, Anybody with an ounce of sense and genuine concern would see the dangers of this to the Falklanders .

When you say asked by the UN, you mean the decolonization committee?

There are no threats. Argentina have said there will be no talk of military action. There's a bit of name calling (pirates is a favourite, which is ironic when one looks at Vernet's actions), but no threats.

CfdK is barred from running next time. With any luck a more moderate voice will appear, the two parties share the hydrocarbons (if any) and we all live happily ever after.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two wrongs never make a right, in any true moralizer's book.

Britain has been asked 40 times by the UN to 'do the right thing' and negotiate over sovereignty in the interests of peace and security n the region. They haven't, therefore Britain is in the wrong and with more and more resources been found those tensions and threats to the peace will increase, Anybody with an ounce of sense and genuine concern would see the dangers of this to the Falklanders .

argentina still believe and say that they inherited the islands from spain,yet there is documented proof that has recently been found that say they did not,

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

argentina still believe and say that they inherited the islands from spain,yet there is documented proof that has recently been found that say they did not,

All grist to the mill at the negotiations, I have no idea who is right on sovereignty, bit if that is the case, I am even more curious as to why Britain seems afraid of complying with the UN.



*Would be interested to see that documentation though and what verifys it, any links?

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

When you say asked by the UN, you mean the decolonization committee?

Yes

There are no threats. Argentina have said there will be no talk of military action. There's a bit of name calling (pirates is a favourite, which is ironic when one looks at Vernet's actions), but no threats.

CfdK is barred from running next time. With any luck a more moderate voice will appear, the two parties share the hydrocarbons (if any) and we all live happily ever after.

With the prospect of an abundance of resources at stake, do you really see it all disappearing?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

All grist to the mill at the negotiations, I have no idea who is right on sovereignty, bit if that is the case, I am even more curious as to why Britain seems afraid of complying with the UN.



*Would be interested to see that documentation though and what verifys it, any links?

It isn't afraid to, it can't unless asked to by the government of the Falkland islands.

Britain can only represent the islands when asked. They offered, 99.8% said no.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

All grist to the mill at the negotiations, I have no idea who is right on sovereignty, bit if that is the case, I am even more curious as to why Britain seems afraid of complying with the UN.



*Would be interested to see that documentation though and what verifys it, any links?

MERCO PRESS ,uruguayan lawmakers have confirmed to the british embasy that they have found a document that says spain gave the falklands to uruguay , not that it makes any difference to argentina claims.

BlaasForRafa

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two wrongs never make a right, in any true moralizer's book.

Britain has been asked 40 times by the UN to 'do the right thing' and negotiate over sovereignty in the interests of peace and security n the region. They haven't, therefore Britain is in the wrong and with more and more resources been found those tensions and threats to the peace will increase, Anybody with an ounce of sense and genuine concern would see the dangers of this to the Falklanders .

Britain is not in the wrong. Argentina is the one thats in the wrong, demanding something that doesn't belong to them and that they have no legitimate claim over.

Britain does not need to negotiate because there is nothing to negotiate about. The Falklands are British and that's that. It isn't Britain's fault that the argentines just don't get it, they should use their time and energy more productively in trying to sort out their basket-case of an economy.

Happyman42

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Britain is not in the wrong.

We don't know if they are in the right or the wrong. They are certainly behaving as if they are 'wrong' hiding behind a clause that cannot exist until the sovereignty dispute is solved.
They are certainly wrong ignoring the organisation they helped set up, the organisation that says 'we would hope that nations would comply with the recomendations of General Assembly'.

Argentina is the one thats in the wrong, demanding something that doesn't belong to them and that they have no legitimate claim over.

Then why won't Britain satisfy the wishes of the international community, they are full members of, and do as it asks...negotiate. Then maybe the Falklanders could have some security of tenure and some semblance of effectivness will be restored to the UN


Can I ask all the people who say Britain are right to ignore the UN...who would you have adjudicating in internnaional disputes?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

We don't know if they are in the right or the wrong. They are certainly behaving as if they are 'wrong' hiding behind a clause that cannot exist until the sovereignty dispute is solved.
They are certainly wrong ignoring the organisation they helped set up, the organisation that says 'we would hope that nations would comply with the recomendations of General Assembly'.

Then why won't Britain satisfy the wishes of the international community, they are full members of, and do as it asks...negotiate. Then maybe the Falklanders could have some security of tenure and some semblance of effectivness will be restored to the UN


Can I ask all the people who say Britain are right to ignore the UN...who would you have adjudicating in internnaional disputes?

Britain's position on the Falklands is clear and understood. The government of the Falkland's has offered for the UN decolonization committee to come and visit them, they have declined. They have written to visit Beunos Aires and discuss joint cooperation on fishing and hydrocarbon extraction. Argentina has declined.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain's position on the Falklands is clear and understood. The government of the Falkland's has offered for the UN decolonization committee to come and visit them, they have declined. They have written to visit Beunos Aires and discuss joint cooperation on fishing and hydrocarbon extraction. Argentina has declined.

And the resolutions remain in place. After 40 of them and much discussion and investigation and with full cognisance of all international laws and factors involved, the opinion of the General Assembly is 'to negotiate'.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the resolutions remain in place. After 40 of them and much discussion and investigation and with full cognisance of all international laws and factors involved, the opinion of the General Assembly is 'to negotiate'.

Ms De Kirchner, is that you, or are you just copying her rhetoric?

Basically, every year the De colonization committee meet, Argentina throws a tantrum and the committee requests that the two countries negotiate to settle the issue. In other words please dont fight.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ms De Kirchner, is that you, or are you just copying her rhetoric?

Basically, every year the De colonization committee meet, Argentina throws a tantrum and the committee requests that the two countries negotiate to settle the issue. In other words please dont fight.

Strongly objecting to continued intransigence is not a tantrum. Less of the Daily Mail, 'them stupid foreigners' stuff please.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Strongly objecting to continued intransigence is not a tantrum. Less of the Daily Mail, 'them stupid foreigners' stuff please.

The Falkland islanders have offered to negotiate. The only intransigence is from Argentina.

It is Argentina that is not talking, they are just show boating to detract attention from a failing government.