Buenos Aires - who is going?

[banjo]

Nobody has a right to those islands not even the people living on them, the only indigenous life on those islands is birds, they're 8000 miles from Britain and 300 miles from Argentina, both imperialist countries and the pack of gypsies living on them should do the decent thing and turn it into a wildlife reserve.

[jtourettes]

Why does it "belong" to the Argies? It belongs to those who live there and call it home. Let them decide. Lets not confuse the situation. Argentina want the Falklands for their own financial and political gain. It's no effing different to the reason why Maggie wanted to take it back and defend it. Don't get bogged down in some tedious romantic 'Malvinas is ours' horseshit.

Yeah but what if they have only called it home for a hundred odd years and prior to that the people whom it rightfully belongs to were evicted from that "home" by a imperialist foreign power from thousands and thousands of miles away who had no business meddling. But than of course the Argies themselves are mostly of spanish,italian, arab and southern european stock themselves and they displaced the native american tribes who of course were there first and had called it home the longest!.....so all of this is bullshit at the end of the day. All i know is i never met an Argentinian who was wasnt affable, polite and cultured, and they have a great fascinating cuisine and culture

[dookus]

EXACTLY! One bunch of colonists after another. The fact that these particular colonists haven't bothered to break their ties with their 'mother' country makes fuckall difference to their right to remain there.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

How does this apply to the Falklands where none of the inhabitants are subject to unfair and unequal treatment from the others? Here it seems that the motivations for bringing about a change are entirely unrelated to the condition of the inhabitants or the wishes of any part of them.

Because colonialism is wrong, the UN even said so. For people to rule via proxy thousands of miles away is wrong, the fact that we pay millions of taxpayers money to upkeep a sheep station is wrong, the fact that over 600 of our former servicemen have now lost their lives through action or by their own hand is wrong and the facts are it has nothing to do with the people - it is to do with the fact it is rich in minerals and wealth. If there was nothing there worth having then those islands would have been in Argentine hands long ago. Let's get to the truth - the peoples wishes count for jack shit in this or any other country and I think only one British colony (Newfoundland in 1949) had a referendum reagarding independence from Britain. People don't get asked if they want independence or not - they just get given it and they get on with it - wherever they want to stay British or not.

The 'outsiders' I referred were those who think they should be forced into self-determination against their own wishes.

Eh? How silly, so anybody who has an opinion different from their 'own' is an outsider? I pay tax to upkeep the total running of those islands, sure - they pay their own share but so do we - as a taxpayer I have every right to say I do not want this burden on us anymore.

Your idea that they should be forced to leave their homes, land and lives to go to a country most of them have never set foot on and have no support networks on just because they want to retain the British identity they've had for generations is absurdly authoritarian.

You are an idiot.

Read that again!

So they have to be forced to go to Britain - a country that they have never been to so they can retain their British identity?

That's funny...

If their relationship with us 'means nothing', then why do they seem pretty keen to maintain it when it would have been easier to simply acquiesce to the Argentinian invasion and tell the British they weren't needed?

Who said their realtionship with the UK 'means nothing' I don't think I said that - so they have a simple choice, go back the Britain where they can be as British to their hearts content or stay there and govern themselves like most of our ex colonies have done for hundreds of years. The Argentine invasion was wrong, Britain were right to fight a fascist dictatorship but that doesn't mean the British should rule those islands forever and a day. You are going to be truly disappointed in your lifetime when those islands are not British anymore.

They are colony, I don't know if you have read the UN charter in regards colonies but if you notice we don't have many friends in regards the Falklands and the longer the place remains a colony the bigger the threat from Argentina, now we have been told by our own military chiefs that if the Argentines had another go then the chances are of us winning the next war are slim.

This is only an issue if you think that there's something inherently worse about a colony than a country descended from a colony. There isn't if the people in that colony want to be in the colony. Which they do. Go ask the natives of Argentina how much of a difference it makes to them that Argentina is no longer a colony of Spain.

