Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Prejudices, you say? The thread is full of people who won't admit Britian is in the wrong here in case it might be seen as, perish the thought, support for republicanism.
I have issues with Britian, never hid or denied that fact, I also have issues with most of the powers of the world who bullied themselves into positions of wealth and power and who continue to exploit those gains made in less advanced times. I respect the right of dispossessed people to have a say about that, just as I have advocated the rights of Irish people who came up against the same bullying imperialist British and all the problems they left in their wake.

Argentina is the result of imperialism and colonialism. If you were so worried about the dispossessed people of south America, why aren't you trying to get lands back for the indigenous people of south America?

The same planted colonialists are now trying to expand their territory and you are supporting them?

Bizarre.

oscarBravo

The British have said they respect the right of nationalists to be Irish, but that the territory belongs to them.
They say, that there are 670,000 Irish living on the British mainland, and they are not been discriminated or being treated unfairly.
The British say that the right to self determination doesn't have a bearing on the substantive dispute.

I wonder how you'd react to the above, if the tables were turned?

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Why is Britain in the wrong here though regarding the Falklands, I've yet to see one decent argument from you as to why it should be Argentine.

I never said it should be Argentina's, I actually said early in the thread that my issue is with the unwillingness of the British to properly engage with the people involved in the disputed territory and the ramifications of colonialism.

I never pronounced either way, because I don't as yet understand all of the history. My issue is with the way the British are handling the seeking of a solution and the way they have handled leaving most of their colonies. I am certainly critical of them in that regard.
Early in the thread I have laid out some of what the Argentinians claim. I am no expert on the detail, but what I do know is that it is a complex conflict and that both sides have a claim. That needs to be addressed and a solution negotiated. The British are refusing to do that, even though those negotiations would be conducted under the auspices and encouragement of the UN, the only branch of international law to pronounce on this issue. They refused in 1970, 1973, 1981 and last year. The UN have made 40 resolutions on the matter of Decolonisation of The Falklands/Malvinas.
There is no doubt that there is blame on both sides here, but the main blame for the continuing insecurity in the region rests with the British until they sit down and discuss the sovereignty issue. Forget referendums, rights to self determination etc. sovereignty is the issue at the heart of the conflict/dispute.
What I see, is the same thing that happened in our country, British intransigence, followed by bloodshed. What I see on here are the same people who primarily blame the Irish for what happened on this island, blaming anybody but the British for the ongoing Falklands crisis.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said it should be Argentina's, I actually said early in the thread that my issue is with the unwillingness of the British to properly engage with the people involved in the disputed territory and the ramifications of colonialism.

I never pronounced either way, because I don't as yet understand all of the history. My issue is with the way the British are handling the seeking of a solution and the way they have handled leaving most of their colonies. I am certainly critical of them in that regard.
Early in the thread I have laid out some of what the Argentinians claim. I am no expert on the detail, but what I do know is that it is a complex conflict and that both sides have a claim. That needs to be addressed and a solution negotiated. The British are refusing to do that, even though those negotiations would be conducted under the auspices and encouragement of the UN, the only branch of international law to pronounce on this issue. They refused in 1970, 1973, 1981 and last year. The UN have made 40 resolutions on the matter of Decolonisation of The Falklands/Malvinas.
There is no doubt that there is blame on both sides here, but the main blame for the continuing insecurity in the region rests with the British until they sit down and discuss the sovereignty issue. Forget referendums, rights to self determination etc. sovereignty is the issue at the heart of the conflict/dispute.
What I see, is the same thing that happened in our country, British intransigence, followed by bloodshed. What I see on here are the same people who primarily blame the Irish for what happened on this island, blaming anybody but the British for the ongoing Falklands crisis.

You never said it should be Argentina's?? Then whats you problem then?

Britain was prepared to hand the Islands to Argentina before the war but the Islanders didn't want this and so the British backed them as they should have done... Argentina then acted the aggressor by invading the Islands..... Even after all that Britain offered them 50% of any oil/gas found around the Falklands and they told them to get stuffed.....

Yet here you are claiming the Brits should give into Argentine demands and blaming them for all the trouble, NONSENSE.

Argentina wants full control of the Falklands and because of that there is absolutely nothing to negotiate. The Islanders want nothing to do with them and their wishes should be respected. END OF DISCUSSION.




I posted this on another forum but il post it again as quite clear some people on here havent got a clue about the Falklands -

1) The Falkland Islands are self governing. They have their own elected government - the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) - which is an elected legislative assembly and the islands are NOT ruled from London.

2) The Falkland Islands have their own constitution, which includes a self determination clause. The Falkland Islanders are free to choose their own destiny at any time.

3) The FIG award the contracts for oil exploration and drilling and not London. Any taxes or duties on the sale of that oil will be paid to the FIG and not London.

Now here's a very brief history of the settlement of the islands:

1764 - The French build the first settlment on the islands.

1765 - The British build a settlement on the islands, unaware of the existance of the French settlement.

1766 - The French cede their settlement to the Spanish.

1770 - The Spanish attack the British settlement and force the British to leave.

1771 - The British return to the islands.

1774 - The British unilaterally leave their settlement.

1811 - The Spanish unilaterallly leave their settlement.

1820 - An American privateer working for a businessman in the now independant Argentina returned to claim the old French/Spanish settlement.

1828 - The Argentines build a settlement and penal colony.

1831 - The US Navy destroys the settlement and penal colony after a trading dispute with Argentina.

1833 - The British return to the islands to re-assert their control.

The Argentines were rather late to the game, with French, British and Spanish settlements existing long before Argentina even EXISTED as an independant nation.

The fact is the Falklands Islanders govern themselves, they control their own affairs, and they have repeatedly expressed their desire to remain British. There is absolutely no argument you can give that overrides their right to self determination.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

You never said it should be Argentina's?? Then whats you problem then?

If you had taken the time to read all of my post, you would know what my problem is.

Yet here you are claiming the Brits should give into Argentine demands and blaming them for all the trouble, NONSENSE.

Nope, that's not what I said at all.

Argentina wants full control of the Falklands and because of that there is absolutely nothing to negotiate. The Islanders want nothing to do with them and their wishes should be respected. END OF DISCUSSION.

Ireland altered it's claim in the constitution to all of the island, and Unionists once said they wanted nothing to do with Dubin or the South.
All changed now after the main parties to the dispute sat down and negotiated. Intransigence will breed violence, WE should know that.

I posted this on another forum but il post it again as quite clear some people on here havent got a clue about the Falklands -

1) The Falkland Islands are self governing. They have their own elected government - the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) - which is an elected legislative assembly and the islands are NOT ruled from London.

2) The Falkland Islands have their own constitution, which includes a self determination clause. The Falkland Islanders are free to choose their own destiny at any time.

3) The FIG award the contracts for oil exploration and drilling and not London. Any taxes or duties on the sale of that oil will be paid to the FIG and not London.

Now here's a very brief history of the settlement of the islands:

1764 - The French build the first settlment on the islands.

1765 - The British build a settlement on the islands, unaware of the existance of the French settlement.

1766 - The French cede their settlement to the Spanish.

1770 - The Spanish attack the British settlement and force the British to leave.

1771 - The British return to the islands.

1774 - The British unilaterally leave their settlement.

1811 - The Spanish unilaterallly leave their settlement.

1820 - An American privateer working for a businessman in the now independant Argentina returned to claim the old French/Spanish settlement.

1828 - The Argentines build a settlement and penal colony.

1831 - The US Navy destroys the settlement and penal colony after a trading dispute with Argentina.

1833 - The British return to the islands to re-assert their control.

The Argentines were rather late to the game, with French, British and Spanish settlements existing long before Argentina even EXISTED as an independant nation.

The fact is the Falklands Islanders govern themselves, they control their own affairs, and they have repeatedly expressed their desire to remain British. There is absolutely no argument you can give that overrides their right to self determination.

In fairness, if you presented that history to an Argentinian you would immediately be identified as a pro British supporter by virtue of what you have ommitted.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

In fairness, if you presented that history to an Argentinian you would immediately be identified as a pro British supporter by virtue of what you have ommitted.

I am British......

Please Enlighten me, what have I omitted?

BlaasForRafa

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said it should be Argentina's, I actually said early in the thread that my issue is with the unwillingness of the British to properly engage with the people involved in the disputed territory and the ramifications of colonialism.

The only engagement needed with the argentinians is to tell them "No." The argentinians don't have a legitimate claim to the islands and the islanders don't want to be part of argentina.

I never pronounced either way, because I don't as yet understand all of the history. My issue is with the way the British are handling the seeking of a solution and the way they have handled leaving most of their colonies. I am certainly critical of them in that regard.

The way Britain has left its colonies is irrelevant in regards to the Falkland Islands.

Early in the thread I have laid out some of what the Argentinians claim. I am no expert on the detail, but what I do know is that it is a complex conflict and that both sides have a claim. That needs to be addressed and a solution negotiated. The British are refusing to do that, even though those negotiations would be conducted under the auspices and encouragement of the UN, the only branch of international law to pronounce on this issue. They refused in 1970, 1973, 1981 and last year. The UN have made 40 resolutions on the matter of Decolonisation of The Falklands/Malvinas.

The UN has made a lot of biased resolutions in the past, its opinion on the Falklands is irrelevant. The islands are british, the islanders want to be part of britian. You might not like britain or the british but those are the facts whether you like it or not.

Both sides do not have a claim, more specifically the Argentinians don't have a claim, therefore no negotiation is needed.

Argentinians - "We want the falklands"

British - "No, you're not having them"

End of negotiation.

There is no doubt that there is blame on both sides here, but the main blame for the continuing insecurity in the region rests with the British until they sit down and discuss the sovereignty issue. Forget referendums, rights to self determination etc. sovereignty is the issue at the heart of the conflict/dispute.

There is not blame on both sides here. There is blame on the argentinians side, they invaded the islands in 1982 and got their a***s spanked. Since then, every time there is an economic dip in Argentina they start sabre rattling over the islands.

What I see, is the same thing that happened in our country, British intransigence, followed by bloodshed. What I see on here are the same people who primarily blame the Irish for what happened on this island, blaming anybody but the British for the ongoing Falklands crisis.

You're view is coloured by bias, the Falklands situation is not remotely similar to the irish situation.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

I am British......

Please Enlighten me, what have I omitted?

Just the small matters of Britian abandoning it's settlement in 1776 and formally renouncing sovereignty at the Nootka Sound Convention and forcibly expelling the Argentinians in 1833. Those are two of the main issues the Argentinians have with British claims.
Both are disputed and I don't know who is right, just that the claims are disputed, it is remiss not to mention that in any unbiased history.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

formally renouncing sovereignty at the Nootka Sound Convention.

No they didn't. Even if they had the River Plate settlement of the Falklands cancelled the convention.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

No they didn't. Even if they had the River Plate settlement of the Falklands cancelled the convention.

You may be right and you may be wrong, the fact is that it is disputed. Just like aspects of our own history.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just the small matters of Britian abandoning it's settlement in 1776

You missed a bit

On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Royal Naval Lieutenant Clayton formally left Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands

Happyman42 wrote: »

formally renouncing sovereignty at the Nootka Sound Convention a

The Nootka sound conventions were agreements between SPAIN and Britain in the late 1700's. Argentina wasnt an independent nation until 1816.

This is basic history your getting wrong.....

Happyman42 wrote: »

and forcibly expelling the Argentinians in 1833.

Forcibly expelled? erm......

On 3 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one, and for the administration to leave the islands. While Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January.

No force was needed. Again more lies from you.

This is all a bit too easy......

So you see, the Argentine s blab on about British colonialism on the Falklands yet their whole claim to the Falklands is because of Spanish colonialism. Couldn't make it up really.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

You missed a bit

On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Royal Naval Lieutenant Clayton formally left Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands





The Nootka sound conventions were agreements between SPAIN and Britain. Argentina wasnt an independent nation until the early 1800's......

This is basic history your getting wrong.....




Forcibly expelled? erm......

On 3 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one, and for the administration to leave the islands. While Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January.

No force was needed. Again more lies from you.

This is all a bit too easy......

Are you saying the Argentinians don't dispute those 'facts' you posted?
They are not 'my lies'. I merely quoted Argentinian claims and actually WROTE in BLACK AND WHITE that they where Argentinian claims, that exist, whether you rubbish them or the British rubbish them or not.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying the Argentinians don't dispute those 'facts' you posted?
They are not 'my lies'. I merely quoted Argentinian claims and actually WROTE in BLACK AND WHITE that they where Argentinian claims, that exist, whether you rubbish them or the British rubbish them or not.

I will rubbish them because thats exactly what they are You gained a valuable history lesson at least.

Only a fool or those blinded by pure hate such as yourself regarding the British would back Argentina's claims and call for negotiations when there is no need for any.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

I will rubbish them because thats exactly what they are You gained a valuable history lesson at least.

I read that Wiki page too but I read ALL of it and followed links to further, more reliable reading.

Only a fool or those blinded by pure hate such as yourself regarding the British would back Argentina's claims.

You'll have to show me where I backed Argentina's claims.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll have to show me where I backed Argentina's claims.

HAHA, are you taking us all for complete idiots? Look back at everything you have typed. You have tryed to paint the British as the bad guys in all this when in actual fact all the violence and aggression has come from Argentina over the years.

But just so we get this all straight WHO DO YOU BACK IN THIS??

ARGENTINA OR BRITAIN??

Simple question, simple answer needed.

old hippy

For many years I saw the Falklands as The Malivinas and believed they belonged to Argentina. Without a doubt.

Latterly, I've come to see that the majority of islanders wish to remain under the British dominion and who are we to suggest otherwise?

Doesn't mean I'm pro-British or anti-Argentinian. Just going by the numbers.

I'd realy be saddened to see another needless conflict. I remember 1982 and the senseless deaths from both nations. The only people who profited then was the Argentinian generals and the cynical Thatcher govt.

mcc1

old hippy wrote: »

.
I'd realy be saddened to see another needless conflict. I remember 1982 and the senseless deaths from both nations. The only people who profited then was the Argentinian generals and the cynical Thatcher govt.

No chance of it happening,unless the Argentine's buy some rowing boats to transport their troops... Which they probably couldn't afford anyway.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

HAHA, are you taking us all for complete idiots? Look back at everything you have typed. You have tryed to paint the British as the bad guys in all this when in actual fact all the violence and aggression has come from Argentina over the years.

And the problem of the ramifications of colonialism won't go away until they are dealt with. Which brings me right back to my first or second post on the thread.

But just so we get this all straight WHO DO YOU BACK IN THIS??

ARGENTINA OR BRITAIN??

Simple question, simple answer needed.

Neither, that is not up to me or an internet forum to decide.

old hippy

mcc1 wrote: »

No chance of it happening,unless the Argentine's buy some rowing boats to transport their troops... Which they probably couldn't afford anyway.

It's not a competition. Frankly, I find the beligerence and gloating on both sides reprehensible. Nobody wants anymore conflict and waste of life.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Neither, that is not up to me or an internet forum to decide.

And that all brings us back to self determination. Its up to the Falkland Islanders to determine their own fate, nobody else.

Happyman42

old hippy wrote: »

It's not a competition. Frankly, I find the beligerence and gloating on both sides reprehensible. Nobody wants anymore conflict and waste of life.

Sadly, I can see this only ramping up, not down and what is really worrying is that it could be an even bigger conflict next time, given the growing economic and political strenght of a South American alliance. Britian taking resources is already causing bitterness, that could easily find an outlet in another dispute over the Falklands.
Hopefully, America will tell Britian to cop itself on and settle it through necogiation, (even though the Americans would be acting in their own selfish interests). Nobody else needs to die over these islands.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

And that all brings us back to self determination. Its up to the Falkland Islanders to determine their own fate, nobody else.

You cannot solve a dispute if you ignore one party in that dispute. That is why the referendum means diddly squat in reality.

old hippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

You cannot solve a dispute if you ignore one party in that dispute. That is why the referendum means diddly squat in reality.

Agreed, Happyman. Everyone deserves a hearing but is not true only 3 islanders voted against staying with British dominion?

Happyman42

old hippy wrote: »

Agreed, Happyman. Everyone deserves a hearing but is not true only 3 islanders voted against staying with British dominion?

I didn't pay much attention to the result but from reading posts on here I think that is true.

old hippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't pay much attention to the result but from reading posts on here I think that is true.

It's a troubling state of affairs, whatever the outcome. I feel both powers are not used to backing down and you know how that tends to end...

Hopefully not, though.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

You cannot solve a dispute if you ignore one party in that dispute.

And thats what Britain has been telling Argentina for that back 3 decades... Its the Argentine's who are ignoring the population of the Falkland Islands......... They refuse to sit at a table with them though...

Or do the Falkland Islanders not matter?

NIMAN

So it was close in the end!

That was a worthwhile poll.

old hippy

mcc1 wrote: »

And thats what Britain has been telling Argentina for that back 3 decades... Its the Argentine's who are ignoring the population of the Falkland Islands......... They refuse to sit at a table with them though...

Or do they not matter?

Sadly, the people that matter most - the actual islanders - are oft ignored.

It's the bickering between two arrogant powers that will decide their ultimate fate

Happyman42

old hippy wrote: »

It's a troubling state of affairs, whatever the outcome. I feel both powers are not used to backing down and you know how that tends to end...

Hopefully not, though.

I fully sympathise with the position the islanders are in, they are pawns in a bigger battle. They face the prospect of living with almost an entire hostile continent 300 miles off their western shores. I have done a lot of reading this evening and they have made plenty of pleas and complaints to the British government over the years. They know in their hearts and heads that the referendum ultimately means nothing and that events could turn very quickly and that Britian may not have the stomach or be too politically snookered to defend them. Not a very secure existence at all.

mcc1

old hippy wrote: »

Sadly, the people that matter most - the actual islanders - are oft ignored.

It's the bickering between two arrogant powers that will decide their ultimate fate

Thats the thing though, Britain will sit down and talk with Argentina but they believe the Falklander Islanders should be present at any meeting. No big deal you would think??

Not according to Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner who has said the inhabitants' wishes are not relevant..............

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

I fully sympathise with the position the islanders are in, they are pawns in a bigger battle. They face the prospect of living with almost an entire hostile continent 300 miles off their western shores. I have done a lot of reading this evening and they have made plenty of pleas and complaints to the British government over the years. They know in their hearts and heads that the referendum ultimately means nothing and that events could turn very quickly and that Britian may not have the stomach or be too politically snookered to defend them. Not a very secure existence at all.

Stop talking crap.. This is exactly why the first war started, because Argentina didnt think Britain would care of have the bottle to fight. Britain has said it will protect the Islands and it will. Its heavily fortified and billions are spent on its defences each year.

The Argentines have no Navy or Airforce and the likes of Brazil and so on aint gonna lend them any or get involved in any wars, why would they?? What would they have to gain...

Christ a sizable amount Brazils military supplies comes from Britain, ships and helicopters and so on. They have a very good relationship with the UK.

Its all nonsense no point even thinking about it.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Thats the thing though, Britain will sit down and talk with Argentina but they believe the Falklander Islanders should be present at any meeting. No big deal you would think??

Not according to Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner who has said the inhabitants' wishes are not relevant..............

Would you go into talks having ceded your main argument?
Be realistic here, the Argentinians position (NOT MINE) is that the inhabitiants are welcome to stay on the island and be British, but the territoiry belongs to them for historical reasons. the British say other wise. That is the core of the dispute.
You have to start the talks from there, it is pointless to expect anything else is going to happen.

solas111

RobitTV wrote: »

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!

Turkeys have a right to vote against Christmas but like it or not, Christmas comes.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who has left the most problems in the world because of their colonialism and who has consistently refused to face up to that until they are forced to?

Is it Belgium?

Belgian colonialism played a role in maintaining the divide between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples. While both the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups existed before colonialism, Belgian rule recognized and affirmed this preexisting distinction.[10] The word Tutsi means those "rich in cattle" and the word Hutu means "servant" or "subject". The Belgians introduced separate ID cards for the two tribes.[11] When Belgian rule ended, most of the land and power were in the hands of Tutsi while the Hutu were relegated to positions of forced laborers, or Akazi. The presence of the colonialists emboldened the ruling Tutsi against the Hutus, who then proceeded to independently embark on a genocidal massacre against their fellow countrymen.[10]

Somewhere between half and one million people were hacked to death with machetes and such like during the genocide, which can be largely blamed on Belgium. As someone so vociferously opposed to colonialism, I'd have expected to find a thread about it from you here

Be honest. You don't like Britain. You use "anti-colonialism" to justify it here (even though Argentina is a colonial country itself) in this thread but you don't start threads about the Belgian colonisation of Africa, because you don't have a problem with Belgium (or whoever).

Do you care or know about what is going on in Africa in 2013 wrt. Chinese "investment" in the continent? If that doesn't smack of good old fashioned colonialism I don't know what does.

You don't care about colonialism in general or if you do it's more a side issue. You have a disliking for Britain. You're entitled to, but please don't pretend it's something else that motivates your posts.

Britain did bad things but by the standards of the day were usually acceptable or at least "not the worst" (read about what Roger Casement did before taking up the cause of Irish independence). The Falklands issue is a non-issue to me: the people that live there today are British and want to remain so. If the Argentinians had beaten them to it then I'd accept that too. Borders and boundaries shift. They never remain fixed for all eternity. Hopefully some day we'll have no borders at all between human beings.

mcc1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you go into talks having ceded your main argument?
Be realistic here, the Argentinians position (NOT MINE) is that the inhabitiants are welcome to stay on the island and be British, but the territoiry belongs to them for historical reasons. the British say other wise. That is the core of the dispute.
You have to start the talks from there, it is pointless to expect anything else is going to happen.

Come on use your brain. Until the majority say otherwise it shall remain a British overseas territory...... Thats a fair agreement. There is no other way around it.

If Argentina used their brains they would accept this and try and improve relations. Instead they keep trying bully them which just leads to more hardened views.

Happyman42

mcc1 wrote: »

Come on use your brain. Until the majority say otherwise it shall remain a British overseas territory...... Thats a fair agreement. There is no other way around it.

If Argentina used their brains they would accept this and try and improve relations. Instead keep trying bully them which just leads to more hardened views.

If you think that is going to solve it, run it by them.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Is it Belgium?



Somewhere between half and one million people were hacked to death with machetes and such like during the genocide, which can be largely blamed on Belgium. As someone so vociferously opposed to colonialism, I'd have expected to find a thread about it from you here

Be honest. You don't like Britain. You use "anti-colonialism" to justify it here (even though Argentina is a colonial country itself) in this thread but you don't start threads about the Belgian colonisation of Africa, because you don't have a problem with Belgium (or whoever).

Do you care or know about what is going on in Africa in 2013 wrt. Chinese "investment" in the continent? If that doesn't smack of good old fashioned colonialism I don't know what does.

You don't care about colonialism in general or if you do it's more a side issue. You have a disliking for Britain. You're entitled to, but please don't pretend it's something else that motivates your posts.

Britain did bad things but by the standards of the day were usually acceptable or at least "not the worst" (read about what Roger Casement did before taking up the cause of Irish independence). The Falklands issue is a non-issue to me: the people that live there today are British and want to remain so. If the Argentinians had beaten them to it then I'd accept that too. Borders and boundaries shift. They never remain fixed for all eternity. Hopefully some day we'll have no borders at all between human beings.

Did you miss post #250?
Had I been around Boards at the time of the genocide I would have had something to say.
I honestly don't understand what difference it makes to the arguments I have been making whether I 'like' Britian or not, I happen to love Britian and the British people and spend quite a bit of time there on my own and with members of my extended family, (I don't reckon you will believe that, but hey ho, whatever floats your boat)
I also love Ireland but have serious issues with my government, is that too complex for you to handle?

getzls

Regarding the vote to stay British and to quote from Thatcher,

Just rejoice,rejoice.:)

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Second question first: What preconditions did Argentina set when attending the last convening of the Decolonisation Committee? The one that Cameron snubbed? The committee that issued the resolutions?

Argentina has rejected any talks that would involve representatives from the islands. Now you may consider their role "dubious", but you've not exactly said why and I doubt if you would say the same of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland (well, perhaps you might of the loyalists).

Of course, the problem with a negotiated settlement now is that both sides are essentially refusing to do so on anything other than their own diametrically opposed stances. This has resulted in the present stalemate, but it certainly cannot be painted as the fault of only one of the parties involved as you repeatedly attempt to claim.

First question: You where the one shouting about the sanctity of UN resolutions and law on the thread you abandoned, (about Ireland sending troops to the border) yet here is a cut and dried case of Britian willfully ignoring resolution after resolution and you are defending them?
40 UN resolutions since 1965.

No, I was the one highlighting the importance international law (the UN was only cited as something that could have been used to make such an incursion legal in this respect - but never actually happened), on the thread I abandoned because I realized that arguing with fanatics is a pointless exercise (we'd still be at it had I not).

It's more than likely that I'll eventually give up here as well, simply because you'll keep typing until your dying breath if necessary - however, if enough of your inconsistencies and falsehoods are highlighted along the way, then the undecided reading this thread will be less likely to be swayed by your hyperbole.

Also, it's been repeatedly been pointed out that this resolution regarding the Falklands is not what you are selling it as. Why are you persisting in doing so, as if it makes the matter a de jure open and shut case?

None of which changes the fact that you accused me of something that was clearly untrue and now you're simply looking to worm your way out of that.

We were not discussing Argentine culability or indeed British culpability at the time. You misread my statement, what I said was, 'Britian, by it's actions would ensure that this would be about 'who has the biggest gun'.

And in doing so, you place responsibility for the success of failure of peaceful negotiation on Britain by implying that having the 'biggest gun' they would reject this approach. So stop lying.

My entire argument is based on Britian's inability to accept historical wrongdoing on their part, until they are forced to do it, unfortunately, that is usually at gunpoint or after needless bloodshed.

I'm quite aware that your entire argument targets Britain as the wrongdoer; it's been clear from your first post, despite your earlier, disingenuous claim that you had not "stated a 'position' on who is right or wrong".

You've repeatedly painted Britain as some sort of evil colonial power, while ignoring that Argentina is also a colonial nation and that this entire dispute is over who's colony this is. Not only that, but as somehow the worst colonial power in history, despite the fact that it can be demonstrated that other colonial powers, such as France, have worse records. Or that the rights of the islanders are 'dubious', or claimed that somehow that it's an open and shut case because of a UN resolution that does nothing of the sort. Or repeatedly paint the UK as the only nation rejecting negotiation, when the reality both effectively have by attempting to impose conditions that are being rejected by the other.

Why don't you address, at least, the question of colonialism, which is core to your argument? Argentina is a colonial player in this drama, just as the UK is. Can you at least knowledge that fact?

And do explain your logic as to why the islanders should have no right to self determination.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Argentina has rejected any talks that would involve representatives from the islands. Now you may consider their role "dubious", but you've not exactly said why and I doubt if you would say the same of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland (well, perhaps you might of the loyalists).

Yes, I have said why, using the 'right to self determination' is a kick to touch. and as such is a dubious clause, as the British know that as long as they put that condition on negotiations then they can avoid talks on sovereignty. Talks that the UN say must happen to resolve the dispute. Sovereignty, right of title, negotiations have to happen first, then the citizenship discussion, it's kinda stupid to get the horse before the cart here. If right of title is with the British then 'the right to self determination' is already enshrined in the UN, it isn't a problem. If you really have the will to resolve the dispute, then the only option here is to enter the negotiations without preconditions, which means you have to accept the possibility that it might not go in your favour. There is plenty of criticism btw of the British intransigence from their own press if you care to look for it.

Of course, the problem with a negotiated settlement now is that both sides are essentially refusing to do so on anything other than their own diametrically opposed stances. This has resulted in the present stalemate, but it certainly cannot be painted as the fault of only one of the parties involved as you repeatedly attempt to claim.

If you accept that the precondition is the sticking point then those insisiting on it have to be the ones at fault for no negotiations.

No, I was the one highlighting the importance international law (the UN was only cited as something that could have been used to make such an incursion legal in this respect - but never actually happened), on the thread I abandoned because I realized that arguing with fanatics is a pointless exercise (we'd still be at it had I not).

It's more than likely that I'll eventually give up here as well, simply because you'll keep typing until your dying breath if necessary - however, if enough of your inconsistencies and falsehoods are highlighted along the way, then the undecided reading this thread will be less likely to be swayed by your hyperbole.

Also, it's been repeatedly been pointed out that this resolution regarding the Falklands is not what you are selling it as. Why are you persisting in doing so, as if it makes the matter a de jure open and shut case?

I am as entitled to my opinion as you are and I wouldn't be as arrogant to say that the undecided would be swayed by my arguments, but I like to think, they might. I'm in a discussion here, not a lecture from you or anybody esle.

None of which changes the fact that you accused me of something that was clearly untrue and now you're simply looking to worm your way out of that.

40 UN resolutions since 1965, and no negotiations. Somebody is at fault for that, it is my OPINION that the British are mainly at fault for that failure. The UN is being ignored, something you said was wrong and illegal on another thread.

And in doing so, you place responsibility for the success of failure of peaceful negotiation on Britain by implying that having the 'biggest gun' they would reject this approach. So stop lying.

Again not what I implied at all. You are being willfully obstinate by sticking to your misunderstanding of what I said. Again, my point was, 'Britian by their actions (intransigence) are making sure that this dispute is about 'who has the biggest gun'. Argentina invading and the subsequent war is testament to that.

I'm quite aware that your entire argument targets Britain as the wrongdoer; it's been clear from your first post, despite your earlier, disingenuous claim that you had not "stated a 'position' on who is right or wrong".

You've repeatedly painted Britain as some sort of evil colonial power, while ignoring that Argentina is also a colonial nation and that this entire dispute is over who's colony this is. Not only that, but as somehow the worst colonial power in history, despite the fact that it can be demonstrated that other colonial powers, such as France, have worse records. Or that the rights of the islanders are 'dubious', or claimed that somehow that it's an open and shut case because of a UN resolution that does nothing of the sort. Or repeatedly paint the UK as the only nation rejecting negotiation, when the reality both effectively have by attempting to impose conditions that are being rejected by the other.

Sad, Why do you need to paint me and others as rabid republicans with British blood lust for your argument to make sense? It's getting more and more bizarre.

Why don't you address, at least, the question of colonialism, which is core to your argument? Argentina is a colonial player in this drama, just as the UK is. Can you at least knowledge that fact?

Two wrongs never make a right, if the claim to title and sovereignty by Argentina is not proven and they insist on taking these islands then they are wrong. That is why the negotiations are the only solution here.

And do explain your logic as to why the islanders should have no right to self determination.

Again, I never said they didn't, the right to self determination is only relevant when title and sovereignty is decided, that is the Argentinian position, they have no problem with anybody being British, but say that the territory belongs to them (THAT IS NOT MY POSITION, I am just stating their case) The right to self determination is moot at this point without title and sovereignty being decided, the Irish enclave in the Bronx or Camden could insist on self determination too, if that was the case.

old hippy

getzls wrote: »

Regarding the vote to stay British and to quote from Thatcher,

Just rejoice,rejoice.:)

Quoting the butcher who sent young men to their deaths and caused the ruination of entire communities in the North of England? Quoting the worst thing to happen to the UK, who had Pinochet and Saville as friends?

Shame on you,

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

on the thread I abandoned because I realized that arguing with fanatics is a pointless exercise (we'd still be at it had I not)

Excuse me? "Fanatics"?

Out come the labels because it seems you don't want to directly address, like whatever etc, the opposing argument? You did seem to object to the alleged ad hominem approach by other posters in that thread.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, I have said why, using the 'right to self determination' is a kick to touch. and as such is a dubious clause, as the British know that as long as they put that condition on negotiations then they can avoid talks on sovereignty. Talks that the UN say must happen to resolve the dispute. Sovereignty, right of title, negotiations have to happen first, then the citizenship discussion, it's kinda stupid to get the horse before the cart here. If right of title is with the British then 'the right to self determination' is already enshrined in the UN, it isn't a problem. If you really have the will to resolve the dispute, then the only option here is to enter the negotiations without preconditions, which means you have to accept the possibility that it might not go in your favour. There is plenty of criticism btw of the British intransigence from their own press if you care to look for it.

If you accept that the precondition is the sticking point then those insisiting on it have to be the ones at fault for no negotiations.

I am as entitled to my opinion as you are and I wouldn't be as arrogant to say that the undecided would be swayed by my arguments, but I like to think, they might. I'm in a discussion here, not a lecture from you or anybody esle.
40 UN resolutions since 1965, and no negotiations. Somebody is at fault for that, it is my OPINION that the British are mainly at fault for that failure. The UN is being ignored, something you said was wrong and illegal on another thread.

Again not what I implied at all. You are being willfully obstinate by sticking to your misunderstanding of what I said. Again, my point was, 'Britian by their actions (intransigence) are making sure that this dispute is about 'who has the biggest gun'. Argentina invading and the subsequent war is testament to that.

Sad, Why do you need to paint me and others as rabid republicans with British blood lust for your argument to make sense? It's getting more and more bizarre.


Two wrongs never make a right, if the claim to title and sovereignty by Argentina is not proven and they insist on taking these islands then they are wrong. That is why the negotiations are the only solution here.

Again, I never said they didn't, the right to self determination is only relevant when title and sovereignty is decided, that is the Argentinian position, they have no problem with anybody being British, but say that the territory belongs to them (THAT IS NOT MY POSITION, I am just stating their case) The right to self determination is moot at this point without title and sovereignty being decided, the Irish enclave in the Bronx or Camden could insist on self determination too, if that was the case.

the british condition on talking to argentina was the same conditions the UN said,all three parties should be involved,as argentina will not recognize the citizens of the islands and will not sit down with them,its a stalemate,and as far as argentina is also concerned any talks on the future of the irelands must end with them being argentinian,they have that written into their constitution,

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

the british condition on talking to argentina was the same conditions the UN said,all three parties should be involved,as argentina will not recognize the citizens of the islands and will not sit down with them,its a stalemate,and as far as argentina is also concerned any talks on the future of the irelands must end with them being argentinian,they have that written into their constitution,

It calls on Britian and Argentina to commence negotitations on Sovereignty 'bearing in mind' the population of the Malvinas/Falklands. It does not say that they should be 'present'.
Note it say 'population' too and not 'citizens'.

Einhard

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Do you not understand, it is all down to occupation of someone else's land, and installing planters. Simple. The British have done that for centuries, plundered and pillaged the world over. If they did not do that their museums would be empty, and so would their banks.

Obviously I don't understand. AFAIK, there was nobody on the Falklands when the British first set foot there. So whose land are they pillaging exactly? Argentina's? The same Argentina whose population is almost entirely comprised of Spanish planters? You want the British to ignore the rights of the islanders and instead give the islands back to the descendents of planters and colonisers? Seriously? That's just idiotic. Why are you so anti-British that you're willing to look like an idiot? I mean, it's like the British are still getting one over on you.

bullpost

Indeed - they have one of the strictest immigration policies on earth and it is very hard to become a citizen.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It calls on Britian and Argentina to commence negotitations on Sovereignty 'bearing in mind' the population of the Malvinas/Falklands. It does not say that they should be 'present'.
Note it say 'population' too and not 'citizens'.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

It calls on Britian and Argentina to commence negotitations on Sovereignty 'bearing in mind' the population of the Malvinas/Falklands. It does not say that they should be 'present'.
Note it say 'population' too and not 'citizens'.

how does one negotiate over the sovereignty of the islands when one of the parties has already decided the outcome, come on happyman you tell me.

Einhard

old hippy wrote: »

Quoting the butcher who sent young men to their deaths and caused the ruination of entire communities in the North of England? Quoting the worst thing to happen to the UK, who had Pinochet and Saville as friends?

Shame on you ,

I'm not a fan of Thatcher's, but thatr's ridiculously melodramatic. Every British PM I can think of sent young men to their deaths. Francois Hollande has sent young men to their deaths in Mali just recently. Sending soldiers to fight a war isn't, in itself, a reason for condemnation.

As for the ruination of entire communities in Northern England...have you been there recently? Many towns and cities are thriving in a manner not seen for several generations. No government can continue to subsidise loss making industries just to keep people in enjoyment. The idea that they can or should is ridiculous.

And equally ridiculous is the idea that having Jimmy Saville as a friend is some form of character flaw. Unless you're claiming that Thatcher knew he was a predator, and if so, I imagine you have proof.

old hippy

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Thatcher's, but thatr's ridiculously melodramatic. Every British PM I can think of sent young men to their deaths. Francois Hollande has sent young men to their deaths in Mali just recently. Sending soldiers to fight a war isn't, in itself, a reason for condemnation.

As for the ruination of entire communities in Northern England...have you been there recently? Many towns and cities are thriving in a manner not seen for several generations. No government can continue to subsidise loss making industries just to keep people in enjoyment. The idea that they can or should is ridiculous.

And equally ridiculous is the idea that having Jimmy Saville as a friend is some form of character flaw. Unless you're claiming that Thatcher knew he was a predator, and if so, I imagine you have proof.

And her friendship with Pinochet?

Einhard

old hippy wrote: »

And her friendship with Pinochet?

Oh, no argument there. As i said, I'm not a fan. Just taking issue with some of the things you'd hang her for.