UK Falklands military exercises 'provoke' Argentina

a reply to: Davian

... and yet your meticulously laid out post with selected snippets of history is wrong. The UK did not drop their claim as they left a plaque reiterating ownership in 1776 (or something) when the British withdrew their presence. The Spanish left a plaque in 1806. Previously, Spain and Great Britain had argued the toss about the uninhabited Falklands, but that's history.

The fact is that the state that became Argentina by colonising and committing genocide of the natives across South America did not "inherit" the Falklands et al. Methinks if the Argentineans want decolonisation, then there is an awful lot of land and compensation due to the indigenous people that have been mistreated and abused. Look up "Conquest of the Desert" aka genocide of the natives.

However, this has been endlessly covered before. The thread is about whether the UK can hold a small local military exercise without a couple of nationalistic Argentinean politicians having a rant. The answer is "yes" and "grow up".

Regards

I'm bored so let's do this....

First of all, the UK was in possession of the Falklands prior to the creation of Argentina - so how do they have a claim? Spain ceded it's claims prior to Argentina being created, so Argentina cannot use that as a basis.

originally posted by: Davian

Reaction in the United Nations
On 3 April 1982 the United Nations Security Council comprising the 5 permanent members and the 10 elected members (Poland, Spain, Ireland, Panama, Guyana, Japan, Jordan, Uganda, Zaire, and Togo) passed the Resolution 502 demanding an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the islands and called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

And yet...

en.wikipedia.org...

On 5 April, the British government dispatched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force before making an amphibious assault on the islands.

Actually, you have been selective in your posting here. First of all, the UK is a perm member of the UNSC, so any resolution is of course going to be approved by them if in their favour. Consider this (the bit you missed out in your quote, you sneaky devil):

The resolution, tabled by the British representative Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).

Resolution 502, which was in the United Kingdom's favour, gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.[2][3]

originally posted by: Davian
It is pretty obvious the aggressors here, and the ones who actually did not listen to the UN, were the British government. Also, a brief history lesson for ya!

HAHAHAHA - clearly, you have not understood what you are posting. The UK tabled the resoltuion! It called immediate discussions and if not (which the Argies refused) the UK had the right to defend itself, which it did.

Uk the aggressor - who invaded what now?

The rest of your post is just crap, to be honest. At the end of the day, the UN charter gives the residents the right to determine their own fate and they have spoken - end of.

originally posted by: Davian
How would the US government feel if the UK suddenly started doing war games in New England?

Not even remotely the same, at all, in the slightest. In fact, this is just absurdly idiotic.

originally posted by: Davian
It's time for the British Monarchy to give up their claims on overseas territories, allow their Empire to fall once and for all, and get with the 20th century program.

It has nothing to do with "the monarchy" - seriously, some people... Every remaining oversea's territory of the UK is that way because the people wish it so, end of discussion.

And this is rich considering how Argentina was founded - on the genocide of natives. 90% of the population of Argentina are colonist descendent's. What do you have to say about that?

originally posted by: Davian
Imperialist doctrines are a thing of the past and should not be encouraged. Besides, the islands are, what 300 miles away from the Argentinian coast? They're in Argentinian waters dude.

300 miles is not only outside the territorial waters of a nation, but also outside any possible EEZ as well. You need to go and learn the Laws of the Sea, dude. An EEZ can only extend 300Km (186 miles). Besides, the location nor the distant to other countries has any basis on claims.

originally posted by: stumason
300 miles is not only outside the territorial waters of a nation, but also outside any possible EEZ as well. You need to go and learn the Laws of the Sea, dude. An EEZ can only extend 300Km (186 miles). Besides, the location nor the distant to other countries has any basis on claims.

Don't forget the Argentineans also claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which have to be over 1,000nm from Argentina. The Argentineans also put in a big fat claim on Antarctica - a part that the UK had previously claimed. Has Argentina got a fixation with claiming UK territories?

