MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ban Ki-moon and colonialism: people should be able to decide their own future
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“I don’t think Security Council members are violating relevant UN resolutions. The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0!
straight from the horses mouth, and im glad to say it kinda screws argentina and its trolls bogus claims, I THANK YOU!
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0dialogue? yeah sure but with F.I govt and not over sovereignty.
All is not lost - Venezuala, and Iran are still onside....
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice to see he's finally come down off that fence. Not going well for the Argentinian government at the moment is it!
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0oops, I bet that wasn't on CFK's script? So the Falkland Islanders are not being held hostage. They are free to determine their own political and soverign future and the UK is acting perfectly in accordance with international law.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We did however always know this as do the Argies since they never do anything to back up their claims.
Does anything ever go right for Argentina? Chuckle chuckle.
Argentina will now need to start the machinery moving against Ghana, perhaps ???
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Frankly, I don't think CFK will be in power long enough to see things through.
The apple cart is rolling downhill and gathering speed...
Dear Mercopress,
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really enjoy visiting this site however please could someone sense check the English in the articles. Sometimes it doesn't make much sense, I suppose the translations are occasionally too literal?
Thanks,
Grateful surfer
Finally UN recognition from the top dog...“people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very much appreciated and horribly long overdue, and hopefully no inaccuracies in the translation. Would be interesting to see if the interview was conducted in English!
With our upcoming referendum, that should cement our position with the UN for the medium term.
Thank you!
This article tries to hide the fact that what Ban Ki-moon said is negative to Argentina. Read it carefully. In fact, as usual, Mercopress tries to spin the facts. Ban Ki-moon said “The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies. ” Of course , it gives an “impression”, but the fact is that under the UN charter, self determination does not apply in this case..... AND....
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Argentina has on several occasions asked for the good offices of Ban Ki-moon to bring both sides together, Argentina and UK, and help establish a dialogue on the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty.
“I know that the government of Argentina has agreed to this, and I still hope for the UK’s agreement” said Ban Ki-moon.
“I have been urging both nations to resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue and I made clear that I am ready to offer my good offices to both sides so they can come together”.
No change to
the UN position on its charter. Totally positive for Argentina.
Wasn't he supposed to chant “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” while dancing Gangnam style?
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That blows the Argentine claim out of the water.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Buenos Aires has relied on everyone ignoring the inhabitants of the Falklands by trying to convince everyone that they are 'transplanted'.
The undeniable fact remains that the population of Argentina is more 'transplanted' than the Falklands and acts more colonial too by dispossessing the native Amerindians, committing genocide against them and stealing their land.
As soon as the results of the referendum are in, the Falkland Islanders can go on the offensive and aid the Amerindians to show that the colonial Argentines need to give Patagonia back to the Amerindians in its entirety.
@9 ProARG
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That was a long post for you, ProARG, and no snide quips.
You must be deadly serious to try and make a point.
Lets see what CFK &Co. say about this...
Waiting.
leaving invasion as the only Argentine option left on the table, good luck with that argie, you are done! :))))))) how does it feel to know the age old lie you have brainwashed into your children has just been internationally trashed and will NEVER be realized?,
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Arg trolls It must Suck To Be YOU right now! jajajajajajaj
SELF DETERMINATION! LOVE IT! :)))))
9 ProRG_American
Nov 12th, 2012 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No. This is not positive to Argentina. Where do you think he is talking about when he says that territories should have independence or some form of government chosen by them? This is an article about the Falklands. He is talking about the Falklands.
Oh, and the UN charter does not say that self determination doesn't apply in this case. You made that up. It doesn't say that anywhere. I've read all of it.
so that they can decide on their own future.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and how long is it till the referendum?
im sure that comment from the Secretary General would have brought a smile to Sir Rex Hunt!
Poped your balloon did I?
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No. Ban Ki- moon popped yours.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 ProRG
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don`t think its possible to Argentina at all.
If Ban Ki Moon mentioned self determination when talking about Malvinas, then Argentina`s position is “in the oven”.
Not really
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is what he really said
UN ‘concerned’ about Argentina-UK Malvinas tensions
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the international body aims to see the conflict between Argentina and Britain over the Malvinas, Sandwich, and South Georgia islands sovereignty resolved through dialogue, but also made clear that the UK hasn’t yet accepted the UN’s intermediation.
The official said he was “concerned about the strong statements exchange between Argentina and the United Kingdom”, and remarked the issue should be resolved peacefully and through dialogue in an interview to Argentine newspaper Tiempo Argentino.
“I know that the government of Argentina has agreed to this, and I still hope for the UK’s agreement”, Ban Ki-moon added.
”I have been urging both nations to resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue and I made clear that I am ready to offer my good offices to both sides so they can come together.”
Mercopress version not being reported anywhare except in Mercopress. Usual spin on a negative note.
No change. Sit at the table and do as you're told!
http://www.infobae.com/notas/680653-Gran-Bretana-aun-no-acepto-nuestra-propuesta-de-dialogo-por-las-Islas-Malvinas.html
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ban Ki-moon sugirió que los kelpers puedan tener decisión “sobre su futuro”
If this is what he really meant... then there`s no point in going to the UN over and over again...
@ all you desperate malvinstas:
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We're the Falkland Islanders, we live here, work here, our children are born here; as were many of us our families going back many generations, we elect our own government of the Falklands who have control of our resources and run our country as a democracy, we ARE the rightful inhabitants of the Falklands.
You, on the other hand, ARE a bunch of nouveau colonial whingers who purport to own a fictional place called 'the malvinas' and spout on about some mouldering (and often non-existant) documents along with tenuous understandings of inheritance from Spains COLONIES that prove that your rights are paramount over OUR Falkland Islands...
Who did you think the UN was going to side with in the end?
You can say what you want, In this case there is an outstanding legal claim, UN resolutions calling both parties to resolve the issue. Mr. Moon repeated that meaning that this matter will not be swept under the table.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What do Argentina have to give to make any negotiation mutually beneficial? Nothing.
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@19 ProRG_Impostor
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aww, you missed out the best part. Try this version.
http://www.lavoz901.com.ar/despachos.asp?cod_des=159153&ID_Seccion=7
He says :
“I do not think that the permanent members of the Security Council are violating relevant resolutions of the United Nations. The impression is that the people who live under these conditions should be able to obtain a certain level of skills to enable them to decide their own future. And this is the main criterion of the principal organs of the United Nations. Achieve independence or have a government of their territories. not think it's an issue of abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions. ”
@20 IslasMalvinas
>If this is what he really meant... then there`s no point in going to the UN over and over again...
I'm sure we can all agree on that.
.……..........set and match
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He certainly did. Twist it all you like RG loving Yank - you just lost!
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/un-confirms-that-britain-is-not-in-breach-of-resolutions-over-the-falklands/
http://www.minutouno.com/notas/267921-onu-se-muestra-favor-la-decision-los-islenos
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yup. You're toast, and you know it.
game.......set.......Referendum 2013!
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina left p1ssing in the wind, was it going to end any other way???
Job Done, well done Falklands!
@26 you can at least offer a link from a neutral media! jaja
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27 there you go
In the oven
@ProRG - ”The UN has been working strongly from its very beginning to help non autonomous territories to achieve independence ”, he said in an interview with Tiempo Argentino, a Buenos Aires based newspaper - independence he siad, that does not mean he will let argentina take over and enforce their government onto a territory that does not want it nor does not want to speak spanish. Besides, what the hell is he going to do anyway? Take the Falklands by force? You just sound like a dumb american when you speak - you should really think before you sound off!
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Victory over Argentina finally ! we should cal it VA day :)
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29 whats argentinas move now?? claim the UK has the entire UN as hostage?
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0cant wait for scrote throats response,its going to be hilarious and how she will rubbish Moons statement yet she has spent the past 12 months crying to them.
@25 beat me to it :)
Yes, “self-governance” as long as it pleases British interests:
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.economist.com/node/14258950
http://www.economist.com/node/14258950
http://www.economist.com/node/14258950
Hypocrites.
@33 how are those grapes? :)
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SELF-DETERMINATION, hows that for sour?
#30 is your skirt on too tight?
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hope Mr Ban Ki Moon investigates the question further and thinks twice before mentioning “self-determination” to certain people...
Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
@33 Desperate times
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.economist.com/node/14258950 from 2009
www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/12/2845170/three-years-later-turks-and-caicos.html returning power to formally corrupt governance
overseasreview.blogspot.com.ar/2012/06/new-political-leader-sees-independence.html they will be welcome to go when they chose to. as if the Falklands
:) it will be interesting to see RG president will twist these words lol
Enjoy VA Day Falkland Islanders
Please no ANTI-YANKEE comments over “ProARG American”.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0In this case “American” means SOUTH American.
I am happy that Ban Ki-moon has made certain things clear. However I would like to know how he would square this:
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I know that the government of Argentina has agreed to this, and I still hope for the UK’s agreement” said Ban Ki-moon.”
With this:
“people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”
My point is that he has more than once expressed his belief in the right of self determination for 'all' people. This is the first time that he has applied this specifically to the Falkland Islanders.
He says that the UK will not sit down and talk to Argentina. However, the UK says that they cannot without the Falkland Islanders permission. The FI is the ultimate power in all of this, it is their say so and nobody else's.
The FIG has offered to speak to the Argentine government and the Argentine government has famously ignored them.
It is a moot point however because the man has spoken. Wether or not he would like to square this paradox is irrelevant. The Man says that self determination trumps everything.
This is indeed game set and match.
If what you say was true 22 ProRG_American “In this case there is an outstanding legal claim” your government would have taken the issue before an appropriate international court. But that opportunity is long gone because of Argentine failure to use such a forum in a timely manner. That is why she is reduced to pot-banging and the UK doesn't have to do anything.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0@38
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Come, come, Troy, to prove he really is a septic tank, he's just told me on another thread his favourite country singer is Johnny Cash. Gosh. That certainly clears up the odd little slips in his English, his grasp of Malvinology, and his interest in internal Argentine politics.
I don't know about Britain being 'in the oven' as you argies so quaintly say, it looks like RG 'es en el perro casa'.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, TMBOA will be barking mad tonight.
Ha, ha, ha.
@33 PGH (#)
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nov 12th, 2012 - 11:49 pm
Many of us have already said we will be happy join you in petitioning the US government to abandon its base in Diego Garcia and the UK government to return the Chagosians to their homes.
This issue however is irrelevant to the Falkland Islanders and this dispute.
From the man with the know..
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.
Learn Argies , listen Argies ,
The Falklands have a RIGHT to decide their own future,
Just be bloody lucky you are allowed to decide YOUR own future..
Full stop.
.
@37 Tabutos
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Corruption? Says who? The Queen?
Can't you British see how arrogant is from your part is to promote “coups d'état” or invading a country just because you feel it's right?
http://tcweeklynews.com/dolphin-captivity-law-draws-criticism-p3157-127.htm
http://tcweeklynews.com/dolphin-captivity-law-draws-criticism-p3157-127.htm
http://tcweeklynews.com/dolphin-captivity-law-draws-criticism-p3157-127.htm
British GO HOME and leave the TCI alone.
we are home,Thanks
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@45 PGH
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should complain to the UN?
PGH
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hypocrites.
Is a leader who tells the world she respects rights?
Then denies these rights to the Falklands,
You hate because we have something you wish to destroy,
You have no interest in the Falklands,
The people or the land , the beach the sand the live stock,
Your only interest is the OIL and the wealth that it brings.
………………………………………….
You go home and leave the Falklands alone..
.
Ban Ki-Moon sounds erudite & harmonious, qualified for his title.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@48 briton
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are claiming the Malvinas since 1810. Oil was not needed back in those days. Why did the British want the islands? To have a NAVAL OUTPOST. And today, 200 years later, the military base accounts for half the population.
We want the islands because they should belong to us, period.
@43 War Monkey
It is not irrelevant to the Falklands issue: they are both “overseas territories” and they are both subject to the same colonial laws. What would happen if the FI population somehow would choose to reunite the islands with South America? Something similar to what happened in Turk and Caicos. That's the connection.
The Falkland islands were first claimed by Britain in 1765. 'Should has nothing to do with it.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the British Government fully supports the Falklanders right to choose WHATEVER future they wish !
@50 “What would happen if the FI population somehow would choose to reunite the islands with South America? Something similar to what happened in Turk and Caicos. That's the connection.”
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0you dont believe in SELF DETERMINATION for the falkland people so you question is a non starter, is it not?
@45 says the first artical you published www.economist.com/node/14258950
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0the Turks and Caicos islands are presently a British Territory until they chose to be otherwise. though they formally had a sort of semi self governance, it appears some sort of bribery was used in elections and i assume it broke British or local laws, i have not looked in to it as it is not really reverent to this discussion on the Falkland islands or self determination of the Falkland islands
@50
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0> Why did the British want the islands?
Partly it was to put an end to the various episodes of piracy, rape, and murder the tenants and would-be squatters were getting up to.
> What would happen if the FI population somehow would choose to reunite the islands with South America?
They would be free to do whatever they chose. Your TCI analogy is not relevant.
@50 “What would happen if the FI population somehow would choose to reunite the islands with South America?”
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0As mentioned in this forum, multiple times, the UK is fine with that - IF that is what the Falkland Islanders choose to do.
> We want the islands because they should belong to us, period.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0And further proof, if any were needed, of the fundamental irrationality of Malvinista belief.
PGH,
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the islands should belong to you then they would.
But they don't so they won't.
@50 UK has had a claim on the island long before Argentina Existed, however this is not relevant as the population of the islands have just have there right of self determination confirmed bring any historic claims null and void
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who says the islands should belong to you? its certainly not the present population
also they are no more colony's, The UK has a list of territory's that have not chosen Independence yet and chose to remain with the UK for good sound and solid governance
The Argie version of Ban Ki-moon's interview = “Ban Ki-moon analizó el conflicto entre la Argentina y el Reino Unido por la soberanía en las Malvinas y reiteró la necesidad del diálogo”
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.minutouno.com/notas/267921-onu-se-muestra-favor-la-decision-los-islenos
Focused on a belated comment and not the core of what he was saying. Now aint that typical ??
@59
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not to mention that the UN recommending dialogue is like the Football Association recommending football. What else would they say?
There is something seriously missing from Ban Ki-Moon's statement and that is the very people living on the islands. People that also have the right to be recognised as a people in their Country of their choosing. No mention has been made of the fact that Argentina in these proposals to talk to uk about us have ever recognised us as a people so to have dialogue with Britain in the eyes of the Islanders means only one thing thy want our homeland outright or shared. Well Mr Ban Ki-Moon the forthcoming refferendum will tell the world once and for all that we actually do exist as a community in our own right and that we want to have our wishes made known. We know what we want pitty the Argentines can't bring themselves to see the same.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@59 Lord Ton
Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here you have a more balanced account: http://www.infobae.com/notas/680653-Ban-Ki-moon-sugirio-que-los-kelpers-puedan-tener-decision-sobre-su-futuro.html
@58 Tabutos
The British had dropped their claim to the islands by that time (1810)
@
You're so naive I almost feel pity for you...
Anyone on this post who is still yapping on about RG rightful ownership of the Falklands is an absolute dunce!
Nov 13th, 2012 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are blind fools! Clearly if your claim is so justifiable then why don't u have the Falklands?? It doesn't matter what the UN say in this matter as the argument is too complicated, old and small!
RG,s lack the brainpower to see this or the spunk to try and change the status quo, so I don't understand why the malvinists keep harping on about it!
It was never yours, and even if if it was proved that it had been yours, it ain't yours now (just like many many countries who have lost territories from the same period in history), so drop the insanity and start building up a decent government, one with brains and a strategy!
The British NEVER dropped their claim.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British never left :-)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103755318/Falklands-War-The-First-400-Years-PDF
@64 Lord Ton
Nov 13th, 2012 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, you just took a break for 60 years while you tried to conquer Pluto. Cut the crop, please.
@63 brit abroad
“if your claim is so justifiable then why don't u have the Falklands?”
The British owned half the world, we were just starting. We didn't have the firepower to take them back, and of course we still don't have it, and probably never will. But I still have hope in justice. And in a true Latin American “commonwealth”.
@65 PGH substitute troll
Nov 13th, 2012 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0NOBODY, NObody, in Argentina can call The Falklands their homeland.
NONE of you have ANY connection personally or culturally, to The Falklands.
You have no personal memories of the Falklands, no racial memory, no family history of experiences, livelihood, or shared experiences, allegiances, or relationship to the islands for 180 years, and a precious few, including murderers and rapists, before that.
Again, it is not yours, never was, and a completely different culture has been there exclusively for 180 years of permanent occupation and interaction with the land.
The only Argentinians who have a connection, died there in 1982, and were buried there.
You turned your backs on them.
You have contributed nothing but a legacy of hate, for 180 years.
Troll? Thanks, at least you're not calling me “terrorist” (that would mean a death sentence).
Nov 13th, 2012 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the remainder of the extent of the occupation, and the fact that you don't let us settle there. That was your strategy from day one.
“A legacy of hate”, now that's funny. So yours would be “a legacy of thievery”? “Of colonialism”? Yes, that would be it.
The garrison left in 1774 PGH, but the British Southern Whale Fishery grew from there. Indeed, the Royal Navy even surveyed West Falkland in 1786. So it is not I that is coming out with the cr*p PGH.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do try and learn some history boy :-)
68 Lord Ton Roger, Do try and learn some history boy :-)
Nov 13th, 2012 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British Empire
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”
@68 Lord ton
Nov 13th, 2012 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Do try and learn some history boy :-)“
Don't bother with him - we've been over it all before.
He needs something better than, ”It should be ours” .
He'll be gone tomorrow when Guzz, the regular troll, returns with his new netbook and IP address.
MoreCrap - still quoting from the few histories that generalise enough to favour your twisted, spurious version of history. The truth cannot be hidden Apparently the UN is now aware of it.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read and learn child - http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-war-the-first-400-years-pdf.pdf
http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-war-the-first-400-years-pdf.pdf
Rotted, Do try and learn some history boy :-)
Nov 13th, 2012 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“British have invaded nine out of ten countries - so look out Luxembourg”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
And your quote from the British Empire site changed long ago, as you well know.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Invaded ?? So what ??
That's life. Hell, that's history :-)
Invaded ?? So what ??
Nov 13th, 2012 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, at least you are honest about that Roger :-)
Yeah - get a life. Countries attacking other countries has been a human way of life for 2,000 years .... hadn't you noticed.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everyone did it. Even Argentina attempted to invade another country - in 1832 and 1982 !
Funny seeing the Argied spitting feathers and once again trying to change the subject or focus on comments that they can somehow twist to fit their odd perspective on life.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am taking the family to TCI to that Beaches Resort. God Save the Queen and Mr Moon
@72 - Marcos
Nov 13th, 2012 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very poor attempt to divert the thread.
Basically the UN Secretary General has stated what we've all been stating for months (if not years) that the UN isn't on Argentina's side, because the UN doesn't take sides.
The UN supports the right for people to choose for themselves, including the people of the Falklands.
Perhaps instead of trying to colonise the Falklands you should look to your own country, which appears to be unravelling all around you.
Perhaps you should all work together and sort out the rampant corruption that has plagued Argentina for nearly a century, and then to use your natural resources to sort out the infrastructure is Argentina. You should use it to build bigger and better schools, hospitals and make the lives of the poor better.
Then talk to the Falkland Islands government. Cooperate in issues of mutual interest and benefit. In other words become their friends, respect them and their way of life, and give up your erroneous and spurious claims to the Islands.
In essence, Argentina needs to grow up, and realise that not everything will always go your way. You need to grow up, and face your problems, instead of always trying to blame someone else.
On fact, just grow up, period.
Oh dear, I was assured by an abundance of Argie trolls that Moon was on their side. Opps.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Moon has with one swipe of his tongue quashed all accusations that britain has violated treaties. Perfect.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Moon has said basically that he doesn't want any kind of war and wants it all done by dialogue. He wants it resolved peacefully. Resolving it does not mean 'give it to argentina' it means stopping the dispute. Britain will not negotiate away the sovereignty, the islanders do not want argentine rule and that is one side of the argument. The other side wants the opposite. Britain has the law and legitimacy and evidence on its side, argentina has none. It's time Argentina released the truth.
@75 Lord Ton
Nov 13th, 2012 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is Marcos a defecator, er ah, defector, from the Falklands ? He seems to say he knows your name.
My name is written all over the link. I've known MoreCrap a long time. Not that he's learnt a single thing in all that time. That of course is the problem with Malvinistas. The truth is irrelevant. Facts are unrecognised. It just takes faith. A bit like religion.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Odd that this news item does not appear in Clarin, La Nacion and the Buenos Aires Herald of today 13 November 2012.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ban's statement is very helpful and very welcome, but of course he is not a dictator but an appeaser. This for him is pretty strong - the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to choose.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still work to do, but a very positive step in the right direction. What took him so long ?
Surprised that no-one here has read this properly and actually looked at what he is saying politically. His actual words don't really matter, what he is addressing here is a future event.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I don’t think Security Council members are violating relevant UN resolutions. The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies. Having independence or having some kind of government in their territories. I don’t think it’s an abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions”
This means: In the future, should those people living in the Falklands decide to have a free a fair vote on where they allegiance lies, and with whom they wish to side then there is nothing I can do about. Any vote which is free and fair will fulfil the rights of self determination as enshrined in UN charter.
@84
Nov 13th, 2012 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0It has always been my point that who has sovereignty of The Falkland Islands makes no difference - it is up to the people living on the Islands to decide their own future.
The Islanders can choose who the wish to align to be it GB, Argentina or none. It is not up to who claims sovereignty to decide.
the Secretary General said that “the UN has been working strongly from its very beginning to help non autonomous territories to achieve independence” and to put an end to colonialism.
@ 4 damian
Nov 13th, 2012 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Nice to see he's finally come down off that fence.”
He did that more than two and a half years ago, as I have provided links to every now and then:.
“Remaining non-self-governing territories must have full freedom of choice, Ban Ki-moon says - 2010.05.19”
http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says
@59 Lord Ton (#)
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nov 13th, 2012 - 01:16 am
It is much like religious fundamentalists interpreting holy scriptures in a way that will fit their real beliefs and justify their actions.
We all know that it makes no difference to the Malvinistas. You could spell it out to them nursery school 'big type', hit them over the head with it or feed it to them with their dinner. It makes no difference because they have been indoctrinated almost from birth. They have been brain washed. They want it therefore it is theirs.
The only thing you can do with a Malvinista is guard against them. There is not telling what they will try to pull.
@PGH “Thank you for the remainder of the extent of the occupation, and the fact that you don't let us settle there. That was your strategy from day one. ”
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's a lie, Argentines go through the same immigration procedures as anyone else, including people from the UK, hence why there are Argentine nationals living in the Falklands.
@Marcos
“Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands.”
A governor that never actually went to the Falklands.
'According to Ban Ki-moon, the “kelpers” could decide their own future'
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.eldiariodelfindelmundo.com/noticias/leer/45922/segun-ban-ki-moon-los-kelpers-podrian-decidir-sobre-su-propio-futuro.html
'UN wants dialogue between Argentina and Britain'
http://www.eldiariodelfindelmundo.com/noticias/leer/45922/segun-ban-ki-moon-los-kelpers-podrian-decidir-sobre-su-propio-futuro.html
My favorite part, “UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism”
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0What was that Cristina keeps saying about the UK violating UN resolutions again???? What was that about Colonialism Timmerman kept harping on about???
He did not say it!
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0If he did say it, he did not mean it!!
If he did say it and meant it, I don't belive it!!!!
!!!They are ours because they are ours because they are ours!!!!
Scriiiiiiiiiiiiiim Kick Banging head on wall Holding breath ontil head turns blue . . . No, no, no, no Argentinas SON Malvinas!!!!!
Too bad, my dear little boy: End of story.
Seems like the corner CFK is trapped in is getting smaller and smaller by the day.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I have said for a long time, cornered animals are dangerous they lash out indiscriminately
and
December will be fun to watch
@9 What total garbage. Read the Charter, dimwit. ALL peoples are entitled to self-determination. And, while you're at it, note that he says that the UK is NOT violating relevant UN resolutions. UK will NOT talk to anyone regarding Falklands sovereignty unless and until the Islanders wish it. Who you going to talk to now? Talk to the hand!
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Quite right. Give up! The FALKLAND ISLANDS are the FALKLAND ISLANDS and ever more will be so. The FALKLAND ISLANDS govern themselves. Britain ensures “good governance”. Britain also takes care of foreign affairs and defence in order to ensure that some big bully doesn't get away with anything. In time, the FALKLAND ISLANDS may become fully independent. It's the way the UN sees it. There won't be any imperialist colonialist expansion in the South Atlantic!
@36 We already did Luxembourg. September 1944!
@39 I wonder what you mean by “the man has spoken”. The Secretary-General is an administrative official. He can also be a mediator. But the real “power” rests with the Security Council. Specifically, the permanent members!
@50 You haven't been claiming them since 1810. Your first attempt at theft was 1820 when one of your pirates turned up there. Note that. David Jewett was a PIRATE. By what stretch can you have a criminal act on behalf of an illegal government. Note also that Britain didn't recognise argieland until 1824. So just rebels, and thieves! And no, “the same colonial laws” don't apply to both the Turks & Caicos and the Falklands.
@62 ”The British had dropped their claim to the islands by that time (1810)”. If you mean the FALKLAND ISLANDS, you wish. WRONG!
@65 Face it. You're just a pillock.
@69 Still dragging out your quotes from an ex-junior school teacher!
@74 Tell us about Spain!
@92 I'm inclined to agree. Get the ships, the subs and the aircraft ready. Load the bullets, the shells, the missiles, the artillery and the tanks. Isn't it summer in the Falklands? Lazy days, potting targets in the sea!
Don't say that word.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0What word?
I cannot say, suffice to say it's one of the words the knights of NiMalvinas cannot hear.
Self-determination?
He said it again!
Yes, self-determination. Yaaaargh! Now I said it!
(Handwaving quote from Monty Python's “The Holy Grail”)
#88 - A governor that never received the title either :-)
Nov 13th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The comparisons to a religion are interesting.
Nov 13th, 2012 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinistas seem to regard the islands as some kind of holy grail. “If only we can recover them, our problems will be solved and we will be a mighty nation once again!”
However there is a difference between faith and fantasy.
@96
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0And that's precisely why they don't really want to gain soveriegnty of the Falklands, if they did then they'd lose that excuse to blame all their woes on and start having to take responsibility for the shit state their country's in, which, as we all know, is entirely due to their own corruption, idleness and hopeless mismanagement.
Mind you, I'm sure they'd cast around to find someone else to blame for their troubles.
@97 - Westisbest
Nov 14th, 2012 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you post. The Falklands are just a useful distraction instrument for the government.
Its a very Nazi trick that the peronists use. Find someone to blame for all your troubles (i.e. jews, British etc), to unite disparate unhappy groups from the fact that the government has screwed up the country.
SIMPLE AND BASIC
Nov 14th, 2012 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This important statment from UN General Secretary apply to Malvinas
YES or NO ??
1) What UN officer Ban Ki-moon say ?
“..the UN has been working strongly from its very beginning to help non autonomous territories to achieve independence” and to put an end to colonialism. “Of course there are still some which are ruled by certain structures from other countries, but I sincerely hope that as we move along the XXI century, all the people in the world can enjoy independence and the freedoms of those structures”.
KEY THOUGHT END OF COLONIALISM AND FREE OF STRUCTURES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
2) What the official site of Falkland Island Gov say about ?
“The Falkland Islands are a United Kingdom Overseas Territory by choice. Supreme authority is vested in Her Majesty The Queen and exercised by a Governor on her behalf..”
“The role of the Governor.... is the representative of HM the Queen in the Islands, and represents the UK Government..”
“..Legislative Assembly is empowered to pass legislation for the peace, order and good government of the Falkland Islands, subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen..”
www.falklands.gov.fk/Government.html
CONTINUE DREAMING BENNIES.....CONTINUE THE SHOW, CONTINUE THE REFERENDUM PARODY AND CIRCUS....IS FUNNY.
@99
Nov 14th, 2012 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
What don't you understand about “people .... can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies. ”?
9 and 19 ProRG_American
Nov 14th, 2012 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I fully share your expressions. Very clarifying the process and context of the conflict. Always Mercopress note that lies or in most cases. Not independent. What's more, in most cases, Mercopress tries to spin the facts or change.
24 HansNiesund_mentiroso_impostor
As always you are the impostor. Why lie?
Read the real link:
http://tiempo.infonews.com/2012/11/11/argentina-90619-todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta.php
98 Leprecon
Pathetic and sad: Remember that UK in 500 years of history commercialized slaves, I think racism, murderer, mass genocide was five times more than the Nazis in the five continents. He continues with colonialism and imperialism in the 21st century with humanitarian bombing innocent civilians in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, and wants to continue in Syria.
99 so_far
Excellent reflection!
Besides its own constitution expresses implicitly that a colony with implanted population.
The committee considers UN decolonization to the Falkland Islands as a colony. Of the 16 cases of colonialism in the world, 10 are for the UK they are: Anguilla, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Malvinas-Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Monserrat Island, Pitcairn Island and St. Helena Island.
Just look at any web page concerning the decolonization committee of United Nations refers to are a colony.
Besides the UN resolutions are referred to a colony.
See 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 ( 40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. It is a territory to colonize.
Just look at any web page concerning the decolonization committee of United Nations refers to are a colony. Example Wikipedia.
http://tiempo.infonews.com/2012/11/11/argentina-90619-todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta.php C3% C3% B3n A9_de_Descolonizaci%
Face1354@hotmail.com
@101
Nov 14th, 2012 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, thank goodness you've got here!
The Secretary-General of the United Nations seems to have misunderstood the decolonization process, the UN Charter, and the principle of self-determination!
102 HansNiesund
Nov 14th, 2012 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is so deaf as those who will not hear, not so blind as those who will not see!!
Do not want to read the Link: Read it in context of the conflict.
tiempo.infonews.com/2012/11/11/argentina-90619-todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta.php
The Secretary General has understood very well. The decolonization process is done through dialogue between the two sides of the conflict, namely Argentina and England.
This process of dialogue should be in accordance with United Nations resolutions and through its committee of United Nations Decolonization. View Resol. 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by subsequent resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40 / 21), 1986 (41/40) 1,987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self. It is a territory to colonize. It is very clear that there is a conflict of sovereignty. No self.
Read also the following Link.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president
Always remember this:
The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility remains of the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the islanders, cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”
Give up Hans.....is not necessary an PhD for understand that Malvinas is a Colony that MUST MANDATORY enter in the process of des-colonization that UN is asking last 40 years....even with this statment of Ban Ki-moon.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0chill out and read again......
101 Raul (#)
Nov 14th, 2012 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nov 14th, 2012 - 01:42 pm
This is a part of the text of the interview in Tiempo Argentino:
“–¿Pero no es un mal mensaje para el resto de los países de la ONU si los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad no cumplen con las resoluciones?
–No creo que los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad estén violando resoluciones relevantes de las Naciones Unidas. La impresión es que la gente que vive bajo esas condiciones debería poder obtener cierto nivel de capacidades para que puedan decidir sobre su propio futuro. Y este es el principal criterio de los órganos principales de las Naciones Unidas. Lograr la independencia o que tengan cierto gobierno de sus territorios. No creo que sea un tema de abuso o violación de resoluciones relevantes de la ONU.”
And this is a translation:
“- But is it not a bad message to the rest of the countries in the UN if the permanent members of the Security Council do not comply with resolutions?”
“-I do not think that the permanent members of the Security Council are violating relevant resolutions of the United Nations. The impression is that the people who live under these conditions should be able to obtain a certain level of skills to enable them to decide their own future. And this is the main criterion of the principal organs of the United Nations. Achieving independence or having certain government of their territories. I do not think it's an issue of abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions.”
I think, Raúl, that you are very wrong to accuse Hans of telling lies, your own link proves his point!!!!!!!
I see all the malvinistas are getting their “knickers in a twist” in an effort to get their heads around the statement of the Secretary General which clearly contradicts the position of la Cretina and Timmerman. They, the malvinistas, seem to declare that nothing has changed - well, it has!
Nov 14th, 2012 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just as the malvinistas deny that the Arana Southern Treaty, ratified in 1850, makes any difference to the Argentine claim of sovereignty over the Falklands
archipelago when, of course, by omission, Argentina, clearly and unequivocally, acknowledged NO SITUATION EXISTED TO IMPEDE PERFECT FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN BRITAIN AND ARGENTINA. Had Rosas still intended to pursue the matter of sovereignty the claim would have been an exception noted in the treaty.
@105
Nov 14th, 2012 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you, Simon
@104, @103
Guys, in addition to your difficulties with reading comprehension, you also have a problem with logic. The UN may well regard the Falklands as a British colony, but it does not follow from this that the UN supports transfer of sovereignty to Argentina. The UN has never said any such thing. Nor has the UN ever said that there should be dialogue between the UK and Argentina regarding sovereignty. Nor,minded has the UN ever said that whatever dialogue does take place should exclude the Falkland Islanders. The UN has only ever said that there should be a peaceful resolution of the dispute. The only party to have breached this resolution has been Argentina when it invaded in 1982, and refused to withdraw its troops when instructed to do so.
And now Ban-Ki Moon has quite clearly stated that the principle of self-determination applies, and that the UK is not in breach of any UN resolution.
I do hope that clears it up for you.
@103 Raul
Nov 14th, 2012 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again, the civilian population was not expelled most of them stayed. Why would the British expell the civilians when they had permission from Britian to be there. The illigal, muntinous penal colony was expelled.
Territorial integrity? At a thousand miles away we would have been an Argentine (or UP as it was then) colony instead of a British one (now a BOT not a colony).
@101 & @103 - Raul
Nov 14th, 2012 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British were involved in the slave trade, no one has ever denied that, but the slave trade was already firmly established prior to the British or even any other countries involvement.
The British were also the ones who STOPPED the slave trade, it's strange how you always conveniently forget that, just like you conveniently forget that Argentinians owned slaves, and murdered them rather than set them free.
In regards to the history of the Falklands, you spout the same old rubbish. The colonists were NOT expelled, and their ancestors live on the islands today, and they were the original inhabitants, which makes the Falkland Islands theirs, and no one has the right to tell them that they don't have a right to their own land.
Face it, Raul, your insane, unpredictable President has actually done the Falkland Islanders a favour.
With your government constantly spouting lies about the Falklands, quite often contradicting each other, has shown the world that the Argentine government can only lie.
You lie about what happened in 1833. You lie about Spain leaving you the Falklands in their will. You lie about the fact that Argentina signed a treaty with the UK stating there were no outstanding disputes between the 2 countries, and you lie about Argentina constantly contesting the Falklands sovereignty, when you did drop the issue for 92 years.
Ban Ki Moon has not said anything other than what the UN and all those resolutions so beloved of your country has said. That is that the Falklands should be decolonised (which they have) and the people should be allowed to determine their own future, which they will in March 2013.
Face it, Argentina has never had a valid claim, has never had a valid argument, has never had valid support and never had a chance.
Your government uses the Falkland Islands to distract 'the mob' from the fact that they are mismanaging your country and robbing you blind.
Don't tell me that you still fall for it, Raul?
This is absolutely brilliant.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For months and months we have had the various Malvinista cretins spouting that the UK was in violation of various UN treaties.
Now we have the Secretary General of the UN telling them that they are wrong.
As far as the Secretary General is concerned he wants self-determination and dialogue between all parties to achieve it. There is ABSOLUTELY no scenario where the Falklands becomes a colony of Argentina.
So, that's it then.
No contravention of resolutions
Self determination is paramount
Referendum (I.e. self determination) next year
All done..
I tried to post this but unfortunately was 5 minutes behind Mercopress' clear out of troll posters so I'll see if any of the remaining posters can answer.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can any of the Malvinistas please answer this.
If the Falklands are SO important to you, why have you not been going over there, establishing yourselves in the islands and opening new businesses? Surely you would all have a vested interest in living on the islands?
It's not going very well for our RG friends , as was said I thought the UN supported you and shared your views, doesn't look like it does it jajajajaja
Nov 14th, 2012 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well what do you know! This site seems to be troll free for the time being. and of all the people to let me know but an Argetine friend; thanks M. It might be worth taking part again. Now before somebody accuses me of not being brave enough to debate with the other side, that couldn't be further from the truth but I had more important things to do than put up with 3 or so trolls with multiple accounts and a robotic defence of the indefensible. I'm even prepared to hold off on the deadbeat label and see how things go.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A significant number of things have happened in the last couple of weeks. My (not actually mine but i knew about it) little something went ahead quite smoothly. CFK has not even uttered Malvinas since it happened. The UN has paved the way nicely for our referendum. Internal (private and FIG) and external investment has really gone up a couple of gears in anticipation of the extraction phase of the hydrocarbons discovery. It was 20 something degrees or more than in the past week and the flowers and lambs are everywhere.
I feel 100% secure now that all is under control and that the Argentine Government is powerless to affect us beyond the normal distractions. Like most Falkland Islanders, I look forward to being able to grow old (won't be long!) while I watch my kids grow into adults and start their own families and see it all repeat itself again. I also look forward to the day when we can thank the UK with more than words for their support over the years.
