|
On June 16 2012 07:25 Rassy wrote:
"The British view on this is that since we have the islands now, and have done for nearly 200 years, since we have defended it militarily and since the islanders all want to be British subjects, the islands are ours"
The fact they have had the islands for 200 years and defended them militarily is barely a strong claim.
The same can be said for all former overseas colonys England and other european nations had, and nearly all thoose colonys are now independent. Noone now would think in their right mind that they should not be independend.
For the people on the falklands its a economic choise mostly i think, of course they would vote to remain british.
England has a verry weak claim on the islands imo though argentina barely has a stronger case based on location.
The islands are 500km from argentina and look large enough to be independant.
It would be a bit like america claiming cuba.
Not sure who the first people where who lived there, i have no clue but i would guess people from argentina.
If so that would give Argentina,s claim alot more weight.
Odd this comes up again after 30 years, another war about it seems impossible (though it was a real shock 30 years ago also) maybe argentina will get some economic advantages in exchange for giving up their claim.
Firstly, you're referring to England when you should be referring to the UK. Secondly, "having the island for 200 years" is not the claim, "having the island for 200 years AND defending them for that long AND having the support of the islanders" is the claim. It's an indication that the UK is fully competant to continue as is and has dedicated a lot militarily and economically to sustain the islands for that long of a time. Not to mention that not only do the inslanders want to be British, but we would respect their decision if they decided otherwise.
Also, there's no way another war will break out, unless Fernandez loses it completely:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373
|
Denmark1706 Posts
Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered.
Yes do that.
|
The people of the Falklands want to be part of Britain. That is the end of it. Do you know who cares what Argentina thinks about anything? Nope, me neither.
|
On June 16 2012 08:04 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered. Yes do that.
Why do that? It's not their land.
Whether the oil turned out to be the most valuable thing ever found on earth, or just mud that had fooled the scanners, it's none of Argentina's business. Any profit that comes from the Falklands, WHATEVER the source, is solely Britain's to do with as it pleases.
Also note that I'm no lover of the reliance on the oil industry re: North Sea Oil and Gas, so this isn't a "moar oil for Britain" post. Oil is a quick economic fix that helps nothing in the long term. It's simply a case of Argentina having no right to ask for 50%.
|
On June 16 2012 07:35 Rye. wrote:
Scotland is a different matter completely. If Scotland leaves it will be VERY bad for the UK and for Scotland. Alex Salmond has repeatedly shown how ignorant he is of what independence would really mean.
There are a lot of people here who haven't got a clue, sadly, and they think it would be a good idea to leave the U.K. They don't understand the consequences though, and our economy would soon go the same way as Iceland's or Ireland's. I'm hoping 16-18 year olds are not allowed to vote, as most of them seem to think it would be "cool" to be independent. -_-
It would seem the Falkland residents are perfectly happy being British. Good for them. 
|
United States43557 Posts
On June 16 2012 08:04 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered. Yes do that.
Give us 50% of the GDP of the Republic of Ireland and we'll talk. It's an island, it's near us, clearly we deserve it. After all, it's not like historical rights, self determination or the fact that we attempted illegitimate military land grabs on it should alter that. They want to be British, all that matters.
|
The Argentinian stance is ridiculous. Kirchner is imitating Thatcher's own tactic in diverting the domestic problems from people's minds to rouse nationalistic support in her favour.
It's also obvious that Falklanders would benefit infinitely more under British rule, than under Argentinian rule.
PS: Since when does the continental shelf determine ownership of a land mass?
|
On June 16 2012 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:
argentina should just hire chinese mapmakers to chart their claim over the seabed.
Icwutudidthar.
|
TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
|
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote:
TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
from the china thread:
On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate?
|
Argentina has about as much claim to the Falklands and Spain does to Argentina.
|
Are ppl really bringing up the treaty of tortesillas for this? -.-
|
On June 16 2012 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:
argentina should just hire chinese mapmakers to chart their claim over the seabed.
Or maybe just ask the Americans.
|
On June 16 2012 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote:
TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts. from the china thread: Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate?
What is the point of the U.S. saying anything? Argentina isn't going to do shit and unless they do the U.S. isn't going to needlessly antagonize Argentina for no reason. That's how diplomacy works.
And who does the U.S. want to control the oil, it's closest ally or a country and continent with a long history of playing politics with national resources?
|
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote:
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
.
The UK did help the USA but I thought they did it for the greater good or humanity rather than for brownie points. This is a diffeent case it is a UK territory. It would be like the USA asking for help if Puerto Rico was being threatened. If you can not defend your own land it will no longer be yours.
Someone before mentioned that the UK has airbases all around the world so there is not a need for aircraft carriers. You still have the logistics to get the planes and the gear there,food,gas,bullets and bombs.
|
Meh colonists, might as well wipe out the guyanas and surinam from our continent.
|
On June 16 2012 09:46 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote:
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
. The UK did help the USA but I thought they did it for the greater good or humanity rather than for brownie points. This is a diffeent case it is a UK territory. It would be like the USA asking for help if Puerto Rico was being threatened. If you can not defend your own land it will no longer be yours. Someone before mentioned that the UK has airbases all around the world so there is not a need for aircraft carriers. You still have the logistics to get the planes and the gear there,food,gas,bullets and bombs.
No and no again.
They justified our (UK) involvement with the "greater good" excuse but nobody believes that. Look at all the other civilised countries that didn't get involved - are you really suggesting that every one of them is somehow deficient in humanity? No, they just didn't want America's friendship badly enough to go to war for it.
Also helping one another in case of invasion is (well, perhaps less than in the past) one of the primary reasons to even have an alliance. Strength in numbers.
Of course, the USA doesn't need shit from the UK so they will always be more reluctant to jump in on our side, whereas strong diplomatic ties with the world's top superpower is something we don't want to lose, therefore we come running when the US calls.
|
We'll I think you should let the people decide.
UK is the consensus I believe.
Also why is there so much USA debating here. it seems to have derailed significantly
|
Why are people criticising the USA here? This has nothing to do with the USA. If the UK needed military help then it could ask for it, and it could ask the US as well as the rest of NATO and the commonwealth. The UK does not need military help, the Falklands are well defended this time. Argentina could not take them, let alone hold them.
I agree that we should give the Falklands to Argentina...as long as Buenos Aires gives the Argentinian mainland to Spain. since a few Spanish people may of once lived there. In fact, I am pretty sure a few Spanish people once lived on the Argentinian mainland, so I guess Spain has a better claim to Argentina than Argentina has to the Falklands.
|
The people living in the Falklands are fiercely consider themselves to be British and have been living there for several generations, so the Argentinians shouldn't really have any claim to the island of the citizens living there would prefer to be British nationals rather than Argentineans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
