What a load of rubbish, how does Argentinian ownership of the islands differ from UK?
That's not decolonisation it's recolonisation.
If you want to term the shetlands a colony, I'm comfortable with that and if they determine that they don't want to be a colony any longer then they're welcome to go it alone.
Sorry that UN resolution does NOT refer to the decolonisation of the FI at any point.
Title bwaarp. Otherwise your right.
Must admit, I'm hardly a fan of British colonialism,but it does seem to me that Argentinas claims are tenuous at best.
Send HMS Astute there and remind the Argies of the range of a tomahawk cruise missle.
That might give them something else to think about.
No doubt the RN already have a Submarine presence down there baacking up their surface ships anyway.
They might want to surface beside a press boat just as a reminder.
[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuq-IjZif2psBPp365eOMQcKfn1bmREEkJ1x8dgvW-rujcHZO7 [/img]
Don't cry for me Argentina, oops no, that was his ex missus! Is he planning a movie perhaps The Falklands & the Snowman[/url] 😆 [url=http://]Linky[/url]
Which wife did he go to prison for beating up?
There's a thread about lingerie, and you sad sacks are still going round in circles here....
😉
THANKS CAPTAIN
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 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."As it happens I think the UN's position is reasonable. Although personally I couldn't give a monkeys who owns the Falklands.
I think this is what you said
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.
for someone who claims
you sure do put a lot of effort in on these threads 😉Although personally I couldn't give a monkeys who owns the Falklands
anyway when are you next visiting the Argentinian side of your family, are they in Buenos Aires?
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.
Which brings us full circle to israel planting jews in Palestine land whilst kicking out the natives. you would then claim we need to respect the wishes of the illegal jewish settlelers/people to self determination.Furthermore if we put he Palestinians back it would be "colonisation"
What a load of rubbish, how does Argentinian ownership of the islands differ from UK?
That's not decolonisation it's recolonisation.
If you want to term the shetlands a colony, I'm comfortable with that and if they determine that they don't want to be a colony any longer then they're welcome to go it alone.
I suggest you read up on what these terms actually means as you are just incorrect.
A colony cannot decide to go alone as it does not have self determination - it is why its a colony ...its run from elsewhere THAT IS WHAT A COLONY IS - granted we have pretended to make it independent of late and given freedoms to counter this argument.
You are entitled to your view but could you learn a few of the facts presented to you [ you may then choose to ignore them or disagree with them if you wish]
Aracer ^^^^ that is another example - saying nothing yourself about anything but attack someone else's view . they then defend it but have nothing to "attack" you back with as they have said F all..its not really debating it is just prodding someone with a stick to get a response. It is not a debate though it is an argument
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.
Well you can repeat that UNTRUTH just as often as YOU like ernie, but UN resolution 40/21 which was voted on 107 to 4 doesn't mention decolonisation - not once - just negotiation. Here's the text of "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" just to remind you: http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution4021.html - go and see how many times the word "colony", "decolonisation" etc. is mentioned...
Oh and don't forget the 41 abstentions who also appear not to support the resolution. Nor the close votes on the amendments the UK wanted to add - I mean do you think that the words "and the right thereunder of peoples to self-determination" support Argentina's position? Only 41% of the countries present supported Argentina's position by voting against that: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_v23/ai_4079774/?tag=content;col1
Sorry to poop your party, ernie - I'm just supplying facts (and links to documents, something you're strangely reticent about) in the face of your selective quoting.
Which brings us full circle to israel planting jews in Palestine land whilst kicking out the natives. you would then claim we need to respect the wishes of the illegal jewish settlelers/people to self determination.
Except it doesn't - nice straw man though. Maybe we should ask the indigenous population of the FI for their opinion on the matter (noting that despite the reluctance of TJ to commit himself on the matter, most sources refer to the Chagossians as indigenous).
Oh and don't forget the 41 abstentions who also appear not to [s]support[/s]oppose the resolution
FTFY
Only 41% of the countries present supported Argentina's position by voting against that:
so the majority then under FPTP [ or who expressed an opinion if you prefer]
You are spinning like mandy now but at least you are saying something 😉
your straw man trumps mine they were originally uninhabited.
Anyway it has become circular
have a nice night
FTFY
Thanks, Junky, but I know what I meant - you just broke it.
so the majority then under FPTP [ or who expressed an opinion if you prefer]
Of course. That's why that amendment didn't get passed (you have to assume if it had the vote on the whole resolution might have been 111/0). The point being that ernie keeps claiming "almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position" - a majority under FPTP isn't really "almost every country in the world"
Sorry junky, I often agree with you but in my humble opinion you have not made a strong argument here at all. So many ifs, buts and irrelevant comparisons that it's just fallen apart. You've been chasing your tail desperately trying to fend off logic, facts and fair reasoning with what is just a weak argument. Not even you can make it a strong one.
[img] 
[/img]
trying to fend off logic, facts and fair reasoning with what is just a weak argument.
LOL You still dont seem to get what a colony is yet despite having it explained numerous time to you.
That's why that amendment didn't get passed (you have to assume if it had the vote on the whole resolution might have been 111/0).
I think we can at the very least agree that whatever resolution was put there at least the Uk and argentina would oppose each other so no I dont have to assume that. TBH i cant think why anyone would assume that
Is that the sort of logic, fair reasoning that is beating beating me wrecker?
It is just made up nonesense if the amendment [which was voted down] was passed and if they then voted on then unanimity would have broken out. There is nothing to suggest any of this would have happened it is nothing more than a guess
Yes I have been bestest in this thread for sure by the superior use of logic and reason like that and your the Shetlands as a colony argument.
