Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

smcgiff

'Originally Posted by RobitTV
BREAKING: VOTE RESULTS AS FOLLOWS

YES VOTES: 98.8% (1513)
NO VOTES: 3

Islanders vote overwhelmingly to remain British! '

3 votes, eh - wouldn't have looked good to have a 100% vote in favour - that would smack of a tin pot dictatorship.

So, a few lads must have decided to make it look more legit.

Now that I think of it the Argentines should have paid off some local to go around to over half the population on the sly to say something along the lines of...

'Now, Geoffrey, we can't have this lark being a 100% yes vote. That wouldn't be cricket. So, it's been decided that a few lads will have to vote no. You've been selected old chum. For King and Country, eh wat.'

Repeat 800 times :pac:

The Corinthian

smcgiff wrote: »

3 votes, eh - wouldn't have looked good to have a 100% vote in favour - that would smack of a tin pot dictatorship.

So, a few lads must have decided to make it look more legit.

Yes, it was clearly a directive from the 9-foot tall lizard men who control the New World Order and the Illuminati than demanded this...

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh right, I tried to obscure the Falklands War.:D Let it go, you misread what I said. Last time, what I said was that the British, by their actions are making this dispute about 'who has the biggest gun', it doesn't have to be that way and won't secure the rights and security of these islanders.

What actions by the British? All the accusations are coming from Argentina.

getz

smcgiff wrote: »

'Originally Posted by RobitTV
BREAKING: VOTE RESULTS AS FOLLOWS

YES VOTES: 98.8% (1513)
NO VOTES: 3

Islanders vote overwhelmingly to remain British! '

3 votes, eh - wouldn't have looked good to have a 100% vote in favour - that would smack of a tin pot dictatorship.

So, a few lads must have decided to make it look more legit.

Now that I think of it the Argentines should have paid off some local to go around to over half the population on the sly to say something along the lines of...

'Now, Geoffrey, we can't have this lark being a 100% yes vote. That wouldn't be cricket. So, it's been decided that a few lads will have to vote no. You've been selected old chum. For King and Country, eh wat.'

Repeat 800 times :pac:

interesting only 3 voted no,as the are a number of people living on the ireland who are from south american stock,

who the fug

getz wrote: »

interesting only 3 voted no,as the are a number of people living on the ireland who are from south american stock,

No just your run of the mill British eccentrics

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I thought that at first, but you actually tried to paint the British as the aggressors in it, by arguing that war is in their interests.

I don't think it is an ideal solution, but it appears your solution would have been that in 1982 the British should have simply accepted the situation, brought about by the military belligerence of another nation.

And for some reason you also seem to believe that the rights and security of these islanders would have been served by a nation under an undemocratic Junta, that probably would have seen them as foreign interlopers. Not likely.

Somehow, I can't see you accepting British presence in Northern Ireland for the sake of peace and a lasting settlement though. But that seems to be a general motif of your rather hypocritical views.

You keep putting words in mine and others mouths, we don't need your pseudo analysis of what you think is 'really' being said.
At NO point did I say or imply that the 'British' should have 'simply accepted the situation'.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I think the idea of a strengthening and supportive South America won't last.
Argentina is fast becoming an embarrassment to its neighbours. It's

Brazil have recently strongly supported the Argentinian claim.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Brazil have recently strongly supported the Argentinian claim.

So Argentina are getting support from a trade bloc partner, big deal.

Could you answer my question now. What are the British doing to aggravate the situation.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

You keep putting words in mine and others mouths, we don't need your pseudo analysis of what you think is 'really' being said.
At NO point did I say or imply that the 'British' should have 'simply accepted the situation'.

Sure, you just said that by not accepting the situation and retaking the islands by force they engendered greater bloodshed and failed to find a lasting solution.

I wonder what conclusion you were expecting people to have with that beauty?

Would you like to play any more word games?

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Brazil have recently strongly supported the Argentinian claim.

And I have no doubt the UNASUR will come out and reject the treaty too if Argentina gets its way but its just more hot air.

At the end of the day the country is in turmoil and adopting economic policies that are out of step with Mercosur that will, more than likely, prove to be something that alienates Argentina from its neighbours. Argentina uses The Falklands as a means of diverting attention away from its real problems.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, you just said that by not accepting the situation and retaking the islands by force they engendered greater bloodshed and failed to find a lasting solution.

I wonder what conclusion you were expecting people to have with that beauty?

Would you like to play any more word games?

Correct. They failed to find a solution. Unless I'm missing something. The only way they will find a solution, just like N.I., is to engage with the actual problem and sooner or later, by force or by expediency, they will. History shows us that, any lives lost while we wait for the British to confront the reality of the problem, are a waste.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

And I have no doubt the UNASUR will come out and reject the treaty too if Argentina gets its way but its just more hot air.

At the end of the day the country is in turmoil and adopting economic policies that are out of step with Mercosur that will, more than likely, prove to be something that alienates Argentina from its neighbours. Argentina uses The Falklands as a means of diverting attention away from its real problems.

:D And Maggie didn't use it to bolster herself? Galtieri, unwittingly, saddled us with her disastrous polices as she was unassailable after her gung ho expedition. Remember the obscenity of 'Gothcha'? She was on dodgy ground at home before the war.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Correct. They failed to find a solution. Unless I'm missing something. The only way they will find a solution, just like N.I., is to engage with the actual problem and sooner or later, by force or by expediency, they will. History shows us that, any lives lost while we wait for the British to confront the reality of the problem, are a waste.

Confront what reality? Do you mean go against the democratic wishes of its citizens and hand the islands over?

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Correct. They failed to find a solution. Unless I'm missing something. The only way they will find a solution, just like N.I., is to engage with the actual problem and sooner or later, by force or by expediency, they will. History shows us that, any lives lost while we wait for the British to confront the reality of the problem, are a waste.

northern ireland has not found a solution,its on the backburner,the problems are still there,

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D And Maggie didn't use it to bolster herself? Galtieri, unwittingly, saddled us with her disastrous polices as she was unassailable after her gung ho expedition. Remember the obscenity of 'Gothcha'? She was on dodgy ground at home before the war.

Gotcha was a headline used in first edition of the northern version of a gutter tabloid. It has nothing to do with Thatcher.

You so far have failed to make any positive suggestion in this thread, other than spouting empty rhetoric.

You have accused the British of turning this into a Dick waving contest, but failed to say how. You've accused Britain of not confronting the situation, but again, no suggestions on how to confront it.

Argentina jump up and down saying it's ours it's ours, Britain replies with sorry guys, we asked the locals, they spoke. There is nothing we can do about it.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Confront what reality?

Engage with Argentina at the UN, Cameron didn't attend the last meeting of the Decolonisation committee, snubbing the first speech by an Argentinian head of state to address it and refuses to listen to the UN resolutions calling for them to open negotiations. Their continued refusal to engage at this level led to the Peruvian governemnt cancelling a visit by the British royal navy to Peru. Add Brazil's recent strong reiteration of their support and I see a conflict situation ramping up, not down, in the face of predictable British intransigence.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Gotcha was a headline used in first edition of the northern version of a gutter tabloid. It has nothing to do with Thatcher.

Thatcher's Navy sunk a ship sailing away from the exclusion zone, killing half of all the total Argentinian casualties, despite the fact that war had not been declared and a Peruvian peace deal was on the table. That precipitated the headline.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

northern ireland has not found a solution,its on the backburner,the problems are still there,

It has found the basis for a solution.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D And Maggie didn't use it to bolster herself? Galtieri, unwittingly, saddled us with her disastrous polices as she was unassailable after her gung ho expedition. Remember the obscenity of 'Gothcha'? She was on dodgy ground at home before the war.

She made a better job of it and won as a result, perhaps more by luck at times though.

The conflict exposed a lot of problems not least in who NATO allies sold equipment and weapons systems to. Indeed the UK very nearly sold the Sea Harriers to the Argentinian regime before relations fell apart.

UK is very skilled in the use of media did you see the film of Ghurkas sharpening their Kukris?

Are we really going to talk about a warship that was in theatre and posing a threat to a naval taskforce? What were they supposed to do? Invite them over for tea and biscuits? British intel intercepted a message to confirm the threat and they acted on it as any Country would.

As for The Sun its hardly known as the pinicle of journalism is it?

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thatcher's Navy sunk a ship sailing away from the exclusion zone, killing half of all the total Argentinian casualties, despite the fact that war had not been declared and a Peruvian peace deal was on the table. That precipitated the headline.

Invading an other countries territory is an act of war, if the British army marched on Dublin would you expect the irish government to find a solution or fight?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Invading an other countries territory is an act of war, if the British army marched on Dublin would you expect the irish government to find a solution or fight?

I wouldn't expect them to commit a war crime, no.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wouldn't expect them to commit a war crime, no.

War Crime?
I must have missed the trial at the Hague....
Irrespective of any peace deal the UK acted on intelligence that showed Argentina had set out to attack the UK Task Force. The submarine did its job.
You could argue that going to war in a WW2 era warship against a modern Navy was a crime and indeed the leaders of the Junta have all been brought before the courts in Argentina.
The Belgrano sinking took the Argentine navy out of the equation. They only hsd to worry about French missiles at that point.

Busted Flat.

Hunterbiker wrote: »

War Crime?
I must have missed the trial at the Hague....
Irrespective of any peace deal the UK acted on intelligence that showed Argentina had set out to attack the UK Task Force. The submarine did its job.
You could argue that going to war in a WW2 era warship against a modern Navy was a crime and indeed the leaders of the Junta have all been brought before the courts in Argentina.
The Belgrano sinking took the Argentine navy out of the equation. They only hsd to worry about French missiles at that point.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tatcher%27s+reaction+to+the+sinking+of+the+belgrano&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbelgranoinquiry.com%2F&ei=DzA_UeXuEKze7AbBw4C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGRw0m27SfklJrJCvoK44SrFGViPQ&bvm=bv.43287494,d.ZGU

"It would have been a legal act of war if the Belgrano had either the intention or the capability to threaten Britain’s Task Force. Did it? That depends upon what its mission was. Arguments of ‘military necessity’ for sinking have a logistical problem: had it been perceived as a threat to the Task Force, that would have happened on May 1st, while it was sailing East, towards the Task Force. That didn’t happen. Only after it had turned round and had been sailing East, for 11 hours, away from the fleet, was it sunk."

That’s what it was doing.

gallag

Busted Flat. wrote: »

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tatcher%27s+reaction+to+the+sinking+of+the+belgrano&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbelgranoinquiry.com%2F&ei=DzA_UeXuEKze7AbBw4C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGRw0m27SfklJrJCvoK44SrFGViPQ&bvm=bv.43287494,d.ZGU

"It would have been a legal act of war if the Belgrano had either the intention or the capability to threaten Britain’s Task Force. Did it? That depends upon what its mission was. Arguments of ‘military necessity’ for sinking have a logistical problem: had it been perceived as a threat to the Task Force, that would have happened on May 1st, while it was sailing East, towards the Task Force. That didn’t happen. Only after it had turned round and had been sailing East, for 11 hours, away from the fleet, was it sunk."

That’s what it was doing.

Its simple, if you are the aggressor and invade an other countries territory your military assets become viable targets. The argentine government had the option of not invading a uk protectorate and remain at peace.

antoobrien

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wouldn't expect them to commit a war crime, no.

The British did not restrict their right to take action against perceived threats to the total exclusion zone, something the Argentinian government were made aware of more than a week before the Belgrano was sunk.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Correct. They failed to find a solution. Unless I'm missing something.

That Argentina's invasion also failed to find a solution and was ultimately responsible for the bloodshed that followed (unless you don't believe that the aggressor in a conflict is ultimately responsible for that conflict).

But I don't think you missed that, I just think you intentionally ignored it in favour of your typically anti-British narrative. Any more BS justifications or are you going to tell the truth for once?

The only way they will find a solution, just like N.I., is to engage with the actual problem and sooner or later, by force or by expediency, they will. History shows us that, any lives lost while we wait for the British to confront the reality of the problem, are a waste.

For the 'British to confront the reality of the problem'??!!

We've had pages of discussion that have pointed out that legal arbitration is presently being rejected by both sides. Prior to this, historically, arbitration was rejected by Argentina (three times) long before it was by Britain, who offered it. Additionally, if one uses the metre of self determination, then the reality is that they are British.

But again, you ignore the facts and instead continue on your little, dishonest propaganda campaign and as usual blame only Britain, and clearly because it is Britain.

You're using historical and logical falsehoods for the purposes of nothing more than a directed attempt at anti-British propaganda. You've no leg to stand on, I'm afraid.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

War Crime?
I must have missed the trial at the Hague....

Soon as they get around to trying Churchill for Dresden and Colonge they'll get around to it, I suppose.

Do you think it might be for the same reason that Britian gets away with ignoring the UN and is one of five with a veto? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but.......

junder

Odd how the sinking of an armed military ship is consider a war crime just because it was sunk by the British.

Hunterbiker

Busted Flat. wrote: »

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tatcher%27s+reaction+to+the+sinking+of+the+belgrano&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbelgranoinquiry.com%2F&ei=DzA_UeXuEKze7AbBw4C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGRw0m27SfklJrJCvoK44SrFGViPQ&bvm=bv.43287494,d.ZGU

"It would have been a legal act of war if the Belgrano had either the intention or the capability to threaten Britain’s Task Force. Did it? That depends upon what its mission was. Arguments of ‘military necessity’ for sinking have a logistical problem: had it been perceived as a threat to the Task Force, that would have happened on May 1st, while it was sailing East, towards the Task Force. That didn’t happen. Only after it had turned round and had been sailing East, for 11 hours, away from the fleet, was it sunk."

That’s what it was doing.

Ah the unoffucial enquiry website...good old Tam.
The nature of ships is that they can change / move position and change course. I doubt the commanders of that ship didnt expect an attack once she was close to the exclusion zone.

As I said I must have missed the trial or indeed the charges laid by the international wsr crimes tribunal to The former PM and key decision makers on the UK side. Oh hang on its a big conspiracy and actually that warship was just out on a routine peace mission that happaned to stray close to a war zone...

The Belgrano is just another item wheeled out by Argentina in it's quest to ignore the resident population.

gallag

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8965405/Belgrano-was-heading-to-the-Falklands-secret-papers-reveal.html

But Major David Thorp, who spent 34 years working as a signals expert in military intelligence, has disclosed for the first time that he was asked to carry out a trawl of all the intelligence on the sinking at the direct request of Margaret Thatcher a few months after the end of the war.He was ordered to compile a report for the Prime Minister called “The Sinking of the Belgrano” that has never been published.From his own signals intercepts and those from other Government agencies, he proved that the Argentine cruiser was heading into the exclusion zone.Major Thorp was in charge of a top secret signals interception section hidden on the amphibious warship Intrepid as it steamed with the Task Force.Around Ascension Island, 4,000 miles from the Falklands, his team began picking up naval communications sent to the Argentine fleet which they were easily able to decipher.The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed.The Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes fired by the hunter-killer submarine Conqueror on May 2 with the loss of 323 lives a number of miles outside the exclusion zone.“For some reason they decided on a rendezvous point still within the exclusion zone,” Major Thorp said. “Whether they were trying to raise a thumb at us I don’t know. At the time I thought it was strange thinking why didn’t they go straight into port?”In his new book, The Silent Listener, Major Thorp wrote: “The findings of my final report stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated but the objective of the ship was to relocate to a prearranged RV within the exclusion zone.”Despite the report being read by Mrs Thatcher she never disclosed the information either in Parliament or elsewhere possibly because she did not want to reveal Britain’s eavesdropping capabilities.But during her infamous BBC exchange with the schoolteacher Diana Gould who confronted her on the sinking Mrs Thatcher made an intriguing reference to the report saying: "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published." Mrs Gould died earlier this month.In recent years the Argentine navy has accepted that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.In his book, that was cleared by the security services, Major Thorp also discloses for the first time how the British code-cracking operation gave the force a significant advantage.Shortly before the Battle of Goose Green, Lt Col “H” Jones, the commander of 2nd Bn The Parachute Regiment, boarded Intrepid after hearing about the eavesdroppers through SAS colleagues.“That morning we had picked up 10 grid references on intercepts and H looked at the map and realised that they were his own troops’ locations. He said “bloody hell we are sharing the same hill as the enemy.’”“He wanted to know the strengths and weaknesses of the Argentines, then we looked at calibre of people on ground and he came to the conclusion that perhaps 600 Paras were worth 1,500 Argentines.”The intelligence gave the commanding officer the “peace of mind” to start the battle that would lead in his own death, a posthumous Victoria Cross award and ultimately victory in the campaign.

gallag

Intresting irish times article.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/battle-over-legacy-of-falklands-war-continues-30-years-on-1.490142

Though Argentina’s navy accepts the General Belgrano’s sinking was an “act of war”, the foreign ministry in Buenos Aires has signalled it is considering taking Britain to the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the incident.Labelling the sinking of the General Belgrano a war crime leaves many Argentinian veterans unhappy. “It dishonours the men who died on board. They were defending the fatherland in war. They are not just innocent victims of a crime,” says Ianuzzo, today secretary of the biggest Malvinas veterans association. “Our soldiers fought with honour. They showed great bravery and great valour.”

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thatcher's Navy sunk a ship sailing away from the exclusion zone, killing half of all the total Argentinian casualties, despite the fact that war had not been declared and a Peruvian peace deal was on the table. That precipitated the headline.

No, the royal navy sunk the Argentine flagship that was part of a pincer movement designed to force the task force away from the islands.

Its position in relation to the exclusion zone was irrelevant, it was a belligerent.

Naval warfare isn't a game of tag.

Busted Flat.

http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/diana-v-maggie

But Major David Thorp, who spent 34 years working as a signals expert in military intelligence, has disclosed for the first time that he was asked to carry out a trawl of all the intelligence on the sinking at the direct request of Margaret Thatcher a few months after the end of the war.He was ordered to compile a report for the Prime Minister called “The Sinking of the Belgrano” that has never been published.From his own signals intercepts and those from other Government agencies, he proved that the Argentine cruiser was heading into the exclusion zone.Major Thorp was in charge of a top secret signals interception section hidden on the amphibious warship Intrepid as it steamed with the Task Force.Around Ascension Island, 4,000 miles from the Falklands, his team began picking up naval communications sent to the Argentine fleet which they were easily able to decipher.The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed.The Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes fired by the hunter-killer submarine Conqueror on May 2 with the loss of 323 lives a number of miles outside the exclusion zone.“For some reason they decided on a rendezvous point still within the exclusion zone,” Major Thorp said. “Whether they were trying to raise a thumb at us I don’t know. At the time I thought it was strange thinking why didn’t they go straight into port?”In his new book, The Silent Listener, Major Thorp wrote: “The findings of my final report stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated but the objective of the ship was to relocate to a prearranged RV within the exclusion zone.”Despite the report being read by Mrs Thatcher she never disclosed the information either in Parliament or elsewhere possibly because she did not want to reveal Britain’s eavesdropping capabilities.But during her infamous BBC exchange with the schoolteacher Diana Gould who confronted her on the sinking Mrs Thatcher made an intriguing reference to the report saying: "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published." Mrs Gould died earlier this month.In recent years the Argentine navy has accepted that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.In his book, that was cleared by the security services, Major Thorp also discloses for the first time how the British code-cracking operation gave the force a significant advantage.Shortly before the Battle of Goose Green, Lt Col “H” Jones, the commander of 2nd Bn The Parachute Regiment, boarded Intrepid after hearing about the eavesdroppers through SAS colleagues.“That morning we had picked up 10 grid references on intercepts and H looked at the map and realised that they were his own troops’ locations. He said “bloody hell we are sharing the same hill as the enemy.’”“He wanted to know the strengths and weaknesses of the Argentines, then we looked at calibre of people on ground and he came to the conclusion that perhaps 600 Paras were worth 1,500 Argentines.”The intelligence gave the commanding officer the “peace of mind” to start the battle that would lead in his own death, a posthumous Victoria Cross award and ultimately victory in the campaign.[/QUOTE]


http://belgranoinquiry.com/

http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/diana-v-maggie

I was astounded when Mrs Thatcher declared in Parliament on 12th May that she did not get news of the Peace Plan proposals until late on 2nd May after the Belgrano was sunk. This was repeated on May 13th by Mr Cranley Onslow.

Surely an enquiry must be made to discover how such a disastrous delay in communications at top levels, at so critical at time, could occur?

Peru is bisected by the 75 degree West longitude which would appear to put it in the same time zone as New York. Therefore if the Peace Plan was formulated in Peru on the evening of 1st May, at midnight there, it would have been mdnight in New York and 0500 G.M.T. on May 2nd in London. There is therefore a gap of seven hours i.e. 0500 G.M.T. to 1200 G.M.T. (1300 BST) when Peru and pressumably the United States and therefore feasibly Mr Francis Pym, the Foreign Secretary, in New York should have known of the Peace Plan and could have transmitted it to London before Mrs Thatcher made her pre-lunch decision at Chequers on May 2nd.

The Belgrano was sunk at 1457 hours South Atlantic Time at longitude 61 degrees 25′ West which means that in London it was about 1900 G.M.T. (2000 B.S.T.) and 1400 hours in New York and Peru. This means that ther were a further seven hours from 1200 G.M.T. (1300 B.S.T.) – lunch time at Chequers – until 1900 G.M.T. (2000 B.S.T.) when the Belgrano was sunk, in which, in the light of the peace propsals, the order to the Conqueror could have been rescinded. This makes a grand total of 14 hours from midnight on May 1st in Peru during which the Prime minister and her cabinet were apparently kept in ignorance of the Peace Proposals. (On the Spot, The sinking of the Belgrano, 1984, Diana Gould, p.52)

The qustion is therefore why was there this fourteen hour delay, with all such a delay implies about our lack of intelligence information and communications and Mr Francis Pym’s failure to communicate with the Prime minister….

This is the crux of the matter. The Government brazenly claimed not to have heard about the Peruvian peace proposals until 11 pm - three hours after the sinking - which would push up that unexplained gap to seventeen hours! (See video about this ‘missing time’ and the timezones)

We suggest listening to Diana Gould in our sound Archive (on a different topic)

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

That Argentina's invasion also failed to find a solution and was ultimately responsible for the bloodshed that followed (unless you don't believe that the aggressor in a conflict is ultimately responsible for that conflict).

But I don't think you missed that, I just think you intentionally ignored it in favour of your typically anti-British narrative. Any more BS justifications or are you going to tell the truth for once?

For the 'British to confront the reality of the problem'??!!

We've had pages of discussion that have pointed out that legal arbitration is presently being rejected by both sides. Prior to this, historically, arbitration was rejected by Argentina (three times) long before it was by Britain, who offered it. Additionally, if one uses the metre of self determination, then the reality is that they are British.

But again, you ignore the facts and instead continue on your little, dishonest propaganda campaign and as usual blame only Britain, and clearly because it is Britain.

You're using historical and logical falsehoods for the purposes of nothing more than a directed attempt at anti-British propaganda. You've no leg to stand on, I'm afraid.

'Self' determination is dubious in this case as you well know.

Since resolution 2065 by the UN, asserting the Falklands/Malvinas as a 'colony' the British offered to give up sovereignty and since then have consistently refused to enter sovereignty talks as mandated by the UN. In 1970, 1973 and the Argentinians protested the fact to the UN in 1981. The Argentinian president recently attempted to hand the resolutions to Cameron but he refused to take them.

gallag

Busted Flat. wrote: »

http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/diana-v-maggie

But Major David Thorp, who spent 34 years working as a signals expert in military intelligence, has disclosed for the first time that he was asked to carry out a trawl of all the intelligence on the sinking at the direct request of Margaret Thatcher a few months after the end of the war.He was ordered to compile a report for the Prime Minister called “The Sinking of the Belgrano” that has never been published.From his own signals intercepts and those from other Government agencies, he proved that the Argentine cruiser was heading into the exclusion zone.Major Thorp was in charge of a top secret signals interception section hidden on the amphibious warship Intrepid as it steamed with the Task Force.Around Ascension Island, 4,000 miles from the Falklands, his team began picking up naval communications sent to the Argentine fleet which they were easily able to decipher.The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed.The Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes fired by the hunter-killer submarine Conqueror on May 2 with the loss of 323 lives a number of miles outside the exclusion zone.“For some reason they decided on a rendezvous point still within the exclusion zone,” Major Thorp said. “Whether they were trying to raise a thumb at us I don’t know. At the time I thought it was strange thinking why didn’t they go straight into port?”In his new book, The Silent Listener, Major Thorp wrote: “The findings of my final report stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated but the objective of the ship was to relocate to a prearranged RV within the exclusion zone.”Despite the report being read by Mrs Thatcher she never disclosed the information either in Parliament or elsewhere possibly because she did not want to reveal Britain’s eavesdropping capabilities.But during her infamous BBC exchange with the schoolteacher Diana Gould who confronted her on the sinking Mrs Thatcher made an intriguing reference to the report saying: "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published." Mrs Gould died earlier this month.In recent years the Argentine navy has accepted that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.In his book, that was cleared by the security services, Major Thorp also discloses for the first time how the British code-cracking operation gave the force a significant advantage.Shortly before the Battle of Goose Green, Lt Col “H” Jones, the commander of 2nd Bn The Parachute Regiment, boarded Intrepid after hearing about the eavesdroppers through SAS colleagues.“That morning we had picked up 10 grid references on intercepts and H looked at the map and realised that they were his own troops’ locations. He said “bloody hell we are sharing the same hill as the enemy.’”“He wanted to know the strengths and weaknesses of the Argentines, then we looked at calibre of people on ground and he came to the conclusion that perhaps 600 Paras were worth 1,500 Argentines.”The intelligence gave the commanding officer the “peace of mind” to start the battle that would lead in his own death, a posthumous Victoria Cross award and ultimately victory in the campaign.

http://belgranoinquiry.com/

I was astounded when Mrs Thatcher declared in Parliament on 12th May that she did not get news of the Peace Plan proposals until late on 2nd May after the Belgrano was sunk. This was repeated on May 13th by Mr Cranley Onslow.

Surely an enquiry must be made to discover how such a disastrous delay in communications at top levels, at so critical at time, could occur?

Peru is bisected by the 75 degree West longitude which would appear to put it in the same time zone as New York. Therefore if the Peace Plan was formulated in Peru on the evening of 1st May, at midnight there, it would have been mdnight in New York and 0500 G.M.T. on May 2nd in London. There is therefore a gap of seven hours i.e. 0500 G.M.T. to 1200 G.M.T. (1300 BST) when Peru and pressumably the United States and therefore feasibly Mr Francis Pym, the Foreign Secretary, in New York should have known of the Peace Plan and could have transmitted it to London before Mrs Thatcher made her pre-lunch decision at Chequers on May 2nd.

The Belgrano was sunk at 1457 hours South Atlantic Time at longitude 61 degrees 25′ West which means that in London it was about 1900 G.M.T. (2000 B.S.T.) and 1400 hours in New York and Peru. This means that ther were a further seven hours from 1200 G.M.T. (1300 B.S.T.) – lunch time at Chequers – until 1900 G.M.T. (2000 B.S.T.) when the Belgrano was sunk, in which, in the light of the peace propsals, the order to the Conqueror could have been rescinded. This makes a grand total of 14 hours from midnight on May 1st in Peru during which the Prime minister and her cabinet were apparently kept in ignorance of the Peace Proposals. (On the Spot, The sinking of the Belgrano, 1984, Diana Gould, p.52)

The qustion is therefore why was there this fourteen hour delay, with all such a delay implies about our lack of intelligence information and communications and Mr Francis Pym’s failure to communicate with the Prime minister….

This is the crux of the matter. The Government brazenly claimed not to have heard about the Peruvian peace proposals until 11 pm - three hours after the sinking - which would push up that unexplained gap to seventeen hours! (See video about this ‘missing time’ and the timezones)

We suggest listening to Diana Gould in our sound Archive (on a different topic)[/Quote]
More nonsense from a biased source, that seems very contrived, a peruvian peace deal ignored by thatcher??? Again, want to keep your military assets safe? Dont go invading other countries, simples. The argentine navy accept it was not a war crime, they were trying to pincer the British fleet. I take it you also believe the British bombing Germany in ww2 was a war crime?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Engage with Argentina at the UN, Cameron didn't attend the last meeting of the Decolonisation committee, snubbing the first speech by an Argentinian head of state to address it and refuses to listen to the UN resolutions calling for them to open negotiations. Their continued refusal to engage at this level led to the Peruvian governemnt cancelling a visit by the British royal navy to Peru. Add Brazil's recent strong reiteration of their support and I see a conflict situation ramping up, not down, in the face of predictable British intransigence.

Britain has engaged, as have the Falkland islands government.

Britain's position was made very clear to the special committee, the issue of sovereignty will only be discussed when the people of the Falkland islands wish it to be.

Yesterday they were asked the question, they said No.

I'm not sure, given the islands semi autonomous constitution, that the British government has the ability to even discuss this. They are obliged to ensure good government, their protection and manage their foreign affairs.

The way I see it, the Argentinians want the Falklands, a semi independent country. The only way they can get it is ny being a bully. Unfortunately for them, that tiny semi independent country has a big brother.

The Argentinians know this and know there is nothing they can do about itw so are using lots of hot air and bluster to divert attention from their own failing domestic policies.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Self' determination is dubious in this case as you well know.

Since resolution 2065 by the UN, asserting the Falklands/Malvinas as a 'colony' the British offered to give up sovereignty and since then have consistently refused to enter sovereignty talks as mandated by the UN. In 1970, 1973 and the Argentinians protested the fact to the UN in 1981. The Argentinian president recently attempted to hand the resolutions to Cameron but he refused to take them.

That resolution doesn't support Argentina it is just there to encourage a diplomatic solution. Its also nearly 50 years old and this refurendum is bound to lend weight to a change in the way tjis situation is viewed.

mrsoundie

With all this talk of the Falkland Islands, it got me thinking.

Could Ireland claim sovereignty over the Isle of Man, its worth a try.

Busted Flat.

Hunterbiker wrote: »

That resolution doesn't support Argentina it is just there to encourage a diplomatic solution. Its also nearly 50 years old and this refurendum is bound to lend weight to a change in the way tjis situation is viewed.

The so called referendum, was like tossing a two headed coin. It has no significance what so ever.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The so called referendum, was like tossing a two headed coin. It has no significance what so ever.

Why?

Hunterbiker

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The so called referendum, was like tossing a two headed coin. It has no significance what so ever.

Nonsense. Whatever way you look at it the fact that the vote was made by the exsting population will add weight to their demand for self detirmination.
If the rest of the World really thought that Argentina had a point the UK would have been put under severe (i.e real) pressure by the UN and EU. They haven't been.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Nonsense. Whatever way you look at it the fact that the vote was made by the exsting population will add weight to their demand for self detirmination.
If the rest of the World really thought that Argentina had a point the UK would have been put under severe (i.e real) pressure by the UN and EU. They haven't been.

They where put under a lot of pressure by the Americans at the time of the Falklands war. They have been repeatedly told by the UN to negotiate sovereignty with the Argentinians, of course Britian having a veto at the UN makes the UN itself toothless. But I wouldn't think they would be allowed to intervene militarily again and destabilise a region that supports the Argentinians.
Being America's lapdog cuts both ways and America wouldn't want the region destabilised. Once again, oil and access to resources will decide the fate of these islanders not any bull**** claims of loyalty.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where put under a lot of pressure by the Americans at the time of the Falklands war. They have been repeatedly told by the UN to negotiate sovereignty with the Argentinians, of course Britian having a veto at the UN makes the UN itself toothless. But I wouldn't think they would be allowed to intervene militarily again and destabilise a region that supports the Argentinians.
Being America's lapdog cuts both ways and America wouldn't want the region destabilised. Once again, oil and access to resources will decide the fate of these islanders not any bull**** claims of loyalty.

The Americans put pressure on to get a negotiated peace, but they also provided arms and Intel to Britain.

Britain also had the option to call on NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all.

No country, anywhere on the world, is going to publicly sell out a chunk of its citizens that it has pledged to protect.

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Americans put pressure on to get a negotiated peace, but they also provided arms and Intel to Britain.

Britain also had the option to call on NATO. An attack on one is an attack on all.

No country, anywhere on the world, is going to publicly sell out a chunk of its citizens that it has pledged to protect.

As the opinion of the Unionists in the North, about that.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Self' determination is dubious in this case as you well know.

I see that you cherry picked part of a sentience from my last post and ignored the actual post, because it again laid bare more of your obvious mistruths.

It's like this side-circus on the Belgrano; war crime, illegal act of war or not, it makes no difference to the fact that Argentina was the aggressor in the conflict, by reason of invasion, or that despite you claims that a solution is paramount, the fact that Argentina consistently rejected arbitration (even when the UK was willing to do so) or that the entire sorry affair is about British versus Argentine colonialism, to begin with.

But it diverts from the actual discussion and allows you to spew out more anti-British propaganda, which in the end, is all you're here for.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where put under a lot of pressure by the Americans at the time of the Falklands war. They have been repeatedly told by the UN to negotiate sovereignty with the Argentinians, of course Britian having a veto at the UN makes the UN itself toothless. But I wouldn't think they would be allowed to intervene militarily again and destabilise a region that supports the Argentinians.
Being America's lapdog cuts both ways and America wouldn't want the region destabilised. Once again, oil and access to resources will decide the fate of these islanders not any bull**** claims of loyalty.

Again wrong.
The US were at first undecided and bound by tresty to both Countries but didnt say to the UK not to go to war / act. They were worried about losing influence and ground to the Soviets in the region if they acted in favour of Britain. In the end Reagan recognised that the US best interests lay with backing the UK and they did. Even during the early peace phase they were lending material support to the UK. Only a small part of the Reagan administration were pro Argentina and only then because they were worried about the Commie threat...

You are reading in / adding in to much additional padding to the UN stuff. Both sides had and have been repeatedly 'advised' to open a dialogue and at no time have the UK been told to go by the UN or indeed anyone else other than Argentina.

The region is destabalised as a result of Argentinian actions and the UK is free to protect its interests in the region without having to get the UNs approval. They have sufficuent assets in situ to do that anyway.

And now the UN argument has been shown up you rubbish it as an effective organisation!

Have you been taking your cues from CF de K?

The UK was a founding member of the UN hence its position within it. Not bad for a power hungry colonial dinosaur...

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Americans put pressure on to get a negotiated peace, but they also provided arms and Intel to Britain.

Yeh, the Americans have a natural moral objection to selling arms and intel! :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see that you cherry picked part of a sentience from my last post and ignored the actual post, because it again laid bare more of your obvious mistruths.

It's like this side-circus on the Belgrano; war crime, illegal act of war or not, it makes no difference to the fact that Argentina was the aggressor in the conflict, by reason of invasion, or that despite you claims that a solution is paramount, the fact that Argentina consistently rejected arbitration (even when the UK was willing to do so) or that the entire sorry affair is about British versus Argentine colonialism, to begin with.

But it diverts from the actual discussion and allows you to spew out more anti-British propaganda, which in the end, is all you're here for.

The rejection of arbitration happened up to the 1950's, after the UN recognised The Falklands/Malvinas as a colony in 1962/65? the British rejected attempts to convene negotiations. It's funny how you uphold International Law on one thread and ignore many UN resolutions on another because it is the British ignoring them. And I'm the rabid Irish republican with an agenda?
Nobody is denying that Argentina was the aggressor in 1982, despite your repeated attempts to spin my words. It is a dispute/conflict that has been ongoing for over a century, that it spins out of control again and again, is no suprise to an Irishman/woman with their eyes open.

Busted Flat.

1517 valid votes out of a population of 2563, voted, as I said earlier a referendum like that, compares to tossing a two headed coin. That seems to be a drop in the population of 320.

mcc1

Busted Flat. wrote: »

1517 valid votes out of a population of 2563, voted, as I said earlier a referendum like that, compares to tossing a two headed coin. That seems to be a drop in the population of 320.

You assume the whole population of the Falklands are off voting age? lol

Around about 1,672 were eligible to vote......therefore turnout was over 90%.

And its not just British people on the Falklands, heres some proud Chileans who live there defending the Falklands aswell - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1355521173

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Again wrong.
The US were at first undecided and bound by tresty to both Countries but didnt say to the UK not to go to war / act. They were worried about losing influence and ground to the Soviets in the region if they acted in favour of Britain. In the end Reagan recognised that the US best interests lay with backing the UK and they did. Even during the early peace phase they were lending material support to the UK. Only a small part of the Reagan administration were pro Argentina and only then because they were worried about the Commie threat...

America did it's best to get the British to find a way out other than war, of course the Americans backed them when Thatcher gave into the Navy and her worst gung ho impulses, which always caused problems. Witness her tenure over N.I.

You are reading in / adding in to much additional padding to the UN stuff. Both sides had and have been repeatedly 'advised' to open a dialogue

I never said that they were 'told', I did say that the UN was toothless though, in this regard. The British have ignored that call, most recently made on 14th June 2012.

The region is destabalised as a result of Argentinian actions and the UK is free to protect its interests in the region without having to get the UNs approval. They have sufficuent assets in situ to do that anyway.

South America has strongly backed Argentina as pointed out, and you try to imply that Argentina has destabilised it?

The UK was a founding member of the UN hence its position within it. Not bad for a power hungry colonial dinosaur...

Yes, and the founding members perserved an all emcompassing veto to favour themselves in this 'democratic' organisation. :rolleyes: