The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Hendrix, Feb 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Don't be so overtly jealous of someone showing flair , creativity and humour . You do demean yourself unnecessarily at times , Bertie
     
  2. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I agree, the British ARE "decent, caring and loyal" but they are also pragmatic. Thus they will not fight on behalf of the interests of British Petroleum on the pretext that they are fighting:

    a) to defend the disengenuous national determination rights of 3,000 UK citizens in the Falkland's 8,000 miles away and:

    b) to defend their right to trump the medium to long-term economic and foreign policy interests of 65 million of their fellow citizens.
     
  3. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
  4. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ray, you have a bad attitude. Get over yourself.
     
  5. Tyrerik

    Tyrerik New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,092
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The principle of self determination is not limited to nation states, where did you get that idea from? Maybe you are confused about what constitutes a nation state for according to you self determination doesn't apply to Belgiums! It is highly questionable whether Britain itself counts as a nation state, in football it doesn't. According to many including former PM Gorden Brown Britain is not a national state but a multinational state:

    In these islands we have, over centuries, created the world's most successful multinational state because we celebrate and respect the multiple identities that enrich us all. I am Scottish and proud of it, but I am no less proud to be British - just as there are millions who are proud to be Welsh and British and English and British too.

    source

    To correct you, self determination applies to peoples meaning ethnic groups which is not quite the same as nations, see here:

    ethnicity and nation

    The question then is are the Falkland Islanders a people, an ethnic group and I think there are good reasons to support this as the Islanders have a very isolated existance which has existed for many generations. Naturally it takes at least two for a union and although the Islanders may want to be part of the multinational state of Britain, Britain could reject their wishes however denying them the right to self determination on the basis that they are not a nation is flawed.
     
    Heroclitus and (deleted member) like this.
  6. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Riiiight so really its just about the UK giving the argies a share in the spoils eh? Noted.

    So why cant they claim a right to self determination if we give it to them? As an overseas territory they are mostly indepdent anyway. Whats stopping us?

    Right so again it really just about giving the argies some money.

    And then you tell us its unacceptable to defy the argentinians if they want to go to war to take the Islands.

    Or to defy the UN general assembly despite repeated unanswered requests by the Falkland Islanders for the UN to send a fact finding mission to the Islands?

    As for vetos you tell us that our decision to protect the islands is driven by the falkland islanders rather than British public opinion. On what grounds?


    Its not set by them, its set by us here in the UK. Its always been that way.
     
  7. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you say such things?

    Of course they will. The British are very keen on keeping argies out. Do you actually know any Britons?
     
  8. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmm

    You yourself feel free to make brief, sometimes contentious, sometimes smart sometimes rubbish sometimes funny statements here.

    Now Raymondo does it and you dont like it. Do you feel youre no longer the only special kid in class now Albert?
     
  9. Iolo

    Iolo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thatcher would have sold them out for any decent price, if the Argentinian military clowns hadn't pushed her into pretending patriotism. Tories care about money, not people or 'nations', and they especially hate British people who get in their bullying way - as you of course know.
     
  10. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You need to have an urgent talk with your mum .
    What you are describing is a physical impossibility .
     
  11. s002wjh

    s002wjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    self determination is nice, but its not necessarily work. for example if one of the US state decide to become an independent country, there is no way US government will allow that happen, the result is another civil war. you have also look at historical relationship too.
     
  12. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I think if today a state voted to secede from the Union that would cause a constitutional crisis in the USA. I don't think it is automatic and forever that the Federal government will be able in all cases to prevent secession. Right now though I think all states want to be part of the USA (may be wrong here).

    Quebec for example may cede from Canada should its people so vote. So far, they have not. Scotland may vote to secede from the UK.

    If a territory can be viable in its chosen route of self determination, then this should be permitted if it doesn't impact the wellbeing of others.
     
  13. s002wjh

    s002wjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it was just an example that self determination is not always gonna work. thats the way it is. its not easy to break off from a large group just because you want to. there are many examples of this in history and world today.
     
  14. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People in the UK won't miss the Falklands. They won't even be aware of the loss. So there's nothing to be gained by resisting the inevitable.
     
  15. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Albert stop being an arse now (this is your mum speaking)!

    You don't hate British people you're just a bit messed up by Mexicans right now and are looking to lash out.

    (Albert's a good egg, a splendid chap, a spiffing fellow and my china plate, so cut him some slack cos he's having a tough time).
     
  16. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Its a good point. The only one made so far against the Falklanders. But I don't think it applies because their rights are practical should the UK wish to incorporate them into the UK. Its not secession.
     
  17. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Falklands are potentially hugely important to the entire future of the UK and the Middle East. If they do locate oil there, England will no longer care if Scotland remains within the UK union. They will drop Scotland like an oily rag.
    However if the Falklands are lost to English control, Scotland will be imprisoned until the oil runs out and Middle Eastern countries will continue to be "rescued" by UK...
     
  18. Paris

    Paris Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    British Officer: "You French fight for money, while we British fight for honour."

    Robert Surcouf: "Sir, a man fights for what he lacks the most."
     
  19. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Very stupid post Viv. Scotland will decide it's own fate within the UK in any scenario. You know that very well. Playing along to an American anglophobic fiction that England is occupying and oppressing poor Scots against their will is a disgraceful piece of distortion.

    There isn't enough oil to make it worth a war and damaging our interests in Latn America. The Falklands has to be defended out of principle.

    The argument from Zulu is contradictory: either it's being done for money (oil) or it is a drain on our resources (against the interests of the majority in the UK). It can't be both.
     
  20. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  21. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How does that follow? The British didn't take the islands from a pre-existing populace.
     
  22. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The British forced the Argentines to evacuate the Falklands in 1832.
     
  23. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,709
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Incorrect - there was not a shot fired, and Argentina per se did not exist in 1832. The River Plate colony asked the British for permission to form a settlement on territory already claimed by Britain, and when they broke that agreement (by declaring sovereignty over the resources of the surrounding waters,) Great Britain asked them to take their flag down and leave. Which they did without violence on either side.
     
  24. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Strange how that happened .
    Given that the British were first there in 1592 and it was claimed on behalf of our Majesty , Queen Elizabeth the First in 1594 .
    Mexicans have such a poor grasp of History it seems .
     
  25. verystormy

    verystormy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Please either give out the full facts or dont give them out at all. Particularly when you cant even get the one you have given correct. The British came back to the islands in 1833.

    The reason they were taken back was they lost them to a Argentinian sponsored pirate David Jewett. Jewett , an American raised the flag and declared them for Argentina only because his previous behaviour was likely to have seen him tried for piracy. It is generally accepted that he was after a clemency and to get his hands on a American ship with valuable cargo that was stranded there.

    Until then Argentina had made no claim to the Islands at all. Even then, the only claim was that a wanted pirate raised a flag and wrote to the then president of the United Provinces of the River Plate (Now Argentina). It is noticable that the then goverment actualy didnt do anything. They made no statement as to soverinty or even acknowledged his letter.

    It wasnt until 2 years later that Argentina, realising the Islands had been effectivly abondoned and that there was some significant goods to be had from the stranded American ship, that they arrived on the Islands and attempted a soverinty claim.

    If there is anybody who could have had a claim it would have been the French who discovered them and set up the first colony. The French left and gave them to the UK under treaty.

    There was an interlude of Spanish rule. However, the Spanish take over was little more than a sneak in while the UK had withdrawn from the islands in order to flight the American war of Independance. Spain itself withdrew in order to concentrate on fighting the Penninsular war and British rule returned.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page