[Closed] Sean Penn hates us. Should I support The Falklands?

TandemJeremy - Member
I simply did not say what yo claim I did - even out of context the quote does not say it.

to nail the lie

the full post

TandemJeremy - Member
Teamhurtmore - I pointed out the hypocrisy - thats all. that and ainflamatory spanish phrase. I didn't actually state what I thought should be done with the islands did I

FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter.

Posted 1 month ago # Report-Post

or had someone hijacked your account?

big_n_daft - Member

trawl through my history and you will find my substantive view

No thanks I'd rather not bother.

I asked you what was the point of digging up an old post of mine and claiming that it represents the same thing as Gorgeous George has apparently said today.

Your inability to answer the question suggests that you yourself don't know why you did it. Which is rather sad.

Can yo not read? difficulty in comprehension? Obviously so

that does not say

in this case that you believe that the islanders should not be able to self determine as British

When I have explicitly said several times I believe in the islanders right to self determination!

If the choice was mine thats what I would do - thats what I believe is right but its not my frikking choice is it? Its the islanders choice and they make a diffenrt choice.

Jeezo - how hard of thinking are you?

Why such pathetic attempt to try to show me as something I am not?

When I have explicitly said several times I believe in the islanders right to self determination!
If the choice was mine thats what I would do - thats what I believe is right but its not my frikking choice is it? Its the islanders choice and they make a diffenrt choice.

that's OK then, they can have a vote, you'll support the outcome, and if it's that they want to remain British you'll regard it as a national duty that we defend the people, the territorial integrity of the islands, and ensure that there is a future for the population respecting their cultural identity and rights just as you would for Scotland

Mods: do us all a favour and ban the big *hitters for a day or so as they are spoiling my late night half cut browsing of your fine site. Pure unadulterated drivle, OUT

It’s always a pleasure to see the usual suspects who are "more informed than anyone else" and "have a more enlightened view than anyone else" determining peoples fate, people that they have never met, or in fact, have never even visited in their homeland to discuss their view on the situation, or to ask their opinion or wishes. It’s just the usual, they should belong to Argentina because its closer, blah, blah, blah, colonialism, empire, blah blah, etc., etc. So, judging by that logic, Argentina should also claim south sandwich island, south Georgia, etc. etc. all the way to Antarctica. But, the internet is a wonderful place to get the "facts" but to be isolated from the reality. So all the usual who are all for democracy and freedom of speech, to decide that the opinion and wishes of the majority do not count, isn't that a dictatorship? For a country to lay claim to another smaller country against the peoples wishes isn’t that colonialism? but what do I know, I am just an old sailor that has spent sometime in the South Atlantic, who's three main memories from that area in the 80's, was how the people there just wanted the whole situation to go back to how it was before the conflict and to return to their previously lives (which, thanks to Argentinas actions, could never really happen), the size of the kelp forests (****in enormous) and also why the **** didn’t the Argentinians map their minefields instead of just dropping them out of a ****in helicopter wherever they decided. The third one can only really be appreciated when you actually realise where you are.

Anyway, enough said. Out.

It’s always a pleasure to see the usual suspects who are "more informed than anyone else" and "have a more enlightened view than anyone else"

Whilst you on the other hand are an expert who's opinion is valid because you are "an old sailor that has spent sometime in the South Atlantic" ? I see. Makes you wonder why these cheeky gits think they have a right to any opinions when they quite possibly haven't even been on the Isle of Wight ferry.

So all the usual who are all for democracy and freedom of speech, to decide that the opinion and wishes of the majority do not count, isn't that a dictatorship?

Well no one can doubt your democratic credentials, eg, [i]"My opinion is valid - yours isn't"[/i]

But here's one of those "facts" which you speak of in : [i]"the internet is a wonderful place to get the "facts" but to be isolated from the reality."[/i]

Three years after the Falklands War UN Resolution 40/21 called on both sides to initiate negotiations concerning the future of the Falkland Islands. The vote was overwhelming, 107 in favour to 4 against.

Included among the 107 in favour was Britain's 'closest friend and ally' the Unites States. The 4 who voted against were, the UK, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands.

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think [i]you[/i] appear to be isolated from the reality

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think you appear to be isolated from the reality

But as someone with argentinian relations what is your view ernie?

oh, found it

As for arguing that the Falkland Islanders want to remain British well of course they do - they're British, but there is no free movement to the Falkland Island, anyone who is Argentine isn't allowed to live there. Not exactly surprising then is it ? Besides, there's no problem with them remaining British. However if it is important for them to live under British sovereignty then the obvious answer is that they should live in the British Isles, not 8,000 miles away from them ffs.

btw do your family have a claim for property on the island or is this just an opinion based on your cultural heritage?

btw, can you let me know when you and TJ are going to have an exchange on the right of the islanders to self determine as British and stay exactly where they are. 😉

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think you appear to be isolated from the reality

God you lot are boring.

As usual I see an interesting thread read the OP, then instead of reading from the begining I check the last page....

Oh what surprise the usual arguments of the ego pushers. Another thread I won't bother reading, cheers guys.

Three years after the Falklands War UN Resolution 40/21 called on both sides to initiate negotiations concerning the future of the Falkland Islands. The vote was overwhelming, 107 in favour to 4 against.

Included among the 107 in favour was Britain's 'closest friend and ally' the Unites States. The 4 who voted against were, the UK, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands.

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think you appear to be isolated from the reality

I'll repost what I said before:

zokes - Member

I still haven't the foggiest what the UN, Argentina, or anyone else expect to get out of talks. They will probably go somewhere along the lines of:

Argentina: "We'd quite like control of the islands"

UK: "We'd rather you didn't"

UN: "Could you share?"

UK and Argentina: (in unison) "No!"

So, what, exactly, is the point in 'negotiating'? Argentina wants them, we have them, and don't want to hand them over. Negotiations are usually supposed to lead to a compromise. This situation is intractable, both sides want what the other wants least.

For anyone unfamiliar with what happens with negotiations over something this intractable, take a look at the middle east....

Most countries in the world have been artificially formed by conquest, war and takeover. By displacing peoples, forcing change.

This has been the way of the world for hundreds/thousands of years. Does not always make it "right", sometimes for progress, sometimes not.

Does displacing people from Diego Garcia and having a US base make the world a better place? mibbies aye, mibbies no. Did displacing the crofters for sheep in the highlands make it a better place....

Life it not always fair

Its all about oil right?

Well, UK will need facilities, workers etc. Closest place is Argentina. In return for port access, facilities share the oil rights, exploration rights. No negotaion on soverignty, unless by FI decision, but good movement can be had, everyone a winner.

As to the talk of the FI gaining a Oil Wealth fun, I think not..... not after the price the UK paid back in '82

Got fed upp with with all the pedants posting over 4 pages of dross.....are there any MTB'ers who post on here from FI??

i'd be interested in there perspective on the OP

...is this just an opinion based on your cultural heritage?

I'm fairly sure I haven't given my opinion on whether Argentina has valid claims to the Falklands, and I would be surprised if I had as it's actually something which I don't feel very strongly about. I can see that you have apparently trawled through my history desperately trying to find a clue. I do have an opinion though.

My suggestion that people who want to live under British sovereignty should perhaps live in Britain was simply offered as a solution to a problem. In the same way that I would offer a simular solution to Italians who want to live under Italian sovereignty, or Germans who want to live under German sovereignty, etc.

What I am interested in though, is the apparent ability of some individuals to live in denial of the awkward and inconvenient facts by putting their fingers in their ears and saying, "Na..na..na..na..not listening". Actually I find it quite fascinating. Here's a classic example :

wrecker - Member

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think you appear to be isolated from the reality

[b]"Complete utter total unadulterated PISH"[/b].

Clearly it's not "Complete utter total unadulterated PISH", as these facts shows :

Three years after the Falklands War UN Resolution 40/21 called on both sides to initiate negotiations concerning the future of the Falkland Islands. The vote was overwhelming, 107 in favour to 4 against.

Included among the 107 in favour was Britain's 'closest friend and ally' the Unites States. The 4 who voted against were, the UK, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands.

Three years after the Falklands War UN Resolution 40/21 called on both sides to initiate negotiations concerning the future of the Falkland Islands. The vote was overwhelming, 107 in favour to 4 against.

Included among the 107 in favour was Britain's 'closest friend and ally' the Unites States. The 4 who voted against were, the UK, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands.

You're missing the point.

initiate negotiations concerning the future of the Falkland Islands

Does not mean or insinuate "we all agree with argentina" in anyones imagination. It's a typically soft UN [i]request[/i] that we have a nice chat.

ernie, did the UN resolution that was voted in favour of specifically mention the decolonisation of the FI? or is this something you added on?

I can see why virtually everyone would vote for negotiating, but doubt they voted for decolonisation.

I can see why virtually everyone would vote for negotiating

Really ? Well that puts them at odds with the UK government. The UK government will not support any negotiations with Argentina concerning the Falklands. As I said, the UK is isolated in this issue - something which you called "Complete utter total unadulterated PISH"., despite the fact that it's true.

The UN considers the Falkland Islands one of the remaining 16 colonies which need to be decolonised.

This negotiating then, what are the terms?

I'm happy to negotiate with someone in the UK who's never had ownership of my belongings I have in storage there. I'll happily negotiate for years over whether I should keep them or whether they can have them, but I'm not going to change my stance one iota.

(This could get repetitive)

The UN considers the Falkland Islands one of the remaining 16 colonies which need to be decolonised.

But who were displaced by this colonisation? To my knowledge, the penguins still live there quite happily...

Enough of this right and wrong.
Break out the Top Trumps.We have the planes and a nuclear sub. Do the argies have the capability to take out the runway? If so are we left wide open?

Well I reckon we should sink a few Argie ships NOW before they start getting big ideas again like the Jerries did in 1939. If we are to learn from history rather than let it just repeat itself, then we should realise we need to get the first punch in this time. Saves time and effort, and makes sense in the long run.
You gotta show these fools who's the boss, and we are the current World War Champions of the World, don't forget.

ernie_lynch - Member

I can see why virtually everyone would vote for negotiating

Really ? Well that puts them at odds with the UK government. The UK government will not support any negotiations with Argentina concerning the Falklands. As I said, the UK is isolated in this issue - something which you called "Complete utter total unadulterated PISH"., despite the fact that it's true.

The UN considers the Falkland Islands one of the remaining 16 colonies which need to be decolonised.

Chill ernie and read. Not me that called it "PISH". Please quote me correctly. I would think that the UN would support self determination for the people. If they still want to be under UK, then fine. I do think though that we can work with Argentina regarding the future of the Islands, I am all for that.

I merely asked if the UN resolution voted for by most of the world mentioned decolonisation as you alluded to this. It of course does not, it metions peacful negotation for the future of teh islands, and funnily, I am all for that.

The UK government will not support any negotiations with Argentina concerning the Falklands. As I said, the UK is isolated in this issue

Excuse me for being pedantic again - I do know how irritating you find it - but what you actually said was:

almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

I appreciate you consider the difference between negotiations in general and negotiating decolonisation as a trivial point in the same way as you consider the difference between somewhere with an area of 1,104 km2 and somewhere with an area of 80.5km2 a trivial one.

I presume if the UN proposes that the Falklands are decolonised they'd oppose any attempt by Argentina to set up a colony there to replace the UK one?

I presume if the UN proposes that the Falklands are decolonised they'd oppose any attempt by Argentina to set up a colony there to replace the UK one?

A colony which, if any of the views expressed on this thread about the Islanders' wishes are true, would be very much against the wishes of the population who reside there. Unless, of course, they're going to be forcefully removed?

A quick look over at wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#Criticism

LOL Ernie, tool.

zokes - Member

"I presume if the UN proposes that the Falklands are decolonised they'd oppose any attempt by Argentina to set up a colony there to replace the UK one?"

A colony which, if any of the views expressed on this thread about the Islanders' wishes are true, would be very much against the wishes of the population who reside there. Unless, of course, they're going to be forcefully removed?

Like the Chagossians?

Like the Chagossians?

I think the OP was about The Falklands. Feel free to start your own thread about the very real injustices in the BIOT.

HTH

Can I just check, TJ? When you mention Diego Garcia in these discussions, are you suggesting that the FI should be treated in the same way for the sake of fairness?

Do you consider the Chagossians to be indigenous?

Any United Nations Resolutions saying we should allow the Chagossians to return TJ?

Whats the world opinion on that one?

I suppose the people of Imber should go to the ECHR as well eh?

TJ, are you saying that because the right of self determination was not applied in Diego Garcia it should not be applied in the Falklands?

If you are saying that the right of self determination should not be applied to the Falklanders then are you saying that what happened to the people of Diego Garcia was alright?

aracer - Member

Can I just check, TJ? When you mention Diego Garcia in these discussions, are you suggesting that the FI should be treated in the same way for the sake of fairness?

Do you consider the Chagossians to be indigenous?

No. Both sets of people - the Chagossians and the Falklanders were put on the islands for commercial reasons at around a similar time mid 19th century. Neither are indigenous although there was some inhabitents of diego garcia from 1780s

However in the 60 /70s the Chagossians were removed by a mix of trickery and force to allow the US an island free of inhabitants for their air base. Compare this with the falklands.

Numerous court rulings in the UK courts have found in favour of the return of these islanders. NUmerous bits of skulduggery have prevented their return

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians

Bruce - what I am saying is the treatment of Hong KOng, diego garcia and the Falklands show the hypocrisy of various UK governments and give lie to the idea that the government believes the right to self determination trumps all.

The Master Plan:

Try and stick with me here:-

Apparently the claim on the Falklands by Argentina is by dint of proximity. The Falklands are approx 430 miles off the coast of Argentina, so heres the deal….

UK to the Faroes = 237 miles therefore Faroes are part of the UK
Faroes to Iceland = 429 miles therefore Iceland is part of the UK
Iceland to Greenland = 187 miles from Iceland therefore Greenland is part of the UK
Greenland to Canada = 16 miles therefore Canada is aprt of the UK
Canada to the USA = 0 miles therefore the USA is part of the UK
USA to Mexico = 0 miles therefore Mexico is part of the UK
Mexico to Guatemala = 0 miles therefore Guatemala is part of the UK
Guatemala to Honduras = 0 miles therefore Honduras is part of the UK
Honduras to Nicaragua = 0 miles therefore Nicaragua is part of the UK
Nicaragua to Costa Rica = 0 miles therefore Costa Rica is part of the UK
Costa Rica to Panama = 0 miles therefore Panama is part of the UK
Costa Rica to Colombia = 0 miles therefore Colombia is part of the UK
Colombia to Brazil = 0 miles therefore Brazil is part of the UK
Brazil to Argentina = 0 miles therefore Argentina is part of the UK
Argentina to the Falklands = 430 miles therefore the Falklands are clearly part of the UK

There you go irrefutable Argentinian logic that a) The Falklands are indeed British, and in fact that they as a region of the UK already have ownership.

Dispute sorted.

I thank you.

Bruce - what I am saying is the treatment of Hong KOng, diego garcia and the Falklands show the hypocrisy of various UK governments and give lie to the idea that the government believes the right to self determination trumps all

I'm certainly not arguing with that although I would say that, purely from the standpoint of what is right, self determination should have been applied to all.

