Well obviously the UK delegation at the United Nations didn't "get it".
They got it totally. Until the the Falkland Islanders themselves wish to "negotiate" there will be no negotiation.
THE COLONIAL DAYS ARE OVER.
The irony. I wonder what the former owners of what is now called South America think?
For all you Argiebummers I say this....for Sparta! Come and get some.
The irony. I wonder what the former owners of what is now called South America think?
That the colonial days are over ?
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/
Note the inclusion in the link of the following statement :
At present, 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe remain to be decolonized, home to nearly 2 million people. Thus, the process of decolonization is not complete.
Among the 16 are the "Falkland Islands".
Check it here :
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml#foot4
ah yes thats why I tend to not get involved in theses debates it just becomes a bit of a goading fest with people saying ill concieved gibberish [ or deliberately inflammatory stuff]to get a reaction. I can picture them at their key boards getting a semi at upsetting someone on the internet...some strange folk about.
Er, maybe it's because they think negotiating (even with nothing to negotiate over) is better than fighting?
But why negotiate over something unsolvable? just leave it up to the will of the people who it most affects i.e. those who live there
Let's try again, ernie, as you seem to have forgotten to answer:
Exactly what is your interpretation of the UN resolution?
Why was the French handing their colony to Spain more significant than Spain ceding sovereignty to Britain?
There are some very strange thought processes here. I especially like the belief that an ex colony and a colonial power are equivalent.
I also like the weaselling over the Hong Kong population and the Chagosians - they don't appear to have had their wishes made paramount do they?
What double standards and massive hypocrisy. I do fear critical thought is beyond many of you.
Is it because they are white?
Exactly what is your interpretation of the UN resolution?
The same as the UK's delegation interpretation of the resolution.
Ernie - you will not be able to shift any views here. the Falklands are a little Englander shibboleth. It shows we really do have some power honestly and are not really just an American lapdog yapping away.
Junkyard, I've got a large Baguette. I'm not nursing, its standing proud. Ready to fly the flag of our Union against the Spaniards.
Is it because they are white?
I thought you had been warned off overt trolling and excessive arguements?
Ohoh - hora just declared war on Spain.
I also like the weaselling over the Hong Kong population and the Chagosians - they don't appear to have had their wishes made paramount do they.
I don't think that the situation with the Falklands is really similar enough to Hong Kong to be relevant.
As far as the Chagossians go, it was wrong. Because something wrong was done in the past does not mean it has to be repeated in the interests of consistency.
You can shout racist all you want, all you're doing is taking the focus away from your own (quite reasonable) arguments. I'm assuming that's not what you want to do.
BTW, I don't think you can get any less Little Englander than me.
The same as the UK's delegation interpretation of the resolution.
Ah, you were on that then - or do you have some other insight to their thought processes?
How about the other question - or is that one too awkward?
So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?
If we removed the population from the Falkland isles forcibly and then in 40 years would it be acceptable to say no indigenous population there so it doesn't matter?
Its a disgrace. Its not a wrong in the past - its still ongoing. a case in front of the European court of human rights at the moment.
We handed over the Hong Kong population to china without much complaint. Against their wishes. we even refused them right on entry to the UK
But the Falkland islanders wishes must be paramount.
What hypocrites.
TandemJeremy - Member
Ernie - you will not be able to shift any views here.
Oh, the ironing.
So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?
On another thread? Feel free to start one - something emotive in the title would probably help.
Ah, you were on that then - or do you have some other insight to their thought processes?How about the other question - or is that one too awkward?
Grow up aracer, acting like a halfwit doesn't suit you.
That the colonial days are over ?
yeah if i were amerindian that's exactly what i'd be thinking 
thanks for the fascinating link to the u.n's pontificating on decolonization by the way. unfortunately, the u.n seem to be selective in their determination to eradicate colonialism.
what is your opinion on the influence of the u.n.f.c.c.c treaty (kyoto) on spreading neo colonialism in the global south through the clean development mechanism and the joint implementation mechanism ?
Ohoh - hora just declared war on Spain. ...
Well it'll give their rampant unemployed something to do
Tally Ho!
Grow up aracer, acting like a halfwit doesn't suit you.
I'll take that as a yes to the other question being too awkward then. Feel free to answer sensibly rather than throw out back-handed ad-homs, I know it's not beyond you (SWIDT).
Junkyard, I've got a large Baguette. I'm not nursing, its standing proud. Ready to fly the flag of our Union against the Spaniards.
Ohoh - hora just declared war on Spain.
can this thread get more childish?
So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?If we removed the population from the Falkland isles forcibly and then in 40 years would it be acceptable to say no indigenous population there so it doesn't matter?
Its a disgrace. Its not a wrong in the past - its still ongoing. a case in front of the European court of human rights at the moment.
I don't think that at any point anyone on here has disagreed with anything above, certainly not me. Is what you're saying that people shouldn't attempt to defend the rights of the Falklanders until they have made attempts to defend the rights of the Chagossians?
thanks for the fascinating link to the u.n's pontificating on decolonization by the way. unfortunately, the u.n seem to be selective in their determination to eradicate colonization.
Ah, I see, the UN talks bollox on such matters ?
Maybe it's time the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council ?
Although it's funny how British governments and the media are always telling us how UN Resolutions and the wishes of the UN are paramount.
But now we know that the UN Charter should be ignored when it doesn't quite fit with the UK government's view.
We shall fight them on the Benidorm beaches, we shall never surrender.
I can picture them at their key boards getting a semi
what you do in your spare time is no concern of ours junkyard
little Englander
in a thread packed full of irony, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are aware of the irony of accusing people of being both imperialist and a little englander....
in which case i can only assume that you're saying it to cause offence.
Maybe it's time the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council ?
wouldn't be bad idea imho. i don't see why the winners of wwii should still be team world police 65 years later
Although it's funny how British governments and the media are always telling us how UN Resolutions and the wishes of the UN are paramount.But now we know that the UN Charter should be ignored when it doesn't quite fit with the UK government's view.
you're quite mistaken if you think my stance on this has anything to do with supporting the uk over anyone else. it's more to do with the fact that i consider the u.n stance to be contradictory and selective and i've given my reasons why.
you're quite mistaken if you think my stance on this has anything to do with supporting the uk over anyone else.
I wasn't commenting on your stance. I was commenting on the UK government's stance.
TJ - you still have not answered whether, in your opinion, the Shetland islanders should have a right of self determination, can you answer please.
You've been quick to call people hypocrites over their position on FI/DG/HK - I would really like to see whether your stand is quite so consistent on the freedom of people a little closer to home, especially given your stated support for the right of self determination for Scotland...
I was commenting on the UK government's stance.
You were complaining that the politicians pick and choose the bits they like? 
You were complaining that the politicians pick and choose the bits they like?
Was I complaining ? I suggested that the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council - don't you think that's a good idea, specially as the UK has ignored selected UN resolutions for over 40 years, and rejects key aspects of the UN Charter ?
But yeah, I get your point. There is an implied criticism, specially of our "free" media. I doubt whether many people in Britain are aware of UN Resolutions concerning the Falklands, the UN Charter and its policy of decolonisation, and the fact that the Falklands are considered a colony.
Which considering the importance that the British media purports to attach to the Falklands issue is clearly absurd. But there you go - self-regulating censorship.
What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?
What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?
Hahaha that's so funny hora !
They are just silly little countries with no future, and there we are with the Big Boys and a bright rosy future !
Specially that "Brazil" ffs !!!
Hahaha !
:rolls eyes again in now painful eye sockets:
Ernie - I fail to see your point, The Argentinians ignored UN security council resolution 502 issued on 3rd April 1982 demanding an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands. They also ignored the long standing UN resolutions and the General UN principles that use of force was unacceptable.
As far as I can see the UN has only ever requested that the UK enter into negotiations, never used stronger wording than that, which is very different from a UNSC demand!
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