The Antarctica claim came in the dark days of WW2 when Argentina - with many Nazi sympathisers in their ranks - probably thought Hitter would triumph and they would inherit, so to speak. For example, in 1941 Argentina formally raised their claim to the Falklands after a considerable break of nearly a century. Just think what a happy Hitler would have given to his loyal followers!

Regards

a reply to: Davian

It isn't racist to call them Argies.....
No matter what you think the Falkland islanders whom have lived there for hundreds of years have the right of self determination and they have decided to stay British.
No matter how much BS bleating you spout the fact is British people lived and died for their homeland and nothing will make the British give up on other fellow Brits.

a reply to: Davian

Crikey, you don't take challenge very well do you. If there is anything I have said that you can factually disprove then feel free to state.

Regards

a reply to: paraphi

I did but obviously you just ignored it.
But you know what the funniest part about all of this is? In a few more years
Great Britain
and the UK
won't even
exist anymore.

No sane Brit would want this hanging over their heads; (unless of course, you're a globalist-loving, brainwashed shill)

EU law overrules British law, and EU courts overrule British courts.

The House of Commons can debate EU Directives and laws, but cannot amend a word of them.

Britain cannot negotiate trade treaties with the growing countries of the world - we must let the EU do it for us.

Let's see how quickly they vote to leave the UK then!

a reply to: Davian

I must apologise for not replying earlier, I've been a bit busy the last week or two.

You seem to be getting yourself quite irate over this, I suspect its just a reflection of your apparent anti-British bigotry.

Now if you can at least try to put that to the back of your mind for a while and try to consider the facts from an unbiased and unbigoted perspective.

Argentina has never at any time had any legal jurisdiction over The Falkland Islands.
The only permanent settlement that has ever been on the islands has been British, a settlement that has been there for some considerable time now.
The few Argentinian attempts to colonise the islands were pretty pathetic affairs that amounted to a couple of very small handfuls of people failing miserably in their lame attempts to forge new settlements due to poor preparation and next to no support from the Argentinian government itself.
If Argentina's claim to the islands rely on these pitiable efforts then I'd politely suggest those claims are laughable.

I wish to continue further, but I've wasted enough time on what should be obvious. The Argentinian government has a total of 33 sources to their claims, the British government has a mere 17 (check the link to it if you don't believe me). So with the most sources to back up their claims, I believe the Argentinian government does indeed win this debate.

Quantity does not equate to quality.
They could have 133 claims, they'd all be equally groundless.

Argentina sought to use military force to take the islands and impose their will on the islanders in direct contravention to UN dictates.
They got a bit of a bloody nose for their efforts.

In a 2013 referendum conducted on the islands 99.8% of islanders expressed their desire for The Falklands to remain an Overseas Territory of The United Kingdom.
Democracy at work.
And The Right to Self-Determination is a basic principle of the United Nations.

So I guess you believe the islanders have no right to decide themselves who governs them and that The RIght to Self-Determination is wrong?

It's time for the British Monarchy to give up their claims on overseas territories, allow their Empire to fall once and for all, and get with the 20th century program.

Britain has indeed 'gave up' its Empire - every nation that wanted independence has got it, donkey's years ago - the FACT is that the Falkland islanders wish to remain part of the UK, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Imperialist doctrines are a thing of the past and should not be encouraged.

Strange. Yet you seem to be supporting Argentina in their attempts to force themselves upon a group of islands and its inhabitants in what is nothing more than neo-colonialism.
And as has been pointed out, an Argentina whose whole history is steeped in colonialism which resulted in the almost extinction of its native people.

Besides, the islands are, what 300 miles away from the Argentinian coast? They're in Argentinian waters dude.

Schoolboy error.
You really should check facts before making claims like that, it does nothing for your credibility.

How would the US government feel if the UK suddenly started doing war games in New England?

But that comparison is ridiculous and displays a certain amount of naivety.
A more accurate one possibly would be asking how Russia would react if the US carried out military exercises in Alaska.....oh, that's right, they do and guess what, Russia never bats an eyelid because they understand the reasoning and purpose behind them and do exactly the same themselves.

But you know what the funniest part about all of this is? In a few more years
Great Britain
and the UK
won't even
exist anymore.

You really should talk to the people it concerns a bit more before believing nonsense like this.

No sane Brit would want this hanging over their heads; (unless of course, you're a globalist-loving, brainwashed shill)

Wow - having what 'hang over our heads' and just how much cliché ridden nonsense in such a short sentence?

Please start a thread on the EU and the UK's role within it and I'll gladly contribute, but this thread is not about that subject.
But a big for the blatant, obvious and pretty much predictable deflection tactics.

Let's see how quickly they vote to leave the UK then!

I suspect not, but we'll see.

[qduote]originally posted by: Davian


How would the US government feel if the UK suddenly started doing war games in New England?

Last time I checked the UK
1) does not own New England
2) Is Allied withe the USA
3) Does not currently claim sovereignty over New England.

Also 300 miles off Argentina coast does not equate to Argentinian waters.
National influence only extends 20-30 miles out to sea.

Biased?

The only permanent settlement that has ever been on the islands has been British, a settlement that has been there for some considerable time now.
The few Argentinian attempts to colonise the islands were pretty pathetic affairs that amounted to a couple of very small handfuls of people failing miserably in their lame attempts to forge new settlements due to poor preparation and next to no support from the Argentinian government itself.
If Argentina's claim to the islands rely on these pitiable efforts then I'd politely suggest those claims are laughable.

Time for the pot to stop calling the kettle black, my friend.

Britain Threatens Nuclear Attack on Argentina

You are defending,

On the thirtieth anniversary of the Falklands War (1982), Britain has sent a nuclear-armed submarine to Malvinas in response to Argentine President Kirchner’s diplomatic efforts to realize key UN resolutions and peacefully reclaim territorial waters from European over-fishing and oil exploration.

Sending a nuclear-armed vessel to Argentina’s waters in response to diplomacy obliterates the idea that the UK’s Continuous at Sea doctrine has anything to do with nuclear “deterrence,” as is claimed.3 Rather, it has everything to do with “wielding a big stick … [to] compel others to act in a desired manner,” as former Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Stanhope put it to Chatham House in 2009.4 The situation has once again illustrated that a world dominated by a psychopathic, power-mad, mostly male elite is a very dangerous and possibly terminal one.5

UK threatens Argentina with military war over disputed islands

The president further urged Cameron to obey the 1965 United Nations resolution and "negotiate a solution" over the islands, which are located about 300 miles off Argentina’s coast.

Argentina has repeatedly called on the British government to sit down at the negotiating table to settle the sovereignty dispute, but London has refused to discuss the issue with the South American country’s government.

Britain has occupied the Malvinas Islands since 1833. The United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Decolonization considers the islands as a colony which is waiting to be decolonized.

You are defending war and imperialism and attempting to discredit peace and diplomacy. I admit I wasn't the best representation of this with my flare-up, it does indeed anger me though when people defend war and animosity and attempt to discredit the notion of two people living side by side as opposed to under the rule of another outside nation. I would be 'naive' to NOT be so. And I think you are being quite naive and nationalistic in your thinking.















Spa nish and Argentine towns twin in protest over Falklands and Gibraltar

Just to reinforce my heavily sourced earlier post that has for the most part gone completely ignored.

And no, when it comes to sourcing and backing up your claims, quantity is very much appreciated. This is no excuse to continue going without SOURCING YOUR ARGUMENTS.

I am the only one who has been providing legit sources in this debate, and its quite infuriating. Although it is laughable how not a single source exists in Freeborn or Crazyewok's responses to mine. Just rhetoric meant to establish an unfounded viewpoint based heavily on emotion and nationalistic chest-pounding.

But I think I have a pretty good idea of what is really going on in this thread.

a reply to: Davian

A few points

1. HMS Trafalgar isn't a Nuclear armed vessel and it is also decommissioned (in 2009 - your article is dated 2012)
   
2. We have never threatened any nation with Nuclear Weapons
   
3. The UN "resolution" isn't binding - it was a General Assembly resolution - and anyway, we had a negotiated settlement where we were going to share the Oil wealth 50/50, even though we have no obligation to do so. Kirchner tore this up in the mid 2000's.
   
4. A "military war"? How is this different to a normal "War"?
   
5. As for the "threat" itself, it was merely reiterating that we will defend the islands should the situation arise - it wasn't a threat, it was a promise.
   
6. Gibraltar is British and it is perfectly legal - Spain ceded it to us over 300 years ago. It's highly hypocritical of the Spanish considering they have two colonies in Morocco that they refuse, point blank, to even consider "handing back" like they demand off us for Gibraltar
   
7. As for your "legit" sources, most appear to be from heavily biased blogs and other dubious sources, such as "Press TV".... Nice, good work, well done....
   

So, in a nutshell, you're talking out of your bottom. You have also avoided answering the basic question - what about the right to self determination?

a reply to: Davian

Biased?

Very much so.
Constantly alleging that the current UK policy is dictated by colonial motivation is very wide of the mark - its about The Right to Self-Determination, something you conveniently seem to be avoiding.

Now I'm not naïve enough to suppose that's the only consideration, but its certainly a major one.

It also worth noting that it would be political suicide for any UK politician to even consider negotiating sovereignty when so many people have vivid memories and direct attachment to Argentina's previous attempt to forcibly impose its own colonial control over the islands, another point you seem to conveniently ignore.

And of course there's the little matter of mineral wealth.
But then again the actual facts don't quite sit well with your anti-UK perspective.
The UK offered to share equally with Argentina all exploratory rights with Argentina and the development and proceeds from any subsequent full scale operation deemed financially viable.
The UK even offered to fund and develop a large refinery on the Argentinian mainland if deemed necessary.
Imagine how much of a boon that would be to the Argentinian economy, an economy that is in disarray due to the failings of the policies implemented by Kirchner.
Imagine how the lives of so many Argentinians would improve given the security of long term employment in a hugely profitable business.

But no, Kirchner would rather see her people suffer severe financial hardships and then exploit the romantic nature of the Argentinian people simply to deflect away from her own failings and incompetence and to feed her personal ego.

But sure, you squeal on about the evil colonialist Brits and disregard the best interests of the Argentinian people.

And also bear in mind how such an agreement would probably help heel much of the ill feeling that remains between the islanders and Argentina. Who knows where that would have led to a generation or two down the line?

Time for the pot to stop calling the kettle black, my friend.

How come?
I merely pointed out how lame the Argentinian claims are and how they are lacking any serious legal or moral credibility.

Britain Threatens Nuclear Attack on Argentina

No they haven't.
Its called diplomacy.
It sends a clear message to Argentina that the UK will not relinquish sovereignty of the islands, especially considering the result of the 2013 referendum.

The UK will not 'nuke' Argentina and to suggest it would defies logic, reason and history.

And there will be no new war over The Falklands.
Argentina's military capability is in a much worse condition now than it was back in '82 and The Falklands is much better defended and prepared than it was back then.

And the world is a different place - the only way anything military will happen is if Argentina invades again - something you seem to condone - and that simply won't happen.

And I haven't defended any of that nonsense that you allege - please show me where I have.

UK threatens Argentina with military war over disputed islands

No they haven't.

You are defending war and imperialism and attempting to discredit peace and diplomacy.

No I'm not - and I never would.

By dismissing the islanders Right to Self-Determination and ignoring Argentina's invasion of the islands you seem to be the one defending war and colonialism.

I admit I wasn't the best representation of this with my flare-up, it does indeed anger me though when people defend war and animosity and attempt to discredit the notion of two people living side by side as opposed to under the rule of another outside nation.

No-one's 'defended war and animosity' - Argentina were the aggressors.
Sovereignty is non-negotiable as long as the islanders want to remain in the UK, which is in accordance with the UN Charter.

Kirchner chose to rebuke the UK's more than fair offer of an equal partnership in oil and other mineral development programmes.

And I think you are being quite naive and nationalistic in your thinking.

You accuse me of 'nationalism' and to support this you show crowds displaying Argentinian flags and burning The Union Flag - you do see the hypocrisy and irony of that, don't you?

As for your accusation that I'm some sort of 'government shill' - that's the most ridiculous of all your claims and reeks of someone who can't understand or appreciate an alternative viewpoint or perspective, suggests a need to label and stereotype and seems like a desperate attempt yet poor attempt to besmirch and discredit.

Perhaps we'd both be better served sticking to the topic under discussion.

You have also avoided answering the basic question - what about the right to self determination?

Yes, what about the right to self determination? Obviously you can see in my above post that there are quite a few people who disagree with you that Islas Malvinas should be under colonial rule, yes?

And Freeborn, no, they are not biased because they disagree with the majority here in this thread, in short, it is you talking out of your arse, because you have yet to provide A SINGLE SOURCE.

You're rapidly losing credibility and legitimacy to your baseless argument.

originally posted by: Davian

You have also avoided answering the basic question - what about the right to self determination?

Yes, what about the right to self determination? Obviously you can see in my above post that there are quite a few people who disagree with you that Islas Malvinas should be under colonial rule, yes?

And what people would they be? Not a single soul from any of your sources is from the Falklands, all were from either Spain or Argentina. So what right to self determination do they have over someone else?

Answer: None, otherwise it wouldn't be self determination, would it?

I think, on the interwebs, that is known as an Epic fail.

EDIT: It's also not under any kind of "colonial rule", by the way. The Falklands are entirely self-governing and the UK Government has no say on it's internal affairs. As an Oversea's Territory, the UK is solely responsible for Defence and Foreign affairs, but even then that is done in conjunction with the Falklands Government, not imposed upon it.

Also, you are entirely alone in saying Freeborn (or anyone) is "rapidly losing credibility" - It is in fact you that is doing so.

a reply to: Cydonia2012

Of course the British are provoking.

Of course they are trying to maintain their colonialism, British Royal Family and British government are the SCUM of Europe.

Everyone and their grandma knows the crimes of British Royals and colonialism that they never paid.

a reply to: stumason

I got news for you Stu

and unfortunately for you, you won't be able to say no one told you so, because I am about to "tell you so"

It doesn't matter even if you were right and the islands belong to Britain. Soon Britain will lose their precious island.

When Private Central Bank policy implodes, (bank of England is private printing currency with debt attached, same deal like FED)

UK will be militarily unable to keep islands from returning to Argentina, UK is heading for shambles. And Falklands won't mean anything, they will have bigger fish to fry, and I for one am GLAD

a reply to: RadiationAndCancer

Well, that was a load of bollocks.

The BoE is not Privately owner - sorry to rock your world and you ever so warped little paradigm. It is owned by the Treasury. It was nationalise in 1946.

Boom

originally posted by: stumason
The BoE is not Privately owner - sorry to rock your world and you ever so warped little paradigm. It is owned by the Treasury. It was nationalise in 1946.

How do you explain that Britain also generates the SELF DEBT ever time the currency is printed for state needs.

YOU DO REALIZE that even the Private US Federal Reserve says they are not a private entity and that everything is fine and dandy.

Back at ya

a reply to: RadiationAndCancer

Righto...

It hasn't actually got anything to do with the topic though - you're just hijacking the thread to push some odd agenda and to interlace it with some tired, old Brit bashing.