The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

The inhabitans should decide, and they are massively pro britain.

 

I don't think you'll see any Argentine flags flying in the Falklands anytime soon-and definitely none flown by the residents.

 

Any respectable Falklander should carry an Argentinian flag at sea in case the need arises for an Argentinian port of call

 

We have a Destroyer on patrol .
If we want Port we call for Taylors or Cockburn .

 

Do you live in the middle of Africa?
Don't you have any idea who lives there ?

 

That will teach them!

 

More of those same ole flag-waving morons, apparently.

Pride of Britain: Falkland Islanders stage 4x4 convoy to tell Sean Penn where to stick his views

 

Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) is Sean Penn anyway?

 

On the slim chance that you are being serious , he is a very gifted Film Director and Actor .
Like many "Artists" his is somewhat deranged and has had anger management problems from the moment the mid wife tried to strangle him .

 

Of course I wasn't being serious. Merely commenting and observing the American propensity for taking what 'celebrities' tell them, seriously. Because, as we all know, Mr. Penn is an expert on these issues...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Penn#Political_and_social_causes

An expert indeed, during his life as a celebrity, he has done more to expose his government's lies than you could ever dream of doing, behind your keyboard.

 

In what way are these Falklanders morons for waving the flag of thier country....their British people not Aregentinian.

Would you like to be called a moron for waving a French flag......no i didnt think so!

 

I would not be surprised to be called a moron if I waved a French flag amongst a bunch of French flag waving morons.

 

Maybe it's more productive to the debate to look at this from the Argentinian perspective. The British, as result of acting provocatively by sending a submarine to the south Atlantic, are making it clear that they have no intention of engaging in dialogue over a highly contentious issue relating to who has the legitimate claim to this piece of rock.

The pre-condition for any negotiated outcome will almost certainly be that the 3,000 UK passport holders living on this rock will not have their passports confiscated and will still be able to live their lives unhindered the way that they have always done.

Now, under these circumstances, it just seems absurd to me that we would risk the lives of our servicemen and women to defend what is essentially the oil under the false pretences that we are defending the Falklander's right to raise their union jacks and stand to attention to the national anthem. It just seems more sensible and pragmatic to me for us to hold out an olive branch.

 

It's possible Argentina would initiate a war given the lack of diplomacy, but I doubt it. The question of 'ownership' is a contentious one which is presumably why Argentina is pissed off....Uh, yes, that would be it!!

"......This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina."

http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html

It makes sense to offer an olive branch to the Argentinian's given the possible alternative could be a war in which our sons and daughters would be sent 8,000 miles to risk their lives defending Shell Oil. Diplomacy not only makes sense on that basis but also, as I've previously outlined, in an economically pragmatic sense too.

 

Absolute ahistorical intransigence from the British in this issue will only lead to charges of neo-colonialism. Maybe some sort of bilateral commision can be set up to look into the veracity of the claims made by either side and it ought to be conducted under the auspices of the UN.

 

If we discover a rock the size of my patio off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian ocean that's surrounded by oil, we'll ship out a deck-chair and a fat bloke in union jack shorts to sit on it as our justification for grabbing both.

 

What about it.

The only reason the U.S. lost was because they put a monumentally ill suited general (Westmoreland) in charge there early on.

 

Penn is a socialist that is insulated from the real world with walls of thick money. If not for the capitalists kids and adults that had the disposable income to pay for overpriced movie tickets and capitalist producers like FOX and MGM etc that funded and produced the movies he would have to get a real job and face the real world without the luxury of being a millionaire that hypocritically hates the system that made him one (a virtual rich capitalist pig). If my church or mission or any reputable entity had access to his total income we could do ten times as much as his admittedly noble efforts. Why? A biblical parable* tells the story, sans that its because we would not be driving a $200,000 Porsche around nor living like a over stuffed king when not shedding tears in Haiti. Remember I said reputable entity, ha ha...not the PTL or such other repulsive wolfs in sheep clothing.

The biblical parable;

New King James Version (NKJV)

Mark 12:42-44; Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites,(around a penny) which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”

What irks me is not that he is a socialist, it's his and other peoples attitudes that are more often than not hypocritical. He loves to bite the hand that feeds him and to criticize his country. Many leftist actors, probably because they work and travel extensively seek popularity from the USA hating world. That makes him a weakling to anyone that has the gonads to go against the desire to be popular and do what is right. BTW I am no fan of any government finding all evil by default. However the USA is the best or among the best of all evils, France certainly has no bragging rights, I know because my first language is french (even though I was born here and lived here! My mothers side of the family is still staunchly pro France. Anyway as I said its popular to be anti USA these days. I am sure one day the hate the USA to be popular will blow over. The attitude of that part of the world does not concern me too much anyway. I just hope they come to their senses before they need the USA to save them from another Hitler again....


reva

 

"The islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for its defence and foreign affairs."

It is my opinion they should remain under the proprietorship of England. Just look at Cuba. Just look at Panama. Some of these tiny countries were strategic during past wars but they will always need assistance because they are too vulnerable to go it alone. Who would I want if I had a choice between England and Argentina? Merry old England for sure.

 

Absolutely spot on .
Let's face it , the Hilly Billy comments are all based on raging jealousy .
There is not one country they have invaded or destabilised that has a good word for them .
They hand out tents and blankets like popcorn when there is a disaster , but that does not stop everyone despising them .
It niggles them beyond belief to see half the world regarding the UK as an old pal and often a loyal and listening partner .
That little island full of wimps --- in their feeble imagination , always getting first prize . It drives them crackers .
To us , having the Falklands is like having a lovely little grand child .A feeling the wayward HBs will never share .

 

a toute a l'heure


.....

 

There is no 'issue'. Would there be an 'issue' subject to debate if a pickup truck full of thugs showed up at your front door and demanded negotiations over the distribution of your goods to them?

 

Please go check yr facts - it was Cristina Kirchner in the first instance raised the issue/renewed- provocatively- the dispute.
Te submarine was sent AFTER her "provocative" inflamatory speeches . The submarine was sent to discourage - hopefully help the Argies avoid repeating their previous foolish + arrogant behaviour ..

All British political parties have united in the fact that the Falkland Islands - like Gibraltar - are British - and until the residents themselves decide otherwise, things are going to stay that way.

So, to for the question of Falklands soveregnty ?

As a Brit I would say that Argentina lost any claim by their stupid actions back in 1982. In the democratic world they have no claim as no Argentinians actually live there or ever have lived there.

The Falkland Islands are sovereign to Britain + no one else.

You have no case.


....

 

Exactly............from their perspective, the Argies blew any legitimate claim, by invading the island in 1982.

They are just miffed, because of the potential revenue of the oil reserves around the Falklands, wont be going to them.

I mean before British companies discoved oil there, we hadnt heard a peep from the Argies for 30 years.

Does anyone really believe the Argies are interested in the Falklands for other reasons...such as for the sake of putting some of their population there, or sheep watching, or rambling on the cold windy landyscape.....NO i dont think so.

The only time the Argies should be allowed to set foot on the Falklands is go and dig up the mines they left buried there.............Boom! Oh dear