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
oh right, but………..

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

Why?

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!

the real challenge is whether you can close it.

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.

What is it about the Falkland Islands that requires a ‘solution’? Can you lay it out for me simply with evidence? I’m a bit thick you see.

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?