VILLAFC2000 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Weather you like it or not there are genuine arguments for both sides. Okay, we know the UK argument (and that of the Islanders themselves) is the self determination of all peoples, as per the founding charter of the UN. Perhaps you can share with us the "genuine arguments" that Argentina has for its claim? What we do know is that the only country who believes the Islands should remain British are you guessed it the British -who would have thought it. There is no point sugar coating this fella, your statement is utter rubbish and based on a position of complete ignorance of the facts. I can't be bothered to list every country that contradicts what you've said but the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution recognises and supports the current status of the Falklands - that's 26 countries other than the UK. My Argument is only rubbish in your oppinion. No.it's.not. You say Britiain is the only country that supports self determination for the Islanders. The Lisbon Treaty says the entire EU supports self determination for the Islanders. Therefore you statement is factually wrong. Don't you understand that? There are lots of people including Sean Penn and Morrisey who believe in these views. Wow, 'celebrities', you're rolling out the big guns of intellectual argument now. Should we all convert to Scientology too? It can be argues that both sides have a credible claim to the Islands for reasons that I have already discussed. No, it really can't. Who are the big nations such as America backing...? America is quite rightly sitting on the fence. They know Argentina doesn't have the means to change the status quo, so why cause themselves headaches in their own backyard by openly supporting the UK position when neither they or we gain nothing from it? When it actually came down to fight over the Islands in '82 the US supplied UK with crucial technological and intelligence help, as did the French. That is how you measure a country's real stance over an issue, not the unsurprisingly diplomatic stance taken in peacetime by, er, 'diplomats'. I think the USA have actually said that they would like to sit on the fence because they would prefer there to be negotiations - I think that's a good idea. War is not a good thing at all no one benifts from it not in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 War is not a good thing at all no one benifts from it not in the long term. War eh? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. I'd be tempted to go so far as to say war, war is stupid, and people are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Me too. What am I queuing for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 4, 2012 Well last season we had the riots, so I'm up for a distant war this summer Should make good midweek TV We've had "distant wars" almost constantly since 2003 Like any long running TV series its well past its sell by date now and is rather lame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 War is not a good thing at all no one benifts from it not in the long term. War eh? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. I'd be tempted to go so far as to say war, war is stupid, and people are stupid. Nonsense. Love is a battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 War is not a good thing at all no one benifts from it not in the long term. War eh? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. I'd be tempted to go so far as to say war, war is stupid, and people are stupid. Nonsense. Love is a battlefield. But only when we were young and strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 This sets out the historical and current position very clearly. If you still want to argue having read that I don't think anyone can dissuade you from your wrong headed interpretation. It sets out a very partial view, which started with the conclusion and worked backwards to adduce historical references as evidence. Good to see those Oxbridge lads are in gainful employment at FCO. The article would be rather stronger if it addressed the parallel situation of Diego Garcia (which I've boringly linked before), and explained why these arguments apply to the damned Argies, but not to God's chosen race. In which connection, the writers phrase is especially telling: give the impression that there was an Argentine population of the Falklands Islands brutally expelled by the British. But this is a fantasy – such people have never existed. Actually there was a population of Diego Garcia which the UK brutally expelled. They still exist. They are bringing law suits against us, not having the means to re-occupy their land by force. Why exactly can we do what the **** we like with small islands and their population, but the damned Argies must recognise that in 1765, we laid claim to something which defeats all their subsequent posturing? It's no more than self-serving, dishonest hypocrisy of the worst kind. Intellectually indefensible, morally abhorrent, in short, a pile of shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 its a bit petty if you ask me from both sides. If was no natural resources down there Britain would probably have no interest down there, same with Argentina if it was actually close to the border they might have a point but 460 km is quite far away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 its a bit petty if you ask me from both sides. If was no natural resources down there Britain would probably have no interest down there, same with Argentina if it was actually close to the border they might have a point but 460 km is quite far away I'm pretty sure that even if there were no resources down there Britain would still care if Argentina tried to force one of their islands and British citizens into being Argentinian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Remind me someone - did we get heavy with the occupying force in Hong Kong, an area with about 2,000 times the population of the Falklands? Or did we smooth their way to take over what we had previously claimed as ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 5, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 5, 2012 Hong Kong was leased was it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 This sets out the historical and current position very clearly. If you still want to argue having read that I don't think anyone can dissuade you from your wrong headed interpretation. It sets out a very partial view, which started with the conclusion and worked backwards to adduce historical references as evidence. Good to see those Oxbridge lads are in gainful employment at FCO. The article would be rather stronger if it addressed the parallel situation of Diego Garcia (which I've boringly linked before), and explained why these arguments apply to the damned Argies, but not to God's chosen race. In which connection, the writers phrase is especially telling: give the impression that there was an Argentine population of the Falklands Islands brutally expelled by the British. But this is a fantasy – such people have never existed. Actually there was a population of Diego Garcia which the UK brutally expelled. They still exist. They are bringing law suits against us, not having the means to re-occupy their land by force. Why exactly can we do what the **** we like with small islands and their population, but the damned Argies must recognise that in 1765, we laid claim to something which defeats all their subsequent posturing? It's no more than self-serving, dishonest hypocrisy of the worst kind. Intellectually indefensible, morally abhorrent, in short, a pile of shite. The situation in Diego Garcia is a moral stain on the foreign policy of the UK. Does that affect the rights of the Falkland Islanders to self determination? No, not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Hong Kong was leased was it not? Yes, it was leased to the UK by China in 1842 as spoils of victory in the First Opium War. The lease expired in 1997 and it was handed back to China. Not really comparable in any way to the Falkland Islands situation past or present, unless one is trying to imply that the less glorious actions of the British Empire somehow make the Falkland Islanders guilty by association with their evil home country.. While we're at it the Spanish can foxtrot oscar over Gibraltar too - before they get any ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 those Oxbridge lads Whats the problem with Oxbridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well this thread has been an interesting read. I can't wait for the French to start kicking off about Jersey et al too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 5, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 5, 2012 The French kick off every week but there idea of kicking off involves shrugging their shoulders, huffing and setting fire to the odd lorry of cattle. As soon as we square up they will back down they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 By rights, it's 12 miles off France, we should boot the Jerseymen off their island, let them live in the UK if they want to be British!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 6, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2012 Well Britain is only about 21 miles of the cost of France... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 That's a point. Right everyone of Norman/Saxon descent, go back to the continent. We want to maintain a good trade relationship with the EU bloc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 Give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians imo. Also, give Texas back to the Mexicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts