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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Only 41% of the countries present supported Argentina's position by voting against that:

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).

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

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

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

go on educate me

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!