Dimond Geezer Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 I remember vividly being taken down to Weston Shore when I was not yet seven years old to join in with the flag-waving send-off of the troops on The Canberra... I too was at Weston Shore, and your picture reminds me how shocked I was at the state of the Canberra as she arrived back home, very different from the pristine liner I'd got used to seeing at the docks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Codger Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 (edited) You're trying to understand something that doesn't really exist to anything like the degree you might think it does. ... Don't confuse flag-waving Peronistas with Argentinians as a whole. Thank you for this. I'm sure many of us recall the image of the best part of 250,000 Argentinians outside the Casa Rosada waving their sky-blue and white flags cheering on Galtieri and his loathsome chums and coming to the not unreasonable conclusion that the 1982 invasion had popular backing. Compare this to the crowds outside Buck House at a Royal Wedding or Jubilee celebration and concluding that, like it or not, most Brits are quite content with their Royals. I remain of the view that no matter how unconcerned your average Argentinian might be about the Falklands, all you have to do is shout Malvinas Argentinas and they all go off on one. Very similar to Portsmouth fans when seeing someone in red-and-white stripes - they can't resist shouting 'Scummer'. I shall be very happy to be proven wrong, but until I see evidence of an Argentinian President being told, by thousands of baying Argies, to shut the heck up about the Malvinas, I shall believe they continue to have imperialist desires over the islands. Edited 2 April, 2012 by Kingsland Codger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17576856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 From the Uk (and Falkland) perspective of course, but I am convinced : http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-uk-answer-to-argentina-on-the-falklands/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Britains finest hour since 1945. The only thing Thatcher got right. Are you suggesting people only get things "right" when you happen agree with what they've done....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Are you suggesting people only get things "right" when you happen agree with what they've done....? Pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Are you suggesting people only get things "right" when you happen agree with what they've done....? He's clearly giving his opinion. Why must everything be punctuated with "imo" ? FWIW, I think he's right. Britain was knackered after WW2 and pushed around and had sand kicked in its collective eye by everybody, the worst eample of which has to be Suez (how stable might the region still be if we were still there ?). For the first time we got up off our knees, stood our ground and punched back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 He's clearly giving his opinion. Why must everything be punctuated with "imo" ? FWIW, I think he's right. Britain was knackered after WW2 and pushed around and had sand kicked in its collective eye by everybody, the worst eample of which has to be Suez (how stable might the region still be if we were still there ?). For the first time we got up off our knees, stood our ground and punched back. With Reagan's permission, and on the strict understanding that the Argentine mainland was not to be attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 With Reagan's permission, and on the strict understanding that the Argentine mainland was not to be attacked. he had no choice...he tried to stop us from annihilating the argies half way through the war...maggie simply said no. he was against the war for his own reasons..not for the greater good...the US were heavily involved in latin america and did not want conflict in the area. the best he could do was stop us from going after military targets on the main land (after we cocked one up)...which is fair enough as our aim was to liberate the islands.. it was a remarkable achievement really.....something we will never see again by anyone. if it kicked off again....it would be completely one sided now towards us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Cant we give them the Falklands and put our hard earned money to better use? Instead of throwing our money away on protection we build schools and hospitals....or pay off the debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Cant we give them the Falklands and put our hard earned money to better use? Instead of throwing our money away on protection we build schools and hospitals....or pay off the debt? No...next question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 he had no choice...he tried to stop us from annihilating the argies half way through the war...maggie simply said no. he was against the war for his own reasons..not for the greater good...the US were heavily involved in latin america and did not want conflict in the area. the best he could do was stop us from going after military targets on the main land (after we cocked one up)...which is fair enough as our aim was to liberate the islands.. it was a remarkable achievement really.....something we will never see again by anyone. if it kicked off again....it would be completely one sided now towards us If we're thinking of the same cock-up, it was after Reagan's prohibition, which was why it was launched from Chile. Didn't stop the Super Etendards, and was a bit of a sad mess by all accounts, barely registering a scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 If we're thinking of the same cock-up, it was after Reagan's prohibition, which was why it was launched from Chile. Didn't stop the Super Etendards, and was a bit of a sad mess by all accounts, barely registering a scratch. it happens in war.....you don't win all the battles.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Cant we give them the Falklands and put our hard earned money to better use? Instead of throwing our money away on protection we build schools and hospitals....or pay off the debt? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 (edited) As always with these things, it really comes down to what you believe is more of a priority: 1. The economic potential of the region - why give up on potential ££££ 2. The strategic Value of the islands - well I guess times have chnaged since having a port in the storm around the cape was really necessary 3. Imperialism/what the locals want - assuming the 2 above were not relevant, if the majority of the locals were indigenous Argentinians and wanted independence, then its a no brainer as with all the other former colonies, surely Problem seems to be that the locals, want to be British... not exactly sure why given they would rather live 20,000 miles away than come home to the mothership, but hey, maybe there is something in sheep and penguines? What would we say about the locals if instead of wanting to be British or Argentinian, they wanted independence? What is it with the preoccupation with imperialism? I dont think we need to apologise for it, afterall times have changed and it was an era where the advanced nations were all at it dividing the globe to grab every conceiveable mineral and resource - and we have matured as they have matured... yet we have these last few footholds be it the falklands or Gibraltar that we seem unable to let go of... are we realy suggesting it would bruise our national ego too much to let them be independant? -BUT they want to be part of Britain! - of course they do - our tax revenue subs em, without us, they would be financially screwed... surely if they like Britain so much they would live here - no different from that pillock Sean Connery going on about Scotish independence from his home in spain for the last 40 years! If we need to hold on to 2 or 3 tiny islands to symbolyse out global power status then we are in big trouble... Edited 2 April, 2012 by Frank's cousin spelig! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 it happens in war.....you don't win all the battles.... True enough, but it was a failure in some part because of the limitations placed on the British by the Reagan administration - even though the damage being done by the Super Etendards was there for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 It's got nothing to do with the symbolism of our waning military power. The recent discovery of oil reserves in the waters surrounding the Falklands, while politely and financially significant, is also entirely immaterial to the principle behind the argument. It's not even a question of what some on here might want to see happen in regard to the future nationality of the islanders. As far as I'm aware the Falklanders hold UK passports and are living perfectly legally (under both UK and international law) on what is our sovereign territory after all. Thus they have a legal right under the law to all the benefits and responsibilities that go with that status - including the protection of our armed forces against the threat of foreign aggression if need be. Now if any individual, or political party, wants to propose that HMG should unilaterally withdraw their right to a UK passport or coerce them into some unwanted form of independence (presumably in a attempt to make the job of the Foreign Office a little easier) then I can only suggest that they put that policy forward for the approval of the electorate at the next general election - and see just how far it gets them. The Argentinians are clearly attempting to have their way via a campaign of intimidation and bullying - I say they should be resisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 I think a lot of it is political posturing on both sides. Both countries' leaders are facing anxieties about their respective country's economic plight. What better way to deflect the discontent than manufacturing and upping the ante? It would appear that the Argentinians themselves don't give a stuff about it. FWIW, I believe that the Islanders have the right to determine their own status. By the same token, I would support any campaign by Jamaicans, Australians etc. to determine their own status too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 If we just ignore the Argie c*nts they will soon shut up. There is no way in hell they will try and attack again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 The only reason the Falklands need any financial support from the UK is for defence. That wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for Argentinian aggression. In any case the forces we've got there would still cost the taxpayer wherever in the world they are. Anyway out of principle I am more than happy for the UK to keep providing that security - even if it cost a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 The silly Argie bint invited the presidents and ambassadors of every latin american country to hear here speech. Not one of them turned up. Her little crusade is running out of steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 The silly Argie bint invited the presidents and ambassadors of every latin american country to hear here speech. Not one of them turned up. Her little crusade is running out of steam. she is starting to sound rather silly.....nothing she says is backed by any recognised international law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 she is starting to sound rather silly.....nothing she says is backed by any recognised international law... She is starting to sound silly to many Argentinians, which counts for more than any appeal to international law. The invasion was carried out by one of the most brutal of modern dictatorships, and is forever associated with those murderers and thugs. Plenty of commentators in Buenos Aires have been making sure no one forgets that connection, and it's having an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Rajoy and Margallo are in a similar position. They've huffed and they've puffed but we have stood firm and that's them dealt with. Self determination is democracy. We are both morally and legally in the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 The logic the Argies employ is laughable "It's in our water so it's ours" What so does that mean that Alaska belongs to Canada? jog on! They can huff and puff all they like, at the end of the day, they are trashing their own city. If they wanted the Islands that badly they wouldn't have surrendered and would have re-attacked a lot quicker. If it does go to self-determinism, there's only one winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 2 April, 2012 Share Posted 2 April, 2012 Good article by John Simpson about the whole situation here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17576856 Simpson contends that Argentina are in no place militarily to start another conflict and the Argentine President is using the Falklands as a diversionary issue from other domestic problems. It may be true. Simpson is slightly wrong when he states that the Argentine Air Force has had no upgrades since 1982 as they took a number of rebuilt and upgraded A4 Skyhawks from the US in the late 1990s. But he's probably right overall about the Argentine military position as those aircraft are not likely to make much of a dent against a few defending Typhoons and Tornados and a T45 destroyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 3 April, 2012 Share Posted 3 April, 2012 Putting on my MLG pedantic hat, Frank I think that you will find the Falklands are approx 8,000 miles away not 20,000 miles. BTF I think that you will find Australia has its own Govt with an ex Welsh person as P.M. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 3 April, 2012 Share Posted 3 April, 2012 (edited) If we're thinking of the same cock-up, it was after Reagan's prohibition, which was why it was launched from Chile. Didn't stop the Super Etendards, and was a bit of a sad mess by all accounts, barely registering a scratch. Are you talking of this raid? or the raid mentioned on page 2, a raid that ended in Chile it didn't start in Chile. http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_the-most-dangerous-raid-of-falklands-war_1666304 http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_the-most-dangerous-raid-of-falklands-war_1666304-2 . Edited 3 April, 2012 by Saint in Paradise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 3 April, 2012 Share Posted 3 April, 2012 Putting on my MLG pedantic hat, Frank I think that you will find the Falklands are approx 8,000 miles away not 20,000 miles. BTF I think that you will find Australia has its own Govt with an ex Welsh person as P.M. . You're right of course. But they had a referendum a few years ago on whether or not to have the Queen as head of state. So that's a form of self-determination, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 3 April, 2012 Share Posted 3 April, 2012 As always with these things, it really comes down to what you believe is more of a priority: 1. The economic potential of the region - why give up on potential ££££ 2. The strategic Value of the islands - well I guess times have chnaged since having a port in the storm around the cape was really necessary 3. Imperialism/what the locals want - assuming the 2 above were not relevant, if the majority of the locals were indigenous Argentinians and wanted independence, then its a no brainer as with all the other former colonies, surely Problem seems to be that the locals, want to be British... not exactly sure why given they would rather live 20,000 miles away than come home to the mothership, but hey, maybe there is something in sheep and penguines? What would we say about the locals if instead of wanting to be British or Argentinian, they wanted independence? What is it with the preoccupation with imperialism? I dont think we need to apologise for it, afterall times have changed and it was an era where the advanced nations were all at it dividing the globe to grab every conceiveable mineral and resource - and we have matured as they have matured... yet we have these last few footholds be it the falklands or Gibraltar that we seem unable to let go of... are we realy suggesting it would bruise our national ego too much to let them be independant? -BUT they want to be part of Britain! - of course they do - our tax revenue subs em, without us, they would be financially screwed... surely if they like Britain so much they would live here - no different from that pillock Sean Connery going on about Scotish independence from his home in spain for the last 40 years! If we need to hold on to 2 or 3 tiny islands to symbolyse out global power status then we are in big trouble... Putting aside your 20,000 miles exaggeration, (it's 8000) the Islands would be completely self-sufficient economically if it weren't for the defence costs, which wouldn't be needed if Argentina weren't continually threatening them. It's really the morality of the playground. Big brother (UK) sees little brother (FI) being bullied by big boy (Argentina),and steps in to protect little brother. It really isn't the same as that hypocrite Connery, who chose to move away from Scotland whilst bleating on about independence. The Islanders were born there, and simply want to continue their way of life without being threatened. As to independence, well I suspect the UK would bite their hand off if they asked for it, and it meant we could save the defence costs, but the reality is we'd probably still end up protecting them anyway, via the UN. But even if they did feel safe, it is highly unlikely the Islanders would want independence. They really do feel culturally part of the UKp; they feel loyalty to the crown, and as I've said before even follow English football, with many having a soft spot for Saints in particular, since many of them come from families who originated from the Hampshire area, and have distant relatives here. Of course I'm not suggesting that is a basis for a foreign poicy ,but it does illustrate just how British they are. Oh and btw if the oil fields ever start producing properly, they may even be able to pay their own defence costs one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouldy Coat Posted 3 April, 2012 Share Posted 3 April, 2012 We should just steal all their hot women and then nuke the fookers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Oh and btw if the oil fields ever start producing properly, they may even be able to pay their own defence costs one day. But given the level of anti Scoittish feeling raised as soon as the dickhead Salmond talks about 'Scotish Oil' - how would those same feel if the oil production in those islands was huge and the islanders wanted to go it alone?... after years of us paying for the defence? In 1982, Argentina was ruled by a dictator who was quite happy in dissapearing 20,000 of his own people - so naturally, despite Mrs T being very friendly with another of these dictators in Chile who also enjoyed dissapearing 1000's of his own folk - it seems the way to deal with this is to ignore evil dictatorships when 'sorting out' dissenters in their own countries, but when threatening the islanders we run to the rescue - now dont get me wrong - Ensuring that we protected those people, given the possibilties if any had show dissent within an Argentinian dictatorship regime was the right thing to do... but it sticks in the throat when the Tories of that time use the protection of civilians and from evil dictators as PART of the justification, given Thatch was happy to suck on Pinochet's cock and do nothing about that evil bastard... But because its 'British citizens' the morality seems to become 'shifted up the scale' - Would Thatch have sent a task force had the islands been uninhabited, but were Brituish terriotory? I suspect she may have done as this was more about the need to conjure up some sort of patriotic passion whilst she was was struggling politically - The fact that the islanders were there, and wished to reamin goiverned by Britain - (and who would vote for a SA Dictator over a democratic government?) was a convenient supporting rationale IMHO. On the note re borders: they are AL artificial anyway and most less than 100years old - They only exist because of invasion and colonization, usually at the expense of the indigenous peoples so I dont believe its a great argument - the right to self determination is a good one and cant be argued with, but that is a completely seperate to the facts that we seem desperate to demonstrate our status in the world by holding on to the last vestages of colonialism - I believe Britain would be demonstrating its success as a world leading mature civilization more by moving on from this 'glorious past' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 world leading mature civilization more by moving on from this 'glorious past' What about protecting people that can't protect themselves...a group of people we are historically and still inter-twined with...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 (edited) What about protecting people that can't protect themselves...a group of people we are historically and still inter-twined with...? Protecting folk when they need it is fair enough - and yes in 1982 as I said it was right given the actions of the Government of Argentina at the time. BUt the point is, this was about MORE than that. in 2012, Given Argentina is a democracy, as we have done with other former colonies and territories - it surely amkes sense to remove all the rhetorical jingositic shiet and open dialogue - Argentina aint goint to invade again, they dont have the resources or political will, nor do we now, and its all just political posturing - nothing like a bit of nationionlistic bull to try and paper over a few of the recent cracks... There seem to be some political taboos, sovereignty of some sheep farms, and PROPER review and reform of the NHS that no one wants to address for FEAR that its considered political suicide - as the masses are ignorant of the value in a mature debate. PS. We are 'inter-twined' we every people on the planet if we go back far enough - is our moral responsibilty to the protection of people limited to those with a BRitish passprort or those who live in our territories? Our legal responsibility maybe is, but you cant use a moral argument on this otherwise why did we not alos deal with Galtieri, or even Pinochet, afterall their people also needed protecting... just our 'inter-twinned' with goes back several 10000 years rather than a few 100. Edited 4 April, 2012 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Protecting folk when they need it is fair enough - and yes in 1982 as I said it was right given the actions of the Government of Argentina at the time. BUt the point is, this was about MORE than that. . well, we are doing nothing more than that now...we are not shooting at argie jets flying near by or bording argie bound shipping... believe me, Argentina are being the aggressors here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 well, we are doing nothing more than that now...we are not shooting at argie jets flying near by or bording argie bound shipping... believe me, Argentina are being the aggressors here Some would argue that this is because their is a blank refusal to even bring up the issue dipomatically - does not make agreesion right, but if we know its likely because we wont talk, thne surely the wise would 'talk' -= the only reason not to in those circumstances is to gain the 'moral' high ground if we need to provide a military response... when teh fact we are 30 years from a conflict that solved nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Some would argue that this is because their is a blank refusal to even bring up the issue dipomatically - does not make agreesion right' date=' but if we know its likely because we wont talk, thne surely the wise would 'talk' -= the only reason not to in those circumstances is to gain the 'moral' high ground if we need to provide a military response... when teh fact we are 30 years from a conflict that solved nothing...[/quote'] talk about what...the people on the islands simply don't want it..they don't think about it they simply do not want it it is our duty as permanent members of the UN SC to do what is right by international law.... i am amazed we are willing to give up the rights of people we (as a nation) are still deeply linked with I tell you what, I can see cornwall from my kitchen window...there is more desire in cornwall to be independent than there is in the falklands....should we talk there too... there is no moral high ground...it is the law of the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 There is nothing to be discussed. Actions speak louder louder than words and it's great to see HMS dauntless is steaming towards the South Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 There is nothing to be discussed. Actions speak louder louder than words and it's great to see HMS dauntless is steaming towards the South Atlantic. Tell that to the families of those who died in '82. FWIW as its sort of irrlevent to the debate, my dad saw 'action' in the Falklands - I remember how I felt about it as a 12 year old boy... but hey the SUN managed to hook in the nation with 'GOTCHA' to kick the whole thing off and a nice bit of 'ACTION' as you say won Thatch a second term which is obviously why it pleases you so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 talk about what...the people on the islands simply don't want it..they don't think about it they simply do not want it it is our duty as permanent members of the UN SC to do what is right by international law.... i am amazed we are willing to give up the rights of people we (as a nation) are still deeply linked with I tell you what, I can see cornwall from my kitchen window...there is more desire in cornwall to be independent than there is in the falklands....should we talk there too... there is no moral high ground...it is the law of the world And as such if Argentina invaded again - it would be considered an act of war and we would have the full weight of the UN and interntaional law behind us. We also know that this is unlikely - neither country wants this, but it also means that instead of the posturing and political ****ing contest that only satisfies the ignorant who believe it makes us 'powerful' in the eyes of the world, the onus should be on all to discuss this and ensure it never came to that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 FC - I still don't think you've successfully articulated why we should have negotiations with Argentina when the people who actually live in the Falklands want to remain with the Uk and have nothing to do with Argentina. Ignore Thatcher and all the rest of it. Do you believe in self-determination or not? If you do then there is nothing to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 FC - I still don't think you've successfully articulated why we should have negotiations with Argentina when the people who actually live in the Falklands want to remain with the Uk and have nothing to do with Argentina. Ignore Thatcher and all the rest of it. Do you believe in self-determination or not? If you do then there is nothing to discuss. Already stated the right to self determination is fundemental - and as we have seen in the past it counts for feck all when someone is willing and able to go down the military intevention route. Thing about the last Military intervention route is that its did not solve the problem - Argentina is still making a claim on the territory - ignoring this and sending ships is one method favoured by the gungho 'patriots' - the other is seeking a long term solution that ends it once and for all - only possible with dialogue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Already stated the right to self determination is fundemental - and as we have seen in the past it counts for feck all when someone is willing and able to go down the military intevention route. Thing about the last Military intervention route is that its did not solve the problem - Argentina is still making a claim on the territory - ignoring this and sending ships is one method favoured by the gungho 'patriots' - the other is seeking a long term solution that ends it once and for all - only possible with dialogue... but what dialogue is there to have. We don't want it international law says it can't happen and most of all, the islanders fiercely don't want it not too sure what dialogue there needs to be....we have tried and tried over the years and continue to try (just don't read about it everyday)...yet all the argy PM does is spew a load of garbage and get nut jobs burning union jacks on the streets..when in reality, she is no way as popular as she thinks and starting to isolate her country in a region where others are in growth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 FC - I still don't think you've successfully articulated why we should have negotiations with Argentina when the people who actually live in the Falklands want to remain with the Uk and have nothing to do with Argentina. Ignore Thatcher and all the rest of it. Do you believe in self-determination or not? If you do then there is nothing to discuss. Cue a 1000 word essay full of waffle. At the end of the day if you support democracy you support self determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Cue a 1000 word essay full of waffle. At the end if you support democracy you support self determination. I wonder if FC would suggest other nations should open "dialogue" if it was the Nasty UK going around and claiming land..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 I wonder if FC would suggest other nations should open "dialogue" if it was the Nasty UK going around and claiming land..? Of course he wouldn't, and if the Falklands weren't inhabited by anglo saxons ones wonders whether he'd be so keen for talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 the other is seeking a long term solution that ends it once and for all - only possible with dialogue... For a solution you need a problem, Argentina wanting some Islands they can't have is not a problem for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 I suspect that if the UK government were to enterinto dialogue with the Argentines, then the Islanders would feel massively betrayed. and what the dialogue between the UK and Argentines consist of. Argentina: Give us the Islands UK: No Argentina: Why not? Uk: Because the islanders don't want it. Argentina: Oh...Give us the islands. etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Of course he wouldn't, and if the Falklands weren't inhabited by anglo saxons ones wonders whether he'd be so keen for talks. What are you implying? Not all of us have the same racist bigoted attitiude as you Duney boy. You forget your history as well, teh only reason they are inhabited by 'anglo saxons (half Germans ;-) is that their forefathers 'claimed' that territory. Had it been inhabited by a local indigenous population (oh as Gibraltar is/was) would you be defending their right to self determination and independence even if they were in the minority now? (Cue very short ignorant trolling response full of bigotted, bombastic jingoistic bull sh it that you dont really beieve in but say because you think it sound good....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 For a solution you need a problem, Argentina wanting some Islands they can't have is not a problem for us. It is if they decide to go down a military route again... unlikely yes, but it does then become our problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts