Falkland Islands

[VILLAFC2000]

yawn

[VILLAFC2000]

Originally posted by VILLAFC2000

Remind me Americas view again.

Election year, innit?

So will America back it after the Election and have they supported it in the past..?

[LockStockVilla]

Originally posted by VILLAFC2000

Remind me Americas view again.

Election year, innit?

So will America back it after the Election and have they supported it in the past..?

Well, I am not 100 percent on the past, but presently the US is very neutral on the matter... a lot of this has to do with the US wanting stronger relations in South America. The US has actually called for negotiations between Argentina and the UK over the sovereignty of the Falklands, which I feel has been a bit to the disgust of Britain's ruling powers.

[VILLAFC2000]

Weather you like it or not there are genuine arguments for both sides.

Okay, we know the UK argument (and that of the Islanders themselves) is the self determination of all peoples, as per the founding charter of the UN.

Perhaps you can share with us the "genuine arguments" that Argentina has for its claim?

What we do know is that the only country who believes the Islands should remain British are you guessed it the British -who would have thought it.

There is no point sugar coating this fella, your statement is utter rubbish and based on a position of complete ignorance of the facts. I can't be bothered to list every country that contradicts what you've said but the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution recognises and supports the current status of the Falklands - that's 26 countries other than the UK.

My Argument is only rubbish in your oppinion. There are lots of people including Sean Penn and Morrisey who believe in these views. It can be argues that both sides have a credible claim to the Islands for reasons that I have already discussed.

Who are the big nations such as America backing...?

[villaajax]

Why don't we just go over to Argentina and shoot the place up?

[VILLAFC2000]

Good read.

A single flame, which will burn for 74 days in remembrance of British service personnel killed in the Falklands, was lit on Monday as the prime minister, David Cameron, reaffirmed Britain's determination to uphold the islanders' rights to determine their own future.

Three decades after Argentinian troops seized Port Stanley, the capital of the south Atlantic islands, Falklands veterans and widows of those killed gathered at a service of remembrance at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire.

Margaret Allen, just 23 and newly married when she lost her husband, able seaman Iain Boldy, 20, lit the flame which will burn for as long as the conflict lasted as part of commemorations in Britain, Argentina and the Falklands.

In a gesture of reconciliation, Cameron issued a statement saying it was a day to remember the 255 armed forces and Merchant Navy personnel and the 649 Argentinians who died, along with three islanders, in the short but bloody conflict. "Today is a day for commemoration and reflection: a day to remember all those who lost their lives in the conflict – the members of our armed forces, as well as the Argentinian personnel who died," he said.

Saluting the heroism of the South Atlantic Taskforce, he added: "Britain remains staunchly committed to upholding the right of the Falkland Islanders, and of the Falkland Islanders alone, to determine their own future. That was the fundamental principle that was at stake 30 years ago: and that is the principle which we solemnly reaffirm today."

In Britain, Sara Jones, widow of Lieutenant-Colonel "H" Jones, commanding officer of 2 Para, killed during the battle of Goose Green and awarded the Victoria Cross, joined veterans and families of those who fell. Before the service, she said "the islanders have always been fiercely British and want to stay that way. I would like to believe that we would, if we could, do it again" if Argentina launched a fresh invasion.

A small group of Argentinian war veterans spent the day in the islands and held a quiet ceremony at the cemetery where hundreds of Argentinian soldiers are buried. Juan Carlos Lujan, one of the veterans, told the Associated Press: "To return to this little piece of land, which for me is a little bit of my country … is so pleasing. To be among the people that were once our enemies, that which we can now live together with, it's just really proof that we human beings are not like animals."

The commemorations took place as it was confirmed HMS Dauntless, one of the Royal Navy's newest and most powerful destroyers, will set sail from Portsmouth to the Falkland Islands on Wednesday, a day before the 30th anniversary of the taskforce's departure.

Argentina has complained to the UN of the UK's "militarisation" of the south Atlantic following news of the six-month deployment of Dauntless, which the Ministry of Defence has said is on routine mission taking over patrols from the frigate HMS Montrose.

The runup to this anniversary has been fraught with tensions between London and Buenos Aires, with the Argentine government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, reasserting its claim to the archipelago.

Threats to boycott British cargo, turn away British-flagged cruises, sue British investors and banks, and block offshore oil development have imbued islanders with a sense of unease.

"Thirty years and now we find it again, we are worried we are going to go through it all again, another invasion. We do not, we do not want to see this again," islander Mary Lou Agman said as several hundred of the islands' 3,000 residents turned out for a commemorative march by the small Falkland Islands Defence Force.

The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, rejected claims Britain would be unable to defend the islands against a fresh Argentinian assault. "We have the assets, the people, the equipment in place to do so. We will defend them robustly," he said, adding that there was "not the slightest intelligence to suggest that there is any credible military threat to the Falklands".

Vice-admiral Sir Tim McClement, who was responsible for co-ordinating a turning point in the war – the torpedo attack which sank Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano, with the loss of 323 lives – said he had no regrets.

He told the Portsmouth News: "There is no doubt in my mind that sinking the Belgrano was absolutely the right thing to do, firstly for the survival in case the pincer movement worked against our carriers and, secondly, it demonstrated intent to the Argentinians."

Britain has controlled the Falklands since 1833, but Argentina claims it inherited rights to "Las Malvinas" from Spain.

[Xann]

... Morrissey...

Don't listen to him.

He's a bummer, and not a cool one like Kenny Everett or Dusty Springfield.

If Kenny or Dusty said we should pull out of the Falklands then there'd be real reason for concern.

That's beyond the fact that they're dead.

I wish that Morrissey was dead and that Kenny and Dusty were alive.

Then we'd really know the truth.

[Awol]

Weather you like it or not there are genuine arguments for both sides.

Okay, we know the UK argument (and that of the Islanders themselves) is the self determination of all peoples, as per the founding charter of the UN.

Perhaps you can share with us the "genuine arguments" that Argentina has for its claim?

What we do know is that the only country who believes the Islands should remain British are you guessed it the British -who would have thought it.

There is no point sugar coating this fella, your statement is utter rubbish and based on a position of complete ignorance of the facts. I can't be bothered to list every country that contradicts what you've said but the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution recognises and supports the current status of the Falklands - that's 26 countries other than the UK.

My Argument is only rubbish in your oppinion.

No.it's.not.

You say Britiain is the only country that supports self determination for the Islanders.

The Lisbon Treaty says the entire EU supports self determination for the Islanders.

Therefore you statement is factually wrong.

Don't you understand that?

There are lots of people including Sean Penn and Morrisey who believe in these views.

Wow, 'celebrities', you're rolling out the big guns of intellectual argument now. Should we all convert to Scientology too?

It can be argues that both sides have a credible claim to the Islands for reasons that I have already discussed.

No, it really can't.

Who are the big nations such as America backing...?

America is quite rightly sitting on the fence. They know Argentina doesn't have the means to change the status quo, so why cause themselves headaches in their own backyard by openly supporting the UK position when neither they or we gain nothing from it?

When it actually came down to fight over the Islands in '82 the US supplied UK with crucial technological and intelligence help, as did the French. That is how you measure a country's real stance over an issue, not the unsurprisingly diplomatic stance taken in peacetime by, er, 'diplomats'.

[Awol]

The Argentinians would argue about the genuine legitimacy of the people living on the Islands and weather or not they have claims to being wholey indigienous to the Islands. For example How old are the islands, who was living on that Island 500 years ago, 1000 years ago. How did the people get on that Island and so on.

In praise of self-determination

Thirty years ago, on 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded and occupied the Falklands Islands and South Georgia. The resulting conflict lasted 74 days and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982, which returned the islands to British control. This year sees a commemoration, but not a celebration, of those events. This year has also seen an increasingly vocal campaign by Argentina to increase tensions in the South Atlantic region and repeated attempts to raise the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands in international meetings and forums, whether or not it has anything to do with the agenda of the meeting in question. Therefore, as both Britain and Argentina reflect on the members of our armed forces that gave their lives in that conflict, we do so against the backdrop of unnecessary Argentine sabre-rattling; how different from the 20th anniversary commemorations when joint ceremonies were held to pay respect to the fallen on both sides.

Looking at where we are today, it is worth reflecting on some of the facts, including those enshrined in international law, against a background of unfortunate misinformation emanating from Buenos Aires. The most important fact is the principle and right of self determination enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, a principle and right which Commonwealth Caribbean countries have long upheld, and a principle and right which is particularly poignant given the basis on which political independence was achieved in Trinidad and Tobago and elsewhere in the region. The people of the Falkland Islands are British Citizens, and have chosen to be so. As such, there can be no negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Islanders so wish. They have made it absolutely clear that they do not want this. To have some idea of what is at stake, imagine if the people of Tobago woke up one morning to find that they were no longer Trinbagonians and had become part of another country, with no say in the matter. Some people will say that it is different for the Falklands as they are so far from Great Britain. But they are so far from everywhere: it is more than 1000 miles from Buenos Aires to the islands.

The United Kingdom has held sovereignty over the Falkland Islands since 1765, which is before the existence of Argentina as a country. In 1832, Argentina sent a military garrison to the Islands, which was subsequently expelled by the British in 1833. But no civilians were asked to leave as it was made clear that they were free to remain. Indeed historical records show that most did so. That three-month military occupation back in 1833 and the eight weeks of military occupation in 1982 are the only times that the Falklands have been under imposed Argentine control. In 1850, the United Kingdom and Argentina ratified a convention for the settlement of existing differences, thus acknowledging there was no territorial dispute between the two countries.

It is worth reflecting, in the context of Trinidad and Tobago, just how long-standing this history is. In 1765 Trinidad was part of the Spanish empire and Tobago part of the British. In 1765 the French revolution was yet to happen. In 1765 the United States of America did not yet exist. Like any country, the people of Trinidad and Tobago have a history that fuses many influences and nationalities. But this country’s existence is thanks to the self-determination principle, not an obscure historical argument. Argentina has persistently tried to give the impression that there was an Argentine population of the Falklands Islands brutally expelled by the British. But this is a fantasy – such people have never existed. The Falkland Islands have no indigenous peoples; all civilians have voluntarily migrated to or were born on the Islands. The UK has never implanted or expelled any civilian population from the Falklands. Since 1833, civilian migrants voluntarily came from a wide variety of countries, as they did throughout the Americas during the 19th Century.

The Republic of Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, which it bases on the principle of territorial integrity, is without foundation as the Islands have never been legitimately administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Argentine Republic. As neighbours in the south Atlantic, the UK wants to have a full and friendly relationship with Argentina. But we will not negotiate away the human and political rights of the Falkland Islanders. The only people who should have a say on those rights are the people of the islands themselves.

The UK remains disappointed that, thirty years after its unjustified and illegal act of aggression against the Falkland Islands, Argentina continues a policy of hostility with attempts to strangle the economic livelihood of this self sufficient and prosperous community and a refusal to co-operate with Falkland Islanders on a range of issues for the common good of the region.

The Action Plan endorsed by the United Kingdom and all the members of CARICOM plus the Dominican Republic at the UK-Caribbean Forum in Grenada in January this year rightly agreed to “support the principle and the right of self determination for all peoples, including the Falkland Islanders, recognising the historical importance of self determination in the political development of the Caribbean and its core status as an internationally agreed principle under the United Nations Charter”. These principles are crucial, not only to the Falkland Islanders, but to all those who live in freedom.

At this thirty year point, we should remember the real victims of the illegal invasion of the Falklands. The islanders forced to live for months under foreign military occupation. The 255 British military personnel and three Falkland Islanders that perished. And of course the 649 Argentine military, many of them conscripts, that died during an act of aggression perpetrated by a vicious military dictatorship that had also waged a ‘Dirty War’ on thousands of its own people. The official position of the Argentine government is that it “reaffirms its legitimate and permanent sovereignty” over the Falklands; we in the UK re-affirm our commitment to the rights of the islanders under the UN Charter and call on all who have ratified it to do the same.

This sets out the historical and current position very clearly. If you still want to argue having read that I don't think anyone can dissuade you from your wrong headed interpretation.

[Risso]

Weather you like it or not there are genuine arguments for both sides.

Okay, we know the UK argument (and that of the Islanders themselves) is the self determination of all peoples, as per the founding charter of the UN.

Perhaps you can share with us the "genuine arguments" that Argentina has for its claim?

What we do know is that the only country who believes the Islands should remain British are you guessed it the British -who would have thought it.

There is no point sugar coating this fella, your statement is utter rubbish and based on a position of complete ignorance of the facts. I can't be bothered to list every country that contradicts what you've said but the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution recognises and supports the current status of the Falklands - that's 26 countries other than the UK.

My Argument is only rubbish in your oppinion.

No it isn't. I also think it's rubbish.

[b6bloke]

The Argentinians would argue about the genuine legitimacy of the people living on the Islands and weather or not they have claims to being wholey indigienous to the Islands. For example How old are the islands, who was living on that Island 500 years ago, 1000 years ago. How did the people get on that Island and so on.

In praise of self-determination

Thirty years ago, on 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded and occupied the Falklands Islands and South Georgia. The resulting conflict lasted 74 days and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982, which returned the islands to British control. This year sees a commemoration, but not a celebration, of those events. This year has also seen an increasingly vocal campaign by Argentina to increase tensions in the South Atlantic region and repeated attempts to raise the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands in international meetings and forums, whether or not it has anything to do with the agenda of the meeting in question. Therefore, as both Britain and Argentina reflect on the members of our armed forces that gave their lives in that conflict, we do so against the backdrop of unnecessary Argentine sabre-rattling; how different from the 20th anniversary commemorations when joint ceremonies were held to pay respect to the fallen on both sides.

Looking at where we are today, it is worth reflecting on some of the facts, including those enshrined in international law, against a background of unfortunate misinformation emanating from Buenos Aires. The most important fact is the principle and right of self determination enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, a principle and right which Commonwealth Caribbean countries have long upheld, and a principle and right which is particularly poignant given the basis on which political independence was achieved in Trinidad and Tobago and elsewhere in the region. The people of the Falkland Islands are British Citizens, and have chosen to be so. As such, there can be no negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Islanders so wish. They have made it absolutely clear that they do not want this. To have some idea of what is at stake, imagine if the people of Tobago woke up one morning to find that they were no longer Trinbagonians and had become part of another country, with no say in the matter. Some people will say that it is different for the Falklands as they are so far from Great Britain. But they are so far from everywhere: it is more than 1000 miles from Buenos Aires to the islands.

The United Kingdom has held sovereignty over the Falkland Islands since 1765, which is before the existence of Argentina as a country. In 1832, Argentina sent a military garrison to the Islands, which was subsequently expelled by the British in 1833. But no civilians were asked to leave as it was made clear that they were free to remain. Indeed historical records show that most did so. That three-month military occupation back in 1833 and the eight weeks of military occupation in 1982 are the only times that the Falklands have been under imposed Argentine control. In 1850, the United Kingdom and Argentina ratified a convention for the settlement of existing differences, thus acknowledging there was no territorial dispute between the two countries.

It is worth reflecting, in the context of Trinidad and Tobago, just how long-standing this history is. In 1765 Trinidad was part of the Spanish empire and Tobago part of the British. In 1765 the French revolution was yet to happen. In 1765 the United States of America did not yet exist. Like any country, the people of Trinidad and Tobago have a history that fuses many influences and nationalities. But this country’s existence is thanks to the self-determination principle, not an obscure historical argument. Argentina has persistently tried to give the impression that there was an Argentine population of the Falklands Islands brutally expelled by the British. But this is a fantasy – such people have never existed. The Falkland Islands have no indigenous peoples; all civilians have voluntarily migrated to or were born on the Islands. The UK has never implanted or expelled any civilian population from the Falklands. Since 1833, civilian migrants voluntarily came from a wide variety of countries, as they did throughout the Americas during the 19th Century.

The Republic of Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, which it bases on the principle of territorial integrity, is without foundation as the Islands have never been legitimately administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Argentine Republic. As neighbours in the south Atlantic, the UK wants to have a full and friendly relationship with Argentina. But we will not negotiate away the human and political rights of the Falkland Islanders. The only people who should have a say on those rights are the people of the islands themselves.

The UK remains disappointed that, thirty years after its unjustified and illegal act of aggression against the Falkland Islands, Argentina continues a policy of hostility with attempts to strangle the economic livelihood of this self sufficient and prosperous community and a refusal to co-operate with Falkland Islanders on a range of issues for the common good of the region.

The Action Plan endorsed by the United Kingdom and all the members of CARICOM plus the Dominican Republic at the UK-Caribbean Forum in Grenada in January this year rightly agreed to “support the principle and the right of self determination for all peoples, including the Falkland Islanders, recognising the historical importance of self determination in the political development of the Caribbean and its core status as an internationally agreed principle under the United Nations Charter”. These principles are crucial, not only to the Falkland Islanders, but to all those who live in freedom.

At this thirty year point, we should remember the real victims of the illegal invasion of the Falklands. The islanders forced to live for months under foreign military occupation. The 255 British military personnel and three Falkland Islanders that perished. And of course the 649 Argentine military, many of them conscripts, that died during an act of aggression perpetrated by a vicious military dictatorship that had also waged a ‘Dirty War’ on thousands of its own people. The official position of the Argentine government is that it “reaffirms its legitimate and permanent sovereignty” over the Falklands; we in the UK re-affirm our commitment to the rights of the islanders under the UN Charter and call on all who have ratified it to do the same.

This sets out the historical and current position very clearly. If you still want to argue having read that I don't think anyone can dissuade you from your wrong headed interpretation.

Cheers Awol, that answers a lot!

[Jon]

Weather you like it or not there are genuine arguments for both sides.

Okay, we know the UK argument (and that of the Islanders themselves) is the self determination of all peoples, as per the founding charter of the UN.

Perhaps you can share with us the "genuine arguments" that Argentina has for its claim?

What we do know is that the only country who believes the Islands should remain British are you guessed it the British -who would have thought it.

There is no point sugar coating this fella, your statement is utter rubbish and based on a position of complete ignorance of the facts. I can't be bothered to list every country that contradicts what you've said but the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution recognises and supports the current status of the Falklands - that's 26 countries other than the UK.

My Argument is only rubbish in your oppinion.

No it isn't. I also think it's rubbish.

Me too. :winkold:

[theunderstudy]

In summary - Argentina can **** off.

[tonyh29]

At the risk of jumping on a bandwagon without Stephen Frys permission

Me too ....

[bickster]

Originally posted by VILLAFC2000

Remind me Americas view again.

Election year, innit?

So will America back it after the Election and have they supported it in the past..?

Where do you think the UK got a lot its intelligence from the first time around?

[meregreen]

And me.

[thetrees]

And me. Perhaps the mods should add a poll :winkold:

[thetrees]

Originally posted by VILLAFC2000

Remind me Americas view again.

Election year, innit?

So will America back it after the Election and have they supported it in the past..?

Where do you think the UK got a lot its intelligence from the first time around?

Not to mention the USAF Starlifters and Galaxys that were moving stuff to Ascension Island for us................

[CI]

Well last season we had the riots, so I'm up for a distant war this summer

Should make good midweek TV

[PauloBarnesi]

Only if Gorgeous George can vote