So that supports my arguments does it not. The Argentinians would not want to be ruled by Spain and in fact kicked them out long ago. However, we can say the same for the Australians though who didn't kick the British out and didn't get their own official nationality until 1949. I think we agree that the Falklanders have their own culture and a unique way of life - if they became 'Falkland Islanders' nothing at all would change except they would be rulers of their own destiny - which would be better for them.

As colonists, they don't have that right.

Why not?

Because colonialism is wrong, we don't have to get into the rights and wrongs about colonialism do we?

'We want this place to remain British for ever and ever' like a spolit child wanting its cake and eating it. A) The practicalities are making this less possible by the decade B) The new powers of the world - the Chinese, the Russians and the Brazilians - support Argentinas claim and the next time they attack they will make sure they do it right.

So your argument for not keeping the colony is that Argentina might want to colonise it themselves?

That is a big part of it, one day we won't be able to defend it and the Argentinians will march in while we sit there being able to do nothing about it. If you wanted to safeguard the future for those islanders that you care so much about - wouldn't it be that bit better to find ways of securing their future on those islands?

As I said above, this is an excellent argument for independence, but it's not up to anyone but the islanders to make that choice themselves.

Not true again, I have never known 3000 people hold this much power anywhere in the world - when Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica etc got their independence (don't get confused with Dominion status) from the UK, it wasn't through a referendum - they were given it and were told to get on with it. I don't see why it has to be different now, if their

It isn't 'gobblygook' just because you don't understand it. If 'it is all part of Britain' then by definition they should not be asked to leave and go to the UK because the islands are part of Britain.

It is not part of Britain, it is not part of the 'British Isles' it is in fact nowhere near Britain and can only be classed as a part of Britain if you have a blinkered, colonialist midnset. If the people there feel British and want to remain British then there is a place where they can be just that - It's called Great Britain - not some pimple on the arse of the Anctartic.

If they are their own entity, for which there are strong arguments to be made, then great - that would be their choice, not that of anyone else.

We have gone through this, as a British taxpayer I have a say as well. I am sure that a load of sheep farmers having a whale of a time with the benefits of free university education, subsidised housing and all the other benefits down there 10000 miles away want to keep their little sheep station paradise going then they can pay for it and man their defences - what is wrong with that?

Such a decision would be itself a form of self-determination. There is a massive moral reason why those islands should stay British

No there isn't

- everyone living there wants them to be,

The they can go back to Britain.

and to order them to leave behind their lives just because you think they shouldn't identify as something that they do is authoritarian and unjustifiable.

No it doesn't you silly boy, they would have more freedom to run their own affairs - do you know how many elected representatives they have in British parliment? None - do you know how many native born Falklanders have been governer general of those islands? None.

Unless you think that somehow the descendants of colonisers do not deserve to have their wishes respected, in which case the views of the Argentinians are also worthless.

What do you mean - 'descedants of colonisers' they are colonisers today! If they want to remain British - then back to the UK and stop holding on to bits of land that they have no right to be hanging on to. If they want to make a go of it in an independent state then thats all well and good.

My view is that it is because there is no native population who thinks otherwise. We shall have to disagree.

It looks like we are going to have to - don't be upset though when the day comes they aren't British anymore.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

EXACTLY! One bunch of colonists after another. The fact that these particular colonists haven't bothered to break their ties with their 'mother' country makes fuckall difference to their right to remain there.

Right - so what?

How about, stop the colonisation - it is very 19th century and smacks of 'Mr Livingstone I presume'. The islanders can shit or get off the pot. If they decide to 'shit' then they can govern themselves become a proper part of South America and finally kill of threats of invasion from Argentina.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Nobody has a right to those islands not even the people living on them, the only indigenous life on those islands is birds, they're 8000 miles from Britain and 300 miles from Argentina, both imperialist countries and the pack of gypsies living on them should do the decent thing and turn it into a wildlife reserve.

Yes!

[dookus]

Because colonialism is wrong, the UN even said so.

The UN is not the last word in everything unless you don't have the ability to think for yourself.

For people to rule via proxy thousands of miles away is wrong, the fact that we pay millions of taxpayers money to upkeep a sheep station is wrong, the fact that over 600 of our former servicemen have now lost their lives through action or by their own hand is wrong and the facts are it has nothing to do with the people - it is to do with the fact it is rich in minerals and wealth. If there was nothing there worth having then those islands would have been in Argentine hands long ago. Let's get to the truth - the peoples wishes count for jack shit in this or any other country and I think only one British colony (Newfoundland in 1949) had a referendum reagarding independence from Britain. People don't get asked if they want independence or not - they just get given it and they get on with it - wherever they want to stay British or not.

I don't know what you're getting at is because this paragraph is a jumble of disconnected points. Even if we assume for the moment that ruling from thousands of miles away is wrong (which I suppose means that Moscow has no right to rule over Vladivostock, or that the US has no right to rule over Hawaii), the fact that the area is rich in minerals and wealth would make a pretty good additional reason to hold on to it, most especially from the point of view of those who stand to gain the most from those things - the people that live there. The example of Newfoundland - essentially granting the power of choice to a colony - would be a great precedent to follow in this situation.

The 'outsiders' I referred were those who think they should be forced into self-determination against their own wishes.

Eh? How silly, so anybody who has an opinion different from their 'own' is an outsider? I pay tax to upkeep the total running of those islands, sure - they pay their own share but so do we - as a taxpayer I have every right to say I do not want this burden on us anymore.

Unless you live there, then yes, you are an outsider. Petition the government about it if you think the burden to you as a taxpayer is unreasonable.

Your idea that they should be forced to leave their homes, land and lives to go to a country most of them have never set foot on and have no support networks on just because they want to retain the British identity they've had for generations is absurdly authoritarian.

You are an idiot.

Read that again!

So they have to be forced to go to Britain - a country that they have never been to so they can retain their British identity?

That's funny...

Ugh, more of the childish ad hominem shit. That was what YOU suggested: that if they want to remain British they should go back to the UK and start over. I guess while we're at it we should tell all the Northern Irish loyalists that if they want to retain a British identity they should leave Ireland and come here. Never mind their lives and families, they'll be welcome here!

If their relationship with us 'means nothing', then why do they seem pretty keen to maintain it when it would have been easier to simply acquiesce to the Argentinian invasion and tell the British they weren't needed?

Who said their realtionship with the UK 'means nothing' I don't think I said that -

The Falklands are mineral rich but cut off from South America which is not really practical and b) Their wish to remain British is not paramount to keeping those islands British - in fact, that relationship is tenuous at best, actually, it means nothing as it happens, if they want to be British then go back to the UK where they will be welcome.

Yes, you did.

This is only an issue if you think that there's something inherently worse about a colony than a country descended from a colony. There isn't if the people in that colony want to be in the colony. Which they do. Go ask the natives of Argentina how much of a difference it makes to them that Argentina is no longer a colony of Spain.

So that supports my arguments does it not. The Argentinians would not want to be ruled by Spain and in fact kicked them out long ago. However, we can say the same for the Australians though who didn't kick the British out and didn't get their own official nationality until 1949. I think we agree that the Falklanders have their own culture and a unique way of life - if they became 'Falkland Islanders' nothing at all would change except they would be rulers of their own destiny - which would be better for them.

No it doesn't. It shows that a lot of colonies either kick out their rulers or end up independent. The Falklands are getting a chance to vote on that, but ultimately it's not your decision, it's theirs.

As colonists, they don't have that right.

Why not?

Because colonialism is wrong, we don't have to get into the rights and wrongs about colonialism do we?

So as soon as the Argentinians stopped technically being a colony by kicking out the Spanish, they gained the right to do whatever they want? Like kill the natives down to less than 3% of the population? You don't seem to have registered that you're drawing this arbitrary moral distinction based on whether a territory is still under another country's political control. The people on the Falklands don't lose the right to have whatever identity they want because they haven't bothered to declare independence.

'We want this place to remain British for ever and ever' like a spolit child wanting its cake and eating it. A) The practicalities are making this less possible by the decade B) The new powers of the world - the Chinese, the Russians and the Brazilians - support Argentinas claim and the next time they attack they will make sure they do it right.

So your argument for not keeping the colony is that Argentina might want to colonise it themselves?

That is a big part of it, one day we won't be able to defend it and the Argentinians will march in while we sit there being able to do nothing about it. If you wanted to safeguard the future for those islanders that you care so much about - wouldn't it be that bit better to find ways of securing their future on those islands?

Yes. But it's up to them.

As I said above, this is an excellent argument for independence, but it's not up to anyone but the islanders to make that choice themselves.

Not true again, I have never known 3000 people hold this much power anywhere in the world - when Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica etc got their independence (don't get confused with Dominion status) from the UK, it wasn't through a referendum - they were given it and were told to get on with it. I don't see why it has to be different now

Apart from Newfoundland, who you've already cited

It isn't 'gobblygook' just because you don't understand it. If 'it is all part of Britain' then by definition they should not be asked to leave and go to the UK because the islands are part of Britain.

It is not part of Britain, it is not part of the 'British Isles' it is in fact nowhere near Britain and can only be classed as a part of Britain if you have a blinkered, colonialist midnset. If the people there feel British and want to remain British then there is a place where they can be just that - It's called Great Britain - not some pimple on the arse of the Anctartic.

It can be classed as part of Britain if it remains under the political control of Britain and those that live there want it to be so. Hawaii and Guam are also nowhere near the US and do not make sense as part of the country geographically. I appreciate that you can't disagree with someone without resorting to 'idiot' and 'blinkered colonialist', but this is as simple as the inhabitants wishing to retain an identity and us allowing them to have it.

If they are their own entity, for which there are strong arguments to be made, then great - that would be their choice, not that of anyone else.

We have gone through this, as a British taxpayer I have a say as well. I am sure that a load of sheep farmers having a whale of a time with the benefits of free university education, subsidised housing and all the other benefits down there 10000 miles away want to keep their little sheep station paradise going then they can pay for it and man their defences - what is wrong with that?

Then protest about it. I got no say when the last government pissed away billions and dragged us into 2 unnecessary wars, so that is what I did. If every taxpayer got to vote on every item of expenditure government would grind to a halt instantly.

Such a decision would be itself a form of self-determination. There is a massive moral reason why those islands should stay British

No there isn't

- everyone living there wants them to be,

The they can go back to Britain.

From their point of view, they are in Britain and have no reason to go to the UK.

and to order them to leave behind their lives just because you think they shouldn't identify as something that they do is authoritarian and unjustifiable.

[quote="

No it doesn't you silly boy, they would have more freedom to run their own affairs - do you know how many representatives they have in British parliment? None - do you know how many native born Falklanders have been governer general of those islands? None.

Ordering people to leave behind their land, businesses, livelihoods is not authoritarian and unjust? Ridiculous.

Unless you think that somehow the descendants of colonisers do not deserve to have their wishes respected, in which case the views of the Argentinians are also worthless.

What do you mean - 'descedants of colonisers' they are colonisers today! If they want to remain British - then back to the UK and stop holding on to bits of land that they have no right to be hanging on to. If they want to make a go of it in an independent state then thats all well and good.

I have already addressed this somewhat arbitrary moral distinction you keep making between colonies that declared independence after wiping out most of the natives and those that never became independent. If they have no right to hang on to that land, neither do the Argentinians, unless you think that changing your flag somehow wipes out all your sins and gives you moral rights you didn't have as a coloniser.

My view is that it is because there is no native population who thinks otherwise. We shall have to disagree.

It looks like we are going to have to - don't be upset though when the day comes they aren't British anymore.

I'm not going to be, I don't live there.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Because colonialism is wrong, the UN even said so.

The UN is not the last word in everything unless you don't have the ability to think for yourself.

Yeah, you can say that if you want but you'll find that is the way it is going to go in the
future, 95% of our empire was de-colonised (by force, by the Americans via the UN) and the last
remaining specks will be loosened to their destiny. Like it should be.

I don't know what you're getting at is because this paragraph is a jumble of disconnected points. Even if we assume for the moment that ruling from thousands of miles away is wrong (which I suppose means that Moscow has no right to rule over Vladivostock, or that the US has no right to rule over Hawaii), the fact that the area is rich in minerals and wealth would make a pretty good additional reason to hold on to it, most especially from the point of view of those who stand to gain the most from those things - the people that live there. The example of Newfoundland - essentially granting the power of choice to a colony - would be a great precedent to follow in this situation.

The Russians have no 'right' to rule over Vladivostok and the Americans have no 'right' to rule over Hawaii - you damn right! Both places were took by force, especially Hawaii and you probably don't know this but there is talk about the break up of Russia becuase it is practically ungovernable with something like 6 million people living in a vast tract of land. As for Hawaii - there is still discrimination and hatred towards the 'Haole' if you think the native of those islands are happy to be under US control then you have another think coming.

Ugh, more of the childish ad hominem shit. That was what YOU suggested: that if they want to remain British they should go back to the UK and start over. I guess while we're at it we should tell all the Northern Irish loyalists that if they want to retain a British identity they should leave Ireland and come here. Never mind their lives and families, they'll be welcome here!

Well, you are calling me 'fat pig' so I will continue to call you stupid. How about that? As for all the Loyalists who are British to go back to the UK - if it stops all that stupid shit that happens year after year over there - then why not? And have you noticed the official name - Great Britain AND Northern Ireland, not even the British government recognises Northern Ireland as being part of Great Britain!

Yes, you did.

I didn't - go and find where I said it.

So as soon as the Argentinians stopped technically being a colony by kicking out the Spanish, they gained the right to do whatever they want? Like kill the natives down to less than 3% of the population? You don't seem to have registered that you're drawing this arbitrary moral distinction based on whether a territory is still under another country's political control. The people on the Falklands don't lose the right to have whatever identity they want because they haven't bothered to declare independence.

They didn't kill the natives down to 3% of the population though they did kill lots of natives - it was no worse than what the British and white Australians did to the aboriginies. Why the natives became
3% was because of uncontrolled immigration from Europe which swelled the population from something like 3 million to 40 million within a hundred years. And I dispute 97% of the population being white anyway. It is nowhere near that many.

Yes. But it's up to them.

It is not just up to them, it is up to the British as well, how long do we have to fund their shithole for? And if they want to be British then they are welcome back here.

Apart from Newfoundland, who you've already cited

That was to join Canada or stay a part of the UK - they decided to throw their lot in with Canada, most places - Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Kenya, Botswana, India, Mauritius etc were just told to leave and get on with it.

It can be classed as part of Britain if it remains under the political control of Britain and those that live there want it to be so. Hawaii and Guam are also nowhere near the US and do not make sense as part of the country geographically. I appreciate that you can't disagree with someone without resorting to 'idiot' and 'blinkered colonialist', but this is as simple as the inhabitants wishing to retain an identity and us allowing them to have it.

The native peoples of Hawaii are still angry about how the United States annexed Hawaii and there is still animosity towards Americans of European descent to this day, and yes, Guam and American Samoa should gain their independence, there is no reason why they should still be under US control, just because the French and the Americans and the Dutch hold on to little pieces of rock doesn't make it OK.

From their point of view, they are in Britain and have no reason to go to the UK.

Either they are British and in the UK or they are not, there isn't this second paranormal world where somewhere 10000 miles away in another hemisphere is part of Britain. It is not, only if you hold some outdated, colonialist mindset.

Ordering people to leave behind their land, businesses, livelihoods is not authoritarian and unjust? Ridiculous.

Who said that, I didn't say that, they can stay there if they want as far as I am concerned but if they feel so strongly about being British and living in Britain then they can go and live in a place called Great Britain where they would be more than welcome. Or they can manage their own destiny like all the other ex colonies who are now doing just fine.

I have already addressed this somewhat arbitrary moral distinction you keep making between colonies that declared independence after wiping out most of the natives and those that never became independent. If they have no right to hang on to that land, neither do the Argentinians, unless you think that changing your flag somehow wipes out all your sins and gives you moral rights you didn't have as a coloniser.

They have every right to 'hang on' on to that land, not as British citizens. The days of stealing tracts of land and claiming they are ours because we had a better army and navy than everyone else has well and truly gone, get into the 21 st century along with everyone else.

Oh yes, I am all for the sons and daughters of colonists to come back home, Argentinians to Spain or Italy, Aussies back to the UK or Greece or wherever they came from. It would be great
- why not?

I'm not going to be, I don't live there.

Well, the 'Bennies' will be coming to a town near you.

[dookus]

Ugh, more of the childish ad hominem shit. That was what YOU suggested: that if they want to remain British they should go back to the UK and start over. I guess while we're at it we should tell all the Northern Irish loyalists that if they want to retain a British identity they should leave Ireland and come here. Never mind their lives and families, they'll be welcome here!

Well, you are calling me 'fat pig' so I will continue to call you stupid. How about that? As for all the Loyalists who are British to go back to the UK - if it stops all that stupid shit that happens year after year over there - then why not? And have you noticed the official name - Great Britain AND Northern Ireland, not even the British government recognises Northern Ireland as being part of Great Britain!

My apologies, that was a stupid mistake and I should've checked what I stuck into the clipboard.

Why not order the loyalists to go back to the UK? Are you serious? Did you miss the 25,000 dead civilians fought over that point? If it was such a simple idea to have people leave behind their lives and go somewhere, they would have done. But they didn't, because upping sticks and moving your whole life is extremely disruptive. Have you ever tried doing it?

Yes, you did.

I didn't - go and find where I said it.

The Falklands are mineral rich but cut off from South America which is not really practical and b) Their wish to remain British is not paramount to keeping those islands British - in fact, that relationship is tenuous at best, actually, it means nothing as it happens, if they want to be British then go back to the UK where they will be welcome.

There it is. Again. Try reading more carefully.

So as soon as the Argentinians stopped technically being a colony by kicking out the Spanish, they gained the right to do whatever they want? Like kill the natives down to less than 3% of the population? You don't seem to have registered that you're drawing this arbitrary moral distinction based on whether a territory is still under another country's political control. The people on the Falklands don't lose the right to have whatever identity they want because they haven't bothered to declare independence.

They didn't kill the natives down to 3% of the population though they did kill lots of natives - it was no worse than what the British and white Australians did to the aboriginies. Why the natives became 3% was because of uncontrolled immigration from Europe which swelled the population from something like 3 million to 40 million within a hundred years. And I dispute 97% of the population being white anyway. It is nowhere near that many.

Oh, so that's okay then.

So what? It's still a land grab by people from somewhere else on a gigantic scale. It's irrelevant that we and a lot of other nations did it. It is still a colonial action and the fact that the 'mother country' is no longer in charge changes nothing for the natives.

Ordering people to leave behind their land, businesses, livelihoods is not authoritarian and unjust? Ridiculous.

Who said that, I didn't say that, they can stay there if they want as far as I am concerned but if they feel so strongly about being British and living in Britain then they can go and live in a place called Great Britain where they would be more than welcome. Or they can manage their own destiny like all the other ex colonies who are now doing just fine.

You still haven't made a case for why they should be forced into doing so against their own wishes when as far as they're concerned they live in Britain and are British now. The fact that they or the loyalist Northern Irish would be 'welcome' in the UK would be somewhat cold comfort to those who would be forced to move just because you don't like that they consider themselves British while living outside of it.

I have already addressed this somewhat arbitrary moral distinction you keep making between colonies that declared independence after wiping out most of the natives and those that never became independent. If they have no right to hang on to that land, neither do the Argentinians, unless you think that changing your flag somehow wipes out all your sins and gives you moral rights you didn't have as a coloniser.

It certainly effing does - and you keep bringing Argentina into it for some reason - where did I say those islands should belong to Argentina, I don't, in fact - I haven't said it once. I did say that if the people who matter are not careful that the Argentinians will make a grab for it, the chances are that they will win and there will be nothing anyone can do about it. How about preempting the problem now rather than when it is too late. It is not like you are going to defend those islands anyway - you have nothing at stake.

If you seriously think that their changing flag gives them all sorts of new moral rights and makes it irrelevant that they wiped out most of the native population because it was done under a different country's authority, I simply cannot understand your moral perspective.

You seem to be addressing different points from the ones I'm making for some reason - at no point did I accuse you of saying the Argentinians should have the islands. The Argentinian comparison was based on the relative rights of the people who occupy Argentina and the Falklands to be there, and the fact that neither side has any particular right to have ended up thousands upon thousands of miles from where they come from. Again, if the Falkland islands wish to pre-empt the problem, that's their call, not yours or mine.

[Wales]

Sorry i mentioned it now #teammurray

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

My apologies, that was a stupid mistake and I should've checked what I stuck into the clipboard.

It is the internet - I wouldn't worry about it.

Why not order the loyalists to go back to the UK? Are you serious? Did you miss the 25,000 dead civilians fought over that point? If it was such a simple idea to have people leave behind their lives and go somewhere, they would have done. But they didn't, because upping sticks and moving your whole life is extremely disruptive. Have you ever tried doing it?

Have I done it? I have done it a few times as it happens and a lot further away and to more
alien cultures than some Benny would have to endure here.

I am serious, what is happening in NI is not working, they can't live in peace without ripping the place up. If someone feels that strongly about being British then they have a home here.

I did, and I quoted it. Look back in the thread if you wish. Again:

The Falklands are mineral rich but cut off from South America which is not really practical and b) Their wish to remain British is not paramount to keeping those islands British - in fact, that relationship is tenuous at best, actually, it means nothing as it happens, if they want to be British then go back to the UK where they will be welcome.

Which is in line to what I have said all along, if they want to be British fine, doesn't mean those islands have to be British. If they want to continue being British then their home is here among us. If they want to be Falkland Islanders then they can stay there and run their own shite, It is simple.


So as soon as the Argentinians stopped technically being a colony by kicking out the Spanish, they gained the right to do whatever they want? Like kill the natives down to less than 3% of the population? You don't seem to have registered that you're drawing this arbitrary moral distinction based on whether a territory is still under another country's political control. The people on the Falklands don't lose the right to have whatever identity they want because they haven't bothered to declare independence.

You still haven't made a case for why they should be forced into doing so against their own wishes. The fact that they or the loyalist Northern Irish would be 'welcome' makes no difference to those who would be forced to move just because you don't like that they consider themselves British.

They can consider themselves what they want. If they consider themselves British then that is fine by me, they can live with us here. What they aren't entitled to do is claim bits of land and call themselves British on the land they live on thousands of miles away from 'home'. I don't know how much history you have studied but empires live and die. The Romans ruled us, they don't any more, the Spanish ruled the Netherlands - they don't any more, The Russians ruled the Estonians etc - the facts are - the world map and national boundaries are organic and in a constant state of flux all the time, the map of Europe is different to the one in 1989. One day, the Falklands won't be British - might be in 5 years or 50 years, my bet it will be in our lifetime, best off making contingency plans so the people that live there can stay there. Burying your head in the sand, hoping the Argentines stay a thord world power is not a very resourceful way of going about it.

If you seriously think that their changing flag gives them all sorts of new moral rights and makes it irrelevant that they wiped out most of the native population because it was done under a different country's authority, I simply cannot understand your moral perspective. You seem to be addressing different points from the ones I'm making for some reason - at no point did I accuse you of saying the Argentinians should have the islands. The Argentinian comparison was based on the relative rights of the people who occupy Argentina and the Falklands to be there, and the fact that neither side has any particular right to have ended up thousands upon thousands of miles from where they come from. Again, if the Falkland islands wish to pre-empt the problem, that's their call, not yours or mine.

Simply put - the Falklanders have the right to stay where they are, they just don't have the right to claim it for Britain on their behalf.

They are more than welcome to stay there and live there as their own people with their own culture and destiny.

Colonialisation is wrong - most people get that nowadays and that is why they were against the war in Iraq.

As for the European population of Argentina - it is 70% at best - like the Maoris - some were killed off but a lot intermarried with the colonisers. There are a lot of Argentinians with Indian blood (Diego Maradona, Carlos Monzon are two) it wasn't like the Inca empire which had a big population and that lived in a temperate climate. There weren't that big a population of Indians that far south. The reason there is such a small population of them is because of uncontrolled mass European migration - the biggest outside of the United States of America.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Sorry i mentioned it now #teammurray

Every time someone mentions Argentina then all the flag waving patriots start
banging away about the Falklands - they can't help it. Go and talk to Cristina
Kirchener about it.

So, if anyone wants to know about Buenos Aires - I am here to help!

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Sorry i mentioned it now #teammurray

Every time someone mentions Argentina then all the flag waving patriots start
banging away about the Falklands - they can't help it. Go and talk to Cristina
Kirchener about it.

So, if anyone wants to know about Buenos Aires - I am here to help!

You're first in line when this conversation starts.

I am first in line? I am not going to let people talk Dr Livingstone colonialist shite on my thread
but I suggest you look back on who starts banging on about the falklands and it wasn't me!
I am still here to talk about the wonderful city of Buenos Aires if any of you give a shit..

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

The Falkland Islands are English!!

Now's your chance to go and tell them!

Okay, there you go, you got the first reply in as soon as it was mentioned.

Hoping it would shut him up, you noticed I tried my best not to wax lyrical about it.
However, once sentence just wasn't enough and then the idiotic Dirk Kelly (I know nothing
about it but I am going to spout shite anyway...) started piping up. If I had ignored it
not - the wanbee boxrec task force would have still got the boot in.

Now, I am still here at everyones service for travel info Buenos Aires.

[Wales]

Sorry i mentioned it now #teammurray

Every time someone mentions Argentina then all the flag waving patriots start
banging away about the Falklands - they can't help it. Go and talk to Cristina
Kirchener about it.

So, if anyone wants to know about Buenos Aires - I am here to help!

Upon re-checki i was nowhere near first (phew). My question was what i thought was a relevant one. Will it be safe. I think you answered saying outside yes, in the arena not as much.

Looking forward to this fight. Whats the time difference?

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Sorry i mentioned it now #teammurray

Every time someone mentions Argentina then all the flag waving patriots start
banging away about the Falklands - they can't help it. Go and talk to Cristina
Kirchener about it.

So, if anyone wants to know about Buenos Aires - I am here to help!

Upon re-checki i was nowhere near first (phew). My question was what i thought was a relevant one. Will it be safe. I think you answered saying outside yes, in the arena not as much.

Looking forward to this fight. Whats the time difference?

Your question was a good relevant question. You see the Malvinas veterans outside the
Casa Rosada but generally - most people are welcoming.

4 hours time difference, but for some reason - it really takes it out of you when you fly back east - I don't know why.

[Wales]

4 hrs so fight will be on 2am ish. Good news.

[Coco]

Oil is the only reason the Falklands has become an issue again. Apparently there is so much oil there the Americans are considering liberating it!
I'd love to go to Argentina though.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Oil is the only reason the Falklands has become an issue again. Apparently there is so much oil there the Americans are considering liberating it!
I'd love to go to Argentina though.

Argentinians are the most Anglophile people on earth, they love football, rugby, polo, beer and Iron Maiden.

They can see through their politicians, even if we cant.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Oil is the only reason the Falklands has become an issue again. Apparently there is so much oil there the Americans are considering liberating it!
I'd love to go to Argentina though.

It's a great place mate, you would love it.

[Pecsaetan]

I've always been under the impression that Argentina's claim to the Falklands itself is a bit of a red herring, and is more about removing the British claim to Antarctica, and with it the oil and other resources there. Maybe explains why they claim South Georgia too despite seemingly very spurious reasons.

[P4P#1]

You're first in line when this conversation starts.[/quote]

I am first in line? I am not going to let people talk Dr Livingstone colonialist shite on my thread
but I suggest you look back on who starts banging on about the falklands and it wasn't me!
I am still here to talk about the wonderful city of Buenos Aires if any of you give a shit..[/quote]


I give a shit pal, youve passed on some usefull info for me for when i go, Cheers.

[P4P#1]

I think im gonna be gettin ringside tickets now, Not sure on price for them yet though as theyve still not announced the venue.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

The Argentine press have said it will more than likely be held at the Velez Sarsfield football stadium.

[whiskey]

Who is televising this fight in the UK ?

Whilst Sky no longer have a contract with HP i hope they buy this one, like any other international fight up for grabs.