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

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?