Falklands Crisis

[j-dawg]

Just wanted to see what the general opinion on here is of the recent debates over the Falklands.

Getting on my nerves how the Argentinian president claims Britains 'bully-boy thugs' are keeping them from 're-claiming' the islands even though the population has demanded to remain British. She also says that 'colonisation is a thing of the past'. If she truley beleives this then why is she insisting on colonising the falklands?

Any educated thoughts on the topic?

 

[Getofmeland]

As my father is a Falklands Veteran, I personally feel this should be kept under British Control, the people there hold British Passports and class themselves as British Citizens, the only reason the Argentinians want it is because of the Oil underneath it

 

[j-dawg]

I agree 100%. I think its absoloutley sickening that any country would even agree with Argentinas claims that have no foundation. As they have said themselves, colonisation is a thing of the past but they insist on colonising it. I can't beleive not one single politician has mentioned that quite obvious contradiction. Only two reasons why they have suddenly upped their intensity on this is because of A) oil and B) Election. No matter what the media says Britain is constantly armed to the teeth and the islands defense right now is over ten times stronger than those 64 marines that put up a brave fight in 82.

I have so much respect for your father as I do all Falklands veterans. Do you know what Regiment he was in?

 

[lucky number 7]

What the people want the people should get...they identify themselves as british ...they should therefore be allowed to stay british.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

"Colonisation". Ludicrous. These people want to have the status quo, then why not? The oil thing doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[shtove]

There should be no such authority as Britain, no such authority as Argentina. Just the authority of people.

The state of Argentina had to default ten years ago - the wealth of the people was stolen through currency destruction after the wealth of bank investors had been guaranteed. Pay no attention to this bullshit state.

The state of Britain is in the process of defaulting - 25% currency debasement since 2008 (ie. money stolen from workers' pockets) in order to save the bank investors. Pay no attention to this bullshit state either.

If you vote Tory/Labour/Lib you are an idiot. If you don't understand the scam you need to learn about Argentina.

Go Iceland - true democracy!

 

[Seaton]

There should be no such authority as Britain, no such authority as Argentina. Just the authority of people.

The state of Argentina had to default ten years ago - the wealth of the people was stolen through currency destruction after the wealth of bank investors had been guaranteed. Pay no attention to this bullshit state.

The state of Britain is in the process of defaulting - 25% currency debasement since 2008 (ie. money stolen from workers' pockets) in order to save the bank investors. Pay no attention to this bullshit state either.

If you vote Tory/Labour/Lib you are an idiot. If you don't understand the scam you need to learn about Argentina.

Go Iceland - true democracy!

Points for effort I suppose

Crisis? Fit crisis?

The army/ navy/ air force will have everything under control if anything happens B)
Which will most likely not, the Argies just blowing hot air.

Rugby related, if relations do deteriorate between the UK and the Argentinian governments, do you think that Scot/ Wales/ Eng rugby unions will bear that in mind if Argentina were to bid for a world cup?

 

[CDN_Rugby]

Rugby related, if relations do deteriorate between the UK and the Argentinian governments, do you think that Scot/ Wales/ Eng rugby unions will bear that in mind if Argentina were to bid for a world cup?

Probably, politics and sport are more interrelated than we think.

 

[j-dawg]

I don't know but England lifting the world cup on Argentinian territory would not go down well with the Argentinian head of state who has to present it in that eventuality. So, considering Englands world cup history, Id say they'd go for it. Id also like to hear any opinions of TRF's Argentinian posters but in my view, the islanders right to self determination trumps all.

 

[best_fullback]

As with you Getofmeland, my father and girlfriend's father are both Falklands veterans, so I completely agree with what most are saying here. It is so clearly obvious what the motive is behind this, and I likewise think little true intention. Argentina won't try and invade again. Its clearly a politically motivated spin because they are annoyed now that oil has been discovered. I think I am right in saying that the inhabitants have always rejected the Argentinian claims to the island, Its under British rule, and the inhabitants wish to stay British. Thats surely all that really needs to be said.

 

[shtove]

Points for effort I suppose

Wot! Enjoy your poverty. And your children's poverty.

 

[Seaton]

Wot! Enjoy your poverty. And your children's poverty.

Hah!

I will do my bit in not over populating the planet

History is there to be learnt from kids B)

 

[Logorrhea]

The Islands are about 400km from Argentina, they are about 13,000km from England. Does no one find that a bit odd?

They were taken from Argentina and colonised on the back of a superior navy. Just because time has passed, and the people that were placed there to colonise the sheep have had kids, does not make it a legal occupation.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

If I was the king of Castrovia and arrived at some island a few kilometres away from Trovinia and inhabited by only a few Trovinians and then took possession of that island, pay some Castrovians to settle there and then asked them a century after whether they want to be Castrovians or Trovinians, guess what they would answer.

180 years after the occupation, I agree that the islands are British and so they will remain. I also agree that the Argentine presidents have used the Falklands as a nationalistic argument when in political distress.

Furthermore, the Argentines should really let go, a 200 year old claim has really no validity. No one would suport a Mexican claim to get California and Texas back, and the Falklands case is even more far-fetched.

BUT, the British occupation was indeed an invasion.

 

[j-dawg]

The Islands are about 400km from Argentina, they are about 13,000km from England. Does no one find that a bit odd?

They were taken from Argentina and colonised on the back of a superior navy. Just because time has passed, and the people that were placed there to colonise the sheep have had kids, does not make it a legal occupation.

Wrong, the British were on the Island before Argentina was declared a nation. I vouch America should give back Texas to mexico, they certainly took that by force.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

It all depends how far back you want to go. Also, when does a nation become a nation? When others say so?

Personally, I feel that 100 odd years is more than enough for a people inhabiting a place to call themselves of that place. Sure, violence was done in the past to get to where we are today but it has to stop somewhere surely. That said I can understand the disgruntlement. But is the people in the Falklands want to remain British then that's their problem and I'm happy for them.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Wrong, the British were on the Island before Argentina was declared a nation. I vouch America should give back Texas to mexico, they certainly took that by force.

The Argentine version of the story (the one I'm most familiar with, I'm not saying it's the right one) says that the British took it in the 1830's.

Anyway, at this point I really think there is no point in Argentina claiming them.

That being said, I think it could be educational to mention how the issue is taught in primary schools in Argentina, as I really think that their position is not "stupid", but just wrong.

In the XVIII century, there is a dispute of sovereignity between the UK and Spain.
In 1776 the British leave the islands, the Spanish do in 1806.
The British attempt to invade Buenos Aires twice between 1806 and 1807. This (among other things) is what created the concept of an Argentine nation which led to the independence wars there (and ultimately in the rest of South America) and that created the first feelings of tension with the British.
In 1820, an Argentine flag is raised and the islands are claimed.
In 1833, the UK invade the islands (I insist, this is how it is taught in schools in Argentina, don't blame me for the word "invasion")
1833-1982 British sovereignity, not much happens, but Argentina hold their claim.
1982 Argentina try to re-gain the Falkland, losing 400 men (Argentina was in the midst of a cruel dictatorship).


What I'm trying to show here is that it is not obvious that the Flakland "have always been British" and that it is a bit more complicated than what most people in the UK believe. I insist, I don't support the Argentine claim as, even if they were right, 180 years is way enough.

 

[DonBilly]

The Islands are about 400km from Argentina, they are about 13,000km from England. Does no one find that a bit odd?

They were taken from Argentina and colonised on the back of a superior navy. Just because time has passed, and the people that were placed there to colonise the sheep have had kids, does not make it a legal occupation.

Well if you use such an argument, neither Channel Islands nor Gibraltar should be British.

 

[Seaton]

The Islands are about 400km from Argentina, they are about 13,000km from England. Does no one find that a bit odd?

They were taken from Argentina and colonised on the back of a superior navy. Just because time has passed, and the people that were placed there to colonise the sheep have had kids, does not make it a legal occupation.

I don't think one should look at these things in terms of legality.

Because if it comes down to that, I reckon any 'pure blooded' descendents of the Celts will have the legal right to kick all the 'non-pure blooded' people off/ out of the British Isles, cause after all, they're here illegally, are they nae?

What about Antartica? Surely it should solely belong to Argentina/ Chile/ South Africa and New Zealand?

Fit about Reunion? (the wee French owned island in the Indian Ocean)

What about Hawaii, Corisca, Sardinia, Majorca, the Canary Islands (of which Tenerife has a cracking flag, if I do say so myself) and etc...

Is Alaska a legal occupation because there was a treaty involved?

Poopoo to legality, three cheers for justice

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Argentina = 13years
Britain = 178years
(going from the dates supplies by ZeFrenchy, I'll admit I don't know a lot about it)

So it's been under British rule more than 10 times longer than it was under Argentinian...