FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > war in 2013
war in 2013
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?"
We certainly should NOT cut our losses and turn our back the Falkland Islands. They are and always have been British. Argentina has no claim whatsoever on them. They have NEVER inhabited them despite their lies which say they have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I cant remember her name. But her ratings are bad and the the economy is bad... Every time something makes her look bad she spouts this shit so people forget about her and go all patriotic. There was a big right up in one of the sunday papers. They showed some shithole town that was falling apart due to having no money and said it was going to be governing the Falklands when they got them back. Argentina has never had the Falklands a little fact they keep forgetting... They have almost no navy so would need help to launch an attack. Let's hope they see sense and give up before any blood is spilt... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?
We certainly should NOT cut our losses and turn our back the Falkland Islands. They are and always have been British. Argentina has no claim whatsoever on them. They have NEVER inhabited them despite their lies which say they have."
Her argument is that us colonialists took them from argentina in the 1880s so yes I suppose she has a point. I agree though they are British and should remain so |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"she is a politician, by and large they all talk bollocks when they are in a hole..
whether she is that desperate to commit armed forces to do so is just conjecture..
"
Its more than talk though. They have grounded any plans from using their air space making it impossible to fly to the islands and are talking of blockading fleets. The past year she has not let up on this. My fear is Cameron will see it as a vote winner and is itching for the fight too. He has not exactly been diplomatic on the matter |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?
We certainly should NOT cut our losses and turn our back the Falkland Islands. They are and always have been British. Argentina has no claim whatsoever on them. They have NEVER inhabited them despite their lies which say they have.
Her argument is that us colonialists took them from argentina in the 1880s so yes I suppose she has a point. I agree though they are British and should remain so"
If we took them, how can they be British??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"she is a politician, by and large they all talk bollocks when they are in a hole..
whether she is that desperate to commit armed forces to do so is just conjecture..
Its more than talk though. They have grounded any plans from using their air space making it impossible to fly to the islands and are talking of blockading fleets. The past year she has not let up on this. My fear is Cameron will see it as a vote winner and is itching for the fight too. He has not exactly been diplomatic on the matter"
he is also a politician, and in a hole economic and popularity wise..
same hyperbole..
aware of the restrictions etc they have set in place, think we are a fair way away from military action..
lets hope common sense (feck me did i say that in ref to our 'leaders' lol) prevails..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?
We certainly should NOT cut our losses and turn our back the Falkland Islands. They are and always have been British. Argentina has no claim whatsoever on them. They have NEVER inhabited them despite their lies which say they have.
Her argument is that us colonialists took them from argentina in the 1880s so yes I suppose she has a point. I agree though they are British and should remain so
If we took them, how can they be British??
"
Same way northern Ireland, Australia and Canada is British. We take over and plant a flag! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?"
"Making war seem inevitable"....
Not sure how you deduce that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Pretty much been sorted already.
She is using this as an attempt to raise nationalism and save her career as president, our government has quite rightly said "Ok, if the people of the falklands decide to change their sovereign then so be it, let them decide..."
She's a bit fucking stumped now eh! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"depends whether we want access to the alleged oil fields that are in that area......"
Evidence of sufficient hydro carbon deposits have been found to indicate extraction could potentially become a financially viable option…..
However without co-operation between British backed exploration / production companies who hold much of the expertise and many of the mineral rights combined with a friendly Argentinean governments willingness to provide a suitable landing base with the infrastructure for refinement and shipping, nothing will become of it, as it’s just logistically impractical to create a feasible production set-up otherwise….
So I doubt we see another war between two potentially co-dependant economies….
But I suspect we will see quite a lot of political posturing….
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?"
She also said that she did NOT want to go to war over it but preferred the UN to sort it out. The UN will do nothing of course as it would mean handing over a piece of British sovereign real estate to Argentina, which we won't agree to and we'll leave the UN if they try to force us - and that's something the UN will not permit to happen, due to our permanent seat on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?"
..batter them again but this time do the job right,not like in 82 when the argies had free run of the skys and knocked fuck out of our ships fuck that go get em boys do it for the lads of 82 who never came home.R i p.xx
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?"
a "battering " with what ?
The aircraft carriers we would have to borrow from France ? Or the defence force that's masqueradeing as our army ?
We have cut back to far and to fast |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?
We certainly should NOT cut our losses and turn our back the Falkland Islands. They are and always have been British. Argentina has no claim whatsoever on them. They have NEVER inhabited them despite their lies which say they have."
The Falkland Islands took their English name from "Falkland Sound", the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690. The Spanish name, las (Islas) Malvinas, is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France.
The French settled East Falkland Isle in 1764 and, unbeknown to each other, the British settled West Falkland in 1765. Spain acquired East Falkland from the French in 1767 and put a governor in place who ruled it from Buenos Aires (then part of the Spanish Empire). In 1770, the Spanish attacked West Falkland and expelled the English but the threat of war between Spain and England forced a treaty which permitted the English to resettle West Falkland.
In 1774 economic pressures forced the withdrawl from many UK overseas territories and British presence on West Falkland ended. The Spanish also withdrew from East Falkland in 1806 and both countries left plaques in place establishing their respective claims on the islands. Britain returned in 1833 and, on finding the islands occupied by an Argentine garrison, retook the islands and asked the Argies to leave. We have governed them ever since.
Argentina's claim to the islands is spurious in the least, and downright provocative at worst. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Don't forget these islands were unpopulated and have never been populated by Argentina and are over a thousand miles from the Argentinian main land.
Fuck em!
As has been said this shit gets dredged up by the current leader of Argentina when ever they want to distract the population from what a shit job they are doing.
Push comes to shove it will go to war - Because no UK government regardless of politics WILL EVER piss away all the lives lost and money lost by defending the islands only relatively a few years ago. It would be political suicide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Falklands are already one big aircraft carrier, even if they managed to bluff there way across an land they'd find a substantial force waiting for them.
The risk of there entire force being sunk before they even landed is more than a deterrent, they won't attack again even the argies aren't that stupid.
It's fourteen hrs flight time from the UK , not sure what the sailing time from Argentina is, anyone know? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Falklands are already one big aircraft carrier, even if they managed to bluff there way across an land they'd find a substantial force waiting for them.
The risk of there entire force being sunk before they even landed is more than a deterrent, they won't attack again even the argies aren't that stupid.
It's fourteen hrs flight time from the UK , not sure what the sailing time from Argentina is, anyone know?"
1100 miles from Buenos Aires, how long does it take to sail that distance?
Interestingly, Google have decided to get splinters up it's corporate arse by listing the islands by both names (Falklands Islands & Islas Malvinas) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
im sure the money could be found if it was needed to defend the falklands.
do we really have the ability to?
difficult to say.
just hope it doesnt come to that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"im sure the money could be found if it was needed to defend the falklands.
do we really have the ability to?
difficult to say.
just hope it doesnt come to that"
We had only two aircraft carriers back in the last war, guess how many we have now?
None!
There's a danger we would get spanked this time round but that wouldn't stop us taking part.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"im sure the money could be found if it was needed to defend the falklands.
do we really have the ability to?
difficult to say.
just hope it doesnt come to that"
Don't be naive. The govt isn't sitting on an empty wallet you know, there is money there and if the Argies think we won;t rush to defend the Falklands again they're in for a big surprise, but one must also realise that we came very close to getting our arses kicked in 82. Our ships sat in Falkland Sound almost aground and some of them were sitting ducks for Argie air crew. It was by sheer providence that we got as many men off them as we did. The long range bombers we sent had to stop at Ascension to refuel, and then be refuelled again en route, almost never made it there.
But it won't happen again as Argentina know full well that if they ever hope to reach a UN solution to the Falkland Islands another show of force won't help their cause one iota. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?
We certainly should NOT cut our losses and turn our back the Falkland Islands. They are and always have been British. Argentina has no claim whatsoever on them. They have NEVER inhabited them despite their lies which say they have.
Her argument is that us colonialists took them from argentina in the 1880s so yes I suppose she has a point. I agree though they are British and should remain so
If we took them, how can they be British??
Same way northern Ireland, Australia and Canada is British. We take over and plant a flag!"
No flag no country! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If we took them, how can they be British??
"
If we went down that road where do you draw a line? Give the USA back to the native Americans? Give Australia back to the Aborigines?
Nations and ownerships have changed hands since time began.
The Falklands are ours, the inhabitants wish to remain a British colony.
Imo it is our duty to defend their rights in anyway deemed necessary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Argentine economy's screwed, and she's raking this up to cover up her maladministration - they're going to be kicked out of the IMF....
They probably can't afford to buy any marine or aviation fuel to even try and mount an invasion ...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Her name is Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and she is bloomin' lovely.
It is a bloody good job that I don't have the Falkkand Islands because she'd only have to flutter her lashes and ask nicely..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ezebelWoman
over a year ago
North of The Wall - youll need your vest |
"Her name is Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and she is bloomin' lovely.
It is a bloody good job that I don't have the Falkkand Islands because she'd only have to flutter her lashes and ask nicely....."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the oil card is quite often overplayed. It's been 30 years since the war ended and not a drop has been removed because it is prohibitively expensive to do so for the reasons Soxy mentioned. I have the impression the Islanders already know this which is why they have moved their economy towards servicing tourism.
As for battering the Argentinians should they come over, which they had the capability to do last time I was there in 2004, It would probably be a case of us having to re-take them by force again. Which we would probably struggle to do at present without properly bankrupting the country.
We have a few thousand mixed forces down there supporting a couple of ships, a sub and 4 fighters, and last time I was there half the fighters were on maintenance at any one time. And trust me on this fact, if the Argies came over on a Friday/Saturday night then half the personnel would be wankered anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"its north korea im worried about maybe 2013 might just be war time  "
Look at history, whenever the world ecomomy is depressed, as it is now, there is usually a war....this is how politicians work, they know their countrymen of whatever nation are patriotic and will fight for 'the cause' it boosts a country's ecomomy... a drawn out war means the need to manufacture arms and munitions full employment is inevitable, the nations morale is boosted (till they get their arses kicked) So will there be a war? some may say with the state of the economy it is inevitable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So today's guardian has a letter from the argentine president again calling on Britain to relinquish the Falkland islands. She won't rest on this making war seem inevitable. Should we cut our losses and turn our back on the island or give the argies a battering?"
The Argentinian armed forced haven't been re-equipped in years so I doubt they would go to war. They want the oil fields ops sorry the Island just as much as we do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Lol I don't read the guardian just seen the ad was printed there as in many other papers.
Its a wee bit of rock and if the argies want it so bad we should sell it to them. We could not get the natural resourses without their help anyway.
Our armed forces are a shambles but same can be said of theirs. Add to that the fact we wiped out thier air force last time.
Easiest solution would be for the Brits to stop breeding and key the island population die out or relocate them.
Saying that it will go yo war tho. they will overstep and Cameron will be having an election and will love the nostalgic Maggie links |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Wonder if this has anything to do with the fact they found out the Falklands is sat on top of a shit load of oil  "
That's the crazy thing. The only way we could access it is by laying pipes from the argie mainland which would never happen. Its no use to us unless we can get it out the ground |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wonder if this has anything to do with the fact they found out the Falklands is sat on top of a shit load of oil
That's the crazy thing. The only way we could access it is by laying pipes from the argie mainland which would never happen. Its no use to us unless we can get it out the ground"
Or unless we leave it where it where it is for another 30 years when oil reserves elsewhere will be so depleted that previously prohibitive oil reservoirs will be looked at again. It is a highly valuable piece of real estate and both countries know it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Wonder if this has anything to do with the fact they found out the Falklands is sat on top of a shit load of oil
That's the crazy thing. The only way we could access it is by laying pipes from the argie mainland which would never happen. Its no use to us unless we can get it out the ground
Or unless we leave it where it where it is for another 30 years when oil reserves elsewhere will be so depleted that previously prohibitive oil reservoirs will be looked at again. It is a highly valuable piece of real estate and both countries know it."
Many large oil importers, like the US, are increasingly looking to shale oil to minimise the need for costly foreign oil.
Much of the oil that's left to be extracted is in increasingly expensive or politically unstable locations. That'll increase the push to find alternatives.
Meanwhile. As for the need to pipe oil/ gas to the South American mainland; couldn't we load it into tankers from production platforms and take to somewhere friendlier for processing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wonder if this has anything to do with the fact they found out the Falklands is sat on top of a shit load of oil
That's the crazy thing. The only way we could access it is by laying pipes from the argie mainland which would never happen. Its no use to us unless we can get it out the ground
Or unless we leave it where it where it is for another 30 years when oil reserves elsewhere will be so depleted that previously prohibitive oil reservoirs will be looked at again. It is a highly valuable piece of real estate and both countries know it.
Many large oil importers, like the US, are increasingly looking to shale oil to minimise the need for costly foreign oil.
Much of the oil that's left to be extracted is in increasingly expensive or politically unstable locations. That'll increase the push to find alternatives.
Meanwhile. As for the need to pipe oil/ gas to the South American mainland; couldn't we load it into tankers from production platforms and take to somewhere friendlier for processing?"
We can, but we'd then need to find a market for it that still allows a profit to be made from it. If we flood the oil market with expensive oil because it was expensive to produce it will drive the oil prices crazy with instability.
I believe both countries want the Islands for future development when the less expensive oil reserves have run out and the more expensive ones are par for the course. Then it becomes worth drilling for, and when that happens we can do a deal with Argentina to split the profits for agreeing to land it there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"she is a politician, by and large they all talk bollocks when they are in a hole..
whether she is that desperate to commit armed forces to do so is just conjecture..
Its more than talk though. They have grounded any plans from using their air space making it impossible to fly to the islands and are talking of blockading fleets. The past year she has not let up on this. My fear is Cameron will see it as a vote winner and is itching for the fight too. He has not exactly been diplomatic on the matter"
The RAF still flies to the Falklands regularly, fuelling in West Africa and Ascension Island (I know, I've done it before retired) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nice to see the super soaraway Sun has reacted with it's usual tact and diplomacy."
It seems that 40m Argentinians have been brainwashed into thinking history is something different to what it actually is. Almost 100% of Argentinans believe that Argentina once governed the Falklands as part of it's dominion. not true. Argentina have never governed the Falklands since it's creation as the Rep of Argentina. The islands were run from Buenos Aries when Argentina was part of the Spanish empire.
The Sun pointed that out to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nice to see the super soaraway Sun has reacted with it's usual tact and diplomacy.
It seems that 40m Argentinians have been brainwashed into thinking history is something different to what it actually is. Almost 100% of Argentinans believe that Argentina once governed the Falklands as part of it's dominion. not true. Argentina have never governed the Falklands since it's creation as the Rep of Argentina. The islands were run from Buenos Aries when Argentina was part of the Spanish empire.
The Sun pointed that out to them."
No, what the Sun has just done is appoint itself speaker for our nation and antagonised the 100% of argentinians that believe the islands are theirs, making a military reaction more of a possibility.
Personally, I'd let them have it. If we were that interested in the oil supposedly there then something would
have been done to get it during the past 30 years. Whereas now the place is just a nice wilderness and wildlife tourist attraction with battlefield tours.
Say we'll hand it back in 5 years, help those to move that want to and leave the rest to it.
And before anyone starts, the British government has evicted native people from another small island and no one has said Jack shit. Google Diego Garcia for proof, But that's ok as they're not British. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No, what the Sun has just done is appoint itself speaker for our nation and antagonised the 100% of argentinians that believe the islands are theirs, making a military reaction more of a possibility.
"
And they have probably helped those within Argentinian Political circles who not only support their President but want direct military action..
this 'letter' will most likely now receive more publicity in Argentina than the Presidents same 'over here'..
Murdoch owes Cameron a bit of pay back and this also reflects on him, adding pressure to be more of a 'leader' and up the ante..
filthy little rag.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nice to see the super soaraway Sun has reacted with it's usual tact and diplomacy.
It seems that 40m Argentinians have been brainwashed into thinking history is something different to what it actually is. Almost 100% of Argentinans believe that Argentina once governed the Falklands as part of it's dominion. not true. Argentina have never governed the Falklands since it's creation as the Rep of Argentina. The islands were run from Buenos Aries when Argentina was part of the Spanish empire.
The Sun pointed that out to them.
No, what the Sun has just done is appoint itself speaker for our nation and antagonised the 100% of argentinians that believe the islands are theirs, making a military reaction more of a possibility.
Personally, I'd let them have it. If we were that interested in the oil supposedly there then something would
have been done to get it during the past 30 years. Whereas now the place is just a nice wilderness and wildlife tourist attraction with battlefield tours.
Say we'll hand it back in 5 years, help those to move that want to and leave the rest to it.
And before anyone starts, the British government has evicted native people from another small island and no one has said Jack shit. Google Diego Garcia for proof, But that's ok as they're not British. "
Hand it back? It was never theirs to begin with!
Are you just as ignorant of historical fact as 40m Argeninians?
France & England settled the Falklands in the 1600s, France on the East isle, us on the West. Spain gained control of East Falkland and ran it from their Buenos Aries office. Argentina DID NOT EXIST as a country at that time as it was part of Spain's Empire. When the English vacated East Falkland (and the Spanish left West Falkland at around the same time) plaques were erected by both countries claiming respecitive sovereignty of the islands. An Argentian force garrisoned West Falkland and remained there until our return and we asked them to leave (which they did), and we've run both islands ever since.
Now, what part of that historical fact do you want to disregard to appease a bunch of Argies who don't have a legitimate claim to any of the Falkland Islands?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just a thought ........... should we cut our losses ????? Not bloody likely ....
where is the loyalty to all the poor souls that lost their lives last time around for us to just turn tail and run ???
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" And trust me on this fact, if the Argies came over on a Friday/Saturday night then half the personnel would be wankered anyway. "
Let us hope the Argies don't read this. You've just given our military secrets away.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wishy, what I'm saying is let them have several hundred square miles of nothing. A barren featureless nothing many thousands of miles away from us.
Let them have it without getting people killed and costing money we don't have all in the name of national pride. The only cost being the relocation of the people who want to be moved. Move them to the outer hebrides and they'll hardly notice the difference!
Again, I'll point you to the UK's occupation of Diego Garcia and the subsequent eviction of the native islanders, the then lease of their islands to the US indefinitely and them not being allowed to return. We're hardly ones to preach about taking land that's not ours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wishy, what I'm saying is let them have several hundred square miles of nothing. A barren featureless nothing many thousands of miles away from us.
Let them have it without getting people killed and costing money we don't have all in the name of national pride. The only cost being the relocation of the people who want to be moved. Move them to the outer hebrides and they'll hardly notice the difference!
Again, I'll point you to the UK's occupation of Diego Garcia and the subsequent eviction of the native islanders, the then lease of their islands to the US indefinitely and them not being allowed to return. We're hardly ones to preach about taking land that's not ours."
Absolutely nothing to do with 'national pride' IMO.
It's all about protecting the interests of the Islanders who wish to remain a British Colony. The sooner they have the referendum the better, then we can tell the Argentinians where to go.
It has been said by many that the Falklands were NEVER owned or governed by Argentina, just because the island happens to be nearest Argentina doesn't give them claim to a land they've never owned as a nation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yronMan
over a year ago
grangemouth |
"Wishy, what I'm saying is let them have several hundred square miles of nothing. A barren featureless nothing many thousands of miles away from us.
Let them have it without getting people killed and costing money we don't have all in the name of national pride. The only cost being the relocation of the people who want to be moved. Move them to the outer hebrides and they'll hardly notice the difference!
Again, I'll point you to the UK's occupation of Diego Garcia and the subsequent eviction of the native islanders, the then lease of their islands to the US indefinitely and them not being allowed to return. We're hardly ones to preach about taking land that's not ours.
Absolutely nothing to do with 'national pride' IMO.
It's all about protecting the interests of the Islanders who wish to remain a British Colony. The sooner they have the referendum the better, then we can tell the Argentinians where to go.
It has been said by many that the Falklands were NEVER owned or governed by Argentina, just because the island happens to be nearest Argentina doesn't give them claim to a land they've never owned as a nation."
The referendum was held last year: The people of the Falklands voted to remain British. That for me is enough, however...
Kirchener (President of Argentina) is currently up shit creek without a paddle. She's banging on about the Falklands to try and get attention away from what's happening domestically. In her own country, there have been strikes, mass protests and the opposition are uniting to get rid of her and it's no surprise: Economically, the country is heading towards third world status, the native industries are going tits up (and her economic measures aren't helping) and she's already have her friend Chavez give her money to fund her election campaign because she can't get backers in her own country. This hasn't gone down well in Argentina as most Argentines don't like the idea of a foreign power controlling them.
As I said at the beginning, the people of the Falklands want to remain British and they want the Islands to do the same: As Kirchener claims to be a socialist, she should respect the will of the people on this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hypothetical question. A referendum is held and the islanders vote by 51% - 49% in favour of Argentina or much closer ties with Argentina.What then? Britain just gonna hand em back are they?.
There's a lot of ancient jingoism on this thread. Be honest when was the last time the man in the street gave two thoughts for the falklands except for when sabres are being rattled |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yronMan
over a year ago
grangemouth |
"Hypothetical question. A referendum is held and the islanders vote by 51% - 49% in favour of Argentina or much closer ties with Argentina.What then? Britain just gonna hand em back are they?.
There's a lot of ancient jingoism on this thread. Be honest when was the last time the man in the street gave two thoughts for the falklands except for when sabres are being rattled"
It's a hypothetical so it's hard to answer: The Islanders, from what I've seen, have a much better relationship with Uruguay than Argentina, so it's a moot point of whether the Islanders would want closer ties with Argentina, however, the UK Government would have to respect the will of the majority - just look what happened when parts of the Empire were given back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think its inevitable one-day sovereignty will be exchanged but I imagine it will be a peaceful agreement perhaps something like the Hong kong hand-over….
But I’m sure before that happens there will be plenty behind the scene discussions with the Argentinean government regards Gt Britain being granted a lions share of future business opportunities that might arise from exploiting the islands territorial waters or mineral rights….!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
erm.... there is a referendum going on in march on this topic in the falklands...
the status quo ... british overseas territory,
independance......
closer ties to argentina.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think its inevitable one-day sovereignty will be exchanged but I imagine it will be a peaceful agreement perhaps something like the Hong kong hand-over….
But I’m sure before that happens there will be plenty behind the scene discussions with the Argentinean government regards Gt Britain being granted a lions share of future business opportunities that might arise from exploiting the islands territorial waters or mineral rights….!.
"
That can only happen if there is a serious decline in population on the Falklands and fresh blood is needed to justify Britain retaining sovereignty. All it would take is one generation of more girls than boys or vice versa born there. The Falklanders have recruited from Argentina in the past so there is people with mixed heritage there already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS4funCouple
over a year ago
Lancashire |
Whatever the history, Coloniol past, past settlings & Imperial European countries- The UK has a more valid argument than the Argies. Even Spain or France would have more of a claim. More important is that we should be looking at who lives there now on The Falklands , how long they have lived there, what customs, rules & culture & model they follow. What do they want ? How do tey feel ? They feel that they are Bristish & they want to remain so. For all of the UK's faults & that of Cameron ( and there are plenty) the Falklanders have a referendum this year asking precisely that question- what do they want ? We know the answer but at least it will be there on paper the democratic will of the inhabitants. The Argie President doesn't seem to give a toss what the inhabitants of the Falklands want- at least we do. The Argies also seem to forget an unfortunate war took place by a war mongering military dictatorship who didn't give a toss about their own people or that of the Falkland Islands or that of the British Forces en route. The Argies were pleaded with not to invade & start a war by The British Government & the International Community including the USA & other Latin American countries. But War there was in the end there was no alternative we had a duty to defend those islands, defend protect & liberate the Falkland people who asked us to , expected us to & deserved it- to liberatethem from an agressive foreign invader. Lives were lost which need not have been lost on both sides.
I agree all this hyperpole & fuss being spun from Argie President is a smoke screen for what the problems & sorry state Argie is in now & yep have their eyes on this dubious Oil.
Self determination is key here & avoidence of lives being lost.
Rant over |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whatever the history, Coloniol past, past settlings & Imperial European countries- The UK has a more valid argument than the Argies. Even Spain or France would have more of a claim. More important is that we should be looking at who lives there now on The Falklands , how long they have lived there, what customs, rules & culture & model they follow. What do they want ? How do tey feel ? They feel that they are Bristish & they want to remain so. For all of the UK's faults & that of Cameron ( and there are plenty) the Falklanders have a referendum this year asking precisely that question- what do they want ? We know the answer but at least it will be there on paper the democratic will of the inhabitants. The Argie President doesn't seem to give a toss what the inhabitants of the Falklands want- at least we do. The Argies also seem to forget an unfortunate war took place by a war mongering military dictatorship who didn't give a toss about their own people or that of the Falkland Islands or that of the British Forces en route. The Argies were pleaded with not to invade & start a war by The British Government & the International Community including the USA & other Latin American countries. But War there was in the end there was no alternative we had a duty to defend those islands, defend protect & liberate the Falkland people who asked us to , expected us to & deserved it- to liberatethem from an agressive foreign invader. Lives were lost which need not have been lost on both sides.
I agree all this hyperpole & fuss being spun from Argie President is a smoke screen for what the problems & sorry state Argie is in now & yep have their eyes on this dubious Oil.
Self determination is key here & avoidence of lives being lost.
Rant over"
Excellent post  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The reason the Argantinian president wants the Falklands back is, like already mentioned, because of the vast oil reserves in that area.
That is the only reason that we have faught to keep hold of it because we knew at some point it would become cost effective.
Up until now it would have been to expensive to drill for oil in that region because it's so deep. That was until the cost of oil sky rocketed now making it viable to drill. In fact it was only last year that they sent the first drilling rig down to start the process. I didn't keep up with it so I don't know how far into it they got.
Having been to the Falklands and met the locals they all want to stay under British rule.
For those of you that haven't been to the Falklands I can guarentee you that it is very bleek with not a lot going for it. Which leaves me under no illusion that if there wasn't oil in the region that we wouldn't have fought to keep it!
It was certainly a chess manouvre to fight for the islands thinking long term and with the worlds oil reserves depleting at a rapid rate it was a very savy one. I think I'm right in saying that they Iran's oil supply is only expected to last another 30 or so years, if that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
