PDA

View Full Version : The Falklands: There's a new Argentinian Pope so..



Wilbo
18-03-2013, 03:08 PM
.. ask him to 'promote dialogue between Argentina and the UK'..


I didn't think there was a problem..

Argentina: We want the Falklands back..
UK: No.
Argentina: But that's not fair..
UK: OK. We'll ask the islanders who they want to be ruled by - as that's a democratic action.
Argentina: Erm. OK. But that's not where we saw this conversation going..
UK: They don't want you. They want us.
Argentina: Huh? Did someone say something? We can't hear anything because we've got our fingers in our ears. Look! Squirrel!


Like the pope is going to make a difference?

BBC News - Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363)

Finless
18-03-2013, 03:19 PM
Was/is Argentina named because it had anything to do with Silver?

Prob turn out to be because some bint named Tina liked Hold Your Head Up?

String
18-03-2013, 03:28 PM
Ironic really given their entire claim is based on an ancient papal decree made before their country even existed that gifted ALL those lands to spain. So by that they own all of south and north america too!

I can't see the issue, Argentina has no legal claim and the UN charter favours the right of self determination who 99%+ voted to stay.

The main thing stopping them trying anything is no money. Last article said their navy has enough cash to send every one of its ships to sea...for 3 days each.

jturner
18-03-2013, 03:28 PM
It's just another reason to say a big "thank you" to Henry VIII!!! :y:

Finless
18-03-2013, 03:31 PM
It's just another reason to say a big "thank you" to Henry VIII!!! :y:

And, in a strange way, also to Guy Fawkes without whose past exploits tons of explosives would not be currently launched skywards in commemoration of his despicable deed every autumn.

That last sentence def need rearranging or, even, breaking into 2 ............. I can't be bothered. The universe is going to end in billions of years time, what's the point in anything?

Mikael
18-03-2013, 03:58 PM
Did the British allow the penguins to vote?

No. How typical, discriminate on the basis of height!
Bloody old fashioned Brits.

Finless
18-03-2013, 04:29 PM
Did the British allow the penguins to vote?

No. How typical, discriminate on the basis of height!
Bloody old fashioned Brits.

The penguins are British (you can tell by their upright posture and honest character) and would have voted to stay British!

Dogmeat
18-03-2013, 04:48 PM
The penguins are British (you can tell by their upright posture and honest character)

That and the fact they're always impeccably dressed in their penguin suits? :)

Finless
18-03-2013, 04:54 PM
That and the fact they're always impeccably dressed in their penguin suits? :)

Yes indeed. :)

cotochris
18-03-2013, 05:00 PM
The Pope will not get involved. He is more worried tackling social problems including the poor in Argentina than political ones. President Kreschner brought it up for political gains, she is unpopular and barking up the wrong tree to distract from other major internal problems.

IanB
18-03-2013, 05:00 PM
And it's the business of the pope why? The argentinian president has been playing this particular card for a while, usually when a politician starts banging a certain drum you need to look to see what they're hiding. It's usually a game of smoke and mirrors, it suits the british government and military to keep the threat of conflict alive to justify spending - the question to ask is what is in it for argentina?

cotochris
18-03-2013, 05:04 PM
the question to ask is what is in it for argentina?

Political popularity, you know like George W Bush: Start a war to distract from issues at home...

and to think the British still gives aid to Argentina!

witchieblackcat
18-03-2013, 05:15 PM
It's just another reason to say a big "thank you" to Henry VIII!!! :y:

Although he didn't get rid of the Catholics in quite the way people think.
The Queen still uses the title Defender of the Faith granted to Henry VIII before he fell out with the then Pope - it's on all of our coins where it says F D.

witchieblackcat
18-03-2013, 05:16 PM
And it's the business of the pope why? The argentinian president has been playing this particular card for a while, usually when a politician starts banging a certain drum you need to look to see what they're hiding. It's usually a game of smoke and mirrors, it suits the british government and military to keep the threat of conflict alive to justify spending - the question to ask is what is in it for argentina?

er... oil?

Jen
18-03-2013, 05:24 PM
This is a real shot in the foot by Ms Vinegar Tits. Why didn't she ask the old pope? Why didn't she ask Frankie when he was a cardinal? It all smacks of desperation.

Foggy
18-03-2013, 05:36 PM
And it's the business of the pope why??



........their entire claim is based on an ancient papal decree.

Now..... and this may make you laugh at my ignorance here, but ......aren't papal decrees sommat to do wi' that fella in the Vatican? you know the one who always wears white?

Soggy
18-03-2013, 06:01 PM
As Gods ambassador he only has to ask the boss and it'll be sorted out.

Mikael
18-03-2013, 06:18 PM
As Gods ambassador he only has to ask the boss and it'll be sorted out.

Oh no, don't bring beardy into this. The last two religious threads got closed.

Question is will the UK hold onto the Falklands for, well ever I guess?

Allan Carr
18-03-2013, 06:18 PM
The Falkland Islands are off the south of what is now Argentina. At the time of the British settlement in 1833, that wasn't even part of Argentina.

See History of Argentina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina)

IanB
18-03-2013, 06:27 PM
Question is will the UK hold onto the Falklands for, well ever I guess?I reckon if they hadn't made a play for them by force in 1982 the argies would have got them by diplomacy by now. Now of course it'll be another couple of generations until they're even in with a sniff of being in the same position.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Logun
18-03-2013, 07:06 PM
Well hes definitely got something to do with it now:
BBC News - Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363)

Wilbo
18-03-2013, 07:15 PM
Well hes definitely got something to do with it now:
BBC News - Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363)

Isn't that the same link as in the first post? :) ;)

String
18-03-2013, 09:11 PM
The Falkland Islands are off the south of what is now Argentina. At the time of the British settlement in 1833, that wasn't even part of Argentina.

See History of Argentina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina)

At the time the UK FIRST settled it Argentina didn't exist for another 100 years!

We have never invaded it, never evicted any native people (there werent any), simply found it and lived on it.

