I am probably an old fuddy duddy, but when I went to primary school we had a reprint
of a painting of Queen Elizabeth 2 on the wall, and let me tell you, in her day she was
quite a good looking woman.

Then again one of my earliest sexual fantasies ( & still enduring ) that I can remember
featured " Aqua Marina", the marionette (or puppet ) from the Stingray TV series
( made by same people that made the Thunderbirds )
As an 8 or 9 year old lad, I thought Marina was the ideal model of a woman,
she could swim & surf like a fish, was unable to talk, and when she wobbled her
head...........

oh, and he's lost it again :)

"@ Invictus: You can't keep jumping from argument to argument."

Get used to it. That's the only way he knows how to argue.

"The British have controlled the Falklands longer than the Spanish ever did. The Falklanders have lived there longer than anyone ever, since the islands were uninhabited at discovery. That sure seems like a pretty strong claim on the grounds of self-determination."

Only because they've been stubborn about ever negotiating and maintained a garrison state, a point which you continue to ignore.

The only point that matters is that the UK will never give up the Falklands as long as the people who live there wish to remain British. No amount of diplomacy will ever change that. And despite Putin's best efforts to whip up a warmongering atmosphere with provocative statements and this thread's very title, it is perfectly clear that both sides have no wish to fight.

The islands will stay British.
There will be no war.

Sorry to disappoint you, Putin. There will be no bloodshed for you to enjoy being outraged by.

Might makes right is the sole argument you have made for keeping the Malvinas, but everybody else is a warmonger.

No, the right to live in your own home in your own country is the argument I have made. The right to choose your own leaders and the laws you are governed by.

You have put Argentina's national pride and appeasing nations that claim to share your political ideology over the best interests and the wishes of the people. I hope for your sake you never get any political power. It wouldn't be long before you end up as someone you hate.

The UN rejected completely and utterly this bogus claim for self-determination with respect to the Malvinas as far back as 1965. You cannot claim self-determination if population was sent to the islands for the purpose of establishing a colony.

Let's review:

In 1764 - France established a settlement, Port St. Louis, at Isla de la Soledad. Two years later the British claimed the islands and established a settlement at Port Egmont. That same year France transferred their rights to Port St. Louis to Spain. In 1774, the British withdrew from Port Egmont for economic reasons. Spain did not withdraw their settlement until 1811, and by 1810 sovereignty transferred to Argentina. A permanent settlement was established at Puerto Soledad.The UK did nothing to challenge Argentine sovereignty until 1829. From 1820-1829 Argentina exercised full sovereignty over the islands without any challenge.

In 1831, Americans were arrested for poaching seals off Argentine waters near the islands. Americans responded by destroying the defenses of Puerto Soledad and declaring the islands res nullius. In 1833 took advantage and seized control of the islands, evicting the Argentine authorities and its settlers.

The Argentines have challenged British control of the islands unceasingly since 1833.
In 1834 the Argentines attempted to reopen the question. In 1841 it said that there was no proof that Soledad island ever belonged to the British Empire. Argentine entreaties continued until the United Nations declaration 2065 which said that the two sides should negotiate for the decolonization of the islands in 1965, a declaration the UK seems content to ignore now. They didn't ignore in the 1960s. In 1967 they agreed in principle to the idea of transferring sovereigty in exchange for the islanders interests being secured. The problem was this agreement was leaked to the press which evidently caused much embarassment to the UK government. A "Falkland Islands" lobby was created to prevent the transfer of sovereignty, and the British scrapped their memorandum of understanding. The British then gave the islanders a veto over any agreement made with the Argentines.


So your sole argument here is because the British refused to negotiate for basically 50 years after their forceful takeover, and did not negotiate in earnest until the 1960s, and Argentina has not had the maritime power to take on the British Empire, this is a "self-determination" issue. It's as if a bunch of people evicted the inhabitants of homes with guns, squatted on their homes for a long period of time ignoring any protests, and then they get to cry about "self-determination" once sufficient time has elapsed It's a bogus argument and the only reason you're making the self-determination argument is to manipulate anti-imperialist rhetoric for your own settler colony. It's a cynical tactic and it's not going to work.

And since the British had agreed in principle with the idea of transferring sovereignty, I fail to see what the problem is other than your leaders lack the political will to take on well positioned lobbying groups and Malvinas is used as a convenient method for drumming up patriotic support for failing governments.

Might makes right. God save the Queen.

So what you are saying, Putin, is that because a couple of dozen people were evicted from a disptued island they had occupied for a few years in the 1830s, the only just action is to do the same to several thousand who have lived there all of their lives?

Most of the world has become more civalised since the early 19th century, Putin. Do catch up.

Why did your own government accept in principle the idea of transferring sovereignty to the Argentines, if I'm so "uncivilized", Octavious? Why did the UN reject claims by the UK that sending settlers to establish a colony in a disputed territory, East Jerusalem style, afforded them "self-determination" when it came to expressing their luvluv for the military garrisons that protected their settler colony?

Basically, if you want Octavious's crocodile tears, you have to militarily occupy an island with superior force for 100 years (or maybe it's 20, 25? how many years before squatters gain 'self-determination', maybe you have to be English-speaking?), then it becomes yours forever.

I guess the Turks in Northern Cyprus just have to hold out for a little while longer. Or no wait maybe Octavious already supports 'self-determination' there too.

This is why I try not to get into debates on this forum. I'm already 4 pages behind.

A recurring theme in this thread appears to be that England did what I believe is called "Plantation", that is to drown out the local population (if any) by filling up an occupied territory with your own people realizing full well that at some point there's going to be people born on that territory who feel "English", while in fact they're in what is actually Argentina.
The nasty thing is that it works. I believe this is also the technique by which China wants to integrate Tibet into its country.
That's why if the international community wants to solve this kind of problem, it needs to solve them when they occur. Genocides, plantations, etc, they need to be dealt with immediately and not a hundred years after the fact, when the reality of the matter is that you would impose a foreign government on the most British people in the world. This is a recipe for disaster.
So I completely agree with the principle Putin lays out and keeps referring to, that it's wrong to install a military force, in combination with a plantation policy, and wait a couple of decades till "it just sort of feel British to everyone", but now that it's happened, it's just a lesson that humanity (in the form of the United Nations) should etch into its collective memory to avoid in the future just like slavery and genocide are.

@ redhouse

That's not a good description of the Falklands. It was completely empty until around three hundred years ago when it started going through a bizzare revolving door style of colonisation in which the usual suspects (britiain, france, spain, portuagal, pirates etc etc) settled parts of the island, kicked other nations out of their settlesments, or just gave up and went home on their own accord for 100 years or so. 200 years ago it was completely empty aside for a few plaques left by various nations saying something to the effect of "We waz 'ere. This rock iz ours". All rather pathetic, really.

Anyway, the last two efforts were made by Argentina, who tried and failed to set up a penal colony and put a small military garrison on the island for a few years, and Britian, whose colony has defied the odds and lasted as a genuine settlement for 170 years.

The early years of the Falklands are more akin to a Laurel & Hardy film than they are to slavery and genocide.

I refuse to call her Queen because all she has done to desrve that title is to be luckily born into the right family and not do anything profoundly stupid before she took the throne.

Just because most people are more interested in how the cricket is going compared to who the head of state is doesn't mean she shouldn't be replaced. Also, where have the Australian people shown that they wish to elect a president (vs parliament choosing)? I doubt this as in my experience most people voting for a prime minister, most won't be bothered voting twice. And even if so, put safeguards in the Constitution that limit the power of the president to where it is now re Queen/GG.

Just because there are historical reasons he queen is our head of state does not mean we can't get rid of her now. I'm sure the French said there are historical reasons why we have a king, so we can't get rid of him (note, I'm not comparing 1789 France to 2011 Australia). Also, don't we pay for the GG's expenses? And surely we pay for the Queen's visits.

It is impossible to suggest the Queen is a completely neutral observer, yet she has quite a bit of influence on Australian politics as the GG has a lot of power. It would be better to have someone who is closer to the country and has a feel for its politics and its mood.

"How about a model where we all elect our politicians to the House of Reps
and the Senate, and we have a separate election where only our indigeneous
brothers and sisters vote for a President ??? "

I would be completely happy with this.

A final word, I think the reason our perspective differs is mostly because of age. I dare most young people don't really care for the Queen.

@Octavious:
Re: completely empty
that's why it says "if any" in my text

Re: akin to a Laurel & Hardy film
I agree, the comparison with slavery (or deportation in general) and genocide is not the immorality of it (all three things being immoral, but plantation being a very innocent technique w.r.t. the others) but but the irreversibility of it.

but but = but with

The bizzare thing is that is exactly this kind of plantation strategy that Putin is in favour of when he suggests relaxing the immigration policy of the Falklands towards Argentina. With open borders it would a simple matter for Argentina to ship a few thousand of its more nationalistic citizens over, who would insist that the islands become Argentinian, and nearly 10 generations of the current culture and way of life of the Falklanders would be steamrollered away.

Still, i think this thread has run its course. You know it's time to move on when part of you starts hoping for a thread by Tettleton just to provide something a bit different :p

I never advocated an 'open border'. I only advocate that Argentines be allowed to visit and live in the Falklands with the same ease that British citizens are able to visit and live in Argentina. Why is it unacceptable to have the same standards?

^I was afraid that the image of me likening the "let's put British people on that island" policy to the "let's kill all people with an undesired religious background" policy would stick, so I made that last comment.
And yeah, that's exactly why I'm so in favor of Britain keeping this terrain, it's none of my business as a Dutchman, but it would set a horrible precedent.
Also, yeah, time to move on indeed. So what's happening in the Gaza strip this time of year?

@Putin, "Why ... standards?"
^For the exact scenario Octavious sketches in his post. That ends my contribution here, sorry for reviving a discussion that was essentially finished.

"I only advocate that Argentines be allowed to visit and live in the Falklands with the same ease that British citizens are able to visit and live in Argentina."

Well, that's not all you advocate. You advocate Argentina administering the islands, regardless of the wishes of their inhabitants.

Actually I proposed a joint condominium as a compromise solution. It's the British Falklands or nothing crowd that refuses to negotiate and rejects the interests of other parties.

Isn't that Argentina administering the islands?

It's joint administration, hence co-dominion - condominium.

So yes.

If the islanders are okay with that, then that sounds fine.