To all of you on this site who have shown their supportive views to us: THANK YOU VERY MUCH! To those of you who don't see it this way, please try to understand that the Falklands is my family's home where they were born and raised. We didn't make some radical, controversial decision to come and “squat” (as some of you say) here. This is where we are from.
(113) Joe Bloggs
Nov 14th, 2012 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“I feel 100% secure now that all is under control and that the Argentine Government is powerless to affect us.........”
I say:
100% ???
“The Flight of Icarus” comes to mind....
Haughty Squatter....
You say:
”We didn't make some radical, controversial decision to come and “squat” (as some of you say) here.“
I say:
You Kelpers make a ”radical, controversial decision to Squat” every second you keep being instrumental for the British geopolitical designs and ambitions over 12,000,000 km2 of South Atlantic and Antarctic territory.....
114
Nov 14th, 2012 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I neither know nor care what the flight of icarus is.
That's your view on squatting Think but not that of the UN or of the majority of your fellow countrymen.
Squatter definition: “An individual who settles on the land of another person without any legal authority to do so, or without acquiring a legal title”
Nov 14th, 2012 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/squatter
yes Joe....you and your complete family are squatting illegally argentinenan soil.
ergo.... a regular oulaw people you lot. FACT
..people should be able to decide their own future....
Nov 14th, 2012 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0is this laying down valid for Afghanistan,Libya,Syria,Iraq,Palestine,...?
116 so_far
Nov 14th, 2012 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't need to convince anyone of the definition of the word squatter. What you need to convince people of is the applicability of the word to the people of the Falkland Islands. We have nothing to prove so I'll leave it to you.
Joe, i dont need to convince anyone of anything, i just give you facts.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could believe it or not, i dont care.
119 so_far
Nov 14th, 2012 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fair enough. Anyone who wishes to see a change in the status quo will have to convince someone though. We don't want to see any change so we'll be leave things be.
As for giving me the facts. Maybe you should look the word fact up in a dictionary.
What do you make of the UN's statement of a few days ago where it was stated by Ban Ki-moon: “I don’t think Security Council members are violating relevant UN resolutions. The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies. Having independence or having some kind of government in their territories. I don’t think it’s an abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions”
@119 so_far
Nov 14th, 2012 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A statement of fact requires proof.
If such proof exists, please hand it to the ICJ.
''The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’. ''
Please take note of the '' is not violating relevant UN resolutions.''
As the Malvinistas are always saying the Falkland Islanders and the UK are in breach of UN resolutions, could you please explain to me how the Secretary General has got this wrong?
121 Raven
Nov 14th, 2012 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very nicely put.
(121) Raven
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“ A statement of fact requires proof.”
And then you say (believing MercoPress's wrong translation):
''The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands. ''
I say:
A statement of fact requires proof.....
And then I say:
What the UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon really said was:
“I don’t think that the Security Council’s Permanent Members are violating relevant UN resolutions.”
http://tiempo.infonews.com/2012/11/11/argentina-90619-todavia-espero-el-acuerdo-del-reino-unido-a-mi-propuesta.php
Can you spotthe ”slight differences?
So there you have it from the horses mouth: 'PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE THEIR OWN FUTURE'
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and as far as the Falkland Islanders are concerned - a future without Argentina!
(124) Brit Bob
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, Mr Brit Bob... What the “horse” said was...:
“The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future.”
Can you spot the ”slight differences?
Ban Ki -moon statments:
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) he expected they are resolved ‘ideally’ through dialogue, particularly when we are talking about the Malvinas or the Falklands.
Dialogue ?? why he NEVER EVER mention self-determination if apply in this case ??
Conclusion : BAN KI MOON NOT SUPPORT SELF-DETERMINATION FOR MALVINAS CASE...he only support dialogue between parties (ar-uk),
2) “.. The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies”
What UN main body c-24 special comitee for analyze des-colonization cases say about it ?
“The chair of the UN Decolonisation Committee .....described the UK announcement of a referendum in the Malvinas Islands as a “political ploy”, insisting that the Falkland Islanders can not appeal to the right of self determination they claim, because in the Malvinas case “there is a principle of territorial integrity” from Argentina .
en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president
Conclusion: is BAN KI-MOON STATMENT a CONTRADICTION OF THE MAIN DES-COLONIZATION COMITTE c-24 ? lets wait.
3) Ban Ki-moon said UN values enormously cooperation with regional ..... organizations such as Unasur and Celac. “When there is a regional issue we first wait for their reactions before the issue arrives at the UN. As far as I’m concerned the UN is always ready for close cooperation with these regional organizations”.
WHAT UNASUR EXPLCIT SAY ABOUT MALVINAS ?
“Unasur reaffirms its “full support to the legitimate rights” of Argentina…… to resume negotiations so as to find, as quickly as possible, a peaceful and definitive solution to the controversy”.
en.mercopress.com/2010/10/13/falklands-military-operations-trigger-formal-and-energetic-unasur-protest
Conclusion: IS BAN KI-MOON AGAIN IN CONTRADICTION OR SUPPORT UNASUR MAIN REGIONAL BODY ?
@ Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the link.
It still does make clear how either translation (Mercopress' or the original article) shows that the UK is in breach of any UN Resolution.
From the article, the interviewers question
''Do you think that by 2020, when it meets the third decade for the eradication of colonialism, we can say that no territory under the control of “administering powers” or fourth decade will be needed?''
Administering power I assume would be a foreign government, correct?
In regards to the Falklands, they have their OWN government. Assistance is lent via the UK Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence but the Falkland Islands Government has every right to renounce such help as it sees fit. The only thing that links the UK to the Falklands politically is the status of being a 'British Overseas Territory', correct?
The ball's in Argentina's court.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Ban Ki-moon, General Secretary of United Nations....
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.....Gangaman style, what i can say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/oct/24/gangam-style-psy-ban-ki-moon-dance-video
(127) Raven
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Words must be quoted correctly....
Especially diplomatic words....
MercoPress does NOT quote correctly...
Especially diplomatic words....
You get my drift?
2) You say:
“The only thing that links the UK to the Falklands politically is the status of being a 'British Overseas Territory, correct?”
I say:
Yes...............,correct.....That would be “The Only Thing”........
But that's a freaking humonguously biiiiiiiiiig “Thing”, matey.....
And then we have another “Little Thing”.... The question of the “Other Islands” and the 12,000,000km2 of South Atlantic and Antarctic territory......
Get my drift again?
@ Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I actually looked at the link you gave and read it. It says 'security council members'. The last time I knew, the UK was one of those.
As for the British overseas Territory thing, the Falklands have the right to ask for Independence. Many other territories in the past have asked and received as such.
As for the 12,000kms thing you insinuate. As a thinking excersise, what about the distance between France and the Channel Islands? should France have control over them because they are 'nearer to France'?
@130
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, would you care to elucidate for us lesser mortals the crumb of comfort you have found? For it is rather hard to spot without a telescope.
Mr Moon has declared UK has broken no UN resolutions, from the horses mouth! Britain has played it by the book, it always does.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Moon has also talked about people having freedom within whatever governmental structures are in place. The falklands are totally and utterly absolutely free, liberty and self determination are the watch words. Mr Moon has sanctified britain and the islands with his words. The referendum is the icing on the cake, fantastic!
(131) Raven
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) What I'm saying is that Mercopress should quote correctly....
As a thinking excersise......:
I love Women....
Your Wife is a Woman.....
Does it mean that I love your Wife?
2) The British squatters in the Malvinas Islands are the Spearhead for the British geopolitical aspiration in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic....... Only a fool would try to deny it.
3) I didn't “Insinuate any 12,000kms thing”.
I mention what is: Oficcial British Policy in the South Atlantic.
The British wish and ambition of controlling an area, adjacent to Argentina, of 12,000,000 km2
( Twelve million square kilometers)
What's that noise? sounds like the bottom of a barrel being scraped, or is it the noise people make when their argument has been conclusively disproved and they are desperately clutching at straws by arguing semantics and making tenuous 'interpretations' of what was said?
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep on with it Malvinistas, your struggles are amusing.
I dont' think aka The Turnip In chief.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ahhh! You have spotted our little plan, we are coming to get you!
@134
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Clearly you do love his wife you have stated 'I love women'.
2. So very true, we are going to open a Tesco Superstore on Antartica and see frozen penguin pies.
3. Britain will administer whatever it legitimately controls and will take nothing from anybody. You don't like it, well nevermind.
@ 123 Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 126 so_far
123 Think: “I don’t think that the Security Council’s Permanent Members are violating relevant UN resolutions.”
1. The UK is a permanent member of the Security Council.
2. As far as he knows (and he should know) no permanent member of the Security Council is violating relevant UN resolutions.
1. + 2. -> The UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions.
.
.
126 so_far: “... why he NEVER EVER mention self-determination if apply in this case ??”
2½ years ago Ban Ki-moon said that the
“Remaining non-self-governing territories must have full freedom of choice,” (REMAINING = those which are still on the C24 list. full freedom of choice = FULL FREEDOM OF CHOICE)
http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says
What is your problem?
138 St John
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His problem is how to convince the world that the Falklands belongs to him and his fellow-Malvinistas. It's a big problem for them.
No problem for us though.
Ban ki Moon
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“When asked specifically about the UK 16 Overseas Territories, Ban Ki-moon said he expected they are resolved ‘ideally’ through dialogue”
So he would prefer to see dialogue occurring but accepts it is not the only solution as 'ideally' does not mean, 'you must.'
What's the betting after the MLA's get off their asses and insist on a meeting with Ban Ki Moon (even though some will moan that the islanders have no right to see him( winge, scrape barrel etc), especially after the referendum result and pointing out the UN resolutions where it mentions the Islander's interests and Independence (and with regard to ALL (not just one) of the provisions of the UN Charter, plus the apparent conditions for de-colonialisation (ie that horrible word INDEPENDENCE), and the actual, rather than imagined history surrounding the Islands that Ban Ki Moon will advise that 'ideally' the Argentine government should talk to the FIG to explain why the Islanders would be better off under an Argentine flag rather than achieve self-autonomy.
I reckon this is a possibility and could quite possibly cause multiple and simultaneous seizures for CFK, Timmidman (I think I am a Wallace and Gromit model), and Putrid Jelly.
Perhaps they no understand English,
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or as they say, it depends on who is interpreting it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
One must use the exact statement from the UN by mr moon.
And no translations.
TWIMC
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said....:
“I don’t think that the Security Council’s Permanent Members are violating relevant UN resolutions.”
MercoPress says that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said....:
“UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands”
Think “thinks” that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said....:
“UK is violating relevant UN resolutions not referring the Falklands to negotiations”
:-)
Don't you turnips
@142 - Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You never think. The UK has never violated UN resolutions, but Argentina has.
Think on that. :)
Ouch! The sound of that trowel on the bottom of the barrel is sending shivers up my spine.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Desperate times Argentina, Surprised they have not formally respond to this obvious outrage lmao, and where is the queen of the plastics hiding?
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still VA day are good :)
Islanders the only way is up, Argentina keep digging cause you is going down :)
No illusions you thieves. If you NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT the statement by Ban Ki-Moon to read the full short interview, you will see he are speaking generally territories awaiting decolonization (including Inca-the-bitch has 10), not especifically about the Malvinas Islands . That means that there is nothing new here. What does the famous UN Resolution 1514:
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0a) “All peoples have the right of self deteminación, by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. So far so great for the usurpers, and
b) “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” Obviously this is not the territorial integrity of Inca-the-bitch precisely, and the ONU never interpreted him well.
# 138 St John
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are quoting a generalistic and non-especifi Mr Ban Ki-Moon statment almost 3 year old wihtout a single word of Malvinas.....
...and im quoting a fresh few days ago SPECIFC, CLEAR AND DIRECT MALVINAS STAMENT from Ban Ki-Moon that support dialogue (no self-determination)...
Take a look:
A) “I have been urging both nations to resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue and I made clear that I am ready to offer my good offices to both sides so they can come together”.
B) “Ban Ki-Moon said he expected they are resolved ‘ideally’ through dialogue, particularly when we are talking about the Malvinas or the Falklands..”
make an effort to read again and slowly.......comprende amigo ?
@142 I'm fairly sure that the SG was drawing on a legalistic interpretation of “violation” as being a term to be applied to a refusal to comply with mandatory resolutions only. As the British Government has said in a paper recently drawn to my attention, GA Resolutions are not legally binding and if our representative voted against one that means we can and will ignore it.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0147 So-far
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the problem of the Malvinistas. Let them prove the point. Like you, I don't care. Why do you suppose Ba Ki-moon said he didn't think security council members were violating any relevant UN resolutions? What do you suppose he meant by that?
Resolutions
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to be fair, to those who interpret thing differently
argies,,,,
why bother making these silly Resolutions, that are not binding,
perhaps it would suit both sides, in all conflicting problems, to use them only if binding, if not sod em.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the democratic fact still remains,
if the falklands wish to be argentinian then so be it,
and argies on here would relish that, and we would reluctently have to let them go,,
the same is equal the other way,
if the falklands wish to remain british, then that is the end of the matter, as far as they and the british are concerned,
and CFK and her goverment will just have to lump it,
their is nothing you can do .
unless you know something we dont..
(148) Cmdr. McDod
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I couldn't have expressed it better........
@ 142 Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are over-intrepretating the English language.
“I don’t think that ...” (“No creo que ...”) is diplomatic language, where one hardly ever says “there is not”, “we have not”.
In daily lingo “I don’t think that ...” means “There are no ...” (“No hay ningun ...”).
Also note the word “relevant ”.
Argentina's unprovoked assault in 1982 invalidated all NON-binding General Assembly resolutions before 2 April 1982, and then Argentina ignored THE ONLY BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3 April 1982 - so why shouldn't the UK ignore any NON-binding resolutions?
Think - the Secretary-general was saying that there are no 'relevant' Resolutions on the Falklands. Something I've been saying for a long time.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They're all long dead Think. You need a new one. But you don't seem to be able to get it. Why ?? That deal in 1989 perhaps??
Argentina may like to scrap its deals on a whim, but the UN apparently does.
Game and set to Britain ....... now a quick, recognised, referendum, would finish the match.
How many moves was it Think ??
(152) St.John......, My dear Danish Turnip.....
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you maybe know by now, I try to interact as little as possible with Turnips....
But you could demostrate to me that you are not such one and that I am just an old turnipy geezer....
How?
Easy!.....:
Just link me to ANY UN, INTERNATIONAL OR NATIONAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION that says that Argentina's military adventure on the Malvinas Islands in 1982 invalidated all NON-binding General Assembly resolutions before 2 April 1982....
JUST ONE!
You may even use Ghanian legislation if you like.......
@152 In a sense, each subsequent GA Resolution on a subject invalidates, or rather supersedes, the ones that went before. Putting aside the suggestion that war invalidates previous Resolutions and that two wrongs make a right, how do you explain GA Resolution 43/25 on the Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) dated 7 November 1988?
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And just in case you didn't know, I understand from FCO documents that there has been a joint agreement between the two Governments since that year not to support the Annual putting forward of a repeat draft resolution.
If a NON-binding UN GA Resolution lives forever, why was there a need for one every year between 1982 and 1988??
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course UN Resolutions do not continue to live unless they have new life blown into them regularly. This is much less the case with non-specific Resolutions that make general statements and are regularly referred to by the UN itself, eg. 1514.
Specific Resolutions, such as those addressing the Falklands, have a much shorter life and are easily destroyed by changing circumstances. The recommencement of diplomatic relations between Britain and Argentina in 1989 was sufficient change for the UN to stop producing its annual Resolutions on the question.
In many ways that may be seen as a full stop on this issue.
#155 - you are correct about the agreement. An agreement recognised by the Fourth Committee of the UN. Argentina has broken all the other agreements from 1989, but this one stands. The Argentine government conveniently forgets to mention it to the masses.
@ 147 so_far
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are quoting a generalistic and non-especifi Mr Ban Ki-Moon statment almost 3 year old wihtout a single word of Malvinas.....”
So:
1. You expect General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon to change his mind all the time? But he is NOT an Argentino! so he does NOT change his mind every week.
2. Of course he did not say “Remaining non-self-governing territories must have full freedom of choice” 'and that includes A SPECIFIC ONE, NAMELY the Falkland Islands' - he talked and still talks about ALL the remaining non-self-governing territories, not singling any of the out.
Argentina is getting upset :(
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0finding every excuse to say its not true lol open your eyes look at all the nails in the 'Malvinas' coffin
UK has not broken any resolutions, Falkland islanders have right of self determination and to as the articul put it “people should be able to decide their own future” here here
A1! we sunk your battleship
@ 154 Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Just link me to ANY UN, INTERNATIONAL OR NATIONAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION that says that Argentina's military adventure on the Malvinas Islands in 1982 invalidated all NON-binding General Assembly resolutions before 2 April 1982....”
I sometimes get the feeling that I am trying to light the entire Grand Canyon using a flashlight.
Of course there aren't any international or national piece of legislation saying so. It follows from general international precedence that older treaties, resolutions, pacts, etc. are invalidated if one of the parties is in breach of their contents and spirit. One party's unprovoked assault on another is a breach of all previous treaties, resolutions, pacts, etc. - even you should be able to understand that. ¿Entendés nabo?
Do you “think” (well, do you?) that the entire world, or just a small part of it, is specifically interested in Argentina? which to most people in the world is some country somewhere in Middle America - or is it South America? or Asia, perhaps? surely not a province of Australia - or is it?
Face facts folks: Ban is effectively the Fat-Lady and he isnt singing Evita.
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0learn to live with it.
@ Think
Nov 14th, 2012 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can we have your answer to this question:
Argentina ignored THE ONLY BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3 April 1982 - so why shouldn't the UK ignore any NON-binding resolutions?
@154
Nov 15th, 2012 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think
As Argentina ignores the part of any UN resolution for the UK and Argentina to solve their differences peacefully (note it does not say that Argentina is right), ie the parts that have to consider the UN Charter (not one piece as you have claimed but all parts of it) the parts that state the ideal as Independence and taking account the Islanders interests (which include talking to them -something Argentina refuses to do), then the UK is not going to talk to Argentin a when it consistently breaks three parts of the resolution, which (yaaaawwwwwwwwn) is N.O.N. B.I.N.D.I.N.G.
When the FIs 2013 referendum is over Argentina's claim is dead, stuffed and buried because the UN is not going to ignore that.
@ 160 Anbar
Nov 15th, 2012 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0yep, the Fat Lady is singing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PqY9_ZAhE8
@162 Ah yes, the Referendum and it's place in international relations. Hours more Mercopress fun still to be had there. Once the public discussion on the preamble the question is over I for one will be looking out for the announcement of the composition of the official UN monitoring team. I just wonder if the public discussions on future immigration policy will be done concurrently or consecutively to the Referendum campaign?
Nov 15th, 2012 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0@164
Nov 15th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I just wonder what the connection between the two actually is, unless of course it's an attempt to deviate the thread from its stated topic.
@ 164 Doveoverdover
Nov 15th, 2012 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0What did UN General Secretary say about future immigration policy?
@164
Nov 15th, 2012 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so is the immigration policy the next tactic LOL???
1) Our land was usurped
2) Civilians were evicted and their return forbidden
3) the land was inherited from Spain
4) The UK is breaking UN resolutions
5) The land is part of Argentinas territorial integrity
6) The UN support our claim
All fantasy, trumped by self determination.
So the next tactic is to make out that if 4000 Argies were allowed to emmigrate to the islands, then they would have a de facto majority and therefore could “self-determine” themselves and the Islands Argentine.
It is only the Islands unfair immigration policy that stops this, hahahahahahahahaha!!!
It is disgraceful that such an invasion is being prohibited.
A question for the Malvinistas. (we will see if THIS one gets answered).
Nov 15th, 2012 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IF the Falklands suddenly became Argentine territory, what would be your plans for the Islands?
@167
What is it that is unfair about the immigration policy, please enlighten.
164 Doveoverdover (#)
Nov 15th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nov 15th, 2012 - 07:40 am
Let us suppose that the immigration policy of the Falkland Islands changed in favour of the possible Argentine immigrants, and it became possible to settle in the Islands without a previous work contract.
A flood of Argentine immigrants rushes to the Islands, including your's truly, to take up land, open businesses, start a new life, etc.
March 2013 comes along and due to the decency of the Island Legislative Assembly we new immigrants get to vote. I'd bet a whole shit load of money that almost all the new immigrants would vote for the status quo; inflation 2% instead of 25%, a hard currency instead of useless scrip, a true democracy instead of an autocracy, no crime instead of a rising crime rate, an independent judiciary instead of sycophantic judges, I could go on listing reasons but I think that will do!!!!!
why do argies always seem to interprit things their way only.
Nov 15th, 2012 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they even interprit the truth their way.
still,
as long as the falklands are british, their is no misinterpritation, is there.
@165 Can I draw your attention to the subsequent posters who seem to have appreciated the link between a referendum seeking to reflect the will of the People to the outside world, as raised @162 and the immigration policy to define, maintain or grow that People as raised by me? If youstill need an explanation, please ask.
Nov 15th, 2012 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@166 About the same amount that he said about the 2013 Referendum.
The interesting point about the immigration policy, for me as I'm sure it is for some of the Islanders, is rather more about how the quality of life and sense of community can be maintained under the radically changing financial circumstances . Already the more entrepreneurial among them are needing to bring in expertise and labour to exploit their new found opportunities for what they hope will be considerable personal enrichment . For the newly rich or soon to be rich sub-set of Islanders these newcomers, who are unlikely to remain passive servants for long unless legal and social obstacles are put in their way, will be a potential threat to their share of the rapidly growing resource pie. The really sensitive issues won't be about a flood of Spanish speakers, it will be about the widening of the existing class divide among the Islanders based on access to wealth and the staunching of the influx of venal outsiders so lucidly described @169.
The public discussion about what it means to be an Islander and how long it takes to become one in the new circumstances will be fascinating and directly relevant to the idea of the Islanders being a People as per SGs comments. How far the debate proceeds before greed and jealousy, that my analysis suggests is there already, shows through I don't know but I'm happy to be proved wrong again, (but only by observation of events rather than preemptive assertions from fellow posters, thank you very much).
Mr Ban's responses to the questions put to him remain what they are......statements of his opinion. Crucially he is a very cautious man, and would not venture such opinions unless a hoard of UN lawyers had already crawled all over the subject and cleared the way for such a view to be taken when pushed.
Nov 15th, 2012 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So there has been no breaking of UN resolutions by any SC members (including the UK) and the people of the non-self governing territories (including the Falkland Islands) have the right to self determination.
This blocks off a huge chunk of Argentina's arguments to claim our country, and will look pretty solid in the international community when set against the results of the referendum. Many countries who have shown no interest in taking a view on the Falklands will now find it very much easier to support a fundamental human rights principle and support the Falkland Islanders.
All this has been created by the misguided Kirchner policy of agression and attrition. A policy of co-operation and respect would have suited everyone better, except us. Now we are much stronger. Thanks Nestor and his misguided spouse and successor, and all those advisors and sycophants who thought such a policy would succeed. Almost time to retire and write poetry.
171 Doveoverdover
Nov 15th, 2012 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where is your analysis? I can see an assertion that 'greed and jealousy' are already there, but I can't see any evidence or observation of events.
@173
Nov 15th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fortunately for both of us, Mercopress doesn't demand from it's posters the rigorous cross referencing required for the award of academic qualifications. My analysis is my analysis but I'll tell you what, you show me yours and I'll show you mine.
“You are either a greedy or jealous ungrateful colonist”. Now that is an assertion for you.
(174) Cmdr. McDod
Nov 15th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hear, hear......
Greedy, jealous ungrateful colonists......
&
Squatting, rotten bad neighbors......
The UN announcement was clearly on the side of us islanders despite the spin our onlookers from near and afar desperately try to apply. Truly guys, Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan would be proud of you up to the point when you actually let go of the ball but then no wickets would ever fall.
Nov 15th, 2012 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When is CFK ever going to mention the Falkland Islands again I wonder. I mean surely Argentina can't let Ban Ki-moon's statement go unchallenged. It can't be that they support the statement otherwise they'd be all over it like a rash.
I guess they've got other problems.
174 Doveoverdover (#)
Nov 15th, 2012 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think I understand now. You don't want 'preemptive assertions' from anyone else, but you are happy to make them yourself.
The idea that you don't fling around unsubstantiated accusations and then put the burden of proof on the victim isn't just an academic convention. (although raising the hypothesis 'Mrs M is a greedy jealous ungrateful colonial' and offering no evidence wouldn't make for much of a paper).It's basic common decency, as well as the basis for the rule of law.
I'm well aware that the world is not peopled exclusively by those who behave decently, and internet trolls can pretty much do as they please.
Which leave me with two options. I could tell you to shove your assertion up your colonialist fundament. Or, and I think I prefer this option, I could ask you how I may best prove that I am neither greedy nor jealous. You just let me know how I can do that and I'll see what I can do.
177 Mony69
Nov 15th, 2012 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Greedy I can understand because there is no doubt our lives are good down here so when people see our standard of living they may jealously jump to the wrong conclusion that we're greedy. But jealous? What are we jealous of?
Now back to my Lanrover catalogues. Mrs Bloggs wants to go for something a bit flashier than me. It's another 110 if I get my way but she is scaring me with talk of the D word.
Still not thinking Think? The Falkland Islanders have been confirmed in their rights by the UN and still you come out with bile and hatred. Comes of being a first generation Argie I suppose. Having to try so much harder.
Nov 15th, 2012 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are no squatters on the Falklands. No more than there are squatters in Patagonia.
Do try and think old 'un !
178 Joe Bloggs
Nov 16th, 2012 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are right to be scared about the Disco.
Although I used to deliver some LR Special Products vehicles for them with my car delivery business, I gave up buying Discos when one of the development engineers vented his frustration with Solihull to me: 'it's a triumph of design over production'.
This came at the time when my engine had just shed the timing belt when I was 150m away from home on business. Cost me £600 to get the vehicle home, me to the meeting and then back home.
The latest Discos have got even more electronics on them and require a laptop, plus LR software to get anywhere with it, but they are nice to drive and much more comfortable than the 110.
Why not buy both? Your wife WILL love the Disco, mine did.
There is no way, in my line of work, that I will ever be able to afford either!
Nov 16th, 2012 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I did have a 200 series LR90 in my misspent youth, and loved it dearly. I'm still very fond of Landrovers; there is no substitute out in the Camp.They seem to have got too clever though. The whole point was that you could keep it going out there with a big spanner and a piece of no 8 fencing wire.
Well, enjoy it, whatever you get.
@ 169 Simon68
Nov 16th, 2012 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0I absolutely will NOT bet against you.
The only risk is that the Arg. government will try to send as many members of their Sturmabteilung as possibly to become fake Falklanders.
Well even if the FIG relaxed their immigration policy to make it easier for Argentines to live their, they would also have to open it up to allow any nationality including British.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0However it is a mute point.
No matter how the Argentines try to interpret this statement by Ban Ki-moon, he isn't going to support a position that is in direct opposition to the UN charter.
As I have said many times on this forum, the UN doesn't take sides. They are non-partisan, and will only look at cold hard facts. A pity since Argentine politics only relies on emotional outbursts, with an amazing lack of facts to back up their rants. That doesn't impress the UN at all.
So when will the fakeland holding people be allowed to come back home to UK? Islands Malvinas Argentina is not negotiable.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis vernet never voted for brits and neither will we. I wonder when will the 35.000.000 Argentine will get to deside to not live under constant threat and illegal occupation, islands Malvinas Argentina will become UK Palestine and Puerto Argentino our Gaza strip.
@ 184 I for one would like to thank you for bringing your unique brand of slapstick comedy mixed with novel geopolitical insight to an otherwise humourless thread.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@185 D
Nov 16th, 2012 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nail on the head. Pirat-Hunter is clearly on another plane of reality and no doubt chants a special incantation each time he walks through a door way in his home. Malvinistas will be even thinner on the ground come the referendum, roll on 2013.
185 Doveoverdover
Nov 16th, 2012 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Humourless? Don't underestimate yourself.
Look how Pirate-Hunter tells us how cowardly he is - 35 mio. Argentines (the real figure is 41 mio.) are scared of 3 000 islanders.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brave, brave Sir PH bravely ran away :)
@185 Madam, I suspect that is a snide comment but I may be overestimating you.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@188
Nov 16th, 2012 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Haha, think I'm going to have to watch that again this weekend.
This thread has been hilarious right from the off, but one of the funniest turns has been the desperate rearguard deflection operation run by the Think/Dove pantomime horse.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@191 Since you mention it.... I note that, rather disappointingly, we haven't heard from the rear end of late.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(192) Cmdr. McDod
Nov 16th, 2012 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I’m very busy fishing and keeping an “Eye on the Stock Market”, I hope you understand…......
1) Many nice Fontinalis on nymps the past week...... biggest one, just under a clove!
2) ROCKFLOPPER down 3.29% today to mere 147 pennies….
(That’s 10 p’s under Mr. Beef’s average! Wonder how that puts: ”Gas on his Jag” as he likes to brag? ;-)
3) BORDERLINE & SHIAT down 8.43% today to mere 19 pennies….
(That means that I have lost about 85% of my investment! Well…. Easy comes….;-)
4) FOGaaaaasL down 1.69% today to mere 58.25 pennies….
(They (the market) must be pricing the inavoidable “ big oil discovery” in….;-)
180 ChrisR
Nov 16th, 2012 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the advice re a disco. I tend to agree with you but I hope I can convince Mrs Bloggs. I'd rather pay a little less and go Japanese if I was honest. There is no beating a Defender for pure off-road ability, and it will do a lot of off-roading but to be honest my days of trying the muddiest looking track are long gone. If we're going to pay more than the cost of a nice 110 I'd go Jap for sure. Quieter, more features, more comfortable, etc.
We already have a pretty new smaller Japanese model which whoever hasn't got the kids in toe uses as an around town runabout but the family wagon needs to be upgraded. I'll let you know what we decide.
@194. Joe
Nov 16th, 2012 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Off topic:
Been looki g at some used LR Defenders in the US.
Saw a nice 1996 with V8, that I liked.
What do people think of those?
Is it computerised fuel injection, or still carb ?
I currently have a '99 4Runner
@193 Mere tactical withdrawals, dear boy. A bit like JBs slow and painful backtracking on his much heralded grand event from October, November, Whenever. No wonder I wasn't even lukewarm. It's hard to guess something as intangible as a flight of self deluding fancy.
Nov 16th, 2012 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talking of fancy, did you see this one above? “Mrs Bloggs wants to go for something a bit flashier than me.” Well, she's going to have to look off the islands if that's what she fancies.
196
Nov 16th, 2012 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep telling yourself that it was all a fantasy. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. When do you think CFK will mention the islands again? Why do you think she isn't mentioning them now. You think you know so much, answer that sir. Is sir what they called you? Behind your back as well?
195 troy Tempest
Nov 17th, 2012 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think you would be very fortunate to find 16 YO Defender V8 that you would be happy with: CD carbs and 5 speed manual, 3.9-liter V8 that had 182 horsepower and 232 pound-feet of torque. In actual fact that 1996 would be a 1995 model because due to emissions no 1996 model was ever sold in the US.
For a brief period from 1997 on the Defender was fitted with the Discovery's 4.0-liter aluminium V8 that had 182 hp and 233 lb-ft of torque and a four-speed automatic (old technology auto, no lock-up) then the lack of an airbag killed it.
I hope you have deep pockets for gas, 10 (Imp.) mpg is not at all unusual in heavy going and even single figures for the Disco or Range Rover with that engine.
Changing the oil and filter MUST be done in a special way otherwise you will not get the oil pressure back (see warning in handbook).
Can’t say I am a fan, much rather have the 300Tdi Disco auto (ZF box) if you want an old car. Not quite as good as a Defender on the rough but good enough for most jobs, very nice to drive if well looked after and the steering has been set up properly. This engine has electronic diesel injection and is usually very reliable (Bosch system). Bits may need replacing on the interior trim due to falling off and rattles in the door may well be the usual pound of screws thrown into the door bottom by the so called assembler at Solihull at the end of his shift (mine had these in both front doors as well as the centre console assembly).
Could go on forever, makes me wonder why I was so much attracted to it, but it WAS nice to drive on Yokohama tyres (55,000 miles per set) on the black top (I did just under 150,000 miles in mine in 2 1/2 years).
Hope this helps.
(196) Cmdr. McDod
Nov 17th, 2012 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ahhh….., them shares plunges are just “tactical withdrawals”.
My BOR investment is safe then. I can sleep sounder now!
Or should I “Buy In”?
Jupppp…….., Joe Bloggs backpedaling on his highly basooned “Property Deal” was (and is) quite remarkable indeed…….
Suddenly it became “Very Important” for the whole of Malvinas but very, very “Hush Hush”…..
So important and hush hush that no Argentinean, not even our President dares to mention them Islands anymore!
”Flight of self deluding fancy” you call it…… Maybe those are the flights he and that other deluded mythomaniac in here, Ms. EilaneB, are referring to when commenting endlessly about their busy “international travel life” and how much it wears on their “normal family life”……
That brings us to.....: Mrs Bloggs ”going for something a bit flashier.”....
Well......, that’s one of the consequences of woman emancipation...
Maybe Joe should travel a bit less, stay more at home and provide her with all that ”romance and excitement” middle aged women seem to be entitled nowadays…
Sincerely…………….............................. I much prefer fishing ;-)
@think.
Nov 17th, 2012 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have lost count of the number of times you and the other malvinistas have predicted an immiment meltdown in oil exploration and extraction efforts in the Falklands.
Does'nt seem to have happened yet does it?
Perhaps the share prices just tend to go up and down anyway, and may be partly influenced by the wider economic picture in the UK, which,admittedly, isn't brilliant at the moment.
Never mind hey, your next prediction of gloom may be correct, failing that the next one, or the next one or the next one......................................................in your dreams.
200 shb
Nov 17th, 2012 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So much bitterness from Think is so funny.
(201) Joe Bloggs
Nov 17th, 2012 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bitter... Moi?
No way, Jo(s)e !
No man, sane or insane, can be bitter fishing Patagonian Waters with a Hardy rod and reel on his hands.
I strong recomend it to you, hard working married men ;-)
Seem Argentina's whole argument is now completely and utterly dead in the water.
Nov 17th, 2012 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Will this be the end? No, Will CFK continue to state the UK is breaching UN resolutions? Yes, Will anyone care? NO!
203 Xect
Nov 17th, 2012 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It always was. That's why they never got anywhere with it. The UN hasn't said anything new. It has just clarified their existing stance.
@184
Nov 17th, 2012 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Luis vernet never voted for brits ”
He asked permission from the British for his Falklandsventure, that's why the majority of the legitimate civilian population at Port Louis in 1833 were persuaded to stay on the Islands by Captain Onslow, including the gauchos.
If he thought so much of the United Provinces , why did he prefer Germans amd other Europeans for his settlements in the 1820s?
@184
Nov 18th, 2012 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Luis Vernet never voted for Brits”
Oh no?
1856 – May 5th, Luis Vernet writes to Lord Harrowby; “… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering4 or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1850-1899/
“”“”“@think.
Nov 18th, 2012 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have lost count of the number of times you and the other malvinistas have predicted an immiment meltdown in oil exploration and extraction efforts in the Falklands.”“”“”
its rather amusing watching the Think-Gestalt promise immediate collapse whilst, at the same time, it is calling people stupid for claiming an imminent oil bonanza....
with both parties jumping on the very most obscure points as “proof” of their greater knowledge and intelligence.
(which, all the time, seems to point in the other direction)
@ 206
Nov 19th, 2012 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very interesting as the key to the Argentine claim on the Falkland Islands is Vernet, and the more he is examined , the more the Argentinian case is watered down.
More evidence for the ICJ.
Come on malvanista's! Tell your government to take Britain to the ICJ if you think you are right.
They can't go to the ICJ
Nov 19th, 2012 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They know their 'claim' has more holes in it than a sponge and is as watertight as a wet paper bag.
They dismiss the ICJ as being corrupt as they know the ruling would go against them. That is why they have tried everything else to get their hands on the Islands. Sadly for them, nothing has worked. Nothing will work for them.
@210
Nov 20th, 2012 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly.
I have never seen a Malvanista,( though to be fair there have been some excellent attempts by a few), win a convincing argument involving successsion of the Spanish claim, the events of the 1820s, and 1833. If they were absolutely correct and the evidence for their claim was absolutely watertight, Argentina would be ruling the Falkland Islands now and those of us supporting the Falkland Islands would not have aleg to stabnd on regarding our arguments.
Unfortunately for them, their Peronist, Hitler derived logic (?) shows exactly why they cannot succeed evidenced by Hitler who claimed the worldbut ended up in arsehole street commiting suicide hiding underground while his people paid for his actions with their lives.This to me seems a fairly logical parody with peronism.
@207
Nov 20th, 2012 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't claim to be able to predict the future as to the success of oil exploration'extraction in the Falklands. All I can say for sure is that at the moment that the plan is for oil to be pumped out from 2017 onwards.
I hope the Falklanders profit from the industry.
@211
Nov 21st, 2012 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Ihope the Falklanders profit from the industry.”
How ever large or small the oil finds the Islanders will profit as they are not as proficient at losing money than Argentina
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!