The Falkland Islands

Fair enough.

Just sounds racist because, you know, Chinese people aren't exactly yellow skinned are they...

--

I don't think Quackers was implying that Britain would have let Hong Kong return to China even if the inhabitants where massively oppossed to it just because of their race though. Seriously, how could we have stopped it?

True, and white people are generally more peach. :lol:
 
So when people exclaim "oh well we gave up HK, why not the Falklands?!" - i'm saying the difference between the two means the outcome isn't going to be the same.

Not that anyone actually exclaimed this...
 
I haven't been able to watch the ad yet. I've had a battery of tests (failed one, I think :S) in the past couple weeks, so I had to focus my TV time on what's really worth watching: Rebus, football, and Dragon Ball. No ads in any of those channels. :D

But it's saddening to see that the Sun can be so ruinous, and worse that it is still read by so many people in what's supposed to be a civilised, advanced 21st century country.

Its also hypocritical of London to get on a high horse about the politisation of the Games when they went much further banning the vanquished states' representatives after either World War, and also the same that shook hands with the Germans in '36… and supported boycotts against the Soviets whenever they felt like it. When will we ever do a mea culpa?
Argentinean Hitler, unfair economic infractions etcetc:p
Wasn't it a certain Mr. Quackers who said that the thread shouldn't have 'cheap shots at Cameron' allowed?
There's a lot of places where we might use our armed forces in a conflict (and perhaps not just because the US think it's a good idea). The Falklands is hardly the most likely, however, and to suggest otherwise is either ignorant or (more likely) disingenuous.
Of course it is, not only because of the utter lack of any significant Argentine military capability but also because of the lack of support for such a thing both inside and outside Argentina. The entirecontinent of South America is committed to peace, at least for the foreseeble future.
It does look like Argentina is trying to put the UK in a position where they can not engage in any negotiations.

The Front Page of todays SUN
Argies dance
on our graves
Olympic vid insults Brit war dead

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4295654/Argies-dance-on-our-graves.html
Sure about that? Maybe it's the Sun who doesn't want the government to negotiate.

Of course it's a stupid move by the Argentine government, but then, it was a pre-made ad offered around publicly by a British-owned company and somehow no one noticed until it went on the air last week!

Why play Mrs. Kirchner's game?
It may, however, contribute to stirring up Argentine gall over the Falklands issue, which makes an invasion more likely.
An invasion? How come? With what armed forces? There isn't any secret army gathering in the storehouses of Mercadia or anything even remotely like it.

What's more, they're now facing the possibility of a retroactive pay decrease. This wouldn't be even dreamed of if the current misgovernment had any militaristic ambitions.
Actually, I doubt if Imperialman and Quackers would allow anyone to forget it... More broadly, I really doubt that there is any prospect for the UK taking part in serious negotiations for a good while. People largely forgot about the Falklands for 20 years from 1990 or so, but it doesn't stop there still being very strong feelings about it now - as soon as it resurfaces, the BBC and The Sun will rally public opinion to the national cause just as they always have in these cases where a remote location is still deemed to be British (oh, except for Hong Kong, when they were told to shut up).
The important difference is that China have far more clout than Argentina does. Even if China is still a thinly-disguised totalitarian regime.
All i was suggesting was that the HK scenario was completely different to the Falkland issue.
So when people exclaim "oh well we gave up HK, why not the Falklands?!" - i'm saying the difference between the two means the outcome isn't going to be the same.
Isn't necessarily going to be the same. Drop the triumphalism, Quacks. More countries side with Argentina than with the UK on this one. Of course, they're not the countries that count, but, still… sooner or later all these wonderfully clear motives will have to be shown and London will have to sit down and talk it out.
 
More countries side with Argentina than with the UK on this one. Of course, they're not the countries that count, but, still… sooner or later all these wonderfully clear motives will have to be shown and London will have to sit down and talk it out.

I don't know that the claim above is entirely accurate. I found the map below on a page regarding the Falklands.



With this key attached:

Green: Falkland Islands

Blue: The United Kingdom

Dark Blue: Countries which support the UKs claim

Light Blue: Neutral countries which generally support the UKs claim

Red: Argentina

Dark Red: Countries which support Argentina's claim (Portugal is a colouring error)

Pink: Neutral countries which generally support Argentina's claim
 
That map divides so clearly by 'grouping' (Hispanosphere vs Anglosphere) that all it shows to me is that right and wrong have, in this case, become a minor distraction
 
Has it ever been otherwise? It's the former British Empire -except the Irish who won't forget- versus the former Spanish and Portuguese Empires.

That map's a bit inaccurate. The US is now veering towards neutrality.
 
Has it ever been otherwise? It's the former British Empire -except the Irish who won't forget- versus the former Spanish and Portuguese Empires.

That map's a bit inaccurate. The US is now veering towards neutrality.

i would think with whats been going on with argentina nationalising that oil company, spain is very unlikely to even say anything pro argentina
 
That map divides so clearly by 'grouping' (Hispanosphere vs Anglosphere) that all it shows to me is that right and wrong have, in this case, become a minor distraction

Indeed. It's bizarre how readily we still manage to convince ourselves that right is on our side. (That applies to both sides here, there, and just about every conflict or disagreement under the sun, just to spell it out.) We sit and mock or pity the WW1 leaders and soldiers who genuinely thought that God and right were on their side of the conflict, but we still always manage to cherry-pick the facts to suit our perspective, and always manage to show how we are in the right, and the other side's views and claims are banal, foolish, or evil.
 
Oh no, we're definitely in the right (the Falklanders being a nation, they have the right to decide, and the Falklanders being part of the British nations they have no right to belong to any country other than the UK - either way we win), but the point is that whether we're right is irrelevant for any observer. Countries in general don't pick friends and enemies over moral issues; it's entirely a matter of pragmatism.
 
This may have been asked before, but what do the people living on the Falkland Islands want?
 
To remain British, overwhelmingly and consistently - Argentina offers them citizenship if they ask for it, and made a great show and a dance over the fact that one Falklander (of Spanish extraction IIRC) took them up on the offer.
 
The UK should just give a big middle finger to Argentina and fully incorporate the Falklands into the UK. They could throw in Gibralter as well while they are at it.

One thing to say about the Falklands, at least Argentina has a better, and less hypocritical, case then whenever the Spanish get pissy over Gibralter (not that that is saying much).
 
Everything I have seen the Spanish don't argue they have a claim for (they acknowledge the Treaty of Utrecht with some minor argument about the exact border) it but that it "threatens their territorial integrity" although their territory has remained intact for the past 300 years (and ignoring their claims to Melilla and Ceuta). At least there is some (very weak) basis for Argentine claims for the Falklands.
 
Oh no, we're definitely in the right

I love your moral certitude. Why bother coming to a thread on this matter then, other than to tell others that they're wrong and you're right? You don't see any complexity in the situation at all?
 
but the point is that whether we're right is irrelevant for any observer.

It's not irrelevant if you believe that international law can be a force for good.
 
The islands should remain British. I like Imperial remains. They are a good cause for ruminating on humanity's greatness and frailty. Oh, ___'s Rise and Fall of ___(fill in the blanks).

However, they can provide a great new homeland for Palestinian/Jewish people (draw a circle around the correct choice).

And if everything else fails, just give them to Russia (write three sentences on why Russia is a better candidate then everyone else, except those already mentioned in questions 1 and 2).
 
I love your moral certitude. Why bother coming to a thread on this matter then, other than to tell others that they're wrong and you're right? You don't see any complexity in the situation at all?
The Falklanders want to remain British; what more do you need? :dunno:
 
Top Bottom