Thread: The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

The British should set an example for the Israelis. Let the British evacuate the Falklands. Then the British will have the moral authority to tell the Israelis to evacuate the West Bank.

I would rephrase that idea a bit

"The British should set an example for the Israelis. Let the British sell out the Falklands. The the British will have the immoral authority to tell the Israelis to sell out the settlers on the West Bank"

Originally Posted by JIMV

I would rephrase that idea a bit

"The British should set an example for the Israelis. Let the British sell out the Falklands. The the British will have the immoral authority to tell the Israelis to sell out the settlers on the West Bank"

The suggested logic of your post is
X . A reports action 1 to B
Y . A advises B on action 2
Somehow , The fact of X is relevant to Y .
NOT

Originally Posted by JIMV

I would rephrase that idea a bit

"The British should set an example for the Israelis. Let the British sell out the Falklands. The the British will have the immoral authority to tell the Israelis to sell out the settlers on the West Bank"

Let the British pay of the settlers in the Falklands in the hope the Yanks will pay off the nazis in Palestine before they open death camps.

Originally Posted by Iolo

My own relatives there, I do assure you, are breeding like rabbits or Nineteenth Century English, and will soon need lebensraum. Better row your boat away, sharpish, or you'll be sweating away in a Gaiman tea-shop for nothing, like an unemployed Englisher for the tory herrenvolk! Ve haf ways of making you agree!

Oh vey, more stereotypes.

Modern Germans do not see the Third Reich as something to admire anymore.

But a sizeable amount of the UK populace still longs for the British Empire.

Europeans ought to know who to look up to.

Originally Posted by Paris

Oh vey, more stereotypes.

Modern Germans do not see the Third Reich as something to admire anymore.

But a sizeable amount of the UK populace still longs for the British Empire.

Europeans ought to know who to look up to.

Why do you address these naiveties to me, Paris?

Originally Posted by Iolo

Why do you address these naiveties to me, Paris?

Hahahaha. You think I am addressing you, here? Talk about being naive.

I am merely commenting on the sort of example the UK is setting for Europeans, with their Falklands sovereignity claim, and how bad it is.

Originally Posted by Iolo

Why do you address these naiveties to me, Paris?

Like many French ladies , our little Lilly adopts this pose in lieu of thinking .
It's a bit like ," Mais oui " and " Er herrr " , " Maintenant" , and "I ain't got a fuukkking clue" .

Originally Posted by raymondo

Like many French ladies , our little Lilly adopts this pose in lieu of thinking .
It's a bit like ," Mais oui " and " Er herrr " , " Maintenant" , and "I ain't got a fuukkking clue" .

Lol, get back to me on that British thingy, circa 1594... when you have started thinking.

Originally Posted by Paris

Lol, get back to me on that British thingy, circa 1594... when you have started thinking.

What's there to get back to ?
We were there .
You were not .
Argentina didn't exist .
The colonization of what is now modern Argentina came from Paraguay , Peru and Chile .
Any questions?

Originally Posted by Heroclitus

But you are wrong. British people will support a war in self defence against a belligerent Argentina. That is why all major parties support the refusal to negotiate with Argentina. Also we are aware that with the current runway and military presence, maintaining sufficient military resources to defend the island will prevent the sort of war we saw in 1982. Even withou an aircraft carrier, Argentina lacks the capability to take the island. The UK still has one of the largest economies in the world and the fourth largest defence budget in the world. We will protect those British citizens who wish to have their centuries old rights and way of life protected against alien invasion.

The interests of BP would be best served by a deal with Argentina. An agreement would make the difficult task of exploiting the oil easy. BP are in your camp: sell out the principle of the self determination of peoples for a little profit. Capitulation to Argentine wishes would be very much in the financial interests of BP. You are their ally, not us.

You haven't explained why you don't support the right of self determination of people. Don't you realize that not to support this is to yield to the tyrannical territorial claims of China, North Korea and others who are engaged in border disputes where the people's wishes are ignored?

And your position mkakes no sense. If it is not in Britain's interest now, why was it in 1982? We could have transplanted the islanders to Britain then and saved a lot of lives. What difference does it make if they are kicked out by a dictator or a democracy? You don't acknowledge their rights anyway. Tell me why people should have died in 1982 but now we should surrender?

I don't want a war, do you? Irrespective of whether we negotiate or not, an Argentine attack is highly unlikely but it will be virtually non-existent if we engage in diplomacy. Our intrasigence will cost us dearly economically in the medium to long term. There will be no economic development in the Falklands unless Argentina agrees to it. Alongside her Latin American allies, Argentina can insist - if she so wishes - that no nautical or aviation activity takes place on or around these rocks. In collaboration with her allies, Argentina can effectively make the exploration for resources in the Falklands an impossibility. So this is another reason why it's in our interests to resolve this through negotiation.

The Falklander's cannot simultaneously claim that they are British AND that they have a right of self-determination 8,000 miles away from Britain. Self-evidentally, these two things are mutually contradictory. Why can't you grasp that simple fact? In 1982 Argentina was a fascist dictatorship who scuppered negotiations that we were involved in over the same issues that you apparently think are now untenable, despite the fact that it makes pragmatic sense for us to do so. In 1982, the Falklander's were under a genuine threat for their lives and thus as UK citizen's we had a moral obligation to defend and protect these people. I supported the war in 1982 on that basis. To compare the situation now with then is simply and utterly prepostrous.