Falkland Islands

[meregreen]

VILLAFC2000,

Your viewpoint seems to be that because the UK took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and you won't find many posters on here arguing that was a good thing), the liberation of British territory and people 30 years ago was the wrong thing to do. You have suggested that the war was worthless and the Islanders should now be ethnically cleansed after 8 or more generations of living there and relocated to another country (UK), all to satisfy a deeply spurious claim by Argentina, a country that has described the Islanders as "non people" and have form for treating them like s**t.

Is that a fair summary? If so what exactly do you think the invasion of Iraq has to do with the liberation of the Falklands in 1982?

Well, well, well we agree that the Iraq War was indeed an illegal invasion in 2003. I am glad we agree on something.

Firstly I would like to point out that I don’t believe in war – its brutal there are no winners only causalities. If History teaches us anything its that men and nations behave appropriately once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

Do I believe in the right wing extremism that Argentina imposed? Absolutely not what happened was ridiculous. I think there could have been other ways to have resolved the situation – who knows.

People are quick to take the moral high ground and point out and criticize Argentina for invading the Falklands aggressively but seem to forget that we invade countries illegally, apparently for oil.

The argument I have is that there are often two sides to the story that are not always evenly put across. To suggest that I believe the Island should be ethnically cleansed is laughable. If the Islanders want to remain British I truly believe they should absolutely have the right to remain British that does not mean the land has to belong 100% British.

I find it difficult to accept that in 2012, Territory 12 000 miles away deserves to be British for eternity.

30 years on, not only is Argentina a democracy but Argentina and South America are extremely vital economic trading nations. Brazil is one of the fastest developing BRIC nations in the World. We the UK are in times of economic hardship. This changes the dynamics in a lot of aspects. It’s in our interests to keep positive relations with as many countries as possible.

Thats just my opinion..!

So its wrong to invade Iraq for money, ie oil. But its okay to allow two thousand people to have their land taken from them because its in our financial interests to do so. Interesting double standards there.

[Risso]

If History teaches us anything its that men and nations behave appropriately once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

Thank you, Abba Eban.

[VILLAFC2000]

VILLAFC2000,

Your viewpoint seems to be that because the UK took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and you won't find many posters on here arguing that was a good thing), the liberation of British territory and people 30 years ago was the wrong thing to do. You have suggested that the war was worthless and the Islanders should now be ethnically cleansed after 8 or more generations of living there and relocated to another country (UK), all to satisfy a deeply spurious claim by Argentina, a country that has described the Islanders as "non people" and have form for treating them like s**t.

Is that a fair summary? If so what exactly do you think the invasion of Iraq has to do with the liberation of the Falklands in 1982?

Well, well, well we agree that the Iraq War was indeed an illegal invasion in 2003. I am glad we agree on something.

Firstly I would like to point out that I don’t believe in war – its brutal there are no winners only causalities. If History teaches us anything its that men and nations behave appropriately once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

Do I believe in the right wing extremism that Argentina imposed? Absolutely not what happened was ridiculous. I think there could have been other ways to have resolved the situation – who knows.

People are quick to take the moral high ground and point out and criticize Argentina for invading the Falklands aggressively but seem to forget that we invade countries illegally, apparently for oil.

The argument I have is that there are often two sides to the story that are not always evenly put across. To suggest that I believe the Island should be ethnically cleansed is laughable. If the Islanders want to remain British I truly believe they should absolutely have the right to remain British that does not mean the land has to belong 100% British.

I find it difficult to accept that in 2012, Territory 12 000 miles away deserves to be British for eternity.

30 years on, not only is Argentina a democracy but Argentina and South America are extremely vital economic trading nations. Brazil is one of the fastest developing BRIC nations in the World. We the UK are in times of economic hardship. This changes the dynamics in a lot of aspects. It’s in our interests to keep positive relations with as many countries as possible.

Thats just my opinion..!

So its wrong to invade Iraq for money, ie oil. But its okay to allow two thousand people to have their land taken from them because its in our financial interests to do so. Interesting double standards there.

Or its not OK for Argentina to invade but its OK for us to invade.

The people dont own the land, the land owns them.

[VILLAFC2000]

If History teaches us anything its that men and nations behave appropriately once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

Thank you, Abba Eban.

Got to love a bit of Abba..!

[Mantis]

. You can't just turf them out and hand over their home to Argentina because other countries think that would be the right thing to do.

Anyway, Latin American countries aren't going to refuse to trade with us over something as small as this.

Oh really you cant just go over to another country and invade them.

Do you remember that illegal war we had with Iraq which 1 million people died in...?

It was wrong for the right wing dictatorship to invade the Falklands no doubts about that at. but for those who have mentioned this already Do you remember that illegal war we had with Iraq which 1 million people died in...?

Pop corn and a kettle any one...?!

Yes, because the Iraq War and the Argentine invasion of the Falklands are comparable... :|

LOL - Whats your point. It was NOT OK for the Argentinians to invade the Falklnads but it was OK for British Troops to invade Iraq in an illegal war where at least 100 000 people were killed where some reports even suggest up to 1 000 000.

Yes its big bad terrible Argentina alright - we are a superbly humain Country we would never dream of invading a country killing loads of people just for oil WOULD WE...!?.Thats why we are such a popular country - everyone loves us and the Americans...Dont they...!

. Nothing like a bit of popcorn and a black kettle

after all you can just go over and invade CAN YOU "you can't just turf them out".

They're completely different situations. This isn't about whether or not you think the Iraq War was wrong or right. Agree or disagree with it there's no denying that Saddam's regime was pretty damn brutal. Can't say the same for the government in charge of the UK at the time of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. There's also the matter of motive. We didn't invade Iraq to annex it, where as that's exactly why the Argentinians invaded the Falklands.

They're just not comparable at all.

Also, your argument for wanting to give away the Falklands and kick the natives out is pathetic. Do you really think the likes of Brazil are going to stop trading with us over the Falklands?

Your whole logic is flawed and I think your attitude towards the people that actually live on the Falklands is deplorable.

[VILLAFC2000]

. You can't just turf them out and hand over their home to Argentina because other countries think that would be the right thing to do.

Anyway, Latin American countries aren't going to refuse to trade with us over something as small as this.

Oh really you cant just go over to another country and invade them.

Do you remember that illegal war we had with Iraq which 1 million people died in...?

It was wrong for the right wing dictatorship to invade the Falklands no doubts about that at. but for those who have mentioned this already Do you remember that illegal war we had with Iraq which 1 million people died in...?

Pop corn and a kettle any one...?!

Yes, because the Iraq War and the Argentine invasion of the Falklands are comparable... :|

LOL - Whats your point. It was NOT OK for the Argentinians to invade the Falklnads but it was OK for British Troops to invade Iraq in an illegal war where at least 100 000 people were killed where some reports even suggest up to 1 000 000.

Yes its big bad terrible Argentina alright - we are a superbly humain Country we would never dream of invading a country killing loads of people just for oil WOULD WE...!?.Thats why we are such a popular country - everyone loves us and the Americans...Dont they...!

. Nothing like a bit of popcorn and a black kettle

after all you can just go over and invade CAN YOU "you can't just turf them out".

They're completely different situations. This isn't about whether or not you think the Iraq War was wrong or right. Agree or disagree with it there's no denying that Saddam's regime was pretty damn brutal. Can't say the same for the government in charge of the UK at the time of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. There's also the matter of motive. We didn't invade Iraq to annex it, where as that's exactly why the Argentinians invaded the Falklands.

They're just not comparable at all.

Also, your argument for wanting to give away the Falklands and kick the natives out is pathetic. Do you really think the likes of Brazil are going to stop trading with us over the Falklands?

Your whole logic is flawed and I think your attitude towards the people that actually live on the Falklands is deplorable.

My logic is flawed I believe I made a similar comment much earlier on with regards to other posts.

They are not compatible at all?

They were both wars for a start, which cost a lot of money and a lot of people lost their lives.

As for kicking the natives out – It depends how you define native Didnt the French land there in 1764 and create a port..?!

I have already said a few times that I think the people who live there should be well within their rights to stay there if they want. Let me say this agian so you understand. No one should be turfed out as you put it, if they dont want to be.

Pretty much the majority of Latin America believe the Falklands should not belong to the UK. Brazil is going to be hudge. Who can predict the future I would sooner have Brazil on our side though.

You have your oppinon I have mine.

Churs.

[thetrees]

30 years on, not only is Argentina a democracy but Argentina and South America are extremely vital economic trading nations. Brazil is one of the fastest developing BRIC nations in the World. We the UK are in times of economic hardship. This changes the dynamics in a lot of aspects. It’s in our interests to keep positive relations with as many countries as possible.

You display a lack of understanding about commerce.

Brazil and the Mercosur countries trade with the EU, of which the UK is a part. The 'vital' aspect of this trade is far more on their side than ours, so they would be a net loser if trade with the EU were disturbed.

South America, and Brazil in particular, are rightly emboldened by their success. The most sustained period of political stability has allowed them to grow their economies and improve the standard of living for a swathe of their population. But that growth as been on the back of exports, and the EU, with Germany and the UK in particular, are vital to those exports.

So, the Latin American nations will rally around their neighbour, but in truth, they really don't give a shit about Argentina's claim to the Falklands.

And the rest of the World really doesn't give a shit.

Inside Argentina there is an ambivalence about the 'Malvinas'. Yes they think that they belong to Argentina, but no Argentinian that i have met is as passionate about the situation as you appear to be.

As i said earlier in the thread, Mrs Kircher is stamping her feet to deflect comment about her governments failings, and perhaps to show some respect to the families of their fallen. On the latter point I would not expect anything less from her.

You will note that there was no hullabaloo from Argentina at the 20th anniversary, because at the time they were gripped by the biggest economic collapse in their history, they had far more important things to focus upon.

[peterms]

...We didn't invade Iraq to annex it, where as that's exactly why the Argentinians invaded the Falklands.

They're just not comparable at all.

Also, your argument for wanting to give away the Falklands and kick the natives out is pathetic. Do you really think the likes of Brazil are going to stop trading with us over the Falklands?

Your whole logic is flawed and I think your attitude towards the people that actually live on the Falklands is deplorable.

If we argue that a country shouldn't be able to take over a small island with a couple of thousand inhabitants for its own benefit, then perhaps our position would be a little stronger if we hadn't done exactly that ourselves a few years ago. Only our "benefit" seems to be the glory of serving the USA, in that case.

The main differences seem to be that Argentina has a geographically stronger claim in this case than we did in that one; and that there are fears that Argentina would kick out the settler inhabitants, whereas we actually conducted a forced depopulation of an indigenous people.

Our position seems to be that we can do it so we will, rather than resting on a more principled basis.

[peterms]

Brazil and the Mercosur countries trade with the EU, of which the UK is a part. The 'vital' aspect of this trade is far more on their side than ours, so they would be a net loser if trade with the EU were disturbed.

Our government has made it a priority to try to extend trade with Latin America.

This is from January:

...Speaking on Thursday, Hague said his visit marked the start of a "strategic dialogue between the UK and Brazil" and "more active engagement with Latin America".

"There is vast scope for greater co-operation … particularly on immense global issues like climate change and international development.

"We are not short of things to sell to Brazil," he added, outlining opportunities for British companies ranging from oil and gas, to infrastructure, management and development, pharmaceuticals and aerospace.

In a keynote speech, set to be delivered on Thursday afternoon, Hague said the global balance of power had entered a new phase.

"International relations are no longer dominated by a handful of powerful nation states that can dictate terms for the rest," he said, according to an advance copy. "That era is over."

Improved relations with Brazil were part of "new chapter in this history", he said.

"In the late 20th century Britain looked away; four of our Latin American embassies were shut, diplomats were withdrawn and our links faltered just as your continent began its extraordinary rise," he said.

Brazilian commentators reacted cautiously to talk of a new era of transatlantic relations, pointing to the relatively low level of trade between Brazil and the UK.

"I think we are starting from a lower base than I would like," Hague admitted. "I think that British relations with Latin America, including Brazil, have been neglected over the last decade and possibly more. I don't mince words about that. But we are energetically setting about putting that right. It is true that economically our relations [represent] quite a small percentage of our trade.

"[but] British companies are already the 4th largest investor in Brazil … and the export figures are improving dramatically."...

[Awol]

Our government has made it a priority to try to extend trade with Latin America.

Which won't be affected by the rantings of that Peronist slapper Kirchner. As the Trees said, they will take a much more pragmatic view, particularly in light of the EU's support of British Sovereignty over the Falklands. All this crap about MERCOSUR countries closing their ports to Falklands flagged vessels is a sop to keep Argentina quiet, these vessels simply raise the British Merchant Ensign before entering port and all is well - no restrcitions on trade etc and the Argies are able to claim a farcical Latino solidarity.

Her latest wheeze is a plan to bring legal action in Argentina against the UK & US banks and institutions cooperating with the British exploration companies working around the Falklands, so taking on Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, RBS, et al. For a country as deep in the financial mire as Argentina currently is I suspect that could backfire pretty spectacularly!

I read an interesting comment from an Argentine on an article recently which said the "Malvinas" only ever becomes a domestic issue again when inflation passes 20%.

The Government and the opposition have the right attitude to this, no negotiations on sovereignty until the Islanders wish it. Until then it's best just to ignore Kirchners' pouting and be ready to mallet them if they are ever stupid enough to try it again.

[Mantis]

My logic is flawed I believe I made a similar comment much earlier on with regards to other posts.

They are not compatible at all?

They were both wars for a start, which cost a lot of money and a lot of people lost their lives.

As for kicking the natives out – It depends how you define native Didnt the French land there in 1764 and create a port..?!

I have already said a few times that I think the people who live there should be well within their rights to stay there if they want. Let me say this agian so you understand. No one should be turfed out as you put it, if they dont want to be.

Pretty much the majority of Latin America believe the Falklands should not belong to the UK. Brazil is going to be hudge. Who can predict the future I would sooner have Brazil on our side though.

You have your oppinon I have mine.

Churs.

Yes, because all wars are the same right? :|

If you don't believe they should be turfed out, how come you have repeatedly said that they should be moved to the UK?

As people keep on stressing, Latin American countries aren't going to stop trading with us over this. Your argument for giving the Falklands to Argentina is that it would hurt us not to. In actual fact, it won't make one bit of difference.

[mjmooney]

Oil aside, why the hell would anyone WANT the Falklands, anyway?

[Awol]

Oil aside, why the hell would anyone WANT the Falklands, anyway?

link

[Risso]

Oil aside, why the hell would anyone WANT the Falklands, anyway?

One man's windswept, penguin cack encrusted shithole is another man's castle. If I were in charge of the Falkland Islands, I'd declare independence from the UK, and use the oil billions to construct my own navy including huge and intimidating aircraft carrier!

[tonyh29]

and use the oil billions to construct my own navy including huge and intimidating aircraft carrier!

imagine how disappointed I was when i read on and found you hadn't ended your sentence with

and use the oil billions to construct my own navy of highly trained ninja penguins

[VILLAFC2000]

My logic is flawed I believe I made a similar comment much earlier on with regards to other posts.

They are not compatible at all?

They were both wars for a start, which cost a lot of money and a lot of people lost their lives.

As for kicking the natives out – It depends how you define native Didnt the French land there in 1764 and create a port..?!

I have already said a few times that I think the people who live there should be well within their rights to stay there if they want. Let me say this agian so you understand. No one should be turfed out as you put it, if they dont want to be.

Pretty much the majority of Latin America believe the Falklands should not belong to the UK. Brazil is going to be hudge. Who can predict the future I would sooner have Brazil on our side though.

You have your oppinon I have mine.

Churs.

Yes, because all wars are the same right? :|

If you don't believe they should be turfed out, how come you have repeatedly said that they should be moved to the UK?

As people keep on stressing, Latin American countries aren't going to stop trading with us over this. Your argument for giving the Falklands to Argentina is that it would hurt us not to. In actual fact, it won't make one bit of difference.

Oh for a minute I thought you said they are NOT comparable at All.. ! Are you saying that NO people were not killed and there were NO injuries in both wars.

Turfed out - You will find I have not said that phrase " they should be turfed out". In actual fact I have pointed out a number of possible scenario's and not once have I used your words " Turf ouf" - Nice try though seagull. I have also pointed out the local residents should be allowed to stay on the land.

Latin Courtliness arent going to stop trading with us. Who can possibly predict the future. My point is Brazil is going to be a huge economic powerhouse- The Uk are not overwhelming known for their popularity especially in Latin America. There is always the POTENTIAL for Latin American countries to re-think there relationships with the UK is there not

Its better to get on with them then not

[Mantis]

My logic is flawed I believe I made a similar comment much earlier on with regards to other posts.

They are not compatible at all?

They were both wars for a start, which cost a lot of money and a lot of people lost their lives.

As for kicking the natives out – It depends how you define native Didnt the French land there in 1764 and create a port..?!

I have already said a few times that I think the people who live there should be well within their rights to stay there if they want. Let me say this agian so you understand. No one should be turfed out as you put it, if they dont want to be.

