Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 The Scottish islands are not two hundred miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 The Scottish islands are not two hundred miles away. Rockall is 270 miles from Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Rockall is 270 miles from Britain How did the population of Rockall vote in their last referendum? Must have been a pretty close run thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 How did the population of Rockall vote in their last referendum? Must have been a pretty close run thing. I dont think Gotsmanov mentioned population. His post was based on geographic entitlement. Try to focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I dont think Gotsmanov mentioned population. His post was based on geographic entitlement. Try to focus. Why don't you focus on the basics like a) the Shetland/Orkey islands are eff all like the Falklands in any meaningful sense, except there are probably sheep and grass on both b) Rockall is an uninhabited rock, so again, nothing at all like the Falklands c) The Falklands is a total non-Issue and only a pitifully incompetent leader would decide to "focus" on it in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-controversial-vow-scrap-7239737#ICID=sharebar_twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Why don't you focus on the basics like a) the Shetland/Orkey islands are eff all like the Falklands in any meaningful sense, except there are probably sheep and grass on both b) Rockall is an uninhabited rock, so again, nothing at all like the Falklands c) The Falklands is a total non-Issue and only a pitifully incompetent leader would decide to "focus" on it in 2016. Thats sweet and interesting in a schoolboy essay kind of way - but again off on a tangent. Aintforever made a point about the proximity of the Falklands to Argentina and drew a parallel with settling islands off the coast of Scotland. Gotsmanov implied it wasnt comparable since the Falklands were further away. I pointed out Rockall was further offshore than the Falklands. CB Fry went into a purple vein rant about something no-one mentioned. For what is worth I think the islands technically belong to Argentina but that the rights of the islanders to self determination should take precedence. However, the fight isnt really about people or whether the islands have sheep or grazing, its about the 200 mile EEZ in the waters around the islands and the access to the resources that sovereignty brings. You should look up UNCLOS Perhaps that might be helpful to you in some small way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 For what is worth I think the islands technically belong to Argentina. Don't talk nonsense man . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Don't talk nonsense man . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 I pointed out Rockall was further offshore than the Falklands. Have you got a credible source for this little titbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 And a map of 35 years previous to that would be completely different. SPAIN have more of a claim to the Falklands than Argentina do. Simple facts. The people on the island are British. The people on the island want to stay British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Thats sweet and interesting in a schoolboy essay kind of way - but again off on a tangent. Aintforever made a point about the proximity of the Falklands to Argentina and drew a parallel with settling islands off the coast of Scotland. Gotsmanov implied it wasnt comparable since the Falklands were further away. I pointed out Rockall was further offshore than the Falklands. CB Fry went into a purple vein rant about something no-one mentioned. For what is worth I think the islands technically belong to Argentina but that the rights of the islanders to self determination should take precedence. However, the fight isnt really about people or whether the islands have sheep or grazing, its about the 200 mile EEZ in the waters around the islands and the access to the resources that sovereignty brings. You should look up UNCLOS Perhaps that might be helpful to you in some small way. How awfully fascinating. Meanwhile, on planet earth, Corbyn will never be Prime Minister so he won't get to actually get to impact any of his hobby-horse sixth form jotter projects anyway. The Falklands will remain as is and you and Jeremy will be left weeping into your nineteenth century map of the world. Terribly sorry about that, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Are the Falklands in the Argentinian territorial waters? If so they have fair and rightful claim if not the island is independent and can ask for protection or rule by anyone they like I would have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Whoever it was that wrote the United Nations founding charter thought the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Have you got a credible source for this little titbit? A map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 A map? So that's a no then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 (edited) And a map of 35 years previous to that would be completely different. SPAIN have more of a claim to the Falklands than Argentina do. Simple facts. The people on the island are British. The people on the island want to stay British. Not really. Spain had a claim to the islands since 1492 and an agreement between France and Spain in 1764 settled their ownership as part of the Spanish colonies in South America - the Virreinato del la Playa. When the colonies achieved independence ownership transferred to them. Britain stole them. Anyway as I said regardless of whether they should have been appropriated 180 years ago is now academic as the rights of the people take precedence. No-one the Brits, Spanish or anyone else really cared about the islands themselves until 1982. Until then they were just barren strips of land useful only as a refuelling station for whalers and warships. Argentina fished the waters around the islands intensively. What triggered the invasion was the 1982 agreement of Exclusive Economic Zones up to 200 miles through UNCLOS. That had the effect of not only excluding Argentina from waters around the Falklands but also hugely reducing their own national waters. The success of deep sea drilling for oil (and its increasing price) suddenly the made