[Closed] South American block on Falkland registered vessels.

But why do these spineless former top military knobs and the highly regarded United Kingdom National Defence Association lie to the British people so ?

Spineless because most of them were the model of 'yes men' during their time in uniform and only speak out once their pension is safe, their membership on defence company boards is running out and they believe their long-expired memories of how things were done is current. The UKNDA isn't highly regarded. It could have been if they kept up their momentum when forming, but they didn't. Tim Collins is one of their members FFS!

glitch?

bump

When are you giving back your newly revealed country to the Incas, Ernie?

What's this "you you you" all the time......what am I - global spokesman for the world or something ?

In case I haven't mentioned it before, 107 countries, including the United states, voted in favour of a UN resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands, just the UK, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands, voting against. My opinion on the matter is of little consequence and unlikely to sway the UN.

And there is nothing "newly revealed".

.

It transpires that he's actually mostly Argentinian, despite happily living in someone else's country all these years. Oh the irony...

What's the bit of me that isn't Argentine then ? And the reason I'm here is because someone travelled across to the other side of the world to help Britain repel an invasion from Germany.

Someone who specifically came to the UK during WW2 from Argentina to join the RAF and risked their life defending this country.

And "Oh the irony" that after WW2 there were more British nationals living in Argentina than anywhere outside the Commonwealth.

......bunch of ungrateful gringos 🙂

i think the BRIC countriues are the ones to watch, any mineral oil wealth they can get their hands on is gonna be required to fuel their expanding economies as ours contract

Well it certainly goes some way to explain his deluded love affair with South American terrorists/murderers

Well it certainly goes some way to explain his deluded love affair with South American terrorists/murderers

I thought his cats were the only love of his life!

He is more mysterious than I thought.

Or, more likely, you're talking bollocks - which to be fair, is unusual for you.

Or, more likely, you're talking bollocks

LOL ! 😀

Yes that's it......everything I've ever posted on here are lies ! I'm actually a freckled ginger haired gorgeous IT consultant who goes by the name of Mandy Smith.

Citizen Smith, surely?

Not aimed at youse Ernesto.

Not aimed at youse Ernesto.

Ah, right, my apologies then. I wasn't 100% sure but took the "you're talking bollocks - which to be fair, is unusual for you" as meaning it was aimed at me. enfht [i]always[/i] talks bollox, that's for sure.

UN resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands

Argentina: [i]Can we have sovereignty[/i]
UK: [i] No[/i]

Negotiations completed

Happy now Ernie?

What's this "you you you" all the time......what am I - global spokesman for the world or something ?

You're the one interpreting a UN resolution calling for negotiation as the UN calling for the UK to hand the Falklands "back" to Argentina.

I note nobody ever answered the question of why the French handing their colony to Spain was more significant than Spain ceding sovereignty to Britain.

What's this "you you you" all the time......what am I - global spokesman for the world or something ?

You certainly seem to have self-appointed yourself to that role to some extent during this thread.

107 countries, including the United states, voted in favour of a UN resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands,

The negotiations would go something like this:

Argentina: Give us our islands back!
UK: No.

There is no negotiation to be had for such fundamentally different standpoints; on which it is, by the very nature of the problem, impossible to reach a compromise.

What's the bit of me that isn't Argentine then ?

Dunno, and couldn't care less TBH. I tend not to pay much attention to what you say as a rule, that way I can cut down on the amount of rubbish I waste my time reading on threads like this one.

I had an interesting discussion with a real life Argentine at a conference recently about "Las Malvinas" (he brought it up). He was quite frank that it was simply about oil, and that he couldn't see why his country should run a set of islands with 3000 Brits on it, who want to be British. He wasn't too shy in pointing out the irony of an ex-colony telling another colony that colonialism is bad.

You're the one interpreting a UN resolution calling for negotiation as the UN calling for the UK to hand the Falklands "back" to Argentina.

Am I ? I think the UN Resolution is very clear indeed. Which is obviously why the UK went against the opinion of the rest of the world and voted against it. The UK also tried desperately to change the wording of the Resolution but failed.

There is no doubt at all what the Resolution states and the UK fully understood the implications. Otherwise they would have supported it.

There is no doubt at all what the Resolution states

Yep. Dialogue and Negotiation. It is very particular in this and impartiality. In fairness, it's a no brainer for people to vote for negotiation as it's such a vague and soft recommendation. The only countries to mention support for the argies sovereignty claim are their fellow latins and neighbours which is hardly surprising.