Pretty much the majority of Latin America believe the Falklands should not belong to the UK. Brazil is going to be hudge. Who can predict the future I would sooner have Brazil on our side though.

You have your oppinon I have mine.

Churs.

Yes, because all wars are the same right? :|

If you don't believe they should be turfed out, how come you have repeatedly said that they should be moved to the UK?

As people keep on stressing, Latin American countries aren't going to stop trading with us over this. Your argument for giving the Falklands to Argentina is that it would hurt us not to. In actual fact, it won't make one bit of difference.

Oh for a minute I thought you said they are NOT comparable at All.. ! Are you saying that NO people were not killed and there were NO injuries in both wars.

Turfed out - You will find I have not said that phrase " they should be turfed out". In actual fact I have pointed out a number of possible scenario's and not once have I used your words " Turf ouf" - Nice try though seagull. I have also pointed out the local residents should be allowed to stay on the land.

Latin Courtliness arent going to stop trading with us. Who can possibly predict the future. My point is Brazil is going to be a huge economic powerhouse- The Uk are not overwhelming known for their popularity especially in Latin America. There is always the POTENTIAL for Latin American countries to re-think there relationships with the UK is there not

Its better to get on with them then not

They're not comparable.

Err, what? When did I say there were no injuries or deaths? :?

Nope, you never said they should be turfed out but you said words to that effect. You said if they want to remain British they should be moved here, but what if they want to stay in their homeland?

We can get on with Latin American without bowing down to Argentine bullying. Nobody is going to stop trading with us over this.

[bickster]

The UN supports the right of self determination of the people of any country. Find us one Falkland Islander who wants to ruled from Argentina. They all want the status quo to remain. End of argument.

[Mantis]

The UN supports the right of self determination of the people of any country. Find us one Falkland Islander who wants to ruled from Argentina. They all want the status quo to remain. End of argument.

Pretty much this. There can be no argument against this.

[VILLAFC2000]

My logic is flawed I believe I made a similar comment much earlier on with regards to other posts.

They are not compatible at all?

They were both wars for a start, which cost a lot of money and a lot of people lost their lives.

As for kicking the natives out – It depends how you define native Didnt the French land there in 1764 and create a port..?!

I have already said a few times that I think the people who live there should be well within their rights to stay there if they want. Let me say this agian so you understand. No one should be turfed out as you put it, if they dont want to be.

Pretty much the majority of Latin America believe the Falklands should not belong to the UK. Brazil is going to be hudge. Who can predict the future I would sooner have Brazil on our side though.

You have your oppinon I have mine.

Churs.

Yes, because all wars are the same right? :|

If you don't believe they should be turfed out, how come you have repeatedly said that they should be moved to the UK?

As people keep on stressing, Latin American countries aren't going to stop trading with us over this. Your argument for giving the Falklands to Argentina is that it would hurt us not to. In actual fact, it won't make one bit of difference.

Oh for a minute I thought you said they are NOT comparable at All.. ! Are you saying that NO people were not killed and there were NO injuries in both wars.

Turfed out - You will find I have not said that phrase " they should be turfed out". In actual fact I have pointed out a number of possible scenario's and not once have I used your words " Turf ouf" - Nice try though seagull. I have also pointed out the local residents should be allowed to stay on the land.

Latin Courtliness arent going to stop trading with us. Who can possibly predict the future. My point is Brazil is going to be a huge economic powerhouse- The Uk are not overwhelming known for their popularity especially in Latin America. There is always the POTENTIAL for Latin American countries to re-think there relationships with the UK is there not

Its better to get on with them then not

They're not comparable.

Err, what? When did I say there were no injuries or deaths? :? S

Nope, you never said they should be turfed out but you said words to that effect. You said if they want to remain British they should be moved here, but what if they want to stay in their homeland?

We can get on with Latin American without bowing down to Argentine bullying. Nobody is going to stop trading with us over this.

So theres quite a few similarities between to the two events then, you made the point they could and were not a like and could not be compared one single bit, hence your quote "They are not compatible at all"

I will say it again for the umteenth time. There are a lot of options available. I mearly stated that if they love Britain so much and want to be Brttish then they should have every right to stay in this country - which is quite different from ethnic cleanising...! I have also mentioned that they should be able to stay on the land as well if they want - damm right they should have that right.

I am sure its in out interests to get on with Latin America, but if they don't want to get on with us, as much as other competitive economic countries - then there is a problem. Unless you can predict the future.