the islands important, not for themselves but for their waters, hence the invasion. Edited 26 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 So that's a no then. You dont think maps are credible sources of information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Yes I do. Is this 20 questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 OK my turn. You said Rockall is 270 miles from Britain. Do you stand by that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 OK my turn. You said Rockall is 270 miles from Britain. Do you stand by that? Its about that give or take 10 miles or so. Certainly its further from the British mainland than the Falklands are from Argentina. Its actually closer to Ireland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Show me a map that shows the Falklands less than 270 miles from Argentina. Just to help you stop digging, the closes point from the westernmost tip of Beaver Island (the most westerly point of the Falklands) is Cabo Vergenes, 300 miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Not really. Spain had a claim to the islands since 1492 and an agreement between France and Spain in 1764 settled their ownership as part of the Spanish colonies in South America - the Virreinato del la Playa. When the colonies achieved independence ownership transferred to them. Britain stole them. Anyway as I said regardless of whether they should have been appropriated 150 years ago is now academic as the rights of the people take precedence. No-one the Brits, Spanish or anyone else really cared about the islands themselves until 1982. Until then they were just barren strips of land useful only as a refuelling station for whalers and warships. Argentina fished the waters around the islands intensively. What triggered the invasion was the 1982 agreement of Exclusive Economic Zones up to 200 miles through UNCLOS. That had the effect of not only excluding Argentina from waters around the Falklands but also hugely reducing their own national waters. The success of deep sea drilling for oil (and its increasing price) suddenly the made the islands important, not for themselves but for their waters, hence the invasion in 1983. Spain didn't know anything about the islands in 1492. Nor anything about South America, come to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Show me a map that shows the Falklands less than 270 miles from Argentina. Just to help you stop digging, the closes point from the westernmost tip of Beaver Island (the most westerly point of the Falklands) is Cabo Vergenes, 300 miles away. 240 miles Isla de los Estados to Port Stephens. http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/Argentina/to/Falkland+Islands+Malvinas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Spain didn't know anything about the islands in 1492. Nor anything about South America, come to that. No but they were granted rights to all yet to be discovered land in that area by the Pope. Pedro Reinel mapped them in 1522 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 240 miles Isla de los Estados to Port Stephens. http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/Argentina/to/Falkland+Islands+Malvinas 228 miles from Rockall to Goular in North Uist. Any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 This thread is becoming surreal. The point is Corbyn has a job (to put it mildly) to reach out beyond his/Labour's core vote. The Falklands issue sits along the line between completely irrelevant and certain to induce a nasty reaction among voters outside the core 25-8%. It is therefore utterly stupid to raise the issue - even worse to do it in the usual Corbyn way of muttering about how there must be a better way for us all to get along, etc, etc. Labour need to win an election. To do that they need to focus on core policy areas of the economy, the NHS, immigration. They need to be flexible and imaginative. And they also need to be principled - unlike Corbyn's craven idea of nuclear subs without nukes just to appease his mates in the unions. So could Corbyn and the Stalin/Putin admirers surrounding him at least make a start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 228 miles from Rockall to Goular in North Uist. Any more? Any more what? Showing Hutch up to be wrong? again. Why choose North Uist? Soay is much closer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Still don't know when to stop digging. Rockall is 270 miles from Britain No it isn't. It's 287 miles from the closest point on the mainland, and 188 miles from the closest inhabited island (Hirta). I pointed out Rockall was further offshore than the Falklands. Certainly its further from the British mainland than the Falklands are from Argentina. No it isn't. The Falklands are 301 miles from the closest point on the mainland, and 215 miles from the closest inhabited island. In case you have a problem with sums, that makes the Falklands 27 miles further away from the closest inhabited island, and 13 miles further away from the mainland. Its actually closer to Ireland. Nope. Wrong again. Ireland is 268 miles from Rockall, Scotland proper is 228 miles away. Why choose North Uist? Soay is much closer Because I'm not such a dimwitted pedant that I actually look for uninhabited rocks sticking out of the middle of the ocean just to try (and fail) to make a point on the internet. Showing Hutch up to be wrong? Really? I posted a comment on here because I know a bit about the Falkland Islands, having actually been there, and have some empathy with the people that live there. You clearly haven't, and are furiously trying to make up an argument as you go along based on what you can find on google and wikipedia. For what it's worth, I only generally only comment on topics that I know anything about from my own personal experience, that I think might be of interest. Any idiot can read the internet and recycle other people's opinions that they've read in newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 You know I've always had a fascination with distances in South America. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 You know I've always had a fascination with distances in South America. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 You know I've always had a fascination with distances in South America. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity guys! What about the North Atlantic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Rockall is 270 miles from Britain I think that is a good response but Rockall is not inhabitable so the boat full of Danes could not inhabit it and then have a referendum. So you would have to revert to the nearest habitable island and the point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Not sure of the relevance of Rockall, it was just a random example. I just don't like all this colonialism nonsense. OK, a few hundred years ago we had the best navy and could sail around the world kill the indigenous people and claim the land as ours - that just doesn't seem that relevant today. I'm not bothered wether they stay British or not, just wouldn't want to spend vast amounts of money, or spill any blood just to ensure they can fly a certain colour flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Not sure of the relevance of Rockall, it was just a random example. I just don't like all this colonialism nonsense. OK, a few hundred years ago we had the best navy and could sail around the world kill the indigenous people and claim the land as ours - that just doesn't seem that relevant today. I'm not bothered wether they stay British or not, just wouldn't want to spend vast amounts of money, or spill any blood just to ensure they can fly a certain colour flag. Your compassion for refugees should be commended but the Syrian and Iraqi refugees are fleeing because they do not want to be governed under a different flag due to the treatment they will or have been receiving. What is the difference between them and the Falkland islanders? In fact you grumble about Colonialism but there was no indigenous population when we arrived. The current population are the closest you will get to an indigenous population the Islands have ever had yet bizarrely you are advocating Argentinian colonisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 I think that is a good response but Rockall is not inhabitable so the boat full of Danes could not inhabit it and then have a referendum. So you would have to revert to the nearest habitable island and the point still stands. Fair comment. Funnily enough Britain has been trying to claim Rockall is habitable - because if it can support human life then we would get another 200 miles EEZ around it. Transparent stuff though. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/30/who-owns-rockall-legal-history-hancock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Your compassion for refugees should be commended but the Syrian and Iraqi refugees are fleeing because they do not want to be governed under a different flag due to the treatment they will or have been receiving. What is the difference between them and the Falkland islanders? In fact you grumble about Colonialism but there was no indigenous population when we arrived. The current population are the closest you will get to an indigenous population the Islands have ever had yet bizarrely you are advocating Argentinian colonisation. I'm not advocating anything and have no desire to see the Falklands forced under Argentinian control against their will - I just don't think it is an issue worth going to war or spending huge amounts of money over. What flag they fly on their Island makes no difference to me. If Thatcher had struck a deal with the Argies before the war and avoided all the bloodshed then I doubt any of us on here would even have heard of the Falklands. Corbyn is an idiot for even discussing the subject because handing anything over to the Argies is never going to be popular but it is hard to look at the map and think they don't hold any sort of claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Not Corbyn but funny all the same http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/638138/David-Lammy-Labour-MP-slammed-claiming-Indians-British-Army-fought-European-Project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 I'm not advocating anything and have no desire to see the Falklands forced under Argentinian control against their will - I just don't think it is an issue worth going to war or spending huge amounts of money over. What flag they fly on their Island makes no difference to me. If Thatcher had struck a deal with the Argies before the war and avoided all the bloodshed then I doubt any of us on here would even have heard of the Falklands. Corbyn is an idiot for even discussing the subject because handing anything over to the Argies is never going to be popular but it is hard to look at the map and think they don't hold any sort of claim. You are probably right and if Thatcher had struck a deal a few thousand islanders would have been outraged but as we went to war over it, now most of a nation would be outraged. The point I am making is that defending the right to self determination prevents refugees and is a very important principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 Why don't you focus on the basics like a) the Shetland/Orkey islands are eff all like the Falklands in any meaningful sense, except there are probably sheep and grass on both b) Rockall is an uninhabited rock, so again, nothing at all like the Falklands c) The Falklands is a total non-Issue and only a pitifully incompetent leader would decide to "focus" on it in 2016. CB re no 1 . These two isles are not too dissimilar to the Falklands , do a bit of reach , yes there's is grass , she, Kai etc. the Falklands use an islander aircraft to get to the outer isles just like Shetland and Orkney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 January, 2016 Share Posted 26 January, 2016 CB re no 1 . These two isles are not too dissimilar to the Falklands , do a bit of reach , yes there's is grass , she, Kai etc. the Falklands use an islander aircraft to get to the outer isles just like Shetland and Orkney. I'm not sure you understood what I meant by "in any meaningful sense". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 27 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I'm not advocating anything and have no desire to see the Falklands forced under Argentinian control against their will - I just don't think it is an issue worth going to war or spending huge amounts of money over. What flag they fly on their Island makes no difference to me. If Thatcher had struck a deal with the Argies before the war and avoided all the bloodshed then I doubt any of us on here would even have heard of the Falklands. Corbyn is an idiot for even discussing the subject because handing anything over to the Argies is never going to be popular but it is hard to look at the map and think they don't hold any sort of claim. I've never really been able to fully comprehend this line of argument. If the rights of the Falkland Islanders were not worth going to war over because there were so few of them, then why should we bother to protect any single individual's basic Human rights? If a nation state can't perform anymore the basic function of protecting its own people from foreign military aggression, then what purpose does it still serve? No, surely there are hugely important principles a stake here that are indeed worth fighting for methinks. As for those who opine that Argentina has some legally (or morally) valid claim on the Falklands because of geographical factors. Well you must understand that - applied globally - that simplistic notion would result in utter chaos. For example, handing Malta and Gibraltar over to the forces of fascism before WWII might have resulted in extremely adverse consequences for not only our nation but for wider humanity too. Similarly, I doubt somehow that the USA is about to give Alaska back to Putin's Russia anytime soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 On the subject of Corbyn's 'Britain can take it mantra', that we are a wealthy western country and and service or money we provide essentially cost us nothing in terms of monetary value or manpower, there is this from today's Times: "British children are being sent to care homes outside their county because social services are overwhelmed with unaccompanied child asylum seekers. Council officials in Kent say that they have no choice but to place local children elsewhere as a result of the large influx of migrant children. The council has 924 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) aged under 18 in its care, up from about 630 at the start of last August." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 I've never really been able to fully comprehend this line of argument. If the rights of the Falkland Islanders were not worth going to war over because there were so few of them, then why should we bother to protect any single individual's basic Human rights? 904 people died and 2,432 people were wounded so that the c2,000 population of the Falklands could decide which flag they lived under. What is the correct balance of deaths to rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 (edited) 904 people died and 2,432 people were wounded so that the c2,000 population of the Falklands could decide which flag they lived under. What is the correct balance of deaths to rights? You don't half spout some nonsense . Living in Poole , home of the SBS & a big marine camp , you meet lots of vets ( not that any admit to being SB ) as many stay in the area when they're times up . I've met & got friendly or worked with dozens and dozens over the years , including one who was one of the 22 originally on south Georgia ( he even wrote a book about it ) and despite losing friends , not one ever complained that it was not worth it . They were protecting UK lives & Uk territory , simple as that . If you're going to start letting foreign governments kill our citizens and invade our territories because they may not kill many , or the population is low , or some daft lefties think they shouldn't be part of our great nation then you'll end up with even greater trouble than we have now . What would make them angry is if lefties like you made their sacrifice meaningless by handing the islands to the Argies just because of some warped political dogma . Edited 27 January, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 (edited) You don't half spout some nonsense . Living in Poole , home of the SBS & a big marine camp , you meet lots of vets ( not that any admit to being SB ) as many stay in the area when they're times up . I've met & got friendly or worked with dozens and dozens over the years , including one who was one of the 22 originally on south Georgia ( he even wrote a book about it ) and despite losing friends , not one ever complained that it was not worth it . They were protecting UK lives & Uk territory , simple as that . If you're going to start letting foreign governments kill our citizens and invade our territories because they may not kill many , or the population is low , or some daft lefties think they shouldn't be part of our great nation then you'll end up with even greater trouble than we have now . What would make them angry is if lefties like you made their sacrifice meaningless by handing the islands to the Argies just because of some warped political dogma . So is there an acceptable number of casualties for a campaign - or do you kill whatever it takes? Edited 27 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 So is there an acceptable number of casualties for a campaign - or do you kill whatever it takes? They invaded. They got forced out. If these islands had not been defended and force had been shown to have been rewarded then where would it all end? You can't do a cost-benefit analysis over events such as these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 (edited) Can we just all agree, whether Labour supporters, former Labour supporters(ahem), and anyone else, that Corbyn and his cronies are possibly the worst leadership of any of the main parties ever, and they have less chance of actually being in government as I have of ****ging Kylie Minogue? Reckon that just about covers it. The man is a f*cking clown. Edited 27 January, 2016 by Wade Garrett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2016 Share Posted 27 January, 2016 (edited) They invaded. They got forced out. If these islands had not been defended and force had been shown to have been rewarded then where would it all end? You can't do a cost-benefit analysis over events such as these. That part I agree with. There were wider implications about the credibility of Britain's determination to defend itself - but it was an unnecessary and avoidable war created by sending Argentina mixed messages. How many of Britains wars since Korea (and maybe not even that) have been worthwhile? Sierra Leone yes, but Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? former Yugoslavia? A long list of death and destruction for little gain imo. Edited 27 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now