He wasn't too shy in pointing out the irony of an ex-colony telling another colony that colonialism is bad

i've been trying to point out the absurdity of this very irony throughout the thread but as usual any deviation from the polemic cannot be computed and i was accused of talking bollocks.

stw - loving the feel, feeling the love 8)

*edit - just seen the juandem jeremy tag 😆

What's the bit of me that isn't Argentine then ?

"Dunno, and couldn't care less TBH"

Well obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered writing and sending a post on the issue :

[i]"It transpires that he's actually mostly Argentinian, despite happily living in someone else's country all these years. Oh the irony..."[/i]

Personally I would rather you minded your own business.

But Ernie, how would you suggest that negotiations would help the situation. There is no middle-ground to negotiate over:

Argentina: Give us our islands back!
UK: No.

Personally I would rather you minded your own business.

STW top-tip, Ernie: Don't publish on a thread something which you later would wish people didn't know.

Well obviously you do care

There are many things in life I do care about, but the tedious personal history of an internet Chavez wannabe isn't on that list.

juandem jeremy

There is no middle-ground to negotiate over

Exactly - that's the point.

Why do you think 107 countries at the UN supported a resolution calling for negotiations over the Falklands to start ? :rolls eyes:

Some of you guys want to get out of your little bubbles and recognise the fact that there is widespread global support of Argentina over the Falklands.

HELLO ? ANYONE THERE ? ..........[b]THE COLONIAL DAYS ARE OVER[/b].

FFS. If you don't get it by now, you never will. 😐

STW top-tip, Ernie: Don't publish on a thread something which you later would wish people didn't know.

Someone asked me a question ..... "are you argie ernie ?" I answered the question. I have on numerous occasions referred to my Argentine connection, I have no problem with that - why should I ?

You seem to have a problem with it though, which is why I suggested that you minded your own business.

Thanks for the tip anyway.

Why do you think 107 countries at the UN supported a resolution calling for negotiations over the Falklands to start ?

Er, maybe it's because they think negotiating (even with nothing to negotiate over) is better than fighting? Dunno. Why not spell out your interpretation of it for us, ernie - it would save a lot of misunderstanding.

I think the UN Resolution is very clear indeed.

Go on then, what exactly does it say? Does it call for the Falklands to be handed "back" to Argentina?

Er, maybe it's because they think negotiating (even with nothing to negotiate over) is better than fighting?

HOORAY! Someone gets it! 😀

[img] [/img]

HOORAY! Someone gets it!

Well obviously the UK delegation at the United Nations didn't "get it".

:much rolling of eyes:

Ernie, what is Argentina's claim to the Islands in your opinion?

Argentina has been blocking F.I. vessels for some time now - The ship I worked on (a F.I. flagged vessel) has been prevented calling in there for over a year now. A british Royal Navy vessel was also prevented visiting Brazil last year due to the fact it's previous port call was in the F.I. It's all getting a bit messy now due to the potential that oil has been found under the Argentinians noses.

Well obviously the UK delegation at the United Nations didn't "get it".

They got it totally. Until the the Falkland Islanders themselves wish to "negotiate" there will be no negotiation.

THE COLONIAL DAYS ARE OVER.

The irony. I wonder what the former owners of what is now called South America think?

For all you Argiebummers I say this....for Sparta! Come and get some.

The irony. I wonder what the former owners of what is now called South America think?

That the colonial days are over ?

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/

Note the inclusion in the link of the following statement :

[b][i]At present, 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe remain to be decolonized, home to nearly 2 million people. Thus, the process of decolonization is not complete.[/i][/b]

Among the 16 are the "Falkland Islands".

Check it here :

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml#foot4

ah yes thats why I tend to not get involved in theses debates it just becomes a bit of a goading fest with people saying ill concieved gibberish [ or deliberately inflammatory stuff]to get a reaction. I can picture them at their key boards getting a semi at upsetting someone on the internet...some strange folk about.

Er, maybe it's because they think negotiating (even with nothing to negotiate over) is better than fighting?

But why negotiate over something unsolvable? just leave it up to the will of the people who it most affects i.e. those who live there

Let's try again, ernie, as you seem to have forgotten to answer:

Exactly what is your interpretation of the UN resolution?

Why was the French handing their colony to Spain more significant than Spain ceding sovereignty to Britain?

There are some very strange thought processes here. I especially like the belief that an ex colony and a colonial power are equivalent.

