This is precious

Hallo, the point is that we would be perfectly happy to allow the people of the Falkland Islands to intergrate with Argentina if they wished. But they do not.

I did find a reference to counterfeit, but that is not used when discussing comments. You could say that an item is snide in terms of it being fake, but it does not apply to people or what they say. (Oxford) When one says that someone makes a snide comment, it means that they were being nasty.

I’ll say it again, don’t try and lecture people on their own language. :p

OK, thank you for the links and for explaining what you really meant with your previous post. I´ll take my “lair” comment back.

I learned something new today, I hope so did you, also.

I will start a fund raiser to get a new dictionary, you are invited to toss in your pocket change, if you wish… 😉

King Jester

PD: After closing edition: Here another virtual dictionary link you may find interesting. Snide on Merriam Webster . Enjoy.

Well said Phil, If Jester wishes to carry on believing that hes is right to throw people out of their homes without any democratic process for them, just to satisfie his nationalistic fantasys then so be it. We can at least be safe in the knowledge, that the world is now a sufficiently grown up place to probably never allow such terrible act to happen.

Why does the islander have to be kicked out of the island???
Can’t they reintergrate peacefully into Argentina and have the whole thing be done with it.

Personally I believe the matter have draged on for solong due to the fact that both parties want to save face…

The britons at the time were losing most of their colonies and it be damed if they lose one more. The Agentines are quite happy that UK is losing its grap and thought it was time to retake what was theirs.

very much like the dispute between Taiwan and Japan right now… aside from the fact the disputed asian island had no native poulation.

Mushashi wrote:Snide: a) counterfeit, bogus, mean trick b) counterfeit jewelry or coin.
Well, mush, I looked up the definition again, on my OXFORD CONCISE 1976 edition, and unless english has changed a lot since then, you called me a lair by labelling the information I posted as “fake“.
Now, how are you gonna wiggle your sorry ar*e out of this one?

I don’t know what dictionary you’re using, but 1976 is hardly the most recent edition. Why not try either one or two of the following?

Cambridge

containing unpleasant and indirect criticism

Dictionary.com

Derogatory in a malicious, superior way

I did find a reference to counterfeit, but that is not used when discussing comments. You could say that an item is snide in terms of it being fake, but it does not apply to people or what they say. (Oxford) When one says that someone makes a snide comment, it means that they were being nasty.

I’ll say it again, don’t try and lecture people on their own language. :p

Well said Phil, If Jester wishes to carry on believing that hes is right to throw people out of their homes without any democratic process for them, just to satisfie his nationalistic fantasys then so be it. We can at least be safe in the knowledge, that the world is now a sufficiently grown up place to probably never allow such terrible act to happen.

Sure, sure…

Good come back Jester and no I am not playing the victim, you do that far better than I. Bullied by a Euro super power is the most farcical pap I have heard from the usual snivelers and you are coming close.

Take your choice Mr ‘Wannabe-Dictator’ you either do it peacefully or you start another war, neither is a forgone conclusion and you are just going to have to face the possibility of never actually getting what you want. Still, it is good to ‘want’ isn’t it, well you can’t have so stop crying.

Phil 🙂

Mushashi wrote:

The world snide does not indicate someone is lying Look up the definition again. Don’t presume to lecture someone on the use of their mother tongue if you can’t even spell words correctly.

Snide: a) counterfeit, bogus, mean trick b) counterfeit jewelry or coin.
Well, mush, I looked up the definition again, on my OXFORD CONCISE 1976 edition, and unless english has changed a lot since then, you called me a lair by labelling the information I posted as “fake“.
Now, how are you gonna wiggle your sorry ar*e out of this one?
As for who needs lecturing on what specific subject, I may need some help with me spelling, but I’m sure as hell I know my Ps and Qs about the history of the Malvinas better than you. Some lessons on how to be a less pathetic debater would become also.

Sealordlawrence wrote:

Do you believe that the People of the Falkland Islands, those who live there now and regard them as their home, should have the right to decide in a free and fair referendum who rules the Falkland Islands?

Its now the third time you ask something I have already answered, although you have changed the wording each time.
I do not believe that your so-prized “self-determination” applies on the case of the british citizens who live on the Malvinas. I have posted so since the begining of the topic, and I have provided the rationale for my position. If YOU, on the other hand are unfit to read the topic with a critical mind and find the answer to your question yourself, then its not my fault.

rather than avoiding it in order to disguise your obvious hatred of democracy, liberty, freedom and self-determination

Oh, geez, and now the part where you ask for my removal from the forum because of my “hate speach” :rolleyes: . My counselor was right, I should have become a psycho-analyst after all….

Phill wrote:

I am serious. Same goes for Australia, Canada, the USA in fact the whole of North and South America. All people with no non native ancestry should be shipped out and the land handed back to the people who were there first. No arguing, just STFU and get on with it.

Mushashi asked what my definition of “practical solution” is. Certainly shipping out 600 million non-native americans from North and South America, to return the whole continent to 10 or 15 million “pure ancestry” native americans is NOT a practical solution. It also would be rather irrelevant to the topic at hand, because said 600 million people of european, african and asian ancestry who live in America, do not consider themselves anylonger european, african or asian. They are not claiming the continent for Ye’Olde Empire, but have created open, multicultural democracies. Quite the opposite from what we can observe as the tendency on the Malvinas * .

The irony is that if you do this, the only people left in the homes that they and their ancestors have inhabited for centuries, without displacing any previous inhabitants……………is the Falkland islanders

:rolleyes: Sure, sure…

But who cares about them eh? Afterall they are only British.

Playing the victim? Oh, I feel so sorry, I could cry….
But you said one thing very true, they are indeed, ONLY BRITISH. Which comes to resume the whole issue.

King Jester

* I’m done with my PC writing Falklands/Malvinas all the time. I find it quite pitifull that nobody (with a few exeptions) has the openmindness as to see the issue as an unresolved problem. From now on its the Malvinas for me.

But the colonisation of a foreign land is now legitimate because the colonists have been there for “100 years”? Still not a very good precedent.

Frankly, as I pointed out earlier, I agree that there is nothing that the Argentine govt. can do now to ‘retake’ the islands as the population is now wholly British. I do think, however, that justifying what is esentially colonisation through talk of democracy and self-determination is a bit rich and that the Argentines should have full or equal fishing rights to the adjacent seas – particularly if the islanders themselves aren’t going to fish there and simply selling their rights as Jester is suggesting. The Falklanders should of course have all the rights to remain on the islands under British rule but to exploit the natural resources as well is treading over the line.

British land ownership laws blur the issue further as they mean that the islanders are simply lease holders on state land. This amounts to a direct case of the British state handing out leases on land that by right should belong to another state.

Well then we go back to the argument that all people of non New Zealand (native New Zealand) should be kicked out and the native New Zealanders should be handed back their country. I am serious. Same goes for Australia, Canada, the USA in fact the whole of North and South America. All people with no non native ancestry should be shipped out and the land handed back to the people who were there first. No arguing, just STFU and get on with it.

The irony is that if you do this, the only people left in the homes that they and their ancestors have inhabited for centuries, without displacing any previous inhabitants……………is the Falkland islanders. But who cares about them eh? Afterall they are only British.

Phil :rolleyes:

I will ask you one last time, Do you believe that the People of the Falkland Islands, those who live there now and regard them as their home, should have the right to decide in a free and fair referendum who rules the Falkland Islands?
I would prefer if you actually answered this question simply with either a yes or a no, rather than avoiding it in order to disguise your obvious hatred of democracy, liberty, freedom and self-determination.

1. The world snide does not indicate someone is lying :p Look up the definition again. Don’t presume to lecture someone on the use of their mother tongue if you can’t even spell words correctly.

2. What is your practical solution? Simply giving the Falklanders the finger and saying, “the f*ck we care what you want, you’re joining Argentina”?

At the end of the day, the Falklands are British because the people there want to be British. If you want the islands back so much, I suggest you try and improve relations with the Falklanders, because we’re not going to give them back simply because of your complaints.

Musashi wrote:

Well you can make snide comments all you want, but it does make a difference.

At first I thought you had made a typo, and meant to write “side comments”. Then I looked up “snide” in the dictionary, and I do not like what I found. You dare calling me a lair while you don’t have a clue about past or present of the Malvinas. Bring forward some evidence to back your claim that I have posted inaccurate or false information about the economic development of the Falklands in 1982 or STFU .
I recommend the 1984 Sir Shackleton report to the Parliament to check the facts.

It’s all very well if a nation’s history records it appointing a governor and do this and that. But if there’s no evidence to back this claim up – i.e. a process of settlement was started – then its claim is shakier

Here you show us again that you talk out of your ar*e. Not only argie documents back the settlement process quite well, but ALSO american historic records AND british historic records contain evidence as to the development of the argie settlement on the Malvinas. We had not only appointed authorities, but detached a naval force and we were effectively policing our souvereignty there, i.e. by detaining illegal poachers, regulating fisheries and whaling, etc.
We had introduced cattle, and build stores, houses, a pier and even a fish salt-house (which was after the british invasion used by the british colonials, a bit of trivia which can be found even on the official “Falklands” website). In 1833, at least 30 settlers and the crew of an argie navy shoner were rounded up and expelled. Want more “evidence”?

How far back should we go when redistributing land? 500 years? 1000 years? Shall we go into ancient history?

As long as there is a valid claim, and a practical solution to it, more so if a win-win solution can be found, every claim should be brought forward.

At one time England controlled many parts of modern France completely fairly. But we went to war with “France” several times and they took them off us. We don’t teach our children that they were “stolen” from us and they are rightfully ours.

I’m not familiar enough with european medieval history as to comprehend fully what you mean by “completely fairly”, but I’m pretty sure that at some point in history, after the romans left and the english arrived, France was indeed french (or gaulois, or whatever Asterix and Obelix were :p ).
Anyhow, we are talking 600 years ago, when the UK as such and France as such didn’t even exist as we know them today.
In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas we start in 1833, when both the UK as such and Argentina as such did already exist, and had appointed ambassadors to each other, and did mutually recognize the independence and boundaries of each other. The UK did in 1825, IRCC, effectively and formally recognize Argentinas (“United Provinces of Rio de la Plata” back then) independence and (self-)proclaimed outer limits, including islands and dependencies.

So why can’t Argentina accept that it lost the islands to us and just move on?

Because we do not need to put up with sh*t like that. Read above. The UK attacked and seized what had been previously recognized as souvereign argie territory. Period.

Sealordlawrence ranted:

You avoided my question very nicely jester

Did I? I was under the impression that I gave you a straight and forward answer to your single and simple question. I will repeat it here: british citizens who live on the islands should have the right to vote in british elections, just as any other british citizen does 😀

The history is irrelevant

Given that you will not step down from there, its pointless to continue arguing (sorry, I meant debating…) the issue.

I do miss though, some intelligent replies to the many questions I made on this topic, which have been ignored so far.

King Jester

PD: Edited quote tags and typos.

The history is irrelevant, it is choice of the current native population.
You avoided my question very nicely jester, but the fact remains that the Falklands are the home of those who currently live there, thus they and they alone should choose its future do you or do you not agree with that?

In 1982, when Argentina “re-took” 149 years later, a few dozens Crown-owned farms, a single income economy (wool, as exporting mouton wasn’t redituable), a minute town with a couple hundred houses, less than 50 miles of pawed roads, the only airliner connection subsidezed by the argie gov., the only pawed airstrip build by Argentina IRCC, heating oil shipped in by the argie gov. at mainland price, count among some other examples of the “shabbiness” of what the UK had done by then.

Well you can make snide comments all you want, but it does make a difference. It’s all very well if a nation’s history records it appointing a governor and do this and that. But if there’s no evidence to back this claim up – i.e. a process of settlement was started – then its claim is shakier.

In the 19th century there were many wars over territory. Some nations lost, some nations gained. In world history, there are some places that have gained and some that lost. How far back should we go when redistributing land? 500 years? 1000 years? Shall we go into ancient history?

At one time England controlled many parts of modern France completely fairly. But we went to war with “France” several times and they took them off us. We don’t teach our children that they were “stolen” from us and they are rightfully ours. So why can’t Argentina accept that it lost the islands to us and just move on?

Sealordlawrence rumbled:

but a certain mr Jester who has avoided answering the question you qouted

A certain Mr. “King” Jester who has just about recovered from his friday evening after office pub-hopping 😎 will anser all your questions, when the time comes. I told you already, young chap, that a little introspection and selfconstraint would benefit your posts.

I ask you again jester do you believe that the people of the falklands should have the right to decide democratically who governs them? yes or no please.

Believing that a single silver-bullet question which is to be answered with a simple yes or no, can be so conclusive and inequivocal as to sort out the good from the evil forever is pretty naive, to say the least. :rolleyes: As already mentioned, there is much more grey to the concepts of self-determination, democracy, liberty or equality than there is of black and white to it. Unchecked democracy rapidly degrades into the tyranny of the majority, while overchecked democracy develops into oligarchy. I recomend to start with Rousseaus “Social Contract” as a nightstand reading, before you get to heavilly involved in debattes like this one.

But I will nevertheless follow your lead and give you a simple answer to your single question. What should I answer, though? If I say NO, then you will label me a totalitarian and possibly ask MODERATOR for my removal from the forum because my “hate speech” is uncompatible with the free spirited collective mind of the fora. If on the other hand I say YES, then you are going to fan your tail like a peacock and tell everybody how you managed to corner that thirdworld-wannabe-tirant into giving in.

If I believe that the kelpies should have the right to democratically elect their government? Kelpers are british citizens (that is what they claim and what the UK acknowledges and tells the RoW), and as britrish citizens I DO believe they should have the right to democratically elect the british Prime Minister, the members of the british Parliament , the british representatives to the EU and their local executive authority, the Governor. Last time I checked, they do NOT have the right to do ANY of those choices on their own, under current british law (source: Wikipedia). They do not participate in british national elections, and their governor has been imposed by the Crown (sorry, I meant appointed…) ever since 1833. Nothing on this regard changed after kelpers finally got a “constitution” in 1985.
I ALSO DO believe, that ALL british citizens loyal subjects to the UK and the Queen, including all 55 million britons on the Motherland who provide the manpower and the budget to mantain Fortress Falkland,, should have the right to democratically decide if the UK is to hold on to the islands or start souvereignty talks with Argentina over the matter.

I do not wish to bore you with all the other fine and nice things I do believe in, but I have to add that I ALSO DO believe that as there should be a democracy at the local level and at the national level, there should be a democracy at the international level. Thus I DO believe that the UK should show more respect for Resolutions 2065 and 1913 of the UN, which were passed in plenary session by a majority of the member states.

Under you view everybody in the US should leave and the continent be handed back to the indians, your perspective is absurd.

Native americans, pal. If you’re gonna be PC, at least do it right :p . Indians live on the other side of the globe.
As to correct your lack of comprehension about the subtle differences between vacating the Falklands and vacating the USA, and to put in perspective how absurd your example is, let me say following:
a) Sad but true, most native americans were extermined during the last 500 years, and in many regions of America (mainly South America) continue to be outcasts of modern society.
b) Settlers of all origins (admittedly mostly british) in what has become USA, revolted against the Empire in 1776, about half a century before the UK even started its colonial bussines on the Falklands.
c) Said revolting settlers, whose concern was not to be ruled any longer by the Motherland, formed an inclusive democracy, were ultimatly all native americans and all white, black, yellow and mixed race immigrants participate by vote and voice, some odd 209 years before kelpers even got the right to vote their own council.
d) Said multiracial, multicultural democracy became independendant and started bussines with neighbours form near and far on an equal basis, while on the Falklands an isolationist and unrepresented society of Crown peasents developed.

My Hitler comment was a reference to your seeming believe that Argentina should have the falklands simply becouse it believes it should have them and for no other reason.

My reasons have been clearly posted before, but read my lips again: Argentina has a valid claim and historic rights to back up said claim. Its NOT a matter of “wishing”, “believing” or “feeling”. But of course, for you historic rights are worthless, as is jurisprudence all together, according to one of your previous posts.

Mushashi wrote:

because the people who live in Falklands now aren’t responsible for the colonisation of the islands. It’s their home.

Mushashi, Argentinas claim did not come out of the blue. We have been protesting the illegal occupation of the Malvinas for a century and a half. I understand perfectly well that current inhabitants regard their homes precisely “as their homes”. That doesn’t change the fact that the british presence tresspasses legitimate and rightfull argie souvereignty claims. In the real world, after you get an eviction ruling, police comes and kicks you out if you are illegally tresspassing, no matter how long you have been there or how deeply you feel its “your home” you are geting evicted from. Of course in “surreal world” , the world of international politics, anything, no matter how surreal, can happen. I’m NOT proprosing to kick kelpers out, nor to take their british citizensship or their personal property away. I have consistently posted so on this topic. But the souvereignty of the territory is open to discussion, regardless of the final destination of the kelpers. If they choose to stay, they are welcome. If they prefer to leave, so be it. They have had over 40 years time, since Res 2065, to start packing, after all…

and they did appoint a governor to start a proper colonisation process in 1829. But we had taken the islands by 1833. I doubt very much that Argentina had done much by then, or that many Argentinians had moved there to set up a community. Indeed, had they done anything by that point?

In 1982, when Argentina “re-took” 149 years later, a few dozens Crown-owned farms, a single income economy (wool, as exporting mouton wasn’t redituable), a minute town with a couple hundred houses, less than 50 miles of pawed roads, the only airliner connection subsidezed by the argie gov., the only pawed airstrip build by Argentina IRCC, heating oil shipped in by the argie gov. at mainland price, count among some other examples of the “shabbiness” of what the UK had done by then. Sorry, I do not want to sound all to nit-picky. 😉

Ink, I respect your position and how you expose it. I always respect somebody who has done its share of reading. Thanks.

King Jester

PS: Just for the record, I do NOT consider the UK to be my or our natural born enemy. Our countries have been close friends for to long to throw all that overboard for some differences we may keep fighting over.

But the colonisation of a foreign land is now legitimate because the colonists have been there for “100 years”? Still not a very good precedent.

Frankly, as I pointed out earlier, I agree that there is nothing that the Argentine govt. can do now to ‘retake’ the islands as the population is now wholly British. I do think, however, that justifying what is esentially colonisation through talk of democracy and self-determination is a bit rich and that the Argentines should have full or equal fishing rights to the adjacent seas – particularly if the islanders themselves aren’t going to fish there and simply selling their rights as Jester is suggesting. The Falklanders should of course have all the rights to remain on the islands under British rule but to exploit the natural resources as well is treading over the line.

British land ownership laws blur the issue further as they mean that the islanders are simply lease holders on state land. This amounts to a direct case of the British state handing out leases on land that by right should belong to another state.

Ink, both those examples are irrelevant, because the Falklands were never properly colonised by the Argentinians in the first place. They set up a penal colony there in 1822, and they did appoint a governor to start a proper colonisation process in 1829. But we had taken the islands by 1833. I doubt very much that Argentina had done much by then, or that many Argentinians had moved there to set up a community. Indeed, had they done anything by that point?

Birmingham and Vladivostok are large settlements that have been inhabited by Britons/Russians for over 100 years. We did not secure the Falklands by the island ethnic majority moving from Argentine to British.

Musashi,

This is the problem. There are no clear rules on land ownership and one of the ways I chose to illustrate this is the hypothetical case of Birmingham a decade from now. Will the people of Birmingham in 2015 (the Pakistani majority) also have the same right to self determination? Or if the Birmingham example is too toutchy why not another hypothetical scenario – say Vladivostok becoming a Chinese majority city in a decade or so. Part of the problem with your argument is that, if set in stone, it allows countries to colonise parts of other countries and then scream blue-murder when their now majority population doesn’t get the right to self-determination. This is not an acceptable precedent to set in my opinion.

Thankyou Musashi, that is what I have been trying to say, but a certain mr Jester who has avoided answering the question you qouted appears to believe that the people who regard the Falklands as their homes should leave in order to satisfie the nationalistic tendencys of Argentina.

I ask you again jester do you believe that the people of the falklands should have the right to decide democratically who governs them? yes or no please.

This is the entire point of the current situation. It doesn’t matter what happened in the past, because the people who live in Falklands now aren’t responsible for the colonisation of the islands. It’s their home. They didn’t displace any natives or Argentinians in doing that. So they haven’t committed any crime that means their interests should be ignored.

Thus the decision should be their’s to make. I really don’t understand why they can’t choose what future they want. In a way they are the “natives” of that island. Natives aren’t simply a group of people that evolve and live in one place. Their ancestors usually move around, even thousands of miles. So, given that they were the first group of people to properly settle the islands for a long period of time, they are native in a way.

Gaz if you can be arsed there are a plethora of web sites supplied above, a cursory glance will answer many of you questions.

So you don’t know what it is? Interesting that you claim everything would be OK if everyone abided by something you don’t even know anything about.

5000 people came off the top of your head, everything else it seems comes out of your backside.

What is this fixation some people seem to have with my bottom?

I chose 5000 because that would create a nice democratic majority. It could be 10000 if that makes you feel better, but I doubt there are 10000 people prepared to live on that isolated barren cluster of rocks except by being sent there as a punnishment.