Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falklands nonsense again?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HMGs view is pretty clear: It's upto the people that live there. If they wish to remain British it is our duty to protect them. Presumably if they decided they wanted to become Argentines then we could have no objections.

    Comment


    • Perhaps someone can clarify for me... my Falklands history is not the greatest. This is my understanding of the top of my head...

      - GB, Portugal, and Spain scrap a little bit over island discovery in the 1600's and 1700's. Late 1700's, GB comes out on top and declares the Falklands British soil. The first (but few) British settlers begin sheep farming.

      - Early 1800's, some people from the SA mainland begin to settle the islands as well. Argentina becomes independent around 1820-1830.

      - The British presence is strengthened and those non-British settlers are kicked off. The Argentine claim is based upon occupation by people who technically were Spanish, not Argentine, since Argentina did not even exist.

      So on what basis is Argentina claiming the islands? Simply because of geographic proximity? That means nothing. Aruba, Curacao, and Bonaire are all Dutch, and only a few dozen miles off the Venezuelan coast. Cuba is what she is, and only 90 miles from Florida. Bermuda, Greenland, many other islands are owned by distant nations.

      Simple proximity is NOT a valid reason for ownership/sovereignty.

      Comment


      • I believe the Argentine claim rests on a Naval outpost they set up in 1827 though I can find no evidence of this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...lkland_Islands

        "(HMS) Dauntless will set sail for the Falkland Islands shortly armed with a battery of missiles that could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's". The Type 45 destroyer is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic ship in the world equipped with 48 Sea Viper missiles and the Sampson radar, which is more advanced than Heathrow air traffic control." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-unfolded.html

        This sort of stuff probably doesn't help.
        Last edited by snapper; 08 Feb 12,, 16:38.

        Comment


        • An Argie from another board I'm on:

          As of today, we wouldn't be able to recover a jail taken by unarmed prisioners. This whole thing is just hot air... this government is a joke.

          All they're trying to achieve is some media covering this issue again around the globe. They think that this way they have a chance to start negotiations. Quite stupid, if you ask me.

          Worst thing you can do, is to start discussing this rubbish. You're just doing what she wants.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chogy View Post
            Perhaps someone can clarify for me... my Falklands history is not the greatest. This is my understanding of the top of my head...

            - GB, Portugal, and Spain scrap a little bit over island discovery in the 1600's and 1700's. Late 1700's, GB comes out on top and declares the Falklands British soil. The first (but few) British settlers begin sheep farming.

            - Early 1800's, some people from the SA mainland begin to settle the islands as well. Argentina becomes independent around 1820-1830.

            - The British presence is strengthened and those non-British settlers are kicked off. The Argentine claim is based upon occupation by people who technically were Spanish, not Argentine, since Argentina did not even exist.

            So on what basis is Argentina claiming the islands? Simply because of geographic proximity? That means nothing. Aruba, Curacao, and Bonaire are all Dutch, and only a few dozen miles off the Venezuelan coast. Cuba is what she is, and only 90 miles from Florida. Bermuda, Greenland, many other islands are owned by distant nations.

            Simple proximity is NOT a valid reason for ownership/sovereignty.
            They consider themselves to be the successor state to the Spanish claim on the Falklands.

            The whole thing is a load of rot. They are a previously unihabited group of islands that have been settled by British people for 200 years. Frankly the uninhabitted nature of the place makes the British claim there stronger than the claims of settlers and their descendants in places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Argentina. At least the Falklands weren't stolen off indigenous people.

            Argentina and their soft headed supporters in Latin America, and that clown in the White House, need to move on. Just because Britain was an aggressive imperialist power that did a lot of things wrong over the years doesn't give anybody the moral high ground to ride roughshod over it in instances like this where it is in the right.
            "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
              Just because Britain was an aggressive imperialist power that did a lot of things wrong over the years doesn't give anybody the moral high ground to ride roughshod over it in instances like this where it is in the right.
              I think this is all sabre rattling and is probably all to do with a drop of oil found in the area. I don't think Argentina have any intentions whatsoever of invading the islands so the just need to chill out a tad and just except the status quo. ;)

              Comment


              • OK, at this point in time we're just repeating arguments. thread closed.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment

                Working...
                X