Argentina wants the Falklands…again

[ZombieFriedNuts]

The Argentinean parliament on Thursday established a commission to investigate how to win control on the islands Argentineans refer to the Malvinas
But the islanders themselves would rather to be British than Argentinean it seems.

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,1810296,00.html)

Discuss

[Duke Malcolm]

The Argentinians are just being silly nationalists... Imperialism under the guise of anti-imperialism...

[rory_20_uk]

Do those argies really want another slapping? Trident is coming to the end of it's life... seems a shame to waste it...:boxing:

~:smoking:

[stalin]

Let them have it on condition that they'll never play football again

[Big_John]

Let them have it on condition that they'll never play football againi think they'd be more likely to start a war over lack of football opportunities than the falklands (again).

[JAG]

If the people on the Island wanted to be Argentinian then I would be all for it, but the point is they don't, so Argentina really do need to drop it.

[Kralizec]

The Argentinians are just being silly nationalists... Imperialism under the guise of anti-imperialism...

In a nutshell, this is what I think too.

[Husar]

If the people on the Island wanted to be Argentinian then I would be all for it, but the point is they don't, so Argentina really do need to drop it.
The only good point here.:2thumbsup:

[Al Khalifah]

Yeah, we'll show them who's boss again.... with our army in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Navy will show them, oh wait, our aircraft carriers don't have any planes since we just decided to retire our harriers.

Looks like it'll have to be trident.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We do still have some Harriers, anyway, we only needed about 12 last time. Seriously, the Argies don't have a leg to stand on. If I were HM Government I'd actually be more verhement about holding onto it.

[Perplexed]

https://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6186/imghome27lc.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

The penguins deserve the islands more than anyone.

[Aenlic]

The sheep who have been there for many decades now don't have rights too? They might argue with the penguins about that. And then there's the whole aquatic mammal voting block with the sea lions and seals. And never forget the albatrosses! They might get uppity.

[Red Peasant]

We'll decide it with a penalty shoot-out. :idea2:

What am I saying!! No, only kidding, honest guv'nor.

Can we hire the Germans to take our pens???! :laugh4:

[caravel]

Knowing Bliar he'll either:

a) hand it over
b) make a mess of the whole thing and lose it anyway

[Perplexed]

The penguins will fight for their rights! The other minorities will know no peace until control is handed over to the guerilla groups that even know prowl the countryside.

[Aenlic]

The penguins will fight for their rights! The other minorities will know no peace until control is handed over to the guerilla groups that even know prowl the countryside.

Oh yeah? The FFSDLF* will have something to say about that! We're armed and ready for war!









* Falkland Flightless Steamer Duck Liberation Front

[Perplexed]

https://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7905/penguinrevolutionary11eu.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

The PLA* will fight with every ounce of strengh we have! You will never be victorious!



* Penguins' Liberation Army

[Aenlic]

Dangit! I can find a decent pic of a Falklands Flightless Steamer Duck. I'm beat. I concede. You win. Long live the silly penguin regime. (sigh)

[Perplexed]

Victory! :laugh4:

What the hell is a "flightless steamer duck" anyway?

[Papewaio]

The sheep who have been there for many decades now don't have rights too?

Well then SAS* corp (very strong in NZ) will help keep them free.

*Sheep And Sheepdogs

[Aenlic]

Victory! :laugh4:

What the hell is a "flightless steamer duck" anyway?

Beats the hell out of me. That's probably why I couldn't find a decent pic to continue the war. My best guess is it's a duck that can't fly and so has to travel in a steamer trunk; or, alternatively, it's a duck that can't fly but doesn't care because it has plenty of lobster to eat. :grin:

[Perplexed]

Beats the hell out of me. That's probably why I couldn't find a decent pic to continue the war. My best guess is it's a duck that can't fly and so has to travel in a steamer trunk; or, alternatively, it's a duck that can't fly but doesn't care because it has plenty of lobster to eat. :grin:

:laugh4:

[Aenlic]

Well then SAS* corp (very strong in NZ) will help keep them free.

*Sheep And Sheepdogs

Sheepdogs, especially Australian shepherds, are some of the smartest animals on the planet. It's a wonder they haven't gotten fed up and just taken over by now. I suspect they might be too worn out from herding and just figure they'll take over after we remove ourselves from the picture. :wink:

[Spetulhu]

Why not ask the Argentines for a bid on the place? I'd be interested to see what value they actually place on a couple of rocks with a few thousand banjo players.

edit: letter k was stuck. need new keyboard.

[whyidie]

The sheep who have been there for many decades now don't have rights too? They might argue with the penguins about that. And then there's the whole aquatic mammal voting block with the sea lions and seals. And never forget the albatrosses! They might get uppity.

What rubbish! The aquatic mammals and albatrosses don't HAVE a vote! Clearly they are illegal immigrants only there to leech off of the resourceful penguins. Frankly I think the ecology is better off without them.

[Vladimir]

The PLA* will fight with every ounce of strengh we have! You will never be victorious![/B]



* Penguins' Liberation Army

Classic pic. :laugh4: The poise and stature of the penguin really sells it.

[IrishArmenian]

Just pull 20 of your harriers out of the waste basket and have them go to work. That will fix this problem with the Argentines.

[scotchedpommes]

Was aware that the latest Argentine premier had indicated his intention to
reclaim the Falklands some time ago. Can't see any sense in such a move,
considering the position of the people, and I would be surprised if we abandon
them.

[naut]

If they do attempt to sieze the Falklands,

:boxing:

We'll make them Argies pay!

:rifle:

[Perplexed]

Classic pic. :laugh4: The poise and stature of the penguin really sells it.

Thanks. I was going to give him an AK-47 but it just seemed better this way.

[KafirChobee]

Seems even the Brits have their "hotbuttons". Amazing really , to recognize that they ARE as Redneck as Americans about some inconsequential issues. Like who the F' cares about the Falklands? There are in fact more Argentinians there than former Brits, but selling the line versus the truth is always more colorful.

You Bits enjoy your day in American propaganda - it's a hoot .. ain't it? Argueing over an unsubstantial, inconsequential issue. Sure changes the real subject though - don't it?

Dumb is as dumb does - and thos redirected from the reality of a governements' agenda are no wiser today than they were when they allowed them to gain power.

Yeah, the Falklands ... yeah, Argentina demands them back (actually, by international law they do own them), and gee isn't this just the most important issue for all of Britania?

Dumb Shits - what are you a buncha Americans?

[Tribesman]

There are in fact more Argentinians there than former Brits, but selling the line versus the truth is always more colorful.

Nope , there is a mixed bag Brits , Scandinavians , South Americans even a recent influx from St Helena , but the vast majority are of British ancestry Kafir .

(actually, by international law they do own them)
Actually by international law they are disputed territories , and have been disputed for a hell of a long time .

[InsaneApache]

Argueing over an unsubstantial, inconsequential issue. Sure changes the real subject though - don't it?

It's not inconsequential to those people who live there.

If your town had been invaded a generation ago by an agressive foreign power and then been re-occupied during a bloody battle, then I would be prepared to listen to your infantile dross.

However, as you clearly have no idea what the hell your talking about, I shall sit here smirking and feeling smug.

http://www.history.horizon.co.fk/chronology.html

[Red Peasant]

Dumb Shits - what are you a buncha Americans?

Now, now, that's a little strong young fellow. We are not Americans! :laugh4:

[naut]

There's alot more to it than that, KafirChobee.

For one the UK has claims to the area. Also Argentina used force to gain it last time, and the UK has to be prepared to protect its citizens from invasion and conflict. Finally oil was discovered off the coasts of the islands thats why the Argies what it so bad, but its ours they have no right to invade our land.

Just thought I'd through that into the mix.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yeah, the Falklands ... yeah, Argentina demands them back (actually, by international law they do own them), and gee isn't this just the most important issue for all of Britania?

Actually, old fruit, Argentina didn't exist when the Falklands were claimed for Great Britain.

As others have said, the reason this issue provokes strong feeling in the UK was that sovereign territory was invaded and free subjects of the crown faced being ruled by one of the nastiest military junta in South America. Just as the US would have been rather narked if Saddam Hussein had invaded Hawaii, the Brits are proud of their rather extraordinary campaign to regain and liberate the islands.

Now that Argentina is a democracy, there ought to be productive ways of talking about the best ways forward. Unfortunately, the invasion was only twenty five years ago, so British politicians are somewhat hamstrung by the popular press (witness the Gibraltar negotiations) and the Argentinian politicians always dress it up as a glorious struggle that they want to 'win', so exacerbating the situation.

JAG's response would be my exact view.

[Al Khalifah]

Yeah. How stupid to want to try to use force to insure the security of a strategically important oil reserve. Hell, in this case the people are even on our side.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

KafirChobee, you fail miserably to understand the British mentality here.

Our lands were invaded, we fought, blood was spilled, men died, we won. We owe it to those who bled and those who died not to let their sacrifice be in vain.

[Al Khalifah]

The people on the Falklands want to remain part of the United Kingdom and so we will let them and defend their right to do so. Unlike some nations we don't pick and choose when its convenient for people to be our buddies.

[Tribesman]

Our lands were invaded, we fought, blood was spilled, men died, we won. We owe it to those who bled and those who died not to let their sacrifice be in vain.
Yep , you gotta remember this is the Malvinas we are alking about , not Hong Kong or some other overseas territory.~;)

[InsaneApache]

Well some Americans believe their own propaganda about how evil the 'Brits' were, to such an extent, that they become blinded by the fact that most of our British extraction colonials actually wish to remain tied to the 'Mother' country, by means of sharing a common head of state, customs and beliefs.

[InsaneApache]

Our lands were invaded, we fought, blood was spilled, men died, we won. We owe it to those who bled and those who died not to let their sacrifice be in vain.
Yep , you gotta remember this is the Malvinas(i) we are alking about , not Hong Kong (ii)or some other overseas territory.~;)

i Nope, they are the Falkland Islands, not the Malvinas. (Ask the people who actually live there)

ii Trying to shoehorn the Falklands into the same group as Hong Kong is ridiculous.

[GoreBag]

Blah blah blah.

[Husar]

Blah blah blah.
:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Our lands were invaded, we fought, blood was spilled, men died, we won. We owe it to those who bled and those who died not to let their sacrifice be in vain.
Yep , you gotta remember this is the Malvinas we are alking about , not Hong Kong or some other overseas territory.~;)

I'm sorry but thats foolish. Argentina has no claim on the Falklands except geographical. Any claim they might of had dissapeared when they fought and lost a war. Besides, you fail to address my actual point. The sacrifice, the blood price, if you will.

Hong Kong was ours by treaty for a fixed period of time. Had we tried to hold onto it we would have:

A: Been acting illegally.

B: Failed, and men would have died needlessly.

[Duke Malcolm]

Hong Kong was ours by treaty for a fixed period of time. Had we tried to hold onto it we would have:

A: Been acting illegally.

B: Failed, and men would have died needlessly.

That was only the New Territories, the mainland of the colony -- ceded to Britain for 99 years from 1898. Hong Kong and Kowloon were ceded indefinitely after the First (or Second...) Opium War. The entirety of the colony was given back due to:

1. The proffered reason that Hong Kong would be inviable as a territory without a mainland link due to high costs (of what, I do not know). Also, its economy would be severly damaged by a split.

2. Pressure from elsewhere, as was always the prime driving force of dismantling the British Empire, such as the UN, the USA, etc...

3. China was big and scary and has a much bigger you-know-what than us.

[rory_20_uk]

I believe Hong Kong was ours. It was the territories adjacent to Hong Kong that were leased, and the loss of them made Hong Kong untenable.

And how could we have transported adequate water and food to Hong Kong if China blocked it, let alone a war.

What other territories wanted to remain british and were lost?

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

“Argentina demands them back (actually, by international law they do own them)”: Are you sure of that. To my knowledge, Argentina never owned the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines (from the town of St Malo, French port from where this name comes from). It was Spanish, French and now English, but it isn’t because an island is 1000 km from your shores that it belongs to you.
If it was, France could claim the Shetlands… :dizzy2:

“Actually, old fruit, Argentina didn't exist when the Falklands were claimed for Great Britain.” Err, the Falklands were taken by war…
In 1774, the English abandoned the island which became under Spanish Control until 1811. In 1820, Argentina (now independent) installed a colony and a governor. In 1833, the English expelled the Argentineans (with battleships).:oops:

[Papewaio]

KafirChobee would you be okay with giving Alaska to Russia, New York to the Netherlands, Texas to Mexico, Spain, France and Australia? And why not throw in Hawaii to Japan?

Why?/Why Not?

[Tribesman]

Trying to shoehorn the Falklands into the same group as Hong Kong is ridiculous.

Why ? Britain siezed them through force of arms , Britain paid a high price in blood to defeat the Japanese invaders , now all you have left is saying that the locals want to remain under British authority , what about thehong Kong residents who wanted to remain under British authority , oh yeah bugger them it isn't economically viable .
Well hey , it ain't ecomomically viable to retain the Falklands/Malvinas . A third of the people there are the garrison .
Now if you want to talk about local peoples wishes , their rights and their self detemination , how about those lovely folks from Diego Garcia ?:no: :oops:

[Justiciar]

It's only vaguely related, but the following video is worth watching.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FZM2bvSCepE&search=Falklands

Can't say I'm surprised by it. :inquisitive:

[Vladimir]

Ahh, my second favorite prime minister. So the Brits *and* the Russians have those goofy sloped aircraft carriers?

[InsaneApache]

Trying to shoehorn the Falklands into the same group as Hong Kong is ridiculous.

Why ? Britain siezed them through force of arms , Britain paid a high price in blood to defeat the Japanese invaders , now all you have left is saying that the locals want to remain under British authority , what about thehong Kong residents who wanted to remain under British authority , oh yeah bugger them it isn't economically viable .
Well hey , it ain't ecomomically viable to retain the Falklands/Malvinas . A third of the people there are the garrison .
Now if you want to talk about local peoples wishes , their rights and their self detemination , how about those lovely folks from Diego Garcia ?:no: :oops:

Are you being deliberately coy?

The Falklands, quite unlike the others, was settled by British people. They speak with a mildly 'West Country' accent and have relatives still resident in the UK.

There are\were no indigenous people there. A completely different scenario.

BTW Tribesman talking of chips on shoulders, you've got 10lbs of King Edwards on yours. :laugh4:

[thrashaholic]

What other territories wanted to remain british and were lost?

Malta. They wanted to integrate fully with Britain with their own MPs etc. in London, a referendum even said as much, but we gave them independence in the end...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Are you sure of that. To my knowledge, Argentina never owned the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines (from the town of St Malo, French port from where this name comes from). It was Spanish, French and now English, but it isn’t because an island is 1000 km from your shores that it belongs to you.
If it was, France could claim the Shetlands… :dizzy2:

Err, the Falklands were taken by war..
In 1774, the English abandoned the island which became under Spanish Control until 1811. In 1820, Argentina (now independent) installed a colony and a governor. In 1833, the English expelled the Argentineans (with battleships).:oops:


Having looked it up, I concede to you that the region of Buenos Aires declared independence in 1816 from Spain, but didn't create its constitution as Argentina (which by then, but not previously, included the Patagonian region adjacent to the Falklands) until 1853. However, the 1833 invasion was generally regarded as a regaining of the islands from an illegal occupation. The islands were not abandoned in the territorial sense, as many whalers had settled there. I agree there was no real administrative presence.

Nonetheless, having inspired me to check my sources, I'm not sure how you reconcile the two bolded statements in your own responses quoted above? :inquisitive:

[Avicenna]

Trying to shoehorn the Falklands into the same group as Hong Kong is ridiculous.

Why ? Britain siezed them through force of arms , Britain paid a high price in blood to defeat the Japanese invaders , now all you have left is saying that the locals want to remain under British authority , what about thehong Kong residents who wanted to remain under British authority , oh yeah bugger them it isn't economically viable .
Well hey , it ain't ecomomically viable to retain the Falklands/Malvinas . A third of the people there are the garrison .
Now if you want to talk about local peoples wishes , their rights and their self detemination , how about those lovely folks from Diego Garcia ?:no: :oops:


I believe Hong Kong was ours. It was the territories adjacent to Hong Kong that were leased, and the loss of them made Hong Kong untenable.

And how could we have transported adequate water and food to Hong Kong if China blocked it, let alone a war.

What other territories wanted to remain british and were lost?

AFAIK, being a Hong Konger myself, not many people mind the Chinese rule. All the people who went over to places like Aussieland and Canada were just scared of an event similar to the Tiananmen massacre of 1989, and that obviously hasn't happened now.

Personally, I have to say I don't know much about it though, since the handover took place when I was six. I do know that there are... celebrations of it, kind of, such as stamps commemorating the handover, and a public holiday on the day, I think.

By the way, high price in blood? It was mostly Canadians who died, wasn't it? And the British didn't defeat Japan I think, it was more the USA. Hong Kong was taken when defended by the UK and Canada.

EDIT: ok, found out that my historical knowledge of Hong Kong is limited. British, Canadians, Indians and Chinese all fought in Hong Kong, and the Canadians only lost 290. Hong Kong was also returned without a fight as part of a condition of Japan's surrender.

[Tribesman]

Are you being deliberately coy?

Nope , I am exploring the reasons being put forward in this topic .
So far we have had military conquest as a reason , that doesn't float since other regions have been conquered and then given up ,
Then the price in blood to repel the evil invaders , nope that don't work either , other invaders have been repelled and the territory then given up .
Then you have the wishes of locals , nope that don't work either , locals wishes have been completely ignored in both giving up and retaining territory .
So you come to the "but they are of British descent":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I adressed that earlier , they are a mixed bag , but mainly of british descent , but that din't stop Britian stripping them of their rights as Britons prior to the invasion did it , and when I adressed that did you notice the recent influx at the end ?
Interesting no ? A group from another overseas territory of mainly British descent who believe it or not actually had to send a commision to the UN to petition about citizenship and self determination . Which Britain finally sorted out four years ago , not bad going really , since that is only 365 years to make a descision , but hey thats red tape for ya .:2thumbsup:

So what you are left with is the only reason.......its too recent , you know , that flag waving extravaganza where Britian ruled the waves again .
Give it a few years and the Falklands will be sent on its way .:shrug:

Now then , that raises the issue , who can the people of St. Helena get to invade them so that they can be saved and have a big boost to their economy with lots of funding , a big garrison and possibly even an airstrip if they are really lucky .:laugh4:

[King Ragnar]

Hahahaha, no chance they are British property, if they want their asses handed to thema second time then by all means go ahead argentina, lets se what your 'great' nation can do.

Silly Silly People.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know even if you win this arguement you're making yourself look like an utter bastard doing it. It has very little to do with "sticking it to the Argies" its about the fact that they invaded, when they didn't need to, and we fought and died to defeat them. As to citizenship rites, that was not confined to the Falklands.

Do I personnally think we should have given up Hong Kong, or Malta, no. The fact remains though that in the first case we could not hold on to them and in the second we could have but the rest of Europe would have kicked up an almighty fuss and probably Italy would have gotten it or something.

IIRC the Falklands is actually ecenomically viable and the agricultural economy is developing.

[Mithras]

Dumb Shits - what are you a buncha Americans?

Brighter than you old bean....as are the Americans.

what it comes down to is this:

Do the people of the falklands want to remain british?: overall yes
Do the argentinians have a good claim on the land?:not really no
Can they realisticly take it of the British?: haha no

[KafirChobee]

KafirChobee, you fail miserably to understand the British mentality here.

Our lands were invaded, we fought, blood was spilled, men died, we won. We owe it to those who bled and those who died not to let their sacrifice be in vain.

Gah! There must be a Rush Limpballs in GB - y'all sound just like some Southern brothers I know. Whoa the soul that misunderstands the issue, but continues to propagate the feel good or state issued propaganda. It must be right, because a Brit died for the cause - ergo, when a Brit dies it must always be for the righteousness of humainty, the society, the wealfare of mankind and the freedom of a region. Oh, sorry - thats' already being used by Bush43. So go find another excuse to overwhelm a smaller nation.

Or, go stick it - and admit that GB is copying the US example of bullying. But, please, cease any attempt at justification on moral grounds.

Or, just admit y'all got your LimpBalls too. And that you swallowed his wad in its entirety.

[Tribesman]

Congratulation kafir , that post makes no sense at all .

Whoa the soul that misunderstands the issue
Thats rather rich from someone who was completely wrong about the islands population , or the islands status under international law .:oops:

[KafirChobee]

KafirChobee would you be okay with giving Alaska to Russia, New York to the Netherlands, Texas to Mexico, Spain, France and Australia? And why not throw in Hawaii to Japan?

Why?/Why Not?

Er, didn't we buy Alaska from Russia? And we stole Texas from Mexico, like in "remember the Alamo". We also did the Lousyana Purchase from France. as we paid cash for it - and we took all sorts of lands from Spain during our experimentation into Imperialism - which it seems some have never conceeded.

Thing is PAP, either your question is stupid - or you are. Does America stand buy its treaties - or not? Lets look at Panama, if you like. We made a limited agreement, went along with it when it came to an end - and then broke it because it was the popular thing to do.

Sounds alot like what the Brits are facing now. Don't you think? Or, not if you confess to being a facist. :balloon2:

[KafirChobee]

Congratulation kafir , that post makes no sense at all .

Whoa the soul that misunderstands the issue
Thats rather rich from someone who was completely wrong about the islands population , or the islands status under international law .:oops:

Congrats, in justifying my previous premise. Thx. mate.

[Redleg]

I wonder if someone is attempting to get the thread locked?

[Papewaio]

Er, didn't we buy Alaska from Russia? And we stole Texas from Mexico, like in "remember the Alamo". We also did the Lousyana Purchase from France. as we paid cash for it - and we took all sorts of lands from Spain during our experimentation into Imperialism - which it seems some have never conceeded.

Thing is PAP, either your question is stupid - or you are. Does America stand buy its treaties - or not? Lets look at Panama, if you like. We made a limited agreement, went along with it when it came to an end - and then broke it because it was the popular thing to do.

Sounds alot like what the Brits are facing now. Don't you think? Or, not if you confess to being a facist. :balloon2:

:coffeenews: Careful KafirChobee-san if you had said that to anyone else I would have asked you to edit your post as it might hurt their dear little feelings. You can play rough with me as I like it ~;), but if you expect me to bite back I charge by the toothmark :eyebrows: :whip: grrrr. :ahh: :laugh4:

I'm operating under the premise that two wrongs don't make a right. Imperialism of old does not justify Imperialism now.

The best option would be give the Falklanders a referendum with options of which country they want to belong to including becoming an independent country themselves. If they choose to become an independent nation then they should be free from bullying from any other nation.

[Soulforged]

Hahahaha, no chance they are British property, if they want their asses handed to thema second time then by all means go ahead argentina, lets se what your 'great' nation can do.

Silly Silly People.
I didn't entered the thread because the last two times it was all emotion and no facts. The first time I translated two pages of the legal situation and historical facts wich demonstrated wich country has the strongest legal claim over the islands and it seems that a lot of people ignored them. It's ok, I cannot force people to read my posts.
But this post is an insult. Talking about group bashing, first you call my nation sarcastically "great" and then you say "silly silly people" I suppose that you refer to us. In both cases you're right, but that doesn't make it less an insult. I'm not politically correct, but if there was so much discussion a few months ago about group bashing against leftist in another thread, then I don't know anything that stops a warning against national group bashing. Its at the discretion of the mods. What's not at their discresion is how much people should be informed before opening their mouths and saying this kind of things.
:bow:

About the case. The commission is being formed to show a possible gap in the management of the island by british power. The commission only can create informs wich could or could not be published so all other states and the entire world might know about the internal situation. There's going to be no war, so don't worry about people dying, and so I shall remember that a lot of boys from here went to a war uninformed and they were wasted to propagate the message of an inconstitutional government, hence the improperty of blaming the whole nation for the actions of a few.

[Pannonian]

Gah! There must be a Rush Limpballs in GB - y'all sound just like some Southern brothers I know. Whoa the soul that misunderstands the issue, but continues to propagate the feel good or state issued propaganda. It must be right, because a Brit died for the cause - ergo, when a Brit dies it must always be for the righteousness of humainty, the society, the wealfare of mankind and the freedom of a region. Oh, sorry - thats' already being used by Bush43. So go find another excuse to overwhelm a smaller nation.

Or, go stick it - and admit that GB is copying the US example of bullying. But, please, cease any attempt at justification on moral grounds.

There is a single moral reason that overrides any other. Do the people of the Falkland Islands want to be British, or do they want to be Argentine? Repeat the question for people living in the other dependent territories. The day there is a majority wanting independence from Britain or allegiance to another country, we will gladly give them their wish. But if they want to remain British, we will just as gladly give them their wish.

So if you can provide reasonable evidence pointing to the Falkland Islanders wanting out from British sovereignty, you may have an argument.

[naut]

Yes I agree with Soulforged, this thread has evolved from silliness and emotion. And I'm sorry if you are/were offended :bow:.

The whole of Argentina cannot be condemned. However, the fact remains that the Falklands should be left to make their own decision.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There's going to be no war, so don't worry about people dying, and so I shall remember that a lot of boys from here went to a war uninformed and they were wasted to propagate the message of an inconstitutional government, hence the improperty of blaming the whole nation for the actions of a few.

Well said. Now if both governments could discuss the situation as calmly, and stop the posturing motivated by the yellow press, a solution could be found that could benefit all, most especially the islanders.

[InsaneApache]

Well said. Now if both governments could discuss the situation as calmly, and stop the posturing motivated by the yellow press, a solution could be found that could benefit all, most especially the islanders.

A bit of a contradiction there old chap. The islanders have made it plain, time and time again, over the years, that they wish to remain British. They have no desire whatsoever to become Argentinian.

Like Gibraltar, they do not wish to be assimilated into a foreign power.

@ Kafir, are you on drugs or just trolling for effect? You are showing yourself up with your spectacular ignorance on this issue.

[AntiochusIII]

Hmm...the good old resource war, modern style?

I'm not sure those barren rocks have much to them except for 200 miles of fishing rights extending from them into the "national waters."

Oh, and penguins. Are there penguins on the Falklands?

[Banquo's Ghost]

A bit of a contradiction there old chap. The islanders have made it plain, time and time again, over the years, that they wish to remain British. They have no desire whatsoever to become Argentinian.


I don't think it was a contradiction in that the posturing is largely about which flag flies over the islands. If both sides were adult about the situation, there might be an accomodation where the islanders exercise their right of self-determination to remain British, but some sort of shared sovereignty allowed both sides to benefit from the resources, most especially the islanders who would get the economic benefit from such a resurgence. Currently, they are surrounded by natural wealth but are as poor as church mice because they need Argentinian facilities to exploit the resources (ports, airstrips, air and sea routes etc).

Joint arrangements have been successful before in helping to resolve conflicts, not least in Northern Ireland, where the Republic has given up the long standing constitutional claim to the place, but participates in some governmental arrangements. The Northern Irish are still British and will remain so until they decide otherwise. In reality, the border doesn't exist anymore for most ordinary people, which is the way it should be.

As Soulforged wrote, the war was instigated by a wicked bunch of incompetent generals for populist ends. Innocent people on both sides got hurt. Argentina is a democracy now, and the British should be able to talk sensibly about options that would benefit the islanders. Both sides need to abandon the flag waving, 'our boys died for..' routines. Since the average joe in both countries tends to be easily influenced by the flag wavers, it requires some statemanship from both governments - sadly lacking so far, because it is easier to shout yah-boo than to persuade.

[InsaneApache]

As Soulforged wrote, the war was instigated by a wicked bunch of incompetent generals for populist ends. Innocent people on both sides got hurt. Argentina is a democracy now, and the British should be able to talk sensibly about options that would benefit the islanders. Both sides need to abandon the flag waving, 'our boys died for..' routines. Since the average joe in both countries tends to be easily influenced by the flag wavers, it requires some statemanship from both governments - sadly lacking so far, because it is easier to shout yah-boo than to persuade.

And there's the rub. This posturing has come about because of the imminent presidential elections. The only flag waving going on here is from the Argentinian political elite.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Flag waving and political jingoism isn't limited to Argentina alone in this issue.

However, the long and short of it is of course that Argentina should get over it. The Falklands have been British since 1833 now.

In 1833, most of what is now Argentina still had to be setlled by Argentinians. The US barely extended west of the Mississippi. Finland was Russian, Norway was Swedish, the Balkans was Ottoman, Central Europe Austrian (Austria-Hungary didn't even exist yet). The heartland of Prussia lay in what is present-day Poland and Russia.
Since 1833, most of Africa still had to be colonized first, and decolonized later. New Zealand and Australia were hardly known to the outside world.

In fact, few territories on the whole face of the planet have belonged uninterrupted to the same political entity for as long as the Falklands have been British.

Argentina should cease it's irredentist fantasies and deal with it.

[InsaneApache]

Flag waving and political jingoism isn't limited to Argentina alone in this issue.

However, the long and short of it is of course that Argentina should get over it. The Falklands have been British since 1833 now.

In 1833, most of what is now Argentina still had to be setlled by Argentinians. The US barely extended west of the Mississippi. Finland was Russian, Norway was Swedish, the Balkans was Ottoman, Central Europe Austrian (Austria-Hungary didn't even exist yet). The heartland of Prussia lay in what is present-day Poland and Russia.
Since 1833, most of Africa still had to be colonized first, and decolonized later. New Zealand and Australia were hardly known to the outside world.

In fact, few territories on the whole face of the planet have belonged uninterrupted to the same political entity for as long as the Falklands have been British.

Argentina should cease it's irredentist fantasies and deal with it.

That settles it. I was going to support Germany, now I shall support France. Henry for a hat trick in the final.:iloveyou:

[Ianofsmeg16]

Flag waving and political jingoism isn't limited to Argentina alone in this issue.

However, the long and short of it is of course that Argentina should get over it. The Falklands have been British since 1833 now.

In 1833, most of what is now Argentina still had to be setlled by Argentinians. The US barely extended west of the Mississippi. Finland was Russian, Norway was Swedish, the Balkans was Ottoman, Central Europe Austrian (Austria-Hungary didn't even exist yet). The heartland of Prussia lay in what is present-day Poland and Russia.
Since 1833, most of Africa still had to be colonized first, and decolonized later. New Zealand and Australia were hardly known to the outside world.

In fact, few territories on the whole face of the planet have belonged uninterrupted to the same political entity for as long as the Falklands have been British.

Argentina should cease it's irredentist fantasies and deal with it.
If anyone is ever mean to you Louis, tell me, I will find them and go all football hooligan on their *** :2thumbsup:

Anglo-French rivalry? what rivalry? who said that?!

[Duke Malcolm]

King Louis has made an excellent point. As has Soulforged.

So now that KafirChobee is incessantly spouting nonesense, perhaps one of the Glorious Moderators might close this thread?

[Tribesman]

A bit of a contradiction there old chap. The islanders have made it plain, time and time again, over the years, that they wish to remain British. They have no desire whatsoever to become Argentinian.



The day there is a majority wanting independence from Britain or allegiance to another country, we will gladly give them their wish. But if they want to remain British, we will just as gladly give them their wish.


Oh well , another two posters completely ignoring the fact that the residents wishes if they want to remain part of the empire or do not wish so has very little bearing on the outcome .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ditto Kafir is talking twadle and I'm agreeing with Louis.

[Divinus Arma]

How is this different from American policy aimed at liberating oppressed poeples yearning for prosperity and self-determination?

[Tribesman]

How is this different from American policy aimed at liberating oppressed poeples yearning for prosperity and self-determination?
Well to start with the brits had a plan , which while risky was achievable , likewise they had objectives that were clear and achievable , then there was the population who were overwhelmingly welcoming to their liberators , then the reconstruction and investment without the excessive corruption and asset stripping .
Face it Divinus , the Brits have had more practice .
Perhaps you should get Shrub and rummy to listen to them a bit more when it comes to dealing with insurgents/terrorists/invaders .:laugh4:

[Divinus Arma]

Well to start with the brits had a plan , which while risky was achievable , likewise they had objectives that were clear and achievable , then there was the population who were overwhelmingly welcoming to their liberators , then the reconstruction and investment without the excessive corruption and asset stripping .
Face it Divinus , the Brits have had more practice .
Perhaps you should get Shrub and rummy to listen to them a bit more when it comes to dealing with insurgents/terrorists/invaders .:laugh4:

I'm talking policy, not implementation. :book:

[Banquo's Ghost]

How is this different from American policy aimed at liberating oppressed poeples yearning for prosperity and self-determination?

The key difference is that the islanders are British, and the islands sovereign British territory, invaded by a foreign power. If someone had invaded Hawaii, there would be a comparison.

Incidentally, the Reagan administration was less than supportive of the British decision to retake the islands, partly because they thought it couldn't be done with the Royal Navy in the state it was, and partly because they didn't want the Brits upsetting those nice dictators in South America they had spent so long fostering. I believe it was Al Haig who finally put the president back on the right track (y'know, democracy better than fascist junta, Ron). :grin:

The 'special relationship' hit the bin for just a while which is why it always amuses me when the anti-Europeans in the UK argue that the US will always look after Britain first. Not when its interests are threatened, just like with everyone else.

[Tribesman]

I'm talking policy, not implementation.
America has a policy ????????? I thought they were just making it up as they go along .:help:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tribesman, HM Government is not a person, past decisions are not indictive of the future. Yes, in the past mistakes have been made and Malta should now be part of the UK proper, as should all our other terretories but I don't think its going to happen because people would probably cry "Empire" even though the opposite was happening. If I were Prime Minister that is what I would do.

The British people are very concious of the Falklands, they know the people they want to be British so the government can't sweep it under the rug.

Regarding any comparison with Iraq, I agree with you totally. Now let me ask this:

Do you think we should give the Falklands up?

[Tribesman]

Do you think we should give the Falklands up?
What has that got to do with anything ?
My position is simple, Britain will give the Falklands up , it is just a matter of time .
As I said earlier forget all the will of the people , conquest , invasion , price in blood and British descent rubbish , the only issue at the moment is the recentness of the South Atlantic conflict and its position in the current national psyche .

[Mithras]

As I said earlier forget all the will of the people , conquest , invasion , price in blood and British descent rubbish , the only issue at the moment is the recentness of the South Atlantic conflict and its position in the current national psyche .

to be fair once we're set on something we are encredably tencious as a nation. Having fought wars to the point were they looked totally futile and this is anything but futile. Our tenacity is probably our greatest national asset

The only way that the situation will change is if their was a major shift in either British or argentinian military might. which isnt likely.

[Soulforged]

Oh well , another two posters completely ignoring the fact that the residents wishes if they want to remain part of the empire or do not wish so has very little bearing on the outcome .
That's very true Tribes, some examples through history have shown that's everything about politics. There's a case concerning the british and the americans, I don't remember wich island was it (it's on that old thread), but the british gave it to the americans for 50 years as an strategic point, relocating all inhabitants without even consulting them. So the facts tell that the outcome in reality have nothing to do with what the people wish.

If both sides were adult about the situation...That's one of the problems, the other was and has ever been the unilateral decisions of the british. Before the war started there were many attemps from our government to set this peacefully, proposing even a cogovernment of the islands. The british government on the islands didn't even answered to the call. After the war the case went to the UN. With a resolution stating that both states should achieve a peaceful solution to the problem. So far this hasn't happened, and not all the guilt is on Argentina.

Argentina is a democracy...That could be another long discussion...:2thumbsup: All depends in what you call democracy.

Argentina should cease it's irredentist fantasies and deal with it.Exactly. But it has been more than a fantasy to the political class, it has been the edge of the engine of their movements and even of the movement of the rest of the country. A lot of alienated people and marginalized, people die from hunger in all points of the country, nobody really cares about it anymore... There's some places in wich nobody knows about the World Cup, that should tell everything...

[naut]

Wow Louis, I think I'll become a closet Frenchman. Ready to heed the call of Zizou, and never be disappointed in penalties again.


relocating all inhabitants without even consulting them. So the facts tell that the outcome in reality have nothing to do with what the people wish.
But that would be the wrong way to go about the matter, the locals wishes should be foremost when resolving the issue.

Exactly. But it has been more than a fantasy to the political class, it has been the edge of the engine of their movements and even of the movement of the rest of the country. A lot of alienated people and marginalized, people die from hunger in all points of the country, nobody really cares about it anymore... There's some places in wich nobody knows about the World Cup, that should tell everything...
Shouldn't the Argentinian Government work to develop and improve living standards inside of Argentina first.

[Soulforged]

But that would be the wrong way to go about the matter, the locals wishes should be foremost when resolving the issue.Never said it was right, I said that it "is".

Shouldn't the Argentinian Government work to develop and improve living standards inside of Argentina first.Yep. Shouldn't that be the objective of all governments?~;)

[naut]

Yep. Shouldn't that be the objective of all governments?~;)

:laugh4: Very true!

[Aenlic]

I still think if it's about self-determination rather than territorial ambitions, then the penguins should get a vote. I admit that I wasn't previously in favor of the penguin vote, being a staunch FFSDLF (Falklands Flightless Steamer Duck Liberation Front) supporter; but they outgunned us. :no:

Now, in general, I support giving land back to the native peoples. Who are the native peoples of the Malvinas/Falklands again? :grin:

But, I don't hold back; and so I follow that to its logical conclusion. Give it all back. Every last bit. You know what? Screw it. Let's all go back to Africa and once we're all comfortably settled in our homeland, we can have a Great Land Grab. Sort of a Mega-Oklahoma land grab.

We can even let the Australian aborigines be the Sooners, since their genetic line is the only one actually separate from our later migrations. We might have to let them have South America as well; since genetic tests indicate that people of Tierra del Fuego are actually related, and might have been a group thrown way off course in a storm and then driven there by the driven there by the South Pacific westerlies. They are not Polynesian, they are Australian.

Just to be absolutely fair, we can let the guys who portray Neanderthals in those Geico commercials start off ahead of everyone else too. :wink:

EDIT: Oops forgot the last part. Got distracted by the internet. Happens. So, anyway...

Except for bit about the Geico Neanderthals, I'm more than a little serious. Give it all back, and let's start over. Or better yet, build really big interplanetary starships and head off elsewhere and let those who wish t stay continue their squabbling. Really. :wink:

[Tribesman]

Soulforged , that would be Diego Garcia , I mentioned it already , but no one wants to address that since this topic is about the rights of people who live somewhere , not about the rights of people who live somewhere .
See its simple :juggle2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Soulforged , that would be Diego Garcia , I mentioned it already , but no one wants to address that since this topic is about the rights of people who live somewhere , not about the rights of people who live somewhere .
See its simple :juggle2:

The two cases are not really similar, except in order to prove your point (which is well made) that governments are quite happy to over-ride the wishes of citizens when it suits them. It also demonstrates how fragile human rights are when a government decides they are a nuisance and thus deems those humans as non-people.

The Falklands were invaded by a foreign dictatorship and the British government then recovered them. Whereas the Chagos islanders were evicted in favour of an ally's needs. Both decisions were based on strategic considerations.

Personally however, I think the treatment of the Chagos islanders has been one of the most disgusting incidents in a long history of imperial exploitation. It's also a shameful reflection on the environmental movement, as we seemed to be more angry about an island full of tortoises, than one full of people. :shame:

In case people want to look it up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1005064.stm).

[InsaneApache]

Diego Garcia was/is a disgusting stain on the character of the UK government. Forcibly removing people from their homes and land and transporting them to, was it, Mauritius.

It's my opinion that the surviving members of the Wilson government should be held to account and tried in a court of law.

However, two wrongs never made a right. Possibly being a bit more realistic though, if DG had been populated by British extraction colonists, then IMO the act would never have taken place as the 'home' Brits wouldn't accept their compatriots being shoved around by HM Government.

OT. Any UK administration that handed over British people and land to a foreign power would never be voted into office again in their lifetimes. It would be political suicide.

Who can tell what the situation would be like in a 100 years time, but by then everyone on this board would be dead, and most of them unremembered.

My contention is that the people who live on the islands must be allowed to decide their own future, whatever that may be. The Argies can jump up and down rattling sabres and waving flags in a fit of pique until the cows come home, but if they truly were a democratic minded nation then this would be a non-issue for them.

Just my opinion. :juggle2:

[Kralizec]

It's also a shameful reflection on the environmental movement, as we seemed to be more angry about an island full of tortoises, than one full of people. :shame:

I disagree there, wether humans are valued above tortoises by society was irrelevant here. DG was picked because the UK government assumed that they could get away with that, but not possibly had they picked the tortoise island. There weren't any interest groups watching over the islands people, afterall (presumably because they didn't need to, at least after the former slaves were freed)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Diago Garcia?

Well consider this, it was a differnt government and a differnt time and you wouldn't get away with it today, not even with America behind it.

That said, I, like everyone else here, think it was utterly shameful and claims that the islanders were at risk unfounded as iirc there is still a US garrison there. If it were up to me I would kick the US off the island, but it isn't

Tribesman: I asked because it will not happen if people don't let it. Simply saying that something is going to happen is pointless, especially when there is 0 sign of it happening. If you don't like something you try and change it.

I repeat the question.

[Tribesman]

I repeat the question.
I repeat the answer , what does that have to do with anything ?
This essentialy is all about practicalities.
The current set up is neither practible or profitable .......... the only issue at the moment is the recentness of the South Atlantic conflict and its position in the current national psyche .

[InsaneApache]

I refer the Rht. Honourable Gentleman to my previous reply.


Any UK administration that handed over British people and land to a foreign power would never be voted into office again in their lifetimes. It would be political suicide.

[I've been watching too many PMQs :laugh4: ]

[Tribesman]

Apache, that is true concerning this territory at the moment and will still be true in the near future , but only because of the recentness of the conflict .
Eventually the conflict will fade from the national psyche and become just another forgotten war .

[thrashaholic]

[B]The current set up is neither practible or profitable ..........

I'd beg to differ. Currently, apart from defence, naturally, the islands are self-sufficient, and the economic potential of them is massive. As I'm sure you're aware too (especially since it's already been said in this thread), the islands (along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which Argentina also claimed in the early 1900s, despite having no claim to them other than being not particularly close to them) are vital for Britain's continued research in Antarctica.

In economics, when doing cost-benefit analysis, one does not simply look at the financial (private) costs and benefit, one also looks at the external costs/benefits of an action. Thus, even if the islands aren't profitable, the external benefits of controlling them may outweigh that.

Of course, another good reason we shouldn't give them up is so that people like yourself can't make fallacious arguments when, say, the Gibraltar question comes up. Rather than constantly asking: "what about Diego Garcia then, eh?", you'd be able to ask: "what about the Falklands then, eh?" instead and then make unsubstantiated assertions about the fate of Gibrlatar too.

Oh, and one more thing, I'd imagine it's far more impractical for Argentina to control the Falklands than the current set-up. Not only do they not need the islands in the same way we do (Tierra Del Fuego being closer to Antarctica than the Falklands, South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands), but they would be occupying islands with people living there would didn't want to be Argentine. Recipe for disaster I suspect. If the islands are not economically viable for us, then they wouldn't be for Argentina either, yet both Argentina and ourselves are determined to take/keep our South Atlantic posessions, so there must be something worth having.

[Tribesman]

I'd beg to differ. Currently, apart from defence, naturally, the islands are self-sufficient, and the economic potential of them is massive.
Therin lies the problem , how can you seperate the territories revenue of approx 70 million with the cost of its defense also approx 70 milion ?

Now since you mention the practicality of the economy , how much of that 70 million in revenue is from the argentinian fishing fleet ? you see there is big advantage in shipping fish 400 miles rather than 8000 miles, which would explain why fishermen from Grimsby are not snatching up the fishing rights .

Interestingly you mention Gibraltar , the British government is now going towards joint soveriegnty with Spain , something to do with the practicality of the situation concerning that territory .
So if it is acceptable for Gib then why not with the Falklands , they have already sold much of the fishing /mineral rights to Argentina , why not go down the joint soveriegnty path as well ?
The only reason against it is the recentness of the conflict .

Oh and perhaps before you go on about fallacious and unsubstatiated assertions , you might want to re read what was written and what it was written about as you are very very wide of the mark.:book:

[InsaneApache]

I'd beg to differ. Currently, apart from defence, naturally, the islands are self-sufficient, and the economic potential of them is massive.
Therin lies the problem , how can you seperate the territories revenue of approx 70 million with the cost of its defense also approx 70 milion ?

Now since you mention the practicality of the economy , how much of that 70 million in revenue is from the argentinian fishing fleet ? you see there is big advantage in shipping fish 400 miles rather than 8000 miles, which would explain why fishermen from Grimsby are not snatching up the fishing rights .

Interestingly you mention Gibraltar , the British government is now going towards joint soveriegnty with Spain , something to do with the practicality of the situation concerning that territory .
So if it is acceptable for Gib then why not with the Falklands , they have already sold much of the fishing /mineral rights to Argentina , why not go down the joint soveriegnty path as well ?
The only reason against it is the recentness of the conflict .

Oh and perhaps before you go on about fallacious and unsubstatiated assertions , you might want to re read what was written and what it was written about as you are very very wide of the mark.:book:

Another reason for me to dislike Blair.

My Paternal great grandmother was Gibraltarian, and although ethnically Spanish regarded herself as English. She didn't speak Spanish and didn't much care for them either, so you could say I have a personal interest.

A quick look on 'tinterweb fetched this up.


The truth is that, for many in this administration, jettisoning Gibraltar is an end in itself. If Madrid happens to put something on the table in return, fine. But one feels that Labour would still seek to withdraw from the Rock, even if they had to pay Madrid to take it. The only thing that stands in their way is the stubborn loyalty of the Gibraltarians themselves. Our countrymen on the Rock are displaying a steadfastness and a belief in freedom that we in the UK seem to be in danger of forgetting. It may be out of place in Labour's Britain. It may be awkward. But it is the last defence they have.

As British as the rock (http://www.gibnet.com/texts/hannan.htm)

Now in another post you mentioned Diego Garcia, which I agreed was/is an abomination of the first magnitude. Would forcing the Gibraltarians into the Spanish kingdom not be an even worse abuse from HM government?

[Tribesman]

Now in another post you mentioned Diego Garcia, which I agreed was/is an abomination of the first magnitude. Would forcing the Gibraltarians into the Spanish kingdom not be an even worse abuse from HM government?
I mentioned it to illustrate the pointlessness of people going on about the wishes of the residents , the government will generally do whatever it wants regardless of the residents wishes .
However the St. Helena situation does show that a determined vocal group of residents can eventually get some of what they wanted , if there is no one willing to back Britain agianst the residents . The former residents of DG did not have that advantage when they once again went to the UN because the situation there involves another party which has a big voice at the UN , and they back Britain (and themselves) in that case .
So if Britain and Spain come to an agreement , who is going to be backing the residents of Gibralter ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One would hope the Conservatives but they're lookign shaky these days.

The fundamental question is this: Will a government that hands over even partial control of Gibralter will they be re-elected.

The answer: No.

Things like Diago Garcia and the ridiculous situation with Commonwealth passports have ensured that the British public won't let the government do these things quietly.

The British people will back Gibralter, I will back Gibralter, I will demonstrate, I will fight to stop it from happening.

That is what my question is about.

Don't just tell us something is going to happen in the future, you don't really have an arguement unless everyone just sits on their arses. As soon as the British people stand up and say no your arguement collapses and they will continue to say no as long as the Argentinians continue to argue. No until the Argentinians stop argueing will we forget.

The proof of this is that we are talking about it here.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The British people will back Gibralter, I will back Gibralter, I will demonstrate, I will fight to stop it from happening.

I am impressed by your passion and dedication to your beliefs. :bow:

Sadly, over a million people demonstrated against Blair taking the country to war - and he ignored them.

Another million demonstrated against the Fox Hunting Bill - and he ignored them.

He also ignores the elected Parliament most of the time.

I don't think Gibralatar or the Falklands have much of a chance should he decide to cut them free. :no:

[InsaneApache]

I am impressed by your passion and dedication to your beliefs. :bow:

Sadly, over a million people demonstrated against Blair taking the country to war - and he ignored them.

Another million demonstrated against the Fox Hunting Bill - and he ignored them.

He also ignores the elected Parliament most of the time.

I don't think Gibralatar or the Falklands have much of a chance should he decide to cut them free. :no:

Anyone else getting the message yet? This has always been Tonys style. I've said it for years, what a dangeous individual he is....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Banquo's Ghost, thankyou.

Oh I know Tony is really dangerous, leaving aside the messy buisness of the war, (If we'd found WMDs and America hadn't screwed up the reconstruction the tune would be different) he can no-longer get away with it.

Up side: One day soon my generation will run the country and we've grown up with Tony, we won't let there be another one.

[Aenlic]

Just as long as you don't do the pendulum thing and wind up with another Iron Maggie.

It's bad enough that we do that sort thing over here. It's like being on a political rollercoaster, although lately it's been less up and down and more of a gravity-defying corkscrew ride on this side of the pond. Just don't want to see you gents over there end up playing the "follow the bouncing political ball" game. :dizzy2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Up side: One day soon my generation will run the country and we've grown up with Tony, we won't let there be another one.


Just as long as you don't do the pendulum thing and wind up with another Iron Maggie.

That's the problem. Tony is the result of the Thatcher generation's 'not another one.' There are exactly the same - both nannies with attitude.

The fundamental problem is the political system. The parliamentary system is based on MPs representing their constituents, perhaps within a loose alliance of philosophies aka parties, but the people first.

When a PM gets a big majority (almost always on the back of a minority popular vote) and those MPs do what they are told like sheep in the hope of pork and peerage, Parliament ceases to be the check on the executive. Because all the autocratic power of the Crown is in effect, invested in the Prime Minister, you get abuse. Because there are no term limits, you get PMs losing touch with the reality that got them elected. Because you have no constitution that guarantees rights, these can be amended at will by manipulating populist fears.

The Opposition in both Tony's and Maggie's reigns were utterly useless and divided, allowing even the feeble check that it is supposed to provide to be ignored.

Until Parliament grows a backbone, and the British people actually start caring like Wigferth does you will always get Tony/Maggie back.

(And I guess much of the above applies to Congress in the US. The checks and balances are there to protect the people, not to fatten at the trough).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Careful or my head will grow so big my neck will snap.

It would take an Irishman to articulate the problem.

We lack a constitution and thats the problem.

Every MP is elected to represent his constituants, but to have influence they have to band together and Blair is just the leader of the largest band. If he lost his local election he wouldn't be PM.

We need to made voting compulsory, give people an abstinace option of the ballot and form a proper executive that isn't just defined by some bully boy.

Remember when Tony tried to get the Lord Chancellor abolished? The only real damage he's done, aside from the hunting act, is rip apart the House of Lords.

That said the total in-effectiveness of his government is fairly damaging.

I just hope under his wishy-washy I-don't-want-to-offend personna there's a raging Conservative in David Cameron.

Right now I could go for a Maggy, it'd take someone like her to sort things out now.

Look at ******* devolution, if that doesn't get reversed it's going to tear us apart.

[Tribesman]

Look at ******* devolution, if that doesn't get reversed it's going to tear us apart.
Hold on there , you were on about will of the people and self determination .
Now you are against self determination and the will of the preople ?????
Whats on ? are you going out of your way to prove my post right......the only issue at the moment is the recentness of the South Atlantic conflict and its position in the current national psyche .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let me rephrase, either they undo it or they finish it. Personally I don't see why the Scotish or Welsh need a seperate Parliament but the current system with Parliament in Scotland, a Semi-Parliament in Wales and both of the above voting in an English Parliament which also decides foriegn policy is ridiculess and undemocratic.

I'm all for self determination, the problem is that right now the Scots and Welsh are doing far too much determination in England that the English can't do in Scotland and Wales.

I'm against the in-equality and I think we should be one unified nation. However if the Scots and Welsh want out I'd rather they went the whole hog.

Sorry, how does that prove your point?

You still haven't answered my question, by the by.


Look at ******* devolution, if that doesn't get reversed it's going to tear us apart.
Hold on there , you were on about will of the people and self determination .
Now you are against self determination and the will of the preople ?????
Whats on ? are you going out of your way to prove my post right......the only issue at the moment is the recentness of the South Atlantic conflict and its position in the current national psyche .

[Tribesman]

Sorry, how does that prove your point?

My point is simple , everything that has been put forward so far is very easily shown as false ,the point you just raised is contradictory to the earlier point that you made . So that point is also shown as false .....See ......the only issue at the moment is the recentness of the South Atlantic conflict and its position in the current national psyche .

You still haven't answered my question, by the by.


I adressed your question ......I repeat the answer , what does that have to do with anything ?
Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry?

The point I just raised is that the current parlimentary set up is undemocratic because it favours the Scots, and to a lesser extent the Welsh over the English. I said I believed there was nothing wrong with having one parliament and I though devolution was a bad idea, etc.

How does this condradict my conviction that the Falklands should remain British or my belief that they will remain British so long as the Argentineans continue to complain, which has:

A) Kept the war in the public conciousness.

B) Created a situation where the British in general have an ingrained notion that the Falklands are British and will remain so. This conviction will remain with Britain likely long after the war has been forgotten.

I am not against self determination but our current parliamentary situation is ridiculess and it has to be resolved one way or another.

The West Lothian Question will likely cause a constitutional crisis if/when Gordan Brown becomes PM.

Personally I think we should have one parliament, which is this person's determination. Just because I believe in democracy doesn't mean I always have to agree with the decisions it makes. However failing that there should be totally seperate Parliaments for each country which then meet together to decide foriegn policy, defence, etc.

If the people want devolution then they should get fair and equitable devolution, not some half-arsed cock-up.

Where is the contradiction, they are two quite seperate issues.

In fact, I believe that all the British terretories should send MPs to Westminster, including the Falklands.


I adressed your question ......I repeat the answer , what does that have to do with anything ?
Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand .

I want to see if you actually have an opinion on the issue or if you're just a rampant pessimist.

Obviously the Falklands will eventually be given up but not until the UK collapses, which could be in another 1000 years, or more. Your arguement is basically like saying one day the Sun will die.

Korea is still in the national psyche and that wasn't even an exclusively UK conflict. The Falklands is the only war of the last century where the UK stood on its own two feet, no one here is forgetting any time soon.

[Caius]

Today is 2 of April.

And today is a very important day:


Las Malvinas son Argentinas

True, Soulforged?

Oh, and they are not called Falklands, they are called Malvinas

[Louis VI the Fat]

Today is 2 of April.

Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Dude, you've messed up the date.

April 1st is april fools' day. :book:

[Caius]

Dude, you've messed up the date.

April 1st is april fools' day. :book:
But today its the day.

ITs not a joke.Las malvinas son Argentinas.They never were called Falklands.

[Soulforged]

True, Soulforged?


Voy a ser honesto con vos viejo, la verdad es que el 2 de abril no significa nada más que un feriado para mi...

However if at some point I agree with you my friend, it's better to leave this topic closed, it has been shown to be... unproductive at best.

Let's take the opportunity to remember, anyway, those who fell fighting in the islands, wheter they were british or argentinian. :bow:

[Caius]

:no: hermano, me decepcionaste, que cosa.Pense que eras argentino, pero decime si no tengo razon.Las islas son nuestras, y me importa tres cuartos si Bush, Blair o el viejo de la vuelta de la esquina la conquista.

You english speakers get a traductor.


However if at some point I agree with you my friend, it's better to leave this topic closed, it has been shown to be... unproductive at best
I think no.

[Strike For The South]

Voy a ser honesto con vos viejo, la verdad es que el 2 de abril no significa nada más que un feriado para mi...

hermano, me decepcionaste, que cosa.Pense que eras argentino, pero decime si no tengo razon.Las islas son nuestras, y me importa tres cuartos si Bush, Blair o el viejo de la vuelta de la esquina la conquista.

I'm going to be honest with you old friend The truth is the second of April does not signify a holiday for me

I cant for the life of me remember what viejo means.

Brother very discompassonate. Why not. The belong to Argentina. I think that sentence alludes to culture but Im not sure. Theb islands are ours and are important to 34 bush (hes 43 right?), something about blair and his love of conquering.

I buthcerd CFs but SOulforged I got the gist of

[Caius]

The islands are our, no matter if Bush, Blair or the old man conquers it.

That.

[Strike For The South]

tres cuatros is 3 and 4 though isnt it? I know 34 is treinta cuatro but I couldnt figure it out so I put that

[InsaneApache]

The islands are our, no matter if Bush, Blair or the old man conquers it.

That.

I think you'll find that they are actually ours, old bean. :toff:

[Soulforged]

:no: hermano, me decepcionaste, que cosa.Pense que eras argentino, pero decime si no tengo razon.Las islas son nuestras, y me importa tres cuartos si Bush, Blair o el viejo de la vuelta de la esquina la conquista.Yo sabía que iba a ser así hermano, pero lamentablemente la verdad duele. Y hay otra verdad Caius: los habitantes quieren ser ingleses, y no los culpo. Sería inmoral retraerlos al dominio argentino.

I think no.As you wish. I remember translating a long, two-paged, arguement on why Argentina has a better historical and juridical claim on the island, and however the british are right when they say it'll be inmoral to substract the inhabitants from british government when they want it better than the argentinian. That's why it was ignored, since then I only touched singular replies, but the topic exhausts me. :bow:

Tenemos que tratar que el amor por nuestra tierra no nos ciegue cuando los hechos demuestran que es lo correcto. El fanatismo es siempre malo.


I'm going to be honest with you old friend The truth is the second of April does not signify a holiday for me:laugh4: You got it inverted...:laugh4: It should have been "I'm going to be honest with you old friend The truth is the second of April signifies only a holiday to me".

I cant for the life of me remember what viejo means.It means "dude" or "guy".

Brother very discompassonate.It's "Brother I'm very disappointed".
Why not.It should be "What are you saying?".
The belong to Argentina. I think that sentence alludes to culture but Im not sure.Wich sentence gringo (with love of course)? EDIT: Ahhh, now I see you mean the bolded sentence, right? This "pero decime si no tengo razon" is not something cultural, that's not something peculiar of argentinian culture beyond its language wich we share with the hispanic world and is part of our culture, it means "but tell me if I'm not right".
The islands are ours and are important to 34 bush (hes 43 right?), something about blair and his love of conquering.:laugh4: It's "The islands are ours, and I don't care if Bush, Blair or the dude next door conquers them". "Tres cuartos" is the same as 3/4 (three quarters), the whole expression "me importa tres cuartos" means that the interlocutor doesn't give a damn, a rat's ass, a **** about the next object. "El viejo de la vuelta de la esquina" is an expression to designate someone unknown but irrelevant and anonimous, almost like the "guy next door".


I buthcerd CFs but SOulforged I got the gist ofYou're butchering english here my man.~;)

Keep your lessons amigo you're getting better.:2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

Gracias

[Banquo's Ghost]

OK, resurrecting an old thread for the specific purpose of causing a flame war is a bad thing. :beadyeyes2:

Secondly, posting in a language other than English tends to be done to avoid the moderators' scrutiny. Whilst we are a fairly well-read lot, we cannot hope to understand all the languages spoken by members. In a inflammatory thread, we need to be able to understand what is being written.

For both these reasons, the thread is being closed before the British wake up and take exception. If there is a desire to have a discussion about the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, please start a new and constructive thread, bearing in mind that a lot of people died on both sides of that war.

:closed: