New Falklands War Brewing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Feeding time (or not)
OK guys, just stop feeding him - it's getting painful now. He's probably sitting in one of those special coffee bars in Amsterdam with his laptop, pulling ideas out of the air (or somewhere else). Pleeeeaaaasssee? 
Last edited by Canadian Break; 1st Feb 2013 at 21:51.
Unfortunately I have little sympathy for the Argentines in this matter too, so I'm not the enemy. Just a voice what seems a majority standpoint outside the UK. Sorry.
You're on the wrong forum. You cannot remotely expect that you're going to get an affirmative from people who are/have served in HMF. Even our Argentinian friends and former foes who have come on here to discuss the conflict have respectfully left the issue at the front door and us likewise. The Islanders will decide. That's the end of the matter. The rock belonged to no-one and is inhabited by those who I expect want to remain British. If they don't, I myself (and I suspect most others) don't mind.
For the Argentinian government to now curry favour with their neighbours by suggesting that we are militarising the South Atlantic in order to project the gateway to the south is ludicrous. All they had to do 31 years ago was not to attempt to take the islands by force and we wouldn't be in this situation.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UN position:
United Nations News Centre - Ban urges dialogue in dispute over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
But let me guess, you simply don't care what anybody else thinks, you don't want to hear?
Good luck..
That makes sense.
Ban urges dialogue in dispute over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
But let me guess, you simply don't care what anybody else thinks, you don't want to hear?
Good luck..
You cannot remotely expect that you're going to get an affirmative from people who are/have served in HMF
Last edited by keesje; 1st Feb 2013 at 22:39.
But let me guess, you simply don't care what anybody else thinks, you don't want to hear?
Mr. Al-Nasser expressed his hope that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom will resolve any dispute peacefully through mediation and dialogue, and in accordance with international law.
The UN position:
Quote:
Ban urges dialogue in dispute over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
United Nations News Centre - Ban urges dialogue in dispute over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Quote:
Ban urges dialogue in dispute over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
United Nations News Centre - Ban urges dialogue in dispute over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
UN says meet and talk. Argentina refuses to meet and talk. UK are still in the wrong? Really?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by muppetofthenorth
UN says meet and talk. Argentina refuses to meet and talk. UK are still in the wrong? Really?
Leftie mantra dictates that western democracy, despite providing the highest standard of living and personal freedom for its citizens, is by definition wrong and must wear a hair shirt at all times.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mr. Al-Nasser expressed his hope that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom will resolve any dispute peacefully through mediation and dialogue, and in accordance with international law."
Pity the Argies didn't follow this in the past !
Pity the Argies didn't follow this in the past !
Héctor Marcos Timerman
You just have to look at the name of the Foreign Minister...very south american LOL,His fathers name was Jacobo
!!
Surely even Keejse can see the Irony/Double standards of the whole affair
You just have to look at the name of the Foreign Minister...very south american LOL,His fathers name was Jacobo
!!Surely even Keejse can see the Irony/Double standards of the whole affair
Last edited by longer ron; 2nd Feb 2013 at 05:45.
keejse,
At post 1308 AR1 said "So you don't respect our point of view, nor the Argentinians. So what is your point?. Not for the first time, you declined to answer a specific question asked of you. So:
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
You quote what you refer to as the UN "position". What the UN is trying to do is avoid another armed conflict. The UN isn't perfect, it is made up of diplomats and politicians, not angels and saints. Neither do they gennerally ever come down hard on one side of an international dispute - they tend to always seek a resolution amicable to both sides. Will they break their own charter in the pursuit of peace? The UN "position" is quite clearly enshrined in their charter, Article one, the right to self determination:
Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles
You have argued that the UK hasn't followed this principle in the past, e.g. Hong Kong, Diego Garcia. One could (at least try) to debate those specific instances (e.g. Hong Kong on 99 year lease), but it's immaterial. IF A COUNTRY/GOVERNMENT/CULTURE HASN'T DONE THE RIGHT/CORRECT/MORAL THING IN THE PAST ARE YOU SERIOUSLY ARGUING THAT IT CAN'T DO THE RIGHT/CORRECT/MORAL THING NOW OR IN THE FUTURE? Crazy logic!
