[Closed] South American block on Falkland registered vessels.

I suggest you need to talk to some of the people who's future you are so keen to change.

Me ? Why me ? You need to address that issue with the UN. I really couldn't give a toss who owns the Falkland Islands, why should I ? I just recognise Argentina's legal and legitimate claim.

I really couldn't give a toss who owns the Falkland Islands, why should I ? I just recognise Argentina's legal and legitimate claim.

Aren't Argentina just as culpable about hanging onto the past?

Moreso. Losers clinging on to some historical grievance are much more pathetic than winners celebrating their past. Football teaches us this.

Apologies for confusion and unnecessary sarcasm

I'd also love to understand how a population can't self determine to continue their current status, or change it if they so wish.

would it be ok for say Israel to invade Palestine send them all away , settle there with a jewish population and then “respect the wishes of the population there to stay Jewish/Israeli from that pooint forward...Can I assume you would all be fine with this principle in action?

forgive the repeat but this is what happened just a long time ago..can you really not see that this does not mean you suddenly have rights that need respecting..if you do disagee could you explain with reference to the Israeli example i cite as to why this would be ok.

You should contact the UN as well with your argument
Its like you arguing we should respect the bike thiefs view of what should happen to your bike and not yours.

🙄

when do the French get the Channel Islands? after all they are closer to the France as geography seems to be your main criterea for ownership

a winner earlier
[img] [/img]

Even if it is a colonial hangover, that still gives the UK more "entitlement" to the island than Argentina will ever (legitimately) have. If the populace want self determination, then fine let them vote on it. That would satisfy the UN ruling.
At the end of the day, the UK can put its fingers in its ears and completely ignore all of the boring, macho posturing and sabre rattling from the argies. They do not have anywhere near the capability to take it and nobody else is bothered about it enough to do it for them. It really is a case of tough tits, argie. No amount of bleating will change that.

forgive the repeat but this is what happened just a long time ago..can you really not see that this does not mean you suddenly have rights that need respecting..

when do we get the half of France we have a legitimate claim to back?

If the populace want self determination, then fine let them vote on it. That would satisfy the UN ruling.

No it wouldn't "satisfy the UN ruling".

Can't we just nuke the shitty little falkland islands? End of the problem.

@junkyard

A perfect example!

Imagine if Brazil had the Isle of Mann

If they'd had it for several hundred years, there were only Brazilians living there and we as a country had never actually owned it, (i know we actually dont own it) then it would be fair enough maybe? Be a nice place for a holiday, racing and carnival!

Under UN resolutions the interests of present Falklands Islanders are to be protected. They can remain with wide ranging rights such as property rights etc. A gradual handover of sovereignty and decolonisation is all that is required.

how this works in Argentina

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR13/002/2011/en/92609f9e-c461-4311-be18-43a6145d4b1e/amr130022011en.html

Can I assume you would all be fine with this principle in action?

I'm not unveiling (yet 😉 ) whether I think it is fine or not, but Israel, the Palestinian Authority and (not officially) Hamas have all accepted this in practice. None of them believes that the 1967 borders will exactly be resurrected and none of them believes that population transfer for all of the post-67 settlements would occur in the event of a final settlement.

now it may have been lost in all the rhetoric but back to the original point. Boats under the Falklands flag won't be allowed entry to various south american ports. Reports suggest this could be as many as up to 25 vessels, mainly fishing boats. I'm just curious as to how many of this fleet are actually affected by this ban. Presumably, if none of them dock on the mainland this means bugger all apart from the political slanging match??? Anyone?

I'm just curious as to how many of this fleet are actually affected by this ban

none, they can all fly the red ensign instead IIRC

Trolling again B n D Why not ask the french people what they want to do 🙄
why not explain with the Israel example why it would be ok. That is what i have asked numerous times now ...cant understand why all you folk dont explain it to me ?? Surely its easy.... you know you are on weak ground and wont even enter the field as your argument is that weak

That would satisfy the UN ruling.

At the end of the day, the UK can put its fingers in its ears and completely ignore all of the boring, macho posturing and sabre rattling from the argies.

No it wouldn't "satisfy the UN ruling".

to proceed without delay with the negotiations... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas

this is the kind of sensitive non sabre rattling kind of an attiutude we need

having read the u.n link, am i the only one that sees the massive irony in all those south american countries and russia championing decolonization 😆

seriously guys, a little self awareness might not go amiss.

why not explain with the Israel example why it would be ok. That is what i have asked numerous times now ...cant understand why all you folk dont explain it to me ?? Surely its easy.... you know you are on weak ground and wont even enter the field as your argument is that weak

start a different thread, I'm sure you will get plenty of contributions

back on topic, I suggest you go and tell the islanders how other people can determine their future and come back and tell us what they say.

Not sure why you think the distance is irreleavnt tbh..How can it be "ours" at that distance?

Not sure why you think the distance is irreleavnt tbh..How can it be "ours" at that distance?

Junkyard - you've asked people again about the Israeli's, but I'm afraid you've still not come back to me with an answer on the validity of a possible Mexican claim to the southern United States... 😉

ps - I don't accept your proposition that the The UN ruled the people have no say for the reasons - since UN Resolution 38/12 specifically states

[i]Reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII) and 37/9, [/i]

why not explain with the Israel example why it would be ok

at what distance do you have to give up sovereignty please give us a number

Zulu I did start reading Wiki on texas tbh but then it just confused me as I was skimming there was alot there to read can i take the Fifth?

Excellent kona now explain why if Israel did this it would be ok ...perhaps you are claiming noone on this thread said we should respect the wishes of the people of the island ?

These just end up as pointless attempts to point score ..no one will use Israel as and example they are on to losser trying. i wont give a definitive answer re distance for the sme reason - both sides have a point but one that is ahrd to define.
It is rather a dull sport and has reminded me why i left the politcs stuff alone for a while

Had eneough banter Happy Christmas see you all when I get back to work and it is another quiet day.

EDIT: Evn though i wont read it dont forget to say I flounced or accuse me of loosing or some other usual STW "winners " stuff- winner meaning stayed on thread longest ....no one changes their view.

Junkyard - Member

at what distance do you have to give up sovereignty please give us a number

start a thread I am sure you will get lots of answers

Surely its easy.... you know you are on weak ground and wont even enter the field as your argument is that weak

These just end up as pointless attempts to point score ..no one will use Israel as and example they are on to losser trying. i wont give a definitive answer re distance for the sme reason - both sides have a point but one that is ahrd to define.
It is rather a dull sport and has reminded me why i left the politcs stuff alone for a while

seems strange from the person dedicated to take the thread on a tangental argument that no-one wants to take up in this thread

if you can't put a number on the distance thing how can you argue they are too far away.

I would also love to know if Hawaii or Texas for example is a colony and needs to be returned to it's former owners etc etc etc

also are we going to redraw the boundaries in Africa as most of them are arbitary legacies of the former colonial powers etc etc 😉

The only similarity I can see with the Isreal case is: Land is occupied by A and ownership of land in disputed between A & B. Why this has to be specific to Isreal we don't know - we attempt to extrapolate this logic to include similar land arguments, ie the entirety of civilisation, to show that the Isreal case isn't a special one that deserves refutation in its own right. But you dispute this logical leap.
At a level more complex than A vs B, Isreal has far too many other issues at play. A big one is obviously religion.
That's why no one will touch this argument - we don't see what anything has to do with it.

Royal we, of course.

now explain why if Israel did this it would be ok

Have I taken a position on post-67 Israeli settlements? Am I familiar with the village by village dynamics of post-Nakba and post-Naksa exodus and settlement? Is there not a critical difference between the irredentist nature of the Malvinas movement and the (post-Tripoli, of course!) secessionist policy of the PLO?

Trailmonkey...spot on.

South America is largely Spanish descendant and Russia colonised most of Eurasia, laughable that such countries now pontificate on decolonization.

As I said in a previous post, where do you draw the line? Australia back in Aboriginal hands, ethnic Spanish south Americans back to Spain, all white people out of New Zealand.....does it work the other way? Is it acceptable to repatriate black people to their country of origin?

Massively touchy subject for some so I'm of the opinion that seeing as it happened hundreds of years ago then its safer to let sleeping dogs lie.
Argentina's sole claim on the Falklands is that Spain once held them when Argentina was a Spanish outpost. That time had passed, for a country so opposed to British colonisation they seem to desperately want their own version in place instead.

Whatever the legal and moral wranglings, if there is oil present then it should be fought over tooth and nail to kept in British hands.

As I said in a previous post, where do you draw the line?

Could we get all orangemen out of Ireland. I'd be delighted with that. 🙂

But the Republicans would have nobody to fight!
They would be lost!

" if there is oil present then it should be fought over tooth and nail to kept in British hands."

It wouldn't come to that. We have US backing.
Ontop of this due to lack of Carriers our Submarines would be a lot more active.

As we've seen precision strikes on Libya by British warplanes I think we'd see A LOT of hits on the Capital of Argentina and military/airstrip bases this time.

Times have moved on technilogically from last time.

Hora - I think US backing is likely to be rather less than before. Ok its fox news so remember your large pinch of salt

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute/

Times have moved on technilogically from last time.

And you don't think Argentina will have the latest technology as they did last time ? Why ?

Argentina have neither a legal or a legitimate claim to the Falkland Islands.

ernie_lynch - Member

Times have moved on technilogically from last time.

And you don't think Argentina will have the latest technology as they did last time ? Why ?

Errrm...well largely because they haven't bought very much of it at all. They've upgraded the Skyhawks, but they're still a (now even more) dated platform. You'd be better off going to arrse/e-goat/rum ration, they have rather more informed threads about this very subject.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/174564-south-american-states-ban-falkland-islands-ships.html

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?40890-Argies-Sabre-Rattling-again.....

Oooh, i've never started a 'TJ' thread before! 😆

Oooh, i've never started a 'TJ' thread before!

That's easy, i have a life! 😆

Errrm...well largely because they haven't bought very much of it at all.

Because arrse says so ? I would be surprised if Argentina has allowed itself to fall significantly behind in military technology. It is actively in the process of constructing nuclear powered submarines, which doesn't exactly suggest that they don't recognise the importance of up-to-date technology.

And in common with other Latin American countries it has moved substantially away from dependency on the US and has increased its imports of military hardware from countries such as China, and Russia. Does arrse have the detailed information of exactly what it has purchased from China and its likely effectiveness ? I'll remind you that Argentina's extremely effect use of exocet missiles came as a complete surprise to Britain.

I don't know the detailed technological state of Argentine military hardware, including missiles, torpedoes, etc, but I can't imagine they have allowed it fall to an ineffective level. And I think it is extremely likely that Argentina could inflict substantial damage to UK armed forces.

You're correct as ever ernie.

I'll send Dave a link to this thread and he can start preparing the transfer deed 😉

I take it that you're taking the piss because you are either, unable to provide any information as to what exactly Argentina has purchased from, say China, or because you are unable to challenge the fact that Argentina has previously inflicted substantial damage to the British navy and airforce.

Excellent..........carry on 🙂

TJ, Ernie:

I've had a quick scan through this thread and I get the feeling you'd both just roll over and hand the Falklans over to the Argentinians? Yes?

If so, you disgust me, truly you do, and I'm glad you're a very small, very wrong minority.

If not, sorry, please forgive me.