The Falkland Islands

Correct me if I am wrong, but before the Falkand War wasn't the UK trying to sell the Falklands to Argentina or create some sort of autonomy agreement (like what happened with Cyprus)?
There were apparently proposals to that effect being discussed; certainly we were in the phase of generally withdrawing from our colonies and nobody had really ever heard of the Falklands to begin with.
Do people even read my posts?

As posted months ago, London never cared and only in 1982 did they learn that the value of saber-rattling for a couple thousand loons in conquered overseas territory was greater than that of actually doing something for your country.
That is true adjicia and I think there are a few sentences on Wikipedia about it. I think the only reason it never happened was the objections of the Islanders! But who knows what could have been? The Falkland's could be an autonomous region of Argentina now. FP is correct though when he says it's a distraction, often I don't think politicians are clever enough and the population dumb enough to fall for it, but it looks like in Argentina they have the perfect combination;). In fact a few weeks ago there was an interesting article in the Economist which said how the Argentinean government is trying to mask the true rise in the cost of living by forcing its official statistical agency to generously "round down" the true inflation rate.

ahh here it is: http://www.economist.com/node/21548229

So it appears the Argentinean government isn't fit to govern and is using the issue of the Falklands for domestic political reasons to stay in power.
You're forgetting that they still do want it because they are Argentines, don't you?

Your insults are just an echo of Cameron's arrogance.

Nevertheless, the cot of living issue is someone no one buys here.
Parachute Regiment to return to Falklands for first time in 30 years

Don't know if anyone has seen this, but - as much as it can be plausibly denied as routine (I'm afraid they're there at least in part to shake up the current lot, who are - shall we say - less than operationally-ready at the moment) - this one's guaranteed to raise a few hackles in Argentina.
Of course, keeping sending in troops while claiming Argentina is no threat at all reeks of hypocrisy (as much as I despise Mrs. Kirchner's maladministration of course)
 
Of course, keeping sending in troops while claiming Argentina is no threat at all reeks of hypocrisy (as much as I despise Mrs. Kirchner's maladministration of course)

We send them in for training as much as for deterrance - the Falklands are a wonderful place to practise fighting in a cold, mountainous environment with nothing to get in the way. Oh, and there's also the occasional bit of 'method acting' when it comes to landmines!
 
Of course, keeping sending in troops while claiming Argentina is no threat at all reeks of hypocrisy (as much as I despise Mrs. Kirchner's maladministration of course)

Even more hypocritical is Argentina denouncing the UK's militarization when they where the ones who took military action against it and are still trying to obtain the islands.

The English would be stupid not to defend the islands while claiming sovereignty over it! :lol:
 
Even more hypocritical is Argentina denouncing the UK's militarization when they where the ones who took military action against it and are still trying to obtain the islands.

The English would be stupid not to defend the islands while claiming sovereignty over it! :lol:

*British :p
 
If I had said London or Westminster, it would be fine, why can't I say English?

Besides, it's not like the Scots favor that much the UK's foreign policy, not with all the independence talk going around lately, so I just said England. :p

1. It's a British (not English) overseas territory. London is the UK (and English) capital city and Westminster is home to the UK (not English) parliament.

2. A large majority of Scots, myself included, do not favour independence.

3. The islands population are largely descended from Scots and Welsh.

4. England hasn't been a sovereign state since 1707, it's the equivalent of saying Texas should defend the US Virgin Islands.

:p
 
I know that, it's just like when we say Castile rather than Spain or Holland rather than Netherlands, don't take it to heart, just assume that I meant English as in people who speak English rather than people from England and not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
I know that, it's just like when we say Castile rather than Spain or Holland rather than Netherlands, don't take it to heart, just assume that I meant English as in people who speak English rather than people from England and not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Fair enough, I often jump the gun when people make the mistake of saying England rather than the UK. Sorry if I seemed a bit annoyed. :)
 
I meant English as in people who speak English rather than people from England...
There are several million people in the United Kingdom whose native language is something other than English.
 
There are several million people in the United Kingdom whose native language is something other than English.

Well, no true Scotsman British has a native language other than English. :rolleyes:

Let's not go down this road of over-analyzing what I meant when I said English rather than British, si vous plait.
 
si vous plait.
Yes! Further proof that the English are decended from the French! Continental invaders, back whence ye came!
We send them in for training as much as for deterrance - the Falklands are a wonderful place to practise fighting in a cold, mountainous environment with nothing to get in the way. Oh, and there's also the occasional bit of 'method acting' when it comes to landmines!
'Cold, mountainous environment with nothing to get in the way'… Scotland, anyone?

As for the landmines, can't those be taken out? I don't know much about landmine removal.
Even more hypocritical is Argentina denouncing the UK's militarization when they where the ones who took military action against it and are still trying to obtain the islands.
Erm, the UK and Argentina were on the verge of agreement in June-July 1974 (here you have a two-part non-paper from the British Embassy in Buenos Aires) when the Argentine President J.D. Perón died and NATO started campaigning in favour of the military deposing his wife and successor. Eight years later said military dictatorship went off the deep end (having a lot of officers trained in the School of the Americas -now WHINSEC- on nationalism and how to counteract terrorism by means of perpetrating massacres) and attempted warfare.

Guess what? Civilians are now in charge. The military have been prosecuted, put on trial, not the NATO-bankrolled megalomaniacs but democratically elected officials have ruled the country for 28 years. Time to tone down the military aspect of it, eh?
uat2d said:
The English would be stupid not to defend the islands while claiming sovereignty over it! :lol:
Defend them from whom?
 
Guess what? Civilians are now in charge. The military have been prosecuted, put on trial, not the NATO-bankrolled megalomaniacs but democratically elected officials have ruled the country for 28 years. Time to tone down the military aspect of it, eh?

Too bad the new civilian government is continuing to acquire the islands and keep on with vague threats and with persistent demands. Now I'm not saying the islands are rightfully British or that they're rightfully Argentinian, I'm just saying that if Argentina really wants the islands, they're doing it all wrong. For outsiders, it seems as if even though those in power changed, the goals and the methods to do so are exactly the same.

Defend them from whom?

From whom do you think it is? It wasn't the French or the Chileans that invaded the island just 30 years ago and still keep on eyeballing it and seem more than willing to try and invade it again, to see if they get it right this time.

If Argentina wants the islands, fine, they just shouldn't make such a scene about it.
 
Too bad the new civilian government is continuing to acquire the islands and keep on with vague threats and with persistent demands. Now I'm not saying the islands are rightfully British or that they're rightfully Argentinian, I'm just saying that if Argentina really wants the islands, they're doing it all wrong. For outsiders, it seems as if even though those in power changed, the goals and the methods to do so are exactly the same.

I take it you mean 'countinuing to try to acquire the islands' but I get your point. I already posted several months ago that I'd be doing whatever I could to help and befriend the islanders instead of saber-rattling and trying to put one over on them.

I'd ask for the same terms of the British proposal I posted an hour ago.
uat2d said:
From whom do you think it is? It wasn't the French or the Chileans that invaded the island just 30 years ago and still keep on eyeballing it and seem more than willing to try and invade it again, to see if they get it right this time.

If Argentina wants the islands, fine, they just shouldn't make such a scene about it.
'Willing to try and invade it again'? With what, a couple of fishing boats?
 
I take it you mean 'countinuing to try to acquire the islands' but I get your point. I already posted several months ago that I'd be doing whatever I could to help and befriend the islanders instead of saber-rattling and trying to put one over on them.

If you're still needing to befriend the islanders, doesn't that mean that they're not "yours" to begin with and you have no jurisdiction nor justification to want the islands so badly, if the islanders don't want you there in the first place?

'Willing to try and invade it again'? With what, a couple of fishing boats?

If you're not planning to invade them, then don't worry about the UK's military, they're just in their own country doing their own things. Unlike Argentina's claims on the Falklands, the UK doesn't claim Buenos Aires nor anything like that, they won't be starting any wars there anytime soon, if you're not going to as well, this is a non-issue.
 
If you're still needing to befriend the islanders, doesn't that mean that they're not "yours" to begin with and you have no jurisdiction nor justification to want the islands so badly, if the islanders don't want you there in the first place?
First of all, no, it doesn't. My clients regard this as an occupation but wishing for no further bloodshed seek to incorporate the community into their country.
uat2d said:
If you're not planning to invade them, then don't worry about the UK's military, they're just in their own country doing their own things. Unlike Argentina's claims on the Falklands, the UK doesn't claim Buenos Aires nor anything like that, they won't be starting any wars there anytime soon, if you're not going to as well, this is a non-issue.
No one likes a military buildup anywhere near their territory, especially with Britain claiming part of Antarctica for themselves and Brazil wanting to exploit oilfields in their part of the Atlantic. No one in South America likes foreign powers with a history of having attacked them to set up military bases on territory they consider occupied.
It's not a non-issue, why should the UK increase military presence while saying they 'know' there's going to be no war and Argentina's not a threat?
From a more personal POV, why should so much money be spent on arms but jobs be cut reduced insert politically correct word here?

Incidentally, after the war the two colonies territories were separated and now the Antarctic claim is tied to the South Georgias. Interesting, eh?
 
Quackers, you're French according to your avatar, give over!
 
Uhmm my frog is an American frog brah, anyway his nationality is irrelevent, he is a nice frog and strikes a good pose. Whats there not to like?
 
Come on, stop dismissing everything I say as 'Irrelevent' :p
 
Top Bottom