UKC

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

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.

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?

In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
The Pope ! How many divisions has he got ?

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?

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!

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:


To be fair, she clearly isn't trying to persuade "us". Presumably she wants worlwide pressure (the UN even) to force us to negotiate.

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.

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:

Hopefully, yes.

In reply to Skyfall:
Not much 'hopeful' about it...we're on the UN Security Council and they're not!

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.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Better still ,a drinking competition given Hague's expertise.

In reply to Reach>Talent: I'm not so sure - with the Pope AND Bruce AND Naedanger on the Argentinian side we're doomed, doomed I tell you!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You forgot Sean Penn..

In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

At least they asked the Pope. Last time they just conscripted everyone that they needed.

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.

In reply to Skyfall:

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.......................

In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): Here comes Bruce...

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.

In reply to Removed User:


I was always favouring the "deliberately incompetent" angle on that one, rather than just plain old incompetent myself...

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.

In reply to Jim C:


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).

In reply to Removed User:

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)

In reply to Jim C:

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

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...

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.

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.

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...

In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): I'll fight him for them.

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-thatche...

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

In reply to Dominion:


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.

In reply to MountainsAreBetterThanOffices:


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

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

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.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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?

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.)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Which seems to fit her "profile" perfectly!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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



gregor

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?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Especially when unscrupulous wind up merchant feed lines like you did about Thatcher Who could resist?

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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



gregor

In reply to Coel Hellier:


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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

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? 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!

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

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

In reply to Coel Hellier:

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.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

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.

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

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.

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

In reply to Skyfall:


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

In reply to Coel Hellier:


it is a very colonial mindset isnt it?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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


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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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?



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).



You really do have a reality distortion field dont you?

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What is your suggested compromise?

In reply to dissonance:


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?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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!!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


against the Argentinian constitution


was in place, torn up by the Argentinian government.


was in place, torn up by the Argentinian government.


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


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


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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Would the residents of the islands be a party to your proposed negotiations?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


checks rear garden for Union Jack. Damn someone must have nicked it.

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.

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.

In reply to dissonance:

Even if it's still there, it's almost certainly a Union Flag.

In reply to Cardi: unless he has a small boat in his back garden & its flying from that

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

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

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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


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!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So why did the Argentinians pull out of talks which included representatives of the islands? Or was that an unofficial withdrawal from negotiations?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

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.

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.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

i did mention this earlier but Bruce just ignored it and then started ranting about how nationalistic and imperialist i was.

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?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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.

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?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

dont forget trying to interfere with tourism etc by banning flights and ships docking.

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.

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."

In reply to mypyrex: i think i just heard a noise, like a head exploding, from accross the channel

In reply to Paul F:

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.

In reply to tony:

You haven't read the article, have you?

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You're not that old Bruce...



Gregor

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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.

In reply to dissonance:


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...

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 !

In reply to Gudrun: Your analysis is spot on, as ever, except ... er, he lost. Not quite sure how that fits in your rant?

In reply to Gudrun: Have you changed your name yet again!

In reply to Gudrun:

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

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


No that would be just fine thanks.

In reply to Gudrun:

" 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...?




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

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nah it would just be a matter of correcting a wrong.

In reply to Gudrun:


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

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

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.

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?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

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.

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>

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

just sayin...

cheers
gregor

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.


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.

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.

In reply to Gudrun:

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?

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


ermm wrong.


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.



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


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-...



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

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.

In reply to dissonance:

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

In reply to dissonance:


Wooaw there kid !wow ! WTF !

Right! War it is.

You'll live to regret that one Dissy boy!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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?

In reply to Gudrun:


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


ah well.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

In reply to dissonance:


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!

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

In reply to Gudrun:

Well it worked for Columbus, Cortez, etc

In reply to Ridge:


I only included when the population was displaced, not merely military occupation

In reply to Paul F:


And for Pedro de Mendoza...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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.

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? 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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
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.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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?

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So you cant provide proof?


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.


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.


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?


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


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-idU...

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You said yesterday that the islanders should be party to the negotiations. Have you changed your mnd?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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.

In reply to mypyrex:


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.

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?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>

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.

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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to John Rushby:


Lol, that wins metaphor of the month john...!

In reply to John Rushby:
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.

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-...

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.

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.


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.

In reply to Kemics:

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?

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?

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?

In reply to Papillon:


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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

Cheers

Gregor

http://www.penguin-news.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=item...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The point being made was that the islanders should be involved in discussions. What's childish about that?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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?

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.

In reply to tony:

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?

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

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."

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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?

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.

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

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

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!

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:

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.

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?"

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.




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


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?



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).


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


errmm, what?


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


really so why are you cheerleading various countries who want to build empires?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A very good description of how Argentina came into being..

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

In reply to Ridge:


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

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?

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."

In reply to Trangia:


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 !

In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC): I think we should send Bruce there for a holiday.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


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.

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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


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!


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?

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-falklan...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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"

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.

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!

In reply to Gudrun:


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.


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.


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.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


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.

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

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?

In reply to dissonance:


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


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

In reply to Gudrun:


If the Shetland Islanders vote for it, sure, why not?

In reply to Gudrun:

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

In reply to Gudrun:

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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*.


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


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.

In reply to GrahamD:


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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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


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.


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?

In reply to dissonance:

or the 'Sheep Island and Paradise Island of Birds', to give them their proper name :0)

In reply to Coel Hellier:


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.

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?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The Falklands are a f*ck site further from Argentina than Ireland is from the UK.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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?


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?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The Malouines? That's French isn't it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The latter! Of course!


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.


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?


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.

In reply to dissonance:
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.

In reply to Gudrun:

Lol, good work there...

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

Cheers
Gregor

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.

In reply to tony:


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.

In reply to drmarten:

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


The only s---- is coming from you or would you care to show me your working kid?

In reply to Gudrun:


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?

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.

In reply to Gudrun:

Not really, As mentioned above you don't see any fuss about 'getting the Faroes Islands back' from Denmark,

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...

In reply to Gudrun:
Seiously? "Nuff said!" now counts as serious political discourse? Thing have changed since my day ...

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'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.

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.

In reply to Ridge:


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?

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...

In reply to tony:

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

In reply to drmarten:


What would you know about sense?

In reply to Gudrun:

If you want to, I will delete my posts. Sorry if they've caused offence.

In reply to MJ:

No... no way !your cool MJ ! Totally !nae worries pal.

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?

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.

In reply to Gudrun:

Is that a yes or a no?

In reply to Ridge:

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?

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.

In reply to Gudrun:
>

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

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Also true.

I like the last bit there but the first bit shows you up right away.

which is your standard answer in every discussion.You cannot be bothered because you know you are wrong.

In reply to Gudrun:


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?

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?


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.

In reply to mypyrex:

Do you have much to contribute to this topic other this incisive contribution?

In reply to dissonance:


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!

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?

In reply to Gudrun:

"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....





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

In reply to Gudrun:


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.


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

In reply to dissonance:


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


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.


That's like Al Capone telling the sister of a pickpocket to stop supporting her brother,because he is a criminal.

In reply to Gudrun:

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.

In reply to dissonance:


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.

In reply to Papillon:

and perhaps the Spanish government could be more proactive in Ceuta joining the rest of
Morocco ?

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.

In reply to Paul F:

Who denies this? Assuming they want it, of course.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

http://www.economist.com/node/999729

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If there was an empire revivalist in recent time it was Blair, who you supported tirelessly.

In reply to Paul F:


Yup!

In reply to Papillon:

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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...)

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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.

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.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


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.

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.

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?

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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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/


evidence please.


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.

In reply to Gudrun:


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.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

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


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.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


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?


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.

In reply to Gudrun:


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


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

In reply to dissonance:


Not apologist...just an ordinary proletarian.


Yeah i do cheerlead the workers state-

give me a U,YES USS, U..S, U..SS,YES YES USSsssssR !!!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

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


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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

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

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.....

In reply to Gudrun:


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-mapuc...

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

In reply to Gudrun:

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

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?

In reply to whispering nic:

Hey! don't shoot the messenger !it wasn't me who brought up the Mapuche !
Was it?

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?

In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

It's your thread. What do you think?

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.

In reply to Gudrun:

<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

In reply to Deviant:


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

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 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.