Personally I like to stand by what I believe is right so I am in favour of the UK helping the Falklanders to remain part of the UK as well as having nothing but sympathy for the Chagossians.

Do you believe, if we forget about government policies for a minute, that self determination should be a right for all?

TandemJeremy - Member

Bruce - what I am saying is the treatment of Hong KOng, diego garcia and the Falklands show the hypocrisy of various UK governments and give lie to the idea that the government believes the right to self determination trumps all.

In what way is this relevant to the OP? I couldn't give two hoots what either the Argentine or UK governments think - the right to self determination does trump all. The Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly self-determine to stay tied to the UK. This only falls down if the UK doesn't want to retain control and responsibility, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

If you wish to start another thread about hypocritical colonisation/decolonisation, with special reference to Diego Garcia, I again direct you to the "Start new thread" button, just up there^^^

So you're not suggesting the FI inhabitants should be treated like the Chagossians? In which case any mention of them is irrelevant to this thread - please discuss in a different one. I might even agree with you in a thread about them http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/should-i-support-the-chagossians

Of course we've already established that in the case of HK, the vast majority of the land (including all 3 major airports) where 2/3 of the population lives was leased from China, so it would have been kind of difficult to allow self-determination there. What exactly would you have done with HK?

aracer - Member

So you're not suggesting the FI inhabitants should be treated like the Chagossians?

I am saying not treating them the same is hypocrisy and its important to compare the different ways our governments have dealt with this situation in different areas as it clearly demonstrates in the case of the Falklands the consideration is more than the wishes of the islanders.

Its precisely because these other examples show that the case quoted for the Falklands is bunkum that people want to exclude it.

and with that I take the good captains advice

Its precisely because these other examples show that the case quoted for the Falklands is bunkum that people want to exclude it.

No - I think the Chagossians should have had a right to self determination, and any suggestion that the same shouldn't be allowed the FIs would be hypocrisy on my part. Where do you stand on that point?

as it clearly demonstrates in the case of the Falklands the consideration is more than the wishes of the islanders.

Well in that case the Islanders should thank their lucky stars that both the UK government's and their own wishes align. Isn't it great when people can work together like that?

Don't people realise that the national interest is what will determine policy in places like this? If it suits UK to move people along, we will, if it suits us to pander to the wishes of the islanders, we will. This has been happening for centuries. It happens here with compulsary purchases, moving travellers sites etc.

The Govt is elected by the people, for the people, and if you do not agree with them vote for those you agree with. If enough agree with you they will be elected.

You do need complicit support, which is why although vast majority of UN vote for negotiation, they do not vote for handover.

I struggle with long sentences

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands. And I think you appear to be isolated from the reality

Complete utter total unadulterated PISH.

you saying it is PISH somehow counters a vote of 107 to 4 against

Low how you persuade us with your powerful use of logc, reason and evidence 🙄

I doubt the rest of the thread got any better

a vote of 107 to 4 against

It wasn't 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina's position on decolonisation.

Read it or be quiet. we've done this already.

The UN voting for negotiations is kind of like when some poor deluded soul posts on here asking for relationship advice and everyone tells them that they should try to talk things out.

Good analogy - Argentina isn't getting any, but the UK is asexual and doesn't see the problem.

am saying not treating them the same is hypocrisy and its important to compare the different ways our governments have dealt with this situation in different areas as it clearly demonstrates in the case of the Falklands the consideration is more than the wishes of the islanders.

No, you're comparing how the government treated a bunch of islanders 40 years ago, with how the government is treating a different groupd of islands Today.

TJ - the Chagossians right to self determination ended 40 odd years ago, they are no longer the residents of the Island, deal with it.

It bears no comparison with the right of self determination of the current inhabitants of the Falklands, we're dealing with the Here and Now, not historical rights. Its as pointless as arguing that the people of Imber should get their houses back because the government broke their promise in 1945.

So if we remove the falklanders by force now and give the islands to Argentina, in 40 yrs it will be OK. Interesting concept.

It wasn't 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina's position on decolonisation.

It bears no comparison with the right of self determination of the current inhabitants of the Falklands

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

And two wrongs don't make a right. What's your point, caller?

In respect of the OP isn’t the argument about the Falklands similar to the position of America over Hawaii?
America had no claim whatsoever over those islands and actually annexed them.
It might interest a few people to take a look at Hawaii's flag.

[img] [/img]

The guy with the biggest stick gets the goodies basically.

The guy with the biggest stick gets the goodies basically.

Didn't work in '82 - Their big stick was sunk by our sneaky stick...

So if we remove the falklanders by force now and give the islands to Argentina, in 40 yrs it will be OK. Interesting concept.

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

No, its a fact of life

Otherwise you'd have to throw all the white people out of Argentina

What happened 40 years ago was by a different government, under different circumstances. Each one is unique and outcome is determined by prevailing circumstances, and what is best for the country at that particular time. If there was a massive outcry 40 years ago then things might have been done differently.

We have to get over past "injusticies" and learn from them. Ones mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist and all that.

Was enjoying thread till other past incidents got brought up, they have as much relevence as the Moon being made of cheese as each relies on the present circumstances prevailing at the time.

"It wasn't 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina's position on decolonisation."

Really thanks. did I say it was ?

Did you read what you quoted? Here's a reminder:

almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands

I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view

Says the man who started his post with "I struggle with long sentences"

zokes - Member

As TJ notes the passage of time does not correct an injustice of this nature.

And two wrongs don't make a right. What's your point, caller?

So what does correct it? Give Oz back to the Aboriginies, NZ to the Mouiris, US to the Brave's and thousands of countless other movemet/migrations of people where some do not agree with it, where some gain and some lose.

NZ to the Mouiris

Good point - surely that should be higher on the list of places the UN wants decolonized given its colonization post-dates that of the FI?

Good point - surely that should be higher on the list of places the UN wants decolonized given its colonization post-dates that of the FI?

add Hawai'i to that list

and wasn't Argentina a colony once?

they certainly still behave like colonists to the indigenous population

from Amnesty International

Indigenous Peoples’ rights
Concerns remained at the failure to implement the 2006 national emergency law which temporarily suspends the execution of eviction orders or the removal of Indigenous communities from traditional lands until an appropriate nationwide survey has been carried out.

•In November, 400 police officers violently dispersed members of the Toba Qom Indigenous community who had mounted a roadblock in protest at plans to build a university on traditional lands. The police also burned down the community’s temporary homes. At least one police officer and one member of the Indigenous community were killed.

This is an intresting arcticle American publication interviewing a Falkland islander [url= http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/britain-argentina-spar-falklands.html ]link[/url]
Far more intresting and relevant than most of the posts in this thread!

I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view

Says the man who started his post with "I struggle with long sentences"

Do you think that would constitute a snipe, Sherlock?

Good link sa9000, thanks for that.

[i]Far more intresting and relevant than most of the posts in this thread! [/i]
Surely not! Is that possible?

the Chagossians right to self determination ended 40 odd years ago, they are no longer the residents of the Island, deal with it.

So if we remove the falklanders by force now and give the islands to Argentina, in 40 yrs it will be OK. Interesting concept.

Give Oz back to the Aboriginies, NZ to the Mouiris, US to the Brave's and thousands of countless other movemet/migrations of people where some do not agree with it

I think you are somewhat understating the genocidal intent and outcome of the US and Australian conquests by describing them as "migrations of people where some do not agree with it".

Do you think that would constitute a snipe, Sherlock?

It's a pretty good indication of somebody coming in from the sidelines, don't you think?

Can I just check though - is failure to express a view an indication of the lack of merits of somebody's argument, or am I misunderstanding "I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view" and it's actually commending such a position?

Nothing better to do?

The colonists in NZ and the US signed treaties to resolve grievances with the Maori and some Indian bands respectively.

Ah - so the islanders' mistake was not signing a treaty with the penguins?

I think you are somewhat understating the genocidal intent and outcome of the US and Australian conquests by describing them as "migrations of people where some do not agree with it".

Another good point - those countries should definitely be nearer the top of the UN's list of wrongs to right than the FIs then.

I think you are somewhat understating the genocidal intent and outcome of the US and Australian conquests by describing them as "migrations of people where some do not agree with it".

Yes ever so slightly. Just goes to show though, no genocidal intent and outcome here (FI) no forced evictions, murdering a people, then making them sign peace treaties when you had ground them into the dust. Yet there are many passions being stirred.

bwaarp - Member

A quick look over at wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#Criticism

LOL Ernie, tool.

So you post a link which is in total agreement with what I'm saying, ie, that the UN considers the Falklands to be a Non-Self-Governing Territory which has not been decolonised, and you call me a tool ? How does that work then ? Did you actually read the link ?

aracer - Member

a vote of 107 to 4 against

It wasn't 107 to 4 in agreement with Argentina's position on decolonisation.

Well aracer, I guess you can pretend for as long as you want that the UN hasn't called for Britain to decolonise the Falklands, but it doesn't make your ridiculous claim true. The UN wants the UK to negotiate with Argentina the sovereignty of the Falklands, something which the UK refuses to do - a position that no one, bar about 3 tiny countries, supports. The UK is isolated over the Falklands issue.

Now you might think that the UN, which was set up after WW2 to stop disputes between countries escalating into war, shouldn't get involved in this and that it's none of their business, fair enough. But don't pretend that the UN isn't taking a position just because you personally don't like it. It's all quite pointless really.

UN REPORT ON FALKLANDS’ DECOLONISATION

Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2011 General Assembly Official Records Sixty-sixth Session Supplement No. 23

Chapter XI: Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

135. The Special Committee considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) at its 6th and 7th meetings, on 21 June 2011.

136. In its consideration of the item, the Special Committee took into account paragraph 4 (b) of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/316, as well as other relevant resolutions and decisions.

137. During its consideration of the item, the Special Committee had before it a working paper prepared by the Secretariat containing information on developments concerning the Territory (A/AC.109/2011/14).

138. At the 6th meeting, the Chair informed the Special Committee that the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay had requested to participate in the Committee’s consideration of the item. The Committee decided to accede to the requests.

139. At the same meeting, in accordance with a decision taken at the 3rd meeting, statements were made by Roger Edwards and Dick Sawle of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, Maria Angélica del Carmen Vernet and Alejandro Betts (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6).

140. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Chile, also on behalf of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), introduced a draft resolution on the item (A/AC.109/2011/L.7).

141. At the same meeting, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina made a statement (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6).

142. Also at the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Cuba, China, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Sierra Leone, Paraguay (on behalf of the Common Market of the South and associated countries), Guyana (on behalf of the Union of South American Nations), Guatemala (on behalf of the Ibero-American countries), Brazil, Uruguay, Peru and El Salvador (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6).

143. At the same meeting, the Special Committee adopted draft resolution A/AC.109/2011/L.7, without a vote.

144. At the 7th meeting, on 21 June, the representative of Grenada made a statement (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.7).

145. The text of draft resolution A/AC.109/2011/L.7 read as follows:

[b]Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

The Special Committee, Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Aware that the maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace[/b], A/66/23

DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE CALLS FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS BY ARGENTINA,

UNITED KINGDOM ON FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)

Adopting Draft Resolution by Consensus, Committee Debates
Questions of Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity

[b]The Special Committee on Decolonization this morning regretted that, in spite of the widespread international support for a negotiation between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom that includes all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions on that question has not yet started.[/b]

And so it carries on......

[url= http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/gacol3087.doc.htm ]DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE CALLS FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS BY ARGENTINA,UNITED KINGDOM ON FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)[/url]

And there's loads more. You can huff and puff and bang your feet as much as you want, aracer and the denialists, but my point still stands, ie, I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

I guess you can pretend for as long as you want that the UN hasn't called for Britain to decolonise the Falklands,

What I dont understand (maybe I'm being fik) is what has the decolonisation of the FI got to do with Argentina if not so that the islands can become re-colonised?
Either the Islands are completely independent or a colony. The UN wants decolonisation, so that leaves independence which requires zero input from Argentina.

I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

Wrong choice of words, the UN resolution was for Argentina and UK to peacfully negotiate the future of the Falklands. The UN resolution as voted on does not mention decolonistaion in any shape or form.

Surely to de-colonise, the residents should determine the future - what are you proposing ern, that we should ship them out?

what are you proposing ern, that we should ship them out?

Are you struggling keeping up ? I'm not proposing anything, it's the UN who's doing the proposing - you need to direct your question at the UN not me. I haven't even said whether I agree with the UN's proposals. I simply said, quote, [i]"I think it's fair to say that Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands."[/i]

As it happens I think the UN's position is reasonable. Although personally I couldn't give a monkeys who owns the Falklands.

BTW, I like your conclusion that UN isn't calling for Britain to decolonise the Falklands, despite the fact that the UN Committee on Decolonization issues reports on the Falklands, and they come out with stuff like [i]"Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Aware that the maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace."[/i] That's a blinder you're playing there mate. Anyway, enough of all this bollox.....

So what would the UN's position be if we gave the Falklands independence and then the argies (ex colonists themselves) took it by force? How is that not colonisation?

Is the UN calling for the decolonisation of mainland America? Did the USA vote against us? (If so that's a bit rich). Is Scotland a colony of London? Is Basque country a colony of Madrid? If so where are the UN calls to give the Basque country back?

I fact where did the 107 v 4 figure come from?

almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position concerning the need to negotiate the decolonisation of the Falklands.

Simply Not True - as you've been playing the partial quote game again

The international community supports negotiations leading to a, and I quote,

[i]"peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over [u]sovereignty[/u]"[/i]

There is no mention in any of the UN reports or mandates of negotiations over decolonisation.

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/12/10/falklands-invites-c-24-president-to-balance-recent-visit-to-argentina

Nice response from the Falklanders.

You need to look up the definition of a colony bwaarp
that is a state entirely under the control of an independent state

USA is not a colony nor is Australia they are independent countries

Basque you may have a point but as it crosses into both france and spain it may be more difficult to say this and it is generally referred to as the basque region rather than colony.

Can I just check though - is failure to express a view an indication of the lack of merits of somebody's argument, or am I misunderstanding "I suspect you would rather snipe from the sidelines though than actually express a view" and it's actually commending such a position?

*In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion.[1][2]

yes Zulu the decommissioning committee on colonization want us to speak about a colony but it does not think we have a colony. It is a plausible line of attack. Keep with it and you are accusing someone else of partial quoting Oh the ironing 🙄

So what happens if the Falklanders are occupied by the Spanish Colonial descended Argentines? Is that a colony?

What's the worlds position on making the USA give up Guam? Can someone please get back to me on this 107 v 4 vote and send me a reference because I can't find a damn thing about it.

that is a state entirely under the control of an independent state

Can nobody answer my question?
What has the decolonisation of the FI got to do with the Argentinians?

the argies as you call them want to make the FI part of argentina so it would not be a colony anymore than Mon Man Cymru or the shetlands are colonies of the UK

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_v23/ai_4079774/

that was just simple google searching on
UN Resolution 40/21
UN Resolution 40/21 voting
respectively
Do you need more?

So why can't we make the Falklands a part of Britain? What happens if the population do not want to be part of Argentina? Surely forcing them to be would be colonialism.