South American block on Falkland registered vessels.

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 could 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?

I shall answer as you did…… start a new thread I am sure you will get plenty of answers

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 – specially on sovereignty issues. 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.

exactly that is the issue we should be discussing and yes we could debate that

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.
yes coz that is not patronising now is it

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

but that’s only part of my argument 😉
Why not tell me why you think it is irrelevant I know how much you enjoy dodging questions 😉

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.

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

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 reeeeally low…

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.

The French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland in 1764.[15] In 1765, the British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont[16] and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence he claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony and placed the colony under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, expelling the British presence in 1770, this brought the two countries to the brink of war but war was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[17]

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first.
PS we kicked them out in 1833
probably answers B n D as well I assume
no idea what the ideal mileage is but that is on the other side of the world and our link is as a conqueror.
I am sure what ever rule we come up with we can find anomalies – I mean we claim Gibraltar despite it being taken from the Spanish and then given to us by the dutch..again a bit far away to be ours ..we even call them overseas territories which kind of gives it away that they are not really ours IMHO

in terms of distance i doubt there is an ideal that works universally [ have you googled which one is the furthest not disputed ? I have not FWIW – would be interesting Antartica- Russia? Some island nation] but I dont think we can ignore the fact they are on the other side of the world and nowhere near us whilst making a territorial claim.
Like gibraltar it is a tenous claim base don conquering and taking stuff we wanted

Aye but Sea Harriers, for all their worthyness are not and never were intercept fighters.
The new Typhoons are a world apart from the old Harriers and have a far longer reach with both weaponry and threat detection.

MPA is defended by Rapier batteries though, factor in the resident Typhoons (and they can be reinforced if necessary) plus the possibility of stationing a Type 45 offshore(or perhaps a couple of them) and you have a game changer.

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

Along with the medical report by the Americans that there was evidence that some were shot in the feet so they couldn’t run away. Poor bastards. Glad to see that the argies no longer practice conscription.

the best memorial to those who fought in the 1982 conflict is that there isn’t another one

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first.

well from your link, i make it the french.

let’s give it back to the french. at least they don’t cheat at football, oh hang on……..

i see a pattern developing.

Hawaii and Guam are quite (>7,000miles) a long way from the US mainland, and Japan was quite keen to take them over at one point. I wonder if Japan asserted a claim today they would be given the time of day?

This thread got boring as ****.

Can we get back onto the proper, non-political, topic of blowing stuff up please?

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian

How?

Bravo do you also mourn the brave German soldiers who valiantly overcame whole armies in Poland, Belgium and France?

No of course you don’t. They were the invaders. The Argentinians got all they had coming to them.

I’d like to know why Brazil took their stance though.