There are some calculations showing we give roughly £226m a year to Argentina via world bank/imf loan contributions. Quite simply, why should we? Stop it until they go away.

Logun
18-03-2013, 09:14 PM
Isn't that the same link as in the first post? :) ;)

Maybe :s:

Gary
18-03-2013, 09:32 PM
There are some calculations showing we give roughly £226m a year to Argentina via world bank/imf loan contributions. Quite simply, why should we? Stop it until they go away.
I think we give far too much away in bank/imf/overseas aid, we need to sort out this countries problems

Mikael
19-03-2013, 05:14 AM
At the time the UK FIRST settled it Argentina didn't exist for another 100 years!

We have never invaded it, never evicted any native people (there werent any), simply found it and lived on it.

There are some calculations showing we give roughly £226m a year to Argentina via world bank/imf loan contributions. Quite simply, why should we? Stop it until they go away.


I reckon if they hadn't made a play for them by force in 1982 the argies would have got them by diplomacy by now. Now of course it'll be another couple of generations until they're even in with a sniff of being in the same position.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Clearly Argentina wanted to make a land grab spuriously connect to some claim of ownership but the problem now is that to to give up this fight would be to lose face, so I don't expect the issue to go away any time soon. Pragmatically speaking the Falkland islands are a collection of small rocks far away from the UK and a continued promise of military protection to maintain sovereignty is problematic. Some sort of long term diplomatic solution should be sought as this political tension is helping no one. I don't know what the latest score with oil reserves in the area is but this could be a catalyst for further developments.



I think we give far too much away in bank/imf/overseas aid, we need to sort out this countries problems

To be fair, Argentina has real problems with poverty. We may be a suffering a depression here but is it really that bad? Today's generation are just going to have to learn to graft a bit harder, accept lower paying jobs and not go to Uni to take media studies. We are still a 1st world nation with high level of education and healthcare. I am not an economist so have a poor grasp of the situation but instinctively I don't feel its got that bad that we should start pulling out our support for others in our own self interest. That would make me uncomfortable and I am speaking as some one who is soon going to be job seeking.

jamesp
19-03-2013, 08:20 PM
Is Denmark giving Greenland back, Spain the Canaries(or that little enclave on North Africa), The USA Diego Garcia, or France any of their overseas departments?

Smile and wave.

nothing more than background white noise.

Garf
19-03-2013, 08:47 PM
The falklands issue has always been political rather than economic or territorial . The 82 nonsense was done to create political support for a failing regime, and that's it. If you want to distract the press and populace in Argentina form looking too closely inwards you put your hand on your heart and scream about the malvinas. Of course, finding oil there in the late 90s ony served to inflame the issue.

What's going on now? two things I guess. Firstly, the same old story. Argentina is in economic disaster and the politicians are simply trying to avoid focus on that issue. the government in power is pulling away from the western world and getting more and more desperate to solve their internal problems. The oil would help that.

fortunately, there's not a lot they can do it about it. They are still flying the same planes they had in 1982, and otherwise have pretty much completely disarmed as they have no budget for defence. Even with the woefully under resourced and over utilised state the government has allowed our armed forces to descend into, we could probably hold them off with the 1200 men and typhoons stationed on the islands. However, if they DID manage to take the islands, we almost certainly couldn't take them back. We'd have no air cover for any task force. Which is shameful, by the way.

Mikael
19-03-2013, 09:04 PM
.....

fortunately, there's not a lot they can do it about it. They are still flying the same planes they had in 1982, and otherwise have pretty much completely disarmed as they have no budget for defence. Even with the woefully under resourced and over utilised state the government has allowed our armed forces to descend into, we could probably hold them off with the 1200 men and typhoons stationed on the islands. However, if they DID manage to take the islands, we almost certainly couldn't take them back. We'd have no air cover for any task force. Which is shameful, by the way.

In an ideal world, defence spending would be optional extra. Having to resort to military action to impose your will should be a last resort and is a sad admission that diplomacy has failed. According to Wikipedia the population of Argentina is just about 2800 people. I wonder how much that works out per head of capita to keep those 1200 solders and equipment stationed there year round.

Garf
19-03-2013, 09:08 PM
According to Wikipedia the population of Argentina is just about 2800 people. I wonder how much that works out per head of capita to keep those 1200 solders and equipment stationed there year round.

probably not much bearing in mind that they are are UK citizens, so divide 1200 into 62 million...

Ken Hawk
19-03-2013, 09:09 PM
2800 people in Argentina, they must have big gardens ;)

jamesp
19-03-2013, 09:11 PM
In an ideal world, defence spending would be optional extra. Having to resort to military action to impose your will should be a last resort and is a sad admission that diplomacy has failed. According to Wikipedia the population of Argentina is just about 2800 people. I wonder how much that works out per head of capita to keep those 1200 solders and equipment stationed there year round.

It was.

Probably not far off what it costs to keep NI on a slow simmer rather than blow the lid off.

Mikael
19-03-2013, 09:29 PM
probably not much bearing in mind that they are are UK citizens, so divide 1200 into 62 million...

But do the Falkland islands really matter to all 62 million Brits? I would say to look it this way is to cook the numbers some what.
Either way it still doesn't make it ideal. Would be far better to reach a good diplomatic relationship with Argentina and reduce the political tension and hence the need for military support. I probably wouldn't withdraw it totally, its not unreasonable to extended these British citizens protection given their remoteness but that doesn't make it practical.

At the end of the day, I would prefer for taxation in general to be use to improve things that matter greatly to a large majority of us such as public transport, in particular our rail system back here on this island.

Barrygoss
19-03-2013, 09:50 PM
But do the Falkland islands really matter to all 62 million Brits?

Ouch.

YES.

It does, just like any other part of the United Kingdom .

I did some work about 3 years ago with a concrete contractor specialist who had to finish a few weeks ahead of schedule as he was also TA attached to the royal engineers, he left the job to go and fortify all the SAM sites and bunkers in the Falklands.
It's been on the cards for a while.
B

Mikael
19-03-2013, 10:25 PM
Ouch.

YES.

It does, just like any other part of the United Kingdom .

I did some work about 3 years ago with a concrete contractor specialist who had to finish a few weeks ahead of schedule as he was also TA attached to the royal engineers, he left the job to go and fortify all the SAM sites and bunkers in the Falklands.
It's been on the cards for a while.
B

So you empathetically know that all 62 million Brits care about the Falkland Islands despite the fact that the percentage that have ever seen the islands let alone set foot on them is so small as be insignificant. Personally I have at best a passing interest.

I think these ideas of nationality, patriotism and land ownership based on sailing halfway around the globe and sticking a flag in the soil are a bit antiquated to be honest.

As for your TA guy would it not have been better, situation allowing, that his efforts had gone to laying the foundations of a school or hospital in the Falkland islands that would have made a positive contribution to that community?

Barrygoss
19-03-2013, 10:39 PM
So you empathetically know that all 62 million Brits care about the Falkland Islands despite the fact that the percentage that have ever seen the islands let alone set foot on them is so small as be insignificant. Personally I have at best a passing interest.

I think these ideas of nationality, patriotism and land ownership based on sailing halfway around the globe and sticking a flag in the soil are a bit antiquated to be honest.

As for your TA guy would it not have been better, situation allowing, that his efforts had gone to laying the foundations of a school or hospital in the Falkland islands that would have made a positive contribution to that community?

Lol.
Empathetically, as a subject of the United Kingdom, I know that, whatever our internal bickerings are, a threat to one of the parts will be defended by the whole.

And the positive contribution made by that subcontractor was the defence of 1800 people who wanted (by a democratic vote, now ratified) to stay British.

You may wish to abandon people because its not diplomatically easy. I prefer to defend those who wish to be part of the United Kingdom. If the Falklands were just above the Orkneys, would that change how you thought?

Oh, if the ideas of patriotism and nationality and duty to your country are antiquated to you, jog on and find a country more suited to your ideals. I'll defend your freedom of speech, although I may not agree with it.
B

Mikael
19-03-2013, 10:45 PM
Lol.
Empathetically, as a subject of the United Kingdom, I know that, whatever our internal bickerings are, a threat to one of the parts will be defended by the whole.

And the positive contribution made by that subcontractor was the defence of 1800 people who wanted (by a democratic vote, now ratified) to stay British.

You may wish to abandon people because its not diplomatically easy. I prefer to defend those who wish to be part of the United Kingdom. If the Falklands were just above the Orkneys, would that change how you thought?

Oh, if the ideas of patriotism and nationality and duty to your country are antiquated to you, jog on and find a country more suited to your ideals. I'll defend your freedom of speech, although I may not agree with it.
B

You have wholly missed my point. That I don't mind but please do not for second go trying to put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested that we abandon the Falklanders.

Diving Dude
19-03-2013, 10:51 PM
Mikael, if you neighbour decided he had a claim to your garden would you just say, ok and give it to him? Or maybe chat for a while, have a beer or two then give it to him, or would you say, no it's mine and if he got aggressive fight back or just give in? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. Before you say anything about the distance, principle doesn't change because of distance.
Oh and the comment above re BG knowing if he knows if all 62 mil people want the Falklands to stay British makes you look stupid, so does the comment re patriotism.

Lanny
19-03-2013, 10:52 PM
So you empathetically know that all 62 million Brits care about the Falkland Islands despite the fact that the percentage that have ever seen the islands let alone set foot on them is so small as be insignificant. Personally I have at best a passing interest.

I think these ideas of nationality, patriotism and land ownership based on sailing halfway around the globe and sticking a flag in the soil are a bit antiquated to be honest.

As for your TA guy would it not have been better, situation allowing, that his efforts had gone to laying the foundations of a school or hospital in the Falkland islands that would have made a positive contribution to that community?

In a Utopian world maybe. I am reminded of Sir Henry Leach's words in 1982:



“Because if we do not (defend the Falklands), or if we pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little”.

The fact remains that the Falkland Islanders are British subjects and should be defended from oppression with as much vigour as citizens of Falkirk, Fareham or Folkestone, if you will forgive the alliteration. Capitulating to Argentine sabre-rattling would also be an insult to the 255 British Servicemen (88 from my own Service) who lost their lives in 1982.

The last time de Kirchner wrote to Cameron with spurious Argentine claims was in January this year. The excellent Fleet Street Fox replied as follows, which made me laugh quite a lot:



Dear Argentina...
NOW look. You've been whining about this since 1767 and it's starting to get on my wick.

I've ignored you until now, because you're very silly and your greatest cheerleader is Sean Penn, a man who pretends to be things he is not and once hit his then-wife Madonna with a baseball bat, tied her up for nine hours and abused her.

If he is on your side, it's not a good side to be on.

But today you've written to Prime Minister Dishface demanding he enter negotiations to 'return' the islands we call the Falklands and you call Malvinas, 180 years after we cruelly stole them from you with our jackbooted naval officers of totalitarianism.

You were 'forcibly stripped' of these jewels in the South Atlantic and your people were 'expelled'.

Only, that's not quite what happened, is it Argentina? Someone obviously needs to remind you, and probably Mr Penn too, of the facts.

Allow me to start by saying there are probably things we can all agree on. War is bad, for example, and colonialism - aside from the roads, aqueducts, education, health reforms, economic development, culture, food, integration and innovation - tends to be a bad thing too.

We could probably avoid an argument over the fact that the Falkland Islands, in and of themselves, aren't exactly pretty. There are no hanging gardens, no waterfalls, no exotic wildlife. They're a windy bunch of rocks a long way from anywhere, although I grant they're nearer to you than they are to us.

Which begs the question about why, exactly, you never bothered to settle them.

When they were first discovered by a Dutchman in 1600 there was nothing there but seabirds. No people, no cultural heritage for anyone to trample over. Just a windy bunch of rocks.

Ninety years later a British sailor was blown off course and sailed through a bit of water he named Falkland Sound, and 74 years after that the French turned up to form a colony.

WAIT! I hear you cry. The French colonised the Falklands?

Why yes, and 18th century email being what it was the British turned up two years later and built a settlement on another one of the islands and claimed the whole lot for the Crown, unaware the Frenchies were already in residence.

The French sold out to the Spaniards a year after that, who put the colony - containing French people - under control of a governor in Buenos Aires.

Three years later the Spanish picked a fight with the Brits, kicked them out and after a peace treaty let us back in. In 1774 the Brits, overstretched by the Americans kicking off, withdrew and left a plaque behind asserting their claim. Thirty two years later the Spaniards departed too, leaving another plaque, and in 1811 the last settlers threw in the towel.

We were back to empty, windy rocks known only to whalers and sealing ships, and two memorial plaques.

In 1820 an American pirate called David Jewett took shelter there, and finding the place deserted promptly claimed the islands for a union of South American provinces which later became Argentina.

You lot didn't realise this for a year, but still didn't settle the islands. Instead a German who pretended to be French called Luis Vernet came along, asked the Argentines and the Brits politely if they minded, and founded a little colony of his own.

It took him a few goes, but eventually he established a settlement, you named him governor and gave him the right to kill all the seals. This quite hacked off the Brits, who wanted some seals for themselves, but Vernet placated us by asking for our military protection.

It all got a bit hairy in 1831, when Vernet found some American seal ships, arrested their crews and sparked an international incident. The Americans sent a warship, blew up the settlement, and hot-headedly sent the most senior settlers to the mainland for trial for piracy.

The Argentines sent a new governor to establish a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny the day he arrived. The Brits, quite reasonably, decided the whole thing was a dog's breakfast.

And now we get to the bit you're unhappy about Argentina, the invasion and forced expulsion.

The Brits arrived two months after this mutiny, and wrote to the chap in charge of the small Argentine garrison. The letter said:

"I have to direct you that I have received directions from His Excellency and Commander-in-Chief of His Britannic Majesty's ships and vessels of war, South America station, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, to exercise the rights of sovereignty over these Islands. It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government."

Now, there are many ways people can be oppressed, forced, compelled and abused - just ask Sean Penn - but a polite note is not one of them.

The Argentine in charge thought briefly about resisting, but he didn't have many soldiers and besides, most of them were British mercenaries who refused to fight. So on January 3, 1833 you left, Argentina, with wounded pride and your nose in the air.

You had never settled the islands. Never established a colony of your own. Never guarded it with a garrison of your own soldiers. They had never, ever, been yours.

And now to the matter of that expulsion. The log of an Argentine ship present at the time records the settlers were encouraged to stay, and those that left did so of their own free will and generally because they were fed up with living on some boring, windy rocks.

Eleven people left - four Argentines, three 'foreigners', one prisoner, a Brit and two Americans.

Twenty-two people remained - 12 Argentinians, four Uruguay Indians, two Brits, two Germans, a Frenchman and a Jamaican.

As the imposition of colonial power on an indigenous population goes, that takes some beating. And for the sake of clarity I should point out that a human melting pot like that makes the place about as British as you can be.

A few months later HMS Beagle, taking Charles Darwin to the Galapagos for a long think, popped in and found the settlement half-ruined and the residents lawless. There were several murders, some looting, and in 1834 the exasperated British sent Lieutenant Henry Smith to run the place.

The islands have been ours ever since, and is now home to almost 3,000 people descended from settlers who came from Britain, France, Scandinavia, Gibraltar, St Helena and Chile. At the same time, you went on to fight wars with most of South America and colonise provinces with indigenous populations by killing or pushing them out.

When your government was broke and facing strong opposition in the 1980s, you invaded them to divert attention of the voters with the cost of 907 lives, and it cannot be unrelated to your letter that in a few weeks you face being ejected by the International Monetary Fund for lying over your economic figures.

At around the same time, the people who now live on these boring, windy rocks in the middle of nowhere are having a referendum about who they would like to govern them. You will ignore this, because you believe they do not have a right to make up their own minds and have repeatedly refused to talk to the islanders about your claims.

So allow me to make a couple of things clear. Firstly, the history of these windy rocks is an utter mess but someone had to take charge, and you weren't up to the job. We did it pretty nicely, considering our record in other places.

Secondly, only jackbooted colonial scumbags refuse to listen to the democratic voice of the people who live somewhere, so you really ought to wind your hypocritical warmongering necks in.

And thirdly - well done with the wine, and the beef's pretty good, but if you want to negotiate let's start with you taking back your Total Wipeout, because as cultural imperialism goes it's pretty offensive, and you might want to think about handing Patagonia back to its people as well.

After that we are quite prepared to let you come and holiday on these windy rocks, where you will be invited to pitch a tent anywhere you like within the 13 square kilometres where you left 19,000 landmines last time you visited.

We know they're a long way away. We know there's not much to the rocks, and there might be oil and it might give someone a claim to Antarctica.

But we also know something you don't - which is that a well-run, law-abiding and happy bunch of rocks is the best bunch of rocks you can hope to have. You're no more up to that job now than you have ever been.

In case our position is still not clear, the above could be summed up as: No.


Yours sincerely,

Blighty

Diving Dude
19-03-2013, 10:53 PM
How is giving the Falklands to the Argies not abandoning the Falkland islanders?

Phantom Bubbler
19-03-2013, 10:58 PM
Can't we just swap the islands for Lionel Messi?

Diving Dude
19-03-2013, 11:00 PM
This is one of those "you're pregnant or not" questions, there is no half way.
You either believe that the Falklands should stay British or be given to the Argies? So Mikael please answer with a straight yes or no, because it really is that simple.

Barrygoss
19-03-2013, 11:02 PM
You have wholly missed my point. That I don't mind but please do not for second go trying to put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested that we abandon the Falklanders.

I've not missed your point. I've merely cut to the chase.
The islanders want to be British, the Argentinians want the islands (not the islanders)
Suggest a diplomatic solution which does not abandon the islanders?
B

Mikael
19-03-2013, 11:06 PM
This is one of those "you're pregnant or not" questions, there is no half way.
You either believe that the Falklands should stay British or be given to the Argies? So Mikael please answer with a straight yes or no, because it really is that simple.

Yes

Edit: If its not clear enough, I am saying Yes, we should defend the Falklander's wish to remain British and by extension the islands they live on.

Barrygoss
19-03-2013, 11:09 PM
Yes

Which way?
Sorry, caught your edit after my post.
B

Mikael
19-03-2013, 11:16 PM
Which way?
Sorry, caught your edit after my post.
B

No worries, sometimes a simple Yes/No answer doesn't always cover it after all :)

Garf
20-03-2013, 12:42 AM
But do the Falkland islands really matter to all 62 million Brits? I would say to look it this way is to cook the numbers some what.
Either way it still doesn't make it ideal. Would be far better to reach a good diplomatic relationship with Argentina and reduce the political tension and hence the need for military support. I probably wouldn't withdraw it totally, its not unreasonable to extended these British citizens protection given their remoteness but that doesn't make it practical.

At the end of the day, I would prefer for taxation in general to be use to improve things that matter greatly to a large majority of us such as public transport, in particular our rail system back here on this island.

Too damn right they matter. The fact that they are a few thousand miles away so that you can conveniently say you would rather spend the money on the mainland is deeply insulting to the British citizens on those islands. If the government proposed bostering the NHS for a little while by abandoning your home town to a foreign and agressive force would you be ok with that?

We're a small country in a big world these days, but we're still one not to be fucked with when riled. I know plenty of people who would put their uniform on and defend the falkland islands as passionately as they would any other part of the UK under threat.

Mikael
20-03-2013, 12:57 AM
Too damn right they matter. The fact that they are a few thousand miles away so that you can conveniently say you would rather spend the money on the mainland is deeply insulting to the British citizens on those islands. If the government proposed bostering the NHS for a little while by abandoning your home town to a foreign and agressive force would you be ok with that?

We're a small country in a big world these days, but we're still one not to be fucked with when riled. I know plenty of people who would put their uniform on and defend the falkland islands as passionately as they would any other part of the UK under threat.

I did not ask whether the Falkland islands matter, I asked whether the Falkland islands matter to all Brits. I think its a safe bet that there those who wouldn't give a rats arse whether the Islands fly the British or Argentinian flag. I have at no point indicated that I am one of those people.

What I have said is that the distance has a real and significant bearing on the practicality of continued military defence of these windy rocks. Only a few posts back, you yourself pointed out we do not have the air cover needed to protect military operations should we have to resort to it again.

Could people please stop getting all wound up and emotive over this subject. I know service men died in the conflict but that doesn't have to make talking about the subject in anything other supportive terms taboo.

Mikael
20-03-2013, 01:19 AM
Mikael, if you neighbour decided he had a claim to your garden would you just say, ok and give it to him? Or maybe chat for a while, have a beer or two then give it to him, or would you say, no it's mine and if he got aggressive fight back or just give in? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. Before you say anything about the distance, principle doesn't change because of distance.
Oh and the comment above re BG knowing if he knows if all 62 mil people want the Falklands to stay British makes you look stupid, so does the comment re patriotism.

Do you always belittle some one else if the suggest something that doesn't, superficially or otherwise appear to agree with you?
Do you always jump to conclusions, sometimes erroneously rather seek clarification when another contributor raises points that you are uncertain of their meaning?

At no point did I suggest we abandon the Falklanders.
At no point did I suggest we give the Falkland islands away.
At no point did I say that distance changes the principal.*

*I did say it had bearing on the feasibility of military protection, which is not an insignificant consideration.

As for point about patriotism/flag sticking in ground historical claims of ownership, even the Fleet Street Fox who ultimately concludes No you can't have these Islands admits that the history of ownership is 'an utter mess'.

Garf
20-03-2013, 01:22 AM
I asked whether the Falkland islands matter to all Brits

What is the point of such a question though? Does Glasgow matter to all Brits. I don't care about it, so perhaps the money spent on it would be best spent on London transport. I hope you would find that unacceptable. Well, the citizens in the Falkland Islands expect and deserve the same protection as any other UK citizens. The fact that they are far away makes it inconvenient but otherwise irrelevant.

If you feel everyone responding is getting emotive with you, perhaps you should stop and consider why. Yes, we would struggle to retake the islands if we lost them.so the best solution is to shore up the defences so that is less likely. That is precisely what has happened.

Mikael
20-03-2013, 01:45 AM
What is the point of such a question though? Does Glasgow matter to all Brits?

If you feel everyone responding is getting emotive with you, perhaps you should stop and consider why?

Well again I think there are Brits who give Glasgow very little consideration.

My point is that I think we should be able to have a discussion were even left of field opinions can be considered without condemning the contributor as stupid or treasonous from the offset.

Patriotism is behaviour that I think we should be very careful with as it can blind people to responding rationally. Think about American's getting all upset at seeing their flag burned. Its only a symbol at the end of the day and if you look closely it probably has the words 'made in China' written somewhere in the corner. I would hate to see us adopt this kind of mentality.

I would prefer even for charged emotive subjects like this for there to be the opportunity of open discussion, rather then turning it into some kind of one-upmanship feast. Surely the best outcome from any discussion is were everyone goes away having learnt something new, possibly come up with new solution to an existing problem. Diplomacy and compromise do not have to be dirty words.

Phantom Bubbler
20-03-2013, 02:28 AM
If the government proposed bolstering the NHS for a little while by abandoning your home town to a foreign and agressive force would you be ok with that?

My home has already been abandoned to an aggressive force. Have you ever been to Romford before? Not even the Argies would want it!

jturner
20-03-2013, 07:48 AM
Well again I think there are Brits who give Glasgow very little consideration.

My point is that I think we should be able to have a discussion were even left of field opinions can be considered without condemning the contributor as stupid or treasonous from the offset.

Patriotism is behaviour that I think we should be very careful with as it can blind people to responding rationally. Think about American's getting all upset at seeing their flag burned. Its only a symbol at the end of the day and if you look closely it probably has the words 'made in China' written somewhere in the corner. I would hate to see us adopt this kind of mentality.

I would prefer even for charged emotive subjects like this for there to be the opportunity of open discussion, rather then turning it into some kind of one-upmanship feast. Surely the best outcome from any discussion is were everyone goes away having learnt something new, possibly come up with new solution to an existing problem. Diplomacy and compromise do not have to be dirty words.

I am curious to hear what you think might form the basis of an agreement between two parties, one of which has just voted by an huge majority that they wish to remain British subjects and another who wishes to control the islands, which originally belonged to them apparently and states equally clearly that the wishes of the islanders are irrelevent as they're merely colonists.

CraigofScotland
20-03-2013, 08:33 AM
I dont like the negativity towards Glasgow! I demand an apology!!! :giggle:

sheesh
20-03-2013, 08:47 AM
I dont like the negativity towards Glasgow! I demand an apology!!! :giggle:

On behalf of the people of the British Isles I wholeheartedly apologise for Glasgow. It shouldn't have happened, and we will do our utmost to ensure no such place will be created again.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Tunicates
20-03-2013, 08:54 AM
What is the point of such a question though? Does Glasgow matter to all Brits. I don't care about it, so perhaps the money spent on it would be best spent on London transport. I hope you would find that unacceptable. Well, the citizens in the Falkland Islands expect and deserve the same protection as any other UK citizens. The fact that they are far away makes it inconvenient but otherwise irrelevant.

If you feel everyone responding is getting emotive with you, perhaps you should stop and consider why. Yes, we would struggle to retake the islands if we lost them.so the best solution is to shore up the defences so that is less likely. That is precisely what has happened.

[Sour-puss]
Yet they'll be given away within 10 years. Less probably. Too expensive to keep (defence costs an arm and a leg these days), and not enough oil. That's the sad reality of it. Yes, there'll be a huge gnashing of teeth and a national wailing, but it's the only future for the place. Just another step in the sorry decline of 'Great Britain'. It wont be long before we have to change our passports to ones that just say 'England' as 'United Kingdom' will no longer apply. [/Sour-puss]

JPTaylor
20-03-2013, 09:02 AM
...

witchieblackcat
20-03-2013, 09:48 AM
I don't give a rat's arse about the Falklands*. I do however passionately believe that the people that live there should have the right of self determination whether that be to remain as part of the British Empire or to be part of Argentina or indeed be fully independent should they choose that route.







* Actually, that's a lie. I think they're a wonderful place and I'd love to visit them.

stafforddiver
20-03-2013, 09:52 AM
I dont like the negativity towards Glasgow! I demand an apology!!! :giggle:

I live in central Glasgow, and nope it does not deserve an apology :grin:

Tunicates
20-03-2013, 10:55 AM
I don't give a rat's arse about the Falklands*. I do however passionately believe that the people that live there should have the right of self determination whether that be to remain as part of the British Empire or to be part of Argentina or indeed be fully independent should they choose that route.


They will always have the right to choose. The right to choose to state their opinion as to whether they wish to remain British Citizens when it gets handed over to Argentina.
These are the kinds of rights that the Conservatives beleive in so strongly. Some of them - many I suspect will end up being Argentinan due to the inevitable Argy benefits package, and will discover just how nice life can be there. It wont stop the wailing and the gnashing of teeth back here though.

String
20-03-2013, 11:52 AM
Im still struggling why Argentina over anyone else is claiming a right to it. The Dutch, French and Spanish all have more legitimate claims to the place than the argies do. It's a lot of shouting coming from a country that didn't even exist when this place was found and settled by various nations!

If they seriously wanted to take it they could. All these "shored up defences" quite simply aren't. It'd deter a small scale force but thats it. We've got 4 eurofighters not all are airworthy at once and a handful of naval assets.
Numbers alone with a serious invasion would rapidly overwhelm those. Lose the airfield and lost the islands. If they throw enough manpower at it then quite simply they'll get it. What is STOPPING them doing that at the moment is the shit state of their economy and zero funding for its military. It can take its ships to sea for 3 days each, some of its ships sink at mooring, most of its planes dont fly due to lack of spares.
If it changed that then the islands would be theirs should they ever choose.
We'd need to rely on spotting a major buildup in time. We'd likely spot it BUT whether we could actually do anything in time is doubtful. The logistics alone in just getting those small number of planes there were huge. They could get more ready to move and far faster than we could.
Once they get it then they'd keep it. We wouldn't get support from the UN or most likely not the US and lack any of the military capability now to form a task force to take any fight at all away from our own borders.

I'm still more upset in the money we give argentina via world bank/imf loans. Its substantially more than the falklands actually costs us to keep!

Woz
20-03-2013, 12:05 PM
* Actually, that's a lie. I think they're a wonderful place and I'd love to visit them.Apparently the diving's rubbish.

If geographical proximity to places were a claim to them, the Greek islands and Gibraltar would be in trouble.

Finless
20-03-2013, 12:27 PM
Apparently the diving's rubbish.

If geographical proximity to places were a claim to them, the Greek islands and Gibraltar would be in trouble.

Not to mention Jersey.

witchieblackcat
20-03-2013, 12:27 PM
Apparently the diving's rubbish.

Darwen SAC went a few years ago before I was a member.
They said the diving wasn't too bad.

String
20-03-2013, 12:51 PM
Apparently the diving's rubbish.

If geographical proximity to places were a claim to them, the Greek islands and Gibraltar would be in trouble.

And Cyprus.

..oh wait a minute....

PBrown
20-03-2013, 01:02 PM
... The USA Diego Garcia, or ...

Diego Garcia is actually British.

Although getting the USA off would prove to be "interesting".

cheers,
Paul

String
20-03-2013, 01:35 PM
Diego Garcia is actually British.

Although getting the USA off would prove to be "interesting".

cheers,
Paul

We evicted all the natives. The lease was due to expire, B'liar renewed it.

The cablegate releases shows them discussing all ways of stopping a native return. Eventually settled on creating a massive marine protected area which meant the locals couldn't fish or eat if they came back.

annas
20-03-2013, 01:39 PM
Diego Garcia is actually British.

