That is all.
User forget to put an 'r' in the title. Don't forget to add an article to what you are referring to next time as well!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17025000 - T
Printable View
That is all.
User forget to put an 'r' in the title. Don't forget to add an article to what you are referring to next time as well!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17025000 - T
because he died in Game of Thrones? Or nearly every other movie he ever starred in? :P
that is a gratuitous insult to Sean Bean sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
He's just a self-important little liberal to whom nobody should pay attention. Seanny-boy, go back to making crappy movies and leave international politics to the professionals.
ah... ye XD my mistake. who is sean penn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
ah that guy. whats wrong with him?
Why are you being mean about the original James Bond? I loved him in Dragonheart. And just the way he says "Pussy Galore" in Goldfinger makes me laugh every time.
Took you a while to spin up IA. Fen Foggle has already suggested he be fed to Crodiles.
Alos, the Gruniad let him write this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ed?INTCMP=SRCH
He seems to miss a couple of salient points, the least of which is that Dauntless has gone to replace an older Frigate. It has to be a Daring-class ship there now because we need to be able to credibly protect Mount Pleasant from bombing because we have no carriers operational.
Well the more misguided, misinformed rubbish he spouted I thought, "hang on, this blokes a cock".Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So I thought I'd post my innermost thoughts here.
Just saying like. :o)
I know the user made a typing mistake, but try to be careful with those titles, I had to edit every single reply so far!
There was no mistake. That's exactly what Sean Penn is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Reminds me of that movie where he gives money to the Black Panthers and suggests renaming them the Zebra's. lol.
Didn't know he had those views in RL.
I don't get why the liberal left is siding with Argentina over this, the country which had a military junta try to overrule a peoples right to self-determination.
guy is an oxygen thief.
there is perfectly good air being wasted that could have provided valuable succor to such worthy creatures as hugo chavez.
it is a disgrace!
This is the same guy who went to Iraq in 2002 and was quite shocked to find it was a Stalinist dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
No!
Surely not.
Hypocracy and.....
Will there be war between the UK and Argentina? Does the UK want Argentina as a colony?
is he an important politician in the UK?
Depends Hus, it'd be political suicide for any party to agree to give away the Falklands. It would also be hard to justify not sending troops there after the ones that died last time and the amount of resources we've spent in Afghan and Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Added to that, there might be oil there, so no way will give them up, and even without carriers I reckon we could take Argentina. I'm no expert but I don't think they've upgraded their military since the 80's and one thing we can say is that we have a lot of battle trained troops with recent combat experience.
lets conquer that **** for the queen, saint jorgé and the Union Europé
I saw the name of the Argentinian president. *Google imaging*... Hot damn.
The title mistake was pure karma :laugh4:. Last I saw, the male chicken was running a refugee camp in Haiti. Now that he's fixed that place, and is probably getting bored, it's on to the next crusade.
If the people of the Falklands wish to remain part of the UK, then Argentina and the male chicken should stuff it.
Part of the problem, one suspects, is that Obama begs to differ. All that would be needed to end this is for the US to throw its weight behind the right of the Falklanders to self-determination, but it won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
The last I heard we weren't a state yet, so Abomber can think what he likes
Falklands are not part of the United Kingdom, they come under "Dependent Territory" where they chose to depend on Britain opposed to alternatives. Falklanders requested not to be part of Argentina and the British Government for reasons refuse to allow them to be part of Britain. So they are sort of a random stretch of land who are protected by Britain.
Dead Man Walking... Mystic River... Milk... the guy is a very talented actor and I give him credit for sticking around in Haiti long after the media, Hollywood, and the world lost interest. When you travel around the third world, it is very easy to fall into an anti-Western/colonialist mindset and the kind of black and white world view that dictates that what isn't Western must therefore be good. For example, Chavez seems like a complete crock (~;)) until one reads up on things such as Operation Condor, and then his excesses seem a bit more justified. He should stick to perfecting his craft and raising awareness for charitable causes.
I thought the British Nationality Act 1983 provided them with British citizenship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I thought it was the British Dependency Citizenship they got, unless their family was from Britain itself?
That 1983 act provides citizenship for anyone stripped of it in 1981, note the dates. The 1983 Act was a direct result of the War, where the 1981 Act was a concession to Argentinia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Which was Superseded by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.
God **** this is the most reasonable post in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Were you reading my mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
He has always been a poster boy for legalizing postpartum abortion.
There is oil in the Falklands, krill oil.
The US never intervenes were it's own national interest contradicts British historical attachments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Last time out the US was at best cool about the idea of UK invading, now it's even more in the US interest to court Argentina.
The strategic thing and most likey thing ANY current or potential US president will do is absolutely nothing.
US is thinking long term on this one with regard to the millitary, economic and naval situation in the South Atlantic.
The UK on the other hand may need may need to come to a monetary accomadation or politically risk a lot for little return.(there doesnt need to be a war for this to hurt Britain in the future)
http://www.spike.com/video-clips/t5l...n-penn-on-iraq
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Get all assets out of Afghanistan for starters and set up a lot of them in the Falklands. Let's protect people who want to be British rather than get shot at by those who clearly want nothing to do with us.
The Argentinians would have a difficult task taking the Falklands. The UK would have a nearly impossible task to retake it with no aircraft.
~:smoking:
We have a 2 year window between the decomission of the Illustrious and the launch of Elizabeth, way I see it if argentina invades we'll just rush Elizabeth into service and retake the island when it's ready, war has no time limit right?
No one wants to give a foe that sort of time to dig in. And it is the complete lack of planes that is the main problem - there aren't any in service that can be used.
~:smoking:
just nuke the damn place and be done with it.
Simply incorporate Falklands as part of Britain. Problem solved. Any subsequent attack against Falklands will be considered a direct attack against a NATO nation with all the consequences (i.e. Argentina will never even *think* about doing it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Very neat. Just to make things nice and democratic, hold it to a vote in the Falklands which will pass by something like a 98% majority. Whether NATO would help might be more of an issue... but it would put a lot more pressure on America - if the alliance does nothing when challenged, what use is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
~:smoking:
The Falklands it too small to be fully incorporated, even so Argentinia would be attacking 1200 NATO troops, but they attacked 60 last time and the US sat on it's hands, though Reagan did convince the Pentagon to provide SigInt, Satelite and logistical support, eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The Argentinians would face a pitched battle to take Mount Pleasant, so the arriving UK force would most likely be reliving the garrison, not having to establish a new beachheadQuote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
That depends, can the Argies knock out all the Rapier missiles and the Airstrip before the RAF can get a Eurofighter squadron to Mount Pleasent? The Airbase is huge, and largely empty but a lot of heavier gear is in stores and you just need to fly out the men to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The Argentinians took the place last time without causing a single casualty to the garrison. In essence, they were able to walk in.
If they were to try again they are well aware that there is going to be a fight on their hands, so it's all or nothing. The garrison might be brave, highly trained and relatively well equipped, but they would be pummelled from the sea, air and ground. The airstrip would be out of action about 10 minutes after the attack starts, with one hole in the centre of the runway, as it is key. That's flights in prevented. Bringing in gear to repair it isn't that tough, especially if you know it's required.
Rapiers are good systems, especially if they're upgraded. They are relatively mobile, but I imagine they'd be bracketed relatively quickly. Even when they're active they might be able to prevent any fighters getting close to the islands, but I still doubt that the UK could safely get transport planes in, especially with no cover.
The British surface fleet, although small, is pretty modern, but how many missiles before it is crippled? They'd need to be destroyed first, else they'd cause carnage amongst the Argentinian fleet. Last time out, very few exocet missiles were deadly.
Any UK submarines in the area would be another problem. How good are Argentinian anti-sub weaponry? I imagine the sub would be difficult to find as long as it remained inactive which rather negates their utility.
~:smoking:
Last time around Britain and Argentina were not actually in a state of war, which is why NATO's hands were tied: Argentina was "liberating its territory" while Britain was protecting its dependency. If Falklands are incorporated directly into the UK, it would be a whole different ballgame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The last time you had 70 troops which was twice the usual number, 1 ship, and that was about it. The Argentinian army was reasonably close to state of the art, parts of their forces were very good (well trained) for the time, they had air superiority, and their commando's landed undetected. The Argentinian army was in fact under orders to take the place without killing anybody. Also, nobody believed the Argentinians would do it, Britain might well have just relinquished the islands after some more negotiations.
By contrast, today you have a proper airbase, AA installations, planes, more than 1000 men, a few more ships and the Argentinian army hasn't kept up with the times ...
A great badpipe march came out of the Falklands War, perhaps my favourite pipe tune: Crags of Tumbledown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeOjERmbWyE
Everyone keeps saying that but is it even true and if it were is it even relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
How soon before all the islands equipment is used up can they last a month?? of contious fighting.
Also other South American governments seem keen on backing Argentina (this is the real strategic problem for UK and even the USA)
If Brazil decided to back Argentina which looks likely could a UK Naval task force even reach the island? to relieve the garrison.
As usual this will not be solved by pointing to weaponary and saying the question is beyond debate.
A bigger question is would Britain risk it's own ability to defend itself with submarines to liberate the Falklands.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The loss of one Astute class could cripple you strategic plans for decade and for little back, it a bit like how the Americans dont like risking the B2 in real combat cos it's too advanced and too exspensive.
Quite. Our forces are so limited, and our ability for regeneration is so pathetic that entering any conflict where there is a realistic chance of material losses of key assets is just not possible.
~:smoking:
So you're all for abandoning your fellow citizens?
won't have any planes to fly of her until 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
-----------------------------------------
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/0...kland-islands/
I'm personally up for hardening the island with decent batteries of ground to air and ground to ship missiles which are effective, have relatively low running costs and are purely a defensive weapon. If one can decimate their aircraft and slaughter amphibious landing craft / warships it will make the odds of an attack much lower. Static gun emplacements and mine fields would be OTT, and increasing the size of the garrison would be extremely expensive as well as increase the logistical difficulty of resupply.
Holding a referendum to see whether the Islanders would like to be made effectively a county of Blighty also seems sensible as then there is an increased chance that NATO would have to do something other than pursue "active defence" in Afghanistan in the event of an attack. France has at least decided to have both carriers as well as planes at the same time.
~:smoking:
Emotion has it's place in this debate but don't make the mistake of relying on it to defend you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
There might be a problem here since NATO is specifically set up too defend the Europe or North America the South Atlantic is outside it's remit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The operation in Afghanistan was the only ocassion where article 5 was invoked and that was because of september 11th.
I would not be surprised to see a veto from Germany or France on operations in the South Atlantic.
Frankly, NATO is "America plus extras". Britain would invoke Article 5 and then meaningfully glare at America - "we jumped into an out of state mission which has gone nowhere and was a mess from the start, how about you help defend territory that is defined as part of our mainland".
The threat of the USA getting involved would be both another reason for Argentina to think twice, and a reason for the USA to apply a lot more diplomatic pressure, lest they get dragged into something they'd really rather not be, or else appear to be an ally of little value unless it is in their own interests which will loose them a fair amount of prestige / influence.
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Now thats more like it frankly, this is a senario I could believe if the Falklands were made a county.
However this all hinges on the Argentina been mad and invading, whereas the diplomatic areana frankly favours Argentina.
Quote:
or else appear to be an ally of little value unless it is in their own interests which will loose them a fair amount of prestige / influence.
And yet they would gain diplomatically in South America a region that will grow in importance for America as it pivots to Asia. South America has access to the Pacific which means it is a part of the wider Asian strategic plan for the USA.
They would only loose face with Britain who quite frankly would just have to suck it up as Britains strategic plan does not involve cutting itself of from America over the Falklands.
So unfortunately this means I dont expect to see the Falklands being made a county, in fact I bet Sir Humphrey types will never let it happen.
I wonder.
That conflict was long ago, Britain won, why are both parties still angry at eachother every year?
Why is there a date to get angry at eachother, does that even make sense?
And the only way I understood what this guy said was that people should stop being angry at eachother and start to talk about a lasting solution and making peace.
Then everybody hates him and talks about making more war. Sounds like Israel and Palestine to me but then I'm not very knowledgeable about the Falklands history.
Does "talking" mean "raise white flag and surrender" in Britain or am I having another misconception?
The problem as the British see it is that this question is settled, the island is in there eyes British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Talks would mean some kind of compromise would have to at least be available, unfortunately how can you compromise to Argentinas favour without giving them the island.
This is why the debate quickly enters the who has bigger guns phase quickly into the discussion.
As long as Argentina does not invade then Britain is stuck with a very annoying diplomatic problem.
Here is the equation
Argentina wants the island but Britain does not need to accept this request as the islanders want to stay where they are.
Invasion favours Britain as long as Argentina is alone in the enterprise, if South American powers join or give aid to Argentina then Britains job is much much harder.
Britain needs the USA to back it, but the USA is weary and wary of being dragged into what they would view a colonial conflict.
The USA also needs South America for it's future plans, politcally therefore overt support of Britain is out of the question.(some covert help is ok though)
Solution prevent the problem escalating to actual conflict, let Argentina shout and roar all they want (buy them off with money later)
Talking would be like entering into discussions about returning the German estates that used to be ruled by the Georges. Germany probably has no intention of ever doing so, thinks the reasoning is deeply flawed and nonsensical - and the people want to stay German as they have been for decades and they all speak German. Why enter discussions on a subject that isn't going to to anywhere from the start?
Would the USA listen if Mexico wanted back the territory that was annexed?
Entering into talks implies that there is some legitimacy in doing so. Perhaps the UK should state that we'll enter more general talks about ownership of the Falklands and a large swathe of Argentina's territory, if countries feel they can demand such things, why not?
~:smoking:
talking means that the principle of self-determination is a negotiable commodity, and new labour already got a thorough fisting for trying the same thing with gibralter, so the coalition won't be keen to repeat the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Precisely.
Should we all hand over territory which hasn't been ours since the foundation of our nations? Against the wishes of the current occupants?
Should France demand Louisiana back on the basis that the modern French government believes that the Purchase can now been seen as illegitmate? In the event of a failed occupation within living memory should they then, with no real change in circumstances, be enabled to attempt a diplomatic effort to take the territory and be expected to have any chance of success despite the principle of self determination counting against them?
Edit:
As regards the male chicken who is the subject of the OP it must be said that a private individual is welcome to hold any opinion he or she wants. However, just because that chicken is a Hollywood actor there is no need to give his views extra legitimacy by broadcasting them.
I watched that press conference where Argentina showed all the ships, planes and communications systems available to the various naval and air bases Britain has in the South Atlantic I half expected him to shout "Dont wait for the translation"
Regardless of the reality it showed Britain as an aggressive power in the South Atlantic, there point that it is the only ocean Britain can claim to influence was well made. (leading to questions of why naturally)
We already have all those, rapier missiles and a submarine in the area provide the anti-air and anti-ship capability, as well as the Typhoons. A Daring-Class Destroyer provides additional AA capability. Fixed defences have two problems, they can be easily destroyed by, for example, commandos or heavy guns (the sort old-fashioned Argentine ships have and modern British ones dont) and they can't be repositioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As to anti-ship missiles, they'reeasily shot down by AA batteries these days, where planes are not.
All true, but I would add that every time negotiation has backfired for Britain, the first time it led to war and more recently concessions on mineral rights were first accepted, and then repudiated, and now we have the current situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Basically, the Argentinians will only accept British surrender and Britain won't surrender. Added to this, the population want to be British - so there really is nothing to talk about.
Just to make it even more futile, the more the Argentinians abuse the Falklanders, be it minefields on the island or sanctions and blockades, the more they are hated. If they did get control of the Falklands it would either be ungovernable of the British government would be blamed for a second "Diago Garcia" and the stink from the first one hasn't subsided yet.
Well, we have a lot of territory in the South AtlanticQuote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am sure the South Americans are thinking that one day they may need resources from Africa if not already, Britains South Atlantic position threatens that trade.
Regardless of the fact that there is no REAL threat from Britain they probably would prefer control the South Atlantic themselves.
I agree Rapiers will provide good AA, I was merely saying for some more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
A Sub would provide good anti ship, but is too risky an asset for the UK to risk.
Typhoons require a functioning runway, and seeing as there is just the one it'd not be intact for long.
I would say that tactical ballistic missiles are a good mix of range, damage potential and maneouverability.
No AA system is 100% effective, and missiles are a lot harder to hit than planes which are slower, have larger radar signatures (stealth fighters possibly excepted) and make slower turns. Planes also have to either fire missiles or torpedoes which are large enough to cause serious damage. If the ships have missile AA, planes will still have to launch from miles away, and if the ships merely have miniguns they'll have a hard time hitting objects travelling at extremely fast velocities. And it as always boils down to numbers: fire 1 and the ship may well survive. Fire 100, and it won't. I imagine that a ship costs more than 100 missiles. Argentinian ships and planes are not state of the art either, and may be up to 30 years behind the curve. Much easier to purchase a launcher and missiles than to retrofit one's entire fleet to negate the threat.
Planes are also much more easily intercepted by other planes. Considering the UK only has 4 (albeit really good ones) there is only so much they can do. Their durability will fail them even if they win every engagement in the air.
Would it not be more odd if the UK could project force in the Pacific?
~:smoking:
Double post - damn you Chrome!
It doesnt matter what the reality actually is it only matters what THEY think.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Britain has bases in the South Atlantic normally no one would pass a bit of heed, but strategically the South Americans must think beyond the now and try to understand what there for.
They are concluding that these facilities are designed to keep them down, afterall they have no real economic value to Britain so they must be part of a wider plan.
Of course the reality is that there is no plan at least not the one in there heads but Allowing Argentina to sound off is good cover for Brazil and lets not forget South Africa and Nigeria either.
I dont see this going away really in fact I see it getting worse, Brazil is the key get them on your side and Argentina will conclude the row is too much effort.
Unfortunately getting Brazil onside might require a strategic price Britain is not willing or even capable of paying.
That is Sean Connery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think you'll find that statistically planes are less often shot down than missiles, planes have countermeasures and, more importantly, pilots - they also have greater flexability and damage potential than missiles. A cruise missile is a one shot weapon, guidence, roctet motor, etc, all these have to be duplicated each time, and they require specialised lauchers to fire them. Mount Pleasent is a modern Air Base, the Argentinians would have to hit it with heavy bombs to knock out the airstrip and those bombers would have to get through the CAP and missiles. Anyway, there are Royal Engineers on East Falkland, and they could extend the Stanley Airstrip if necessary:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Stanley_Airport
You'll also note the difficultly the RAF had in knocking out Stanley, there's no reason to believe the Agentinian Air Force would do even that well at Mount Pleasent. Added to which, about the time the Duke of Cambridge leaves Dauntless will arrive, greatly increasing AA capability. She will need an Astute Class Submarine to protect her, however.
In any case, Mount Pleasent is a full Air Base, details are necessarily sketchy, but it is known the base can support 2,000 personel and that implies it can support more fighters - you just have to send them there.
There's nowt like chucking petrol on a fire. Pillocks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ish-goods.html
Although it's comforting to note that politicos everywhere are wassocks.
Meanwhile: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...he-wallet.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
We give aid to Argentina because it is shut out of the loan markets and we don't want the people to starve.
I feel like the good guy here, not the "Colonialist".
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/s...=6185&source=3Quote:
US CONGRESSMAN IN FALKLANDS FACT-FINDING VISIT
By J. Brock (FINN)
US Representative Frank James Sensenbrenner Jr., R - Wisconsin and his aide Mr Todd Washam are visiting the Falkland Islands this week to find out for themselves how the place operates and what the people think about their right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter.
On Thursday Congressman Sensenbrenner addressed Legislative Assembly saying it was an honour but due to House Rules it unfortunately could not be reciprocal. He is the first member of the House of Representatives to visit the Falkland Islands officially, though a member of the Senate visited in 1987 on an unofficial basis. Mr Sensenbrenner hopes it will not be the last visit and admitted the Islands did not fit the stereotype he had prior to his arrival of a remote back-water. What he found was a vibrant, economically self-sufficient community with a democratic government having the remit in all areas except foreign affairs and defence.
Mentioning that the Falklands seemed to have escaped the recession he assured all listening that then United States has always supported the principle of self-determination. We let the British Crown know that about 230 years ago, he quipped. We havent changed our viewpoint that the people should be allowed to direct their own government, choose the system of government and make whatever alliances and determinations that are necessary.
I have talked with a lot of people in the Falkland Islands and not one of them would like to change their status and become a colony of Argentina, he said. He went on to say that if the United Nations means what it says then they would have to back up the decisions the Falkland Islanders have made themselves rather than getting involved in a geo-political game benefitting nobody. Argentina had invaded the Falklands 30 years ago and he hopes the tragedy will not be repeated.
Mr Sensenbrenner had the opportunity to meet the Falkland Islands Press at noon in the conference room at the Malvina House Hotel.
Not a fan of things US President Obama has done both domestically and in foreign policy, Congressman Sensenbrenner said he was concerned that Obamas recent statement about the Falklands was counter-productive in cooling the rhetoric coming from Argentina. If Argentina lives up to the spirit of the UN Charter that country would recognise the Falkland Islands spirit of self-determination. Their inconsistency would be of greater import in the United States and elsewhere. He hopes that the recent embarrassing assertions made by the Argentines have toned down and the rhetoric has cooled.
When asked by Mark Spruce of FITV whether trade between Argentina and the US would be affected if the US would side with Britain on the Falklands issue Congressman James Sensenbrenner, (R 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin) said that it would be up to the Argentines and that the US would trade with anybody. He went on to say that economic embargoes usually do not work, with the exception of the one against the apartheid government in South Africa which ended up by having a peaceful transition to a democratic government with majority rule. The Congressman does not envisage the United States doing anything unilaterally as a result of the issue of the Falklands.
Penguin News asked whether or not we have good governance the Congressman said that it was something for the Islanders to decide, rather than a foreigner claiming to be an expert having been here only two or three days. Having said that, he expressed the opinion that the Legislative Assembly was a combination of what a local Council would do and what a National Parliament would do. Usually matters relating to the quality of roads were dealt with by State governments but he feels the combination in the Falklands is very interesting.
Speeches on the motion to adjourn were not debatable in the House of Representatives, he said. It was instructive to him to hear the closing remarks and to hear a broader view of the complaints they were getting.
When you are in elected position you become an attraction for people who want to complain and not to give one a pat on the back and say, good job. He continued. He was amused by what the Hon Mr Gavin Short said about when you see the law being broken you should call the police and not a Member of Legislative Assembly.
Though he likes Sean Penn as an actor, Congressman Sensenbrenner feels that the man should keep out of focus his efforts on acting and not being an expert on foreign policy. Sean Penn decided which side he would be on without the benefit of hearing arguments on both sides. Congressman Sensenbrenner hopes that we would invite the actor to the Falklands and get an apology from him after having spent time here and understanding what the people think.
Its an efficient government, he said, but it has to be put in the context that after the war ended in 1982 there was nothing here in terms of governmental infrastructure or services to the public. That certainly has changed in the last 30 years as the Falkland Islanders themselves have built up their infrastructure, their democratic institutions because they had the freedom to do this.
Congressman Sensenbrenner feels that if the Governor comes to the United States that he has to make the point that he is NOT a colonial Governor but a Governor of a British Overseas Territory. There is a big difference between the two, he said. He went on to say that the general public in the US and the UK may not know the difference between the role of a pre-1982 Governor and a present day Governor.
Penguin News asked if the Image of the Falkland Islands would be clearer if we didnt have a Governor but just a diplomat?
Well, he is a diplomat, was the reply. I hope he would be judged outside the Falklands not on his title but on what he does, said the Congressman.
PN: it might be different if that were changed
FS: I think that should be decided in Whitehall and not in Washington.
Thus far Congressman Sensenbrenner has enjoyed his time in the Falklands. Half-way through his visit Mr Sensenbrenner has been to see several government departments as well as to Sea Lion Island where he saw Falklands wildlife up close and enjoyed the hospitality provided him by the Lodge and its Manager Ms Jenny Luxton. This afternoon he will be visiting the Education Department and the schools and he will visit the Falkland Islands Chamber of Commerce. On Friday a visit to Mount Pleasant Complex is planned.
Another guy who thinks that Sean Penn is a crock.
Lol, congressman Sensenbrenner, or scytheburner, he's right though, and doesn't express himself like a crock either. ~;)
And thanks for the explanations, sounds more and more like it's Argentina that just keeps demanding the island and being aggressive, at first it sounded to me like both sides were being aggressive. Some of the aggressive comments here didn't help.
Sean Penn is entitled to his opinion though, as long as he doesn't blow anyone up over it.
Ah yes, when things aren't going well at home in Argentina you can do 1 of 2 things
Pray for a world cup
Rattle about the sheep in the Falklands
The sheep are probably better off under British rule, anyway. That is, unless there are Welsh regiments in the garrison.Quote:
Ah yes, when things aren't going well at home in Argentina you can do 1 of 2 things
Pray for a world cup
Rattle about the sheep in the Falklands
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I knew it was coming but I laughed anyway.
I think it's called a rourkes drift.