We are not going to agree but really some of the arguments are laughably poorly constructed - you may have a bit of a point re Israel but the point is we dont always respect the right of settlers or colonists to self determination
You are entitled to your view and I am not as daft as see why some people think the colonists of the FI have the right to self determination. It is not an argument without merit but it, alone, is not persuasive IMHO
Its a colony its an imperialist remnant we could easily correct it [ unlike Australia or the USA] and we should IMHO
We cannot correct all wrongs but this one is easy enough as is Gibraltar 😉
LOL You still dont seem to get what a colony is yet despite having it explained numerous time to you
It's not that. I don't care. There is no explanation on the planet that can justify the UK not owning the FI because owning countries is wrong (call it what you want) then trying to persuade me that it's then OK for Argentina to own them. We have established
A) proximity is no argument for ownership
B) Argentina has no legitimate claim the the FI
Throw whatever legal jargon at it you like, there is no moral justification for the transfer of ownership to argentina. Certainly not "decolonisation" as is would be the colonisation of a state whatever the fancy language.
And so it carries on......DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE CALLS FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS BY ARGENTINA,UNITED KINGDOM ON FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)
For the love of Christ, Ernie, WTF are they going to negotiate? The UK will not surrender the islands under any circumstances, and the Argentinians will not relinquish their claim under any circumstances. Please can you tell us once and for all what is hoped for by negotiations?
. Maybe we should ask the indigenous population of the FI for their opinion on the matter (noting that despite the reluctance of TJ to commit himself on the matter, most sources refer to the Chagossians as indigenous).
there is no indigenous population of the Falklands. Chagossians are slightly less clear as some did get there under there own steam 100 years before the colony was planted but I think they fail the test for indigenous people as well
Chagossians, you say? [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/should-i-support-the-chagossians#post-3499154 ]There's a whole thread about them![/url]
You are entitled to your view and I am not as daft as see why some people think the colonists of the FI have the right to self determination. It is not an argument without merit but it, alone, is not persuasive IMHO
Its a colony its an imperialist remnant we could easily correct it
why is it a colony? they have their own laws, they have the right to self determine, I can't see much difference between the FI and the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands
go on educate me
but I think they fail the test for indigenous people as well
what is the test?
Yes I have been bestest in this thread for sure by the superior use of logic
Well I can't fault your self-confidence 😉
Its a colony its an imperialist remnant we could easily correct it [ unlike Australia or the USA] and we should IMHO
We cannot correct all wrongs but this one is easy enough as is Gibraltar
So your suggestion is that we hand these over to Argentina and Spain? Can you explain to me how that provides the greatest benefit to the most people (when the vast majority of the resident population don't want that and would probably consider themselves worse off after such a change) - or do such trifles not concern you?
Chagossians are slightly less clear as some did get there under there own steam 100 years before the colony was planted but I think they fail the test for indigenous people as well
I wonder how many other places in the world have such a specific term for the non-indegenous population?
Well I can't fault your self-confidence
😀
It's not that. I don't care
ok i shall not bother then
why is it a colony?
this in the thread
a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state
they have their own laws, they have the right to self determine,
covered in the thread and at best debatable but yes we have of late - see later points
I can't see much difference between the FI and the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands
The former is /was a colony [ we called it this untill 1981 for example but we saw this a bad PR and poor form at the UN so they became Overseas territories [ british dependent territories 1981-2002]. The examples you cite are crown dependencies which are independent adminstered jurisdictions
Although the dependencies are British possessions of the Crown, and are not sovereign nations in their own right, the power to pass legislation affecting the islands ultimately rests with their own respective legislative assemblies
we have made moves to make the FI like this since the war over them - you can read that as progress or cynical spin as you wish - we have not tried as hard [at all]with the others though in this time frame as far as I am aware.
go on educate me
I am not sure how talented I am as teacher, but i tried. Did it work [easy punchline surely]
big_n_daft - Member[b]"I think this is what you said"[/b]
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.
[b]"for someone who claims"[/b]
Although personally I couldn't give a monkeys who owns the Falklands
I can't see the problem - where is it ?
I personally couldn't give a monkeys who owns the Falklands - why should I ?
I think Argentina probably has some claim to the Falklands. I think the UN are probably correct in calling for the decolonisation of the Falklands and negotiations between the UK and Argentina over sovereignty of the Falklands. I think it is unlikely the UK will find much sympathy for its claim that it is entitled to oil in the Southern Hemisphere on the basis of how less than 3000 people voted. But I personally, couldn't really give a monkeys who owns the Falklands. I can't see any problems or contradictions with that statement. Perhaps you can explain what your problem is ?
you sure do put a lot of effort in on these threads
You think that proves that I care passionately about who owns the Falklands - how does that work ?
I actually put very little effort in the inevitable Falklands threads these days, they are tedious, predictable, and frequented by ill-informed halfwits which come out with moronic comments such as [i]"what are you proposing ern, that we should ship them out?"[/i]. I generally suffer fools quite gladly, but on threads like this it's like arguing with an 11 year old kid, and sadly I end up at the point where I can't be arsed. Some of the stuff I've posted on this thread I've simply copied and pasted some of my posts from previous threads. I suspect you and quite a few others have made much more of an effort than me.
anyway when are you next visiting the Argentinian side of your family, are they in Buenos Aires?
What was the purpose of that ? Was it supposed to be an "amusing" comment ? Or perhaps a "biting" comment ? I can't for the life of me figure out the point of it - it is clearly neither funny nor biting. Explain. Or is this just another example of you posting something but can't quite explain why you did ?
ENOUGH!
Good grief!