I also like the weaselling over the Hong Kong population and the Chagosians - they don't appear to have had their wishes made paramount do they?

What double standards and massive hypocrisy. I do fear critical thought is beyond many of you.

Is it because they are white?

Exactly what is your interpretation of the UN resolution?

The same as the UK's delegation interpretation of the resolution.

Ernie - you will not be able to shift any views here. the Falklands are a little Englander shibboleth. It shows we really do have some power honestly and are not really just an American lapdog yapping away.

Junkyard, I've got a large Baguette. I'm not nursing, its standing proud. Ready to fly the flag of our Union against the Spaniards.

Is it because they are white?

I thought you had been warned off overt trolling and excessive arguements?

Ohoh - hora just declared war on Spain.

I also like the weaselling over the Hong Kong population and the Chagosians - they don't appear to have had their wishes made paramount do they.

I don't think that the situation with the Falklands is really similar enough to Hong Kong to be relevant.

As far as the Chagossians go, it was wrong. Because something wrong was done in the past does not mean it has to be repeated in the interests of consistency.

You can shout racist all you want, all you're doing is taking the focus away from your own (quite reasonable) arguments. I'm assuming that's not what you want to do.

BTW, I don't think you can get any less Little Englander than me.

The same as the UK's delegation interpretation of the resolution.

Ah, you were on that then - or do you have some other insight to their thought processes?

How about the other question - or is that one too awkward?

So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?

If we removed the population from the Falkland isles forcibly and then in 40 years would it be acceptable to say no indigenous population there so it doesn't matter?

Its a disgrace. Its not a wrong in the past - its still ongoing. a case in front of the European court of human rights at the moment.

We handed over the Hong Kong population to china without much complaint. Against their wishes. we even refused them right on entry to the UK

But the Falkland islanders wishes must be paramount.

What hypocrites.

TandemJeremy - Member
Ernie - you will not be able to shift any views here.

Oh, the ironing.

So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?

On another thread? Feel free to start one - something emotive in the title would probably help.

Ah, you were on that then - or do you have some other insight to their thought processes?

How about the other question - or is that one too awkward?

Grow up aracer, acting like a halfwit doesn't suit you.

That the colonial days are over ?

yeah if i were amerindian that's exactly what i'd be thinking 🙄

thanks for the fascinating link to the u.n's pontificating on decolonization by the way. unfortunately, the u.n seem to be selective in their determination to eradicate colonialism.

what is your opinion on the influence of the u.n.f.c.c.c treaty (kyoto) on spreading neo colonialism in the global south through the clean development mechanism and the joint implementation mechanism ?

Ohoh - hora just declared war on Spain. ...

Well it'll give their rampant unemployed something to do

Tally Ho!

🙂

Grow up aracer, acting like a halfwit doesn't suit you.

I'll take that as a yes to the other question being too awkward then. Feel free to answer sensibly rather than throw out back-handed ad-homs, I know it's not beyond you (SWIDT).

Junkyard, I've got a large Baguette. I'm not nursing, its standing proud. Ready to fly the flag of our Union against the Spaniards.

Ohoh - hora just declared war on Spain.

can this thread get more childish?

So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?

If we removed the population from the Falkland isles forcibly and then in 40 years would it be acceptable to say no indigenous population there so it doesn't matter?

Its a disgrace. Its not a wrong in the past - its still ongoing. a case in front of the European court of human rights at the moment.

I don't think that at any point anyone on here has disagreed with anything above, certainly not me. Is what you're saying that people shouldn't attempt to defend the rights of the Falklanders until they have made attempts to defend the rights of the Chagossians?

thanks for the fascinating link to the u.n's pontificating on decolonization by the way. unfortunately, the u.n seem to be selective in their determination to eradicate colonization.

Ah, I see, the UN talks bollox on such matters ?

Maybe it's time the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council ?

Although it's funny how British governments and the media are always telling us how UN Resolutions and the wishes of the UN are paramount.

But now we know that the UN Charter should be ignored when it doesn't quite fit with the UK government's view.

We shall fight them on the Benidorm beaches, we shall never surrender.

I can picture them at their key boards getting a semi

what you do in your spare time is no concern of ours junkyard

little Englander

in a thread packed full of irony, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are aware of the irony of accusing people of being both imperialist and a little englander....

in which case i can only assume that you're saying it to cause offence.

Maybe it's time the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council ?

wouldn't be bad idea imho. i don't see why the winners of wwii should still be team world police 65 years later

Although it's funny how British governments and the media are always telling us how UN Resolutions and the wishes of the UN are paramount.

But now we know that the UN Charter should be ignored when it doesn't quite fit with the UK government's view.

you're quite mistaken if you think my stance on this has anything to do with supporting the uk over anyone else. it's more to do with the fact that i consider the u.n stance to be contradictory and selective and i've given my reasons why.

you're quite mistaken if you think my stance on this has anything to do with supporting the uk over anyone else.

I wasn't commenting on your stance. I was commenting on the UK government's stance.

TJ - you still have not answered whether, in your opinion, the Shetland islanders should have a right of self determination, can you answer please.

You've been quick to call people hypocrites over their position on FI/DG/HK - I would really like to see whether your stand is quite so consistent on the freedom of people a little closer to home, especially given your stated support for the right of self determination for Scotland...

I was commenting on the UK government's stance.

You were complaining that the politicians pick and choose the bits they like? 😆

You were complaining that the politicians pick and choose the bits they like?

Was I complaining ? I suggested that the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council - don't you think that's a good idea, specially as the UK has ignored selected UN resolutions for over 40 years, and rejects key aspects of the UN Charter ?

But yeah, I get your point. There is an implied criticism, specially of our "free" media. I doubt whether many people in Britain are aware of UN Resolutions concerning the Falklands, the UN Charter and its policy of decolonisation, and the fact that the Falklands are considered a colony.

Which considering the importance that the British media purports to attach to the Falklands issue is clearly absurd. But there you go - self-regulating censorship.

What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?

What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?

Hahaha that's so funny hora !

They are just silly little countries with no future, and there we are with the Big Boys and a bright rosy future !

Specially that "Brazil" ffs !!!

Hahaha !

:rolls eyes again in now painful eye sockets:

Ernie - I fail to see your point, The Argentinians ignored UN security council resolution 502 issued on 3rd April 1982 [b]demanding[/b] an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands. They also ignored the long standing UN resolutions and the General UN principles that use of force was unacceptable.

As far as I can see the UN has only ever [i]requested[/i] that the UK enter into negotiations, never used stronger wording than that, which is very different from a UNSC demand!

Zulu - I clearly did - the right of any group of peoples to have self determination.

No, thats weasel words and you well know it TJ- as it depends entirely whether you define the Shetland Islanders as a 'group of peoples' in their own right, or whether you classify them as a subset of the Scottish 'group of peoples' and as such are bound to a Holyrood centred decision on Scottish independence

So I'll ask you again for absolute clarity - do the Shetland Islands have a right to self determination in their own right, yes or no?

Not quite sure why Juandem Jeremy is accusing those who believe the FI should choose their own destiny of being Little Englanders. Clearly he's unaware of the Islanders origins, the majority of them came from Scotland. Proper Scots that is, not self-hating exiles who now skulk about in 'England's loft extension'

Bravo - its the nasty jingoistic attitude expressed by some on here.

What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?

Are you genuinely that ignorant Hora, or is it just an act?

Ernie - I fail to see your point, The Argentinians ignored UN security council resolution 502 issued on 3rd April 1982 demanding an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands.

Your powers of observation are truly astonishing Z-11. Yes "The Argentinians" did not comply with security council resolution 502, are you offering that as a justification for Britain persisting ignoring UN resolutions on the decolonisation of the Falklands for the last 50 years ?

That the right-wing Argentine Junta ignored the UN should come as a surprise to no anyone. For several years, aided and abetted by the United States and Britain, the Junta had been engaged in the "Dirty War" which involved arrests/torture/murder/disappearance of countless victims, in gross violation of the United Nations Charter.

I fail to see how the behaviour of a British backed military Junta justifies Britain ignoring UN resolutions for 20 years before the Falklands War, and for 20 years after the Falklands War. As you would say....... "I fail to see your point".

The Junta argued that Britain's persistent failure to comply with UN resolutions justified taking military action. They would not rule out "the military option" as US/UK governments like to call it. All complete bollox of course.

Furthermore Security Council Resolution 502 required more than just withdrawal by Argentine forces. It also required "an immediate cessation of hostilities", the Junta at least maintained a ceasefire, although Britain didn't. It also called on "the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations". The Belgrano was attacked and sunk after the Peruvian Peace Plan had been accepted by Argentina. And Britain made it clear that it would continue to ignore the UN Charter concerning decolonisation. Britain failed to comply with Security Council Resolution 502 - which they tabled. That takes some doing.

Not quite sure why Juandem Jeremy is accusing those who believe the FI should choose their own destiny of being Little Englanders. Clearly he's unaware of the Islanders origins

No I'm not sure either.

Neither am I sure why you think the British government gives a toss about 3,000 people living 8,000 miles away on the other side of the world.

After all they couldn't care less if 3,000 people in Britain lose their livelihoods, they couldn't care less if 3,000 elderly people in Britain die of cold, they couldn't care less if 3,000 people in Britain die waiting for operations. Basically the plight of 3,000 people is of no consequence to them. Unless if course they live in some far-flung colonial outpost on the other side of the world, in an area which promises untold wealth and profit for a select few.

They were even prepared, and did for a while, deny 3,000 people full UK citizenship. [u][b]3,000[/b][/u] people FFS, and yet they were happy to have an open-door policy for EU foreign nationals, allowing potentially millions into the UK.

That's how much they care about "the destiny" of 3,000 people.

Bravo - its the nasty jingoistic attitude expressed by some on here.

no jj, it was just hora trolling.

Zulu-Eleven - Member
TJ - you still have not answered whether, in your opinion, the Shetland islanders should have a right of self determination, can you answer please

my understanding of TJ's view is that the Shetlanders can self determine to be anything but British as their group of islands do not form part of the island of Britain

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

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"?

my understanding of TJ's view

Well, you see B_n_D, he's given quite a lot of fairly contradictory statements, and I'm a little concerned that his latest phrase [i]right of any group of peoples[/i] seems to not only contradict earlier statements, but in itself is rather ambiguous over exactly what it includes.

As I've said above, the Shetland islanders [i]could[/i] be construed to be part of the homogenous group of Scottish people, so, for the sake of clarity, and since TJ has been [b]so[/b] keen to call other people hypocrites, I've asked him on several occasions whether the Shetlanders have a right to self determination and, if they choose, independence.

Its an interesting quandry isn't it? since if TJ thinks that they should have the right to choose independence, then it completely and utterly undermines his long established position on wider Scottish independence, as a key element on the affordability and justification for Scottish independence relies on income from the offshore oil fields that clearly ought to belong to the islanders - of course, on the other hand, if he is against a right to self determination for the Shetlanders, then he becomes a hypocrite on this thread, given his stance on the Falklands, HK, DG and his response to other peoples statements.

So far, I'd suggest TJ's unwillingness to answer this simple question suggests he recognises this dichotomy, and is therefore deliberately avoiding answering, as he knows that either way, he becomes hoist on his own petard!

So, once again TJ, I politely ask you, [u]for the sake of absolute clarity[/u], do you support a right for self determination for the Shetland Islanders in their own right, or not?

Well it depends.

The Belgrano was attacked and sunk after the Peruvian Peace Plan had been accepted by Argentina.

The Belgrano was attacked and sunk because everyone knows damn well what her battle-group were up to whilst some two-bit sham of a treaty was being put together to buy a bit of time: i.e. in the middle of forming a pincer movement with the carrier battle group.

TandemJeremy - Member
There are some very strange thought processes here

Indeed there are, TJ - why on earth do you keep thinking that we want to listen to your straw-man argument that everything should fall to the lowest possible denominator i.e. forceful removal? I would suggest you start your own thread on the vagaries of that problem, and just concentrate on the OP's topic.

Now that would be novel for you.

The Belgrano was attacked and sunk because everyone knows damn well what her battle-group were up to

What, actually sailing away from the exclusion zone, you mean?

None of those lives need have bin lost. Senseless murder.

What, actually sailing away from the exclusion zone, you mean?

But hardly heading for port, either. She and the carrier group were two battle groups which for the most part had been trying to encircle the British fleet. With the Belgrano gone, the carrier returned to port, leaving just long range flights from the mainland, with little loiter time over the islands. It wasn't murder (we were at war, which sadly allows for the killing of people), and it's undoubtedly one of the main reasons that the British forces won.

The exclusion zone was established to ensure that no civilian ships came near. It wasn't set up to enable dangerous battle groups to flirt with its edges and waste valuable time.

"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack,''..."When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.''

We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders

I think we posed a real threat... we never had any intention of going back to shore; we were only waiting for the right moment to act."

Hector Bonzo - Captain of the Belgrano

[img] [/img]