When people say they "don't care what other people think" or words to that effect, you seem to consider it childish, defensive, etc (fill in as required). Welcome to the world of international politics, and national self interest. Almost ALL national governments have certain issues on which they have a specific policy that they pursue irrespective of world opinion, take your pick, USA, Russia, China, Iran, Israel, France, UK, Zimbabwe, North Korea (I haven't quoted the "issues", often multiple, related to each country I have quoted, e.g. Iran and its nuclear programme, on the assumption they are fairly obvious) and probably even the Netherlands. It's the way of the world, if you don't like it I suggest you retire into your own individual retreat.
You quote newspaper articles assuming they are correct, when often they are factually incorrect, have their own bias, or are reporting comments from a politician with his own agenda. You get some basic facts wrong (e.g. Vanguard in the South Atlantic, meteorological radars as military installations), you don't check things. When people criticize your comments you revert to "shooting the messenger to deflect from the message" type comments. When the messenger is wrong so often they lose credibility, that is the position you are in.
The Falklands has been inhabited by British citizens longer than Belgium has existed as a country. They wish to remain British, a right enshrined in the UN Charter. Argentina's interest in the Islands is a recent one, based on local Politicians attempt to gain favour with the voters, by spinning them a story of how the Islands were stolen from them, how the Islanders are being repressed by the British and wish to become Argentinean, etc. This story is factually incorrect. The Islands were invaded by a Junta in 1982 to deflect attention from the brutalities they were inflicting on their own people. Once again Argentina now has various internal problems, and the issue of the Falklands is once again becoming predominant in that country. It's the classic deflection strategy, and blame everything on the big bully next door.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with your picture of the colonial Brits hanging on to their last pieces of empire, but if you can't see the situation for what it actually is then one is forced to question either your impartiality or intelligence - no doubt you'll consider that an insult or yet another attempt to shoot the messenger. It isn't meant to be, it's merely the conclusion I'm inevitably drawn towards!
To finish I'll return to my original question - WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!
Sorry if I've just fed the troll guys!!
At post 1308 AR1 said "So you don't respect our point of view, nor the Argentinians. So what is your point?. Not for the first time, you declined to answer a specific question asked of you. So:
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
You quote what you refer to as the UN "position". What the UN is trying to do is avoid another armed conflict. The UN isn't perfect, it is made up of diplomats and politicians, not angels and saints. Neither do they gennerally ever come down hard on one side of an international dispute - they tend to always seek a resolution amicable to both sides. Will they break their own charter in the pursuit of peace? The UN "position" is quite clearly enshrined in their charter, Article one, the right to self determination:
Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles
You have argued that the UK hasn't followed this principle in the past, e.g. Hong Kong, Diego Garcia. One could (at least try) to debate those specific instances (e.g. Hong Kong on 99 year lease), but it's immaterial. IF A COUNTRY/GOVERNMENT/CULTURE HASN'T DONE THE RIGHT/CORRECT/MORAL THING IN THE PAST ARE YOU SERIOUSLY ARGUING THAT IT CAN'T DO THE RIGHT/CORRECT/MORAL THING NOW OR IN THE FUTURE? Crazy logic!
When people say they "don't care what other people think" or words to that effect, you seem to consider it childish, defensive, etc (fill in as required). Welcome to the world of international politics, and national self interest. Almost ALL national governments have certain issues on which they have a specific policy that they pursue irrespective of world opinion, take your pick, USA, Russia, China, Iran, Israel, France, UK, Zimbabwe, North Korea (I haven't quoted the "issues", often multiple, related to each country I have quoted, e.g. Iran and its nuclear programme, on the assumption they are fairly obvious) and probably even the Netherlands. It's the way of the world, if you don't like it I suggest you retire into your own individual retreat.
You quote newspaper articles assuming they are correct, when often they are factually incorrect, have their own bias, or are reporting comments from a politician with his own agenda. You get some basic facts wrong (e.g. Vanguard in the South Atlantic, meteorological radars as military installations), you don't check things. When people criticize your comments you revert to "shooting the messenger to deflect from the message" type comments. When the messenger is wrong so often they lose credibility, that is the position you are in.
The Falklands has been inhabited by British citizens longer than Belgium has existed as a country. They wish to remain British, a right enshrined in the UN Charter. Argentina's interest in the Islands is a recent one, based on local Politicians attempt to gain favour with the voters, by spinning them a story of how the Islands were stolen from them, how the Islanders are being repressed by the British and wish to become Argentinean, etc. This story is factually incorrect. The Islands were invaded by a Junta in 1982 to deflect attention from the brutalities they were inflicting on their own people. Once again Argentina now has various internal problems, and the issue of the Falklands is once again becoming predominant in that country. It's the classic deflection strategy, and blame everything on the big bully next door.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with your picture of the colonial Brits hanging on to their last pieces of empire, but if you can't see the situation for what it actually is then one is forced to question either your impartiality or intelligence - no doubt you'll consider that an insult or yet another attempt to shoot the messenger. It isn't meant to be, it's merely the conclusion I'm inevitably drawn towards!
To finish I'll return to my original question - WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!
Sorry if I've just fed the troll guys!!
Last edited by Biggus; 2nd Feb 2013 at 15:33.
Biggus
It must have taken you an age to type that reasoned and factual response. I fear you've wasted your time though; our cloggy fisherman will ignore everything you've written and find some random piece from a left wing newspaper to prove he's right and that the entire rest of the world supports his view. Good luck though!
It must have taken you an age to type that reasoned and factual response. I fear you've wasted your time though; our cloggy fisherman will ignore everything you've written and find some random piece from a left wing newspaper to prove he's right and that the entire rest of the world supports his view. Good luck though!
Comedy Gold...
The Falklands Islands will be under Argentinian control within 20 years, the South American country's foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, has said in an interview with the Guardian.
Visiting London for the first time, he ruled out a military solution to the 130-year-old sovereignty dispute but claimed the world increasingly recognised that the islands were a product of colonialism. He accused the British government of being motivated by a fanatical desire to hold on to the islands and claimed "the United Kingdom has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to find a solution for the Malvinas".
"I don't think it will take another 20 years. I think that the world is going through a process of understanding more and more that this is a colonial issue, an issue of colonialism, and that the people living there were transferred to the islands."
He vowed that the interests of the existing islanders would be protected under Argentinian rule, including "their way of life, their language and right to remain British citizens". But he drew a distinction between the islanders' interests, which could be met, and their wishes, which could not.
Timerman is in London to argue the historical and legal case for Argentinian sovereignty over the islands. He has refused to meet the foreign secretary, William Hague, after the Foreign Office insisted representatives of the islands also attend. He said Hague's refusal to hold talks bewildered him since in the past the British had been quite willing to talk to a military junta that claimed 35,000 Argentinian lives.
In his interview, Timerman refused to discuss the possibility of joint sovereignty, saying he would not as a diplomat conduct negotiations through the Guardian and could only do so directly with Hague.
Explaining his refusal to meet the islanders, Timerman, speaking at the Argentinian embassy in Mayfair, said: "We have been trying to find a peaceful solution for 180 years. I think the fanatics are not in Buenos Aires [but] maybe [they are] in the United Kingdom because they are 14,000km away from the islands. And I think they are using the people living in the islands for political [reasons] and to have access to oil and natural resources which belong to the Argentine people. I think we are not fanatical at all.
"There is not one single country in the world which supports the right of the United Kingdom to govern over the Malvinas. Not one.
"According to the United Nations, there are only two parties to the conflict – the United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina. It is an issue that has to be resolved by Argentina and the United Kingdom. By introducing a third party [the Falkland Islanders], the United Kingdom is changing more that 40 resolutions by the United Nations, which call the two countries to negotiate."
Asked if it would be better to develop a relationship with the islanders as a way of reaching a settlement, he said: "I don't have to persuade them. The United Nations says there is a conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I don't have to persuade anybody. We have to apply international law and accept the resolutions, if not the UN becomes a body that is only useful when it backs the powerful."
He also dismissed the referendum that is being held by the British government on the islands in March, designed to underline that the islanders want to remain part of the British Overseas Territories. He said the referendum "is something that doesn't mean anything because if you ask the colonial people who came with a colonial power and replaced the people who were living in the islands, it is like asking the British citizens of the Malvinas Islands if they want to remain British".
He likened it to asking only new Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories if they want to remain Israeli.
He pointed out that the number of islanders who have lived there for more than nine generations was tiny.
Expressing his country's deep sense of grievance, Timerman added: "It is strange to be accused of being fanatical when you see all your natural resources being taken away, part of your country under the administration of a foreign power and you try to sit down and have dialogue and you are refused."
A form of joint sovereignty has been repeatedly urged on both countries as the best solution to the conflict, and in the past before the invasion of the islands by the military dictatorship in 1983, British diplomats had discussed the proposals with their Argentinian counterparts.
Pressed on whether the Argentinians could propose such a solution, he said: "When we sit down we will discuss everything that has to be discussed, not before. You don't discuss through the media. You discuss face to face. That is why I ask for a meeting with William Hague and he refused. If I can sit down with him, he will know what we think, but he refuses to sit down with us."
An exile during the military junta that invaded the islands leading to a total of 907 deaths, he ruled out any Argentinian intention to settle the dispute through force. He said: "I am a victim of a dictatorship, please take me more seriously. Argentina is a country which has not been in a war under a democratic government for over 100 years." He pointed out Britain had invaded Argentina three times in the past.
He denied the Argentinians had been making life difficult for the Falklands Islanders, instead accusing the British government of taking unilateral decisions including giving fishing licences for 25 years instead of, as in the past, just two years. He also accused Britain of exploring for oil in a way that could cause a real ecological disaster.
He said drily: "Wherever there is a smell of oil, big powers start to look around and they find a reason to stay there. I think probably oil will complicate the peaceful solution that is asked for by the United Nations.
"I think in history that Britain has had a tendency to stay in places where there are natural resources belonging to other people."
He also denied that his government was seeking to distract from its economic problems by highlighting the conflict. Taking a swipe at the state of the British economy, he said: "I think it is the United Kingdom that is going through an economic crisis and is becoming isolationist more than Argentina. They want to get out of the European Union, there is a sense here [in Britain] that we want to stop the world and get out."
He also said that at least under the Labour government Gordon Brown had been willing to meet the Argentinians.
The foreign minister ended with a plea for Hague to meet him, saying he was willing to stay in London for extra days until the foreign secretary could find a slot in his diary.
He said: "I hope that one day soon we can start a dialogue and not be hostage to a group of people who are there because a colonial empire took them and sent them there to settle and to live. There are other issues we should be discussing and hope we can discuss them."
The Falklands Islands will be under Argentinian control within 20 years, the South American country's foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, has said in an interview with the Guardian.
Visiting London for the first time, he ruled out a military solution to the 130-year-old sovereignty dispute but claimed the world increasingly recognised that the islands were a product of colonialism. He accused the British government of being motivated by a fanatical desire to hold on to the islands and claimed "the United Kingdom has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to find a solution for the Malvinas".
"I don't think it will take another 20 years. I think that the world is going through a process of understanding more and more that this is a colonial issue, an issue of colonialism, and that the people living there were transferred to the islands."
He vowed that the interests of the existing islanders would be protected under Argentinian rule, including "their way of life, their language and right to remain British citizens". But he drew a distinction between the islanders' interests, which could be met, and their wishes, which could not.
Timerman is in London to argue the historical and legal case for Argentinian sovereignty over the islands. He has refused to meet the foreign secretary, William Hague, after the Foreign Office insisted representatives of the islands also attend. He said Hague's refusal to hold talks bewildered him since in the past the British had been quite willing to talk to a military junta that claimed 35,000 Argentinian lives.
In his interview, Timerman refused to discuss the possibility of joint sovereignty, saying he would not as a diplomat conduct negotiations through the Guardian and could only do so directly with Hague.
Explaining his refusal to meet the islanders, Timerman, speaking at the Argentinian embassy in Mayfair, said: "We have been trying to find a peaceful solution for 180 years. I think the fanatics are not in Buenos Aires [but] maybe [they are] in the United Kingdom because they are 14,000km away from the islands. And I think they are using the people living in the islands for political [reasons] and to have access to oil and natural resources which belong to the Argentine people. I think we are not fanatical at all.
"There is not one single country in the world which supports the right of the United Kingdom to govern over the Malvinas. Not one.
