Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

The Falklands

Tricky situation which, unsurprisingly, has reared its head following the discovery of oil reserves. According to that 'Scotch' bloke from Big Brother (shall I be the cat?) - George something, the global consensus was that expressed by Sean Penn of all people. Basically, the Falklands ARE actually Las Malvinas and should be handed back to Argentina. The obvious problem being the locals, who similarly to the Northern Ireland protestant population consider themselves 100% British and therefore don't wish to fall under Argentine rule. Personallly, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine and can't see why they would complain (if indeed they are - haven't seen or heard them complaining). What do you lot think?
«1

Comments

  • I think this thread wont last too long...
  • This thread won't last long.

    1st question do you live in the Falklands or have family their?
    If not keep your stupid comments like "I think it'd be alright to be Argentine" or "can't see why they would complain" to yourself you f#cking idiot.
  • If america is handed back to the red indians then we will give the falklands back. Until then we should keep hold of it.
  • The Falklands is ours. End of. Nothing to see here.
  • Sean penn is right and land owned by another country 250 - 300 years ago should be handed back to it and the U.S. should hand back to Great Britain all the land in North America it used to own and we could give the Falkand Islanders say Virginia in compensation
  • Ive been to the Falklands, wont happen, not for discussion and even less likely now, it would be lovely to all love each over share things equally (a bit like us and Trammere) and get on but lifes not like that. Even when it was Argentine land no-one lived there, sabre rattling as the current Argentine government is struggling domestically and this is a vote winner/job saver plus our forces are a little stretched
  • All property is theft.
  • This thread won't last long.

    1st question do you live in the Falklands or have family their?
    If not keep your stupid comments like "I think it'd be alright to be Argentine" or "can't see why they would complain" to yourself you f#cking idiot.

    Blimey! Bit strong. I think it will be your over-reaction, not to mention an undercurrent of xenophobia towards the nation in question, that will get this thread closed.

    Anyone more sensible care to contribute?

  • AshTray said:





    Anyone more sensible care to contribute?

    I popped my cherry the last time Argentina invaded the Falklands.........
  • The daily Telegraph got it right about Penn... "Once he returns his Malibu estate to the Mexicans."
  • I'm with letthegoodtimesroll & Karim_myBagheri
  • How about just answering the question before accusing me of anything.

    Or better still find out the facts before posting crap.
  • Self determination for the islanders. Really nothing to discuss.
  • No interest in the politics, but can recomend some great books on the last conflict: "The Red and Green Life Machine" by Captain Rick Jolly (RN Surgeon); and "Don't Cry for Me Seargeant Major" by Jeremy Hands (RIP) and Rob McGowan. Some of what happened is the stuff of legends. Really brave men of the RMs and Paras. I dare say there were plenty on the Argies side too.
  • Served there.
    Let the inhabitants decide.
    OP's opinion irrelevant.
    EA - you didnt mention the Gurkhas - mentioned in both books you reference.
    No references of great bravery on the Argentine side, even in the Argentininan accounts.

    BTW Argentina is one of the best countries to be in the world - great people.
  • Served there.
    Let the inhabitants decide.
    OP's opinion irrelevant.

    Just to clarify; I haven't expressed my opinion about the fate of the Islands, or islanders. I was paraphrasing others. I'm undecided, which is why I thought I'd open the debate.

    The Argentine president is referring to UN resolution which apparently calls on the UK to open a dialogue on the matter. I have searched for it but can't find it. Does anyone know what she's referring to?

    It seems to me that the UK will inevitably play the self-determination card as the islanders are unquestionably British. However the Argentinian claim doesn't directly involve the national identity of the people, more the land and therefore the resources.

  • You haven't expressed an opinion?

    So "the problem being the locals"

    "Personallly, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine and can't see why they would complain"

    What would you call those statements?
  • Self Determination, the falklanders want to be british so it should stay british. If that were to change, then it would change, but at the moment that looks like it wont happen.
  • Nothing but hypocracy from Argentina.

    Nothing but self determination from The Falklanders.
  • AshTray said:

    Served there.
    Let the inhabitants decide.
    OP's opinion irrelevant.

    Just to clarify; I haven't expressed my opinion about the fate of the Islands, or islanders. I was paraphrasing others. I'm undecided, which is why I thought I'd open the debate.

    The Argentine president is referring to UN resolution which apparently calls on the UK to open a dialogue on the matter. I have searched for it but can't find it. Does anyone know what she's referring to?

    It seems to me that the UK will inevitably play the self-determination card as the islanders are unquestionably British. However the Argentinian claim doesn't directly involve the national identity of the people, more the land and therefore the resources.

    It certainly reads like you have made up your mind. If that opinion is right or wrong is another thing.
  • Spent 4 months there in 92. Loved the place personally (esp the R.I.C Bar). I feel for the locals as they are caught in the middle (again) of a political arm-wrestle.

    Let's face it, our govt doesn't (and never has) given a flying f**k about the locals. It's all about the oil/fishing rights and a handy place for a base in times of war.
    Argentina are in the midst of an election so what better than to divert the attention towards another nation?

    Iraq invaded Kuwait and the mighty force of the U.S stepped in to help out to dish out good ol american justice. Back in 82, what did the yanks do when the Argies invaded that defenceless little island? NOTHING. I suspect that if it were to kick off again, their involvement (and the rest of the U.N) will be the same.


  • The main difference is that the Argentines know we bite.

    Always have done, always will.
  • Not really bothered but any escalation of the current situation by either side will just be a complete disaster and extremely depressing.
  • Falklands are British. The Falkanders want to remain British therefore we should do everything in our power to prevent British land being forcefily occupied.
  • Self determination from the islanders.
    Then if they stay British but the troubles continue... Well I'm not sure. I'd rather not see another war.
    Can't we give them Wigan or Milton Keynes instead?
  • Sean Penn! A fooking plastic paddy - wtf is he doing meddling in all this?
  • Its the Falklands countrymen Isles. If they want to be be British than we should and we shall defend them. If the Population want to be Argentine then let them be Argentine. Sign me up if they want to have a pop.
  • This thread won't last long.

    1st question do you live in the Falklands or have family their?
    If not keep your stupid comments like "I think it'd be alright to be Argentine" or "can't see why they would complain" to yourself you f#cking idiot.

    I was surprised to read the vitriol in this comment. Why the agression? Likely to provoke more of an argument than a debate in my opinion.

  • Perhaps if Ashtray explained his position of why he thinks `it'd be alright to be Argentine' and `can't see why they would complain' ?
    personally i think he's very naive or trolling.
  • This is why Argentina are all over a sudden are re-interested: http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Oil_&_Minerals.html

  • Perhaps if Ashtray explained his position of why he thinks `it'd be alright to be Argentine' and `can't see why they would complain' ?
    personally i think he's very naive or trolling.

    What's to explain really? Personally, if it were me, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine. They are not run by the military junta of Galtieri anymore. They seem to have a liberal, forward thinking president. From what I can gather, their economy is in no worse a state than anybody else's in the developed world, they seem to have decent schools, hospitals, transport etc.

    Maybe those who find this so radical or unfathomable would enlighten me as to why it would be a bad thing to be Argentine, but this isn't really the issue. Argentina I'm sure, would accept the self-determination of the islanders. They are interested only in the resources, which they see as their's. So, is Cameron hiding behind the nationality issue and do Argentina have a legitimate claim to the Islands' resources?

  • AshTray said:

    Perhaps if Ashtray explained his position of why he thinks `it'd be alright to be Argentine' and `can't see why they would complain' ?
    personally i think he's very naive or trolling.

    What's to explain really? Personally, if it were me, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine. They are not run by the military junta of Galtieri anymore. They seem to have a liberal, forward thinking president. From what I can gather, their economy is in no worse a state than anybody else's in the developed world, they seem to have decent schools, hospitals, transport etc.

    Maybe those who find this so radical or unfathomable would enlighten me as to why it would be a bad thing to be Argentine, but this isn't really the issue. Argentina I'm sure, would accept the self-determination of the islanders. They are interested only in the resources, which they see as their's. So, is Cameron hiding behind the nationality issue and do Argentina have a legitimate claim to the Islands' resources?

    What a strange person you are.

    "They" and we're talking about people here, have been British and chosen to stay British long before any resources were located in the vicinity of the Islands.

    What gives you the right to decide peoples futures when you know nothing, which from reading your childlike posts you obviously don't,
    about them or what "they" want.

    You've basically countered your own arguement, "they (Argentina) are only interested in the resources".

    Who cares what happens to the people who live there? As long as the Argentines only get what they are interested in.
  • You haven't expressed an opinion?

    So "the problem being the locals"

    "Personallly, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine and can't see why they would complain"

    What would you call those statements?

    Lacking understanding of the problem ?
  • The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. Argentina's claim is based only on the fact Spain claimed the Falklands at the same time as it owned Argentina. The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans and Argentina has never had a settlement there. Don't they see the irony of claiming they are "Las Malvinas"? A Spanish name, not a native South American name.

    Really it's down to the islanders themselves to decide whether they want to be British, Argentinian or independent. No one else should be allowed to decide on their behalf.
  • The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. Argentina's claim is based only on the fact Spain claimed the Falklands at the same time as it owned Argentina. The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans and Argentina has never had a settlement there. Don't they see the irony of claiming they are "Las Malvinas"? A Spanish name, not a native South American name.

    Really it's down to the islanders themselves to decide whether they want to be British, Argentinian or independent. No one else should be allowed to decide on their behalf.

    Think this post ends the discussion. Spot on.

  • The only claim that Argentina has to the Falklands is geographic; they are the nearest country to the islands, about 700 miles between them. On this basis pehaps the United States will wish to cede Alaska to the Canadians and we can hand all connections to the Channel Islands to the French .

    The question is always why the Argentinian government wants the Falklands? Previously it was to distract their people from their internal problems, now it is because there may be mineral wealth in the area. In no event do they have a legitimate case.
  • EastStand said:

    Self determination from the islanders.
    Then if they stay British but the troubles continue... Well I'm not sure. I'd rather not see another war.
    Can't we give them Wigan or Milton Keynes instead?

    It wasn't a war, it was a conflict................ ;-)

    This is why Argentina are all over a sudden are re-interested: http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Oil_&_Minerals.html

    The sad thing is, that's the main reason our Govt are interested.

    The only solution to all this would be a joint project of collecting these resources..............never gonna happen.


  • I remember reading this article two years ago by Simon Jenkins. Sums up my views exactly.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
  • There was a fantastic cartoon at the time of the Falklands conflict. Basically, a group of people sitting around a table with cards in front of them indicating which country they represented: Argentina, Brazil, UK, etc. There was one guy dressed in native attire and the caption was "He's from the Incas, apparently they want South America back".
    Broadly, imo, we've now had the islands too long for Argentina's claim to have any merit. Otherwise where would it end? Can we have Calais back from the French now? It was ours from 1347 'til 1558.
  • And here's the Queen's email to her new subjects in the USA:

    THE QUEEN HAS SENT YOU AN EMAIL


    To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

    In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

    Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

    Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

    Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

    To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

    1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
    ------------------------
    2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'
    -------------------
    3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
    -----------------
    4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
    ----------------------
    5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
    ----------------------
    6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
    --------------------
    7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
    -------------------
    8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
    -------------------
    9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
    ---------------------
    10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
    ---------------------
    11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
    ---------------------
    12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians first to get some practice.
    --------------------
    13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
    -----------------
    14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
    ---------------
    15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

    God Save the Queen!
  • AshTray said:

    Served there.
    Let the inhabitants decide.
    OP's opinion irrelevant.

    Just to clarify; I haven't expressed my opinion about the fate of the Islands, or islanders. I was paraphrasing others. I'm undecided, which is why I thought I'd open the debate.

    Yes, you clearly have. You dont paraphrase by starting an opinion with the words, ''Personally, I think....''

  • Geologically these bits of rock are part of Chile.

    Come on you Chileans, where's your national pride?
  • Geologically these bits of rock are part of Chile.

    Come on you Chileans, where's your national pride?

    Those Gondwanans have a lot to answer for....

  • Swap the Malvinas for Messi ?

  • I remember reading this article two years ago by Simon Jenkins. Sums up my views exactly.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance

    Whilst he's right that eventually the Falkland islanders have to reach a practical agreement with Argentina, his historical 'fact' is bordering on bullshit. The treaty of Utrecht did no such thing as to lead to 40 years of occupation. They acquired a settlement from the French. The Treaty of Utrecht, at no point mentions the Falklands. His article like most journalists, is a string of observations that barely hold up to analysis. To compare Hong Kong, that was eventually signed over on a 99 year lease, is utterly worthless as a point of arguement.

  • ColinTat said:


    I remember reading this article two years ago by Simon Jenkins. Sums up my views exactly.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance

    Whilst he's right that eventually the Falkland islanders have to reach a practical agreement with Argentina, his historical 'fact' is bordering on bullshit. The treaty of Utrecht did no such thing as to lead to 40 years of occupation. They acquired a settlement from the French. The Treaty of Utrecht, at no point mentions the Falklands. His article like most journalists, is a string of observations that barely hold up to analysis. To compare Hong Kong, that was eventually signed over on a 99 year lease, is utterly worthless as a point of arguement.


    Yes, a lot of Simon Jenkins' pieces are like that.
  • Good to see a debate going on without resorting to personal insults. As others have said, surely it's down to the wishes of the people who live on the Islands. This is the logical and sensible answer but with politics maybe that's asking too much. :-)
  • Yes, good to have some sensible dialogue on this at last.

    For me, the interesting point he makes is about South Georgia. If oil is found there, what defence would the government make without relying on self-determination?

    The history one reads seems to differ slightly, but I'm not sure it ultimately matters. It's 200 year old history. As I understand it, we abandoned the islands during the US civil war, at which time Argentina claimed them. In 1833, we re-took them forcibly and colonised them. The dispute has been going on ever since and the more I read, the more I'm convinced it will continue to until long after we are all gone.

    I hadn't made my mind up before, but actually I'm leaning toward the retention of the islands, but it has nothing to do with the islanders. Those that think the government's stance has, are sadly misled. Frankly, I find it embarrassing that we're hiding behind the islanders' wishes. We could for example do a deal whereby they retain their citizenship but all the resources are returned to Argentina, but that's not what the government want. That said, what country in the world would hand over newly-tapped oil resources in the interest of settling, what in the grand scheme of things, is a minor irritation at worst? The ownership of the land, is far from black and white from either perspective and for me, that's good enough to retain the resources until the UN and The Hague say otherwise.
Sign In or Register to comment.