[Closed] South American block on Falkland registered vessels.

MrSmith - Member
......is this an official 'TJ-thread' yet?

A veritable big hitting masterclass 😆

Any answers? You have all avoided this as it shows the hypocrisy here

Now - the right of a people to self determination.

Yes for the Falklanders?

No for the Chagossians

No for the Hong Kong.

No for the scots?

is that how you see it?

What about the cornish?

FI weren't taken by force.
And FFS stop comparing it to HK, it's completely irrelevant.

Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

In November 1832, Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to found a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny after 4 days.[24] The following January, British forces returned and requested the Argentine garrison leave. Don Pinedo, captain of the ARA Sarandi and senior officer present, protested but ultimately complied. Vernet's settlement continued, with the Irishman William Dickson tasked with raising the British flag for passing ships. Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned and was encouraged by the British to continue with the enterprise.[25][26][27] The settlement continued until August 1833, when the leaders were killed in the so-called Gaucho murders. Subsequently, from 1834 the islands were governed as a naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.[28]

Any answers? You have all avoided this as it shows the hypocrisy here

FI weren't taken by force.

Yes for the Falklanders? [i] Yes, Self Determination[/i]

No for the Chagossians? [i]Yes to a right of self determination for the resident population of DG - however its a moot point, as the Chagossians are no longer a resident population
[/i]

No for the Hong Kong. [i]Yes, a right to self determination, however it does not change the fact that out presence there was bound by the terms of the lease from China, and any decision on self determination is a question between the HK's, the Chinese, and the UN, nothing to do with the UK[/i]

No for the scots? [i]No, they gave up this right when they signed the act of union, which constitutionally binds them to the UK in perpetuity[/i]

is that how you see it?

[b]Your Turn now TJ:

Self determination for the Shetlands, yes or no?
Self determination for the Channel islands and Isle of Man, yes or no?
Self determination for Yorkshire? yes or no

TJ: Yes, the right of self determination is fine for all of them. That's how we see it.
What's your point?

we're talking about a different set of colonial settlers.

absurd.

Yep, you said it mate - your suggestion is quite frankly absurd.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "transfering sovereignty to another colonial power". It is about decolonisation as a stated aim of the United Nations.

Of course perhaps you think that the international community which makes up the United Nations and their opinions on sovereignty issues and the resolutions of the last fifty are "absurd" because they don't quite fit in with the views of a dozen punters on a mountain bike forum in the UK ?

Ta

Zulu

So for the chagossians no self determination?

If we remove the falklanders by force, refuse the right to return for 40 years does that then mean they are no longer a resident population so lose their right to self determination?

I am in favour of self determination for any group of peoples.

Scuzz - the point is the massive hypocrisy of successive governments treating different groups differently. the treatment of the chagossians is a dreadful stain..

they could have repudiated the hong kong treaty as it was made with a country that no longer exists - certainly not on mainland china

I can't believe in the modern day, and Argentina being an open country, the UK Government does not know their military capability and planned accordingly. Isn't their airforce out dated, while we have the latest Typhoons on the Islands? Further to any sea or sub support and the 1000 plus troops, these Typhoons are stationed on a purpose built air force base which can be resupplied via Ascension in what, less than 24hrs?

Yep, you said it mate - your suggestion is quite frankly absurd.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "transfering sovereignty to another colonial power". It is about decolonisation as a stated aim of the United Nations.

Of course perhaps you think that the international community which makes up the United Nations and their opinions on sovereignty issues and the resolutions of the last fifty are "absurd" because they don't quite fit in with the views of a dozen punters on a mountain bike forum in the UK ?

so removing the british and transfering sovereignty to argentina will decolonize the falklands ❓

😆

beyond absurd.

the fact that your link from earlier cites statements made by colonial states such as russia and the south americans makes it all the more absurd.

we're not talking about disenfranchised indegenes we're taklking about argentine settlers - colonists themselves.

maybe there are times when you have to question the rule of law. especially absurd ones. this seems like one of them to me.

The UN approved the war in afghanisan, are you sure that you want to place them on a pedestal?

I am in favour of self determination for any group of peoples.

Would you support a right for independence from Scotland/self determination for the Shetland Islanders? yes or no TJ?

Zulu-Eleven - Member
Would you support a right for independence/self determination for the Shetland Islanders?

TandemJeremy - Member
I am in favour of self determination for any group of peoples.

I guess that's a "Yes" then

I am in favour of self determination for any group of peoples.

The Falklanders want to be British, so stfu.

still waiting for Junkyards figure for how far for how away is too far away?

I would also love to know if Hawaii or Texas for example are each 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 fact that your link from earlier cites statements made by colonial states such as russia and the south americans makes it all the more absurd.

My link states UN resolutions - do you actually understand what they are ?

And if you think that the UN resolutions are "beyond absurd" then fine - say so. But don't try to make out they originate from TJ.

Unsurprisingly the UN resolutions on the Falkland Islands command widespread international support - including throughout Latin America. Although I do appreciate that they don't have the support of a handful of punters on here. Perhaps a strongly worded letter from STW to the UN is needed ?

Don't forget the laughing emoticon btw....it adds so much to a sensible discussion.

Just for arguments sake, the Argintineans [i]could[/i] make our forces life very difficult and severely test the resolve of the UK public for a fight. With no carrier currently serviceable, if the argies could take the strip out of action at Stanley grounding the Typhoons that have no short/rough strip capability, it would be a huge challenge to repel a large invading force with little or no air support. I should imagine that Tornadoes could sortie from Ascension, but I suspect that their loiter time 'in theatre' would be very short and quite possibly ineffective for combat air patrol purposes.

I should imagine that the UK would once more prevail, provided it did not bow to international or TJ pressure, but I think that it would be a nasty bloody business, with far greater rates of attrition than recent conflicts have made is used to.

Widespread international support is for "negotiation", not transfer of the FI to the argentines.
It's pretty clear that the argies won't settle for much less and the British will never agree to it so really what's the point?
It'll only end in political disaster for any PM (Blair and brown were having none of it either) so its never likely to happen.

Squatters dont want to leave houses flashy so i suppose you support them

still waiting for Junkyards figure for how far for how away is too far away?

If they own the house, then YES.

The UN approved the war in afghanisan, are you sure that you want to place them on a pedestal?

Who's putting the UN on a pedestal ? I'm countering the claim that UN resolutions are "beyond absurd". You don't have to agree with them but that doesn't mean they have no substance at all.

Plus of course British governments have always emphasised the importance of UN resolutions, and how countries must comply with them - [i]specially on sovereignty issues[/i]. Makes Britain ignoring the ones on the Falklands for the last 40 years or so rather strange. What with Britain being a UN Security Council member and all.

My link states UN resolutions - do you actually understand what they are ?

yes but please don't let that stop you from being a patronising asshat.

so when i said.........

the fact that your link from earlier cites statements made by colonial states such as russia and the south americans makes it all the more absurd.

i was referring to the u.n link

Delivering statements on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) were the representatives of Cuba, China, Syria, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Sierra Leone.

so it seems that the widespread support that you claim this resolution receives is in fact provided by the colonial states that i quite rightly described.

but maybe i recognise this contradiction because i bother to educate myself in my spare time rather than trying to appear a wise ass on internet forums.

don't forget the patronise emoticon - it adds so much to sensible discussion.

Fair point Ernie, I was simply pointing out that they don't always get it right and are often compromised by the agenda of others.

Edit; funny how sierra leone added support. I bet they regret that now, seeing how we pulled them out of the shit loosing British lives in the process. Cheeky bastards.

If they own the house, then YES.

Repeating what the islanders want [ as if it is in debate] is pointless as it is down to "ownership".

But maybe i recognise this contradiction because i bother to educate myself in my spare time rather than trying to appear a wise ass on internet forums.

don't forget the patronise emoticon - it adds so much to sensible discussion.

JY, my opinion is only slightly based on the islanders wishes.
It's mainly based on the fact that the argies have no legitimate claim to the islands. They have never owned them. It's just based on proximity which is nonsense.

Repeating what the islanders want [ as if it is in debate] is pointless as it is down to "ownership".

and why do you think the Argies "own" the islands?

I assume we are missing out the bits about having regard to the islanders 😉

It's just based on proximity which is nonsense.

you can't dismiss the Junkyard distance rule like that! 😉

so it seems that the widespread support that you claim this resolution receives is in fact supported by the colonial states that i quite rightly described.

You obviously don't understand what a resolution is if you are mortified to discover that a whole range of opinions is allowed to be expressed - and you claim "i bother to educate myself in my spare time" ?

I'm fascinated by your claim that Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, for example, are "colonial states" btw. Does talking complete bollox come easy ?

to you it would seem.

what language do those countries speak btw ?

i mean the russian federation supporting a draft resolution on decolonization ?

are you completely unaware of what the russian federation is ?

you must be if you can't see the absurdity in this.

I'm not in your league mate. That's for sure.

What's wrong with these South American countries? Haven't they done enough by exporting cocaine, I mean coca, to the world? They can't even deal with their own poors in their backyard yet trying to boost their own political standing by blaming the world ... FFS! Put them maggots to hard labour! Send in the Spanish conquistadors ... and get Spain to sort out their own financial problem.

B n D i do like the way you post nothing but questions on these debates it makes it much easier to mock folk..... that said i liked the second part

you can't dismiss the Junkyard distance rule like that

This seems like a very one sided discussion. I've heard several very good reasons why th FI should stay British, I've heard an argument that is a little persuasive that the UK should at least discuss the sovereignty of the Isles with interested parties, although what constructive purpose that would serve is less well explained. I have yet, however, to hear a single persuasive point of view explaining why, other than proximity (which isn't persuasive at all) the Argintineans have any genuine claim AT ALL over the Falklands, other than they would like them.

Anyone?

Why not tell me why you think it is irrelevant

because plenty of countries are spread across large areas of ocean and have a linked history and cultural identity any "distance" would be an arbitary number

now "whats your number?", how far is too far? 😉

and junkyard, why do you think the Argies "own" the islands?

other than they would like them.

I think you'll find that forms the basis of the British claim. Backed up nicely by the fact that they have 3000 citizens there, at the exclusion of non UK citizens.

Here's a sobering thought, the number of posts on this thread now exceeds the number of British servicemen who died during the Falklands War.

Doubtless, TJ will still be bollocking on well past 649 posts, so let's also spare a thought for the brave Argentine servicemen who also lost their lives.

It should be noted that three Falklanders were also killed, though none deliberately.

Well said Bravo.

No, I'd say that the basis of the British claim is that they've GOT them. Which is a far more persuasive argument, and one which is successfully repeated throughout history by most nations of the world.

so let's also spare a thought for the brave Argentine servicemen who also lost their lives.

don simon - Member

so let's also spare a thought for the brave Argentine servicemen who also lost their lives.

A large proprtion of them were not brave, they were children that had no choice in the matter.
DEP.

That makes them braver still in my eyes.

if the argies could take the strip out of action at Stanley

I'll stop you right there. You might as well not have bothered writing the rest of your post. What makes you think they have the capability to do that?

bravohotel8er - Member
That makes them braver still in my eyes.

That makes them bullies ...

chewkw - Member

That makes them bullies ...

I was referring to the Argentine military (whether professional or conscripted, but conscripted in particular) and not to the junta that sent them there.

What makes you think they have the capability to do that?

Let's hope they haven't, but fast jets, the balls to fly very* low and fast, and cluster bombs could do it, at least for a while. It's certainly not impossible, and would certainly be the first objective if they were barmy enough to have another go. Of course, our chaps in Stanley know this, and I'm sure they're ready. However, to be ready, 24/7, for 30 odd years has got to take the shine off the alertness level a tiny bit, and even when we had constant interceptor patrols several fast jets got through and caused damage during the conflict, when alert levels were fever pitch...

*like [i]reeeeally[/i] low...