BoxRec

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Fat Git wrote: Personally Like having a pop at the Argies, some twat tried to have a go in the MGM last time I was in Vegas. I urged him to come ahead as he had weeks head start last time and we still kicked his ass....

And the people who 'kicked their ass' live in daily torment with the 302nd British Falklands veteran
taking his own life just the other week.

Next time, you and the other Brit flag wavers can go down there and fight it out with like minded Argentinians.

This is a boxing match, not the battle of Goose Green.

May the best man win, I hope it is Murray but looking forward to a great fight with an
electric atmosphere.
Infairness you fanned the flames of nationalism with this thread and some of your posts. The way things are going without the Falklands we're going to be paying an exuberant amount for petrol. What will you say then?? When I worked for a the most profitble travel company I. The world the owner urged us to go see Alaska sooner rather than later as with the way oil prices are going its only a matter of time before they drill there and Antarctica.

On boxing we are due a win, he's beaten a hell of a lot of our fighters!!

Also think there is nothing wrong in a bit of pride in the fact we kicked some ass many years ago when they had a big head start.


I haven't fanned any flames of nationalism at all. Simply put - I am for an independent Falklands


What an odd statement, its like saying you are for an independent Anglesey.

That's right KG - island nations - what a novel concept!


The Falkland Islanders would have to be forced into independence, they have never wanted it and would never vote for it in any referendum.

It is not about their choice being paramount, having whatever they want. That is not how life works.

The facts are, they are not British, tell me - do they have representation in any British political office in the UK? the leader of the islands isn't even a Falklander, the British government pick someone to go down there and govern them, and if you are British and want to go and live out there, good luck in getting a visa to settle there. It is probably harder to get a visa to live there than it would be to get a working visa to live and settle in New Zealand or Canada.

And if they came to live here, they would be no more culturally British than a New Zealander, because you call yourself British from 10000 miles away doesn't make you British. It is funny how the 'Bennies' call British people 'Poms' thats right.

Practicalities are basically whilst the Falklands remain British - the threat from Argentina will always be there (and they have the majority of worldwide support in the UN) As soon as you make the country a dominion or give it independence - the threat will cease to exist as Argentina would never dare to invade an independent sovereign nation.

One day, the British aren't going to be able to defend those islands, better start thinking of ways to safeguard its future before the 'Argies' take them off us.

And why has this turned into another Falklands war diatribe? That's right - because some of you are no better than the likeminded idiots in Buenos Aires. Isn't this about Martinez vs Murray and what to do in the great city of Buenos Aires.

What a truly awful post.

You cant "force" and "give" people something, its either one or the other.

The Falkland Islands will remain British as long as the residents want it to be, they are the masters of their own destiny


But you can, happened throughout history, white Rhodesians wanted to keep the status quo as did white South Africans but they were forced to change, it is not a good idea to let things get to that stage where you need to change because you have been beaten into it.

Nobody who was born 10000 miles away from the UK and has never been here is British - that is how simple it gets, to even suggest that they are requires some twisted colonial logic. Those people in any way, shape, form or logic aren't British.

If they want to remain 'British' then that is fine, but they will always be under threat from the Argentinians - and last time I looked, the Argentinians have the support of most of the UN.

F*ck the UN.

F*ck you!

Fat Git wrote:But you can, happened throughout history, white Rhodesians wanted to keep the status quo as did white South Africans but they were forced to change, it is not a good idea to let things get to that stage where you need to change because you have been beaten into it.

That's a rubbish analogy - the moral argument that forced white Rhodesians and white South Africans to change was the wishes of the majority number of THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Any attempt to make the Falklands independence would be forced upon them from outside. Which is colonialism.

dookus wrote:

Fat Git wrote:But you can, happened throughout history, white Rhodesians wanted to keep the status quo as did white South Africans but they were forced to change, it is not a good idea to let things get to that stage where you need to change because you have been beaten into it.

That's a rubbish analogy - the moral argument that forced white Rhodesians and white South Africans to change was the wishes of the majority number of THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Any attempt to make the Falklands independence would be forced upon them from outside. Which is colonialism.

Absolutley not true whatsoever - the Rhodesians lost to ZANU in the Bush War and of course worldwide sanctions that were inflicted on them and the end of apartheid came around through a 'whites only' referendum and yep - worldwide sanctions. The black majority had little control over the situation in South Africa and when you lose a war to a madman like Robert Mugabe - you get what has happened to Zimbabwe today. That is what happens when you leave a staus quo for too long and you are forced to change.

No, any attempt to force change on the Falkland Islanders is not colonialism but giving self determination to the islanders - I suggest you go and have a look up on what the word 'colonialism' means. And if you think that these islands will stay British forever, even though our own military commanders and chiefs are making it public that those islands cannot be defended then you need to wake up.

rhino222 wrote:As a soldier who served in the falklands (not in the war i might add) i feel that it should be down to the islanders as to who 'owns' them. personally i know they will vote britain, without question. the ancient history of the islands would suggest that they are agentinian. but the world is full of places with questionable history etc... Northern Cyprus being another one (i was born and married in cyprus).

Fact is that the war was not fought to remove a brutal dictatorship, the war was entirely avoidable, and Thatcher made the decision based on two major reasons.

1 She was doing very badly in the polls at the time, and was hugely unpopular both with the public and her own party. The war offered a perfect opportinity for sabre rattling, nationalistic jingoism, and a wave of patriotic pride to sweep her to another election victory. I still remember the cynical old pudendum being photographed driving a tank - before sending hundreds of young men off to be traumatised and killed in a pointless war.

2 There has been oil, gas, and mineral exploration of the antarctic shelf going on for the last 50 years, there is estimated to be more oil there than there is in the middle east region.

I would suggest that reason 2 was more important than reason 1 though not by much.

I feel for anyone who served actively in the falklands, but i feel it is of no disrespect to them to point out that the reasons for the war, were highly cynical, and like all wars, about resources.

I agree that the Falkland islanders have the right to self determination - and that the Argentinians have no right to take it back if the inhabitants have no wish to be ruled by them.

I should also say that South Africa losing the border war against the MPLA and the Cubans
lead to the downfall of apartheid and the independence of Namibia. Nelson Mandela always
said that Fidel Castro and Cuba were instrumental in the defeat of apartheid. So, I suppose
South Africa were brought to democracy by the gun.

Fat Git wrote:
It is not about their choice being paramount, having whatever they want. That is not how life works.

Fascist!!

Final round wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
It is not about their choice being paramount, having whatever they want. That is not how life works.

Fascist!!

Why should we sacrifice any more British lives for the defence of people who are not British,
who don't consider you on of 'them' and would happily call you a 'pom' and to fornicate off back
to where come from - that is if you can get the visa to stay there for any longer than three months.

And before 1982, they had none of the rights of being British anyway, the biggest joke of
all this was 1983 and whitehall and their 'shit - we had better give them the same rights as we British now we have fought a war on their behalf' if you read the history behind the Falkland Islands
and the British Governments role in it - you would come to the conclusion it is one big joke.

Fat Git wrote:

banjo wrote:The first time I heard of Buenos Aires was the science fiction movie Starship Troopers, nice little fun fact to lighten the mood

Another 'starship troopers' fact, the book it was based on, the heroes were Filipino and from
Manila but Hollywood wanted white people to star in the film so changed the location to
Buenos Aires.

Aye I believe so although Buenos Aires annihilation was still the reason for the bug war

Oh and fornicate the UN, I've got more respect for the mafia.

Fat Git wrote: Absolutley not true whatsoever - the Rhodesians lost to ZANU in the Bush War and of course worldwide sanctions that were inflicted on them and the end of apartheid came around through a 'whites only' referendum and yep - worldwide sanctions. The black majority had little control over the situation in South Africa and when you lose a war to a madman like Robert Mugabe - you get what has happened to Zimbabwe today. That is what happens when you leave a staus quo for too long and you are forced to change.

I said the 'moral argument', not the 'actual reason for it'. Worldwide sanctions clearly had an effect, but they would not have had any moral force (nor attracted any support) were it not for the obvious fact that the majority of the country wished the status quo to be different and this had moral implications.

No, any attempt to force change on the Falkland Islanders is not colonialism but giving self determination to the islanders - I suggest you go and have a look up on what the word 'colonialism' means.

I'm aware of what colonialism means, thank you, having spent about a year of my degree reading and writing on the subject. One example of colonialism would be the Spanish marching onto a new continent and murdering so many of the natives that the present country consists of 97% European-descended people - like your beloved Argentina. Perhaps you think that their gaining independence a couple of hundred years ago makes it no longer a colonialist nation? Perhaps you are right and the correct term would be a genocidal nation.

Your idea that forcing change on a group of people from outside because of the wishes of people outside that group is unrelated to colonialism is tenuous at best. Please tell me the actual difference between granting a referendum to a group of people granting them the choice as to whether they would like to be ruled by their present rulers and this 'self-determination' you speak of.

I agree the falklands belongs to the argies how the hell is it ours. and fukk the falklanders who have lived there for only 180 years, it belongs to the argentinians

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.

mugabi wrote:I agree the falklands belongs to the argies how the hell is it ours. and fukk the falklanders who have lived there for only 180 years, it belongs to the argentinians

I assume you are basing it "belonging to Argentina" purely because its relatively near by? Look at Argentina's history regarding the islands. It's tenuous and as flakey as anything.

I hear by declare Normandy as British. We had a claim on it once, its close, and er, yeah I don't like them French!

mugabi wrote:I agree the falklands belongs to the argies how the hell is it ours.

The same way that Argentina belongs to 41 million Europeans; our descendants moved there. We didn't even have to wipe out several million natives in the process.

mugabi wrote:and fukk the falklanders who have lived there for only 180 years, it belongs to the argentinians

According to your logic, the majority of Argentinians should fornicate off back to Europe as they've lived in Argentina for considerably less time.

The Argentinians didn't give a fornicate about the Falklands between 1889 - 1941, until Peron implemented lessons learned in Nazi Germany and Italy.

Argentina officially relinquished all claims to 'Las Mavinas' as part of the 1850 Covention of settlement. All the shite that goes on now is deflection from Kirchner.

Anyway, I digress. I won't be going to Buenos Aires to see the Murray fight but will hopefully be spending time in Argentina and other South American countries when I've saved up enough money to go travelling for six months or so which is likely going to be September/October 2014.

dookus wrote:

Fat Git wrote: Absolutley not true whatsoever - the Rhodesians lost to ZANU in the Bush War and of course worldwide sanctions that were inflicted on them and the end of apartheid came around through a 'whites only' referendum and yep - worldwide sanctions. The black majority had little control over the situation in South Africa and when you lose a war to a madman like Robert Mugabe - you get what has happened to Zimbabwe today. That is what happens when you leave a staus quo for too long and you are forced to change.

I said the 'moral argument', not the 'actual reason for it'. Worldwide sanctions clearly had an effect, but they would not have had any moral force (nor attracted any support) were it not for the obvious fact that the majority of the country wished the status quo to be different and this had moral implications.

You said the Moral argument that forced them to change - there was no moral argument
that changed the systems there. They were made to, simple as that. The natives of those lands always wanted equal rights but their wishes meant jack shit until those countries were made near bankrupt through sanctions and war. Look at Israel, they are giving the Palestinians nothing because nobody is forcing them - even though the moral argument for treating the Palestinians is there and in bold.

No, any attempt to force change on the Falkland Islanders is not colonialism but giving self determination to the islanders - I suggest you go and have a look up on what the word 'colonialism' means.

I'm aware of what colonialism means,

I don't think you do now - are you sure?

thank you, having spent about a year of my degree reading and writing on the subject.

Did you pass the modules? Bloody hell, your tutor needs a shake.

One example of colonialism would be the Spanish marching onto a new continent and murdering so many of the natives that the present country consists of 97% European-descended people - like your beloved Argentina.

Nooooooo - I think you will find that was the Spanish who did that. Argentina was formed after they kicked the Spanish out in 1812. Britain did exactly the same all over the world by the way just in case you are wondering.

Perhaps you think that their gaining independence a couple of hundred years ago makes it no longer a colonialist nation? Perhaps you are right and the correct term would be a genocidal nation.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. They have no colonies so how are they a 'colonialist nation'?

Your idea that forcing change on a group of people from outside because of the wishes of people outside that group is unrelated to colonialism is tenuous at best.

It is not tenuous at best! Are you sure you know what the words you type mean? If someone living 10000 miles away from Britain lives on a piece of land that is claimed by the British - it makes them colonists... here you go - here is what 'colony' means.

col·o·ny (kl-n)
n. pl. col·o·nies
1.
a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
b. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

Which is what 3000 people claiming to be British, 10000 miles away from Britain are - you want to be British? There is a place called Britain who would be happy to have you - go home! If you are Falklanders and the Brits are 'Poms' then run your own affairs within South America. They are capable of doing it but it is this governments greed for oil that is making them grasp and grab in a pathetic attempt in 19th century colonialism.

Please tell me the actual difference between granting a referendum to a group of people granting them the choice as to whether they would like to be ruled by their present rulers and this 'self-determination' you speak of.

[/quote]

Are you that stupid?

What is the difference between being ruled by Great Britain or ruling themselves?

If you can't work that out then nothing I can type is going to help is?

jtourettes wrote:The Argentinians didn't give a eff about the Falklands between 1889 - 1941, until Peron implemented lessons learned in Nazi Germany and Italy.

The British didn't give a fornicate about the Falklands from 1832-1981, Falklanders had no rights as
British citizens until 1983, they were poor as shite tenant farmers stuck on the arse end of the
world.

Fat Git wrote:

jtourettes wrote:The Argentinians didn't give a eff about the Falklands between 1889 - 1941, until Peron implemented lessons learned in Nazi Germany and Italy.

The British didn't give a eff about the Falklands from 1832-1981, Falklanders had no rights as
British citizens until 1983, they were poor as shite tenant farmers stuck on the arse end of the
world.

The islands were considered British territory but yes, obviously the islanders got the shit end of the stick in that time.

Personally I do get fucked off that the British government has to spend so much money defending the Falklands but if oil is discovered the Falklanders have said they'll pay so fair dos, I suppose.

By arguing I suppose I'm suggesting that I care but it's not something that is particularly close to my heart but there is a lot of bullshit out there about the Falklands.

Fat Git wrote: You said the Moral argument that forced them to change - there was no moral argument
that changed the systems there. They were made to, simple as that. The natives of those lands always wanted equal rights but their wishes meant jack shit until those countries were made near bankrupt through sanctions and war. Look at Israel, they are giving the Palestinians nothing because nobody is forcing them - even though the moral argument for treating the Palestinians is there and in bold.

And the reason these sanctions came about was because there was an obvious moral argument, capable of motivating countries to impose sanctions, that stemmed from the wishes of the majority populations of Rhodesia and South Africa. How are you incapable of grasping the difference between what motivated the actions that brought about change and the actions themselves?

Fat Git wrote:Did you pass the modules? Bloody hell, your tutor needs a shake.

An ad hominem argument is a pretty good sign that you're losing.

One example of colonialism would be the Spanish marching onto a new continent and murdering so many of the natives that the present country consists of 97% European-descended people - like your beloved Argentina.

Fat Git wrote:Nooooooo - I think you will find that was the Spanish who did that.

Yes. That's what I said.

Fat Git wrote:Argentina was formed after they kicked the Spanish out in 1812. Britain did exactly the same all over the world by the way just in case you are wondering.

We certainly did. Essentially, this is a question of one bunch of colonists crying that another bunch of colonists won't hand over their loot. What relevance does this have to the question of whether forcing the wishes of a group of outsiders onto a group of people is an act of colonialism?

Fat Git wrote:They have no colonies so how are they a 'colonialist nation'?

The country is descended from a colony; perhaps 'colonial country' would be a better nomenclature. It makes little difference in the end to the natives whether the original country retains any political power; the country is 97% European-descended and speaks a European language.

Your idea that forcing change on a group of people from outside because of the wishes of people outside that group is unrelated to colonialism is tenuous at best.

Fat Git wrote:It is not tenuous at best! Are you sure you know what the words you type mean? If someone living 10000 miles away from Britain lives on a piece of land that is claimed by the British - it makes them colonists... here you go - here is what 'colony' means.

col·o·ny (kl-n)
n. pl. col·o·nies
1.
a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
b. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

In your eagerness to be patronising by quoting a dictionary entry, you have not addressed my actual point - that imposing the will of outsiders on a group of people is itself related to colonialism. This is strange, because definitions 1a and 2 point to that very thing - being 'subject to' or 'politically controlled' by an outside entity. Forcing self-determination onto a group of people that don't want it implies either that they're subject to the will of those that demand they do just that (under 1a) or that they must be controlled into doing so by outsiders (under 2).

Fat Git wrote:Which is what 3000 people claiming to be British, 10000 miles away from Britain are - you want to be British? There is a place called Britain who would be happy to have you - go home! If you are Falklanders and the Brits are 'Poms' then run your own affairs within South America. They are capable of doing it but it is this governments greed for oil that is making them grasp and grab in a pathetic attempt in 19th century colonialism.

Which part of my argument does this relate to? I don't recall claiming at any point that the Falklands are not a colony. Perhaps you can direct me to the relevant quote.

Please tell me the actual difference between granting a referendum to a group of people granting them the choice as to whether they would like to be ruled by their present rulers and this 'self-determination' you speak of.

Fat Git wrote:Are you that stupid?

What is the difference between being ruled by Great Britain or ruling themselves?

If you can't work that out then nothing I can type is going to help is?

The whole point of being able to rule yourself is that you HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. This includes exercising the choice to have someone else in charge of you. The issue is who gets to make that choice; if you don't get to make the choice, you cannot be said to be 'ruling' anything. It is nonsensical to suggest that outsiders imposing 'self-determination' is giving the people subject to that imposition a choice, and if they do not have a choice as to what they would like to do they cannot be said to be ruling themselves according to any logical interpretation of the words 'rule' or 'choice'. The reason I "can't work it out" is because your distinction makes no practical or logical sense.

And the reason these sanctions came about was because there was an obvious moral argument, capable of motivating countries to impose sanctions, that stemmed from the wishes of the majority populations of Rhodesia and South Africa. How are you incapable of grasping the difference between what motivated the actions that brought about change and the actions themselves?

I forgot about anwsering this part.

So the motivation from outside countries was what brought about the change. The people always wanted fair and equal treatment but no change was brought around until outside forces made it happen.The wish for equal treatment was always there but what brought about the change was sanctions and war. Is that simple enough for you?

dookus wrote:
An ad hominem argument is a pretty good sign that you're losing.

One example of colonialism would be the Spanish marching onto a new continent and murdering so many of the natives that the present country consists of 97% European-descended people - like your beloved Argentina.

Fat Git wrote:Nooooooo - I think you will find that was the Spanish who did that.

Yes. That's what I said. [/quote]



So if it is the Spanish who did that - how does it make Argentina a 'Colonialist nation'?

Fat Git wrote:Argentina was formed after they kicked the Spanish out in 1812. Britain did exactly the same all over the world by the way just in case you are wondering.

We certainly did. Essentially, this is a question of one bunch of colonists crying that another bunch of colonists won't hand over their loot. What relevance does this have to the question of whether forcing the wishes of a group of outsiders onto a group of people is an act of colonialism?

Not quite, the islands were inhabited by Gaucho's and even had an Argentine governor called Luis Vernet. Who, like the treacherous twat that he was, tried to broker a deal with the British before he and the gauchos who lived on there were kicked off. One thing I probably agree with you is that the march of time passes and the people who live there have the right to stay there but what they don't have the right to do is call themselves British when the reality is that they are no such thing. They are no more British than someone from the Southland of New Zealand.

Fat Git wrote:They have no colonies so how are they a 'colonialist nation'?

The country is descended from a colony; perhaps 'colonial country' would be a better nomenclature. It makes little difference in the end to the natives whether the original country retains any political power; the country is 97% European-descended and speaks a European language.

A country that was descended from a colony would be a less clumsy way of saying it, you're welcome - well, that is most of the world, Kenya was a 'colonial country' El Salvador was a 'colonial country' - as for the country having 97% European descendants - those figures are more than skewed, there isn't that many white people there but what did happen to Argentina is that they had one of the greatest migration waves from Europe to the Americas between 1880-1970, probably only second to the United States and that is why most Argentines are not of Spanish descent but Italian and of course there are lots of white people but the figure is nowhere near 97% if you are actually walking around Buenos Aires.

In your eagerness to be patronising by quoting a dictionary entry, you have not addressed my actual point - that imposing the will of outsiders on a group of people is itself related to colonialism. This is strange, because definitions 1a and 2 point to that very thing - being 'subject to' or 'politically controlled' by an outside entity. Forcing self-determination onto a group of people that don't want it implies either that they're subject to the will of those that demand they do just that (under 1a) or that they must be controlled into doing so by outsiders (under 2).

It has nothing to do with colonialism! I am glad to read that you now agree that the British government are 'outsiders' to the people of the Falklands, the same government who gave the people of those islands NO rights until 1983. The facts are, we can't keep holding on to bits of land thousands of miles away, the practicalities of this situation are gone, we don't have a regional Royal Naval fleets like in the good old days to protect colonies. 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. If they want to stay there then they should be allowed to run their own affairs like the good people of Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago etc.

Which part of my argument does this relate to? I don't recall claiming at any point that the Falklands are not a colony. Perhaps you can direct me to the relevant quote.

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.

So, if you cared about the people on there, wouldn't it be best if you gave them independence, kept a British garrison on there if need be, made them a commonwealth country and they could run their own affairs and immigration, join MERCOSUR and open up to South America, what is wrong with that - and if the Argentines did invade then the they would be condemned worldwide. An independent Falklands could even have a defence treaty with the UK and Chile in regards being attacked.

Please tell me the actual difference between granting a referendum to a group of people granting them the choice as to whether they would like to be ruled by their present rulers and this 'self-determination' you speak of.

The whole point of being able to rule yourself is that you HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

As colonists, they don't have that right. '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. Now - you can preempt this by giving the Falklanders inpedendence and the Argentinians would not dare to attempt to invade an independent soverign nation which is a member of the UN.

This includes exercising the choice to have someone else in charge of your defence policy. The issue is who gets to make that choice; if you don't get to make the choice, you cannot be said to be 'ruling' anything. It is nonsensical to suggest that outsiders imposing 'self-determination' is giving the people subject to that imposition a choice, and if they do not have a choice as to what they would like to do they cannot be said to be ruling themselves according to any logical interpretation of the words 'rule' or 'choice'. The reason I "can't work it out" is because your distinction makes no practical or logical sense.

[/quote]

See, this is where you enter the world of gobblygook - either the British government are outsiders or they are not - it is all part of Britain or they are their own entity, you can't have it both ways which is my point all along. The people of the Falklands would have a choice, if they want to be British - go back to the UK where they will be made more than welcome, if they want to be Falkland Islanders then stay right there and rule themselves. No-one - well not me anyway - is saying they should become Argentines. Ruling themselves would work, there is no moral reason why those islands should stay British and the longer it does, the bigger the threat from Argentina.

No, the people wanting to stay British and to continue colonising a land is not a moral reason. It is about time those apron strings were cut.

go back to the UK where they will be made more than welcome,

Great, more bloody foreigners

banjo wrote:

go back to the UK where they will be made more than welcome,

Great, more bloody foreigners

Much ado about nothing really.

The Argies won't make a move. Apparently Britain couldn't win the previous war according to the experts and even the yanks questioned Maggies sanity etc etc

As for these new superpowers of the world. Well, basically they need to step the fvck up! All I have been reading about for the past decade is how China and Brazil are the new superpowers yet its the Yankee doodles that still seemingly hold every ace in the pack ( along with 3 of the kings and couple of queens too ) Its like Warren saying the light heavyweight division lives in Wales now because of Cleverly!

lillywhite14 wrote:Much ado about nothing really.

The Argies won't make a move. Apparently Britain couldn't win the previous war according to the experts and even the yanks questioned Maggies sanity etc etc

As for these new superpowers of the world. Well, basically they need to step the fvck up! All I have been reading about for the past decade is how China and Brazil are the new superpowers yet its the Yankee doodles that still seemingly hold every ace in the pack ( along with 3 of the kings and couple of queens too ) Its like Warren saying the light heavyweight division lives in Wales now because of Cleverly!

Change comes around slowly but change is coming, we were top dogs once and then the
yanks took over, as the yanks are now top dog, their time is coming to an end, look up
Jim Rogers and the 21st century being the 'Chinese century' Look at history, no-one stays
top dog forever.

Fat Git wrote:I forgot about anwsering this part.

So the motivation from outside countries was what brought about the change. The people always wanted fair and equal treatment but no change was brought around until outside forces made it happen.The wish for equal treatment was always there but what brought about the change was sanctions and war. Is that simple enough for you?

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.

Fat Git wrote:Not quite, the islands were inhabited by Gaucho's and even had an Argentine governor called Luis Vernet. Who, like the treacherous twat that he was, tried to broker a deal with the British before he and the gauchos who lived on there were kicked off. One thing I probably agree with you is that the march of time passes and the people who live there have the right to stay there but what they don't have the right to do is call themselves British when the reality is that they are no such thing. They are no more British than someone from the Southland of New Zealand.

They are a) if they choose to be and b) we allow them to be.

Fat Git wrote: A country that was descended from a colony would be a less clumsy way of saying it, you're welcome - well, that is most of the world, Kenya was a 'colonial country' El Salvador was a 'colonial country' - as for the country having 97% European descendants - those figures are more than skewed, there isn't that many white people there but what did happen to Argentina is that they had one of the greatest migration waves from Europe to the Americas between 1880-1970, probably only second to the United States and that is why most Argentines are not of Spanish descent but Italian and of course there are lots of white people but the figure is nowhere near 97% if you are actually walking around Buenos Aires.

Most of the world? Bullshit. A large part of the Western Hemisphere, granted, but that is a fraction of the world population. The African and Asian ex-colonies do not have populations of 95%+ descendants of invaders. As for those figures being skewed by immigration - I'm sure that's of great comfort to the natives who couldn't care less whether their country is technically a colony any more.

Fat Git wrote: It has nothing to do with colonialism! I am glad to read that you now agree that the British government are 'outsiders' to the people of the Falklands, the same government who gave the people of those islands NO rights until 1983. The facts are, we can't keep holding on to bits of land thousands of miles away, the practicalities of this situation are gone, we don't have a regional Royal Naval fleets like in the good old days to protect colonies. 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. If they want to stay there then they should be allowed to run their own affairs like the good people of Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago etc.

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

Fat Git wrote: 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.

Fat Pig wrote:So, if you cared about the people on there, wouldn't it be best if you gave them independence, kept a British garrison on there if need be, made them a commonwealth country and they could run their own affairs and immigration, join MERCOSUR and open up to South America, what is wrong with that - and if the Argentines did invade then the they would be condemned worldwide. An independent Falklands could even have a defence treaty with the UK and Chile in regards being attacked.

This is a very strong set of arguments in favour of their independence. I suggest you make it to the Falkland islanders.

The whole point of being able to rule yourself is that you HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

Fat Pig wrote:As colonists, they don't have that right.

Why not?

Fat Pig wrote:'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?

Fat Pig wrote: Now - you can preempt this by giving the Falklanders inpedendence and the Argentinians would not dare to attempt to invade an independent soverign nation which is a member of the UN.

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.

This includes exercising the choice to have someone else in charge of your defence policy. The issue is who gets to make that choice; if you don't get to make the choice, you cannot be said to be 'ruling' anything. It is nonsensical to suggest that outsiders imposing 'self-determination' is giving the people subject to that imposition a choice, and if they do not have a choice as to what they would like to do they cannot be said to be ruling themselves according to any logical interpretation of the words 'rule' or 'choice'. The reason I "can't work it out" is because your distinction makes no practical or logical sense.

Fat Pig wrote:See, this is where you enter the world of gobblygook - either the British government are outsiders or they are not - it is all part of Britain or they are their own entity, you can't have it both ways which is my point all along. The people of the Falklands would have a choice, if they want to be British - go back to the UK where they will be made more than welcome, if they want to be Falkland Islanders then stay right there and rule themselves. No-one - well not me anyway - is saying they should become Argentines. Ruling themselves would work, there is no moral reason why those islands should stay British and the longer it does, the bigger the threat from Argentina.

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. 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. Such a decision would be itself a form of self-determination. There is a massive moral reason why those islands should stay British - everyone living there wants them to be, 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. 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.

Fat Git wrote:No, the people wanting to stay British and to continue colonising a land is not a moral reason.:

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

lillywhite14 wrote: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