"According to the United Nations, there are only two parties to the conflict – the United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina. It is an issue that has to be resolved by Argentina and the United Kingdom. By introducing a third party [the Falkland Islanders], the United Kingdom is changing more that 40 resolutions by the United Nations, which call the two countries to negotiate."
Asked if it would be better to develop a relationship with the islanders as a way of reaching a settlement, he said: "I don't have to persuade them. The United Nations says there is a conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I don't have to persuade anybody. We have to apply international law and accept the resolutions, if not the UN becomes a body that is only useful when it backs the powerful."
He also dismissed the referendum that is being held by the British government on the islands in March, designed to underline that the islanders want to remain part of the British Overseas Territories. He said the referendum "is something that doesn't mean anything because if you ask the colonial people who came with a colonial power and replaced the people who were living in the islands, it is like asking the British citizens of the Malvinas Islands if they want to remain British".
He likened it to asking only new Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories if they want to remain Israeli.
He pointed out that the number of islanders who have lived there for more than nine generations was tiny.
Expressing his country's deep sense of grievance, Timerman added: "It is strange to be accused of being fanatical when you see all your natural resources being taken away, part of your country under the administration of a foreign power and you try to sit down and have dialogue and you are refused."
A form of joint sovereignty has been repeatedly urged on both countries as the best solution to the conflict, and in the past before the invasion of the islands by the military dictatorship in 1983, British diplomats had discussed the proposals with their Argentinian counterparts.
Pressed on whether the Argentinians could propose such a solution, he said: "When we sit down we will discuss everything that has to be discussed, not before. You don't discuss through the media. You discuss face to face. That is why I ask for a meeting with William Hague and he refused. If I can sit down with him, he will know what we think, but he refuses to sit down with us."
An exile during the military junta that invaded the islands leading to a total of 907 deaths, he ruled out any Argentinian intention to settle the dispute through force. He said: "I am a victim of a dictatorship, please take me more seriously. Argentina is a country which has not been in a war under a democratic government for over 100 years." He pointed out Britain had invaded Argentina three times in the past.
He denied the Argentinians had been making life difficult for the Falklands Islanders, instead accusing the British government of taking unilateral decisions including giving fishing licences for 25 years instead of, as in the past, just two years. He also accused Britain of exploring for oil in a way that could cause a real ecological disaster.
He said drily: "Wherever there is a smell of oil, big powers start to look around and they find a reason to stay there. I think probably oil will complicate the peaceful solution that is asked for by the United Nations.
"I think in history that Britain has had a tendency to stay in places where there are natural resources belonging to other people."
He also denied that his government was seeking to distract from its economic problems by highlighting the conflict. Taking a swipe at the state of the British economy, he said: "I think it is the United Kingdom that is going through an economic crisis and is becoming isolationist more than Argentina. They want to get out of the European Union, there is a sense here [in Britain] that we want to stop the world and get out."
He also said that at least under the Labour government Gordon Brown had been willing to meet the Argentinians.
The foreign minister ended with a plea for Hague to meet him, saying he was willing to stay in London for extra days until the foreign secretary could find a slot in his diary.
He said: "I hope that one day soon we can start a dialogue and not be hostage to a group of people who are there because a colonial empire took them and sent them there to settle and to live. There are other issues we should be discussing and hope we can discuss them."
Last edited by Captivep; 5th Feb 2013 at 11:27.
From a Ukrainian family?
Beggers belief!
Beggers belief!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shut up. Really, shut up.
our cloggy fisherman will ignore everything you've written and find some random piece from a left wing newspaper to prove
Leftie mantra dictates
He probably had the munchies anyway!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To echo the others, what is your point, Keejse?
Every one of your assertions has been roundly refuted, you pretend that the Dutch colonies are somehow "different" without ever once explaining why. Be honest - are you simply doing this to annoy, because you know it teases? Because you didn't get enough attention from mummy and daddy while growing up? What's your point?
Every one of your assertions has been roundly refuted, you pretend that the Dutch colonies are somehow "different" without ever once explaining why. Be honest - are you simply doing this to annoy, because you know it teases? Because you didn't get enough attention from mummy and daddy while growing up? What's your point?
Biggus: well played.
keesje: somewhere, there's a village deprived of its idiot.
Find a GPS and head home.
keesje: somewhere, there's a village deprived of its idiot.
Find a GPS and head home.