Although getting the USA off would prove to be "interesting".

cheers,
Paul

I would argue that Diego Garcia is Chagossian, not British. Yes, at the time there were only about 2000 of them, just slightly less than the Falkland Islanders. Do their rights not count as well?

In a thread with a lot of flag waving and reference to the right to self determination, and applauding the british government's defence of the right to self determination of the Falklands, isn't it convenient that the rights of the Chagos Islanders continue to be ignored?

One of the many problems of blind patriotism is the distinct lack of consistency in applied rules to "us", "them", and "others".

Woz
20-03-2013, 01:43 PM
Darwen SAC went a few years ago before I was a member.
They said the diving wasn't too bad.

"Not too bad" was the impression I got. Maybe "not worth the effort- although now we've actually done it we're buggered if we're telling everyone it was crap"?

Ron MacRae
20-03-2013, 01:44 PM
I would argue that Diego Garcia is Chagossian, not British. Yes, at the time there were only about 2000 of them, just slightly less than the Falkland Islanders. Do their rights not count as well?

In a thread with a lot of flag waving and reference to the right to self determination, and applauding the british government's defence of the right to self determination of the Falklands, isn't it convenient that the rights of the Chagos Islanders continue to be ignored?

One of the many problems of blind patriotism is the distinct lack of consistency in applied rules to "us", "them", and "others".

There is absolutely no lack of consistancy here. If there is anything the government wants, oil, strategic bases, ....., then the wishes of the inhabitants come a very long way down the list of priorities.

I think if we hadn't sniffed oil off the Falklands they'd be owned by Argentina by now. As it is it suits us to support the democratic will of the people because it's what we want too.

Do you think the government actually cares about the people of Syria?

Ron.

jamesp
20-03-2013, 02:10 PM
Diego Garcia is actually British.

Although getting the USA off would prove to be "interesting".

cheers,
Paul

Actually I did know that; but then the Duke of Westminster apparently has deeds to large tracts of the USA. I doubt the paper worth much though.

Letz
20-03-2013, 02:41 PM
Was/is Argentina named because it had anything to do with Silver?

Prob turn out to be because some bint named Tina liked Hold Your Head Up?

That'll be my sister then :D Great song & she had the album

Soggy
20-03-2013, 03:52 PM
I'm surprised anyone thinks this has anythign to do with what the Falkland Islanders actually want, the Argentinians don't actually want to the islands what they do want is the right to the oilfields around the islands.

Diving Dude
20-03-2013, 04:30 PM
l think that the reason the Islands are still British is nothing do to with oil. Any government that surrendered them now or in the near future would be committing political suicide. l can't see any government being strong enough in the future to weather that storm.

l'm too lazy to google it, but how mucho wonga does it actually cost to defend the falklands?

Major Clanger
20-03-2013, 04:37 PM
I don't give a rat's arse about the Falklands*. I do however passionately believe that the people that live there should have the right of self determination whether that be to remain as part of the British Empire or to be part of Argentina or indeed be fully independent should they choose that route.







* Actually, that's a lie. I think they're a wonderful place and I'd love to visit them.

I'd happily go back there on a wildlife, adventure training and diving holiday. My last time there involved living on a mountain for three months during their worst Winter for 70 years :(

jturner
20-03-2013, 04:51 PM
I would argue that Diego Garcia is Chagossian, not British. Yes, at the time there were only about 2000 of them, just slightly less than the Falkland Islanders. Do their rights not count as well?

In a thread with a lot of flag waving and reference to the right to self determination, and applauding the british government's defence of the right to self determination of the Falklands, isn't it convenient that the rights of the Chagos Islanders continue to be ignored?

One of the many problems of blind patriotism is the distinct lack of consistency in applied rules to "us", "them", and "others".

I think you're absolutely right regarding the Chagos islands. It's another stain on the record of this country sadly.
But whilst we're at it, we should look more broadly - Palestine, for example.

Major Clanger
20-03-2013, 05:31 PM
I think you're absolutely right regarding the Chagos islands. It's another stain on the record of this country sadly.
But whilst we're at it, we should look more broadly - Palestine, for example.

Don't go there, enough people in the world saying it's all our fault without us doing it as well.

Mikael
20-03-2013, 06:00 PM
I am curious to hear what you think might form the basis of an agreement between two parties, one of which has just voted by an huge majority that they wish to remain British subjects and another who wishes to control the islands, which originally belonged to them apparently and states equally clearly that the wishes of the islanders are irrelevent as they're merely colonists.

On this occasion it seems that the Brits/Falklanders are right, as far as it is possible to be right in these kind of matters. The claims the Argentinians are making are very tenuous, so why are they making them at all? Well its already been suggested that the issue of the their claim to the islands is because political parties want to distract their own populous from the countries woes.

An ideal outcome for Britain would to be reach a diplomatic solution that retains the Falklanders right to self determination and leaves the Argentinians better of, so that the issue of the islands need no longer be used as a political pawn. Ok, the Argentinians may lose some face in giving up their claim but I bet that would sting less if the outcome is better friendship with political power that could help them overcome some of their burgeoning problems such as poverty.

Of the top of my head I would suggest that Britain propose the following;


The Argentinian's respect the Falklander's right to self determination and to make no further attempts to take the Island by military force.
In exchange for this, the Argentinians get granted half of the exploration and extraction oil rights to the waters surrounding the Falkland islands, allowing for a suitable exclusion zone that lies in close proximity the islands (Britain and all other nations to that may wish to drill to respect this exclusion zone as well).
Britain to share its expertise to help the Argentinians if so requested in developing this asset.
Commercial flights to be re-instated between Argentine and the Falklands.
A helicopter base to be built just outside of Port Stanley that will service the oil rigs. This way oil workers can be staged through the Falklands. The helicopter base to be owned and run by the Falklanders. This way the Falklander's remain in control of any passing trade that results from the oil work.
Falklanders to have the final say on any new business wanting to start work on the islands be they British, Argentinian or any other nationality.
Britain to provided if requested additional assistance and advice on how the Argentinian government could start to tackle its problems.


