[Closed] South American block on Falkland registered vessels.

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.

Me - Nope - pointing out some massive hypocrisy and I would like a decent solution to one of the last colonial outposts.

we gave Hong kong back after all - against the wishes of the inhabitants

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 I think it is extremely likely that Argentina could inflict substantial damage to UK armed forces.

the armchair general speaks 😉

the only way there will be a shooting war is if the Argies use military aggression, are you suggesting they are going to do that?

I would like a decent solution to one of the last colonial outposts.

The argies military survives on a pitiful budget (one of the lowest in SA)
Their forces are half our number if that. Our military is even more superior to that of the argies than it was last time due to having been proper war fighting for the last X years. They would be crackers to even try it.
We have a fast air presence on the islands and the subs. I'd be surprised if we'd even need boots on the ground.

and I would like a decent solution to one of the last colonial outposts.

by making it a different kind of colonial outpost ?

seriously, some people have fallen down a rabbit hole on this one.

argentina is a colonial state, we're not talking about returning sovereignty to disenfranchised indegenes.

we gave Hong kong back after all - against the wishes of the inhabitants

here we go with the selective self determination thing again.

HK was leased to us by the Chinese. The lease expired.

I would like a decent solution to one of the last colonial outposts.

what is your solution? oh yes

TandemJeremy - Member
FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter.

you then define Britain as

Great Britain? its a defined geographic area - the island that makes up England Scotland and Wales

which means another 1000+ islands need to go 😉

or is it time for the new "Edinburgh Defence" 😉

Trailmonkey - you have accused me of that a couple of times - please explain why?

I have never said that anyone should be handed over to anyone else against their will. However I do point out the massive hypocrisy on this.

chagossians - kicked of their land and refused the right to return despite court judgements in their favour - status very similar to the Falklands. Hong Kong - handed to china against the will of its people. Falklands - whatever the people wish they can have.

Falklands - whatever the people wish they can have.

They wish to be British, so STFU.

Big and daft - its not my definition of Britain - that is the only definition of britain - the mainland.

There's a big difference with Hong Kong TJ that i suspect you know perfectly well.
Hong Kong was merely leased for 99yrs, it was never a British possession to begin with.

Whats your point CFH?

I have never said that Scotland should or should not leave the UK

Surely the right of its people to self determination should triumph? thats what yo want for the Falklands isn't it. the right of self determination?

<head explodes>

So what muddydwarf - its still a massive hypocrisy.

What about the right of the people to self determination?

I have never said that Scotland should or should not leave the UK

😐

Trailmonkey - you have accused me of that a couple of times - please explain why?

well, you don't seem to care that the inhabitants of the falklands are quite happy to remain as they are, so when you ask ..........

TandemJeremy - Member
So you don't believe in the right to self determination of a people?

i guess you're being selective about which people have that right.

I haven't CFH. I have outlined the argument but I have never said my preference. ( apart from once directly asked by Ernie)

Now - the right of a people to self determination.

Yes for the Falklanders?

No for the Chagossians

No for the Honk Kong.

No for the scots?

is that how you see it?

What about the cornish?

Not at all trailmonkey. I beleive people have that right.

So - my new defence - I have been warned off obsessive arguing - I don't think I can make any further points here anyway.
🙂

If it is going to be handed to anyone it should be handed to Tierra del Fuego as it is thought the Yaghan people were the first to visit the Falkland Islands. And as just over 61% of Tierra del Fuego belongs to Chile and the rest to the Argentineans then maybe Chile should lay claim to it?

Not at all trailmonkey. I beleive people have that right.

except the falkland islanders.

selective,

glitchy bump

And point out where I said that trailmonkey? cos I didn't

I have been warned off obsessive arguing

That's like telling a dog not to lick its cock anymore. 😐

*muffled noise from Edinburgh*

you've repeatedly said that you think that the falklands should be returned to argentina.

don't go all edinburgh and deny it

tbh, i think that this is a side issue anyway. i think you've been talking more far nonsense about the colonial stuff.

thinking that you solve the issue of colonialism by shifting the metropole that the periphery is ruled by is one of the daftest things i've ever heard on here.

Pmsl @ Darcy! 🙂

TandemJeremy - Member
Big and daft - its not my definition of Britain - that is the only definition of britain - the mainland

so do you have to live on that single island to be British?

remember you said

FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British....

Great Britain? its a defined geographic area - the island that makes up England Scotland and Wales

more "Edinburgh Defence"? 😉

trailmonkey - Member

you've repeatedly said that you think that the falklands should be returned to argentina.

really - you will be able to copy and paste the post then. Lets see it.

big_n_daft - Member

so do you have to live on that single island to be British?

My cousin lives on Scilly, I think he speaks a bit of Spanish though and he likes steak so maybe TJ's brave new world won't be so bad after all!

really - you will be able to copy and paste the post then. Lets see it.

here, not quite sure that you got the translation right, but we get the gist anyhow

La malvinas son argentinas

Muchas pwnage

la malvinas son argentinas

Hmm, 'malvinas', I've heard that somewhere before...

I think it loosely translates as 'the bad wine is Argentine' and I for one agree. I prefer Chilean personally, but let's not be churlish about this, we'll let the Gauchos run the BBQ.

Job jobbed.

Only If you think that means that I have "repeatedly said that you think that the falklands should be returned to argentina against the wishes of the people"

TandemJeremy - Member

Teamhurtmore - I pointed out the hypocrisy - thats all. that and ainflamatory spanish phrase. I didn't actually state what I thought should be done with the islands did I

FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter.

so trailmonkey - are you going to copy and paste the repeated posts were I say that I think that the falklands should be returned to argentina against the will of its people"?

PeterPoddy - Member

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.

Well you should have read what I said instead of just scanning, then you wouldn't be in such a dilemma about whether you should be disgusted or apologetic.

Go back and read what I've written and let me know of you're disgusted - if so, I'll see what I can do about changing my opinions just for you 🙂

TJ stop digging. Please.

CFH - It would be nice if people did not accuse me of saying things I never have.

Attack me for what I have said -fine. Invent things - why?

I have never said that the falklands should be returned to Argentina against the will of its people.

You stated that the Falklands were Argentinian, they are not. For them to be so would be against the will of the Falklanders.

Only If you think that means that I have "repeatedly said that you think that the falklands should be returned to argentina against the wishes of the people

oh come on, you've also been rattling on about some nonsense about [i]colonial solutions[/i]

I would like a decent solution to one of the last colonial outposts.

by transfering sovereignty to another colonial power ? we're not talking about disenfranchised indegenes. we're talking about a different set of colonial settlers.

absurd.

This is my position.

I think the islands should be given independence under UN protection.

trailmonkey - Member

you've repeatedly said that you think that the falklands should be returned to argentina.

really - you will be able to copy and paste the post then. Lets see it.

Still waiting.

That may well be your position, but THEY DON'T WANT to be independent, ffs!

not read all 6 pages of jingoistic chestbeating and south american brinkmanship but is this an official 'TJ-thread' yet?

How long after taking something by force does it become your right to decide what happens to it in your opinion Flashy? Imagine its your bike say and a ruffian from the streets robbing you..just asking like

Read the UN they dont get to decide as they are a plantation whose role is to be "british"

Still waiting.

already showed you. but if you don't want to see. oh, go on then, once more

La malvinas son argentinas

I think the islands should be given independence under UN protection.

so not argentinian then ?

you must have been just joking when you claimed that earlier.

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.