/ Argentina ask the pope to Fight for the Falklands

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Lets just hope he/the catholic church have the sense to stay well clear of this dispute!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363
John Rushby - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

Everytime I see Frau Kirchner I am reminded of the one where Ross gets a spray tan.
mkean - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
Seems like a fair idea; I think an arm wrestle is suitable.

William Hague vs the Pope?
Chris the Tall - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
The Pope ! How many divisions has he got ?
Skyfall - on 18 Mar 2013
I like the way they blame the UK for militarisation of the area. Er, who invaded and started a war there in 1982 precisely because we didn't have a large military presence?
AWR on 18 Mar 2013
Let's see if Popey uses his power to convince Catholics the world over that we're a bunch of imperialistic cave people. Ironic. Additionally, she can't be very smart if she thinks a country where the majority religion is Protestant would listen to the Vatican!

I'm not worried - we could mallet the Argies again easily if they had a go. And I'd rate the Swiss Guard's chances in proper combat operations against us as pretty low too!
Skyfall - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:

> she can't be very smart if she thinks a country where the majority religion is Protestant would listen to the Vatican!

To be fair, she clearly isn't trying to persuade "us". Presumably she wants worlwide pressure (the UN even) to force us to negotiate.
AWR on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
Hasn't the UN been giving the issue a firm ignoring for a long time now? Even if they were going to get involved, self-determination trumps deranged ramblings of the head of a state trying to distract her people from the fact their country is in shit-state.
Skyfall - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:

Hopefully, yes.
AWR on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
Not much 'hopeful' about it...we're on the UN Security Council and they're not!
dissonance - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

dunno. A quick pre emptive attack on the Vatican could go a long way to clearing the deficit.
Jim C - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
> Seems like a fair idea; I think an arm wrestle is suitable.
>
> William Hague vs the Pope?

Better still ,a drinking competition given Hague's expertise.
Rob Exile Ward on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to mkean: I'm not so sure - with the Pope AND Bruce AND Naedanger on the Argentinian side we're doomed, doomed I tell you!
Ridge - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You forgot Sean Penn..
mcdougal - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

At least they asked the Pope. Last time they just conscripted everyone that they needed.
Dominion - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

Given what the new Pope has *done/said so far, I expect that he'll tell Kirchner that she needs to respect the recently expressed democratic wishes of the people who live on the Falkland Islands.


* jesus is the centre of christianity, not the pope
* going outside his "church" after mass, and talking with ordinary people
* pretty much saying "we are a church for the poor people" not for big corporations / political lobbyists
* refusing handmade red shoes such as Pope Benedict XVI wore, saying something like "carnival time is over"


Sorry to be cynical, but I think he is not going to be pope for very long. He actually seems to be about being a church leader for the people who make up the majority of catholics - the very poor people - and not a church leader for the glorification / status of the church.

So far - albeit that I am an atheist - I wish him well.

Jim C - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> I like the way they blame the UK for militarisation of the area. Er, who invaded and started a war there in 1982 precisely because we didn't have a large military presence?

Lets not rewrite history here, it was our foreign office who screwed up an gave them the impression that we would not defend the islands, and had in fact started talks to hand them over without concern for the islanders.
The 'invasion' was a miscalculation on our part which would not have met with the response it did if it was not that Thatcher and the Government were about to be obliterated in the next election, and had it not also been that Thatcher was selling off the Navy's fleet, so both needed something to save them, Thatcher her premiership, an the Navy it's fleet, hence the war.
I don't think given the earlier talks with Argentina that the people of the Falklands were the real reason for Thatcher to regain the Falklands. Don't believe me, well argue with Michael Dniels who was there:-

I quote from Michael Daniels , who served on HMS Coventry, and makes it clear what he thought of being a Political pawn.

" No cabinet papers released will ever show the remarkable achievements of admiral Sir Henery Leach, and in the Royal Navy Task Force of 1982, in winning back the Navy it lost in 1981, recapturing the Falklands , achieving regime change in Argentina, and winning the 1983 election for the Conservitives. Don't be fooled or misled by any politician claiming credit for such achievements. " ( exact unedited quote)

Note Michael says:- 'winning back the Navy' and "and winning the 1983 election for the Conservitives" he does NOT say winning back the Falkland Islands!

He also said
" the Secretary of State for Defence did not know a forecastle from a quarterdeck"
Yet another case of 'Lions led by donkey's' History repeats itself.

As for Thatchers conduct and motives, surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano and the Peruvian peace plan that ' went missing' may never be known, unless she has a death bed need to unburden herself. But what is clear to me at least is that , instead of protecting our troops by sinking it, she put them at risk, by escalating the conflict before they were in a position to defend such an retaliatory attack which quickly came,and with the devastating consequences I watched on TV.
We lost ships, and troops and all the helicopters that ( stupidly) were all on the one ship, and this again made things worse for our troops.

It was amazing what they achieved, and I pay tribute to that, but I ,at least, nor does Michael Daniels believe that 'saving' the people of the Falklands and the islanders themselves, was any ny way the real reason for the Task Force going to the Falklands.

My advise is if you see a politician's lips move ,they are lying, and if they are silent, they are afraid of being caught lying.

The one thing is clear to me reading some of the post here is ( I msquote'
'The. one thing we learn from history, is we don't learn anything from history'

If you believe the lies about the reasons for the Falklands war , then you are doomed to repeat it again soon, if it suits the incumbent government.

I may be off the mark, but , just in case I will go not print to say that Cameron has not a chance in hell of winning the next election, unless.......................
mypyrex - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): Here comes Bruce...
Eric9Points - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:

I don't think anyone is re writing history Jim.

The fact that the Conservative government were completely incompetent in preventing an invasion of the Falklands does not take away from the fact that Argentina invaded.

It's a bit like blaming a home owner for getting burgled because they forgot to lock their door.

Dominion - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> The fact that the Conservative government were completely incompetent in preventing an invasion of the Falklands does not take away from the fact that Argentina invaded.

I was always favouring the "deliberately incompetent" angle on that one, rather than just plain old incompetent myself...
ads.ukclimbing.com
Eric9Points - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Dominion:

When it comes to making a choice between cock up and conspiracy always go for cock up.

If you think through the details a conspiracy would be damn near impossible to pull off.
Coel Hellier - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:

> ... if it was not that Thatcher and the Government were about to be obliterated in the next election,

I suspect that this leftist mythology has little basis in truth. For one thing it was not at all obvious before-hand that the Falklands war would indeed increase Thatcher's popularity. Blair's escapades in Afghanistan and Iraq hardly increased his popularity, and earlier wars had not helped the government (e.g. Suez).
Jim C - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> I don't think anyone is re writing history Jim.
>
> The fact that the Conservative government were completely incompetent in preventing an invasion of the Falklands does not take away from the fact that Argentina invaded.
>
> It's a bit like blaming a home owner for getting burgled because they forgot to lock their door.

No, it was more a case of calling the burglar up, telling him when you would be out, giving him the keys and the combination to the safe.

You dismiss the argument very easily, one would almost say without thought or argument.
At least give me your research or evidence for your reasons to take this view?

Have you read anything of the government of the times conduct over the Peruvian peace plan
http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/the-peruvian-peace-plan.
No doubt you will dismiss this too, in a few seconds ,with no evidence to counter it.
( even though Hestletine later admitted to knowing about it)

Eric9Points - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:

If that's what you want to believe then fine, whatever.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Dominion:

surely not? the falklands campaign was very high risk; thatcher was advised not to try to recover them; and there was a very real likelihood we would lose.

as a strategy for trying to turn around poor opinion poll ratings, it would have seemed foolhardy as well as psychopathic...
Rob Exile Ward on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C: The Falklands was just one big mighty c*ck up, that was known at the time. The issue about the ships being in the Sound for so long and in harm's way was an outcome of how fast the task force was put together, the necessity to keep ferrying materiel from where it was to where it was needed made it an inevitable target.

Thatcher's government was many things, and incompetence is quite high in their list of attributes, but the idea that the Falklands was a cynically staged electoral gamble is tin foil hat stuff. There was, for starters, a better than evens chance that we wouldn't be able to pull it off.

And with the greatest respect to those who fought there they are not really in any more position to know than those who weren't - less, if anything.
Fat Bumbly2 - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: Memories of the time were that Thatcher was deeply unpopular up to the departure of the Task Force.
The loss of the Falklands and South Georgia was shown up as a policy FU. The mood changed once the war got going, such an old fashioned war was a bit of a novelty at the time. After victory she was home and dry, aided by the schism in the Labour Party.

Mind living in Scotland, everyone hated her, or pretended to before and after. It was like watching from the sidelines a bit.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
Have you read anything of the government of the times conduct over the Peruvian peace plan
> http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/the-peruvian-peace-plan.
> No doubt you will dismiss this too, in a few seconds ,with no evidence to counter it.

from the website "the belgrano inquiry", with the following copyright declaration:

© 2012 Belgrano Inquiry: Is Maggie Thatcher a War Criminal?

sounds an impartial source then...
stroppygob - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): I'll fight him for them.
Dominion - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

really? I never had any doubt at the time that the falklands war would not be won by us, and fairly quickly.

And I also recall a huge jingoistic response to the Argentinian invasion, led by The Sun, with whom Thatcher had a very amiable relationship with, as proven during the miner's strike...

Rupert really wanted no problems when he bought The Times, and The Sunday Times, and it's only recently been admitted that he had secret meetings with thatcher before that deal went through...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/17/rupert-murdoch-margaret-thatcher

Dominion - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Dominion:

By the way, I find it more than slightly ironic that today the main political parties have announced how they are going to deal with the regulation of the press, whilst in the High Court, The Sun agrees to pay damages to a Labour MP because they had got hold of the text messages on her stolen mobile phone...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21831000

Coel Hellier - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Dominion:

> really? I never had any doubt at the time that the falklands war would not be won by us, and fairly quickly.

You were probably underestimating the dangers, and how easily the British could have lost. They had to win quickly, they couldn't keep that taskforce there so far from any friendly port over the South Atlantic winter. One torpedo or exocet on a British carrier could have meant the British lost; without the Harrier air superiority they would have not won. Any sort of delay or stand-off, of more than a couple of weeks, would have meant the British had to withdraw, which would then de facto have been an Argentine victory.
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:

> Hasn't the UN been giving the issue a firm ignoring for a long time now?

No, actually they have been calling for Britain and Argentina to find a negotiated settlement for a long time now! Britain has refused.
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to mkean) I'm not so sure - with the Pope AND Bruce AND Naedanger on the Argentinian side we're doomed, doomed I tell you!

You're forgetting "and most of the world on the Argentinian side", but never mind, keep the old flag of empire flying, add a little more ridicule to archaism, what does it matter what the world thinks, Britain doesn't need them to keep unemployment down and the country prosperous, things are fine as they are.... etc etc etc.

Jim C - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
> Have you read anything of the government of the times conduct over the Peruvian peace plan
> [...]
>
> from the website "the belgrano inquiry", with the following copyright declaration:
>
> © 2012 Belgrano Inquiry: Is Maggie Thatcher a War Criminal?
>
> sounds an impartial source then...

I look forward to reading your own sources disputing any of the quotes ..................

Coel Hellier - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> No, actually they have been calling for Britain and Argentina to find a negotiated settlement for a
> long time now! Britain has refused.

Britain has not refused, they have just said that at any such talks the Falkanders -- you know, the people who actually live there, the people most affected -- must be present. And it is Argentina who have refused that.

Would it be acceptable to have talks determining the future of Buenos Aires without any involvement by people who actually live in Buenos Aires?
Jim C - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
but the idea that the Falklands was a cynically staged electoral gamble is tin foil hat stuff. There was, for starters, a better than evens chance that we wouldn't be able to pull it off.

I never said it was a 'cynically staged electoral gamble ' or anything suchlike, more like taking advatage of events that should have never let occured in the first place.

As for the odds, she and her government werev as dead in the water as the Navy was soon to be under her policies, she had nothing to lose (but others lives)

(And Just for the record, I think Blair has some questions to answer during his premiership) This is not a left versus right politically motivated post (apart that I have a deep distrust of all politicians of all parties.)
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> it would have seemed foolhardy as well as psychopathic

Which seems to fit her "profile" perfectly!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

its just too tempting to get drawn back in, isnt it Bruce...?

;-)

gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Clearly the UN is wrong to think that it's governments that negotiate not locals populations with no authority. Maybe you should email them to set them right?

On the "risk" of Britain losing the war it's amazing how you prove the old saying that there's nothing new under the sun... Julius Caesar did the same 2000 years ago when he exaggerated enormously the strength of his Gallic enemies, often by 10 times according to a recent book, in order to boost his own political image. Thatcher did the same, lying about the Peruvian peace plan and swiftly, and uselessly sinking the Belgrano to "burn the boats" (another trick of Caesar's too) and make the war, and her victory, unavoidable. Followed by all the spin from declared or closet tories about what a "close run thing" it all was.

Unfortunately for those concerned it also resulted in 900 or more deaths, but again, as for old Jules, what's a few dead when the political career of a megalomaniac is at stake?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> its just too tempting to get drawn back in, isnt it Bruce...?

Especially when unscrupulous wind up merchant feed lines like you did about Thatcher :-) Who could resist?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> I look forward to reading your own sources disputing any of the quotes ..................

Its not the quotes that i would dispute, its the use the site puts them to. For example:


"A Peruvian journalist (Peruvian weekly Oiga, 27.10.86) summarised the matter:

...

Concerning the content of the initiative, this journalist ascertained:

“In addition to a truce, the Peruvian initiative consisted of a withdrawal and a handing over of the administration of the islands to an international committee manned by representatives of countries acceptable to both parties in conflict. "

so, the peruvian peace plan involved the administration of the islands passing from the UK to an international committee. Its not hard to see why that would not have been acceptable to the UK. It would however probably have been a politically safer option- given the likelihood the UK could lose any war.

cheers
gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

lol, i thought it might reel you in...

;-)

gregor
dissonance - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Would it be acceptable to have talks determining the future of Buenos Aires without any involvement by people who actually live in Buenos Aires?

well its what happened to the Querandíes.
Well not so much talk as just going straight to the killing.

Still at least it wasnt the British doing the massacring so it doesnt really count.
dissonance - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Dominion:

> really? I never had any doubt at the time that the falklands war would not be won by us, and fairly quickly.

All the evidence seems to be it was very risky. If the Argentinians had held back a year the British navy would have been incapable since it was busy selling some essential ships.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> On the "risk" of Britain losing the war it's amazing how you prove the old saying that there's nothing new under the sun... Julius Caesar did the same 2000 years ago when he exaggerated enormously the strength of his Gallic enemies, often by 10 times according to a recent book, in order to boost his own political image. Thatcher did the same,

i think its widely accepted, and uncontentious that had britain lost a carrier, the war was lost; and that while exocets were available, that was a distinct possibility

also, had the argentinians worked out how to correctly adjust the timing fuse on their bombs, the loss of british warships would have been unsustainable- several ended up hit by bombs that did not explode

and anything that dragged the conflict out into the winter would lead to a de facto argentian victory, as coel says, it was not possible to keep the task force in situ over the winter months, and with time to fortify the islands, another attempt to recover them would be impossible

i dont think any of that is contentious; it was a risky war, and could easily have been lost. as a gamble to rescue thatcher's political career, it would have been a pretty desperate one.

similarly the belgrano point; it carried an exocet, and had the potential to end the war decisively in argentina's favour. in military terms, it was a justifiable decision, and was accepted as such by the argentinian navy- who withdrew to base and played no further part in the war, meaning that bombing sorties were launched from rio gallegos, at the limit of their range, rather than from the veinticinco de mayo, the argentian carrier, much closer to the islands.

cheers
gregor












Bruce Hooker - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> i think its widely accepted, and uncontentious that had britain lost a carrier, the war was lost; and that while exocets were available, that was a distinct possibility

Let's be serious for just a tiny moment, are you really saying that all concerned, not just in the government but also in the armed services, accepted an operation if it really was as risky as you, and others, are now saying? One lucky hit and the whole show was lost with thousands of deaths and total humiliation? I admit I have a low opinion of Thatcher, the tories, and, to be frank, many of those who have commanded the armed forces in the 20th century, but even I find it hard to believe that they were that irresponsible and played with the lives of those under them so lightly!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

pretty much that Bruce. the entire british strategy was to ensure the carriers were kept safe, as if one was lost, it was over. they patrolled beyond the reach of most of the fast jets that argentina had, so the only threat they faced was the 5 exocets the argentinians had- but that was a serious threat, as the fate of the sheffield showed. the only platforms that could deliver an exocet were the belgrano- hence the sinking of it, and the superetendard plane, argentina had 5.

the british had no real defence against the exocets, so the destoyers like sheffield and frigates were essentially deployed as metal, and human, shields for the carriers. they were, in effect, expendable, to preserve the carriers.

if one carrier was lost, there would have been insufficient air presence to defend the ships landing troops and supplies, and to provide cover for the troops on the islands. as the fate of the antelope, coventry, galahad and others shows, the air cover was already very thin

and as to the bombs and fuses, from wiki page on the battle for san carlos:

"in spite of the massive air defence network, the Argentine pilots were able to attack their targets but, although undoubtedly brave, some serious procedural failures prevented them from getting better results – most notably problems with their bombs' fuses. Thirteen bombs[20] hit British ships without detonating. Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked: "Six better fuses and we would have lost".

it *was* a very risky operation, and finely balanced. the argentinian troops were not all demoralised cannon fodder either, many fought intelligently and bravely. that the were put in that position at all by their criminal leadership trying to save a dying regime is the real tragedy.

i'm aware that that last point can be turned around to refer to thatcher, but any comparison between the british govt and the galtieri led junta is spurious; and it is the greatest legacy of the war that argentina has had 30 years of civilian rule since then...

cheers
gregor
Ridge - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Let's be serious for just a tiny moment, are you really saying that all concerned, not just in the government but also in the armed services, accepted an operation if it really was as risky as you, and others, are now saying?

Wheras you seem to think it involved massively superior British forces with a surplus of aircraft carriers butchering Argentine natives armed with sticks?



no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

final thought tonight bruce- this is a subject that is clearly of interest to you, i suggest you check out martin middlebrook's two books. they tell the story from both sides, and he is the only british historian who has been granted access to argentinians who took part in the war. he is felt to be pretty even handed in his account, and while on the dry side- it is a historial work rather than a polemic- it is an interesting read

and i promise you i will get round to reading about de bougainville at some point soon! a few books in the backlog to clear first, and they wont get read by me posting here....


best wishes

gregor
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Dominion)
>
> You were probably underestimating the dangers, and how easily the British could have lost.

All that Argentina would have achieved by a military success against the task force would be to raise the stakes and take the war to the mainland. Thatcher wasn't going to back down and she had plenty of scope for escalation e.g. by blockading Argentine ports with submarines. She might not have been able to retake the Falklands if she lost a carrier but she could easily have made it extremely costly to stay there.
Jim C - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
> Its not the quotes that i would dispute, its the use the site puts them to. For example:
>
>
> "A Peruvian journalist (Peruvian weekly Oiga, 27.10.86) summarised the matter:
>
> ...
>
> Concerning the content of the initiative, this journalist ascertained:
>
> “In addition to a truce, the Peruvian initiative consisted of a withdrawal and a handing over of the administration of the islands to an international committee manned by representatives of countries acceptable to both parties in conflict. "
>
> so, the peruvian peace plan involved the administration of the islands passing from the UK to an international committee. Its not hard to see why that would not have been acceptable to the UK. It would however probably have been a politically safer option- given the likelihood the UK could lose any war.
>
> cheers
> gregor

That is an interesting point, that I did not dispute Gregor,and I was aware of the conditions of the plan (it was spelt out in the Belgrano enquiry), but my concern is the UK Goverment did not just honestly negotiate it , and then honestly reject it, they pretended they had not received it, because it did not suit them. (and I believe Heseltine conceeded the point.)

Also previous to the conflict the UK Government (as I undserstand it both Labour and Conservative) had considered , if not openly negotiated with Argentina over the islands, so why then would the administration of the islands passing from the UK to an international committee be such a big issue ?
The reason, clearly in my view, (and many others) was the war was more about political ambition/survival than any concern at all over a few islanders thousands of miles away.

Thatcher had up until then had hardly been known for her care and concern for anyone, and all of a sudden we were to believe that she had developed a caring and protecting nature towards thes islanders. Pull the other one.

It is the lies that dam them, lies that were repeated by the likes of Bush & Blair with his WMD.
Skyfall - on 19 Mar 2013
What a depressing thread - showing the political leaning of the vocal usual UKC suspects - all hindsight and with little respect for those involved at the time
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No, I don't think escalating to action against mainland was ever likely

There were good military reasons to do so- the air attacks were launched from Rio gallegos and Rio grande on tierra del fuego. Disabling the runways there would have been decisive. However politically extending the scope of the war in this way was not acceptable.

If we had lost on the islands, that was it over

Cheers

Gregor
Coel Hellier - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Clearly the UN is wrong to think that it's governments that negotiate not locals populations with no authority

Your phrase "locals with no authority" -- when the topic concerns the future of *their* locality -- is very revealing. You aren't a democrat, are you?

And you are quite right, the UN are indeed wrong to consider only governments as authorities (including the large number of unelected ones), and to place far less store on democracy and the will of the people.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:

I can see your point Jim, and agree in part; if it was purely down to the fate of the islanders, I doubt if such a risky and costly venture would have been pursued. Though I think it was less about a calculation of the benefits of winning than the damage being seen to make no response would have done

Any big political decision like that is bound to have multiple components to it, and some are bound to reflect a degree of self interest; that is how it has always been. I don't think it was *purely* down to self interest though. The previous policy, of quietly arranging to offload the islands and their inhabitants to a murderous dictatorship was the grubby one, driven by convenience rather than principle. Though its fair to say this pursuit of expediency clearly contributed to the subsequent events, and that thatcher was only putting right the consequences of her governments previous lack of principle in the area

I think its different from Iraq in that the falklands decisions were taken in response to external aggression, whereas with Iraq the evidence was deployed in such a was as to engineer the conditions where aggression could be started by 'our' side.

Cheers
Gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> What a depressing thread - showing the political leaning of the vocal usual UKC suspects - all hindsight and with little respect for those involved at the time


You should have seen the previous ones then! At least this one is being conducted civilly...!

dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Your phrase "locals with no authority" -- when the topic concerns the future of *their* locality -- is very revealing. You aren't a democrat, are you?

it is a very colonial mindset isnt it?
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Your phrase "locals with no authority" -- when the topic concerns the future of *their* locality -- is very revealing. You aren't a democrat, are you?

This is about as silly as your month's long arguments that the nazis were left wing! You are just being dishonest, like Cameron. You know very well that territorial negotiations can only take place between recognised governments of the states involved. How they put together their team of negotiators is their affair, and how the British government takes account of the views of the inhabitants of the territories it materially controls is too.

The world is asking for Britain to come back to the negotiating table, nobody denies either the legitimacy of the present elected governments of Britain or Argentina and we are at peace so there is absolutely no excuse for Britain's refusal... Cameron is simply hiding behind the skirts of the population of the Malvinas.

If Argentina wanted to play the same dishonest way they would be simply refusing to accept that the British government has anything to say concerning these islands, arguing that taking them by force back in the 19th century gave Britain no sovereign rights even to negotiate. They aren't saying that, they accept to negotiate with an aggressor, they have made a step towards realism, it's Britain, supported by archaic extreme nationalist elements in the population, such as yourself, who is refusing.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: So we go back to the negotiating table, what then? 3 possible outcomes, status quo, the Falklands become Argentinian or independence.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Mike Stretford - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> If Argentina wanted to play the same dishonest way they would be simply refusing to accept that the British government has anything to say concerning these islands, arguing that taking them by force back in the 19th century gave Britain no sovereign rights even to negotiate.

Obviously that would be a ridiculous thing to do as they would then have no rights of over most of mainland Argentina.

> They aren't saying that, they accept to negotiate with an aggressor, they have made a step towards realism, it's Britain, supported by archaic extreme nationalist elements in the population, such as yourself, who is refusing.

A step towards realism would invole dropping the silly rhetoric (wouldn't be a bad idea for you too!), and start a charm offensive towards the Islanders. They've seem to have gone so far down the wrong path now to turn back.

dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> How they put together their team of negotiators is their affair, and how the British government takes account of the views of the inhabitants of the territories it materially controls is too.

if you are going to accuse people of being dishonest probably best you dont be dishonest in the following sentence.
If it is the right of the British government to put together the team how it wants how come the Argentinian government refuses to negotiate when that team contains the islanders themselves?


> If Argentina wanted to play the same dishonest way they would be simply refusing to accept that the British government has anything to say concerning these islands, arguing that taking them by force back in the 19th century gave Britain no sovereign rights even to negotiate.

ermm yes. I dont think even the Argentinian government are that hypocritical. Shall we compare the force used by the British government against the illegal penal colony (5 people leaving the majority staying) vs the conquest of the desert (without which the distance claim would be even weaker than it i now).


> They aren't saying that, they accept to negotiate with an aggressor, they have made a step towards realism, it's Britain, supported by archaic extreme nationalist elements in the population, such as yourself, who is refusing.

You really do have a reality distortion field dont you?
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Or a compromise that answers all the questions and protects the interests of all concerned? It wouldn't be that hard to work out, a couple of thousand people, vast territory and possible mineral wealth...

It's only pride and pig-headed nationalism that prevents decent people of whatever nationality of living in harmony in such favourable material conditions. It's more difficult where millions of starving people are fighting to survive like in some parts of the world.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: What is your suggested compromise?
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> You really do have a reality distortion field dont you?

You are like the lunatic who screams "You're all mad, I'm the only sane man here!"

Or maybe you are really convinced that all the world is bonkers, only those with a Union Jack flying in the back garden can see the light?
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) What is your suggested compromise?

That's hardly my job, is it?

Suggestions have been made - shared sovereignty, joint exploitation of oil and fishing, with, of course total access to mainland ports. Free movement of population, perhaps a fairly long term calendar of implementation... the usual sort of methods used in decolonisation processes throughout the world... just like in Gibraltar one of these days too.

But until negotiation get under way it's hard to be precise and the details would have to be acceptable by all parties, of which I personally am not one.

skarabrae - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> You are like the lunatic who screams "You're all mad, I'm the only sane man here!"
>

the exact same could be said of you bruce!
it all depends on your viewpoint, your adamant that your correct & offer your "evidence" & others are adamant that they are right & offer their "evidence"
your not gonna back down & neither are they, i really think its time these pointless threads be shelved, unless we all really enjoy winding each other up!! ;-)

dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Suggestions have been made - shared sovereignty,

against the Argentinian constitution

> joint exploitation of oil and fishing,

was in place, torn up by the Argentinian government.

> with, of course total access to mainland ports.

was in place, torn up by the Argentinian government.

> Free movement of population, perhaps a fairly long term calendar of implementation...

apart from the restrictions in place by the Argentinian government what in particular are you looking to change (ps spotted a trend yet?).

> the usual sort of methods used in decolonisation processes throughout the world...

which is of course the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

> But until negotiation get under way it's hard to be precise and the details would have to be acceptable by all parties, of which I personally am not one.

Ah so the islanders do count? Or are you willing to consider them secondary?
which is a problem since the Argentinians arent taking that approach and instead think that bullying the islanders is the way to convince them their interests will be best served by joining Argentina.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Would the residents of the islands be a party to your proposed negotiations?
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Or maybe you are really convinced that all the world is bonkers, only those with a Union Jack flying in the back garden can see the light?

checks rear garden for Union Jack. Damn someone must have nicked it.
Rob Exile Ward on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance: I don't know when Bruce last visited the UK, he seems to have about as misguided impression of us and our 'colonial, patriotic' attitudes as the Yanks did pre WWII.

It's just a reaction against his English public school background, I suppose, rather sad really.
New POD - on 19 Mar 2013
I hope the pope prays for a sign. And if God wants the Falklands to be Argentinian, he will 'sail' it towards the main land. If not He'll sail it North towards the UK.
If he doesn't, I assume that God doesn't give a toss, because there are staving people who the Pope should be doing something for.
Cardi - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> checks rear garden for Union Jack. Damn someone must have nicked it.

Even if it's still there, it's almost certainly a Union Flag.
skarabrae - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Cardi: unless he has a small boat in his back garden & its flying from that ;-)
elsewhere on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Cardi:
Flag or Jack - meaning is defined by usage rather the officaldom but even the officials decided a century ago.

It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that "the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#Terminology
999thAndy on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Thread:

Can someone explain why the Falkland islanders (who originated in europe and settled on an island nearish to S America) are colonialist powers, but the Argentinians (who originated in europe and settled in S America displacing the native population first) aren't?

Cheers

Andy
mkean - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:
Can someone explain why the Falkland islanders (who originated in europe and settled on an island nearish to S America) are colonialist powers, but the Argentinians (who originated in europe and settled in S America displacing the native population first) aren't?

Because Bruce said so. Do try to keep up.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to skarabrae:

Except that on this particular point the UN and many regional bodies have voted resolutions an governments have expressed their opinions publicly. Even the USA has called for negotiations to sort things out. References to all this have been published ad nauseum on previous threads.
Coel Hellier - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> You are just being dishonest, like Cameron. You know very well that territorial negotiations can
> only take place between recognised governments of the states involved.

No Bruce, I do *not* "know" that. It is *not* the case. You really are not a democrat are you? You think that only things that matter are "recognised governments", the actual people simply don't matter to you.

> If Argentina wanted to play the same dishonest way they would be simply refusing to accept that
> the British government has anything to say concerning these islands, ...

I'd have no problem with them taking that attitude, so long as they then accepted that the Islanders *did* have the main say over those islands.

> ... supported by archaic extreme nationalist elements in the population, such as yourself

If you think that an attitude of "the people who have long lived there should decide" is one of "archaic extreme nationalism" then that says everything about your reactionary, anti-democratic, Nazi-fascist communist crackpot politics.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Would the residents of the islands be a party to your proposed negotiations?

There's not much point in me replying if you don't read my replies, is there? Of course they would, I said acceptable to all parties concerned. The Argentinians say the same, by the way, officially.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Paul F - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

There must be a statute of limitation for occupation,

Falklands (by British) 1833
Argentina (by Spanish) 1502


Argentine president Cristina Kirchner claims the Falklands islanders are “an implanted population”.
Her memory must only go back to 1833.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> It's just a reaction against his English public school background, I suppose, rather sad really.

In which parallel universe did I go to a public school? As for attitudes, I only have to read these threads, the Mail, Sun or whatever, or chat in pubs when I'm there - I live both in France and Britain. Not all are as bad as those who post on this subject on ukc, thank goodness, you lot are quite something!
tony on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> There's not much point in me replying if you don't read my replies, is there? Of course they would, I said acceptable to all parties concerned. The Argentinians say the same, by the way, officially.

So why did the Argentinians pull out of talks which included representatives of the islands? Or was that an unofficial withdrawal from negotiations?
Mike Stretford - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> There's not much point in me replying if you don't read my replies, is there? Of course they would, I said acceptable to all parties concerned. The Argentinians say the same, by the way, officially.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/01/uk-argentina-britain-falklands-idUKBRE91000120130201
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to elsewhere:

The point is a great favourite of sad pedants on forums though, in real life people call it the Union Jack and will continue to do so :-)
In reply to Papillon: Don't let facts wreck Bruce's truth.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:

I've just read your article and it makes things quite clear. At least one of you posting hear admits that the Brits are refusing bilateral talks to sort the problem out. I was beginning to think none of you could read.
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to Papillon) Don't let facts wreck Bruce's truth.

i did mention this earlier but Bruce just ignored it and then started ranting about how nationalistic and imperialist i was.
Mike Stretford - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Oh good we are getting somewhere... I'm really bored of these discussions going round in circles.

Just to reiterate, when Sir Chasm said


> Would the residents of the islands be a party to your proposed negotiations?

You actually meant 'No'

Correct?
tony on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> I've just read your article and it makes things quite clear. At least one of you posting hear admits that the Brits are refusing bilateral talks to sort the problem out. I was beginning to think none of you could read.

No, the British are happy with whatever talks, s long as they include representatives of the islanders. It's the Argentinians who are setting conditions on who is allowed to attend.
elsewhere on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> The point is a great favourite of sad pedants on forums though, in real life people call it the Union Jack and will continue to do so :-)

I suppose since I think a living language is defined by usage rather than rules they're entitled as any other English speaker to change the language by their usage.

Sir Chasm - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: So in your negotiations, Bruce, how are you going to persuade the islanders that they don't want to be a British territory? Will you keep holding referendum after referendum until you finally wear them down?
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) So in your negotiations, Bruce, how are you going to persuade the islanders that they don't want to be a British territory? Will you keep holding referendum after referendum until you finally wear them down?

dont forget trying to interfere with tourism etc by banning flights and ships docking.
elsewhere on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> You know very well that territorial negotiations can only take place between recognised governments of the states involved.

That is rubbish. In most disputes at least one of the parties (eg independence movement) is not an internationally recognised state. You're arguing that no colonial power should have negotiated an end to their empires.
mypyrex - on 19 Mar 2013
Bruce, are you there? Bruce... say slowly after me - "Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falkland Islands and would only be entitled to occupy the Falkland Islands if the Falkland Islanders invited them to do so."

skarabrae - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to mypyrex: i think i just heard a noise, like a head exploding, from accross the channel ;-)
Ridge - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
>
> There must be a statute of limitation for occupation,
>
> Falklands (by British) 1833
> Argentina (by Spanish) 1502
>
> Her memory must only go back to 1833.

You, (and she), forgot:

Falklands (by Argentina) 1982

So who's the most recent rampaging colonial power?
Must be that lot with the blue and white stripey flags outside their houses.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:

You haven't read the article, have you?
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to elsewhere:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> That is rubbish. In most disputes at least one of the parties (eg independence movement) is not an internationally recognised state. You're arguing that no colonial power should have negotiated an end to their empires.

In the case of the Malvinas which independence movement are you referring to? Please stick to reality or it will get difficult for some of the ageing empire buffs reading, with difficulty apparently, this thread.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to elsewhere)
> [...]
>
> In the case of the Malvinas which independence movement are you referring to? Please stick to reality or it will get difficult for some of the ageing empire buffs reading, with difficulty apparently, this thread.

You're not that old Bruce...

;-)

Gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: God you're a self deluded arse. Any f*ckwit can 'win' (I use the term advisedly) an argument by picking on items out of context.

Your point was that discussion about sovereignty of a 3rd party could only legitimately take place between sovereign states. Patently that is not the case, as was pointed out.

So you were wrong. I don't know what to say really, you are such an immoral, corrupt and self deceiving buffoon, the miniscule nuggets you occasionally bring to this site get entirely lost in the welter of wilfully ignorant bluster you spew. Probably best, on balance, if you just f*ck off.

Is my considered opinion.
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> In the case of the Malvinas which independence movement are you referring to?

Leaving aside your inability to understand someones actual point.

In the Falklands case I suspect the islanders would be wanting independence if colonial types like yourself get their way and hand them over to the Argentinians. Bit like the Mapuche.

elsewhere on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> In the case of the Malvinas which independence movement are you referring to? Please stick to reality or it will get difficult for some of the ageing empire buffs reading, with difficulty apparently, this thread.

You're the one in the fantasy world where governments only speak to governments so new countries don't get indpendence and peace processes like NI don't happen.

Dominion - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Dominion)

> All the evidence seems to be it was very risky. If the Argentinians had held back a year the British navy would have been incapable since it was busy selling some essential ships.

You are basing your assessment on actual evidence, and military risk.

I was basing my assessment on the fact that Thatcher had staked her political life on it...

Can you see anyone who was in the Cabinet at that time having the guts to tell her she was wrong, or have the temerity to strap her into a straitjacket and have her carted off - frothing at the mouth - to an asylum?

'cos I think that is what it would have taken...
Gudrun - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

The Malvinas are not a nation.
Their people have the right to self-determination which means the right to chose their own independant sovereignty but not to chose between sovereignties.

They are saying they want to maintain the British Empire full stop.

Grab a rock on the other side of the world,put a whole lot of your people on it,throw up a sheet with some colours on it and shout "Articles 73 and 74 !"

It could catch on.

The USA put Galtieri and the other fascists in place and told them what to do internally.

Thatcher was a close friend of one of the worst.She liked them very very much.Oh she loved that little fascist!

She found a kindred spirit of that there is no doubt.

It's no surprise Galteiri invaded since he was taught well by the Americans,sucessive UK governments have supported these fascists.We even sold arms of up to £45 million to the Argentine Junta whilst they were banning Trade Unions and murdering 30,000 Communists and Leftists.That was Labour and Tory BTW and before the invasion.

Long live the lovely,friendly and oh so fair British Empire !
Rob Exile Ward on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Your analysis is spot on, as ever, except ... er, he lost. Not quite sure how that fits in your rant?
Oceanrower - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Have you changed your name yet again!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
>
> The Malvinas are not a nation.
> Their people have the right to self-determination which means the right to chose their own independant sovereignty but not to chose between sovereignties.

why not, Shona?

could they not choose to affiliate with argentina if they wished? clearly not likely at present, or for the foreseeable future given the current stance argentina takes...

but say in 50 years, when the war was part of the history books rather than in living memory, the referendum was repeated, and there was a vote not to remain a territory of Britain, but to turn to their larger neighbour for support, would you deny the Falkland islanders that right...?

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> but to turn to their larger neighbour for support, would you deny the Falkland islanders that right...?

No that would be just fine thanks.
:)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>

" The Malvinas are not a nation.
Their people have the right to self-determination which means the right to chose their own independant sovereignty but not to chose between sovereignties.> [...]"

.....but to turn to their larger neighbour for support, would you deny the Falkland islanders that right...?


> "No that would be just fine thanks."
> :)


Um... you seem to be contradicting yourself. If they chose to pool sovereignty with argentina, would that not go against your first statement?

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nah it would just be a matter of correcting a wrong.
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> They are saying they want to maintain the British Empire full stop.

Do you feel that is the same position the Bermudans have?

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

so you would allow them self determination, provided they chose an outcome that you had determined you would allow for them...?

does that not sound a bit, well, colonial...?

;-)

gregor
Gudrun - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Eh to be honest i'd have to look that one up since the only thing i know about that place is that it begins with a B.

But if you were to say Gibralta then i'd reply yes.
Gudrun - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

As i said- Their people have the right to self-determination which *means* the right to chose their own independant sovereignty but not to chose between sovereignties.

No?
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) God you're a self deluded arse. Any f*ckwit can 'win' (I use the term advisedly) an argument by picking on items out of context.
>
> Your point was that discussion about sovereignty of a 3rd party could only legitimately take place between sovereign states. Patently that is not the case, as was pointed out.
>
> So you were wrong. I don't know what to say really, you are such an immoral, corrupt and self deceiving buffoon, the miniscule nuggets you occasionally bring to this site get entirely lost in the welter of wilfully ignorant bluster you spew. Probably best, on balance, if you just f*ck off.
>
> Is my considered opinion.

You seem to be getting bitterer and bitterer... is that your public school varnish wearing off?

So you really think the Malvinas situation is comparable to independence struggles? Have the population actually asked for independence, or was this what the massive 3 vote opposition wanted? Or perhaps, as bitterness is on the floor, do you think like another poster that the Northern Ireland situation is even remotely similar to the Malvinas one?

In fact, apart from trying to sound as tough as Cameron, with as much success, what is your post trying to say, why do you think that all of S America supports Argentina on this one? Are they all "immoral, corrupt and self deceiving buffoon"s too?

Or maybe you feel weighed down by the white man's burden? Your post raises more questions than it answers, as usual.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

i couldnt say for sure, i don't know enough about international law.

but you seemed to say that if they wanted to choose to become subject to argentinian sovereignty, that would be fine by you, which seemed to contract your earlier statement, that's all...

fwiw, independence and then a voluntary defence arrangement with the UK sounds like a good way to make the 'colonial' issue go away, i think that would have been worth them considering in their referendum,

cheers
gregor

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>
>
> Or maybe you feel weighed down by the white man's burden? Your post raises more questions than it answers, as usual.

fwiw, argentina is more "white" than the UK- 97% vs 92%

just sayin...

cheers
gregor

dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> So you really think the Malvinas situation is comparable to independence struggles?

cant you just admit your claim was complete shite? Just to remind you, this is what you claimed.
" You know very well that territorial negotiations can only take place between recognised governments of the states involved"

Now are you still claiming this is the case? Simple yes or no.

> In fact, apart from trying to sound as tough as Cameron, with as much success, what is your post trying to say, why do you think that all of S America supports Argentina on this one? Are they all "immoral, corrupt and self deceiving buffoon"s too?

ah yes, Latin America? There is a hint in that name why their pronouncements on colonism really should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

The present population of the Malvinas are a garrison, put there by force by the British and maintained there by the British, at first for strategic reasons, then for the sheep and little else, then for mineral rights plus, again, strategic reasons - the British base there is one of the few military bases of a NATO power in the S hemisphere. They are not an indigenous population under colonial domination so the question of self determination does not apply. Even in the new sham constitution the islanders' government does not have authority of foreign relations, as is explained on their own web site - this is a reserved area for the British central government.

So any negotiations over sovereignty and such like can, by the very constitution elaborated to try and avoid UN criticisms, only be handled by the British government... it's written in black and white in the Falklands constitution, approved by the islanders themselves. This makes the view expressed by the hypocritical empire revivalist clowns that pop up each time the subject is discussed so ridiculous - they express opinions on the subject and yet have clearly not even read the very Falklands documents that cover it.

It's more like "The Mouse that Roared" or "Carry on up the Khyber" than serious imperial chatter, with just the slight reserve that not so long ago such jingoistic claptrap cost 900 young people their lives. It's always the young who die for the blood-lust of warmongering old (or young) fools.
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Eh to be honest i'd have to look that one up since the only thing i know about that place is that it begins with a B.
>
> But if you were to say Gibralta then i'd reply yes.

ok, lets try another. What about the Cayman islands or how about Montserrat?
Trying to maintain the Empire or, just possibly, the reasons for countries not seeking independence might be a bit more complex than that?

Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

But Rob is white, and is clearly burdened down by something tonight... can it be God choosing an Argentinian pope, getting back to the subject of the thread? I think he would be wrong to take it so personally, especially as it's well known that god always works in mysterious ways.

I wonder if he fears they may decide to plan a crusade to liberate their Holy Land lying just off their coast? I would suggest that this is unlikely as whatever may have happened in the past the present Argentinian government is democratically elected and peaceful, far more so than our own British governments of late I'm ashamed to say, and it seems they are getting ready for more in the Middle East - it took Merkel to stop the Cameron/Hollande dynamic duo launching war in Syria, which is ironical.
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> The present population of the Malvinas are a garrison, put there by force by the British and maintained there by the British,

ermm wrong.

> again, strategic reasons - the British base there is one of the few military bases of a NATO power in the S hemisphere.

leaving aside how badly wrong that claim is. Lets just take the Falklands, if it was such a important strategic resource exactly why was it manned for many years by a single company of marines with limited air supply?
The only reason it is now a half decent base is because of the invasion.


> Even in the new sham constitution the islanders' government does not have authority of foreign relations, as is explained on their own web site - this is a reserved area for the British central government.

and yet they can request independence any time they like and will get it.
So again stop sprouting shit like it means something significant.

> So any negotiations over sovereignty and such like can, by the very constitution elaborated to try and avoid UN criticisms, only be handled by the British government... it's written in black and white in the Falklands constitution, approved by the islanders themselves.

this is amusing. You are making shit up now. Please provide the exact paragraph which states the British government cant involve the islanders (remember outside of your fantasy world thats all that is being stated).
Here it is
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/The-Falkland-Islands-Constitution-Order-2008.pdf


> It's more like "The Mouse that Roared" or "Carry on up the Khyber" than serious imperial chatter, with just the slight reserve that not so long ago such jingoistic claptrap cost 900 young people their lives. It's always the young who die for the blood-lust of warmongering old (or young) fools.

it really is like dealing with a child. It is clear how you managed to end up a communist.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Yes, in this case of course, which is why the UN and even the USA are asking for this. It is a simple decolonisation question, as the UN has been saying, and voting for decades. But you know this anyway.
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Read their web site, it explains the responsibility of local and central government.
Gudrun - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> it really is like dealing with a child. It is clear how you managed to end up a communist.

Wooaw there kid !wow ! WTF !

Right! War it is.

You'll live to regret that one Dissy boy!
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Read their web site, it explains the responsibility of local and central government.

no Bruce. You back up your claim.
Show where the British government prohibits any involvement of the islanders or admit that you were being misleading in your claims.
To remind you again, this is your latest claim
" So any negotiations over sovereignty and such like can, by the very constitution elaborated to try and avoid UN criticisms, only be handled by the British government"
So it should be easy enough for you to show me where it states that the islanders are prohibited from being involved at all?
dissonance - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Wooaw there kid !wow ! WTF !

if it helps i take the same attitude to libertarians (of the US common usage of the term).

> You'll live to regret that one Dissy boy!

ah well.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> The present population of the Malvinas are a garrison...they are not an indigenous population under colonial domination so the question of self determination does not apply. Even in the new sham constitution the islanders' government does not have authority of foreign relations, as is explained on their own web site - this is a reserved area for the British central government.
>
>
they didnt look much like a garrison when i was there Bruce...

and, re: self determination, the scottish government does not have authority on foreign relations, this is a reserved power, and scots are not under colonial domination (despite what some may say...); nonetheless, i hope you will recognise their right to independence should they vote for it next year.

;-)

there are two issues here, that i think you have conflated. the right to self determination, and to declare independence, is clearly present. but until such point as independence is gained, id have thought that any negotiations with argentina over sovereignty would need to be led by the UK govt

that does not preclude the falkland island govt having representation at such talks, and indeed it would be a repulsive colonial throwback if they werent- a land and its people bundled off to another nation without having any say in the matter.


cheers
gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> It is a simple decolonisation question, as the UN has been saying, and voting for decades. But you know this anyway.

we've been through this before repeatedly Bruce, and i've demonstrated its not a decolonisation question at all.

to briefly recap:

treaty of tordesillas, pope gives the world west of the meridian, including all its lands, resources and peoples, to the spanish

de bougainville sets up colony in french name

british colony established

spanish object, citing tordesillas. french recognise this, withdraw, british dont

spanish and british colonies coexist, them both withdraw

argentina sets up settlement, claiming succession of spanish rights emanating from treaty. britain objects, having prior claim to spain, forces argentinian withdrawal

fast forward to present day

it is clearly nonsense to suggest than an appeal to decolonisation can be made off the back of the most egregiously colonial document in the history of mankind

never mind the questions that the whole affair raises over argentina's own colonial problems with the mapuche

but then, you know this anyway...!

;-)

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hey you've done well the night Bruce judging by the name calling from the Union Jack knicker brigade. Haha !

You will have to go some to out do me though,i think you need more practice.
:)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> But Rob is white, and is clearly burdened down by something tonight... can it be God choosing an Argentinian pope, getting back to the subject of the thread? I think he would be wrong to take it so personally, especially as it's well known that god always works in mysterious ways.
>
> I wonder if he fears they may decide to plan a crusade to liberate their Holy Land lying just off their coast? I would suggest that this is unlikely as whatever may have happened in the past the present Argentinian government is democratically elected and peaceful

true, i dont think there is even a remote chance of a military situation developing

i just think its a shame that its come to this. like i;ve said on previous threads, a campaign to win 'hearts and minds' over time may work where bullets didnt, and i think the islanders would be better acknowledging their position near patagonia and as potentially a south american nation, rather than a distant relic of empire

there is no chance of them doing so as long as argentina keeps up its current stance, though

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> if it helps i take the same attitude to libertarians (of the US common usage of the term)

Nope,i couldn't give a hoot what attitude you have to librarians you have uttered some nonsense that you must pay for.

And you will..ohhhh mark my word.... you will!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

oi, my knickers have got a saltire on them!

(and a partick thistle league cup champions 1971 badge sewn on...)

cheers
gregor
Paul F - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Grab a rock on the other side of the world,put a whole lot of your people on it,throw up a sheet with some colours on it

Well it worked for Columbus, Cortez, etc
Paul F - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Paul F)
> [...]
>
> You, (and she), forgot:
>
> Falklands (by Argentina) 1982


I only included when the population was displaced, not merely military occupation :o)
Dominion - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Paul F:

> Well it worked for Columbus, Cortez, etc

And for Pedro de Mendoza...
tony on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> You haven't read the article, have you?

The one that starts:
Argentina on Thursday rejected an invitation from Britain to a meeting that would include representatives of the government of the Falkland Islands

Sounds like Argentinian pre-conditions to me.
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> So it should be easy enough for you to show me where it states that the islanders are prohibited from being involved at all?

Why this persistent silliness? Like with your frequent assertions of the colonialism of Argentina, compared to Britain?! How many Argentinian gunboats roamed the world in the 19th and 20th century, or today for that matter, firing at will to impose the British point of view? How many Argentinian armies attacked peoples all over the planet? You are not the pot calling the kettle black but rather the turd saying the rose smells bad!

The point in question is that most of the world is calling on Britain and Argentina to sort out their differences over the Falkland/Malvinas. This is placed firmly by the UN in the context of the couple of dozen or so decolonisation problems left in the world. For anyone with the slightest notion of such questions it is clearly at sovereign government level that such negotiations must take place - there would be no point in people who do not have the authority to engage their country negotiating, it would be a waste of time. Britain is a sovereign nation, Argentina is a sovereign nation, the Falkland Islands/Malvinas (the official international title) are not. Argentina has been persistently calling for talks at government level, Britain has refused just as persistently since it broke off the negotiations that were on the point of succeeding years ago.

What point in this paragraph do you contest? It's very simple for all who want to see, but not you and the Ukc Imperial Caucus apparently.
Sir Chasm - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Make your mind up, earlier you said negotiations should take place between all interested parties and you stated that the islanders were an interested party.
ads.ukclimbing.com
mypyrex - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> Why this persistent silliness?
Yes Bruce, why YOUR persistent silliness? You seem to relish any opportunity to shout out your anti-Falkland Islanders, anti-Britsh stance. It reminds me of those Welsh and Scottish folk who, when England play some obscure little country at football or rugby insist on supporting them just to make the point of their antipathy towards England.
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> and, re: self determination, the scottish government does not have authority on foreign relations, this is a reserved power, and scots are not under colonial domination (despite what some may say...); nonetheless, i hope you will recognise their right to independence should they vote for it next year.

Again a totally different situation, are you really so thick or just trolling? The Scottish question is clearly between the Scottish people and the central British government, representing the British people as a whole. No other parties are involved so once the true opinion of the Scottish people has been ascertained then it will be for the British people, represented by the elected British government to react, and quite probably nowadays they will vote the various laws to break up this union, just as they did when Ireland became independent.

How can you pretend that the situation concerning the Malvinas is the same? It would be if the islanders were trying to break away from Britain but from the way they voted the other day this doesn't seem to be the case.

Dissonance does enough of a job throwing up red herrings and straw men, don't you start as well.

PS. Your tile line is wrong, but we've been through this so many times already.
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:

Please read to the end!

You could also read the Guardian article linked above, it explains the situation very well. No one has conested the content yet either... just bluster, bluster, bluster.
tony on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Please read to the end!

Well there's this bit near the end:
The islanders show no signs of wanting to break with Britain

Doesn't that count for anything?
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Do you doubt that the British delegation would represent their colonials then, or maybe include one in the delegation if official negotiations got under way? The example given just above concerned an attempt by a British politician to mark points by embarrassing an Argentinian diplomat visiting Britain, it was not a serious proposition to negotiate from one government to another. The article is quite clear about this, if you read it all, of course.
dissonance - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Why this persistent silliness?

So you cant provide proof?

> Like with your frequent assertions of the colonialism of Argentina, compared to Britain?!

oh you have got to be f*cking trolling now. Surely no one can be this dense?
You can start with the Conquest of the Desert, follow it up with Gran Chaco. Could mention Argentinas failed attempt to annex Paraguay completely although it did manage partial.

Oh and the settling of Argentina in the first place.

> How many Argentinian armies attacked peoples all over the planet?

well their parent country did and they had a damned good attempt locally. Just that they werent as competent as it really isnt a defence.

> The point in question is that most of the world is calling on Britain and Argentina to sort out their differences over the Falkland/Malvinas. This is placed firmly by the UN in the context of the couple of dozen or so decolonisation problems left in the world.

ah yes the decolonisation committee. Had a purpose originally but now with its restrictive frame of reference is just a waste of time.
Perhaps it should refocus on those people who want independence but arent getting it?

> For anyone with the slightest notion of such questions it is clearly at sovereign government level that such negotiations must take place - there would be no point in people who do not have the authority to engage their country negotiating, it would be a waste of time.

are you deliberately muddying the waters or are you just clueless?

> Argentina has been persistently calling for talks at government level, Britain has refused just as persistently since it broke off the negotiations that were on the point of succeeding years ago.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. I know this is hard but you really need to stop lying. You arent in a pub and hence people can turn up all sorts of inconvenient documents.
Here is that nice link posted earlier.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/01/uk-argentina-britain-falklands-idUKBRE91000120130201

Here is the relevant part.
"Timerman's letter came in response to an invitation to visit the foreign office during a visit to London this week. Representatives of the Falklands were also invited."

So, once again you are talking shite.
Sir Chasm - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: You said yesterday that the islanders should be party to the negotiations. Have you changed your mnd?
tony on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> Do you doubt that the British delegation would represent their colonials then, or maybe include one in the delegation if official negotiations got under way? The example given just above concerned an attempt by a British politician to mark points by embarrassing an Argentinian diplomat visiting Britain,

Why should the presence of Falkland Islanders embarrass an Argentinian diplomat? After all, if the Argentinians want the islands, they're going to have to talk to the islanders?
Mike Stretford - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> Why this persistent silliness? Like with your frequent assertions of the colonialism of Argentina, compared to Britain?! How many Argentinian gunboats roamed the world in the 19th and 20th century, or today for that matter, firing at will to impose the British point of view? How many Argentinian armies attacked peoples all over the planet?

More bluster bluster bluster!

The fact is the Argentinians were engaged in the same sort of colonialism as the British at that time. Europeans displacing the native population to establish their own settlements (Conquest of the Desert being the most infamous, which until quite recentley was commemorated on their banknotes).

The only act of aggression, or 'colonialism' whithin living memory is the 1982 invasion by Agentina, and that is the reason the situation is were it is now.

Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to mypyrex:

> You seem to relish any opportunity to shout out your anti-Falkland Islanders, anti-Britsh stance.

I am neither, I just don't agree with your views on this subject - you don't have a monopoly on opinion. Some people in Britain believe in empire, others don't. It is a democracy, you have no right to deny me my opinions. Concerning the Malvinas, I believe this is a simple colonial situation and should be settled in the same way as our other colonial situations were. This is the consistent UN view, that of all S American countries and most countries in the world. You disagree apparently, and you have the right to do so, but don't deny me the same right, especially since you in such a tiny minority in the world on the subject.

The attitude of the British government on this is a blot on it's image throughout the world, and is in the interest neither of Britain, as a trading nation, or the inhabitants of the islands themselves - in my opinion. I think that your attitude is objectively archaic, short sighted and ultimately anti-British too.
Kemics - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

At the risk of creating the meta troll thread:

If the Falkland Islanders arn't allowed an opinion on their nationality. Well why are Palestinians? :)

Mike Stretford - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> Argentina has been persistently calling for talks at government level, Britain has refused just as persistently since it broke off the negotiations that were on the point of succeeding years ago.
>

Talks were at a stale mate prior to the invasion. Britian maintained the right of self determination to the Islanders... not unreasonable a stance given the Argentine government of the day. At the same time subtle pressure was applied to the Islanders by Britian in the form of citizenship rights (British Nationality Act 1981).

We all know what happended next and its implications, your attempt to gloss over it speaks volumes.

MG - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Why do you care so much about the Falklands? At worst it would be a small anomaly if things continue as they are.
John Rushby - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

It's because, like most who steadfastly follow a political ideology that's been rendered obsolete by the massive social political and economic change he has to force highly complex situations into the constructed tube of political dogma.

Like a storm washed Ahab clinging to the silvery thrashing flanks of Moby Dick, he's desperately trying to hold onto what is the very centre of his being, whilst the world sails past obilvious.



That, and when not playing his Souxsaphone or whatever , a man needs a hobby.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Re my time line, please point to the bit that's wrong...

Cheers

Gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to John Rushby:


Lol, that wins metaphor of the month john...!
dek - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to MG)
> That, and when not playing his Souxsaphone or whatever , a man needs a hobby.
Has that Pope vacancy been filled yet?
The Argy Bargy Queen, Kirchner has agreed to swap Lionel Messi, for the islands...... Let's talk! She is also muttering about reclaiming Vatican City.


Mike Stretford - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

Exactly, this affects more people and has a concrete moral aspect to it (and UN backing)

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/19/un-calls-on-argentina-to-stop-eviction-of-indigenous-peoples-fro...

So why not make that your cause Bruce?

Quite frankly Bruce's and Argentina's continued inappropriate use of the word 'colonialism' is an insult to those who realy did suffer from European colonialism in Africa and all of the Americas.
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> Here is the relevant part.
> "Timerman's letter came in response to an invitation to visit the foreign office during a visit to London this week. Representatives of the Falklands were also invited."

Which is exactly what I said, it was just a point marking bit of childishness, not a proposition for serious talks about the Malvinas at government level.

> So, once again you are talking shite.

Another clincher argument, I don't think you will be chosen as part of the GB negotiating team when Cameron sees sense, or his successor which would be more likely.

I wonder how much unpopularity Britain, and hence it's products, has to build before the schoolboy ruffian elements get talked down. For a trading nation to persistently stick two fingers up to their potential customers seems an odd way to fight Britain's economic and political decline.
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Kemics:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> If the Falkland Islanders arn't allowed an opinion on their nationality. Well why are Palestinians? :)

So the present inhabitants of the Malvinas are a native population like the Palestinians? Most of them weren't even born there and the British military occupation of this part of Argentina only took place in 1833... after two unsuccessful invasion attempts on the main land to set up a naval staging post there.

You must all feel pretty shaky on this one as we've had posters comparing it to Scotland, N Ireland and now Palestine... why not stick to the situation of Argentina if you are so sure of your arguments?

PS. No one has suggested taking the present islander's nationality away form them... Where did you get this idea from?
ads.ukclimbing.com
mkean - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I wonder how much unpopularity Britain, and hence it's products, has to build before the schoolboy ruffian elements get talked down. For a trading nation to persistently stick two fingers up to their potential customers seems an odd way to fight Britain's economic and political decline.

Isn't doing China much harm. Maybe the problem with the UK is we don't have enough mobile execution centers and we haven't annexed anywhere with a good concentration of rare earth metals?
MJ - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No one has suggested taking the present islander's nationality away form them... Where did you get this idea from?

What Nationality would the children of the current population be?
dissonance - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:

> Quite frankly Bruce's and Argentina's continued inappropriate use of the word 'colonialism' is an insult to those who realy did suffer from European colonialism in Africa and all of the Americas.

it is rather unpleasant. As are the demands that the UK treat the Falklands as a colony and ignore the wishes of the people living there.
Kemics - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

yup a mere 200 years is a blip in the ocean. How many generations exactly make you a native?...seeing how the Islands were uninhabited in the first place.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Remind me which bit of my time line was wrong again Bruce...?

Cheers

Gregor
Rachel W on 20 Mar 2013
tony on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> Which is exactly what I said, it was just a point marking bit of childishness, not a proposition for serious talks about the Malvinas at government level.
>
The point being made was that the islanders should be involved in discussions. What's childish about that?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> The point in question is that most of the world is calling on Britain and Argentina to sort out their differences over the Falkland/Malvinas. This is placed firmly by the UN in the context of the couple of dozen or so decolonisation problems left in the world. For anyone with the slightest notion of such questions it is clearly at sovereign government level that such negotiations must take place - there would be no point in people who do not have the authority to engage their country negotiating.

This would be contrary to the United Nations Documents on the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

So by refusing to negotiate with the UK and representatives of the Falkland people, Argentina are breaching the human rights of those on the island.

Is that what you are saying?

tony on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
>
> Is that what you are saying?

Bruce has consistently made it clear, with what appears to have been one minor aberration yesterday, that he doesn't give a hoot for the islanders.
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> Bruce has consistently made it clear, with what appears to have been one minor aberration yesterday, that he doesn't give a hoot for the islanders.

But does this mean he believes that the UN document A/AC.109/2012/L.6, the draft resolution relating to the Falklands situation approved on 14 June 2012 usurps the UN Charter for Human Rights in a game of top trumps?

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:

Bruce fully buys into the Argentinian line, which is that the islanders are colonial occupiers of Argentinian territory. Taken at face value, then he is right; were this analysis correct, then the islanders would have no right to choose to perpetuate a colonial occupation. The people of Hong Kong were not allowed to chose to remain part of Britain when the lease ended.

However, this analysis has been rebutted repeatedly over many threads and many months. His point that the Northern Ireland situation is not a valid comparison is fair to be honest, but by the same token, parallels with other decolonisation processes are also invalid. the UN committees view is not especially illuminating- they would say that wouldn't they?- it represents the combined self interest of the nations that participate, and the facts of the case are likely to play second fiddle to wider political messages supporting the pro Argentina position sends. It is not a unified position either; most EU nations support the British position, but I wouldn't make any play on that, as again they would say that, wouldn't they...?

What Bruce wont answer is why the islanders shouldn't have a presence at any negotiations, even if the final decision does not lie with them. Even if the Argentinian position is correct- which is isn't- there is no suggestion that the islanders would be expelled on transfer of sovereignty, so they would become Argentinian citizens and entitled to vote in Argentinian elections. Since when have politicians not wished to speak to their electorate...? Some sort of formal discussions with the islanders over transfer arrangements would be a no brainer, and that Argentina wishes to avoid this can be legitimately interpreted in a negative light.

But of course the islanders are not 'pirates', and Argentinas claim to sovereignty is bogus. I've repeated the evidence ad nauseam over the years, from the ludicrous provenance of the Argentinian claim ( in the final analysis, the decree of a fifteenth century pope), to the preexistence of british settlement on the islanders before spanish, to the geographical distance of the islands from Argentina as it existed in the 1830s, to the genocidal expansionist colonial process that led to Argentina expanding to be near the islands, to the ethnic makeup of argentina (97% of european origin) demonstating that it is clearly a colonial nation, and finally the very real colonial issue within present day Argentina, with ongoing suppression of the rights of the indigenous peoples of the land

On previous threads I've invited Bruce to rebut any of these points, but to date, I've had no engagement in this, he just repeats the same tried old points as if the evidence showing they are invalid isn't there for every else to see....

It must be boring for regular viewers of these events to see me trotting out the same stuff for the 142nd time, but there may be new readers unfamiliar with the arguments, so as long as Bruce keep spreading the disinformation I'll keep on countering it....

And you never know, maybe one day Bruce will see the light and admit he's come to the wrong conclusions on this one...

;-)

Cheers

Gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

I think you should look up the meaning of "a people" in the context of the UN declaration. For example, the inhabitants of the Isle of White are not "a people", they are people of course but not a people in the sense of self determination. It's important to understand the exact meanings of such terms in this sort of document. If you google "self determination" you will find texts that explain this. All of this is, of course, open to debate, if it was simple then the world wouldn't be continually rent by war, and in this case 900 people wouldn't have senselessly died in a war 30 years ago.

In terms of negotiating, giving the status of the inhabitants of the Falklands/Malvinas, as a "British Overseas Territory"*, newspeak for "colony", their views will, one would hope, be taken into consideration by HM government but they do not constitute a distinct independent people. Their external affairs are handled by Britain.

To quote the Falkland Islands web site, which frankly you and others could have looked at yourselves, : http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/

"Elected Members have a substantial measure of responsibility for the conduct of affairs concerning the Falkland Islands, although the Governor retains responsibility for foreign affairs and defence. The Governor nevertheless consults regularly with Members on these issues."


* NB. "The name "British Overseas Territory" was introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, replacing the name British Dependent Territory introduced by the British Nationality Act 1981. Before 1981, the territories were known as Crown colonies."
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> so they would become Argentinian citizens and entitled to vote in Argentinian elections.

They already are Argentinian citizens and can have an Argentinian ID card and passport.

As for not replying, I've replied so many times that it gave me the highly dubious position of number 2 poster behind TobyA last year and I have no intention of repeating that this year. You continually repeat your version of history, I tell you where I disagree and then a few months later you post the same dubious stuff again and again ask me to to explain where you are mistaken, as bold as brass, or in fact as a troll as all you do really is fight a war of attrition until it becomes to tedious to reply yet again.

Just one example, and I'll give no more, repetition is just too boring; I have said dozens of times that any solution must take into account the interests and views of the present islanders, who are clearly just being used as pawns in the whole game, and in this I am echoing the views expressed numerous times by the Argentinian government, and yet I am accused, repeatedly, often in the same thread, of quite the opposite - quite extraordinary! But alas only too typical of the dishonest debating methods used on this subject by the empire revivalists, of which you are one of the most flagrant.

You are doing it again here and on top lying by saying I haven't replied to your questions! I have but you take no heed, don't even read the references I have given loads of times. If your position was so clearly right, and it's clearly wrong in numerous ways, why would most of the world's governments support Argentina?

Why do you do this? The only answer I can see is that you have a racist or xenophobic attitude to all these millions of people, you just don't think they or their views have any value.
Coel Hellier - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I have said dozens of times that any solution must take into account the interests and views of the present islanders ...

Actually, most times you've only said that the "interests" of the Islanders must be taken into account, not their "views".

But, since you've now said that, suppose that the "views" of the Islanders were overwhelmingly against the Islands becoming part of Argentina, would that wish prevail or would you want it over-ruled by the wishes of the Argentinians?
mypyrex - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: OK Bruce, I accept and agree that you are entitled to your opinion along with the UN and a number of other countries. However, this does not mean that you are right, neither should it entitle anyone to treat the residents of the Falkland Islands the the contempt that they are treating them.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
First of all, thanks for taking the time to make a considered reply to me Bruce. I can assure you i'm not trolling, it just happens to be a subject that i both have opinions on, and a fair degree of knowledge about.

I think part of the problem is the method of communication- posting ping pong replies invariably means that you have to abbreviate, to the point that key parts of the message may be unclear. coupled with the lack of context you get in a face to face conversation, its easy to misunderstand what is meant when replying. i expect if we were having this discussion over a pint, we'd be much clearer about where each other stood.

for example, you clearly honestly believe you've answered my points, but i can't see that you have. not saying either of us is wrong, it could be we are just missing each other along the way. but: i genuinely can;t see what's wrong with the timeline i posted above; the sequence of events is taken from the wikipedia article, and wiki is not necessarily 100% reliable, but ive never seen any source that provides a different sequence.

and the point about argentina being colonial power is a relevant one. its citizens are an implanted european population living on the lands it took from indigenous peoples by force. not having a go at argentina; virtually every scrap of land currently inhabited has been contested by different peoples over the millennia, thats just what people do, and argentina is no better or worse than anywhere else. but it does have a bearing on their appeal to principles of decolonisation. if the falklands are returned to argentina, then patagonia has to be returned to the mapuche...

and: i feel that you dont engage with my replies at times too, and acknowledge i've answered points you raise- eg the one about why some other governments support argentina. as i said, for the same reason many support britain; a calculation of where their national interest is. government's positions on most things are driven by realpolitik rather than ethics for most of the time. i dont see that this is an exception.


re: your view of the islanders, thanks for the clarification, again its easy to draw the wrong inferences from posts. sorry if i've misinterpreted you. and ive come round to agreeing with you in part on the issue of talks, in the current situation, negotiations over sovereignty can only be led by the UK and argentina. however, as an interested party, it would seem reasonable that the islanders were represented, even if they were not able to formally and legally take part the final decision. would you be in support of this, and if not, why not?

as to the final point you make, there is no need to raise allegations of racism. i've been civil to you throughout this thread, and i do respect you have a genuinely held difference of opinion from me on this. i dont think there is any need for either of us to cast aspirations on the others sense of morality. for a start, it would make no sense for my attitude towards argentina to be racist- they are almost exclusively white and of european origin!

and my issue is not with the argentinian people, but the policies of their government. i expect its the same with you and israel- you dont actually hate jews, but just disagree strongly with the decisions their leaders have taken.

in fact, i have a very high regard for argentina, and its people- this may sound strange given my posts on the topic, but thats what i mean about having a debate over a beer leading to far fewer misunderstandings, because it takes less time to explain than it does to type. i've travelled widely in the country, and would love to go back- particularly to see fitzroy and cerro torre, and to visit the cities of the NW like cordoba.

anyway, no offence meant with my posts,

and if you are passing bradford feel free to continue this over a pint of timmy taylors...!

cheers
gregor
andyathome - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
> First of all, thanks for taking the time to make a considered reply to me Bruce. I can assure you i'm not trolling, it just happens to be a subject that i both have opinions on, and a fair degree of knowledge about.
>
> I think part of the problem is the method of communication- posting ping pong replies invariably means that you have to abbreviate, to the point that key parts of the message may be unclear. coupled with the lack of context you get in a face to face conversation, its easy to misunderstand what is meant when replying. i expect if we were having this discussion over a pint, we'd be much clearer about where each other stood.
>
> for example, you clearly honestly believe you've answered my points, but i can't see that you have. not saying either of us is wrong, it could be we are just missing each other along the way. but: i genuinely can;t see what's wrong with the timeline i posted above; the sequence of events is taken from the wikipedia article, and wiki is not necessarily 100% reliable, but ive never seen any source that provides a different sequence.
>
> and the point about argentina being colonial power is a relevant one. its citizens are an implanted european population living on the lands it took from indigenous peoples by force. not having a go at argentina; virtually every scrap of land currently inhabited has been contested by different peoples over the millennia, thats just what people do, and argentina is no better or worse than anywhere else. but it does have a bearing on their appeal to principles of decolonisation. if the falklands are returned to argentina, then patagonia has to be returned to the mapuche...
>
> and: i feel that you dont engage with my replies at times too, and acknowledge i've answered points you raise- eg the one about why some other governments support argentina. as i said, for the same reason many support britain; a calculation of where their national interest is. government's positions on most things are driven by realpolitik rather than ethics for most of the time. i dont see that this is an exception.
>
>
> re: your view of the islanders, thanks for the clarification, again its easy to draw the wrong inferences from posts. sorry if i've misinterpreted you. and ive come round to agreeing with you in part on the issue of talks, in the current situation, negotiations over sovereignty can only be led by the UK and argentina. however, as an interested party, it would seem reasonable that the islanders were represented, even if they were not able to formally and legally take part the final decision. would you be in support of this, and if not, why not?
>
> as to the final point you make, there is no need to raise allegations of racism. i've been civil to you throughout this thread, and i do respect you have a genuinely held difference of opinion from me on this. i dont think there is any need for either of us to cast aspirations on the others sense of morality. for a start, it would make no sense for my attitude towards argentina to be racist- they are almost exclusively white and of european origin!
>
> and my issue is not with the argentinian people, but the policies of their government. i expect its the same with you and israel- you dont actually hate jews, but just disagree strongly with the decisions their leaders have taken.
>
> in fact, i have a very high regard for argentina, and its people- this may sound strange given my posts on the topic, but thats what i mean about having a debate over a beer leading to far fewer misunderstandings, because it takes less time to explain than it does to type. i've travelled widely in the country, and would love to go back- particularly to see fitzroy and cerro torre, and to visit the cities of the NW like cordoba.
>
> anyway, no offence meant with my posts,
>
> and if you are passing bradford feel free to continue this over a pint of timmy taylors...!
>
> cheers
> gregor

That has to be one of the most gracious and balanced posts I have ever seen on UKC. Even if you agree/disagree with the sentiments expressed.

Keep it up!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to andyathome:

thanks andy!

and to be fair to Bruce, i have been incredibly rude to him in the past on the forums...

but i realised the digs were getting in the way of actually getting anywhere with the debate, so i've been making a conscious effort to keep things civil in recent months,

cheers
gregor
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
> I think you should look up the meaning of "a people" in the context of the UN declaration. For example, the inhabitants of the Isle of White are not "a people", they are people of course but not a people in the sense of self determination. It's important to understand the exact meanings of such terms in this sort of document. If you google "self determination" you will find texts that explain this. All of this is, of course, open to debate, if it was simple then the world wouldn't be continually rent by war, and in this case 900 people wouldn't have senselessly died in a war 30 years ago.

Please note, there is no recognised legal definition of "peoples" but one of the definitions known by the legal bods of the UN is simply "that a people is a group of individuals who unanimously choose a separate state". If the folks on the Isle of White unanimously choose to be a separate state based on self determination then it could be possible. I hear Scotland is actually up for it and they are also governed at this moment in time.
>
> In terms of negotiating, giving the status of the inhabitants of the Falklands/Malvinas, as a "British Overseas Territory"*, newspeak for "colony", their views will, one would hope, be taken into consideration by HM government but they do not constitute a distinct independent people. Their external affairs are handled by Britain.
>
> To quote the Falkland Islands web site, which frankly you and others could have looked at yourselves, : http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/

I guess you missed the end of that webpage which links to their opinion of self-determination, which frankly you and others could have looked at yourselves http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/self-determination/

"Self-Determination

The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principal known as self-determination. It states that The Purposes of the United Nations are:

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”.

* NB. Self-determination is also considered a fundamental human right, with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
In exercising this right, the people of the Falkland Islands have decided to retain their status as an Overseas Territory of the UK.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: oh and Bruce, genuine question I posed earlier "Do you believe that the UN document A/AC.109/2012/L.6, the draft resolution relating to the Falklands situation approved on 14 June 2012 usurps the UN Charter for Human Rights in a game of top trumps?"
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> if the falklands are returned to argentina, then patagonia has to be returned to the mapuche...

And what about the USA, Canada, pretty well all of the American continent? The only place I can see with an indigenous majority, and which are at present in a situation of some power is Bolivia, all the rest the Spanish, British, Scottish, Irish, German origin immigrants have taken over. In the North the last Indian wars finished in the 20th century so it is not a question of timing, in fact the Spanish were the first to start colonising. Since then Bolivar & co fought their wars of independence and the mixed bag of native and ex-colonisers have become independent and democratic. Maybe in an ideal world the USA would pack it's bags and head back to Europe and Africa but are you seriously suggesting this?

As for my being courteous, you can hardly say that on this thread you have been, you know I'm fed up with these repeated threads but you just keep trying to drag me in while making totally discourteous remarks about me. I can stand a bit of flack from people who defend what I consider to be despicable political views, and the present resurrection of British imperialism throughout the world is truly despicable but in that case you can't have it both ways.

As for the time line, wikipedia, as you know is a very variable media, the articles change all the time and the French version is not the same as the English, especially on such a poorly documented questions. The only real effective colony, with the implantation of civilians, building and farming was the French one, which was also the first human settlement, in 1764. A British ship staked a claim too but afterwards, but there was no actual serious settling effort, just symbolic ones. De Bougainville even went back to France and returned with more material and settlers. This is a fundamental difference.

Then the Franco/Spanish "family pact" came into play, the king of France accepted the family request and the French colony was transferred to Spain, with money changing hands. The islands were not totally evacuated. You don't mention the sending of 1400 Spanish troops in 1770 to overcome squabbling between Spanish and British ships in the area and firmly demonstrate Spanish sovereignty. The transfer from Spain to the independent state in 1816 was quite natural and although activity was reduced and unofficial for a while the islands were always inhabited. There is little documentation about this period. A penal settlement was established in 1932 but a stronger British military force took over in 1833.

It is also rather disingenuous to present things as if Argentina neglected the islands justifying the British take over given that at the time the whole area was grappling with fighting for independence from Spain - the colonial power in this part of the world and also in various civil wars. Britain just took advantage of this to stake a colonial claim as staging point on the route to California which was starting to become important. At the time this what Britain did, they saw a bit of undefended land which interested them so they just took it... But times have changed, the empire days are over and it's time some people realised that - the rest of the world has. Macmillan must be turning in his grave.
Bruce Hooker - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

I'm getting fed up with repeating all this, I've made my opinion known, copiously, it is a very common one on this subject, nothing outlandish except in UKIP circles perhaps, so you can disagree if you want but don't act as if you don't understand. I've posted links in past debates which explain that there are different interpretations on all this, for Gibraltar, to give another example, the Spanish position is that the UN accepted right of territorial integrity trumps, to use your expression, that of self determination. The issue is quite complex in legal terms as other conventions come in, such as the Geneva Convention which refers to disputed territories, the duty of belligerent nations not to transfer civilian populations in such zones... but all this has been said umpteen times already in previous threads.

Otherwise it would be so simple, a strong power takes a bit of poorly defended land, drives out or kills the inhabitants, moves in a few thousand of it's own nationals to rebuild and till the land, then calls for an self determination referendum, and Bob's your uncle, the aggressor has become the legitimate legal owner.

Any similarities between this scenario and one that has actually taken place on some islands in the Southern hemisphere are purely accidental.
dissonance - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> And what about the USA, Canada, pretty well all of the American continent? The only place I can see with an indigenous majority, and which are at present in a situation of some power is Bolivia,

ermm yes thats the point. You are supporting a bunch of colonists who are still suppressing the original inhabitants to this day.
Not content with that you want to extend this to another set of people.
The sheer gall you show in accusing anyone who disagrees with your colonial dreams of being pro colonisation is stunning.



> in fact the Spanish were the first to start colonising. Since then Bolivar & co fought their wars of independence and the mixed bag of native and ex-colonisers have become independent and democratic.

you mean the colonisers with the natives being suppressed. Hence the mention of the Mapuche.

> I can stand a bit of flack from people who defend what I consider to be despicable political views, and the present resurrection of British imperialism throughout the world is truly despicable but in that case you can't have it both ways.

this would be funny if it wasnt so sad. Why do you keep making this claim when it has been explained to you multiple times in very simple terms?


> As for the time line, wikipedia, as you know is a very variable media, the articles change all the time and the French version is not the same as the English, especially on such a poorly documented questions. The only real effective colony, with the implantation of civilians, building and farming was the French one, which was also the first human settlement, in 1764. A British ship staked a claim too but afterwards, but there was no actual serious settling effort, just symbolic ones

erm wrong. The British ship was in 1690. Perhaps you are confusing it with the settlement built in 1766 which was, as you note attacked by the Spanish although you fail to mention the Spanish crown disavowed the attack and the settlement was resumed (with both countries retaining a claim).

> It is also rather disingenuous to present things as if Argentina neglected the islands justifying the British take over given that at the time the whole area was grappling with fighting for independence from Spain - the colonial power in this part of the world and also in various civil wars.

you forgot to mention massacres of the natives. Now what were you saying about empires and colonisation?

> Britain just took advantage of this to stake a colonial claim as staging point on the route to California which was starting to become important.

errmm, what?

> At the time this what Britain did, they saw a bit of undefended land which interested them so they just took it...

unlike the Argentinians who were busy killing the inhabitants of the nearby lands.

> But times have changed, the empire days are over and it's time some people realised that - the rest of the world has.

really so why are you cheerleading various countries who want to build empires?
Ridge - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
>
> Otherwise it would be so simple, a strong power takes a bit of poorly defended land, drives out or kills the inhabitants, moves in a few thousand of it's own nationals to rebuild and till the land, then calls for an self determination referendum, and Bob's your uncle, the aggressor has become the legitimate legal owner.

A very good description of how Argentina came into being..
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hi Bruce,

No I'm not suggesting at all that all peoples of European origin should evacuate the Americas... But pointing out that the same rules should apply to all. I don't expect that Argentina will turn the clock back 150 years and turn over sovereignty of Patagonia to the Mapuche, though greater recognition of their plight would be the decent thing to do. Neither do I expect Argentina to turn the clock back to 1832 re the Falklands. We are where we are.

And your own words on the french settlement make my case for me- I still contend that a large part of the reason that France ceded the islands was the oft mentioned treaty. No matter; if it was just a bit of family business between the hereditary elite of 17th century Europe, that's even worse. It has always struck me as odd that you don't see a problem with the land and its people being swapped by the privileged like trading cards, and don't see that as an example of colonialism pure and simple. And yet that's where Argentinas claim derives from; the family dynamics of royalty 250 years ago! I don't think I'm alone in finding Argentinas appeal to the principles of decolonisation spurious as a result.

As to not mentioning things, it's odd you don't mention that in 1771, the dispute between Spain and Britain was settled, with the British settlement being restored and Spain making restitution. And that the Spanish settlement was abandoned in 1811.

And it would be fair if you could point out where I have been discourteous to you in this thread- I wonder if you are mixing me up with some other posters.

Anyhow, best wishes,

Gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> A very good description of how Argentina came into being..


Indeed.and while indigenous populations have been treated shoddily by Europeans throughout the Americas, there are few examples to match the conquest of the desert for cold brutality. It was intended to be genocide, not just a land grab.

If ever there were a people that deserved our support, as opponents of colonialism, it is the Mapuche, as their suppression continues to this day. Bruce, can you explicitly condemn Argentinas policy towards its indigenous minority and affirm your opposition to colonialism,wherever you find it? Your general comments about it happening everywhere in the continent seem to fall short of an unequivocal and specific condemnation of this specific case- but like I said above, that may be due to the constraints of the medium and I don't want to put words in your mouth...

Cheers

Gregor
skarabrae - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: are we all done then? Did we reach agreement that Argentina has no legitimate right to the islands? & did Bruce agree? ;-)
Trangia - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

Saw this on another forum

"Easy solution for Cyprus, all convert to catholicism then write a begging letter to the new Pope, he did say it was going to be a church for the poor, plus being Argentinian he will be well used to grabbing Islands that don't belong to him."














Deviant - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
>
> Saw this on another forum
>
> "Easy solution for Cyprus, all convert to catholicism then write a begging letter to the new Pope, he did say it was going to be a church for the poor, plus being Argentinian he will be well used to grabbing Islands that don't belong to him."


Thank the Lord for a little humour !

There's absolutely no chance of Britain handing-over the Falklands, so end of debate and rightly-so !
mypyrex - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): I think we should send Bruce there for a holiday.
Bruce Hooker - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Bruce, can you explicitly condemn Argentinas policy towards its indigenous minority and affirm your opposition to colonialism,wherever you find it?

When you condemn all the invasions, hundreds of them, performed by Britain when it built the biggest empire the world had ever see, including the Malvinas!

Perhaps instead of inventing events and rewriting history, I can't be bothered to correct each lie you post, (or dissonance) I've done it time enough already, you could try and find a South American to give you their version of things? The Spanish conquests were 4 or 5 centuries ago, England still owned Calais and France, Italy, Germany etc didn't even exist in their present forms, they were yet to be carved out of what existed at the time, by war and all sorts of violence. That was how it was done back then and to reason, if it can be called reasoning, in 21st century terms about the world then is of little use.

However, since the end of WW2 there has been a change of attitude, from praising empire and colonialism - I went to a university which is still called "Imperial College"! - and even between the wars imperial exhibitions to show off the colonies were still common in Britain, France and maybe elsewhere. WW2 changed that, the "wind of change" came along blown by a Conservative in Britain... and that was the end of the colonial period.

Britain withdrew from it's colossal empire with comparative good grace, compared to France which fought horrendous wars of decolonization in Indochina and Algeria and left scars even today. Spain had lost her colonies in S America long before, resulting in states which were to a lesser of greater extent "métise"... You go on about the violent episodes but ignore, dishonestly, that even in the S part of S America many natives mixed with those of Spanish descent and if you look at TV film of S America today you can see that the populations are mixed. No one can turn the clock back, but the people of today are not responsible for the wars of the past, anymore than we are for our bloodthirsty arrogant ancestors and overall most of S America is now democratic and trying to solve the problems of living together, at least as well as they are in N America.

On the other hand no S American gun-boats roam the world, no S American military bases are dotted all over the world, no S American aircraft or drones bomb people in Asia and the Middle East, and coming back to the subject no islands on the opposite side of the planet are occupied by S Americans claiming to this day their "colonial" rights. You, and your acolytes really should do something about the beam in your own eyes before you moan about the speck of dust in S American eyes.
The New NickB - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Have you been to Argentina Bruce? I have, I suspect Gregor has as well. It is a wonderful country, but not without darkness throughout much of its history. I even visited Rio Gallegos, the nearest Argentine port to the Falklands and the home of many veterans, I also visited the veterans camp in Plaza De Mayo and the Malvinas Memorial in Plaza San Martin. I spoke to a number of Argentines who were embarrassed by their governments position on the Falklands. They just saw it as cover for other failures.
Coel Hellier - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> France, Italy, Germany etc didn't even exist in their present forms, they were yet to be carved out of
> what existed at the time, by war and all sorts of violence.

Err, yes Bruce. Ditto for "Argentina", then the United Provinces of the River Plate.

> No one can turn the clock back, but the people of today are not responsible for the wars of the past ...

Yep exactly, so for *all* of the reasons in your post, events around 1833 are *not* *relevant* to the issue of what should happen to the Falklands today!

> ... no islands on the opposite side of the planet are occupied by S Americans claiming to this day their "colonial" rights.

But vast tracts of South America are indeed occupied by descendants of European colonists claiming to this day their "colonial" rights.

Why do some descendants of European colonists gain rights to the country they live in owing to their families having lived there for generations, when other descendants of European colonists do not?
dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

leaving aside Bruces fantasies. Some more papers have been released about the Falklands war from Thatchers archives. An interesting summary here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/22/thatcher-papers-show-falklands-doubts
Mike Stretford - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)

>
> Spain had lost her colonies in S America long before, resulting in states which were to a lesser of greater extent "métise"...

Then how do you account for 85% of the Agentine population being "European"

http://tinyurl.com/d88vv39

CIA says 97% but I took the strictest I could find, which excludes "'Mestizos', mostly from neighbouring countries"
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
> Lets just hope he/the catholic church have the sense to stay well clear of this dispute!

Yeah 1.2 billion Catholics is a lot of people.It's funny but all the Catholics i know will tell you straight away that the Falklands should be the Malvinas.
I'm not a Catholic but i am against British imperialism and all it's grasping consuming greed to the detriment of all other peoples.

I think the descent thing to do is give it back to the Argentines and stop clinging on to an obscene empire that is a source of eternal shame.

You can dress it all up with your fancy nonsense but this is what it boils down to.it's the same with Gibralta,HK(i know the lease) and all the rest.It is not Australia,it does not want independance it wants to keep the Empire going.

Would all you union jack knicker waving patriots allow the Shetlands to be Chilian?

And for the Chileans to get all the oil wealth?

Nuff said!

dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Yeah 1.2 billion Catholics is a lot of people.It's funny but all the Catholics i know will tell you straight away that the Falklands should be the Malvinas.

so people you know agree with you, now thats a surprise.
Oh and considering that 1.2 billion is anyone baptised i can name several who disagree with it.

> I think the descent thing to do is give it back to the Argentines and stop clinging on to an obscene empire that is a source of eternal shame.

a)it never belonged to them b)the difference between the British and Argentinian attempts at empire are, so far, the British were more competent.

> Would all you union jack knicker waving patriots allow the Shetlands to be Chilian?

union jack knicker waving?

what if they took it over now or several hundred years back when it was uninhabited?
How about we turn it into a less hypothetical question and consider the Faroe islands?
Or possibly not since that really doesnt support your claim.


Bruce Hooker - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But vast tracts of South America are indeed occupied by descendants of European colonists claiming to this day their "colonial" rights.

All of the Americas are, including the Caribbean islands, as are Australasia and loads of other places. What point are you making? That all should go back to where they came from? What about people of mixed blood, would you cut them into pieces?

The problem is one of sovereignty. Few of the population of the Malvinas have been there for generations, a majority weren't born there, but Argentina is not saying they should leave, anymore than the Welsh in Patagonia or the Italians further North - the pope will not be kicked out, even though he is well lodged in Italy now. Like most on this thread you are just clouding the issue, a sign that you are less sure of your "arguments" (have you given any beyond "rule Britannia and sod the rest!"?) than you pretend.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, thanks again for taking the time to reply. It's a shame you feel the need to level accusations of lying, especially after your previous post where you accused me of trollong and making 'totally discourteous remarks'. I note that you've not been able to back up that allegation, because in fact I've been at pains to be civil towards you on this thread. We differ in opinion on this; that doesn't mean either of us is lying. it would be decent of you to return the courtesy, as this is an interesting debate that is better carried out with a spirit of goodwill.

now: I'm perfectly happy to condemn many aspects of Britains past, from the opium wars in china, to much of our involvement with Africa; and indeed to condemn many recent foreign policy decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq. You again seem to be confusing me with someone else, as I have no problem at all with criticising Britain when it behaves badly. Since I've made that clear, can you now put into your own words an explicit condemnation of the Argentinian treatment of the Mapuche?

I also can't help but note your rhetorical shift from the specific to the general, and your closing condemnation of western foreign policy. Along with more needlessly confrontational language....

It does make me wonder if this is a distraction, as I note you have not engaged with my criticism of your view on the transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain, vital to the Argentinian claim. Do you not feel some discomfort when you reflect on your own words justifying that transfer, which was at best a bit of business between the royal families of 18th century European colonial powers? Is that really the sort of provenance a claim based on decolonisation should be based?

Furthermore: Your point about the mestizo nature of the society there would hold for chile, but not for Argentina. We've provided evidence to show that Argentina is a white, European country on another continent, to a greater extent than even Canada or Australia. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. It does undermine any appeal to decolonisation though, as the current inhabitants of Argentina are the descendants of colonists, in a much more meaningful way than the Falkland islanders are. And for a significant proportion, their connection to Argentina is much shorter than that of the falkland islanders to their place of living, which for many goes back several generations

You are absolutely right that the current Argentinians are not to blame for the conquest of the deser, in the way that we are not to blame for the many crimes of the British empire. They do have responsibilty for the current treatment of the Mapuche though. It would be good to see you make some sort of statement of unequivocal solidarity with their plight, and a repudiation of the current Argentinian govt position on this.

Anyway, always interesting to debate the issue,

Best wishes

Gregor
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

How about we don't ? How about we ask-

Would all you union jack knicker waving patriots allow the Shetlands to be Chilian?


Bruce Hooker - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> a)it never belonged to them

Why do you keep telling such lies? Anyone interested can check up and find the truth so all you do is discredit yourself.

> b)the difference between the British and Argentinian attempts at empire are, so far, the British were more competent.

That's certainly true, the British were the most active and efficiently violent imperialists of all time, especially when you add the first N American empire which was lost (so they were not so successful in holding in that case, just of taking against native peoples who were weakly armed) but are you sure this is something to be proud off? Your boasting tone does you no more credit than your lies.

In fact one of the problems with the so efficient government propaganda on this subject is the way it fans the flames of nationalism and jingoism and makes sensitive educated adults act and speak like brutish adolescent oafs
Paul F - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to dissonance)

> Would all you union jack knicker waving patriots allow the Shetlands to be Chilian?

If the Shetland Islanders vote for it, sure, why not?
tony on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> And for the Chileans to get all the oil wealth?
>
> Nuff said!

Is that what passes for a compelling argument round your way?
GrahamD - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> How about we don't ? How about we ask-
>
> Would all you union jack knicker waving patriots allow the Shetlands to be Chilian?

If the first people to occupy the Shetlands had been Chilean, why not ? its hypothetical of course.
Coel Hellier - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> All of the Americas are, including the Caribbean islands, as are Australasia and loads of
> other places. What point are you making? That all should go back to where they came from?

Nope, I'm making the point that what happened in the 15th to 19th centuries should not be the determining factor in who decides what *now*.

> The problem is one of sovereignty.

Sure, and for any *democrat*, sovereignty derives from "We the people ..." (in the words of the American constitution).

> Few of the population of the Malvinas have been there for generations ...

So they are "few", so what? That "few" still have greater rights to those Islands than Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who has never lived there.

dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to GrahamD:

> If the first people to occupy the Shetlands had been Chilean, why not ? its hypothetical of course.

Thats why i tried to switch it to a actual proper case eg the Faroe Islands.
Reckoned to be first settled by Irish and Scottish monks, near to Scotland than the country currently controlling it.
dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Why do you keep telling such lies? Anyone interested can check up and find the truth so all you do is discredit yourself.

Bruce you have been shown to be lying time and time again. You cant even keep your crap straight in a single thread.

> Your boasting tone does you no more credit than your lies.

it was a statement of fact you idiot. There is nothing more irritating than someone who is historically illiterate going on about the evil British empire whilst missing it was only a mix of good timing, luck and the social structure that allowed it to do well (namely not ending up in infighting of the ruling family)
It isnt even as if it was the biggest in terms of percentage population controlled.

> In fact one of the problems with the so efficient government propaganda on this subject is the way it fans the flames of nationalism and jingoism and makes sensitive educated adults act and speak like brutish adolescent oafs

The problem is Bruce you are the one fanning the shit. You and the other cheerleaders for a jingoist war hungry state who rather than addressing the fact that they have bankrupted their country instead try to persuade the people to focus on an external enemy.

Its like your support for Tibet etc. Strange how all those countries you see as shining lights tend to be repressive regimes isnt it?
Paul F - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to GrahamD)
>
> [...]
>
> Thats why i tried to switch it to a actual proper case eg the Faroe Islands.

or the 'Sheep Island and Paradise Island of Birds', to give them their proper name :0)
Bruce Hooker - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Sure, and for any *democrat*, sovereignty derives from "We the people ..."

So it's as simple as that? What about Gibraltar? Part of Spain or Britain? What counts more, territorial integrity or opinion of those who live there now? What about the parts of Europe before WW2 which had a culturally German majority? was Hitler right when he claimed these territories for the Reich, splitting them away from the state they were part of?

For someone who likes the finer points of arguments on some subjects (one subject!) you seem particulary taken by simplistic British Empire born again rhetoric on this one. Just as religion addles the brain so does nationalism.
Bruce Hooker - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> The problem is Bruce you are the one fanning the shit. You and the other cheerleaders for a jingoist war hungry state who rather than addressing the fact that they have bankrupted their country instead try to persuade the people to focus on an external enemy.

Absolutely, you describe Cameron's attitude perfectly, so my arguments have convinced you?

As for historical facts I doubt you would know one if it fell on your head... remind me again who first settled the Malouines and claimed the as yet unpopulated islands for his country?
GrahamD - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> What counts more, territorial integrity or opinion of those who live there now?

The Falklands are a f*ck site further from Argentina than Ireland is from the UK.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> Absolutely, you describe Cameron's attitude perfectly, so my arguments have convinced you?
>
> As for historical facts I doubt you would know one if it fell on your head... remind me again who first settled the Malouines and claimed the as yet unpopulated islands for his country?

Um. A Frenchman.

That's why Francois hollande keeps on demanding their return to French sovereignty.

Oh, no that's wrong though... It's *argentina* that wants them.

Remind us of how a French territorial claim came to be used to support an Argentinian one...?

;-)

Gregor
dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Absolutely, you describe Cameron's attitude perfectly, so my arguments have convinced you?

Bruce if you said water was wet I would ask for a second opinion.
As for describing Camerons position, whilst I aint a fan of him and his stance of several issues saying it is for the Islanders to decide isnt exactly warlike.

Now havent you got to go and cheerlead for some other oppressive regime?

> As for historical facts I doubt you would know one if it fell on your head... remind me again who first settled the Malouines and claimed the as yet unpopulated islands for his country?

Ah nice to see you have changed your claim to be first settled from first discovered after having it pointed out you were over a 100 years out. Also good that you have noticed the lack of a population. Perhaps you are slowly learning.
Now remind me unless you are a fan of colonialism what the French claim has to do with it?
tony on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> remind me again who first settled the Malouines and claimed the as yet unpopulated islands for his country?

The Malouines? That's French isn't it?
Coel Hellier - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> What counts more, territorial integrity or opinion of those who live there now?

The latter! Of course!

> What about the parts of Europe before WW2 which had a culturally German majority? was Hitler right
> when he claimed these territories for the Reich, splitting them away from the state they were part of?

No, he wasn't right to take them by force. However, if those regions had held a referendum and the majority voted to join Germany, then it would have been right for that democratic wish to have been fulfilled.

> you seem particulary taken by simplistic British Empire born again rhetoric on this one.

In what way is "the local people should decide" a "simplistic British Empire" position? Do you even think about the meaning of the words you type?

> Just as religion addles the brain so does nationalism.

Your contempt for democracy, for people deciding for themselves (rather then being told what is good for them by self-appointed Commissars) is once again noted.
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>

> it was a statement of fact you idiot.

Eh you want to watch out calling people names like that as i have been informed that you will get banned if someone complains.

Though why on earth i am helping you out i don't know.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Lol, good work there...

Some much needed humour given the recent deterioration in the tone of the thread...

Cheers
Gregor
drmarten on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
You advocate Communism, the worlds most murderous political system and you dare talk of eternal shame with regard to the UK and the Falklands?

You've posted some shite but that takes the biscuit.
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Is that what passes for a compelling argument round your way?

It is one component of one.

Do you think the British would have endured the Shetlands surrounded by rich oil fields being a part of a Chilian empire that was stronger than ours without ensuring we would at some point get it back?

It is ironic that the same people screaming blue murder about the empire/Malvinas are the same ones who would be shouting loudest about getting our Shetland island back orf the Chilian empire.
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to drmarten:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> You advocate Communism, the worlds most murderous political system and you dare talk of eternal shame with regard to the UK and the Falklands?

No that'll be capitalism kid but don't let facts get in the way of your lack of brainpower.

> You've posted some shite but that takes the biscuit.

The only s---- is coming from you or would you care to show me your working kid?
dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> It is ironic that the same people screaming blue murder about the empire/Malvinas are the same ones who would be shouting loudest about getting our Shetland island back orf the Chilian empire.

So are you suggesting if Scotland goes independent the remainder of the UK will be launching an invasion of the Shetlands?

Oh and once again I give you the example of the Faroe Islands.
Closest country: Scotland
First inhabited by: Scottish and Irish Monks
Oil: yes
ruled by: not the UK

So surely if your claim is right Cameron should be talking up the invasion rhetoric now?
Ridge - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> It is ironic that the same people screaming blue murder about the empire/Malvinas are the same ones who would be shouting loudest about getting our Shetland island back orf the Chilian empire.

What is ironic is you and Bruce, who are wailing about the evil fascist British Empire, would obviously be cheerleading us invading these hypothetical islands for their oil wealth.
Paul F - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Not really, As mentioned above you don't see any fuss about 'getting the Faroes Islands back' from Denmark,
MJ - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Shetland island back orf the Chilian empire.

Get orf my land - I always knew you were a closet Land Owning Henrietta...

:)
tony on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> It is one component of one.
>
Seiously? "Nuff said!" now counts as serious political discourse? Thing have changed since my day ...

> Do you think the British would have endured the Shetlands surrounded by rich oil fields being a part of a Chilian empire that was stronger than ours without ensuring we would at some point get it back?
>
I have no idea why you think there's any point in making up gibberish about Chile and the Shetlands. At least with the Falklands there's some shared history and geography to be disputed.

> It is ironic that the same people screaming blue murder about the empire/Malvinas are the same ones who would be shouting loudest about getting our Shetland island back orf the Chilian empire.

It's ironic that you seem to the fighting the same fight as that of a military dictator, staunchly opposed to communism and who was greatly admired by Ronald Reagan. You do pick your bedfellows.

drmarten on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
Sure thing hen and in the morning the Falklands will still be British.
Admit it you are really a clever troll played by someone with right wing views to discredit the left?
You must be, it's the only way you make sense.
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> What is ironic is you and Bruce, who are wailing about the evil fascist British Empire, would obviously be cheerleading us invading these hypothetical islands for their oil wealth.

Would it not be an admiral and honourable act if we gave some of what we went and grabbed back?

How much of the world was possessed by us?
How much of the world did we plunder and grab for ourselves?
Don't you think we have had more than our share?
MJ - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to drmarten:

You must be, it's the only way you make sense.

Gudrun is OK and mostly harmless. However, she is at her best when she is mostly legless...
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:

I can see where this thread is going now...verbal abuse..no thanks.

Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to drmarten:

> it's the only way you make sense.

What would you know about sense?
MJ - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

If you want to, I will delete my posts. Sorry if they've caused offence.
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to MJ:

No... no way !your cool MJ ! Totally !nae worries pal.
Ridge - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

So it's all to due with collective guilt and atoning for the sins of the past, rather than what's the right thing to do in the present?
We were the bad guys in India, so handing over the Falklands to a fascist Junta, complete with death squads, would have been the right thing to do in the 1980s?
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:

Our bestest pals in the whole world put him there and told him how to treat his trade unionist and Commies.
Ridge - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Is that a yes or a no?
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> Is that a yes or a no?

I didn't say anything about the war( thought i'd got away with it)seriously though you mention us being terrible to India.I won't bother you with how much we destroyed and used that country as well as *every* other we invaded.We plundered the world and took a considerable amount of wealth away from indigenous peoples and their subsequent generations(the ones that managed to survive!)for centuries.

Don't you think we took more than we should and that letting some other countries have some of the resources that lie near them rather than us constantly commandeering them would be a refreshing and progressive act?

Galteri,Junta,NSD,Fascists,School of Ameriaca's,Thatcher,Pinochet,Labour,£45 million arms sales to fascists murdering trade unionists and 30,000 other brave souls.
Sorry what was the question?
Rob Exile Ward on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: 'We plundered the world and took a considerable amount of wealth away from indigenous peoples'... primary school stuff.

You are ignorant and stupid with no knowledge of history, except as perceived through a prism created by people cleverer than you, who feed you half truths for their own ends.

Everything you post is incorrect. I can't be a*sed to start, let alone sustain, the discussions that some quite bright people here seem willing to continue with. Why they bother is beyond me.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>

Hi Shona,

your argument seems to be that western nations should put consistency above ethics- in other words, because western powers have done bad things in the past, then it would be hypocritical of them to do something good.

and more so- because one western power did something bad (the US sponsoring despotic military regimes throughout latin america), a different western isnt allowed any credit for removing one such regime

or at least thats how it seems.

i dont find that very convincing as an argument- all nations, and their leaders, and all organisation are a mixed bag, and do good and bad. and all western powers are not the same. it seems churlish not to recognise interventions which are good when they happen, and difficult to believe every act britain or america takes is bad.

ive said before, i think the successful transition of argentina to democracy is the most significant positive outcome of the falklands war, and whatever else maggie did, and whatever her motivations for doing it, it remains a lasting positive legacy.

cheers

gregor
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Gudrun) 'We plundered the world and took a considerable amount of wealth away from indigenous peoples'... primary school stuff.

Also true.
> You are ignorant and stupid with no knowledge of history, except as perceived through a prism created by people cleverer than you, who feed you half truths for their own ends.

I like the last bit there but the first bit shows you up right away.
> Everything you post is incorrect. I can't be a*sed to start, let alone sustain, the discussions that some quite bright people here seem willing to continue with. Why they bother is beyond me.

which is your standard answer in every discussion.You cannot be bothered because you know you are wrong.
dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Don't you think we took more than we should and that letting some other countries have some of the resources that lie near them rather than us constantly commandeering them would be a refreshing and progressive act?

I think the bit people are struggling with is how exactly this applies to Argentina. Who, well massacred most of the locals and then burnt through all the local resources and have been threatening most of their neighbours on and off since its creation.
Surely shouldnt you be more concerned about the Mapuche etc rather than a bunch of people who settled on a uninhabited island?

Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Hello Gregor,

No what i said could not be any clearer,i said it twice and i'll say it again we have taken far more resources for a wee but populous country for far too long, a good couple of centuries.so would letting some other country use the resources that are on their doorstep for a change,rather than us commandeering them?as we have done all over the world for centuries not be a refreshing and progressive act? that would go some way to neutralising our deserved reputation as imperialist thieves?

> all nations, and their leaders, and all organisation are a mixed bag, and do good and bad. and all western powers are not the same. it seems churlish not to recognise interventions which are good when they happen, and difficult to believe every act britain or america takes is bad.

Now you are getting me wrong here and perhaps that is partly my fault as i do play the same tunes a lot.Of course evrything the US and UK do is not negative far from it ,i'm rather embarrassed that you would think i thought that.

The Agentine forces of the left were resurgent once more even after such a horrific period,this more than the war was the deciding factor in finally ridding the people of Argentina of the last in this line of fascists.

Maggie loved a fascist,we sold them arms whilst they butchered their leftists.

Now don't get me wrong here you,Bruce and all the other guys have written very reasoned,articulate and intelligent posts brimming with knowledge as always.But what i say should not be dismissed as i think it cuts t the heart of the matter and addresses the feelings of much of the developing world.

And thank you for being patient and not patronising.
andyathome - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to mypyrex:
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC)) Here comes Bruce...

Do you have much to contribute to this topic other this incisive contribution?
Gudrun - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> Surely shouldnt you be more concerned about the Mapuche etc rather than a bunch of people who settled on a uninhabited island?

Yes very much so,i can't argue with that.Its the bigger picture concerning the whole population of present day Argentina though which the Mapuche are a part of that obscures this.As well as the largest empire the world has ever seen bossing smaller countries around and commandeering much of the resources and markets for centuries.

Dya know what though ?i'm fed up being an anti -imperialist it's hard bloody work fighting against you lot.

Where's my Union Jack undies!

Sir Chasm - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Where does the company get its raw materials from, shona? Are you lackeying for capitalists and raping other countries for resources they could put to better use?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)

"But what i say should not be dismissed as i think it cuts t the heart of the matter and addresses the feelings of much of the developing world."

a fair point shona. whatever we think in the UK, people elsewhere have their opinions of britain, and many of them are negative. and bruce is partially right about the harm to the UKs reputation in south america- though how much of that is genuine displeasure leading to economic fallout, and how much is just posturing to show moral support to neighbours is unclear.

however: there is much for both sides to gain from finding a way to cooperate. if there really is serious amounts of oil, then it would make sense for the infrastructure to be built at least in part in argentina- there already a substantial oil extraction in argentinian patagonia, so the skills and fabrication capacity is there. but thats not going to happen in the current climate. if argentina changed its stance though, set aside the sovereignty issue, then its conceivable that economic cooperation could begin- and over time, the closer contact both culturally, economically and socially would change attitudes in the islands.

fast forward a couple of decades and a generation of islanders grows up knowing nothing but argentina as an ally, source of employment and holiday destination, and sees britain as a distant place which theyve never actually visited

who knows what that generation would vote if the referendum was repeated? argentina might get its wish, britain could be relieved of a costly throwback a long way away, and the islanders rights to choose their own future could still be respected- wins all round...

see! there is a solution, get me cristina's email address....

;-)


> "And thank you for being patient and not patronising."

no worries,

i'll bow out for now cos i'm off to the lakes tomorrow to actually go climbing on sunday...! though unless the weather picks up i'll be climbing the steps of the gear shops of ambleside

:-/

cheers
gregor

dissonance - on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Yes very much so,i can't argue with that.Its the bigger picture concerning the whole population of present day Argentina though which the Mapuche are a part of that obscures this.As well as the largest empire the world has ever seen bossing smaller countries around and commandeering much of the resources and markets for centuries.

Depends on your definition of biggest and also it may have escaped your notice most of those smaller countries werent behind the doors in the past at bossing people around. Empires rise and fall and there is nothing particularly unusual about the British Empire beyond it took advantage of the age of Sail.

> Dya know what though ?i'm fed up being an anti -imperialist it's hard bloody work fighting against you lot.

can I suggest then you stop supporting imperialist countries like Argentina?

Gudrun - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> Depends on your definition of biggest

It's not my definition but the accepted one in academia.

> there is nothing particularly unusual about the British Empire beyond it took advantage of the age of Sail.

What of the industrial revolution and emerging capitalism?

We wreaked utter havoc whilst completely changing the world.

I would argue that we were instrumental in some of the biggest leaps forward in technology and finance ever seen in history.Using money from the industrial slave trade to build factories,transforming the rural workforce by forcing them into the cities and creating the system that endures to this day.No mean feat.

> can I suggest then you stop supporting imperialist countries like Argentina?

That's like Al Capone telling the sister of a pickpocket to stop supporting her brother,because he is a criminal.
Mike Stretford - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
> [...]
>
> Yeah 1.2 billion Catholics is a lot of people.It's funny but all the Catholics i know will tell you straight away that the Falklands should be the Malvinas.
> I'm not a Catholic but i am against British imperialism and all it's grasping consuming greed to the detriment of all other peoples.
>
> I think the descent thing to do is give it back to the Argentines and stop clinging on to an obscene empire that is a source of eternal shame.
>
> You can dress it all up with your fancy nonsense but this is what it boils down to.it's the same with Gibralta,HK(i know the lease) and all the rest.It is not Australia,it does not want independance it wants to keep the Empire going.
>

You're fighting something that no longer exsists. Gibraltar and the Falklands are anomalies, though personally I do think the British government should be more pro-active in persuading Gibralarians to join the rest of Spain.

Britain didn't know what to do with the Falklands until the junta forced Britian's hand. As long as there are memories of well armed Argentian commandos storming the place I can't see the Islanders wanting to join their neighbours. As you mentioned Australia, would you support Falklands independence?

For me the negative legacy of the British empire is our politicians embarrassingly still trying to flex global muscle, and the poor treatment of indigenous peoples in former colonies that are now independent, such as Australia! However, the last point is also relevant to most of South America and its European settlers, particulary in Argentina, where wealth and power is firmly in the hands of Europeans.

Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> can I suggest then you stop supporting imperialist countries like Argentina?

0/10... or rather 10/10 for plumbing the depths of hypocrisy. How can you type such bollocks? From someone who supports the British empire... Are you just trying to be irritating? You can't believe what you have typed.
Paul F - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> [...]
>
> Gibraltar and the Falklands are anomalies, though personally I do think the British government should be more pro-active in persuading Gibralarians to join the rest of Spain.

and perhaps the Spanish government could be more proactive in Ceuta joining the rest of
Morocco ?
Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Where's my Union Jack undies!

Watch out on that one though, the dye gives people a really bad itch, that's why ukc empire revivalists, are so bad tempered.
Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> and perhaps the Spanish government could be more proactive in Ceuta joining the rest of
> Morocco ?

Who denies this? Assuming they want it, of course.
Paul F - on 23 Mar 2013
Mike Stretford - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> [...]
>
> Watch out on that one though, the dye gives people a really bad itch, that's why ukc empire revivalists, are so bad tempered.

If there was an empire revivalist in recent time it was Blair, who you supported tirelessly.
Mike Stretford - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> and perhaps the Spanish government could be more proactive in Ceuta joining the rest of
> Morocco ?


Yup!
Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> If there was an empire revivalist in recent time it was Blair, who you supported tirelessly.

Now now, leave the porkies to the usual culprits. I didn't like Blair that much, although I preferred Labour to Tory, it's true. What I did object to was all the "Bliar" nonsense, political debate shouldn't be equated with character assassination IMO. It's true that Cameron has followed Blair's line on military intervention in sovereign nations, although again I still think there was a difference between getting rid of Saddam Hussein and what followed. I also admit to being wrong in assuming they all had a coherent plan of action for what was going to be done in Iraq after deposing Saddam, clearly they didn't have the foggiest which, in hindsight, makes the invasion less justifiable.

But to say I "tirelessly supported Blair" is exaggerating, and simplifying a lot.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> But to say I "tirelessly supported Blair" is exaggerating, and simplifying a lot.

now i wonder who he might have learned that technique from...?

;-)

gregor

(didnt get to the lakes after all, too much snow! so still here on the thread to keep you honest...)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

ps you always seem to duck out of the threads just when the questioning is getting close to an interesting point. i'm sure its just coincidental, so here is the point from yesterday i thought was worth repeating:


Bruce> As for historical facts I doubt you would know one if it fell on your head... remind me again who first settled the Malouines and claimed the as yet unpopulated islands for his country?

Me > Um. A Frenchman.

That's why Francois hollande keeps on demanding their return to French sovereignty.

Oh, no that's wrong though... It's *argentina* that wants them.

Remind us of how a French territorial claim came to be used to support an Argentinian one...?


thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts on that one,

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Watch out on that one though, the dye gives people a really bad itch, that's why ukc empire revivalists, are so bad tempered.

Yeah i heard they chafe something terrible Bruce, i think it's from shrinkage after being run up the flag pole to God save the queen in all weathers.

Being a ferociously sweet and psychopathically cuddley liberal democratic lovey is hard when it has cost the blood of millions to achieve,which is a terribly confusing and conflicting position for your modern day British democraticy do gooder.

MJ - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Yeah i heard they chafe something terrible Bruce, i think it's from shrinkage after being run up the flag pole to God save the queen in all weathers.

Not sure if it's down to shrinkage, probably more to do with all the extra starch enduced stifnees caused by being run up and down the flagpole so much.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts on that one,

I've already gone through all this dozens of times, as you know full well. This is an example of what I call "discourteous", although disingenuous or even dishonest might apply too.

If you were really in any doubt just look at Wikipedia.. or simply think a bit... "now how could they have gone from French to Spanish when the king of the latter had protested to the former, and knowing they were family? And how could the territory that was a Spanish colony have become part of the independent entity that took over?"

Is it really too tricky for you? I don't want to flatter, it is not in my nature, but I'm sure you can work it out.
Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
Concerning all those who keep citing the Mapuche question as somehow justifying Britain's refusal to negotiate with Argentina over this dispute, looking it up a bit this seems, as I suspected, just slavish repetition of tory/imperialist spin. The majority of the Mapuche, about 600 000 live in Chile. The 200 000 or to in Argentina came there in the 18th to 19th century, displacing the previous inhabitants as they did so. So the problems that existed and to a lesser extent still exist are not an especially Argentinian one, this is clearly just a rather silly propaganda tactic to find anything to attack Argentina. The remaining problems are of a nature similar to those existing in all the Americas and elsewhere when populations have taken over previous ones, and although historically serious are being progressively dealt with in Argentina, as elsewhere.

Going back to the historical period, more complex than the imperial propagandists on this thread admit - in fact they give no details, just leaving the reader to assume the worst to justify their xenophobic anti-Argentinian stance - but when compared to the nation they are defending these pall into insignificance given what "we" were doing at the time!

For example, nearest home was the way it treated it's own "native minorities" in the Great Potato Famine of Ireland between 1845 and 1852 and the Highland Potato Famine in Scottish Highlands from 1846 to 1857. The former resulted in 1 million people dead and a million more emigrated and the latter caused 1.7 million people to leave Scotland.

That was how we treated our local "natives" at the same time, and the way we treated natives elsewhere can be found by googling things like the "Opium Wars", "Afghan massacres" (a little later even), or "Invasion of Tibet and Massacre at Guru", or "massacre of Chumik Shenko". Dissonance would have been proud here as once again British imperialism showed itself very efficient, although if bolt action rifles and Maxim machine guns against match lock muskets is anything to write home about, I don't know! The junior officer in charge of the Maxim guns stopped their fire against his General's orders: " "I got so sick of the slaughter that I ceased fire, though the general’s order was to make as big a bag as possible,"... They all got medals for their "efficiency", it was in 1904.

And I'm sure I've missed the "best", the Amritsar massacre, for example, but I think these are sufficient to relativize the significance of a Brit accusing Argentina of colonial crimes.

And that's even if one misdeed reduces another, whereas in fact each case must be judged on it's own merits.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, why are you of the opinion that 19th century colonial wars, and who planted which flag where, are any basis for determining sovereignty in the 21st century? Surely we do things better these days, based on local determination and the consent of the governed?
Bruce Hooker - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I was replying to those who keep bringing up the Mapuche wars which were essentially in the 19th century. I was being badgered into replying on this subject although I don't think it is relevant either.

The main question is whether the Malvinas are part of Argentina or not, to me, and most of the world, the answer is obviously yes. I don't really see what other claim there could be, but one thing that is certain is that there is no reason for them to be considered to be part of another island nation on the other side of the planet just because the British navy was the strongest of the day. A crime is still a crime even years after and should not rewarded whenever it is humanly possible to do this, it will just encourage others.

As for the population, even if they have quite clearly been implanted there as a force of occupation they should be, IMO, allowed to stay. There is no reason for them to continue refusing other Argentinians to live there though as at present... They will be able to brush up their Spanish which for the South Americans that they are can't be a bad thing.
dissonance - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I was replying to those who keep bringing up the Mapuche wars which were essentially in the 19th century. I was being badgered into replying on this subject although I don't think it is relevant either.

wrong we bring it up because there is an active campaign for the Mapuche to get their lands back.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention or, looking at your record, fails your test of whether the people actually want independence/

> The main question is whether the Malvinas are part of Argentina or not, to me, and most of the world, the answer is obviously yes.

evidence please.

> As for the population, even if they have quite clearly been implanted there as a force of occupation they should be, IMO, allowed to stay.

really a force of occupation? A fairly dumb one if you can be arsed to look at its make up.
Now if I wanted a force of occupation I would be looking at somewhere like Argentina with its rather skewed population.
dissonance - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Being a ferociously sweet and psychopathically cuddley liberal democratic lovey is hard when it has cost the blood of millions to achieve,which is a terribly confusing and conflicting position for your modern day British democraticy do gooder.

sorry, this is coming from a communist apologist?
The difference between us is plenty of us condemn the British empire while you cheerlead the soviet union.
Gudrun - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Bruce, why are you of the opinion that 19th century colonial wars, and who planted which flag where, are any basis for determining sovereignty in the 21st century?

Hahaha! Would that not be the "determining" factor for a considerable proportion of countries?

> Surely we do things better these days, based on local determination and the consent of the governed?

How very convenient!and the historically dispossessed,exploited and oppressed victims of British colonial rule and land grabbing all over the world get what?eh... nothing because we and our colonialists have grabbed the lot and if we didn't get rich enough on that then there's the "self determination" card we can use to plunder some more resources that are at the other end of the world.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> The main question is whether the Malvinas are part of Argentina or not ...

Why on earth do you think that matters of mere geography trump the opinions and wishes of people? What moral or democratic standing does mere geography have?

> ... one thing that is certain is that there is no reason for them to be considered to be part of another
> island nation on the other side of the planet just because the British navy was the strongest of the day.

Everyone is agreed on that. No-one is arguing that the Falklands should be British because of 19th Century events, they are arguing that the future of the Falklands should be decided by the only long-term, multi-generational population those islands have ever had. In other words, by local democracy.
Coel Hellier - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Hahaha! Would that not be the "determining" factor for a considerable proportion of countries?

No, not any more it isn't. These days the determining factor is the democratic wish of the inhabitants.

> ... and the historically dispossessed,exploited and oppressed victims ...

Well, regarding the Falklands, *no* inhabitants were dispossessed and oppressed.
Gudrun - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> sorry, this is coming from a communist apologist?

Not apologist...just an ordinary proletarian.

> The difference between us is plenty of us condemn the British empire while you cheerlead the soviet union.

Yeah i do cheerlead the workers state-

give me a U,YES USS, U..S, U..SS,YES YES USSsssssR !!!
Gudrun - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> No, not any more it isn't. These days the determining factor is the democratic wish of the inhabitants.

is that what broke up Czechoslovakia?what of the Kurds?East Timourese?Yawn!!

> Well, regarding the Falklands, *no* inhabitants were dispossessed and oppressed.

But the empire grabbed the land at the other end of the world like they did with so many places.Money in the bank.



no_more_scotch_eggs - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> Concerning all those who keep citing the Mapuche question as somehow justifying Britain's refusal to negotiate with Argentina over this dispute, looking it up a bit this seems, as I suspected, just slavish repetition of tory/imperialist spin.

this is a really interesting admission you make there Bruce, that you have finally got round to looking up the issue of the Mapuche. Now, i'm aware that i've provided links for you to follow to find out more about the treatment of the indigenous peoples of patagonia for years, and 2 minutes of searching the forum confirmed this.

by - no_more_scotch_eggs on - 26 Aug 2011

some more information, on "The Conquest of the Desert"- a pivotal episode in Argentina's history, and a source of shame for many Argentinians now (so much so that there are arguments to remove Julio Roca, similar in stature to Wellington or Nelson in an Argentinian context, and the Minister of War responsible) from Argentinian banknotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert

so it would appear that, despite your voluminous postings, you neither know very much about the subject, nor can you google very effectively, or even follow links provided as much as 18 months ago! especially ironic given your complaints that others dont read the links you cite...

;-)

Look, i'll even save you the trouble of clicking the link, as that has proved to demanding for you in the past:

"The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the so-called Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia and ended the possibility of Chilean expansion there. European settlers turned the conquered lands into a breadbasket which made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century.[1] The Conquest is commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina.[2]"

Some more background: The Mapuche is a term applied to a broad group of indigenous peoples who live across patagonia, and not one specific "tribe". The majority are in present day chile, and their current poor treatment is not restricted to argentina, and is very much an issue in chile too. That does not alter the facts: that argentina is composed of land forcibly stolen by european colonists, and that the descendants of these colonists continue to oppress the indigenous peoples of the lands. You say this is being dealt with; my link suggests not, so some evidence to support your claim would be interesting.

And britain's history of colonial shame is not relevant here, and is anyway entirely accepted by me. That britain, empowered by the industrial revolution, was able to engage in appalling acts on a global scale does not diminish the more local injustices that argentina is based on. that is playground debate stuff- as you acknowledge anyway in your post, which makes your lengthy citing of british wrongs rather redundant.

yes, it should be judged on its own merits; and yes, it is entirely relevant, as argentina's claim is based on decolonisation. a nation of white european colonists on occupied indigenous land, continuing to suppress the aspirations of their indigenous people, is in no position to lecture anyone about decolonisation. more so when, as we have shown, the argentinian claim derives from the family dealings of european royalty, and the authority of a 500 year old pope...

it diminishes you to resort to smears of those that merely hold a different opinion to you Bruce, as you have done so often on this thread. the xenophobia one is the latest; as i have said, repeatedly, i have a deep affection for argentina, and have travelled widely there. i am no more anti-argentinian than you are an antisemite, and your resorting to insults rather than trusting to the strength of your arguments is clearly visible to all following this thread.

not to worry, its good you are, albeit belatedly, starting to check out some of the background to this area, even if your research has been flawed. my links above, as noted, should help fill you in on it.

and can i direct you again to the question i posed earlier, and which i am waiting for a reply to- about why a french settlement confers a territorial claim to argentina...?

oh, and i *know* the proximate answer- its the implications of this im really looking for you to address, and oddly, you dont seem too keen too...

cheers
gregor




Gudrun - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If i'm not mistaken the Mapuche are a part of present day Argentina,as well as other countries.They also claim that the Malvinas are theirs..no?

So since they are a part of Argentina and the islands were historically theirs.....
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)

> How very convenient!and the historically dispossessed,exploited and oppressed victims of British colonial rule and land grabbing all over the world get what?eh... nothing because we and our colonialists have grabbed the lot and if we didn't get rich enough on that then there's the "self determination" card we can use to plunder some more resources that are at the other end of the world.

But Shona, i really dont get this. I know i harp on about it a lot, and i've just done again to Bruce, not that he'll read it...

;-)

but: why is britain coming out ahead in some colonial jockeying for position with spain and france over the falklands is that bad; and when spain, and their descendants who came to be argentina, supplemented by a whole host of european emigrants, largely italian, violently take the land of the indigenous peoples of patagonia, and plunder their resources, is this apparently less so?

I think Bruce considers this to be a debating point, a rhetorical device to spuriously diminish the validity of the argentinian claim on the falklands, but its not. i think it is a genuine injustice of much greater scale than anything to do with the falklands, and that it has been repeated throughout the americas, and indeed in australasia, by mostly britain, france and spain, does nothing to reduce the seriousness of this. especially as it seems that the effects of this colonisation are very much an active political issue in the region today- see this link from this january, in one of argentina's leading daily newspapers:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1543832-chile-y-argentina-hacia-una-crisis-mapuche

i think its a shame that bruce, can't just come out and say, in as many words, that the argentinian treatment of its indigenous peoples has been a disgrace and a source of shame, rather than the mealy-mouthed forms of language used instead that can come across as justifying rather than condemning. though i'm sure thats not what he intends, it would be nice to have clarity,

i thought you and bruce were supposed to be internationalists; and surely therefore against colonialism, oppression of the weak, and the perpetuation of iniquitous power structures wherever they are found. in which case, framing the falklands issue as argentina vs britain is wrong; it is governments pursuing the interests of capital and populist self interest vs ordinary people, on both sides of the atlantic,

cheers
gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> If i'm not mistaken the Mapuche are a part of present day Argentina,as well as other countries.They also claim that the Malvinas are theirs..no?
>
> So since they are a part of Argentina and the islands were historically theirs.....

no, the mapuche have never considered the islands as part of their territory. "mapuche" is a bit of a confusing term anyway; it refers to a group whose territory is largely in chile (or rather the other way round!) but also more widely to a range of indigeous peoples across the region. none have any connection to the islands; and there are serious issues over mapuche considering themselves as "argeninian" or "chilean" at all.

i very much suspect that the mapuche view of the falklands dispute would be of one lot of white europeans fighting with another lot, one faction of which happens to be occupying *their* land. seriously, a bit of googling will establish that this is a really quite unpleasant dispute, and as a "chile-ophile" (is that even a word) it dismays me the way that the government is handling it,

and- remember, the notion of argentina as occupying all the land east of the andes south of the rio de la plata, is a colonial one, akin to the manifest destiny of the US. That land was never previously united in a political entity, but instead occupied by disparate tribes, some considered related to the mapuche, eg the tehuelche, many not eg the yaghan. It was only the expansion of argentina southwards, through force, that brought it anywhere near the falklands. for the mapuche, the islands were as remote as the faroes would have been to the french.


cheers
gregor
whispering nic - on 23 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: ummm... we live on an island that was populated gradually from about 10,000 years ago. There is a suggestion that the first settlers (not colonists!) came from Iberia. If the Spanish were to claim sovereignty of the UK on this basis should we accede immediately or perhaps see what the populus thinks?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to whispering nic:

Hey! don't shoot the messenger !it wasn't me who brought up the Mapuche !
Was it?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> i think its a shame that bruce, can't just come out and say, in as many words, that the argentinian treatment of its indigenous peoples

Would it make you feel better?less guilt for the murder of millions by the british empire as well as robbing their resources for centuries?

lets get down to basics shall we?
MJ - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

It's your thread. What do you think?
Deviant - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You are normally someone whose posts I appreciate; unfortunately, you've lost me on his one.

In my opinion, neither Britain nor Argentina have an absolute right to the Falklands. Both have a legitemate claim based on differrent motives. However-and for me this is the most important and over-riding reason-the Falklands have been inhabited for over 200 years by a people of British descent and it is their desire, in the matter of appartenance that should carry precedent. Attributing the islands to their inhabitants does not close the possibilty of negotiating seperately the more valuable question of fishing and mineral rights. It would be proof of Argentina's coming to democratic maturity if a peaceful negotiated settlement could be found.
ads.ukclimbing.com
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Would it make you feel better?less guilt for the murder of millions by the british empire as well as robbing their resources for centuries?
>
> lets get down to basics shall we?

<sigh>

No, shona, as we established upthread, I amnt to blame for the actions of my society in generations gone by, any more than current argentinians are to blame for the conquest of the desert. So I feel no guilt, why would I?

I can however say entirely readily, the actions of the British empire include episodes that are appaling.

Still you can't just say, it was a disgrace and an abomination how the indigenous people of patagonia were, and still are, being treated by Argentina. Why is it so hard for you? What stops you just typing the words, I agree with this statement, without qualification...? I just don't get it.

Cheers

Gregor

Epic Ebdon - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:

> In my opinion, neither Britain nor Argentina have an absolute right to the Falklands. Both have a legitemate claim based on differrent motives. However-and for me this is the most important and over-riding reason-the Falklands have been inhabited for over 200 years by a people of British descent and it is their desire, in the matter of appartenance that should carry precedent. Attributing the islands to their inhabitants does not close the possibilty of negotiating seperately the more valuable question of fishing and mineral rights. It would be proof of Argentina's coming to democratic maturity if a peaceful negotiated settlement could be found.

That's a refreshing amount of sense! Something like that would sound like the ideal basis for an agreement.

Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> The difference between us is plenty of us condemn the British empire while you cheerlead the soviet union.

Two lies in one short sentence, good going even for you! You don't condemn the British empire you glorify it - boasting that it was "more competent" than Argentina and pouring out a flood of lies, half lies and red herrings to defend it's remaining crumbs. Secondly, Gudrun, under other names assuming she is one and only, has defended socialism but has been critical of it's Stalinist perversion on numerous occasions.

As said above, nationalism rots the intellect and turns people into gibbering wrecks of humanity incapable of telling right from wrong or good from bad.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> you have finally got round to looking up the issue of the Mapuche

I looked at them a while ago when they were first brought up but as I didn't see the relevance to the Malvinas conflict I didn't study the details. Having done that my initial impression has been confirmed.

If you are really interested in the mistreatment of native populations then Britain has a few far more alarming example to give, including a whole population which are to this day refused access to their island homeland by the British government to make way for a military base... You could look it up if you were really sincere in your concern rather than just taking part in a pathetic (and discourteous) campaign of denigration against the Argentinian people in service of British empire revival. I won't hold my breath though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> As said above, nationalism rots the intellect and turns people into gibbering wrecks of humanity incapable of telling right from wrong or good from bad.

A fitting description of yourself there Bruce.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Epic Ebdon:

Apart from a small inaccuracy, Britain took over and kicked out those there in 1833 so not quite 200 years and since then the "British" occupiers were not really all that British a lot of the time. But the sort of compromise suggested is what could easily be obtained by negotiating, the problem being that the British government is refusing this. And this despite numerous UN requests and votes and the pressure of the entire S American continent.

Whatever way we look at it the Falklands/Malvinas are part of South America, no one can deny that, and that's where their future lies. No amount of bluster will move them to the Home Counties.
Deviant - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Please excuse me for rounding-off to the nearest 100 years !

I do not see why the population of the Falklands cannot carry-on as they do now. There is no need at all for them to be ruled from Buenas Aires. They have little to gain but risk losing a good deal, both historically, culturally and socially.
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> Two lies in one short sentence, good going even for you! You don't condemn the British empire you glorify it - boasting that it was "more competent" than Argentina

ermm no. Thats a statement of fact that so far the British Empire was more successful than the Argentinian attempts, that said that doesnt preclude it changing in the future. Now I know you have difficult understanding anything which doesnt fit into your simplistic ideology but surely you can manage to figure the difference between glorification and statements of fact?

> Secondly, Gudrun, under other names assuming she is one and only, has defended socialism but has been critical of it's Stalinist perversion on numerous occasions.

really she was cheerleading it on another thread.
It is fascinating to see how your mind works although admittedly the experiment is getting a bit tedious now.

dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Epic Ebdon)
>
> Apart from a small inaccuracy, Britain took over and kicked out those there in 1833

oh dear Bruce. You still telling these lies? The majority of people stayed, after all the majority were from a colony which had been set up with the approval of the British consulate.


> so not quite 200 years and since then the "British" occupiers were not really all that British a lot of the time.

I love the way you come out with this without realising how foolish it makes your arguments.

> But the sort of compromise suggested is what could easily be obtained by negotiating, the problem being that the British government is refusing this.

oh dear once again you mislead. The British government is more than willing to negotiate if the islanders agree. it is only fans of colonial power like yourself who seem to think this is unreasonable.

> Whatever way we look at it the Falklands/Malvinas are part of South America, no one can deny that, and that's where their future lies. No amount of bluster will move them to the Home Counties.

Since no one is suggesting that I wonder why you think it is a winning argument.
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> If you are really interested in the mistreatment of native populations then Britain has a few far more alarming example to give, including a whole population which are to this day refused access to their island homeland by the British government to make way for a military base... You could look it up

You mean the Chagossians. You really do make this too easy. You might want to do a bit of research and check out the details of when they arrived in their "homeland".
If it helps think about when the evil British invasion of the Falklands happened and you are in the right time slot.

So, using your logic its perfectly fair for the "settlers" to be kicked out. Obviously some of us disagree with that logic and would prefer that come 2015 the lease agreement with the USA is changed.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> But Shona, i really dont get this

Its the scale and relative distribution of booty i'd say,Argentinians stole land from the indigenous population murdering a few thousand in the process.As you point out it was very similar to the drive West in the USA but with considerably less casualties.Now some indigenous people want that land back i believe and why not.

Britain on the other hand invaded or threatened the entire world bar is it 22 countries?For 3 centuries we have plundered and sucked dry stolen lands.I won't go into detail because we all know how this country has created and sustained its wealth.

No contest.

BTW thanks for taking the trouble to pass on your knowledge of the indigenous people of Argentina,it was very interesting and educational.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:

> It would be proof of Argentina's coming to democratic maturity if a peaceful negotiated settlement could be found.

Do you think the oldest democracy in the world...ye know? the one that has been at war with some where or other continuously for the past 100 years can teach the Argentinians about peace?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> which doesnt fit into your simplistic ideology

What would that be then?
Coel Hellier - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Do you think the oldest democracy in the world ... can teach the Argentinians about peace?

I would think that the village idiot could teach Argentina (and you and Bruce) about democracy. In a democracy, people and people's opinions matter. To you, Bruce and the Argentinians, democracy is trumped by geography and is replaced by the idea that self-appointed commissars should tell people what is good for them.
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Just out of interest - if Denmark (for example) managed to place someone on Rockall, and keep them supported there, do you think that would be sufficient to give them sovereignty over the island and the associated oil wealth from under the seas around it? Provided he or she wanted to remain Danish, that is?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> If you are really interested in the mistreatment of native populations then Britain has a few far more alarming example to give, including a whole population which are to this day refused access to their island homeland by the British government to make way for a military base... You could look it up if you were really sincere in your concern rather than just taking part in a pathetic (and discourteous) campaign of denigration against the Argentinian people in service of British empire revival. I won't hold my breath though.

hi Bruce,

it just strikes me as a shame that you feel the need to make use of so many personal attack in your replies. i'm sure you are a perfectly pleasant person away from the keyboard, and like i said above, it would be good to debate this face to face over a pint- i'm certain the language used would be more civilised, and we might make more progress. anyhow, i'm sure we can continue without the need for smears and distortions, and that you make so much use of them, especially when they are not returned in kind, diminishes you.

but back to the debate:

the mapuche- relevant or not? well, here is my case that they are:

1. Argentina's claim for the islands is based on decolonisation. This is a movement where the indigenous peoples of the world reassert their rights for self governance, free from the control of mainly european powers which had previously ruled them

2. This is already a spurious claim, as the islands were one of only very few inhabitable places with no history of human settlement before the colonial age. there was no indigenous population, just competing european adventurers, who squabbled over the islander and passed them between nations as merely an asset to be bartered. nonetheless, lets for a second assume there *was* some merit in the claim, and decolonisation as a framework did extend to places with no indigenous peoples.

3. Furthermore, if the people who composed the nation now known as argentina had found and empty land in patagonia, then that may strengthen such a claim.

4. If on the other hand, it were shown that this land had already been occupied for 10000 years, and that the argentina is sited on land that was expropriated by force by european colonists from the occupiers, and that the descendants of these colonists still control this land and still mistreat the few indigenous peoples left, then that would clearly undermine even this possible angle to appeal to decolonisation. Colonists clearly cant cry foul about other colonists.

5. This is precisely the situation that exists in argentina today. the appeal to decolonisation is flawed, however it is looked at.

Now, my proposition is set out there, please take the opportunity to try to rebut it. If you can show that any of the stages is flawed, the proposition falls. However, just saying "its not relevant", or that i am an empire revivalist is not a rebuttal... you will need an actual argument if you are going to do it.

Nor is this an attack on argentina; all nations are built on the bones of those that died in conflict and injustice, britain certainly is, and argentina is no different. i've said before how much i admire argentina in so many other aspects, somehow you seem to have missed this though i have said it repeatedly.

So: lets see- can you make a post on this thread that both refrains from ad hominem attacks, and directly addresses the points the post is replying to...? it would be good if you could; i think many, myself included, would respect you for doing so,

best wishes

gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Its the scale and relative distribution of booty i'd say,Argentinians stole land from the indigenous population murdering a few thousand in the process.As you point out it was very similar to the drive West in the USA but with considerably less casualties.Now some indigenous people want that land back i believe and why not.
>
> Britain on the other hand invaded or threatened the entire world bar is it 22 countries?For 3 centuries we have plundered and sucked dry stolen lands.I won't go into detail because we all know how this country has created and sustained its wealth.
>
> No contest.


Indeed, i would pretty much agree with that. but i'd say that this isnt really about picking sides based on which country had the most bloodstained history. if argentina was more like peru, or bolivia, where the population is still mostly indigenous (and indeed in bolivia, for the first time since the arrival of the spanish, the head of state is of indigenous origin), then i think that it would be much more complicated.

but argentina, unique among the countries of s america is essentially a european nation on another continent. i just dont buy the argument that the descendants of european colonists can go running to the UN wanting another lot of european colonists to be incorporated into their country against the other lots will. that looks to me like a perversion of what the colonisation movement was about- which was largely giving africa and asia back to the people that had lived there for millennia
>
> "BTW thanks for taking the trouble to pass on your knowledge of the indigenous people of Argentina,it was very interesting and educational."

no worries! if i ever got a chance to take early retirement and do a history degree, the history of the peoples of patagonia would be what i'd do it on. and there would be bound to be some fieldwork, which i wouldnt complain about...!

;-)

cheers
gregor

Coel Hellier - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

> if Denmark (for example) managed to place someone on Rockall, and keep them supported there,
> do you think that would be sufficient to give them sovereignty over the island ...

If they'd been there for multiple generations, over a hundred and fifty years, bringing up children, passing their land onto their children, etc, then yes. If they'd been there 6 weeks then no.

By the way, the Falklands are self-sufficient in everything except defence. They are not dependent on food parcels as someone on Rockall would be.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> that looks to me like a perversion of what the colonisation movement was about- which was largely giving africa and asia back to the people that had lived there for millennia

Are you saying that Argentina should be given back to the indigenous population?If you answer yes then Australia to must be handed over and Canada to as well as the USA,Mexico and perhaps there are more.Now this to me would seem unworkable since the land is now peoples property and all the rest.For practical reasons no one in their right mind would suggest this but you see Argentina as being different from say the Indigenous of the USA in their reservations and alcoholism.

Why?

So given that way too much has happened in these countries to even contemplate that then this idea of yours becomes invalid does it not?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)

> If they'd been there for multiple generations, over a hundred and fifty years, bringing up children, passing their land onto their children, etc, then yes. If they'd been there 6 weeks then no.

What if they had no children just a dog and two gerbils?What if it was only one generation? What if it was 30 years?what if they were a colony of self-appointed commissars?

Argentinian Newsflash:
UK boffin suggests village idiot teach Argentines the art of continuous uninterupted warfare!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> I do not see why the population of the Falklands cannot carry-on as they do now. There is no need at all for them to be ruled from Buenas Aires. They have little to gain but risk losing a good deal, both historically, culturally and socially.

At present they are kept going by subsidies, despite claims to the contrary, and their life is made difficult by being boycotted by all of S America. So they would gain enormously by being integrated into the continent - even more so if oil is discovered in exploitable quantities. They would also gain on the moral side by doing what is right although listening to them this doesn't seem to be of much importance to them.

The problem is that about half have moved there recently, only half (53% apparently, to be as precise as I can find) were born there and many give financial motives for going there and they have been led to believe that this would be jeopardised by any change or status from their present colonial one.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2009/05/a_small_place.html

If you look at a map of the sea zone that is claimed by Britain as "owner" of the islands, then look to the East and observe similar zones around other islands claimed by Britain too it's easy to see what the real motive is behind the British governments position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/03/falkland-islands-data-charts

There's a map at the bottom of the page.

The question of who owns the seabed and all the mineral wealth to be found there is already a major political problem and will become more and more so as time goes on. The conflict brewing in the China seas revolves around the same issues and could well lead to armed conflict, an example amongst many.
MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: What subsidies other than defence?

. Wiki suggrst all mineral/oil income will go to the Islanders., rather than Britain, in which case what benefit to Britain in keeping sovereignty?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Are you saying that Argentina should be given back to the indigenous population?
>
>
no, not saying that, sorry if that was unclear. i agree with you entirely- far too much time has passed and i take these countries- the US, canada, australia, NZ, and argentina as i find them, complete with all their contradictions

because if you go back far enough, most places have changed hands multiple times- in our own back yard, the scots themselves were invaders, taking the land and even naming it after themselves

i guess my argument is that at some point we have to accept that the de facto ownership is what counts, and that 180 years is long enough for that to be the case.

so i'd argue that, even setting aside the issues around the way argentina came to inherit a french territorial claim, the same is the case for the falklands- we cant go back to 1832 and rerun history. we are where we are, and the world is as it is

so if argentina wants the islands, then persuasion, and negotiation with the islanders, not just the british, is the order of the day. and if that ends up with the islands being part of argentina, as long as its a free choice, thats fine by me...

cheers
gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Deviant)
> [...]
>
> At present they are kept going by subsidies, despite claims to the contrary,

from your second link:

The Falklands is largely self-financing, apart from the costs of the military base, which are paid by the UK taxpayer. The Island spends around £46m a year, mostly on public works and infrastructure.

do you even read your own links bruce...?

;-)

cheers

gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Really Coel you keep repeating something you know makes no sense... That a group of people only has to occupy a bit of land then they can call a referendum and it belongs to them! This is the logic of Israel... today, but if the referendum had been called in 1947 Israel would no longer exist... by your logic. What about the Isle of White, if for some curious reason - discovery of oil, for example - they suddenly saw themselves a rich a Cresus, would a simple vote allow them to break away from Britain and pocket the lot?

And that is ignoring the highly debateable historical truth, especially when it is twisted and turned about at will as on this thread. All of which is a mirror of the drum banging flag waving campaign that I hoped was no longer a part of modern Britain. Orange men look positively mild mannered and honest compared to many posters... At least Daily Mail need not worry about lack of readers if you lot are anything to go by... It's an ill wind etc!
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If we apply the same principles to HK then i've no doubt that the vast majority of that population would have voted to stay British but they had no say in the matter.

Would you have objected to this ?
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> You mean the Chagossians. You really do make this too easy.

But don't they deserve a referendum? If not, why not? Was there any other people with a prior claim to settlement there too? Please don't keep such important facts to yourself, the world waits your information with bated breath.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) What subsidies other than defence?
>
> . Wiki suggrst all mineral/oil income will go to the Islanders., rather than Britain, in which case what benefit to Britain in keeping sovereignty?

which oil and gas companies would be involved British or Argentinian ?
MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> which oil and gas companies would be involved British or Argentinian ?

I guess listed in London, or possibly NY or elsewhere. Anyone can by shares in these companies, including Argentines
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

interesting links Bruce,thanks for posting

they do contradict each other a little- the first says that the population is rising and GDP per capita higher than germany, the second that its declining and the GDP per capita considerably lower than the UK

still, lots of things i didnt know (10% from st helena!)

and i liked the last para of the slate one:

In his clandestine Falklands-filmed movie F*ckland, Argentine director José Luis Marqués fantasized about retaking the islands by impregnating local women. Similarly, Buenos Aires-based Ezequiel Gatti, who leads Argentine veterans on Falklands tours, told me that Argentina would have had better luck conquering the islands in 1982 if it had sent several boats of beautiful Argentine women.

!!

like i say, persuasion not force is the way to go...

cheers
gregor
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> At least Daily Mail need not worry about lack of readers if you lot are anything to go by... It's an ill wind etc!

Keep up the personal attacks Bruce, it only shows the weakness in your argument (that lack some decent facts to back them up btw).
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
problem solved then Argentinians buy shares in BP.

I'll phone the Argentine embassy right away.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> it just strikes me as a shame that you feel the need to make use of so many personal attack in your replies

From you that's quite something! Funnily it's not the first time you post as if butter wouldn't melt in your mouth... Do you never read what you type yourself?

It's a bit like the way you claim to like Argentina and have empathy for the people there yet all your posts show the exact opposite, you devote hours denigrating them and attacking them on an issue which is very dear to them... Is it some kind of complex double personality at work?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> If we apply the same principles to HK then i've no doubt that the vast majority of that population would have voted to stay British but they had no say in the matter.
>
> Would you have objected to this ?

hmmm. not sure i've got an answer to that one.

would they though? given chinas rise and the UKs decline

but if they had? thats a fair point.

cheers
gregor
MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to MG)
> problem solved then Argentinians buy shares in BP.
>
> I'll phone the Argentine embassy right away.

Well it does show this isn't about oil etc as often claimed
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> But don't they deserve a referendum?

are you incapable of reading a comment fully or is ranting about items which have already been answered your way of trying to deal with those occasions when you are shown to be clueless.
There does seem to be a correlation with the amount of abuse you hurl immediately after being caught out talking rubbish.

> If not, why not?

well by your logic they dont. So I take it you are happy with that?

> Was there any other people with a prior claim to settlement there too?

Do you need me to do all your basic research for you? It really isnt hard although admittedly I can see why someone with your authoritarian simplistic worldview prefers to avoid the facts.

dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> which oil and gas companies would be involved British or Argentinian ?

well since the Argentinians have ripped up the previous agreement and tried to prevent all trade then the companies involved will, inevitably, have to be non Argentinian.
Its one of the many downsides of the Argentinian bullying stance for them. They seem incapable of realising that simply trying to bully the islanders wont work and instead they need to build bridges and convince them their interests are best served with Argentina.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> From you that's quite something! Funnily it's not the first time you post as if butter wouldn't melt in your mouth... Do you never read what you type yourself?
>
> It's a bit like the way you claim to like Argentina and have empathy for the people there yet all your posts show the exact opposite, you devote hours denigrating them and attacking them on an issue which is very dear to them... Is it some kind of complex double personality at work?

i asked a couple of days back for you to point out where ive been rude to you, Bruce. i'm still waiting for you to show me. i think you may be confusing me with someone else.

and as for argentina, surely you can see the difference between disapproving of a government's policy and disliking the country's people? otherwise you're in all sorts of difficulty over israel...!

cheers
gregor

Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)

> Keep up the personal attacks Bruce, it only shows the weakness in your argument (that lack some decent facts to back them up btw).

Come off it !that wasn't an attack,it was just a bit of fun compared to the abuse dished out to Bruce.

And FWIW i think Bruce's arguement is well good.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) What subsidies other than defence?
>
> . Wiki suggrst all mineral/oil income will go to the Islanders., rather than Britain, in which case what benefit to Britain in keeping sovereignty?

And you believe that? Even if it were true and the islanders became like Qatari nabobs - would that be reasonable? Aren't the poor of Argentina more deserving than a few thousand chancers who would be turned into millionaires overnight?
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> And you believe that?

Well yes. What subsidies were you referring to?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Well it does show this isn't about oil etc as often claimed

what do you think they just wana own the cute penguins?

yeah that's what it must be right enough,duh! I was so silly for thinking iit was about that stuff that we go invade and murder people for when it was obviously the wee cute penguins all along.
MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> what do you think they just wana own the cute penguins?
>
> yeah that's what it must be right enough,duh! I was so silly for thinking iit was about that stuff that we go invade and murder people for when it was obviously the wee cute penguins all along.

Eh? Whe haven't invaded the Falklands for at least 180 years, if then. And as above there is no direct benefit to the UK over oil etc. The islanders might ot rather well of course - good luck to them!
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

Well off the top of my head we invaded Iraq a few years ago and we put a tyrant in place in Iran to get more oil profits and then there was Iraq way way back to and there's many more but i'm tired after a lonhg shift.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

hi again Bruce,

any chance you could address any of the points ive raised in the last couple of days:

18.21 today- where i set out the reasons the mapuche issue *is* relevant

18.16 yesterday- where i ask you to justify why a french settlement is relevant to an argentinian sovereignty claim

21.00 today where i ask you again to show me where i've been rude to you on this thread

20.43 tonight where i point out you were factually incorrect regarding the subsidy to the islands (they arent)

there is a recurrent theme over this thread of you making claims which are shown to be inaccurate, and you not acknowledging this and coming back to make the same claim later. this makes it difficult to make progress. it would be good if you could tackle these points head on,

thanks Bruce,

cheers
gregor
Coel Hellier - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Really Coel you keep repeating something you know makes no sense...

It makes perfect sense to me.

> That a group of people only has to occupy a bit of land then they can call a referendum and it belongs to them!

Occupy for 180 years, passing on farms from generation to generation ... yes!

> but if the referendum had been called in 1947 Israel would no longer exist...

No-one is pretending that the origin of Israel is a model of democratic legitimacy.

> What about the Isle of White ... would a simple vote allow them to break away from Britain and pocket the lot?

Of course!! Just as Scotland can become independent if they chose. Just as the Channel Islands could vote to become part of France if they chose. Are you *really* this baffled by elementary concepts of democracy?





MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Well off the top of my head we invaded Iraq a few years ago and we put a tyrant in place in Iran to get more oil profits

We did? Where are all these oil profits? How does this relate to thr Falklands.

.

Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> i guess my argument is that at some point we have to accept that the de facto ownership is what counts, and that 180 years is long enough for that to be the case.

At last a bit of honesty, the whole Mapuche story is just to denigrate Argentina, just as other posters have been doing consistently, but your real motive is in order to claim that the Malvinas become British not by mere conquest but by squatter's rights!

PS. Reading about the Mapuche it seems that their presence in Argentina dates to about the same time as Britain's in the Malvinas, and like the British they pushed out most of the original inhabitants when they crossed the Andes.

As for you long argumentation, the reasoning is all wrong, Argentina's claim is based on territorial integrity, the Malvinas being part of the country by proximity, as the Isle of White is part of Britain or the Galapagos Ecuador. The "prior claim" argument is just part of it.

Above all for South Americans it is the shear refusal of the arrogance of Britain's claim from the opposite side of the world that clinches things. After the USA Britain is seen as the historical aggressor in the world, just as muslims regard us as "Little Satan", yapping about the heels of our master "Big Satan" Uncle Sam.

All very degrading for those of us who think moral principles and fairness should drive foreign policy, even for an old battered bulldog.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> Keep up the personal attacks Bruce, it only shows the weakness in your argument (that lack some decent facts to back them up btw).

When I'm attacked I reply, and even a grumpy bear can't deny I am being attacked on this one, but what annoys me more is the way you are all attacking the Argentinian people as if they were a load of untermenschen... as if they in their majority had been fascists under the Generals rather than a victim of these same generals - propped up with British cash by the way. The bullets and exocets, from our good ally France, may have been bought with money supplied by Britain!

So the Argentinians, even when they have been democratic for years, are still the baddies... a bit like the Russians, the USSR has gone but they are still baddies too. All very Daily Mail, and yet there is a thread going at present which consists of a long stream of vitriol against the very same newspaper! All probably justified to some extent but also pretty schizophrenic :-)
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)

>
> And FWIW i think Bruce's arguement is well good.

wicked, ya down wiv da man!
MG - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: You are utterly utterly bonkers and delusional. No one on this thread comes close to thinking any of that.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> When I'm attacked I reply, and even a grumpy bear can't deny I am being attacked on this one

Given time to read this thread you will find the aged old "he started it" but the fun thing is - this thread has the evidence you drew first blood.

I won't deny you are being attacked but what do you expect when people get bored of your factless weak arguments, lack of consideration for their opinion and then direct attacks on them?

dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> PS. Reading about the Mapuche it seems that their presence in Argentina dates to about the same time as Britain's in the Malvinas, and like the British they pushed out most of the original inhabitants when they crossed the Andes.

Ah so they were fair game for the Europeans then? It really is quite hard understanding these rules you apply. Its almost as if you just invent them to try and justify your hatred of democracy and random side taking.

> As for you long argumentation, the reasoning is all wrong, Argentina's claim is based on territorial integrity, the Malvinas being part of the country by proximity, as the Isle of White is part of Britain or the Galapagos Ecuador. The "prior claim" argument is just part of it.

Ah yes territorial integrity, the fall back position of imperialists through the ages.
I take it you feel Cuba belongs to the USA then, or the Faroe Islands to the UK?
Also remind me how far away the Falkland Islands are from the pre conquest of the desert Argentina?

> All very degrading for those of us who think moral principles and fairness should drive foreign policy, even for an old battered bulldog.

oh dear. You really have lost it now.
Deviant - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Britain is never going to give up the Falklands, unless it becomes the wish of the population.

Even if it is only in respect of those who lost their lives in the retaking of the islands from the Argentinians, selling-out to a country that has not yet established itself as a true democracy is just not going to happen and rightly so. The geographical position of the islands has nothing to do with sovereignty.

Almost 200 years of continual presence on the islands gives the inhabitants legitamacy. They wish to remain British, so Britain should do all in its considerable power, to do so.
Postmanpat on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) You are utterly utterly bonkers and delusional.
>

Do you know, I think you're actually the first person on UKC to actually say that?
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) You are utterly utterly bonkers and delusional. No one on this thread comes close to thinking any of that.

i do wonder if he really does believe all this, particularly since the vitriol seems to pick up immediately after he gets picked up on something and challenged to answer it.
Maybe its just a defence mechanism.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

we are going round in circles arent we!

re: the argument for proximity, i'll link to this map again which conclusively rebuts this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_ARGENTINA_frontera.png

i linked to it 18 months ago, but as we have established tonight, you dont even read your own links never mind other peoples, so you probably missed it...!

;-)

in case clicking on it is too much effort, it shown the extent of argentina from the 1700s to 1861, by which the islands were clearly settled. at that stage, argentina was still essentially a greater buenos aires, over 1000 miles from the falklands. yes, its closer now (though still not that close), thanks to killing everyone that was in the way, but acheiving modest proximity to settled offshore islands doesnt confer soverignty rights in any way.

re the mapuche- i've already explained that it can be read in 2 ways- in the narrow context, to a group that live in the central part of chilean patagonia and the neighbouring parts of argentina; but also more widely to other linked groups across the region, in much the same way that people from abroad often use "English" as a synonym for "british". see this link to the tehuelche, one notable group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehuelche_people

the whole of patagonia was settled, from as long ago as 10000 bc. do you really think that it was an empty land? suggest some reading here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia#History

are you actually disputing that the conquest of the desert took place?

re: the squatters rights bit, well the historical record shows that there was a british settlement before any spanish or argentinian one, so its clear who the squatters were. anyway, as is often the case, you have missed the nuance of my point- that even if the argentinian claim *had* been valid, we cant reverse the clock to 1832 and reestablish the borders and populations of the world as it was then. for a start, as noted above, argentina would stop at the borders of greater buenos aires. this is self evident and uncontentious.

anyhow, id like to take you back to my post of 21.21 tonight, could you address the 4 points i address there? otherwise it looks like you may be avoiding them...

cheers

gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

How about an answer instead of blustering? Let all the world know why in one case a referendum is required and not in another apparently more deserving one?

To quote you to me in many an occasions, answer the question.
Postmanpat on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> How about an answer instead of blustering?
>
>
Brilliant colonel. They're rolling in the aisles :)

dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> How about an answer instead of blustering? Let all the world know why in one case a referendum is required and not in another apparently more deserving one?
>
> To quote you to me in many an occasions, answer the question.

no, no Bruce. What I do is quote you back to yourself. So to quote me.

"Obviously some of us disagree with that logic and would prefer that come 2015 the lease agreement with the USA is changed."

Now I would think the implications of that statement is simple enough. However if you dont get the subtleties then yes i do think they should be given the right to return and then vote on the future of the islands.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> They seem incapable of realising that simply trying to bully the islanders wont work...

You're fantastic, a real British Lord Haw Haw, turning the world on it's head as glibly as if you were commenting on the Queens hat at Ascot - for your information most of the world considers that Britain is the bully, not Argentina! Can you really not see this?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> To quote you to me in many an occasions, answer the question.

Oh the irony!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> When I'm attacked I reply, and even a grumpy bear can't deny I am being attacked on this one, but what annoys me more is the way you are all attacking the Argentinian people as if they were a load of untermenschen...

i've already pointed out several times bruce, that i am not attacking the argentinian people, but their governments policy. and i;ve pointed out that you know full well the difference, else you would guilty of repulsive antisemitism.

since we both know this, and since it has been repeatly pointed out to you, why do you keep saying it?

and: you are not being attacked Bruce. we are having a debate, where our arguments are being tested (and yours found wanting!). its not personal, and i wish you nothing but goodwill. on another subject, such as religion, or palestine, i would likely be arguing in support of you.

so once again, lets keep it civil, its a discussion on the internet, it doesnt really matter, so there's no grounds to be unpleasant,

best wishes

gregor
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> for your information most of the world considers that Britain is the bully, not Argentina! Can you really not see this?

Not possible, as most of the world does not see Britain is the bully. I have facts to prove this - do you?
Sir Chasm - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Territorial integrity? Portugal becomes Spanish, Canada becomes the 52nd US state, Tibet becomes Chinese? You are a card.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> How about an answer instead of blustering?



indeed how about one? see my post of 21.21 tonight for 4 questions you have been avoiding for days now.

cheers
gregor
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> for your information most of the world considers that Britain is the bully, not Argentina! Can you really not see this?

evidence for this statement please.
Note someone choosing to vote for negotiations doesnt count.

As for bullying, what else do you call the Argentinian actions?
Can you not see how counterproductive it is?

Again to reiterate mine and many other peoples opinion. I am not fussed if the Falklanders voted and chose to join Argentina, same with Gibralter. However it is their choice, not yours, not mine and not the Argentinians.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Territorial integrity? Portugal becomes Spanish, Canada becomes the 52nd US state, Tibet becomes Chinese? You are a card.


yes, it doesnt stand up to more than a nanosecond of scrutiny does it?

the reason he's shifted to that line of argument is that the one on precedence of occupation has been comprehensively rebutted, though he's been avoiding facing up to this for a couple of days now, and wont actually admit it...

cheers
gregor
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If they'd been there for multiple generations, over a hundred and fifty years, bringing up children, passing their land onto their children, etc, then yes. If they'd been there 6 weeks then no.

So at what point between 6 weeks and 150 years would it become OK?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> I take it you feel Cuba belongs to the USA then, or the Faroe Islands to the UK?

Cuba's as near to Mexico as it is to the USA so that's a bit problematic.

How about britain owning HK on the other side of the world?
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Bruce. i'm still waiting for you to show me

I can understand you not reading my posts but try ctrl+F on the tread and search "discourteous"... or more simply reread your posts to me.

As for Israel, I dislike the people of Israel, with the exception of those who are Palestinians, for their genocide of the Palestinians... I'm not so hypocritical as to pretend I'm only against the government, especially when it is democratically elected and supports the massacres and war in it's great majority.

When you say otherwise for Argentina this is just a cop out... I'm sure you are aware that the vast majority of Argentinians support their governments on this issue.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MG)

> i do wonder if he really does believe all this, particularly since the vitriol seems to pick up immediately after he gets picked up on something and challenged to answer it.
> Maybe its just a defence mechanism.

is it just a defence mechanism when you get all hot and bothered and start name calling.
Deviant - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> [...]
>
> You're fantastic, a real British Lord Haw Haw, turning the world on it's head as glibly as if you were commenting on the Queens hat at Ascot - for your information most of the world considers that Britain is the bully, not Argentina! Can you really not see this?


Bruce my friend, you're living in a country that still has little bits and pieces all over the Globe !

St Pierre and Miquelon,; Mayotte; Nlle. Caledonie; Guyane. How do you think the French would react to claims to these territories from neigbouring states ?

Keugelen in many respects is similar to the Falklands. They have never been truly inhabited, but the wealth of yet to be discovered and existing resources make them worth having. The French would be very happy to hand them over to South Africa if they ever reclaimed them!

Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
>
> Well off the top of my head we invaded Iraq a few years ago and we put a tyrant in place in Iran to get more oil profits

> We did? Where are all these oil profits? How does this relate to thr Falklands.

They go to the companies involved.
It relates to the point i was answering,try to keep up please.

.
Sir Chasm - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Britain never owned HK, shonatheliar, we leased it, we didn't give it back.
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


This territorial integrity argument. Bruce wheels it out every time this weary old thread gets another weary old spin. But basically, what he means is that it's unjust for countries to have sticky-out bits.

For country A to have bit B which is miles away from most of A, with lots and lots of country C in between: this offends Bruce's sense of symmetry.

The ideal country, according to Bruce, would in fact be circular.

This territorial-integrity doctrine of Bruce's is, I respectfully submit, complete pigswill.
Postmanpat on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Are you named after Gudrun the writer of stories about trolls, or Gudrun the German neo Nazi?
Or both maybe?
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Territorial integrity? Portugal becomes Spanish, Canada becomes the 52nd US state, Tibet becomes Chinese? You are a card.

Isle of White becomes Chinese,Arran becomes Indonesian,Skye is also Chinese and the Orkneys are Chilian.

Since the Malvinas are British and so was HK.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

Yep..give that boy a coconut!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> I can understand you not reading my posts but try ctrl+F on the tread and search "discourteous"... or more simply reread your posts to me.
>
no, that wont do. you've made an accusation about me, so back it up. please specifically indicate the things i've said that are discourteous, so we can all see what you mean. otherwise we can assume that this was just another baseless allegation, and that you appear to try to smear people to cover up the weakness of your arguments.

alternatively, you could admit you were wrong, and apologise. that would certainly be the braver and honest option. are you brave, bruce?

re: israel- well at least thats honest of you. but i find it difficult to dislike 40 million people most of whom ive never met- especially over a political difference! It is a shame that pointing out the historical record relating to the argument is twisted into something its not. you are never slow to point out the legitimate criticisms of britain and america's historic, and current actions. does this mean you hate american and british people too?

that was one of the points, and i cant say thats what i meant by addressing it! can you have another go, and also try the other 3 points too...

cheers
gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Isle of White becomes Chinese,Arran becomes Indonesian,Skye is also Chinese and the Orkneys are Chilian.
>
> Since the Malvinas are British and so was HK.

It's Wight, ffs. You liar.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gudrun) Britain never owned HK, shonatheliar, we leased it, we didn't give it back.

Better watch out you can be banned for name calling like that,i assure you.
Yeah i did mention way further down the thread about the lease Chas so tell me something i don't know will you?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Isle of White becomes Chinese,Arran becomes Indonesian,Skye is also Chinese and the Orkneys are Chilian.
>
> Since the Malvinas are British and so was HK.


Shona, see my post to bruce at 21.50 with map of argentinas expansion. when argentina first claimed the islands, they were more than 1000 miles away. they are closer now as argentina has expanded, but they are still a long way from the coast- the sheltands would be more of a comparison than the others which are all with sight of the coast.

and all the more relevant, given their history, as previously norwegian. if they have a referendum, and want to secede from the UK, then fair enough, in my book,


cheers
gregor
Sir Chasm - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Banned for calling shona menzies, shona m, workingclassless, naedanger, gudrunwhatever, a liar? Bless.
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> The ideal country, according to Bruce, would in fact be circular.

or possibly there might just be a handful of countries.
Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America and so on.

I look forward to seeing Bruce campaigning for Alaska to be handed over as well.


Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

> Eh? Whe haven't invaded the Falklands for at least 180 years, if then. And as above there is no direct benefit to the UK over oil etc.

The original conquest was for strategic reasons. The Navy wanted a staging post on the sea route round the Horn to the Pacific coast of America. This became very important and at one point Port Stanley was one of the most frequented ports in the world. Then the Panama canal was built and it went back to being just a sheep farm.

In the 1980 (or about) Britain came very close to signing a compromise with Argentina, with the nasty generals which Thatcher is credited by some with having ousted, which involved double sovereignty but a 99 year lease to Britain of the islands which at that time were no longer seen as of great value.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/defence-and-security-blog/2012/jun/22/falklands-gibraltar-sovereignty

Nowadays it is obvious oil and mineral wealth that is important, but not only for the Malvinas, the other islands to the East go with it, each with it's enormous area of sea bed. Sea bed mania is hitting Antarctica too, despite the nominal international agreements. It's set to become the cassus belli of the 21st century. Fishing rights are important too but much less so, especially as the Falkland's government has already nearly exhausted this source of wealth - an effective gift from Britain which allows them to claim they balance their budgets (except for "defence").

Personally I think that the other reason is strategic, the "free world" has few military bases in the Southern Hemisphere (if it has any?) and with the minral wealth of Antarctica whetting the appetites of those who rule the world one could be handy nearby. UKC military buffs will deny this of course, suggestions that our military positions are anything but snow-white in purity seems to make their gout play them up a bit.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Jesus! who wheeled out Father Tim?

> This territorial-integrity doctrine of Bruce's is, I respectfully submit, complete pigswill.

Basically if you have the biggest navy or army with the most money from bleeding countries all over the world dry,then it is perfectly acceptable to invade and colonize places at the other end of the world when their neighbour is weaker than you and unable to fight back.

And if you don't like that then we shall call it "complete pigswill."


Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)

>
> I look forward to seeing Bruce campaigning for Alaska to be handed over as well.


To whom? Russia (another expansionist state if ever there was one)? Canada? The Alberta separatists? The Parti Quebecois perchance?

Self-flagellation and bending-over-backwards grovelling apology for everything Britain has ever done has been a staple of the Left ever since Gladstone. (And I speak as a liberal.) The disturbing thing about these people is how deeply and sincerely they hate their own country. They really do. They just HATE Britain and everything it stands for. And anyone who disagrees with them is a blinkered reactionary blimp.

At the heart of this complex, if you ask me, what they're really hating is themselves.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

there are some very good points in there bruce, and your observations about sea bed rights are important.

i think its fair to say that the UK govts position privately is likely to be different from the public pose.

but i certainly am no spokesman for any UK political party, and those are not the reasons i support the islanders right to choose, in both directions (would the UK govt honour the referendum result if it had been an unexpected vote for independence, given the points you make? i dont know, but its a fair question)

but back on topic: you found time to type all that and find the link. can you set aside some time to explicitly point to where i was rude to you? or find the courage to admit you were wrong on this?


cheers
gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> there is a recurrent theme over this thread..

... Of you acting like a spoilt brat! I've answered some of your questions but you don't seem to notice... I don't live at your beck and call and this attitude of yours, which swings from syrupy to school-masterish is most rude, although you don't appear to even realise this - unless, as I suspect you are just on a wind up, a troll?

So please cease and act like an adult if that's not to much to ask.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> they are closer now as argentina has expanded
> but they are still a long way from the coast

looking at a map which country would you say the islands would naturally be affiliated to or closest or protected by?



Britain?

Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes banned.
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Ah--another adherent of the circular-country doctrine.

What about the Channel Islands? Ooh look, aren't they close to France?
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> looking at a map which country would you say the islands would naturally be affiliated to or closest or protected by?

With Naval supremacy of the 17th, 18th 19th century?

> Britain?

Yes, of course

Your point is?

Sir Chasm - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Really? But you lied again when you said you'd mentioned HK being leased. But then you are a liar.
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Her point is that she feels good about herself when she's denounced everything that's real and actual, in the name of her illusory political dogma.

Same with Bruce: the idea is to adopt a heroically absurd position and raise a clenched fist as you go down with the argumentative ship. You lose everything else, but boy do you feel righteous.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> ... Of you acting like a spoilt brat! I've answered some of your questions but you don't seem to notice...

i must have missed that. where was the bit where you addressed how a french claim became an argentinian one? and whether you felt any discomfort in the provenance, of royalty passing the islands like parlour game pieces? is that really a sound basis for a claim for sovereignty in 2013?

or the bit where you say whether you accept that the conquest of the desert took place, and that argentinian patagonia was in fact occupied for 10000 years?

"I don't live at your beck and call and this attitude of yours, which swings from syrupy to school-masterish is most rude, although you don't appear to even realise this - unless, as I suspect you are just on a wind up, a troll?
>
> So please cease and act like an adult if that's not to much to ask."

well, if being polite is being rude in your world, that makes it difficult for me! but in fact, i doubt if you will find any support for that odd position.

and acting like an adult in my books would include apologising for wrongly accusing someone of something, rather than trying to gloss over your mistake. can you be a grown up here bruce?

thanks,

cheers
gregor

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> looking at a map which country would you say the islands would naturally be affiliated to or closest or protected by?
>
>
>
> Britain?


why should islands over 250 miles from the coast of the nearest landmass be affiliated with anywhere?

should all sovereign island nations offer themselves up for assimilation
into the nearest continental nation?

did you look at the link? it was 1000 miles, shona. if geographical proximity had any validity- which it doesnt- but even if it did, it was 1000 miles. thats nowhere near...!

cheers
gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Of course!! Just as Scotland can become independent if they chose. Just as the Channel Islands could vote to become part of France if they chose. Are you *really* this baffled by elementary concepts of democracy?

So any more prosperous bit of a country can quite freely break away whenever it wants, even when doing so has a negative effect on the whole, either economic or in terms of security?

I wonder if you've thought this through at all? Democracy is also about solidarity, not individual selfishness. You are on the same positions as the Northern League in Italy. I suppose it fits in with your extreme liberal economic politics, but it also takes you into very murky waters!
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Self-flagellation and bending-over-backwards grovelling apology for everything Britain has ever done has been a staple of the Left ever since Gladstone.

Pathetic excuses for the empires crimes,no we should celebrate the starvations,genocides,massacres,countless invasions,incessant war,robbery,theiving and oppression.

> At the heart of this complex, if you ask me, what they're really hating is themselves.

Amateur Psuedo-psychiatry nonsense, if you knew me at all you know that i am my number 1 fan.
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


You really do have a liberal-apology complex. Can you really see nothing positive at all in Britain's history?

No?

Then you're potty.

This matters, because it seems to feed in to your basic argument about the Falklands, which as far as I can see is "We British are so evil that we must deserve to have them taken away from us".
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> What about the Channel Islands? Ooh look, aren't they close to France?

Considering France was another place that England owned a fair bit of it's no surprise who they would end up belonging to is it?
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> Ah yes territorial integrity, the fall back position of imperialists through the ages.
> I take it you feel Cuba belongs to the USA then, or the Faroe Islands to the UK?
> Also remind me how far away the Falkland Islands are from the pre conquest of the desert Argentina?

You don't understand the term, do you?
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:


PS When it really comes down to it, I think that's really Bruce's basic reasoning too. All the nonsense about circular countries and Argentina being a whiter-than-white non-colonial victim of the evil limeys is just a cover for the same complex.

If we're going to be amateur psychologists, I have to say that I find it interesting that Bruce moved away from Britain.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> So any more prosperous bit of a country can quite freely break away whenever it wants, even when doing so has a negative effect on the whole, either economic or in terms of security?
>
> I wonder if you've thought this through at all? Democracy is also about solidarity, not individual selfishness. You are on the same positions as the Northern League in Italy. I suppose it fits in with your extreme liberal economic politics, but it also takes you into very murky waters!

you are right in this bruce (see! i can even agree with you on this thread, in fact thats the second time tonight- you are right about sea bed rights too)

it is reasonable for scotland to have a vote on independence, as it is a recognisable historic entity. ditto shetland- as they were passed to scotland from norway in the first place. the isle of wight has no historic recognition as an independant territory, so it wouldnt get a vote.

cornwall...?

ooh, i dunno about that one...

;-)

gregor

Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> Considering France was another place that England owned a fair bit of it's no surprise who they would end up belonging to is it?


Sheesh. You've got your history completely upside down there, haven't you. Google "Duchy of Normandy" and see if you can work out which country it was occupying which that led to the Channel Islands being a British Crown possession today.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:

No more Mister Nice Guy then! I suspected as much.

They always take the mask off in the end :-)
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> To whom? Russia (another expansionist state if ever there was one)? Canada? The Alberta separatists? The Parti Quebecois perchance?

i reckon Canada tops the list but to be honest Bruce rule of "make it look tidy" seems a bit arbitrary so I might be missing some subtleties.
Thinking on it since Canada came from the British Empire it clearly cant have it so I will change to Russia.
Ticks all Bruces boxes i reckon.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> You really do have a liberal-apology complex. Can you really see nothing positive at all in Britain's history?

> No?

> Then you're potty.

Someone who is talking quite happily to themselves and even answering themselves and you call me potty?
How on earth do you come to the "potty" conclusion that i don't see any good having came from Britain,especiallly since i said otherwise further up thread?

> This matters, because it seems to feed in to your basic argument about the Falklands, which as far as I can see is "We British are so evil that we must deserve to have them taken away from us".

Sorry are you talking to me or just having a chat with yourself?
Your argument is preposterous.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Deviant)
>
> No more Mister Nice Guy then! I suspected as much.
>
> They always take the mask off in the end :-)


are you talking about yourself here bruce?

cos accusing people of calling you names when they havent is not very nice

its also a bit cowardly not to apologise when you're caught out doing it

but i dont think you are a coward, so i'm sure you are typing your apology now,



cheers
gregor
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> You don't understand the term, do you?

not in the way you are using it. Perhaps you might care to explain where the promotion of a secessionist movement or change of borders applies?
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Why not move to Argentina, if you think Britain's such a terrible place? I'm sure you'd be welcome there.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)

> I wonder if you've thought this through at all?

have you? I refuted your facts that Britain is a bully but you have not bothered to show me wrong (basically cos you cannot but that shouldn't stop you).
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Sheesh. You've got your history completely upside down there, haven't you.

you would have thought 1066 and all that might have given a few hints.

Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Normans Normans Normans! Out out out!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> have you? I refuted your facts that Britain is a bully but you have not bothered to show me wrong (basically cos you cannot but that shouldn't stop you).

that seems to be a commonly occurring theme on this thread... and requesting Bruce actually responds to points relating to the debate is met with abuse and allegations you are telling him what to do!

after nearly 400 posts, i doubt if we'll see any change now- the MO is pretty well established

1. post inaccurate material as fact

2. when this is pointed out, ignore/smear/change the subject

3. if the point is pressed, say your are not at anyones beck and call and dont have to answer- well, self evidently, you dont, but we can all draw our conclusions as to why you dont want to answer!

cheers
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Normans Normans Normans! Out out out!

Just because it happened a long time ago doesn't make it all right, you know.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

cheers for the posts tonight, Tim, the thread needs a bit of light heartedness to keep it entertaining...

gregor
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I am staggered by your stamina. I just nipped in to see if anything had changed on the Bruce and Commie Lassie front.

Apart from her username (again), nothing has :-)
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> well the historical record shows that there was a british settlement before any spanish or argentinian one,

Another one showing his true face - you know this is a lie, I've even given you the name of a book written by the man who actually set up the first real civilian settlement, with his own money. You are just another fanatical pro-British propagandist, twisting the truth, insulting other peoples who do no more than demand common justice, and crying loud and clear that Britain is right when all the world is saying she is wrong!

It's not just you though, maybe it's the New Britain? The swing to the right hasn't missed climbers it seems.
ads.ukclimbing.com
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

yes, dunno why i keep at it! i'm even at number 12 in the top posters table!

:-(

"i am gregor, and i am a falklandsargumentoholic"....

thankfully, when this one dies off, it shouldnt come back for the rest of the year...

gregor
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> why should islands over 250 miles from the coast of the nearest landmass be affiliated with anywhere?

Do you think they would be completely isolated and self sufficient without any outside help whatsoever?

> should all sovereign island nations offer themselves up for assimilation
into the nearest continental nation?

Not necessarily but by the same logic should they be a part of a country at the other end of the world?

> did you look at the link? it was 1000 miles, shona. if geographical proximity had any validity- which it doesnt- but even if it did, it was 1000 miles. thats nowhere near...!

250 miles away from Argentina and is it 8000 miles from britain...Gregor....
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
>
> Another one showing his true face - you know this is a lie,

You are just another fanatical pro-British propagandist, twisting the truth, insulting other peoples who do no more than demand common justice, and crying loud and clear that Britain is right when all the world is saying she is wrong!



Bruce, you do realise that posts like that ^^ come across as completely unhinged, don't you?

Gregor's been amazingly tolerant of your twisting and turning as you wriggle on the spike of facts that is currently kebabbing you.

There might just possibly be a fanatic (or two) in this argument but it most certainly isn't Gregor. And shouting at him isn't going to change that.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Normans Normans Normans! Out out out!

To be honest i didn't know about the Duchy of whatever or the Channel isles history.

well i can't know absolutely everything ye know?
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> I am staggered by your stamina. I just nipped in to see if anything had changed on the Bruce and Commie Lassie front.

I find it a fascinating insight into their psychological make up.
I dont think it is a coincident they seem to have very similar political backgrounds.

As for the Normans, its the Beaker people who i think are to blame.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

ME: well the historical record shows that there was a british settlement before any spanish or argentinian one,

BRUCE: Another one showing his true face - you know this is a lie, I've even given you the name of a book written by the man who actually set up the first real civilian settlement, with his own money.

are you saying de bougainville, of St Malo, France, set up a spanish/argentinian settlement?

from the wiki article on the esteemed monsieur:

The French did not recognise any superior Spanish title to the islands but the French and Spanish royal families were linked by the Bourbon Family Compact and France simply gave in to Spanish pressure. Bougainville himself did not believe the Spanish had any superior title and in 1800 he even wrote to Napoleon urging him to raise the question of the French claim to the Falklands at the negotiations leading to the Peace of Amiens (1801).


but you know all this. youve even by your own admission read a book on him. that looks suspiciously like a known untruth you are telling bruce

so, instead of an apology, you launch another knowingly false allegation about me. that's not very nice of you bruce. it would have been more courageous just to admit you were wrong, instead of making it worse for yourself,

cheers
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
>
>
> well i can't know absolutely everything ye know?



I'm afraid that's no excuse for knowing absolutely nothing...
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
>
>
> As for the Normans, its the Beaker people who i think are to blame.


What about the horrifying massacres of innocent neanderthals perpetrated in this very country by your, yes YOUR, own ancestors?

You have blood on your hands.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> and i;ve pointed out that you know full well the difference, else you would guilty of repulsive antisemitism.

No I wouldn't, think a bit.

Two reasons:

1) Palestinians are a Semites too and I support their cause.

2) It is a simple fact that the great majority of Jewish people living in what they call Israel but which is in reality Occupied Palestine support this dispossession and genocide, saying this is simply a fact. In the same way the majority of Jewish people throughout the world support Israel's existence - saying this is a fact, it is not anti-Semitic, even anti-Jewish, which is a more accurate term than anti-Semitic.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
>
> 250 miles away from Argentina and is it 8000 miles from britain...Gregor....


you didnt read the link did you, Shona?

argentina in 1832 was essentially greater buenos aires. it is around 1000 miles from there to the islands. that is the distance that counts; the subsequent proximity is on stolen lands. if argentina had to steal the land to get near the island. geographical proximity is bogus as an argument.

cheers
gregor
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> What about the horrifying massacres of innocent neanderthals perpetrated in this very country by your, yes YOUR, own ancestors?

well some, unkindly in my opinion, suggest that I might not be that far removed. So I stand unsullied waving the Neanderthal flag or jawbone of a mammoth against you oppressors.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> There might just possibly be a fanatic (or two) in this argument but it most certainly isn't Gregor.

Really?

I think you will find it takes two to tango Tim.
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> well i can't know absolutely everything ye know?

oh come on. I know school history lessons have the reputation of thinking anything other than the Nazis and the Tudors is a special add on but even they manage 1066. Does that not give any hints of where the claim came from? Have you heard of the Angevin Empire or even looked at the reasons for the 100 year war?
Deviant - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Deviant)
>
> No more Mister Nice Guy then! I suspected as much.
>
> They always take the mask off in the end :-)


I almost missed that !

I guess I'm too serious to really get into this kind of futile , ever repetetive discussion. It's fun, even if only for the ocassional gem that shines through all the garbage :-

"as you wriggle on the spike of facts that is currently kebabbing you" - nice one!

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

an odd jump back to a previous point. the current one is your entirely innaccurate misrepresentation of de bougainvilles french colony as spanish.

but: ok, i accept this, no arguments here. it was the wrong analogy.

now, can you accept you were wrong to accuse me of being rude to you? and apologise for that, and the repetitive tide of sleights, accusations and open insults you have peppered your posts with?

it would, as noted, salvage a measure of respect for you,

and deal with the de bougainville issue?

cheers

gregor
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>
> 1) Palestinians are a Semites too and I support their cause.



So it turns out that those who dislike Osama Bin Laden are anti-semitic. That is a mind-boggling piece of semantics.

If Bruce is capable of this sort of twist in argument, what is he not capable of?

And yes, Bruce, I'm perfectly well aware of the extension of "Semitic" as a technical term of anthropology. That technical sense is not what's in question here and you know it.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> that is the distance that counts

And if you say that Gregor then that makes it so.

The 8000 miles other end of the planet distance is completely irrelevant if you shout it loud enough...Gregor...

Though its only 250 miles from Argentina.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> so there's no grounds to be unpleasant,

Then why do it? Post honestly, without fibs, stop badgering for "answers" to questions that have already been answered, or others simply can't be bothered to answer, and stop insulting a people you say you have sympathy for. You say you've travelled so you know what people think in S America, why not at least point that out to posters on this thread who clearly lack your experience?

In general in this world you reap what you sow.
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Two to tango? You and Bruce... a deserted barrio in Buenos Aires... a rose between your teeth, Bruce in a white tux and tackety heels, as a beat-up dance band strikes up a tango in the background...

Thank you for this image which I shall treasure for the next 28 and a half seconds:-)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

thanks Tim, it can be a bewildering experience debating with bruce- his total refusal to engage directly with the point means that its difficult to tell if i'm even making a coherent point... its like punching fog at times!

cheers
gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (
Post honestly, without fibs,


You tell 'em, Bruce!
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Yeah i was taught some stuff about 1066 but can't remember as it was too long ago.
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> thanks Tim, it can be a bewildering experience debating with bruce- his total refusal to engage directly with the point means that its difficult to tell if i'm even making a coherent point

nah thats when you know you are making a point. Havent you noticed how he happily engages with one minor point (or goes off on a rant about how imperialist we all are) whilst ignoring the bits he is directly called out on.
Then after a few posts he will come back to the earlier point hoping the answer has been forgotten. Its the sort of tactic which often works well in spoken debates but not on written.

Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Hmm, yes. We can see your grip on history is not too good.

Or geography.

Or logic.

Have you thought of night school?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Then why do it? Post honestly, without fibs,

like the one about de bougainville setting up a spanish colony, Bruce? is that the sort of thing you mean?

"stop badgering for "answers" to questions that have already been answered,"

its the ones you havent answered that i'm more interesting in. like how de bougainville's french colony can support an argentinian claim for sovereignty, without recourse to the treaty of torsedillas or the bourbon compact- both of which would negate any appeal to decolonisation. i havent had that answered at any point, despite repeatedly asking over the last 18 months on a number of threads. its like you dont want to answer it, or something....

;-)


still waiting for the apology- you realise it is making you look churlish, at best, by not making one, when it is so clearly appropriate..?

cheers
gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:

Of course I think the same about the remaining French colonies, but the French have never been particularly good on this one, they only gave up theirs after horrendous colonial wars - Indochina and Algeria. Many French people have still not forgiven the Algerians for kicking them out, still no frank official apologies for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and systematic use of torture.
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)

> Then after a few posts he will come back to the earlier point hoping the answer has been forgotten. Its the sort of tactic which often works well in spoken debates but not on written.

Tis true - I refute his claim most of the world think Britain is a bully. I have the facts to refute this claim but Bruce refuses to put evidence forward that most of the world think Britain is a bully.

He still hasn't replied in his convoluted manner. Presumably, living in France he only has the Daily Mail as his historic reference. Certainly it isn't the internet.
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Hmm, yes. We can see your grip on history is not too good.
>
> Or geography.
>
> Or logic.

I can see your grip on reality is non existant!
Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

> Tis true - I refute his claim most of the world think Britain is a bully

In general or with regard to the Malvinas?
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> This territorial-integrity doctrine of Bruce's is, I respectfully submit, complete pigswill.

Another one who doesn't understand the word he uses - try googling it, or praying for guidance in your case.
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Hmm. "Grip on reality." Are you, in fact, North Korean?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

yes, indeed....

i've asked the mods to move this to off belay, so it will be on the record the next time it comes up...

it is quite interesting going back to the last mega thread on the subject, in august 2011- its all the same points as that time again, Bruce evaded answering them that time too. its come up another time, but that must have been in the pub, so its gone.

not sure what bruce gets out of it- he must be aware of what he's doing, and how totally his case has been dismantled, in order to be using the defense mechanisms you outline- yet he still keep at it, never apologising never explaining...

as the eternal optimist, i always hope that one day, we'll get a breakthrough and agree on at least a part of it, but i guess it wont be happening this time...

cheers
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> Another one who doesn't understand the word he uses - try googling it, or praying for guidance in your case.


I suppose it's too much to expect you to give me a straight answer, if I ask you *which* word it is I don't understand?

Thanks for the cheap jibe at my faith, by the way; I was wondering how long it would take. You really are a stuck record, you know that?
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Another one who doesn't understand the word he uses - try googling it, or praying for guidance in your case.

I have to admit I am debating whether to resort to prayer. Could well make me a believer if your opinions even shifted a smidgeon.

Anyway, care to give your definition of territorial integrity. Since I am failing to see any attempt to support a separatist movement or change another countries borders with regards to to the Falklands?
Well apart from by the Argentinians.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> but i find it difficult to dislike 40 million people most of whom ive never met- especially over a political difference!

40 million? If you mean in Israel, there are about 5 million Jews now, the vast majority of whom support the genocide and land grab - otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Opinion polls and elections results for political parties supporting these violent policies are further proof - I never knew any Nazis but it doesn't prevent me disliking them, and hating their policies.

Gudrun - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> still waiting for the apology

Gregor....

Grow up! If i or Bruce or indeed anyone on here was to start demanding an apology for any wee slight then the place would be empty for all the folk away in a huff.

8000 miles ...250 miles.

HK people had no say why should the Falkland islanders?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> Another one who doesn't understand the word he uses - try googling it, or praying for guidance in your case.

you really just cant play nicely, can you Bruce?

i'll say it again: its just a debate, we arent really attacking you...

you are giving an impression of yourself on this thread which is deeply unflattering bruce, and which im sure you will be embarrassed by in retrospect. i'm sure you are a nice person away from the confines of political debate on ukc, but you just arent giving that impression now.

i'm sure you have it in you to conduct this debate in a civil manner, and apologise where it is needed,

cheers
gregor
dissonance - on 24 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> 8000 miles ...250 miles.

some special rounding down going on there.

> HK people had no say why should the Falkland islanders?

Well leaving aside the different circumstances, surely just because one group was treated badly doesnt mean others should be?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> 40 million? If you mean in Israel,

no, i mean argentina. are you not aware of important facts about the country weve been debating for the last 18 months on and off...?

and could you tackle the de bougainville point, about your knowing mislabling of his settlement as spanish?

cheers
gregor

ps awaiting apology
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
>
> I suppose it's too much to expect you to give me a straight answer, if I ask you *which* word it is I don't understand?



That would be a Yes, then.

Like I said, stuck record.

Cocoa time, I'm outa here.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: HK was leased, haven't you got that yet?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Gregor....
>
> Grow up! If i or Bruce or indeed anyone on here was to start demanding an apology for any wee slight then the place would be empty for all the folk away in a huff.

not just any wee sleight shona, days of smears- latest being i lied, when in the same breath bruce posted something he knew was untrue

i aplogise when i'm wrong; i'd say its the grown up thing to do. i think its fair enough draw attention to the fact bruce hasnt, and people can draw their own conclusions about what that says about his character

>" 8000 miles ...250 miles."
>

and they are 0 miles away from themselves. upthread ive repeatedly said my own preference is for independence from the UK

> HK people had no say why should the Falkland islanders?

i dont know enough about HK- i comment on the falklands and patagonia as i know enough about them to have an informed opinion. i dont on HK, and given your gaps in knowledge exposed on a whole range of subjects on here tonight, forgive me for doubting whether you do either....

cheers
gregor

Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

>
> What about the Channel Islands? Ooh look, aren't they close to France?

If ever France pushed the issue Britain would be hard pushed to counter the claim, but they don't because they see the wider picture and their own interest, so there is no problem.

Concerning "hating Britain", for me it's quite the opposite, I quite like the place, although many other places are nice too - I am neither nationalist nor patriot, I try to see all countries as having equal rights, a bit like in the UN charter if it was ever applied. So when I see British people calling for Britain to act badly I am doubly annoyed, for the way they personally behave but also for the discredit they bring on a country I like.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Hmm. "Grip on reality." Are you, in fact, North Korean?

Perhaps when you are chatting away with yourself a statement like this makes perfect sense to you.

but to the outside world Tim it just looks like someone who's process of logical thinking is goosed.

Past your bed time now Tim don't over do it...Nurse!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You can type a paragraph of bland, patronising platitude, but you can't answer a simple question?

Which word is it you claim I don't know the meaning of?
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> and acting like an adult in my books would include apologising for wrongly accusing someone of something, rather than trying to gloss over your mistake. can you be a grown up here bruce?

You really haven't read my posts at all, have you? You are asking for things I did specifically answered. Please stop, I can't keep up and want to go to bed.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> If ever France pushed the issue Britain would be hard pushed to counter the claim,


Incidentally, let's not let that one go. How on earth do you think the argument would go? You really suppose that the French would say "OK, those Channel Islands are very close to us, so you must give them up evil rosbifs!" and the British, if they were being honest, could only reply "Cor blimey, so they are, it's a fair cop"?

Is that *really* your picture of what a fair negotiation over the future of the Channel Islands would have to look like?

Really????

If yes, I can only say: wow, you really are crazy.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What about the Channel Islands? Ooh look, aren't they close to France?

If ever France pushed the issue Britain would be hard pushed to counter the claim, but they don't because they see the wider picture and their own interest, so there is no problem.

are you trawling the thread for anything you can post to avoid answering the questions that you clearly find so difficult bruce...?

its getting quite interesting to see which shoal of red herrings you will haul in next...!

cheers
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (
, I can't keep up


That much is true. Now, which word was it I don't understand? And why do you think the British have no good case for possession of the Channel Islands? Do please remind us before Gudrun tucks you in and hands you your dummy--if you've not spat it too far :-)
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> and given your gaps in knowledge exposed on a whole range of subjects on here tonight, forgive me for doubting whether you do either....

What gaps "on a whole range of subjects"are these Gregor ?
Do tell.
or are you in fact now resorting to porky pies?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Well, you've admitted yourself that you have no clue about the history of the Channel Islands, and indeed of England, for a start.

So unless you're lying about that, there's one thing for Gregor's list.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> You really haven't read my posts at all, have you? You are asking for things I did specifically answered. Please stop, I can't keep up and want to go to bed.

was that the bit where you suggested i ctrl f "discourteous", or reread any of my posts to you? thats not really an answer bruce, is it? i'm looking for you to point to the specific bit of text that you feel was discourteous- you know the sort of thing, like when you called me a liar at 23.21 tonight. and i'll stop when you either show the evidence, or withdraw the accusation

you know, the same thing happened with Jimbo a couple of months back- he had what i considered was a bit of a below the belt swipe at me. i called him on it, and persisted, and he admitted he didnt have evidence to back it up and apologised. that was brave, people willing to own their mistakes and admit publically they are wrong have my respect.

that option is there for you bruce- admit you were wrong, and that i have not insulted you or made petty digs or jibes, and get respect as someone big enough to admit they can make a mistake; or stick to the evasion and denial and let people decide what sort of person would do that,

choice is yours!

and de bougainville: whats going on there, is he spanish like you suggest? my sources suggest not... which is it?

cheers
gregor

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to tim)
>
>
> Well, you've admitted yourself that you have no clue about the history of the Channel Islands, and indeed of England, for a start.
>
> So unless you're lying about that, there's one thing for Gregor's list.

- what he said

+ sir chasm seems to think you have got it wrong on HK- on the basis of what i've seem tonight i'm inclined to prefer his evidence...

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Well, you've admitted yourself that you have no clue about the history of the Channel Islands, and indeed of England, for a start.

I have admmited i don't know about the history of the Channel islands but does that mean i don't know anything about England too? or is it just that you are making truely wild and completely unsubstantiated exaggerations.

Like Gregor?
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

But you do know the first settlement was by De Bougainville, don't you? So saying, or implying it was British by playing on it not being Argentinian (I suppose because you could say this name didn't yet exist) or Spanish, because at first it was French, you, in a dishonest way, imply for the ignorant reader that Britain set up the first settlement! You know this is untrue... It's just spin.

If you were really the nice guy you pretend to be you would be looking for the truth not trying to prove Britain is in the right. You are only interested in defending Britain's claim, back then and today, whereas a decent, honest person would be seeking a just solution.

I find this more sad than anything else... I don't understand what motivates such attitudes.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

ok, its a fair cop- its really only the history of the channel islands, the french occupation of england and the history of the indigenous peoples of patagonia that youve admitted not having a good grasp of before arguing about them...

i have no reliable way of telling if you are better informed about HK. and i dont know enough to comment. so i'm not sure that helps matters...


cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Ah wrong again Gregor.

I mentioned much further up the thread about the lease on HK it's there if you look so that just leaves the Channel islands and ....what exactley?

> on a whole range of subjects

Back it up! or since you admitted to not knowing ought about HK then you have big gaps in your knowledge "on a whole range of subjects"
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gudrun) HK was leased, haven't you got that yet?

being picky this isnt entirely true. Hong Kong island itself wasnt, it is just it was impractical for it to be separate from the new terrorities.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

no bruce, i've never said the first settlement was british

i even posted a timeline on 20th march- here is the relevant bit:

to briefly recap:

treaty of tordesillas, pope gives the world west of the meridian, including all its lands, resources and peoples, to the spanish

de bougainville sets up colony in french name

british colony established

spanish object, citing tordesillas. french recognise this, withdraw, british dont


which you read and commented on at 09,46 on wednesday, so you know i never claimed this! this is all in the record upthread, so people can see i'm not making this up, you are once again accusing me of something you know to be untrue! why do you keep doing this bruce?

which brings us neatly back to de bougainville, and the bit you *still* havent answered- how can a french settlement, grudgingly conceded, support an argentinian claim, without recourse to the machinations of colonial politics, which would of course invalidate it. i guess you know there *is* no answer, and thats why youve avoided this question for 18 months...

go on prove me wrong: answer the question

cheers
gregor

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

i've admitted i was wrong Shona! see, i can do that...

there was the issue of the french occupation of southern england you werent aware of, but it was rhetorical exaggeration, which i graciously withdraw

cheers
gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> nah thats when you know you are making a point.

Since when did you start answering questions on this thread? I've answered scotch eggs as much as I can be bothered but I find his petulance and fibbing (I answer and he pretends I haven't) tedious. It's just a tactic to avoid serious debate, like the whole Mapache red herring and the daft map which has no relevance - as if people didn't simply consider the S American mainland (except Brazil) as being Spanish until much later...

As for minor points I've been trying to avoid them as the only ones that count are that the Malvinas are claimed by Argentina, they are supported by all their neighbours and pretty well all the world calls on the two countries concerned to open negotiations and Britain refuses.

Those are the simple facts at present - you and the majority posting here defend Cameron's stubborn position, I, Gudrun and a few others earlier on don't... for you and your acolytes this is unacceptable, only dull, stupid, sheep like conformity to British Nationalism is to be allowed on what is called a discussion forum!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

nope bruce, you dont answer, thats the point:

how can a french settlement, grudgingly conceded, support an argentinian claim, without recourse to the machinations of colonial politics, which would of course invalidate it.

you've never answered this one...

and youve never answered the one where i ask for the specific words which it used that you found offensive

and as to:

"It's just a tactic to avoid serious debate, like the whole Mapache red herring and the daft map which has no relevance - as if people didn't simply consider the S American mainland (except Brazil) as being Spanish until much later..."

did you really just post that...?! indeed, the spanish did consider this to be the case- and the treaty of torsedillas supported their view. but to make it a reality, there were an awful lot of people already living their that didnt share that view that had to be *dealt* with. and argentina continued the process of *dealing* with the pesky locals.

most people would call this process 'colonisation'... did you just support the spanish colonisation of the continent?

cheers
gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> and how totally his case has been dismantled

But that's only in your head! You have no "arguments", just bluster and lies, like this phrase... You have simply not proved that the British position - refusal to even negotiate - is justified, nor that the Argentinian one is wrong. No one has, most serious people admit that the legal position is "complex", so the only way forward is negotiation, and probably compromise.

Nothing you or anyone else has said proves the opposite... So give the accusations and browbeating a rest, will you?

Whatever, I'm off to bed, so I won't see your reply tonight, but as they will doubtless be the same you've been posting for years now that's no problem.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Territorial integrity.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> you really just cant play nicely, can you Bruce?
>
> i'll say it again: its just a debate, we arent really attacking you...
>
> you are giving an impression of yourself on this thread which is deeply unflattering bruce, and which im sure you will be embarrassed by in retrospect. i'm sure you are a nice person away from the confines of political debate on ukc, but you just arent giving that impression now.
>
> i'm sure you have it in you to conduct this debate in a civil manner, and apologise where it is needed,
>
> cheers
> gregor

Last one, do you really think you are being "civil"?

If you do then you have a problem.

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Since when did you start answering questions on this thread?

well the single question you asked about the Chagossians I answered, despite the answer being implicit in the original comment that you quote mined from.
Shall I provide some direct quotes for you to then ignore and go off on a tangent

> as if people didn't simply consider the S American mainland (except Brazil) as being Spanish until much later...

Lets see, even if we take your claim as correct that would imply there should be a single country?


> As for minor points I've been trying to avoid them as the only ones that count are that the Malvinas are claimed by Argentina, they are supported by all their neighbours and pretty well all the world calls on the two countries concerned to open negotiations and Britain refuses.

ah nice to see you are changing your tune about the entire world supporting the Argentinian claim to simply calling for negotiations.
Shame you are still deliberately ignoring the simple fact the British government arent refusing negotiations, indeed a link to a Reuters article was posted earlier in this very thread, simply that the condition is the the Islanders must be involved.
Not really an extreme starting position is it? Unlike say having it written in the constitution that there is only one option?

> Those are the simple facts at present

simple yes, facts no.

> - you and the majority posting here defend Cameron's stubborn position, I, Gudrun and a few others earlier on don't... for you and your acolytes this is unacceptable, only dull, stupid, sheep like conformity to British Nationalism is to be allowed on what is called a discussion forum!

Do you really believe this garbage?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> But that's only in your head!
>
nope, in most other peoples here too, by the looks of it

i've proved that the argentinian claim is flawed however you look at it- from historical presendence, geographical proximity or decolonisation. i've also suggested a way forward that could with time lead to argentinian sovereignty after all, with the agreement of all participants. i;ve also had to put up with relentless slander such as this:

"You have no "arguments", just bluster and lies, like this phrase... "

and have repeatedly offered the opportunity for you to substantiate your allegations, or withdraw them- sadly, you choose to do neither, but just repeat them. i'll let others be the judge of what sort of a person would do that.

i've cited two occasions this evening when you have posted material that was untrue, and which you knew to be untrue, and linked to the evidence for all to see.

and throughout, i have been civil, positive, agreed with you on matters where our views are shared, and apologised to shona when i overstepped the mark

not bad for an evenings work!


>" Whatever, I'm off to bed, so I won't see your reply tonight, but as they will doubtless be the same you've been posting for years now that's no problem."

indeed, and who knows, one day you may surprise us all and actually deal with the questions, lord knows, you know well enough what they are by now!

anyroads, it is indeed late, so bed it is,

best wishes

gregor

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Territorial integrity.

for the third time. Can you give your definition since it doesnt appear to be the common international usage of the term.
Feel free to quote international law.
Please dont feel free to bluster and try to pass the responsibility to others.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> But that's only in your head! You have no "arguments", just bluster and lies, like this phrase

Oh dear thats another irony meter gone. I need to remember to order a bulk pack if I am going to try and engage with you.

> You have simply not proved that the British position - refusal to even negotiate - is justified

how many times does this need pointing out to you. They havent refused, its just the Argentinians refused to discuss anything with the islanders involved. A rather colonial attitude. Even you seemed to accept this was wrong earlier on but now you u-turn.

> so the only way forward is negotiation, and probably compromise.

which is impossible until the Argentinian constitution is amended. You really arent helping yourself here.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> how can a french settlement, grudgingly conceded, support an argentinian claim,

It was transferred to Spain, of course, this was dealt with years ago, it's probably even on Wikipedia if you find the right one and language - in English it differs a lot to the French. Once again you are trying to drag me back to the same debates as years ago... But the real debate is here and now and Britain's refusal to even negotiate.

Like the others this simple fact is undeniable, and unjustifiable so you all just thrash about whipping a cream of facts, half-facts insults and fibs, anything to defend the British position by confusing the issues.
MJ - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But the real debate is here and now and Britain's refusal to even negotiate.
Like the others this simple fact is undeniable, and unjustifiable so you all just thrash about whipping a cream of facts, half-facts insults and fibs, anything to defend the British position by confusing the issues.


What complete and utter cads and so typically British, bloody arrogant bastards!
Wanting their own way, regardless of the wishes of others. Right on, plant a flag, stamp their authority - Rule Britannia, what ho!!!

Hang on, what's that? They actually want to involve the people that actually live there in any discussions about their future. Bloody hell, whatever next, democracy and self determination!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Morning Bruce...

'It was transferred to Spain, of course'

We all know that, that wasnt the question.

The questions are, on what authority were the islands and their.inhabitants transferred?

Was this with the consent of the inhabitants?

And is this historical context appropriate to supper an appeal to decolonisation?

If you answer these questions fully, without evasion, we really will have cracked this!

Cheers

Gregor

Ps still can't see any apology... Just more insults. A shame really, letting yourself down like that
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
> [...]
>
> In general or with regard to the Malvinas?

As the question was open then the first but as you wish to be specific I can also include the latter.

:o)
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

> So at what point between 6 weeks and 150 years would it become OK?

I don't have a clear-cut answer to that question, it would depend on a lot of things (human affairs can be messy). However, the case of the Falklands is nowhere near any dividing line: the current population have lived there *vastly* longer than anyone else; the Islands were uninhabited before the beginnings of the current population moved there.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Territorial integrity.


No, I understand what that means. Etymologically it means the uninvadedness of a land; from the Latin territorium, piece of land, and integer, meaning "untouched" or "whole".

So right now the Falklands have territorial integrity, but for a brief period in 1982 they didn't.

Were you cheering the Argentinian army on in 1982, Bruce? Were you delighted when the Galahad burst into flames?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't have a clear-cut answer to that question, it would depend on a lot of things (human affairs can be messy).


Absolutely right. There doesn't have to be a single clear razor-sharp boundary. Some things are constitutively vague.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> So any more prosperous bit of a country can quite freely break away whenever it wants, even
> when doing so has a negative effect on the whole, either economic or in terms of security?

Yes. And I note once again your preference for telling people what is good for them, what "should" happen, rather than letting democratic opinion prevail.

> I wonder if you've thought this through at all?

I sure have.

> You are on the same positions as the Northern League in Italy.

If Northern Italy wished to be independent then I'd support their right to be so, just as I'd support the right of the peoples of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Basque country, the Channel Islands, Luxembourg, Flanders, Tibet, et cetera et cetera to determine the status of their lands.

Why are you so continually baffled by their basic concept of democracy, which is surely pretty widely accepted nowadays?

Presumably you'd prefer such things to be decided by a panel of self-appointed commissars, who regard themselves as better than others and more able to make the "right" choice? So you'd say: "look, the Channel Islands are *clearly* part of France, geographically, and thus should be part of France for the better good of everyone, and if the local inhabitants don't like it then tough, their opinion doesn't count, even though they've been there for hundreds of years, they should just accept the greater good that we commissars pronounce. Of course the interests of the locals should be looked after, and we self-appointed commissars will of course do that."
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Oh look, I'm on the same side of the argument as Tim. There's something wrong with the world this morning (and not just unseasonal snow). :-)
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to MJ:

> Hang on, what's that? They actually want to involve the people that actually live there in any discussions about their future. Bloody hell, whatever next, democracy and self determination!

You never give up, do you? Read the numerous other opinions which explain why this is just spin, the inhabitants of the Malvinas are so tied to Britain, that obviously they will vote this way, like Rhodesian whites, people in Gibraltar and so on. "Conservative Brits on a good deal vote to retain their situation" - hardly a surprise headline, is it? - more like "Dog bites man" than "Man bites dog".

And yet thousands of other ex Brits live happily in other parts of Argentina, some still speaking their native Welsh with no ill effects, contributing in a positive way to the progress of their adopted country and the South American continent rather than defending selfish aims, the smell of oil millions (promised but not obtained!) in their nostrils.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/falklands-referendum-why-ask-british-people-if-they-w...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/falklands-vote-no-purpose-referendum-malvinas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/falklands-vote-ruritanian-colonial-relic?INTCMP=...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/apr/30/falklands-oil-develop-argen...

.... etc etc etc.

Wake up to the 21st century all of you!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The iron laws of statistics dictate that it was bound to happen eventually...

In any case this one's a no-brainer. The fact that El Brucio and Millie Tant have been pushed into defending the claim, as a corollary of their view, that the Channel Islands really belong to France is the final sprig of absurdity on the steaming heap of hopelessness that is their argument in this case. Some people just don't know a poisoned pawn when they see one :-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yeah, that's right, if the Falkland Islanders want to remain British that must be because they're brainwashed fascist stooges. Shoot the lot of them.

I find attitudes like yours deeply unpleasant, Bruce, I have to say. I joke about such views now, but once upon a time they really were used as a pretext for shooting people. By the thousand.

You are a relic of the age of Stalin.
MG - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MJ)
>
> [...]
>
> You never give up, do you? Read the numerous other opinions which explain why this is just spin, the inhabitants of the Malvinas are so tied to Britain, that obviously they will vote this way,

Umm, yes. Well done, you got there. Not really so hard was it?


like Rhodesian whites,

Correct, but since there were many, many others who didn't think like them their views ultimately didn't hold sway.

people in Gibraltar and so on.

Correct
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:


If Senor Bruce is allowed to put up that argument about the Falklands, why not about, I don't know, Ramsgate? Suppose the French decide it belongs to them. But the inhabitants of Ramsgate protest, and say they want to be part of Britain. Why not make just the same rejoinder, Bruce? "Oh of course they would say that! But their views don't count!"
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> The questions are, on what authority were the islands and their.inhabitants transferred?

Those who chose to stay stayed, others returned to the mainland and some then back to Europe.

> Was this with the consent of the inhabitants?

Yes... I thought you said you'd read the history of the period? All this has been covered on previous threads, you are just time wasting by repeatedly bringing it up time after time after time - right now I don't have time and very much resent your petulant insistence that I waste it on answering your stream of questions - I don't do it to you, I realise that no one could answer as quickly as you demand and to all the questions asked. Last night by the time I had read most of the questions I'd had several repeat moans that I hadn't answered!

Give it a rest, or do you really think you can "win" an argument by attrition? You are becoming totally obsessed on this and obsessive, not a way to make friends and "discuss over a beer" at all. Ordering people to "answer" is no way to make friends, running a mile from someone who behaves like this is the obvious logical consequence!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (

You are becoming totally obsessed on this and obsessive, not a way to make friends and "discuss over a beer" at all.



Oh dear. Bang goes the ironyometer again.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Back again for the next round Bruce?

Good stuff, that's the spirit!

Now, can I point you in the direction of the 3 specific questions I posed this morning. If you could be kind enough to answer them, we can make some real progress on this!

Best wishes

Gregor

Ps you could also look back to last night where I set out the argument that the treatment of the indigenous people is entirely relevant in 5 rebuttable propositions. Show that any of these does not hold, and I will withdraw the argument. Until then, we shall take it as established that this is a relevant issue, and that the arguments that flow from it are correct.

Oh, and merely saying again that they are 'not relevant' doesn't count as rebutting, you've got to provide evidence!
MG - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to MG)
>
>
> If Senor Bruce is allowed to put up that argument about the Falklands, why not about, I don't know, Ramsgate? Suppose the French decide it belongs to them. But the inhabitants of Ramsgate protest, and say they want to be part of Britain. Why not make just the same rejoinder, Bruce? "Oh of course they would say that! But their views don't count!"


Quite.

Bruce's concept of "territorial integrity" is curious. Presumably you end up with each "country" simply being the same as a tectonic plate if you apply it rigorously?

Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> ... the inhabitants of the Malvinas are so tied to Britain, that obviously they will vote this way ...

Who caused them to feel so tied to Britain? General Galtieri mostly, along with the continued bullying from Argentina. Now if the Argentines had tried being friendly to the Islanders, building up ties to them, things might have turned out very different.

For the Islanders to see their long-term future as a British dependency can only mean they are so repelled by the deal and attitude on offer from Argentina.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't have a clear-cut answer to that question, it would depend on a lot of things (human affairs can be messy). However, the case of the Falklands is nowhere near any dividing line: the current population have lived there *vastly* longer than anyone else;

Half weren't even born there, and those who moved there in 1833 did it by force at first, then moved progressively when the islands became an official British colony, against the wishes of the previous administration but which was powerless against the strongest Empire on earth.

> the Islands were uninhabited before the beginnings of the current population moved there.

Untrue, as you know full well... I hope.

Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Isn't it blatantly obvious that places like Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Andorra are anomalies that should be tidied up by a self-appointed panel of commissars? I mean, what the hell do those places think they are doing, violating all notions of geographical integrity and having the cheek to want to decide for themselves?
MG - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Half weren't even born there,


Why does this concern you if it is about territorial integrity?
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Etymologically it means the uninvadedness of a land.. etc.

Fair enough, at least you admit you don't know the meaning in this context. Try looking on UN sites and other sites dealing with international disputes, like the one over Gibraltar, for example. There are a whole load of texts about this and the way it is often opposed to the concept of "self determination", which also has a particular meaning in this context.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Half weren't even born there ...

So half were? Tell me, who has a better right to decide the future of those Islands than the people who were born there?

>> the Islands were uninhabited before the beginnings of the current population moved there.

> Untrue, as you know full well... I hope.

No, it is true. In 1833 there were a small group of cattle ranchers, the only actual population there (other than transient whaling ships). Most of those people stayed on after 1833 and formed the beginnings of the current population. Tell me, who did those cattle ranchers, there before 1833, dispossess?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> Fair enough, at least you admit you don't know the meaning in this context.


Err, no, my point was the exact opposite, that I DO know what it means. Bruce, how are you to argue with people whom you can't even quote without misquoting?

But as others have pointed out, you seem to be using the phrase in some eccentric idiolectal way. Could you please explain what *you* mean by "territorial integrity"?

Though if it just means your ideal that a country shouldn't have sticky-out bits, should tend in fact towards the circular, I think we've got that point already. And ridiculed it at length, without any effective riposte from you.


no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Those who chose to stay stayed, others returned to the mainland and some then back to Europe.
>
> [...]
>
> Yes... I thought you said you'd read the history of the period? All this has been covered on previous threads, you are just time wasting by repeatedly bringing it up time after time after time - right now I don't have time and very much resent your petulant insistence that I waste it on answering your stream of questions - I don't do it to you, I realise that no one could answer as quickly as you demand and to all the questions asked.

Ok, now we have a third example of you posting something you know is not true. Last night I linked to evidence that the transfer was resisted by the French, and that it was forced through against their wishes. Also that de bougaineville strongly objected to it. All this was set out clearly last night, and yet you try to pretend it is not the case

That's the reason for the close questioning Bruce: by doing so, I've now got three examples of you posting things you were aware were not true, complete with references to the previous posts, so there can be no question I am making it up.

This all goes towards building the case that you know that your arguments are invalid, but just can't admit that openly. I note even now you've not answered the first or third I'd my questions- as that would force you to admit that the French claim was taken by diplomatic force from France by Spain, and that this clearly invalidates argentinas present day claim.

But if you would just admit what is glaringly obvious to everyone else, then we could all go and have a pint and talk about climbing instead...!

;-)

Gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Presumably you'd prefer such things to be decided by a panel of self-appointed commissars, who regard themselves as better than others and more able to make the "right" choice?

No, in a democratic country they are decided by democratic methods - in Britain by the vote, universal suffrage, in others referenda are common, but in all cases the will of the majority can be opposed to that of a selfish, privileged minority. That too is democracy, your version, which corresponds to you extreme political and economic liberalism can be a perversion of democracy.

Whether a given dispute is one or the other is a matter for debate, although historically it has often lead to war, as in the US Civil war, the Biafran War and many others.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Oh look, I'm on the same side of the argument as Tim. There's something wrong with the world this morning (and not just unseasonal snow). :-)

No, there's nothing wrong as politically you both defend similar conservative positions, it's on religion you differ.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> No, there's nothing wrong as politically you both defend similar conservative positions, it's on religion you differ.


Like Gregor above, I can't see how you can say this without knowing it's untrue. For the record, I'm not a conservative. I'm a left-of-centre Liberal. I've already said so on this thread.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to MG)
>
>
> If Senor Bruce is allowed to put up that argument about the Falklands, why not about, I don't know, Ramsgate? Suppose the French decide it belongs to them. But the inhabitants of Ramsgate protest, and say they want to be part of Britain. Why not make just the same rejoinder, Bruce? "Oh of course they would say that! But their views don't count!"

You are being silly here and for the Channel Islands, no one has suggested they should become French, not even the French for a couple of centuries... as for Ramsgate, Coel thinks that if the Ramsgatians all decided they wanted to become part of France then that would be fine - do you agree?

(PS. I won't answer anymore nonsense posts like this one, so don't get you knickers in a twist like scotch eggs when I don't)

I must go now anyway, the playing field is yours, have fun agreeing with each other and fantasising about Stalin).

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

(Though if push comes to shove, I'd rather be a conservative like Coel than a Stalinist like Bruce. At least Coel's a democrat.)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Read de Bouganville's book... I can't be bothered to play your silly games anymore, I really don't have time. The facts are to be found if you want, but you don't so what's the point?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> You are being silly here and for the Channel Islands, no one has suggested they should become French, not even the French for a couple of centuries...


*I*'m being silly? My word those ironyometers are disappearing fast this morning.

So anyway your message to Paris is: all they have to do is *suggest* that the Channel Islands (sorry, les Iles de la Manche) should belong to France, and instantly they'll have a right to them?

Bruce, with the greatest possible respect, if you think that then you are either very, very mad or very, very stupid.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> I'm a left-of-centre Liberal. I've already said so on this thread.

Like many of the other's who post reactionary views akin to conservative policy week after week. As for left of centre, it depends what you call centre.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
reactionary views


Do you find Stalinist jargon comforting, Bruce? Does it save you the fatigue of thinking for yourself?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> No, there's nothing wrong as politically you both defend similar conservative positions, ...

So you think that self-determination, that "We the people ..." should decide, is a "conservative" position? That's very honest of you, admitting that the left is so undemocratic!
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> So anyway your message to Paris is: all they have to do is *suggest* that the Channel Islands (sorry, les Iles de la Manche) should belong to France, and instantly they'll have a right to them?

No one has said that though... but if ever there was an issue, if there was a campaign to join the Channel islands to France rather than Britain then obviously the British government would find it hard to argue on geographical grounds. You do know that some of the Channel Islands already are French, don't you?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> You are being silly here and for the Channel Islands, no one has suggested they should become French ...

So what? You are basing your entire argument on "territorial integrity" aren't you? Not on what people want? Surely any "territorial integrity" argument would still hold, regardless of who has asked for what?

Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
> reactionary views
>
>
> Do you find Stalinist jargon comforting, Bruce? Does it save you the fatigue of thinking for yourself?

Try looking up the origins of the word "reactionary"... it goes back much further than Stalin... in fact it has it's origins in your neck of the woods, religion.

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>

on geographical grounds.

Ah, the circular-country argument again. Utterly feeble. Utterly refuted, many times, on this thread.


>You do know that some of the Channel Islands already are French, don't you?


Just wrong, Bruce. I know the Channel Islands pretty well, since my wife is from Jersey. None of them are French. Perhaps you're confusing them with les Iles de Chausey.


The Chausey Islands south of Jersey are not generally included in the geographical definition of the Channel Islands but are occasionally described in English as 'French Channel Islands' in view of their French jurisdiction. They were historically linked to the Duchy of Normandy, but they are part of the French territory along with continental Normandy, and not part of the British Isles or of the Channel Islands in a political sense. They are an incorporated part of the commune of Granville (Manche). While popular with visitors from France they are rarely visited by Channel Islanders, as there are no direct transport links from the other islands.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> Read de Bouganville's book... I can't be bothered to play your silly games anymore, I really don't have time. The facts are to be found if you want, but you don't so what's the point?

Another example of you waving vaguely in the direction of evidence- contrast my provision of the actual text of the evidence that says de bougaineville strenuously objected to the transfer to Spain. Others can decide which they find the more persuasive!

I don't have time now either- got to do some work! But rest assured I will pick the thread up again this evening

Cheers
Gregor
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

> Bruce's concept of "territorial integrity" is curious.

I keep asking him to provide his definition but for some reason he hasnt.

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Like Gregor above, I can't see how you can say this without knowing it's untrue.

I suspect he really does mean it. Like those people who call Obama a communist. If your position is so biased one way and you have difficulty understanding other view points I think you end up thinking you are a moderate. Hence everyone else ends up over the other side.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:


Yes, I've asked him too.

As a political concept, "respecting territorial integrity" surely means "respecting the already-existing and internationally agreed boundaries of states". If that's territorial integrity, Bruce seems to be *against* it, not in favour of it.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> Try looking up the origins of the word "reactionary"...


Thank you, I know where the word comes from. My point wasn't about its first use. It was about the term's predominant use historically. Mostly, it's been a word used by violent communists as part of a softening-up exercise. "Reactionary" is a label meaning "person we don't have to listen to". You call someone a reactionary to justify first dismissing his views, and later on, if you get the chance, shooting him.

In short, the word is an instrument of death. I would venture a guess that the word "reactionary" killed more people in the twentieth century than almost any other word. That is one reason why I personally find it a repulsive word, as repulsive as certain epithets for black people, and would no more use it myself than I would those epithets.


Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Never heard of the "the Catholic reaction"? The term was widely used by historians long before Communists, any revolutionary movement, whether lay or religious, could, and generally was, followed by a reaction, a swing back of the pendulum. It has not always been pejorative either. The meaning, and feelings you associate with what is, after all, just a descriptive term, neither good nor bad in itself, is a further indication of your very conservative upbringing - we are how we speak often enough.

There's also the scientific sense of the word, both in Newtonian physics and chemistry... did you get the wobbles every time teacher asked you to perform a chemical "reaction"?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

reaction =/= reactionary. They are different words.
Jim C - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> I suspect he really does mean it. Like those people who call Obama a communist.

And those of us who call Blair and Thatcher war criminals?( and mean it)
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim C:

> And those of us who call Blair and Thatcher war criminals?( and mean it)

In what way is Thatcher a war criminal?
Postmanpat on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> reaction =/= reactionary. They are different words.

They even sound different and are spelt differently ( whooshes past Bruce's head) :)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> They even sound different and are spelt differently ( whooshes past Bruce's head) :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JRk3Ju6UQ0

;-D

gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> They even sound different and are spelt differently ( whooshes past Bruce's head) :)

thats just a imperialist and colonial way of looking at those words. If you take off your union jack glasses you will see that the word means what the commissioners vote it does. Just like territorial integrity.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> (sorry, les Iles de la Manche)

Iles Anglo Normandes actually is the more common French name. They are under the authority of the Duc de Normandie (one of the Queen's many titles) and, curiously, are not themselves in the European Union... nor the UK. So, theoretically they are only under the monarchy, not the British government... but I don't know how that works in practice. Does the Queen have more power their than in the United Kingdom? Are the people royal subjects or citizens?

Are you worried they will declare themselves republics? It would be a good idea if they did.
Postmanpat on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> Iles Anglo Normandes actually is the more common French name. They are under the authority of the Duc de Normandie (one of the Queen's many titles) and, curiously, are not themselves in the European Union... nor the UK. So, theoretically they are only under the monarchy, not the British government... but I don't know how that works in practice. Does the Queen have more power their than in the United Kingdom? Are the people royal subjects or citizens?
>
>
Is this supposed to be supposed to support your claim that some of the Channel Islands are French or deflect attention way from that claim? Just wondering.

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
>
> Are you worried they will declare themselves republics? It would be a good idea if they did.



Bruce, as I explained before, I've known the Channel Islands (specifically Jersey) for nearly thirty years; I'm not actually in need of a lecture about them. Especially not from you.

No, Bruce, I'm not "worried" they'll declare themselves republics, and no, it would not be a good idea if they did.

The issue is whether we can get you to see what an idiot you're making of yourself by suggesting that, just because they're closer to France than Britain, it follows that France has a territorial claim to them.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)

> Yeah, that's right, if the Falkland Islanders want to remain British that must be because they're brainwashed fascist stooges. Shoot the lot of them.
>
> I find attitudes like yours deeply unpleasant, Bruce, I have to say. I joke about such views now, but once upon a time they really were used as a pretext for shooting people. By the thousand.
>
> You are a relic of the age of Stalin.

And you are a talking rubbish as usual,it's good to see some things never change :)
How many people did your glorious empire murder Tim?How many tens of millions did they starve to death? How many millions did they use as slave s? how many millions of slaves died?How many wars did we start? How many tens of millions died in these?How much land did we steal from indigenous peoples? How many countries?How much did we bleed them dry until their people starved by the many millions?

Why did we do all this?For Money? Greed? exploitation? Racism? Elitism? Oppression?To keep us free of social revolution? We were built on constant war there's your democracy,a country that has been at war for practically 100 years telling others about peace.We have kept many countries poor and under developed to feed the bank balances of the British elitist psychopaths and aristocracy.We have installed elitist tyrants that will do our dirty work by torturing and murdering their populations because their people wanted some of what was rightfully theirs,but that mean't we couldn't plunder and exploit them.For 300 hundred years this stinking isle has exported utter hell onto peoples all over the world so that some racist elites could be stinking rich.

Little men like you used to make my blood boil,but not any more now i just cringe at your juvenile replies.



Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So what? You are basing your entire argument on "territorial integrity" aren't you?

No, that is just one argument used by Argentina.

> Not on what people want?

Yes, that's a more important factor, what the Argentinian people, 40 million of them apparently, including those on the Malvinas, want. The Argentinians consider them to all be Argentinian citizens so they would have a vote just like all the other citizens of Argentina - it's a democracy, as I'm sure you are aware.

The notion of territorial integrity, an important idea in the United Nations charter, is more easily understood, to those of you who appear to be "challenged" on this point, in its application concerning the dispute between the British government and Spain over Gibraltar.

This chunk of rock is actually physically part or the Spanish mainland and had been politically part of Spain for centuries. It was lost to Britain after some wars several centuries ago but now successive Spanish governments consider that this is no longer acceptable, or reasonable. One of their arguments is that of "territorial integrity" of Spain which is violated by the continued occupation of Gibraltar by the British.

Now that both countries are democracies, after the death of Franco, and both are members of the European Union this seems a perfectly valid opinion to me. I'm surprised they don't push it with more vigour, although at present they have more pressing problems I suppose.

On the other hand, to allay some confusion in certain minds, Portugal is a separate country, and has been recognised as such for a very long time - it is Britain's oldest ally I believe. It is part of the Iberian Peninsula, but not of Spain, or vice versa, for that matter.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> of their view, that the Channel Islands really belong to France is the final sprig of absurdity.

I never said they should be but i'd think it to be a little strange if they were owned by Chile.

Don't you nice but dim?
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> In short, the word is an instrument of death.

Wahaha!

Comedy gold as they say.

Are you playing at the Fringe this year?
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Yes, that's a more important factor, what the Argentinian people, 40 million of them apparently, including those on the Malvinas, want.

Cool, I reckon we should vote that Switzerland belongs to the UK. Empty the banks and get rid of the deficit before deciding "whoops made a mistake" and hand it back


> The notion of territorial integrity, an important idea in the United Nations charter, is more easily understood,

then you wont have any issues explaining what you believe it means and linking directly to those texts supporting your claim that that is the meaning. It really isnt a difficult concept, that you fail to do so makes me think you realise how bad your argument is.

> One of their arguments is that of "territorial integrity" of Spain which is violated by the continued occupation of Gibraltar by the British.

putting it in quotes doesnt make it any more real.
Now provide the support for your claims or, more likely, go on to some other random target for everyone to knock down.

> Now that both countries are democracies, after the death of Franco, and both are members of the European Union this seems a perfectly valid opinion to me. I'm surprised they don't push it with more vigour, although at present they have more pressing problems I suppose.

possibly because they might realise how hyprocritical they sound?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
>

> And you are a talking rubbish as usual,it's good to see some things never change :)
> How many people did your glorious empire murder Tim?How many tens of millions did they starve to death? How many millions did they use as slave s? how many millions of slaves died?How many wars did we start? How many tens of millions died in these?How much land did we steal from indigenous peoples? How many countries?How much did we bleed them dry until their people starved by the many millions?
>
> Why did we do all this?For Money? Greed? exploitation? Racism? Elitism? Oppression?To keep us free of social revolution? We were built on constant war there's your democracy,a country that has been at war for practically 100 years telling others about peace.We have kept many countries poor and under developed to feed the bank balances of the British elitist psychopaths and aristocracy.We have installed elitist tyrants that will do our dirty work by torturing and murdering their populations because their people wanted some of what was rightfully theirs,but that mean't we couldn't plunder and exploit them.For 300 hundred years this stinking isle has exported utter hell onto peoples all over the world so that some racist elites could be stinking rich.
>
> Little men like you used to make my blood boil,but not any more now i just cringe at your juvenile replies.



Like I said: these people are full of hatred. Mark them well. The hatred they nurse is a bad, bad thing.

All you can think of apparently, Gudrun, is destroying, hating, denouncing. It's contemptible.

In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)

>
> Are you playing at the Fringe this year?

That would be fantastic - you could both duet on stage!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


That might look good on her CV; not so great on mine.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Yes, that's a more important factor, what the Argentinian people, 40 million of them apparently,
> including those on the Malvinas, want.

Logic fail here, Bruce. The wishes of the Argentinians only become relevant once you have established that the Falklands "belong" to Argentina, and for that you need to use your "territorial integrity" argument. Thus the whole foundation of your claim is "territorial integrity", a concept that you have avoided defining.

> This chunk of rock is actually physically part or the Spanish mainland ...

So what? Chile is physically part of the same mainland that contains Argentina. Therefore, by "territorial integrity", Chile should be subsumed into Argentina. In fact, we're clearly only allowed one country on any continent.

> On the other hand, to allay some confusion in certain minds, Portugal is a separate country, and has been
> recognised as such for a very long time ...

Ah right, so what matters is not "territorial integrity", but what has been "recognised" as a "separate country". Your arguments are utterly incoherent Bruce.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

> That would be fantastic - you could both duet on stage!

or tag team. Some philsophy mixed with some raving communism. I reckon it could be a surprise hit.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

So when Chausey is referred to as being part of the Channel Islands it's a mistake? Ok, fair enough.

Reading about these islands I've just noticed that in 1984 a French man decided to reclaim the Minquiers in the name of the Royaume de Patgonie, calling it the "Patagonie Septentrionale". It only lasted for a day though... this is the flag he planted as a protest over the British occupation of the Iles Malouines.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Araucan%C3%ADa_and_Patagonia.svg

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> All you can think of apparently, Gudrun, is destroying, hating, denouncing. It's contemptible.

so now that is *all* i can think of ?

Eh?

Your arrogance knows no bounds and yet it is without foundation.

Of course you in your colonial arrogance would secretly celebrate all the things i listed above or just want to keep them hidden since it's what made this stinking island what it is.

Yes lets attack a country who tried to fight against imperialism,racism,elitism,inequality and exploitation.

Some people in this country make me ashamed to say i'm British and you are one of them.
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)

> Yes lets attack a country who tried to fight against imperialism,racism,elitism,inequality and exploitation.

Sorry, you've lost me - which country are you referring to?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Calm down, dear.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

> Sorry, you've lost me - which country are you referring to?

The USSR perhaps?
adsheff - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Get your bloody knowledge up to date will you. British imperialism ended abruptly in 1956. Since then there was a rapid and no holes barred approach to de-colonisation. Everywhere that asked for it received it. Even Hong Kong was handed to the Chinese with little more than a few fireworks. There are no colonies left. The Falklands are not a colony. They were uninhabited, claimed by the then British before Argentina even existed. Many of the people there have been there since the beginning. They are the original settlers. They have the right to choose what they want.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply

Did the Argentines rightfully own it or have a rightful claim before the british colonised it or was it after the british arrived?

This isn't my subject obviously but it is interesting.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply


If I was into Soviet-style re-educational punishments, I'd sentence people like Millie Tant to read through the list of Stalin's or Mao's or Pol Pot's victims.

Or some of them; I suspect the full list would be a life sentence or more.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

All you have to do is read the UN charter, google "territorial integrity" and you will find what you are asking about. I thought the example I gave to Coel was sufficiently simple for even the most politically challenged British Empire revivalist to follow but I see that I was far too optimistic so there is really no alternative but reading it all yourself, slowly, maybe several times... like Tim with his bible. When I was at school bible readings were made every morning and some texts stay in my mind to this day, over 50 years later "Through a glass darkly" for example... It's the repeated reading that does the trick.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Did the Argentines rightfully own it or have a rightful claim before the british colonised it or
> was it after the british arrived?

None of the above. Argentina never "owned" it nor did they ever settle it.

As for "rightful" claims, do you think colonial-era sending a gunboat and planting a flag amounts to a "rightful" claim?
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> All you have to do is read the UN charter, google "territorial integrity" and you will find what
> you are asking about. I thought the example I gave to Coel was sufficiently simple for even ...

How evasive. In other words you can't define "territorial integrity".
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> All you can think of apparently, Gudrun, is destroying, hating, denouncing. It's contemptible.

From the ukc's answer to Senator McCarthy that's quite something!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


OK, done that. Here's the first hit:

Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states.[citation needed] Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression.


Can't see how that helps Bruce's case in the slightest. Applied to Argentina, it says (a) stop trying to get hold of the Falklands, and (b) you were wrong to invade them in 1982.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> All you have to do is read the UN charter, google "territorial integrity" and ...

OK, googled it. This is from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_integrity

"Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states.[citation needed] Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression."

Which bit of that supports any claim by Argentina to the Falklands?

Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> OK, done that. Here's the first hit:

Err, snap!
Cuthbert on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Please summarise this thread in one sentence.... :-)
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, I've never been compared to McCarthy before. Presumably this would be because I pointed out that Stalin killed a lot of people? Well, you know what, McCarthy was right about that.

Your comments are getting increasingly ludicrous and unhinged, Bruce. You're doing this because you're losing the argument, aren't you?
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

the relevant section of the charter is
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

As you note, the relevance of this to Bruce's claim is somewhat puzzling.
Which is probably why he went for defensive option b and started insulting me.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:


Not quite one sentence, but:


BRUCE: The Falklands, er Malvinas, belong to Argentina because they're near Argentina.

EVERYONE ELSE: That's stupid, Bruce. Just because A is near B, that doesn't give B any territorial claim to A.

BRUCE (and GUDRUN): Fascist lackeys! Reactionary running dogs and capitalist lickspittles! <etc etc etc>

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Maybe you should start a little closer to home nasty and dim!

See the many millions starved to death by us in India and China as well as Ireland...for money.
Cuthbert on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Thanks!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


I'm actually quite surprised to find that agitprop types like you still exist. Still snarling away in some gutter brandishing a fist at the rest of us; still sublimating your confusion, unhappiness, and self-hatred into hatred of everything outside you. I thought you'd all died out about the same time as state socialism, on that happy day in 1990 when the Berlin wall came down.

I wonder where you were when that happened, and what you thought about it. I thought it was one of the greatest and happiest days in the history of humanity; arguably the best thing that happened in the whole of the twentieth century. What did you think, Gudrun?
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> None of the above. Argentina never "owned" it nor did they ever settle it.

Ok but they claimed it as part of their territory back in 1823 before the british colonized it in 1833 ..right?

> As for "rightful" claims, do you think colonial-era sending a gunboat and planting a flag amounts to a "rightful" claim?

i don't know what you mean by that.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Please read the example I gave, it was very, very simple.

To help: The rock of Gibraltar was part of Spain for a long time, unlike Portugal so Gibraltar can be argued as being Spanish by the notion of territorial integrity but not Portugal. Hence Chile is not part of Argentina, or vice versa but as Argentina consider the Malvinas were part of their territory until taken by the British then, they seek to restore their territorial integrity, like Spain for Gibraltar, and consider this a more powerful argument than the one used by Britain based on what they see as a spurious claim of "self determination".

I agree with the Argentinian and Spanish positions, you don't. You'll just have to learn to live with it. At present concerning the Malvinas the entire S American continent supports Argentina, and I noticed the other day that some African nations had also voted a similar motion of support, and so on all round the world... I'm sure this doesn't worry you but it does encourage me to believe that the power of the nearly ex-colonial and dominant powers may not be as strong as they and their supporters believe.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Ok but they claimed it as part of their territory back in 1823 before the british colonized it in 1833 ..right?

I suggest you go back up the thread and read some of no_more_scotch_eggs posts to get a bit more of an idea.


Pyreneenemec - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: *



Why o why was this transferred from The Pub ?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce... lots of bits of land were parts of lots of jurisdictions for a long time. Spain and Portugal, for example, were part of the empire of the Moors for a very long time, 700 years: far longer than anyone has been asserting any claim at all to the Falklands.

Does that mean that Morocco has a reasonable claim to Spain and Portugal? It does not. And if your notion of "territorial integrity" says otherwise then your notion is bunk.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Please read the example I gave, it was very, very simple.

The problem is Bruce you have been asked multiple times for a definition.
You have then tried to divert attention.
Now I have quoted the UN Charter and others have quoted the standard definition to territorial integrity.
Neither support this bizarre interpretation of yours.

> To help: The rock of Gibraltar was part of Spain for a long time, unlike Portugal so Gibraltar can be argued as being Spanish by the notion of territorial integrity but not Portugal.

Sorry nope it cant. Stop changing the definition of territorial integrity from the internationally accepted version.
Why do you continually try this? It aint a pub or even a standard debate where you can pull a fast one and "win" the argument before your opponent can check the facts.

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Pyreneenemec:

> Why o why was this transferred from The Pub ?

no_more_scotch_eggs I think. Wanted it recorded so when it comes up again Bruce's liberal approach to accuracy can simply be quoted back to him.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Tim your a sad little attention seeker,a small little man jumping up and down trying to be heard.

So i live in a gutter is that what you say?

You appear to deaf as i told you before that i'm a very happy person and life for me is very good,but perhaps you are trying to reflect some of your own fellings of inner despair about what you are really like as a person i don't know and i don't particularly want to,that's your business and none of mine.

It was a very sad time from 89 through to 91,tragic.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> each is more tenuous than the last, and territorial integrity is indeed the bottom of this particular barrel of bases, and bruce is scraping hard. no one but the desperate would try to claim that two pieces of land separated by 250 miles of open ocean have "territorial integrity".

the thing is as has been pointed out to him territorial integrity doesnt mean what he is claiming it does. Its entertaining, i reckon its time for either a rant about us being imperialists or a claim that everyone supports Argentina.
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Ok but they claimed it as part of their territory back in 1823 before the british colonized it in 1833 ..right?

If by "they" you mean Argentina then Argentine didn't yet exist. As for claims, there were various claims by the Spanish, French, British and the United Provinces of the River Plate. Which of these is more "rightful" than the others?

>> As for "rightful" claims, do you think colonial-era sending a gunboat and planting a flag amounts to a "rightful" claim?

> i don't know what you mean by that.

I'm asking what makes a claim "rightful" in your eyes?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to the thread:


so this thread is back up and running, it had all gone quiet there for a bit. good stuff, got to make the most of it while its here...

;-)

it would seem that "territorial integrity" is the argentinian sovereignty claim basis-du-jour (or should that be del dia...?) for bruce. its instructive to note how this basis shifts as the thread progresses. yesterday, for example, it was the historic precedence of the argentinian claim. unfortunately, when it turned out that the settlement that predated the british one was french, not spanish, and that france was forced to cede sovereignty against its wishes, that put a hole in the precedence argument. You cant cry "colonisation" with a straight face when your case rests on a family agreement between 18th century royalty, and the word of a 15th century pope...

now, bruce is well aware of this, as we have been through the issue umpteen times- but instead of saying, its a fair cop, you got me there, he just shifts to the next bogus basis...

each is more tenuous than the last, and territorial integrity is indeed the bottom of this particular barrel of bases, and bruce is scraping hard. no one but the desperate would try to claim that two pieces of land separated by 250 miles of open ocean have "territorial integrity". gibraltar actually has a land border with spain. palestine is being salami sliced into little bits that can no longer really function as a connected whole. but 250 miles of the south atlantic separate the islands from the mainland. thats nearly as far as from mainland scotland to norway.

has it really come to this? if thats the best argument youve got left, bruce, it is probably time to stop...

;-)

gregor

Pyreneenemec - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
>
>
>
> I noticed the other day that some African nations had also voted a similar motion of support, and so on all round the world...

There's hardly a true democracy in Africa, so I think Britain can dispense with their approval and probably most of the other States that are supporting Argentinas claim.

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> I suggest you go back up the thread and read some of no_more_scotch_eggs posts to get a bit more of an idea.

Thanks but i'd be here all night just reading those.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Can't see how that helps Bruce's case in the slightest. Applied to Argentina, it says (a) stop trying to get hold of the Falklands, and (b) you were wrong to invade them in 1982.

It also says that Britain shouldn't have seized Argentinian territory back in 1833! You can't cherry pick the application of principles.

You will doubtless reply, centre left as you are, the historical arguments are valid, but that's a question of appreciation. I have not denied that the legal arguments are debateable, but a lot of you centre-left imperialists insist that they are black and white, just stick a load of your people on a bit of land belonging to a week state with the aid of a gunboat or two, feed them and house them until they are happy as you please then have them vote their thanks to their benefactors, then claim this is as pure and clear as anybody could like.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
>
> It was a very sad time from 89 through to 91,tragic.



So this is your reaction to the fall of the Berlin wall? Goodness me.

Tragic? No, the imposition of a Soviet dictatorship on half of Europe--that's what was tragic. The liberation of all those countries in 1990--tragic? What are you on about? It was bloody brilliant.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

sorry, edited post, your reply now precedes the post its replying to...!

or perhaps you have a time machine- you could pop into the future and see what bruce will post in reply

or... perhaps you dont need a time machine to know that...

;-)

gregor
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> The rock of Gibraltar was part of Spain for a long time, unlike Portugal so Gibraltar can be argued
> as being Spanish by the notion of territorial integrity but not Portugal.

Given that the Falklands never were "part of [Argentina[ for a long time", that one is not going to help you.

Also, if Scotland is part of the UK for a long while, does that mean that "territorial integrity" prevents them ever becoming independent?

> Hence Chile is not part of Argentina, or vice versa ...

So they have been recognised as separate for a long time, and that settles it ...?

> but as Argentina consider the Malvinas were part of their territory ...

Oh I see, so a mere "consideration" by one party is also sufficient? No actual being part of the country is required, no "for a long time" required? So what happens if Spain were to "consider" that Portugal was part of Spain?

Pyreneenemec - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> just stick a load of your people on a bit of land belonging to a week state with the aid of a gunboat or two, feed them and house them until they are happy as you please then have them vote their thanks to their benefactors, then claim this is as pure and clear as anybody could like.

Israel would appear to be experts in the matter !

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> It also says


With those words, Bruce, you've actually conceded the entire argument. You've just admitted that the principle of territorial integrity says it was wrong for Argentina to invade in 1982.

Right, thank you, can we go home now?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks but i'd be here all night just reading those.

yes, but you might just learn something....

;-)

ps for the record-

french settlement established in 1764

british settlement established in 1766

spanish in 1767

argentina independant in 1814

argentinian settlement 1832

source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands#17th_century






Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If by "they" you mean Argentina then Argentine didn't yet exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Declaration_of_Independence

That says Argentina existed in 1816,the fact that the US or the UK hadn't recognized it doesn't mean it was not there.

> I'm asking what makes a claim "rightful" in your eyes?

How close it is.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Pyreneenemec)
>
> [...]

from the pub...
>
> no_more_scotch_eggs I think. Wanted it recorded so when it comes up again Bruce's liberal approach to accuracy can simply be quoted back to him.


yes- thankyou to the mods- i just thought it was a shame for all the effort people have spent over the last week to be lost for good

and to keep track of bruce's shifting sands...

;-)

gregor
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> It also says that Britain shouldn't have seized Argentinian territory back in 1833!

Since Argentina didn't exist then, how it could it Argentinian territory? And anyhow, there were multiple claims by Spain, Britain, the River Plate, etc.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Eh no it was tragic and very very sad,a tuely dark time.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Well, I've never been compared to McCarthy before.

Come sir, you must have been!

> Presumably this would be because I pointed out that Stalin killed a lot of people?

No it was because you accuse anyone who defends even mildly left wing or socialist ideas of being a Stalinian! This show your right wing conservatism and political ignorance, just like McCarthy.

> You're doing this because you're losing the argument, aren't you?

Difficult to say as you haven't actually given any arguments on the subject in question! Are you going to? You are nearer the pope than I am so you may, just possibly, have something to add as "a Christian"?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, Argentina did exist then--see Gregor's chronology.

But that's not really the point.

Like I say, the fact that someone at some point in history makes a claim to a territory or even occupies it, doesn't have any decisive consequences about rightful ownership of that territory now. If it did, Spain would be in Morocco. And Morocco would be part of the Roman empire still. Etc.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> then your notion is bunk.

It's not my notion it's a United Nations notion and one of international law... I thought you said you looked it up?
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> No it was because you accuse anyone who defends even mildly left wing or socialist ideas of being a Stalinian! This show your right wing conservatism and political ignorance, just like McCarthy.

Make up your mind Bruce. Is he right wing or, as per you at 22:30 in response to Tim:
"You will doubtless reply, centre left as you are"

Can you at least try to hold a position for more than ten minutes?

> Difficult to say as you haven't actually given any arguments on the subject in question! Are you going to? You are nearer the pope than I am so you may, just possibly, have something to add as "a Christian"?

Whats with all the references to him being a Christian? Is it a attempt to divide and conquer by hoping he will say something which may trigger the atheists on the thread to respond?
Pyreneenemec - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> .
>
> yes- thankyou to the mods.
>
>
>

Totally off subject, but it would be interesting to know who moderates the forums ? Are they known or invisible ?

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'll ignore the pointless and unpleasant attacks on my faith, since they're irrelevant, and just point out that I have indeed presented arguments, about fifteen times, which you haven't yet addressed.

To help you, since you apparently need it, the basic ones are these:

1. The fact that A is closer to B than to C does not mean that B has a better claim to A than C has.

2. The fact that X held territory T before Y did does not mean that X, today, has a better claim to T than Y has.

Without rejoinders to these very simple arguments you're completely stuck, Bruce. You haven't offered any. You keep evading the issues that they raise. To be honest, it's getting a little boring, that and your windy monotonous abusiveness. Not to mention your Girl Friday's.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> [...]
>
> yes, but you might just learn something....
>
> ;-)
>
> ps for the record-
>
> french settlement established in 1764
>
> british settlement established in 1766
>
> spanish in 1767
>
> argentina independant in 1814
>
> argentinian settlement 1832
>
> source:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands#17th_century


edit: argentina independent 1816, not 1814

i should just copy and paste rather than type!

ps the spanish settlement was actually the same as the french one, handed over after the spanish bullied them- text from the wiki article on de bougainville, repeated from last night for the benefit of those that want to pretend it doesnt exist:

The French did not recognise any superior Spanish title to the islands but the French and Spanish royal families were linked by the Bourbon Family Compact and France simply gave in to Spanish pressure. Bougainville himself did not believe the Spanish had any superior title and in 1800 he even wrote to Napoleon urging him to raise the question of the French claim to the Falklands at the negotiations leading to the Peace of Amiens (1801).

source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine_de_Bougainville#Falklands_settlement

cheers
gregor
Coel Hellier - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> No, Argentina did exist then--see Gregor's chronology.

Or rather, the United Provinces of the River Plate did, and that later became Argentina, but the geographical extent of the country was very different then and did not include any of the mainland nearest to the Falklands. If you were going to assign the Falklands to the nearest country in 1833, it would *not* have been the United Provinces of the River Plate aka proto-Argentina.

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> in reply to Gudrun:

Thanks for that,dye know i've ran out of steam after an 11 1/2 hour shift then having to deal with this wittering wee freakshow that is Chappel.

Right so they claimed it before we colonized it in 1833 and it's right next to them and no where near us,surely that could be seen as us flexing our imperial muscles by sticking a bunch of folk on it before them?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Eh no it was tragic and very very sad,a tuely dark time.


Madam-- you're mad.

Have you tried out these lunatic notions on any actual East Germans or Czechs?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> Totally off subject, but it would be interesting to know who moderates the forums ? Are they known or invisible ?

shhh! they are watching...! they are *everywhere*...!

;-D

gregor

ps seriously- i dunno. dont fancy it as a job much, having to wade through hundreds of threads like this policing grown ups behaving like big weans...

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> edit: argentina independent 1816, not 1814

Thanks again, so it was by hook or by crook taken over by the spanish?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> ( wee


You keep using the language of littleness in referring to me. So let me reciprocate. Your height and weight, please?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I agree with the Argentinian and Spanish positions, you don't.

Do you agree with the Moroccan position on Melilla and Ceuta?
Pyreneenemec - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Pyreneenemec)
> [...]
>
> seriously- i dunno. dont fancy it as a job much, having to wade through hundreds of threads like this policing grown ups behaving like big weans...


All good fun !

I'm almost tempted to invite Bruce for a climb in the Pyrénées...........

but I have a job walking for more than 20 minutes a the moment !

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Pyreneenemec:

> Totally off subject, but it would be interesting to know who moderates the forums ? Are they known or invisible ?

i could tell you but then i would need to kill you.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> [...]
>
> Right so they claimed it before we colonized it in 1833 and it's right next to them and no where near us,surely that could be seen as us flexing our imperial muscles by sticking a bunch of folk on it before them?

er, shona, did you actually read my posts...

you know, the bit where i said,

british settlement established 1766

argentinian settlement established 1832

cos if you did, thats a galactically strange conclusion to come to...

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

My man sitting at the other end of the room from me is a Czech Communist and i know many people in Prague,one of my granmothers was from germany ran away from the Nazis during the war to czechoslovakia grassed by a Czech nazi ended up in Terezin.

Don't tell me about the eastern bloc pal ive forgotten more than you know.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
>
> I'll ignore the pointless and unpleasant attacks on my faith, since they're irrelevant, and just point out that I have indeed presented arguments, about fifteen times, which you haven't yet addressed.
>
> To help you, since you apparently need it, the basic ones are these:
>
> 1. The fact that A is closer to B than to C does not mean that B has a better claim to A than C has.
>
> 2. The fact that X held territory T before Y did does not mean that X, today, has a better claim to T than Y has.
>
> Without rejoinders to these very simple arguments you're completely stuck, Bruce. You haven't offered any. You keep evading the issues that they raise. To be honest, it's getting a little boring, that and your windy monotonous abusiveness. Not to mention your Girl Friday's.



Here are those arguments again, Bruce, just in case you suffer (yet another) strategic loss of memory.

I can hardly wait to see your thoughtful and judicious response!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>

>
> Don't tell me about the eastern bloc pal ive forgotten more than you know.

given your response to my timeline, it would appear you;ve forgotton how to count!

;-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Tragic? No, the imposition of a Soviet dictatorship on half of Europe--that's what was tragic. The liberation of all those countries in 1990--tragic? What are you on about? It was bloody brilliant.

Come one Tim, it wasn't all perfect, and the legacy of that horror lives on to today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/18/david-hasselhoff-berlin-wall-video
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
>
>
> Don't tell me about the eastern bloc pal ive forgotten more than you know.


So no doubt you have a good explanation for why that socialist paradise Eastern Germany spent 45 years penning in its own citizens and shooting anyone who tried to escape?

Your height and weight please, incidentally.

And don't call me pal; you're no pal of mine.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Sorry i am very sleepy i did read your post but i thought the only real settlement began in 1833 no?

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:

OMG... come back Honecker, all is forgiven :-)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
>
>
> I can hardly wait to see your thoughtful and judicious response!

Oi! get in the queue chappell, you johnny-come-lately...!

ive been waiting for bruce to answer my questions about how a forced transfer of the islands from french to spanish sovereignty in 1767 can be seen as justification for an argentinian sovereignty claim in 2013 by anyone other than the completely deranged for 18 months now!

:-D

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Sorry i am very sleepy i did read your post but i thought the only real settlement began in 1833 no?

no. exactly how have you been arguing about this for the last few days without taking in any of the arguments, from either side?
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

You seem to have reading difficulties... have you read about the Spanish claim to Gibraltar? How can you deny that Spain's territory was violated when they lost Gibraltar? Their are numerous texts on internet which go over this sort of legal question... which is just one of the arguments in favour of Argentina.

What is quite amazing is the way you act as if you are all collectively outraged by the views I have expressed, that they are totally unbelievable, that I have "lost the argument", and much other claptrap, and yet I am simply expressing the views held not only by the great majority of Argentinians but also all the countries of South America - a continent of 600 million people! That you express your disdain for me is no problem, I take it as a compliment, but to despise or belittle a whole continent is a sign of your own collective lack of sense of reality, and modesty.

Are you all members of some kind of coven of white suppremissists or what? What makes you feel so superior to all these people who, as anyone who has been there or has S American friends can confirm, are often far more politically aware than the average Brit?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> Sorry i am very sleepy i did read your post but i thought the only real settlement began in 1833 no?

well, here's that scintillating 18th century timeline in full...

1713: Treaty of Utrecht between Spain, France, and Great Britain. Spain later claims this granted Spain sovereignty over the islands based on the Treaty of Tordesillas, a claim rejected by Great Britain.[1]

1749: Anson proposes an expedition to find Pepys Island and establish a base on the Falkland Islands. Expedition is abandoned following pressure from the Spanish but with Great Britain formally rejecting the Spanish claim.[1]

1764: Louis de Bougainville (France) founded a naval base at Port Louis, East Falkland. The French named them the Îles Malouines, so-called from when the islands were briefly occupied by fishermen from St Malo. Many of the settlers were Acadians left homeless by the Great Expulsion in Nova Scotia.

1765: Ignorant of de Bougainville's presence, John Byron (Great Britain) claims Saunders Island and other islands for Britain. Britain builds a settlement on Saunders Island the following year.

1766: France and Spain reach agreement: French forces are to leave, and Spain agrees to pay for the installations built by de Bougainville.

1767: Fort St Louis is formally transferred to the Spanish Crown and renamed Puerto Soledad. Bougainville receives compensation for his efforts in establishing the colony. The first Spanish Governor, Don Felipe Ruiz Puente, is appointed.

1769: British and Spanish ships encounter one another whilst surveying the island. Each accuse the other of having no lawful reason for being in the islands.

1770: Falkland Crisis: Five Spanish ships arrive at Port Egmont with over 1400 troops under the command of General Madariaga. The British are forced to abandon Port Egmont and threaten war.

1771: That dispute was settled, with Spain retaining Puerto Soledad and Great Britain Port Egmont. Spain returns all goods and chattels seized and makes restitution. The Spanish later claim a secret agreement was reached whereby the British would leave the island, this is denied by the British and no documentary proof of the agreement has ever been produced.

1774: The British decide to abandon many overseas settlements due to the economic pressures of the American War of Independence.

1775: Captain James Cook rediscovers South Georgia and takes formal possession on behalf of King George III.

1776: The British finally depart the islands but leave behind a plaque re-asserting British dominion. Spain ruled the islands as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata after 1776.

so the british settlement lasted 10 years- hardly the blink of an eye that bruce would have you believe.

cheers
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:


She's right about 'forgetting more than I'll ever know' though; apparently she's forgotten *everything*. Which is useful, when you're a hardline leftie.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> So no doubt you have a good explanation for why that socialist paradise Eastern Germany spent 45 years penning in its own citizens and shooting anyone who tried to escape?

in case you didn't know it was a fascist country who had just tried to
exterminate by genocide the Slavic peoples of Russia was it 27 million murdered by this country.so they were now the conquered,a country that tried to liquidate the Slavs were now under their occupation,a country of fascists steeped in fascism,not hard to see why they wanted away is it ?

> And don't call me pal; you're no pal of mine.

praise the lord and halle effin luya !

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So anyone who disagrees with you is Joseph McCarthy, a white supremacist, and --anything else? Are we Klansmen as well, or Nazis?

Tell you what: give the preposterous insults a rest and respond to the arguments that we keep presenting to you, and you keep ignoring.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)

> She's right about 'forgetting more than I'll ever know' though; apparently she's forgotten *everything*. Which is useful, when you're a hardline leftie.

You really are a joke,you're like a wee child.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


East Germany was a fascist country?

....You really have forgotten everything.

So do tell me, why were you so sad about the collapse of a fascist country?
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: This list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves is a) just wonderful for all other geography geeks out there and b) sort of shows the silliness of Bruce's attempts at constructing a "commonsense" approach to the doctrine of territorial integrity. Interestingly Argentina has a number of islands that by the Hookerian logic they should be returning to Uruguay and Paraguay.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (
> You really are a joke,you're like a wee child.


Height and weight please?
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
>
> She's right about 'forgetting more than I'll ever know' though; apparently she's forgotten *everything*. Which is useful, when you're a hardline leftie.

i think next time she changes her name it should be to James Murdoch.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> and that france was forced to cede sovereignty against its wishes

Back with the same old lies! Really I wonder why you bother, just put it all in a chunk of text, add "answer my question" top and bottom and keep pasting it every ten minutes.

Try to accept that it is not that you type something that makes it true, it is just your opinion, at best, nothing more. Repeating it doesn't make it any truer.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> give the preposterous insults a rest and respond to the arguments

If you would stop your childlike and pathetic wittering maybe we could
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

you made a mistake in your last post bruce- you put quotation marks around "lost the argument"...

gregor

ps back to those pesky questions- do you have an answer yet...?

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> i think next time she changes her name it should be to James Murdoch.

whats that supposed to mean ?
Eh?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Well go ahead, I'm not stopping you: tell us why you were so sad when East Germany fell apart, given that you think E Germany was a fascist state.
Oceanrower - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> whats that supposed to mean ?
> Eh?

This may help.

http://www.thelemonpress.co.uk/?p=4473
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> Height and weight please?

what sort of a person are you who wants to know about peoples private lives is it because you have none?

Sad little man.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> ME "and that france was forced to cede sovereignty against its wishes"

>
> YOU: Back with the same old lies! Really I wonder why you bother, just put it all in a chunk of text, add "answer my question" top and bottom and keep pasting it every ten minutes.
>

its like shooting fish in a barrel this! for the *third* time in 24 hours, here goes:

The French did not recognise any superior Spanish title to the islands but the French and Spanish royal families were linked by the Bourbon Family Compact and France simply gave in to Spanish pressure. Bougainville himself did not believe the Spanish had any superior title and in 1800 he even wrote to Napoleon urging him to raise the question of the French claim to the Falklands at the negotiations leading to the Peace of Amiens (1801).

source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine_de_Bougainville#Falklands_settlement

its almost sad watching you unravel over the course of this thread bruce...


YOU: Try to accept that it is not that you type something that makes it true, it is just your opinion, at best, nothing more. Repeating it doesn't make it any truer.

amen to that- most insightful thing youve posted on here all week.

cheers
gregor

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> How can you deny that Spain's territory was violated when they lost Gibraltar?

I really think the Spanish position would be hugely bolstered if they gave Ceuta and Melilla up, but the Spanish seem to think the inhabitants there are Spanish! http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/29196/spaniards_review_ceuta_and_melilla_situation/
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:

Thanks for showing me that but can you tell me what that has to do with me please?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


My dear lady, you started it. You seem obsessed with my size. You seem convinced my size is small, though I've no idea what evidence you could have of that.

If you can keep insisting on this forum that I'm small, I think I can respond by asking about your physical dimensions.

I've no idea why any of this is interesting, but like I say, you're the one who seems interested.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> Do you agree with the Moroccan position on Melilla and Ceuta?

Already covered, read the thread.

Or to save you the trouble, if they are the Spanish bits in Morocco, yes... assuming this is their call for negotiations on the future of these colonial enclaves. I don't see how Spain can claim the return of Gibraltar and refuse to negotiate on it's own colonial crumbs, but I am only answering to avoid being badgered about answering the question (even though I already have) and I haven't looked at the details. My reply is one of principal.

Oceanrower - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Oceanrower)
>
> Thanks for showing me that but can you tell me what that has to do with me please?

I forget.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs) This list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves is a) just wonderful for all other geography geeks out there and b) sort of shows the silliness of Bruce's attempts at constructing a "commonsense" approach to the doctrine of territorial integrity. Interestingly Argentina has a number of islands that by the Hookerian logic they should be returning to Uruguay and Paraguay.


fascinating that! will keep a geography anorak like me amused for hours!

bruce: don;t, under any circumstances click this link. really. it will melt your brain

;-)
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
(In reply to Gudrun)
>


Tell you what, will it put your mind at rest if I tell you that I'm 5'6" and twelve and a half stone? Not all that little, small, or wee, in fact. Are you bigger than that? Or are you smaller? I'm sure it's all very interesting.

Mind you, for my part, I'm more interested in the question, which by the way you haven' answered. Here it is again:


tell us why you were so sad when East Germany fell apart, given that you think E Germany was a fascist state.

Ridge - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> I am simply expressing the views held not only by the great majority of Argentinians but also all the countries of South America - a continent of 600 million people!

Ah the block vote. Every single man, woman and child in South America is committed to liberating the Malvinas from colonial oppression. You've already condemned every single soul in Israel as killers of Palestenian babies, and Gudrun has helpfully pointed out that the Germans are all jew-gassing fascists.

That you express your disdain for me is no problem, I take it as a compliment, but to despise or belittle a whole continent is a sign of your own collective lack of sense of reality, and modesty.

Pots and kettles spring to mind.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

BTW i'm sorry i wasn't being ignorant or avoiding replying but all this nonsense going on around this thread is totally wrecking it.i came on here tonight to talk about the Malvinas but all i got was insulted and replied in kind,it's quite sad.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> [...]
>
> I forget.

its *so* much more entertaining tonight, dont you think...?

maybe it should be in the pub after all, certainly seems like a few people have been drinking

(i know i have... ;-) )

gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It works for the Galapagos and territorial waters... How would you suggest the sovereignty of islands be decided?

No need to answer that, you've already made it clear that you favour brute force, the right of conquest, one of the oldest methods on earth. So let me rephrase the question:

How would you suggest the sovereignty of islands be decided fairly?

PS. I'll look at your answer tomorrow morning... I can guess it anyway.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> You seem to have reading difficulties...

nope, not really. I am still waiting for you to give a precise and clear explanation of what you think territorial integrity is, especially with regards to backdating.

> How can you deny that Spain's territory was violated when they lost Gibraltar?

what about the Nasrids? Or are we running into one of your special cut off points. What about the violation of the Angevin empire? Is that why you live in France as a forward agent to reclaim the kingdom?

> Their are numerous texts on internet which go over this sort of legal question

then you will have no trouble producing them. Nice to see you trying your normal tricks. You go on about the UN charter then when it is quoted to you you dont even have the courtesy to acknowledge it and defend your position. Instead you just start throwing chaff around.

> ... which is just one of the arguments in favour of Argentina.

why oh why do you keep trying this trick. Jumping from Gibraltar, via some vague texts, to the Argentinian claim. Do you really think this is going to work?

> That you express your disdain for me is no problem, I take it as a compliment, but to despise or belittle a whole continent is a sign of your own collective lack of sense of reality, and modesty.

so basically if lots of people agree on something it must be true?
You havent thought that one through have you.

> Are you all members of some kind of coven of white suppremissists or what?

wahey back to insults. However I will treat it as a serious point and assume you are saying that because we are in favour of self determination and not for Argentina that makes us supremacists. However this can be easily tested by looking at the relative numbers of whites in the UK and Argentina. Fortunately, and unsurprisingly, this has already been covered on the thread.

"fwiw, argentina is more "white" than the UK- 97% vs 92%

just sayin...

cheers
gregor"
Oceanrower - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Junk film (Roadhouse) on t'telly, a couple of bottles of Shere Drop and this thread to keep me entertained.

I'm loving it!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> BTW i'm sorry i wasn't being ignorant or avoiding replying but all this nonsense going on around this thread is totally wrecking it.i came on here tonight to talk about the Malvinas but all i got was insulted and replied in kind,it's quite sad.


shona, i think that ship has sailed, there is only so many times that we can post the same things over and over before even i get tired of it...!

if the thread was a pub, i think it would be approaching last orders, still time for a quick half, but then its tables on chairs and move outside please..!

;-)

gregor
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:


Yes, it's quite good knockabout. It's just a pity the Gang of Two seem to have taken a vow not to actually answer any questions.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Hey! We agree on something! Wunderbar. Now how about Llívia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ll%C3%ADvia Spanish out?

But more seriously, the Moroccan claims against Spain over Melilla and Ceuta might also be taken a bit more seriously if they weren't occupying Western Sahara!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:


Here once more are my questions for Bruce:

I'll ignore the pointless and unpleasant attacks on my faith, since they're irrelevant, and just point out that I have indeed presented arguments, about fifteen times, which you haven't yet addressed.
>
> To help you, since you apparently need it, the basic ones are these:
>
> 1. The fact that A is closer to B than to C does not mean that B has a better claim to A than C has.
>
> 2. The fact that X held territory T before Y did does not mean that X, today, has a better claim to T than Y has.
>
> Without rejoinders to these very simple arguments you're completely stuck, Bruce. You haven't offered any. You keep evading the issues that they raise. To be honest, it's getting a little boring, that and your windy monotonous abusiveness. Not to mention your Girl Friday's.

I can hardly wait to see your thoughtful and judicious response!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

And for Gudrun:

1. If state socialism is so wonderful, why was there a Berlin wall in the first place?

2. If East Germany was a fascist state, why were you sad when it fell apart?
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

I never said GDR was a fascist state in fact it certainly wasn't but it did come from the remnants of one.

That is what i said.

It was very sad because there were fantastic societies and tell you what i'll post a link to some of the stuff i've written about Czechoslovakia but you will have to wait til tommorow as i said ive just done an 11 1/2 hour shift and i start at 7am.

Im 5'7" ....shorty !
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Also, if Scotland is part of the UK for a long while, does that mean that "territorial integrity" prevents them ever becoming independent?

Notice the word United in UK, which implies at least two entities have been united so the Scots could argue, if a majority wish to, that what has been brought together can be split asunder... These are all legal arguments which if either can be presented in a court of law or made public to sway an audience or public opinion - questions of national sovereignty are rarely simple nor based on one glib bit of text. That's why wars often result from border disputes.

You don't seem to be exhibiting much finesse on this subject, only reserved for religious questions, is it?
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Have I got this right? These societies were so fantastic that their citizens hid in the undercarriages of railway trains and planes to get away from them? And so fantastic that border guards could be employed, full time, to shoot these fleeing citizens?

Yep, sounds fantastic all right.
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:

> Gudrun has helpfully pointed out that the Germans are all jew-gassing fascists.

Why?
Was my German gran a Nazi then gassing jews EH ?
Did she do that before she ran away from them EH ?
is that why she ended up in terezin...

you make me sick!
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
so the Scots could argue, if a majority wish to, that what has been brought together can be split asunder


So if a majority of Scots want to be separate from England, they can be; but if a majority of Falklanders want to be separate from Argentina, they can't.

Good, glad we cleared that up.



> You don't seem to be exhibiting much finesse on this subject, only reserved for religious questions, is it?

Oh wow, now you're sneering at Coel for *his* views about religion? Attaboy.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
>
> How would you suggest the sovereignty of islands be decided fairly?

by the same means as you, when you are not scraping barrels to dig out nonsense about territorial intergrity, or basing claims on the bourbon compact and the treaty of tordesillas....

by negotiation and compromise. the first compromise has to come from argentina- to stop rattling sabres and put a moratorium on the sovereignty claim for, say, 99 years. then the islanders could compromise by giving contracts for the fabrication of oil exploration to the local contractors in rio grande and comodoro rivadivia (look them up. have you been to both? i have)

then with detente in the air, a whole lot of cultural exchanges etc get underway and a generation of islanders grows up going on holiday to BA and los glaciares, and marries argentinians, and before you know it, the whole sovereignty issue goes away, and it becomes clear that the islands future is with their neighbours in patagonia. not a bullet is fired, not a UN resolution needed

now where can i collect my nobel prize...?

;-)


> PS. I'll look at your answer tomorrow morning... I can guess it anyway.

was that what you guessed...?

cheers
gregor

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Hundreds of millions didn't leave and were very happy.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Notice the word United in UK, which implies at least two entities have been united so the Scots could argue

they could but if if was based on the use of United Kingdom they would fail.
Its the "United Kingdom of Great Briton and North Ireland".

So, next?
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
>
> With those words, Bruce, you've actually conceded the entire argument. You've just admitted that the principle of territorial integrity says it was wrong for Argentina to invade in 1982.

I do believe it was wrong - they should have negotiated. 900 young people dead made it wrong.
>
> Right, thank you, can we go home now?

I'm going to bed, you can go where you want... Alabama perhaps, you did another bit of McCarthy speak just above... you don't realise it apparently, like the lady who spoke prose without even knowing it.

Oceanrower - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Hundreds of millions didn't leave and were very happy.

Err......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany#Population
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Yeah, right. And I bet you think all the ones who *weren't* celebrating in Berlin on Nov 9 1989 were really pissed off?
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> no. exactly how have you been arguing about this for the last few days without taking in any of the arguments, from either side?

Who the F do you think you are ? hahaha!

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (
> I'm going to bed, you can go where you want... Alabama perhaps, you did another bit of McCarthy speak just above... you don't realise it apparently, like the lady who spoke prose without even knowing it.



Wah heck yes, deep down Ah'm just a wickid rednayuck fascist, heckamighty!

You really are pathetic, Bruce. If you're going to insult, you could at least try and be funny, and more or less plausible. As a piece of invective, comparing me to McCarthy is hopeless. Simply hopeless.

You haven't even tried to respond to my arguments, either.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to the thread:

can you finish your drinks and move outside PLEASE...!

time for bed i think

there might be a lock-in going on, but i would advise against it- you'll just end up with a sore head tomorrow...

;-D

night all,

gregor
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
>
> Yeah, right. And I bet you think all the ones who *weren't* celebrating in Berlin on Nov 9 1989 were really pissed off?

Hahaha you havent a clue you are a brainwashed *little* child

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Gudrun--face it. Communism is dead. Dead, dead, dead. As dead as all the millions of innocent people it killed. If not deader.

And about the death of communism, the human race as a whole can heave a collective sigh of relief.

Why don't you stop the lame put-downs, and join in that sigh? You know you'd feel better.

dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Who the F do you think you are ? hahaha!

I am just struggling to understand why you waited till now to ask about the basic claims? I understand that Bruce has been throwing chaff everywhere but it has been well covered.
dissonance - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> can you finish your drinks and move outside PLEASE...!

we all know this is your attempt to claim it was abandoned by everyone else and hence assert sole ownership. You wont catch us out that easily.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

I'm too sleepy i'll speak tmoz after work.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce the deranged:


By the way, another fact for you. I know you're a bit allergic to facts, but here it is:

Joseph McCarthy was not from Alabama. He was born and bred in Wisconsin, and that's where he was a senator.

Just thought you should know, given your apparent obsession with the man.

Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> i'll speak tmoz after work.


Speak? As opposed to shout? That would be excellent. If you wouldn't mind.

Gudrun - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

is it dead ?
There are strong parties in the east very strong.it will never die as long as there are oppressed people.

But do you know what i think? i think you are a horrible vicious little man Tim from what i've seen from you tonight.Horrible.

Goodnight.
Tim Chappell - on 25 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Ah. Shouting again. Pity.

You do know that it's possible to discuss disagreements without getting personal, don't you? You should try it some time, instead of making witless heightist remarks.
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

There's something no right about you kid,as we say in Glasgow youv got a want aboot ye.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:



Going all pawky Scots and down-home shortbread-tin twee doesn't make your basically offensive remarks any less offensive. You could apologise, for that and for the constant stream of heightist remarks that you've been guilty of this evening.

But you're doing well at using insulting me as a way of distracting your own attention, at any rate, from the real question, which is about the Falklands.

Or have you forgotten that as well?
Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> ... in case you didn't know it was a fascist country ...

So the communists were fascists? Agreed! As everyone knows, I have argued at length that fascism was a pretty left-wing concept, and now I have support from the least expected quarter!
The New NickB - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> [...]
>
> So the communists were fascists? Agreed! As everyone knows, I have argued at length that fascism was a pretty left-wing concept, and now I have support from the least expected quarter!

Now, now Coel, Shona talks a lot of rubbish, but you are misquoting her.
tony on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Now, now Coel, Shona talks a lot of rubbish, but you are misquoting her.

Besides which, claiming intellectual support from Shona isn't the most compelling argument.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I've inquired about this, and it's hard to tell because as usual there's so much abusive noise covering the information... But I *think* what she means is that Nazi Germany was a fascist country, and then the wonderful regime of Honecker and the Stasi arrived, and deer-fawns pranced and elves rejoiced and pretty flowers grew out of every prison cell.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

You are also totally without humour too apparently... but what I said is not insult, it is simply descriptive; your crude, moronic anti-communism, referring to Stalin at every turn when even a vague interest in history would have enabled you to realise that Stalinism is regarded with horror by all modern communist and socialist parties or sympathisers puts you firmly, and factually, in the rabid, reds under the bed, better dead than red McCarthyist school.

What' your problem though, why can't you assume the views you express with a little better grace?
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Now I've no sense of humour, is that right? And I'm uninterested in history? You really are boxing the compass on every possible misdescription of me.

And you have time to type this pointless, rude nonsense, and yet no time to answer my questions. Strange.
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Look, just face it, you are a MacCarthite, neo-implerialist, British Nationalist, militarist, fascist colonialist, vitriolic, anti-Argentinian, Daily Mail reading extremist.

And you are short.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
Stalinism is regarded with horror by all modern communist and socialist parties or sympathisers



Oh yes, it's always somebody else's fault, isn't it? You never admit that the problems that communism creates might be part of communism itself, not just incidental.

Whatever else you're wrong about, Bruce, you're right that I detest communism. That's mainly because, as a liberal individualist who believes that there's no point to a state that does not set its citizens free, I detest totalitarianism. And in the twentieth century, communism was the main and the most detructive totalitarianism. I would fight to the death to defeat communism or nazism. But as it happened, communism was the one that lasted.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> Look, just face it, you are a MacCarthite, neo-implerialist, British Nationalist, militarist, fascist colonialist, vitriolic, anti-Argentinian, Daily Mail reading extremist.
>
> And you are short.

I plead guilty on short :-)
Deviant - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> I plead guilty on short :-)

So was Napoleon !

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> What' your problem though, why can't you assume the views you express with a little better grace?

This from the man who accuses people who he disagrees with of "being in the pay of..." the CIA or Mossad or whoever; or calls them racists and imperialists.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> So was Napoleon !

Which brings us nicely back to Monsieur Bougainville...
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> This from the man who accuses people who he disagrees with of "being in the pay of..." the CIA or Mossad or whoever; or calls them racists and imperialists.


Now I feel let down. Why hasn't Bruce said I'm in anyone's pay?

I am, of course. I'm a functionary of the British government. Public-sector employees do tend to be :-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: There something of a political version of Poe's Law hovering around this thread

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

It is really quite difficult to know whether Bruce is the real thing or just having an extended laugh at everyone. He has a lot of stamina if the latter...
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Deviant:

> So was Napoleon !

he was average height, or slightly above, for his age.

Wonder if Bruce is going to answer any questions, I particularly liked his interpretation of what United Kingdom meant with regards to Scotland.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Wiki says Napoleon was 1.7 metres. Yahoo says that in imperial--which is naturally my preferred measuring system--that's 5 feet 6.912 inches.

So it turns out that Napoleon and I are almost exactly the same height. Spooky!
Pursued by a bear - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): Presumably the Pope, being a biblical sort, would refer Argentina, a predominantly Catholic country, to the appropriate commandment; the one that starts "Thou shalt not covet...".

Whether it's your neighbours ox, ass or islands, I think that should give the appropriate direction.

T.
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Wiki says Napoleon was 1.7 metres. Yahoo says that in imperial--which is naturally my preferred measuring system--that's 5 feet 6.912 inches.


Dress it up how you want, it's still short. And you are therefore wrong.
skarabrae - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: your also an inch shorter than adolf hitler, wooo,oooo,oooo really spooky ;-)
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

Yes. Catastrophically wrong. Moreover, I've just "revealed my true face" as an imperialist. A stature-challenged imperialist.

At least I'm not tubby like the Emperor. Or impotent.
skarabrae - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: but do you have anything in common with her hitler? (opther than stature) you know the words to the song "has only got one....."
;-)
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to skarabrae:

In a way I have less in common with Hitler than Bruce and Gudrun have. For they, apparently, are against democracy and in favour of totalitarianism.

dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

> Dress it up how you want, it's still short. And you are therefore wrong.

He is about the same height as Stalin and therefore right.
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> He is about the same height as Stalin and therefore right.


This is getting confusing now. So Tim is short, like Stalin, and therefore right. But Tim thinks the Falklanders should decide their own future. What were Stalin's views on the Falklands? And is Bruce tall or short. Remember, de Gaulle was tall.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> In my opinion, you are also totally without humour too apparently... but what I said is not insult, it is simply descriptive, in my opinion; your crude, moronic anti-communism, referring to Stalin at every turn when even a vague interest in history would have enabled you to realise that Stalinism is regarded with horror by all modern communist and socialist parties or sympathisers puts you firmly, and factually, in the rabid, reds under the bed, better dead than red McCarthyist school in my singular opinion.


Fixed that for you.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> Remember, de Gaulle was tall.


Huh! Like that proves anything. So was Dubya!
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

> This is getting confusing now.

you imperialist right wing union jack scarf wearing despot. What has height got to do with anything I was clearly talking about the waist size since, as everyone apart from conservatives know, it is the structural integrity of the belt which counts.

Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
>
What were Stalin's views on the Falklands?


Stalin looked for a way to make a pact with Hitler about how divide them up. But naturally, Stalin wanted South Georgia and so did Hitler. So they agreed to differ and invaded Poland instead.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> Make up your mind Bruce. Is he right wing or, as per you at 22:30 in response to Tim:
"You will doubtless reply, centre left as you are"

> Can you at least try to hold a position for more than ten minutes?

So you are not only "challenged" in terms of reading or politics but in humour too... actually I noticed that a while ago. In this case, to help you out, I was quoting him when I said "centre left as you are", it's pretty obvious to anyone reading his posts over a certain period that he is right wing, a Christian conservative in the opinions he expresses, but like many Christians with a strong militant anti-communist/socialist side that comes out nastily at times, like on this thread when he refers to Gudrun and myself as if we supported Stalin, hence gulags, mass trials and political executions.

As is often the case, it is not entirely his fault, they are often taught this from an early age by atheist hating clerics, always out for vengeance against those who destroyed religious domination that they used to enjoy. Now they can only fiddle with children, before the fiddled the world - quite culture shock for some.

Although I don't think such clerics should pervert the minds of children I do accept that for the moment religions can't be banned, too many need the crutch and previous attempts at banning religion have ended very badly so toleration and education is best. Equally, to be clear, my calling Tim a conservative is not an insult, in a democracy all opinions which stay within the law and common decency are valid. If right and left didn't exist political stagnation might set in... some of my best friends are conservatives.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Again I ask: you've got time to type this garbage, but no time to answer my questions?
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> You keep evading the issues that they raise.

I don't but you don't like my replies, not necessarily given personally to every question that would be impossible - I'm still reading 22.45 from last night now. In answer to your A and B and X and Y, these may not be the only reasons as sovereignty is often decided in a complex way, but how would you decide who a small territory that was not viable alone should be attached to? Surely geographical considerations apply to some extent - no one would sensibly suggest the Lundy was part of the USA, for example, even if by chance all the houses on the island were bought up by US tourists.

> To be honest, it's getting a little boring,

I quite agree.

> that and your windy monotonous abusiveness

Ditto but return to sender, you may feel that socialist ideas are sufficient justification for abuse, I don't. Religious extremism, yes, socialism no.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Oh yes, it's always somebody else's fault, isn't it? You never admit that the problems that communism creates might be part of communism itself, not just incidental.

Ditto for religion and capitalism.

Christians have committed horrors beyond our imagination over the centuries, all in the name of Christianity - does that mean that Christ's message in the gospels (assuming it was his) is rotten to the core?

You've put yourself on a sticky wicket here.

> And in the twentieth century, communism was the main and the most destructive totalitarianism.

Tell that to a Jew!
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (

but how would you decide who a small territory that was not viable alone should be attached to?


I would start by asking "Who is it already attached to?". In the case of the Falklands, the answer is "Britain." The status quo counts for something.

I would then ask "Do the inhabitants consent in this arrangement?". In the case of the Falklands, the answer is "Yes". Democratic mandate counts for a lot; in my view it's the most important consideration at all.

Incidentally, I believe you're wrong to describe the Falklands as "not viable alone".

And just to be clear about some other issues--given that I'm a liberal/ social democrat myself it's unlikely that I would be rude about someone just for being a socialist. Though I might for being an adherent of the Honecker regime, which Gudrun apparently is, or an admirer of the Galtieri regime, which you seem to be. To repeat, it's totalitarianism I'm against, not socialism per se.
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
small territory that was not viable alone should be attached to?


In what way, defence aside, are the Falklands not viable alone? Anyway, I would have thought a referendum would be an obvious starting point


Surely geographical considerations apply to some extent - no one would sensibly suggest the Lundy was part of the USA,

Why not, if the population desired it and had been established for a long period? Note, for example Saint Pierre and Miquelon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon

Why do you have such problems with odd bits of territory like this. Sure, you wouldn't set out to have them if you were starting from scratch. But they exist and the populations are happy. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> So you are not only "challenged" in terms of reading or politics

I do wonder, like MG, if you are doing a poe but then I remember you were a hardline communist during the soviet era.
Someone who cant even get past the first two words in a countries name isnt in a place to talk about reading.


> but in humour too... actually I noticed that a while ago.

oh i dunno. I find you highly amusing.

> Although I don't think such clerics should pervert the minds of children I do accept that for the moment religions can't be banned, too many need the crutch and previous attempts at banning religion have ended very badly so toleration and education is best.

what is it with you ranting about religion on this thread? it is almost as if you are trying to get Tim to respond in the hope that the likes of Coel and me might decide to start discussing religion instead.
Nice diversion plan but i suspect we are all having to much fun seeing you flounder than dive into another topic.
Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> ... how would you decide who a small territory that was not viable alone should be attached to?

The Falklands are viable (at least, in everything other than defence against a larger, bullying neighbour).

Note how we have conflicting accounts: the Falklands are a rich land which the Imperial Brits wish to plunder for their resources, and the Falklands are a poor, impoverished outpost that is totally non-viable on its own.

Given that Andorra, Luxembourg, Leichtenstein, San Marino, etc, seem to manage quite well on their own, why aren't the Falklands big enough to decide for themselves? And if their decision is a partnership with the UK, then what is the problem?

> Surely geographical considerations apply to some extent - no one would sensibly suggest the Lundy was
> part of the USA, for example, even if by chance all the houses on the island were bought up by US tourists.

How about if those "tourists" had been there for 180 years, passing on farms to their children, etc? Afterall, Lundy is nearer to Washington DC than Hawai'i is. Presumably you object to Hawai'i being part of the US on the grounds that it is not near enough?
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
>
>
> Tell that to a Jew!


I happily would, and plenty of Jews would agree. It is, after all, a simple numerical point. Communist totalitarianism killed far more people in the twentieth century than fascist totalitarianism did. That's all I meant.

If you think there's something specially horrific about the Nazi Holocaust of 1941-45, of course you may be right, but that wasn't my point. As I say, my point was numerical.

And after all, the communist Stalin had his pogroms too. While the communist Khmer Rouge killed people for wearing glasses.
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)

> Yes lets attack a country who tried to fight against imperialism,racism,elitism,inequality and exploitation.

Sorry, you've lost me - which country are you referring to?
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Come to think of it, there's something "specially horrific" about deliberately starting a famine to kill your own people, isn't there? Which Stalin did, and Hitler didn't (as far as I know).
Mike Stretford - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): Real world implication of Argentina's nationalist stance.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/argentina-s-falklands-stance-hits-squid-fishermen-1-28571...

"But efforts to manage it were set back in 2005 when Argentina pulled out of a fisheries management organisation it had shared with the Falklands. Argentina’s government doesn’t want any co-operation that might hint at recognition of self-government on the British islands it claims, which it calls Las Malvinas."

But of course we shouldn't bother about trivial stuff like feeding people.... we should be gettting all work up about an empire that no longer exists.
Richard Carter - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:

Is it just me or is the picture just a picture of South America....?
Richard Carter - on 26 Mar 2013
Here is the picture they refer to in the article:
http://binaryapi.ap.org/2c7159ef15ef44d88af7ea344f9432bd/460x.jpg
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> Right so they claimed it before we colonized it in 1833 and it's right next to them and no where near us,surely that could be seen as us flexing our imperial muscles by sticking a bunch of folk on it before them?

Beware, scotch eggs is being "economical with the truth" like his hero! The French colony was a real one with settlers, buildings and so on, it got up to about 120 people and was a genuine effort at living there. Many of the settlers were French Arcadians who had been driven out of Canada when France lost the war with Britain there - De Bougainville was an officer in the French army there and the war being over and being at a loose end he thought of this unoccupied land as a possible solution for those "hardy peasants" as he described them for whom he had much sympathy. He knew that the climate was pretty awful in the Malouines but thought it wouldn't be any worse than Canada.

This turned out to be true, they were doing better than the British settlement, out of site on another part of the group of islands. The British site was pretty much a token settlement as an excuse to claim the islands - I'm not even sure they had any women and families, but I wouldn't swear to that without looking it up... whatever it was finally folded up, there being little real interest.

The transfer of the French settlement and claim to Spain took place by mutual agreement between France and Spain who were allies - De Bougainville was pissed off, it's true, but not overmuch as at least he managed to get his money back from Spain, something he knew he had little chance of from France. He got the money, taken as an exchange for the colony and used it to refit his ships and then headed off round Cape Horn to become the first Frenchman to circumnavigate the world.

Many of his settlers preferred to return to France but some obtained permission to stay on. As for the following years there is little proof of what became of them. We know that many ships used the islands to stop over, careen their hulls and so on so there was probably a mixed bag of inhabitants for which we have no trace - so no proof for the ukc imperial pedantistas - but the claim of Spain was maintained - the British left a plaque nailed to a post saying "We'll be back" or something of the sort. There was a bit of scrapping and piracy involving US ships as the USA was now independent. this was one factor that made the British Navy rekindle their interest in the islands, they were worried of a US takeover as the islands were good stopover between the USA Eastern ports and California.

As no one denies, the independent Argentina took over the sovereignty of all Spanish lands, after a protracted war of independence and civil war and although we have little knowledge of how many lived there until then there was an undisputed Argentinian presence on the islands again by the time the British gunboat arrived in 1833, and did what British gunboats always do!

The rest is all well known. There are many versions of this period (1760s to 1833), even the Wikipedia one varies a fair bit, as does the Wikipedia English language and French language one - it's contents depends on the contributors and English speakers are more pro-Brit than the French. The details of the claims are also different in whatever book you read - the islanders web site has changed from a simple informative site to a glossy propaganda instrument over a fairly short period.... A lot of people sniff oil and want to get their grubby mitts on it!
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Come to think of it, there's something "specially horrific" about deliberately starting a famine to kill your own people, isn't there? Which Stalin did, and Hitler didn't (as far as I know).

Wow, you worse than I thought... so Hitler didn't starve the under-peoples, Slavs etc. For your information he did a lot better, gas chambers and manufacture of lamp-shades fro human skin.

Clearly I was wrong to compare you to McCarthy, this is an insult to him, more like KKK?
Andy S - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): (groan) when will people stop trying to mix religion with politics? BAD!
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

How many died in capitalist/imperialist/fascist wars in the 20th century? Must be getting on for 100 million with just WW1 and 2... beats even Stalin. How is this relevant to the new Argentinian Pope and the Malvinas BTW?
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Given that Andorra, Luxembourg, Leichtenstein, San Marino, etc, seem to manage quite well on their own, why aren't the Falklands big enough to decide for themselves? And if their decision is a partnership with the UK, then what is the problem?

Maybe because it isn't theirs?

> How about if those "tourists" had been there for 180 years, passing on farms to their children, etc?

How about reading about the islanders, half weren't even born there, and how many of the others have been there as long as you say, quite apart from the simple fact that theft or receiving stolen property, knowingly or not does not, in Common Law, confer ownership.

> Presumably you object to Hawai'i being part of the US on the grounds that it is not near enough?

I think Hawaii is a colony, yes. If native Hawaiians called for their independence I would support them, wouldn't you?

Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> I remember you were a hardline communist during the soviet era.

Thanks for telling me, I wasn't aware of this... You know my past as well as you do that of the Malvinas.

> what is it with you ranting about religion on this thread?

More reading skills problems? Look at the title of the thread... it's about the Pope. You get caught up in your own nonsense sometimes, poor thing... have a sit down.
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Beware, scotch eggs is being "economical with the truth" like his hero!

this should be entertaining.

> There was a bit of scrapping and piracy involving US ships as the USA was now independent.

I like the implications of this sentence. Why not write "The US was forced to carry out an anti piracy mission"

> As no one denies, the independent Argentina took over the sovereignty of all Spanish lands

I think you will find there are quite a few who disagree. You can start with most of the other Latin American countries who I doubt will be overly keen on finding they are part of Argentina (hence the several wars).

> then there was an undisputed Argentinian presence on the islands again by the time the British gunboat arrived in 1833, and did what British gunboats always do!

Strange that you dont mention Luis Vernet settlement was done with the permission of both countries and it was in 1832 the Argentina military invaded with a failed penal colony.


nice to see defensive tactic c is in play. Reset to argument 1 and ignore everything inbetween.
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Thanks for telling me, I wasn't aware of this... You know my past as well as you do that of the Malvinas.

so more about you than you do? I guess that explains why you keep resetting the arguments. Starting to forget stuff?

> More reading skills problems?

Bruce, considering you are so inept that you confuse "United Kingdom" with the question of Scottish independence you are in no place to talk.
You have been proved incorrect time and time again but every time instead of having the guts to admit you are wrong you ignore the correction and then, several pages, later repeat the same lies.
Now have you found the definition of territorial integrity, according to the UN, or are you still sticking your head in the sand.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>

If native Hawaiians called for their independence I would support them, wouldn't you?


Certainly. Because that would be in line with the principle of self-determination. Which you apparently accept in the case of Hawaii, but not in the case of the Falklands.

So why don't you stop wittering on with preposterous, childish, pointless remarks about people you don't even know being in the Klu Klux Klan, and address this selectiveness of yours?
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (
so Hitler didn't starve the under-peoples, Slavs etc. For your information he did a lot better, gas chambers and manufacture of lamp-shades fro human skin.


Thank you, Bruce, I do know about the gas chambers.

The fascist totalitarian Hitler didn't deliberately start a famine to wipe a people out. The socialist totalitarian Stalin did. That was my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Notice that according to some estimates, the socialist totalitarian Stalin killed more people this way than the fascist totalitarian Hitler killed in the death camps.

Or is Wiki written by McCarthyites too, according to you?

MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe because it isn't theirs?
>
>

What isn't who's?
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

...The transfer of the French settlement and claim to Spain took place by mutual agreement between France and Spain who were allies - De Bougainville was pissed off, it's true, but not overmuch...



Bruce, even if your history was accurate about these events--which I take leave to doubt, given how shoddy it is everywhere else--it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Here's why: the fact that in the past X occupied territory T before Y did gives X no right to hold T today. For if it did, then Spain would belong to the Moors, or the Vandals, or the Romans, or whoever got there first.

Moreover, the fact that Y took T from X by force at some suitably distant time in the past does not invalidate Y's right to T over X--provided the time was suitably distant. For if it did, then, once more, the Spanish would have no right to Spain, the Turks would have no right to Istanbul, and the Franks would have no right to France.

I've made these points before. You still haven't addressed them.

Or is it just that we're arguing about the statute of limitations--how long it takes for a right of conquest to become accepted de iure as well as de facto? As I agreed with Coel, ages ago, that's a piece-of-string question. But if your approach to international relations is going to bear any relation at all to political reality, I'm afraid you are going to have to recognise a statute of limitations.

However, it's clear that political reality is not really your thing...
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'm afraid you are going to have to recognise a statute of limitations.

For Bruce it seems location rather than time dependent. Falklanders - not long enough. Chinese in Tibet - seems fine. Jews in Israel - not long enough. USA in Hawaii - not long enough. Channel Isles - again OK.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

I've done him on the location thing as well. As usual with Bruce, he simply hasn't noticed that he's lost the argument. A reading problem perhaps.
skarabrae - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: but that wouldnt fit in with bruce making the facts fit his argument!!
my opinion (& thats all any of the arguments are, peoples opinions, we can all make them fit our viewpoints) is that the argies claim is no stronger or weaker than the uk`s, BUT the people who live there MUST decide, if in the future they decide to join argentina, then that is their choice & should be respected.
i personaly think it would have made sense for the islanders to join argentina, but argentina has blown any chance of that happening by their aggressive/antagonistic/beligerent stance towards the islanders, it has been completely self defeating.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to skarabrae:

Yes--if I were President of Argentina, and if I really wanted the Falklands to be part of my country, I'd give up on the sabre-rattling and start a charm offensive. I suspect Frau Kirchner either (a) doesn't really want the Falklands or (b) knows that she's not going to get them whatever she does, and reckons that bellicose words are cheaper than trying to buy the Falklanders.

Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> As no one denies, the independent Argentina took over the sovereignty of all Spanish lands, ...

Sorry, the British didn't accept this Argentine (actually United Provinces of the River Plate) claim to the Falklands, and both Britain and proto-Argentina claimed the Falklands at that time.

> ... until then there was an undisputed Argentinian presence on the islands again by the time the
> British gunboat arrived in 1833, ...

Amazing! That Argentina "presence" had arrived there only weeks earlier, on 15 November 1832, in the form of a military garrison. And it *was* disputed, the British disputed it and sent a gunboat. That gunboat arrived on 3 January 1833. So there had been six weeks of *disputed* Argentina presence by a military garrison.

That six-week military garrison is the only foundation for the Argentine claim, and is set against 180 years of subsequent multi-generational inhabitation by the current population.
Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> If native Hawaiians called for their independence I would support them, wouldn't you?

Yes. If native Falklanders called for their independence I would support them, wouldn't you?
skarabrae - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: i agree, its all about deflecting the attention of the argintine population away from more pressing matters in their country.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)


Mind you, when it comes to bits of the US claiming the right to secede, you could say that Washington has form...
Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

I thought our truce was getting too cordial. ;-) Bad me! http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=543757
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

But I agree with you about that headline. What's to become of us, Coel?
Rachel W on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to skarabrae)
>
> Yes--if I were President of Argentina, and if I really wanted the Falklands to be part of my country, I'd give up on the sabre-rattling and start a charm offensive.

Argentina tried that in the 70s I believe and the islanders weren't that keen.

Bit of info on 1832/1833 from the Falklands' paper
http://www.penguin-news.com/index.php/news/politics/item/504-parallel-truths-in-parallel-universes-c...
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Rachel W:


Now at last someone gives us something new, to get us out of the same old rut of argument. Thank you, Rachel!
Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> But I agree with you about that headline.

Oh dear, plot foiled! Darn. ;-)
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> But I agree with you about that headline. What's to become of us, Coel?

learn from Bruce and defend it regardless of accuracy. Not sure what you can replace the ranting about imperialism and the KKK for when you run out of semi factual arguments but I am sure you can think of something (or just reuse Bruces rant, will have about the same relevance). Looking at the full document its got a fairly major list of questions and responses which you could divert attention onto for a bit, randomly asking us about x without really identifying it and then switch to something else when the exact line is quoted.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance and Coel:


If you two want to watch a fight, I suspect Al Evans may be about to square up to me.

Scrap! Scrap! Scrap!
Cuthbert on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> I've done him on the location thing as well. As usual with Bruce, he simply hasn't noticed that he's lost the argument. A reading problem perhaps.

In all honesty I think there are issues bigger than reading. A mental one possibly.
skarabrae - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Rachel W: i wonder what would have happened if they`d continued doing that right up until today instead of what did happen?
they prob wouldnt have soveriegnty, but they`d be a damn site closer!
Coel Hellier - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to skarabrae:

Yep, the Argentinians are going about this entirely the wrong way. All they need to do is to offer free scholarships to Argentinian Universities for all youth from the Falklands, and in a generation or two they will get their way.

Ditto the Spanish over Gibraltar.
Pyreneenemec - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to skarabrae:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell) i agree, its all about deflecting the attention of the argintine population away from more pressing matters in their country.

Nothing new in those tactics.

The population of Argentina have little to gain in persuing this dispute. They've just obtained a Pope so they would be better off trying to improve their day to day quality of life and strive to become a true democracy.

The likes of Bruce Hooker are not doing them a favour as there is NO way Britain will sell-out to the Argentinians. No disrespect Bruce, but you're flogging a dead-horse and you know it; time to let the subject die ?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to skarabrae)
>
> Yep, the Argentinians are going about this entirely the wrong way. All they need to do is to offer free scholarships to Argentinian Universities for all youth from the Falklands, and in a generation or two they will get their way.
>
> Ditto the Spanish over Gibraltar.


What a great idea. Just think of the bidding war that could precipitate. And just think who'd benefit, Coel. We would! The academics!

Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
> (
but you're flogging a dead-horse and you know it; time to let the subject die ?

Fat chance, given that Bruce thinks it's worthwhile to argue for communism, and his Girl Friday is (as far as we can tell) an Erich Honecker fan.

When I visited the Wall myself, I absolutely loved this mural:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=honecker+brezhnev+kiss+wiki&aq=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=...
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> What a great idea. Just think of the bidding war that could precipitate.

hate to say it but Bruces fantasies about the last stronghold of the empire aside I think the response of the British government would be a quiet sigh of relief and leave the Argentinians to get on with the wooing.

Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Yes. If I was in Whitehall I'd certainly want them off my desk. But not by armed occupation.
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Yes. If I was in Whitehall I'd certainly want them off my desk. But not by armed occupation.

its the sad thing about the entire affair and what Bruce continually misses with his accusations of imperialism etc. Most people arent overly fussed if the Falklands remains a overseas terrority or not its just we all think it is the islanders choice.

If they want independence or to join Argentina i doubt i would lose any sleep (well apart from laughing in the former case when Bruce has to adjust his remnants of British empire rant).
However while the approach of bullying and threats goes on its not going to happen. If Bruce really did care he would be campaigning for the Argentinian attitude to change in order to create closer ties.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Pyreneenemec:

> The likes of Bruce Hooker are not doing them a favour as there is NO way Britain will sell-out to the Argentinians. No disrespect Bruce, but you're flogging a dead-horse and you know it; time to let the subject die ?

Remember when people with an sure, authoritarian air were saying the sun will never set on the British Empire? The world is changing, S America has had steady economic growth throughout the period of European stagnation, as have China (N°1 world economy since last year), India and many other countries of the previously dominated world and now the BRICS group meeting in S Africa as I am typing this is showing a confidence that would have surprised many even 10 years ago.

Up to now this economic power has not been translated into political or military power but it is unlikely to remain that way... The world can sometimes change very quickly - the decline of Britain last century is a proof of this - so I think "never say never" is as appropriate now as it was in the British Raj in 1930.

PS. I'm quite willing to let the subject die, I tried not to get into this thread again and have stopped posting several times but each time I log on there you all are posting bellicose and provocative things.... maybe you should let the Empire drop, back down into the dustbin of history, and allow the country to look forward to take it's place in the modern world, based on justice instead of selfishness and the glorification of brute force, rather than fester in past glories that in reality weren't that glorious at all?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> maybe you should let the Empire drop, back down into the dustbin of history, and allow the country to look forward to take it's place in the modern world, based on justice instead of selfishness and the glorification of brute force, rather than fester in past glories that in reality weren't that glorious at all?

Exactly. Free Tibet!

Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Which Empire would that be, Bruce?

The Soviet and Chinese socialist totalitarian empires that you're still in love with?

Or the Iberian-American imperial hegemony, with its appalling and (to this day) genocidal treatment of native peoples from Panama to Patagonia?

Either way, you're certainly right that these empires belong in the dustbin.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
skarabrae - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce, YOU'RE the only one that keeps banging on about imperialism!! I don't think that anyone else arguing with you was even born when Britain had an empire let alone glorifying it!!!
Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> In all honesty I think there are issues bigger than reading. A mental one possibly.

That has occurred to me more than once but maybe it is the otherwise quite rational people who waste their time trying to argue rationally with him who have the problem, me (occasionally) included?
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:


There's no problem; I don't do this (or indeed anything else on UKC) a moment longer than I find it either interesting or amusing or both.
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That has occurred to me more than once but maybe it is the otherwise quite rational people who waste their time trying to argue rationally with him who have the problem, me (occasionally) included?

its entertaining and a curious insight into how some peoples mind work.

for a while anyway.

you were including me in the otherwise rational people werent you?
Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
>
> you were including me in the otherwise rational people werent you?
>
Absolutely, yes (except about the NHS and BBC :) )

I understand that it is quite intriguing, and funny in a weird way, but after all these years with no explanation doesn't it become a bit pointless?

MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: Are you saying we are all mad and Bruce sane?
Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Are you saying we are all mad and Bruce sane?

No :) but I think we you (we?) are, shall we say "obsessive" in continuing to look for rationality where experience shows it doesn't exist. Why can't you just accept that some people, for many different reasons, are not able or prepared to argue "rationally and honestly" and leave it at that? My guess is most people on UKC have done that.
MG - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: He does have a remarkable ability to drag 'one' in and on. I think it's the alternating between rational and bonkers raving that does it.
Rob Exile Ward on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: I would refer the Hon Gentleman to an answer I posted earlier.

Arguing 'rationally' with Bruce as as rewarding as discussing the people living in her attic with my mum a few years ago.

She had the excuse of dementia. Bruce ... ?
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> Exactly. Free Tibet!

Is Tibet part of the British empire now? I missed that.

Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) He does have a remarkable ability to drag 'one' in and on. I think it's the alternating between rational and bonkers raving that does it.
>
Yes, I accept that it is that apparent contradiction that it is intriguing but given we'll never know the answer maybe its best to move on?
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No :) but I think we you (we?) are, shall we say "obsessive" in continuing to look for rationality where experience shows it doesn't exist.

who says we are looking for rationality. I find the cognitive dissonance going on curious and as my user name isnt a coincidence i cant help but prod.


no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Pyreneenemec)
>
>
> PS. I'm quite willing to let the subject die, I tried not to get into this thread again and have stopped posting several times but each time I log on there you all are posting bellicose and provocative things....

<splutters with disbelief and amusement>

you haven't tried very hard Bruce! how is that resolution not to be one of the top 2 posters for 2013 coming along...?

;-)

it is interesting though: you find people expressing an opinion which is different to your own to be "bellicose and provocative"...

anyhow, thanks for ignoring your good judgement and taking part in the thread, see you again in 2014 for the re-run...?

;-D

best wishes

gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to MG:

I've been letting you DailyMailistas talk to yourself most of today... You don't need me present to post your inanities.

The other thread about Daily Mail feeding frenzy would describe this thread very well... how dare they! Empire for ever, pof pof pof splutter... you do it all very well all by yourselves.

I'm watching a program on the telly about the pope and the Vatican, another never ending empire, but an empire of the senses.
Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> who says we are looking for rationality. I find the cognitive dissonance going on curious and as my user name isnt a coincidence i cant help but prod.

That's what concerns me a bit. Are you any the wiser after all these years? Reminds me of children and small animals a nd I confess to my own share of prodding :(
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
In reply to Gudrun
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> Hundreds of millions didn't leave and were very happy.

Err......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany#Population

Hundreds of millions in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc ...of course!
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Sorry, you've lost me - which country are you referring to?

The USSR.
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> So the communists were fascists? Agreed! As everyone knows, I have argued at length that fascism was a pretty left-wing concept, and now I have support from the least expected quarter!

This is the question and my reply to it -

In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> So no doubt you have a good explanation for why that socialist paradise Eastern Germany spent 45 years penning in its own citizens and shooting anyone who tried to escape?

in case you didn't know it was a fascist country who had just tried to
exterminate by genocide the Slavic peoples of Russia was it 27 million murdered by this country.so they were now the conquered,a country that tried to liquidate the Slavs were now under their occupation,a country of fascists steeped in fascism,not hard to see why they wanted away is it ?


See when i said- "in case you didn't know it was a fascist country"
If you look hard you will see that there was no punctuation mark,therefor the sentence had not finished.Which means what ever follows is a part of this statement.

It's quite laughable that the only way you can win an arguement is by changing what someone says.

puntos nulos !
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)

> Now, now Coel, Shona talks a lot of rubbish, but you are misquoting her.

where is your working nick?

None! surprise surprise.
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> If native Hawaiians called for their independence I would support them, wouldn't you?

> that would be in line with the principle of self-determination. Which you apparently accept in the case of Hawaii, but not in the case of the Falklands.

Are you always prone to using completely irrelevant arguments in a debate or is it something you have picked up off gregor?

The Malvinas have not "called for their independence".

They are a part of an Empire on the other side of the planet.

Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> it is interesting though: you find people expressing an opinion which is different to your own to be "bellicose and provocative"...

No it's when you defend empire, the right of the strongest and brute force, insult and denigrate whole peoples, refer to African and South Americans as if they were underpeople, post anti-communist abuse etc etc etc. These are more than simple differences of opinion.

It's hard to accept that one's country, and in particular a part of it you used to be belong to has so changed since you were in it as to become quite disgusting. Most of the climbers I knew in Britain were fairly open minded, progressive even if not all left wing... the swing to the right and the revival of nationalism pushed to it's ultimate form, imperialism is quite depressing.
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
n reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Beware, scotch eggs is being "economical with the truth" like his hero! The French colony was a real one with settlers..

Hey thanks a lot for that Bruce,very interesting NMSE thought i didnt know about the earlier UK invasion in 1769 or summat but the reason i didn't include that is because they left again after putting a towel on it.

so the Argentines said it was theirs in 1816,set up there in 1832 before the UK settlement of 1833 started.

Everyone talks about how islands even small ones should not necessarily be apart of the nearest mainland and should be able to have their independance,but why do the same people never discuss why a country at the other side of the world should have the right to own a country at the other end of the planet?

8000 miles ....250 miles it's absolutely nuts!

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> No :) but I think we you (we?) are, shall we say "obsessive" in continuing to look for rationality where experience shows it doesn't exist. Why can't you just accept that some people, for many different reasons, are not able or prepared to argue "rationally and honestly" and leave it at that? My guess is most people on UKC have done that.

Bruce is entirely rational- he just has a perspective that is dramatically different to the rest of us. i could speculate about the reasons for this- a product of his time, growing up in a bipolar world and having to choose sides, and then being left with this way of looking at the world when the world moved on and left him behind. but that wouldnt really be fair; it would just be speculation.

it would be really interesting to actually get past all the bluster, put-downs and cliched rhetoric to really discuss politics with him, as i have no doubt he has some very interesting things to say. but he's been defending his corner for so long, he sees everything as an attack now, and it seems to be impossible to get past that. he seems to work on the belief that if he gives an inch, he will lose a mile; but in rigidly and inflexibly refusing to concede any point whatsoever, he ends up clearly trying to defend the indefensible, and has to resort to diversionary tactics to cover this up

i guess i have to admit there is something satisfying about hedging him in on all sides with arguments, and watching the discomfort as he tries to wriggle free; but that is rather mean spirited of me. i'd much prefer if at some point he said, "ok, i see, you've got a point there", and we could start to look at common ground rather than entrenched reflex opposition,

as to why the falklands- i guess its just my little pet obsession on here- we've all got one... (some of us have more than one...!)

cheers
gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to skarabrae:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Bruce, YOU'RE the only one that keeps banging on about imperialism!! I don't think that anyone else arguing with you was even born when Britain had an empire let alone glorifying it!!!

Not only me, most on this thread are discussing one of the last remaining bits of the British empire - they want to keep it, for ever and ever amen!, I want to give it back. It's simple enough, are you for or against the continued existence of a British Empire, or not?

What they have mostly forgotten is the role of the pope which was the point of the thread.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> n reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
> [...]
>
> Hey thanks a lot for that Bruce,very interesting NMSE thought i didnt know about the earlier UK invasion in 1769 or summat but the reason i didn't include that is because they left again after putting a towel on it.

you didnt though, shona, did you...?


;-)

ps british settlement present from 1766-1776



> 8000 miles ....250 miles it's absolutely nuts!


250 miles vs 0 miles, its absolutely nuts!

;-D

gregor

Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:


Ah, RIGHT. I get it. It's very hard to work out what you mean, given how badly you punctuate, and how much of your posts you spend, metaphorically, shouting.

It's also been hard to work it out, because until just now I didn't think you could actually be saying what I've realised you are saying.

But now I see what you're saying when you say this:

"in case you didn't know it was a fascist country who had just tried to
exterminate by genocide the Slavic peoples of Russia was it 27 million murdered by this country.so they were now the conquered,a country that tried to liquidate the Slavs were now under their occupation,a country of fascists steeped in fascism,not hard to see why they wanted away is it ?!


You're saying that everyone who tried to escape from East Germany was a Nazi and deserved to be shot.

Gudrun-- that is a fantastically offensive remark.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I suggest you take a time out to calm down, and while you're out there read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_at_the_Berlin_Wall
Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Bruce is entirely rational- he just has a perspective that is dramatically different to the rest of us. i could speculate about the reasons for this- a product of his time, growing up in a bipolar world and having to choose sides, and then being left with this way of looking at the world when the world moved on and left him behind. but that wouldnt really be fair; it would just be speculation.
>
> it would be really interesting to actually get past all the bluster, put-downs and cliched rhetoric to really discuss politics with him, as i have no doubt he has some very interesting things to say. but he's been defending his corner for so long, he sees everything as an attack now, and it seems to be impossible to get past that. he seems to work on the belief that if he gives an inch, he will lose a mile; but in rigidly and inflexibly refusing to concede any point whatsoever, he ends up clearly trying to defend the indefensible, and has to resort to diversionary tactics to cover this up
>
But therefore he is not "entirely rational". He has a different viewpoint which has some rational foundation and could be argued rationally but beyond a Cartland point he cannot or doesn't do that. He becomes irrational. It's not the basic stance that is irrational. It is the mode of argument.

So, having established tht, if one wants to discuss the relative iniquities of Western imperialism and authoritarian twentieth century regimes, or the Falklnd/Malvinas why not go somewhere where people cn gue rationally?

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to skarabrae)
> [...]
>
> Not only me, most on this thread are discussing one of the last remaining bits of the British empire - they want to keep it, for ever and ever amen!,

no_more_scotch_eggs on - 23:34 Mon
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
>
> How would you suggest the sovereignty of islands be decided fairly?

by the same means as you, when you are not scraping barrels to dig out nonsense about territorial intergrity, or basing claims on the bourbon compact and the treaty of tordesillas....

by negotiation and compromise. the first compromise has to come from argentina- to stop rattling sabres and put a moratorium on the sovereignty claim for, say, 99 years. then the islanders could compromise by giving contracts for the fabrication of oil exploration to the local contractors in rio grande and comodoro rivadivia (look them up. have you been to both? i have)

then with detente in the air, a whole lot of cultural exchanges etc get underway and a generation of islanders grows up going on holiday to BA and los glaciares, and marries argentinians, and before you know it, the whole sovereignty issue goes away, and it becomes clear that the islands future is with their neighbours in patagonia. not a bullet is fired, not a UN resolution needed



skarabrae on - 13:58 Tue
In reply to Tim Chappell: but that wouldnt fit in with bruce making the facts fit his argument!!
my opinion (& thats all any of the arguments are, peoples opinions, we can all make them fit our viewpoints) is that the argies claim is no stronger or weaker than the uk`s, BUT the people who live there MUST decide, if in the future they decide to join argentina, then that is their choice & should be respected.




Coel Hellier on - 15:46 Tue
In reply to skarabrae:

Yep, the Argentinians are going about this entirely the wrong way. All they need to do is to offer free scholarships to Argentinian Universities for all youth from the Falklands, and in a generation or two they will get their way.

- dissonance on - 16:55 Tue
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> What a great idea. Just think of the bidding war that could precipitate.

hate to say it but Bruces fantasies about the last stronghold of the empire aside I think the response of the British government would be a quiet sigh of relief and leave the Argentinians to get on with the wooing.


by - Tim Chappell on - 16:56 Tue
In reply to dissonance:

Yes. If I was in Whitehall I'd certainly want them off my desk. But not by armed occupation.



Caught with your pants down telling untruths again Bruce? or on your computer do previous posts disappear and you dont realise we can see what we all posted earlier? is this not just getting a bit embarrassing for you, i mean you're not even making it hard to catch you at it...?

;-)

gregor


Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

Cartland??? = certain!
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The USSR.

Sorry, you are saying the USSR tried to fight against imperialism,racism,elitism,inequality and exploitation?

Which history books are you reading to think this?

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
> But therefore he is not "entirely rational". He has a different viewpoint which has some rational foundation and could be argued rationally but beyond a Cartland point he cannot or doesn't do that. He becomes irrational. It's not the basic stance that is irrational. It is the mode of argument.

i'd disagree; abuse and evasion are entirely rational responses to being shredded in the debate, when he doesnt have any other options, like evidence, persuasive arguments, or stuff...

>
> So, having established tht, if one wants to discuss the relative iniquities of Western imperialism and authoritarian twentieth century regimes, or the Falklnd/Malvinas why not go somewhere where people cn gue rationally?


god alone knows- have you seen some of the other discussion boards that pop up after newspaper articles etc- truely grim, gloating over each others dead in the war, makes this place seem like the world debating championships by comparison.

cheers
gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> 8000 miles ....250 miles it's absolutely nuts!

It's worse than that, some, one at least, insists that the 250 or so miles of sea between the Malvinas and the mainland, over the same continental shelf, make the idea of territorial integrity laughable but are so blinded by their prejudices that they forget that the country who they say the islands belong to are 8000 miles away!

Mind boggling really, then they all sit round their camp fires tut tutting about how all those millions in South America and elsewhere who support Argentina on the question are deranged!

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Cartland??? = certain!

lol, i was about to google it thinking it was some technical term in debating! i had to do it with poe's law earlier- who says this thread isnt education...?

cheers
gregor
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
> It's worse than that, some, one at least, insists that the 250 or so miles of sea between the Malvinas and the mainland, over the same continental shelf, make the idea of territorial integrity laughable but are so blinded by their prejudices that they forget that the country who they say the islands belong to are 8000 miles away!


Surely not again, Bruce? Sheeesh.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to skarabrae)
> [...]
>
> It's simple enough, are you for or against the continued existence of a British Empire, or not?

Black or white is it? What about the alternatives? Out of the box options? To pigeonhole people to such a loaded question stinks of someone still trying to live a life based on the class system and most probably wishes for the Empire to return.
>
> What they have mostly forgotten is the role of the pope which was the point of the thread.

As he has selfishly not bothered to actually contribute in any way, it is difficult to discuss any pope developments.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> [...]
>
> It's worse than that, some, one at least, insists that the 250 or so miles of sea between the Malvinas and the mainland, over the same continental shelf, make the idea of territorial integrity laughable but are so blinded by their prejudices that they forget that the country who they say the islands belong to are 8000 miles away!

the easily falsifiable untruths are flowing freely from your keyboard tonight Bruce- indeed as the thread goes on, it is noticable how little effort you are going to cover up the fact you are making things up.

just as everyone has said they'd be happy for the islands to become argentinian in time, provided it was not forced, and i've provided the text to support this above, mostly copied from things the others have posted this very evening- how did you think youd get away with it...?- everyone has also said that the islands belong to the islanders, not britain, and they are free to go their own way if they choose

are you also posting on another message board and you cant remember who you are replying to any more..?

;-D

gregor
Tim Chappell - on 26 Mar 2013
Incidentally, I don't think Gudrun should be allowed to get away with saying that people who tried to escape from E Germany were Nazis and deserved to be shot. She should be held to that. She shouldn't be allowed to forget that she said it. See below.



In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
>
> Ah, RIGHT. I get it. It's very hard to work out what you mean, given how badly you punctuate, and how much of your posts you spend, metaphorically, shouting.
>
> It's also been hard to work it out, because until just now I didn't think you could actually be saying what I've realised you are saying.
>
> But now I see what you're saying when you say this:
>
> "in case you didn't know it was a fascist country who had just tried to
> exterminate by genocide the Slavic peoples of Russia was it 27 million murdered by this country.so they were now the conquered,a country that tried to liquidate the Slavs were now under their occupation,a country of fascists steeped in fascism,not hard to see why they wanted away is it ?!
>
>
> You're saying that everyone who tried to escape from East Germany was a Nazi and deserved to be shot.
>
> Gudrun-- that is a fantastically offensive remark.
>
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> I suggest you take a time out to calm down, and while you're out there read this article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_at_the_Berlin_Wall

Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Bruce is entirely rational- he just has a perspective that is dramatically different to the rest of us. i could speculate about the reasons for this- a product of his time, growing up in a bipolar world and having to choose sides, and then being left with this way of looking at the world when the world moved on and left him behind. but that wouldnt really be fair; it would just be speculation.

So why say it?
Did you not grow up during the cold war?You of course are immune to having been brought up in the UK(if you were)with all the flag waving god save the queen,iron Maggie and her dodgy
pals,last night of the proms,land of nae pope and glory,British empire ruled the world and britannia ruled the waves.

> it would be really interesting to actually get past all the bluster, put-downs and cliched rhetoric to really discuss politics with him, as i have no doubt he has some very interesting things to say. but he's been defending his corner for so long, he sees everything as an attack now, and it seems to be impossible to get past that. he seems to work on the belief that if he gives an inch, he will lose a mile; but in rigidly and inflexibly refusing to concede any point whatsoever, he ends up clearly trying to defend the indefensible, and has to resort to diversionary tactics to cover this up

"Defend the indefesible" what's that all about? or are you just using your rhetorical exaggerations again?

> i guess i have to admit there is something satisfying about hedging him in on all sides with arguments, and watching the discomfort as he tries to wriggle free; but that is rather mean spirited of me. i'd much prefer if at some point he said, "ok, i see, you've got a point there", and we could start to look at common ground rather than entrenched reflex opposition,

Try being distracted by a whole lot of other nonsense that deflects from the issues by say 5 or 6 sweet little liberals.That are constantly posting and a good few others with a post or two.Before you know it you answer one post and look up and 6 more are there with 3 or 4 directed at you to answer to.It's simply called being out numbered and distracted by completely unrelated subjects being thrown in.Like i was asked about the Berlin wall for instance! i mean how on earth can you have a discussion about the Malvinas when you get that thrown at you?It just turned into a playground scene with a bunch of kids ruining a debate.Then you coming in and saying thats it i won i won hahaha it's quite sad. Won what?
The fact that your bunch of kids can ruin a debate? yeah you won that but nothing else.
That is what happened last night



Postmanpat on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> i'd disagree; abuse and evasion are entirely rational responses to being shredded in the debate, when he doesnt have any other options, like evidence, persuasive arguments, or stuff...
>
Well, it's not very rational unless one is are stupid because when everyone sees through it then it becomes self defeating in that it undermines one's credibility. Anyway, having established a consistent reversion to these techniques (intriguingly not necessarily consciously) for the the "opponent" there is nothing be gained because sensible debate, which might imply a better understanding of the issues, is precluded.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

ps the 250 or so miles from denmark to britain, on the same continental shelf, and historically ruled from denmark, isnt it laughable that some people are so blinded by their prejudices that they argue that britain shouldnt be part of denmark today? i mean, some people...

its a rotten argument you make bruce, youre not on form tonight. even your insults are drab and lacklustre. are you feeling ok?

;-P

cheers
gregor
Gudrun - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> [...]
>
> you didnt though, shona, did you...?

Eh yes i did...Gregor.

> 250 miles vs 0 miles, its absolutely nuts!

They are not independant gregor so ..

8000 miles/other side of the planet.......or 250 miles.

It is nuts.
:0
:)

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 26 Mar 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

yes, it was nasty.

shona, would you like to withdraw that remark? it was pretty offensive, and this has been largely a good natured debate, that comment was out of place here,

best wishes

gregor
In reply to Gudrun:

> It just turned into a playground scene with a bunch of kids ruining a debate.Then you coming in and saying thats it i won i won hahaha it's quite sad. Won what?
The fact that your bunch of kids can ruin a debate? yeah you won that but nothing else.
That is what happened last night

I take it your mud slinging with Tim last night means you include yourself in your comment?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.