If this solution could be made workable then a longer term more sustainable agreement with Argentina would be established that protects the islands and islanders, a promise that Britain might otherwise be realistically unable to live up to. Both Britain and Argentinian could start to explore for oil without the political issue overshadowing them. The Falklanders retain their right to self determination but at the same time benefit from passing trade and the re-instating of commercial flights giving them easier and cheaper access to and from their home. Argentine has the prospect of letting go of the their claim to the islands without losing too much face, plus can now see Brit as ally rather then an enemy.

There will no doubt be flaws in the suggested plan, feel free to pull it apart if you wish. I just think that trying to reach some kind of mutually agreeable solution is what we should seek to do rather then remain in opposition.

String
20-03-2013, 06:26 PM
The oil and gas might well be overrated. Test drills have yielded a lot less than predicted.
I think the potential Antarctica claim is the main reason either side wants it.

The Duck
20-03-2013, 06:45 PM
l think that the reason the Islands are still British is nothing do to with oil. Any government that surrendered them now or in the near future would be committing political suicide. l can't see any government being strong enough in the future to weather that storm.

l'm too lazy to google it, but how mucho wonga does it actually cost to defend the falklands?

As with many things the raw headline costs don't reflect everything.

For example with the military in the Falklands there is the training value - unlike UK the locals (generally) don't complain about jets, booms and bangs. Plus there is a lot more space for danger areas.

Major Clanger
21-03-2013, 06:22 AM
On this occasion it seems that the Brits/Falklanders are right, as far as it is possible to be right in these kind of matters. The claims the Argentinians are making are very tenuous, so why are they making them at all? Well its already been suggested that the issue of the their claim to the islands is because political parties want to distract their own populous from the countries woes.

An ideal outcome for Britain would to be reach a diplomatic solution that retains the Falklanders right to self determination and leaves the Argentinians better of, so that the issue of the islands need no longer be used as a political pawn. Ok, the Argentinians may lose some face in giving up their claim but I bet that would sting less if the outcome is better friendship with political power that could help them overcome some of their burgeoning problems such as poverty.

Of the top of my head I would suggest that Britain propose the following;


The Argentinian's respect the Falklander's right to self determination and to make no further attempts to take the Island by military force.
In exchange for this, the Argentinians get granted half of the exploration and extraction oil rights to the waters surrounding the Falkland islands, allowing for a suitable exclusion zone that lies in close proximity the islands (Britain and all other nations to that may wish to drill to respect this exclusion zone as well).
Britain to share its expertise to help the Argentinians if so requested in developing this asset.
Commercial flights to be re-instated between Argentine and the Falklands.
A helicopter base to be built just outside of Port Stanley that will service the oil rigs. This way oil workers can be staged through the Falklands. The helicopter base to be owned and run by the Falklanders. This way the Falklander's remain in control of any passing trade that results from the oil work.
Falklanders to have the final say on any new business wanting to start work on the islands be they British, Argentinian or any other nationality.
Britain to provided if requested additional assistance and advice on how the Argentinian government could start to tackle its problems.


If this solution could be made workable then a longer term more sustainable agreement with Argentina would be established that protects the islands and islanders, a promise that Britain might otherwise be realistically unable to live up to. Both Britain and Argentinian could start to explore for oil without the political issue overshadowing them. The Falklanders retain their right to self determination but at the same time benefit from passing trade and the re-instating of commercial flights giving them easier and cheaper access to and from their home. Argentine has the prospect of letting go of the their claim to the islands without losing too much face, plus can now see Brit as ally rather then an enemy.

There will no doubt be flaws in the suggested plan, feel free to pull it apart if you wish. I just think that trying to reach some kind of mutually agreeable solution is what we should seek to do rather then remain in opposition.

Sounds very reasonable but misses one important point. We have no desire to work with them on anything nor do have need to negotiate anything. They threw that possibility away 30 years ago. Give them a bit and they'll want more.

Paulo
21-03-2013, 06:39 AM
Sounds very reasonable but misses one important point. We have no desire to work with them on anything nor do have need to negotiate anything. They threw that possibility away 30 years ago. Give them a bit and they'll want more.

People would have said the same about the Germans and the EU back in the 70s

Major Clanger
21-03-2013, 06:42 AM
People would have said the same about the Germans and the EU back in the 70s

Not an analogy that applies though culturally, geographically or economically.

Spirit of Guernsey
21-03-2013, 07:16 AM
Not to mention Jersey.

The Argies are welcome to it

Mikael
21-03-2013, 09:45 AM
Sounds very reasonable but misses one important point. We have no desire to work with them on anything nor do have need to negotiate anything. They threw that possibility away 30 years ago. Give them a bit and they'll want more.

Why do you say we don't want to work with them? Yes 30 years ago they were aggressors to us but I see no ideological reason not to wish to cooperate. Maybe it is easier for a younger generation to forgive others a conflict that had no direct personal impact to us.

As for whether there is a need or not. I wonder how the Falklanders feel about the prospect of another 30 years of building fortifications and looking out to sea wondering when next Argentina might try again.

The last point I concede, there is a risk that by extending trust this might be abused by the other side but surely as fellow humans we can be better then that?

Let's put the 'an eye for an eye, he started it first playground mentality' politics behind us. We live in a global world these days, its time we grew up.

Paulo
21-03-2013, 10:27 AM
Why do you say we don't want to work with them? Yes 30 years ago they were aggressors to us but I see no ideological reason not to wish to cooperate. Maybe it is easier for a younger generation to forgive others a conflict that had no direct personal impact to us.

As for whether there is a need or not. I wonder how the Falklanders feel about the prospect of another 30 years of building fortifications and looking out to sea wondering when next Argentina might try again.

The last point I concede, there is a risk that by extending trust this might be abused by the other side but surely as fellow humans we can be better then that?

Let's put the 'an eye for an eye, he started it first playground mentality' politics behind us. We live in a global world these days, its time we grew up.

Far too reasoned an opinion to hold any weight on TDF! Cop on to yourself!!