The Falkland Islands

[uat2d]

Isn't it "irrelevant" with an "a"?

[Takhisis]

I've already corrected him but he insists on doing things the English way, i.e. wrong. ؟

[imperialman]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

why should the UK increase military presence

Simple, it hasn't done so.

[Flying Pig]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

'Cold, mountainous environment with nothing to get in the way'… Scotland, anyone?

Oh, I'm not saying that they're the only place that it can be done, but they're a very good training area - not to mention that they provide incredibly realistic training for what is probably the UK's most likely future conflict: the guys down there are doing their live-firing training on the same hills that would be battlefields if the Argentines invaded!

As for the landmines, can't those be taken out? I don't know much about landmine removal.

I was joking; the Royal Engineers spend a lot of their time clearing them up, even now.

Simple, it hasn't done so.

'Because it is there' is a great maxim for mountain climbing, but a very bad one for the management of international relations

[imperialman]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

'Because it is there' is a great maxim for mountain climbing, but a very bad one for the management of international relations

I was meaning to say that I don't believe the UK actually has increased its military presence in the region, Dauntless replacing Montrose and all.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Quackers

More likely to be Punjab or Urdu then Gaelic or Welsh tho tbh ;p

Not really the point. If the Union is to be understood as anything more than English microimperialism, then the other indigenous tongues of the Isles need to be recognised as, at least on some level, its equal. The greater usage of English certainly allows it to play a role as first among equals- I'm not suggesting that ever scrap of government information be available in Cornish on demand- but it falls short of any legitimate hegemony. (I would go so far as to say that the same is true within England- that regional dialects such as Northumbric demand more respect than they receive.)

[ParkCungHee]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Not really the point. If the Union is to be understood as anything more than English microimperialism,

Why would we want to do that?

[Traitorfish]

Presumably why the sort of equality I describe is wishful thinking at best.

[ParkCungHee]

Maybe it's time Scotland tried a century's worth of poorly planned and thought out rebellions, each stupider than the last.

[Traitorfish]

I'll call some of my fellow effete intellectuals, see if any of them fancy dying bloodily for no particular reason.

[bathsheba666]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

I've already corrected him but he insists on doing things the English way, i.e. wrong. ؟

Or wrongly

[Takhisis]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

Oh, I'm not saying that they're the only place that it can be done, but they're a very good training area - not to mention that they provide incredibly realistic training for what is probably the UK's most likely future conflict: the guys down there are doing their live-firing training on the same hills that would be battlefields if the Argentines invaded!

My, my, I'd have thought the next place UK troops were to be deployed was somewhere in the Near East from recent history.

And, besides, why does everyone keep expecting Argentina to invade while also stating it's impossible?

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

I was joking; the Royal Engineers spend a lot of their time clearing them up, even now.

Yeah, that's sick. I'm sure it'd be a great gesture if Argentina could offer some deal: helping remove mines in exchange for being allowed to identify the remains of their dead.

Originally Posted by imperialman

Simple, it hasn't done so.

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

'Because it is there' is a great maxim for mountain climbing, but a very bad one for the management of international relations

Originally Posted by imperialman

I was meaning to say that I don't believe the UK actually has increased its military presence in the region, Dauntless replacing Montrose and all.

 ___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

Originally Posted by ParkCungHee

Maybe it's time Scotland tried a century's worth of poorly planned and thought out rebellions, each stupider than the last.

What do you think all that hooligan stuff has really been? We've been training them on the InterCity for a reason.

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

I'll call some of my fellow effete intellectuals, see if any of them fancy dying bloodily for no particular reason.

Go for the unemployed ones first. You'll solve unemployment and start an independence war.

Originally Posted by bathsheba666

Or wrongly

The English way is wrong, therefore, my statement stands .

[Flying Pig]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

And, besides, why does everyone keep expecting Argentina to invade while also stating it's impossible?.

It's impossible that they'll win. It's not impossible that they'll be stupid enough to try.

My, my, I'd have thought the next place UK troops were to be deployed was somewhere in the Near East from recent history.

There's another thread on this, but I'm convinced that, even if there is American involvement in that part of the world (very unlikely), the British will not intervene.

[imperialman]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

 ___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

Do you believe the UK is militarising the situation?

[ParkCungHee]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

Go for the unemployed ones first. You'll solve unemployment and start an independence war.

Oh good god! You don't want to go starting a war with the English, that never ends well!
You just keep having stupider rebellions, and eventually the English will act even stupider in response.

[Takhisis]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

It's impossible that they'll win. It's not impossible that they'll be stupid enough to try.

But it's still stupid to incense them by all this manouvering.

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

There's another thread on this, but I'm convinced that, even if there is American involvement in that part of the world (very unlikely), the British will not intervene.

Wasn't there some presence in Lybia last year?

Originally Posted by imperialman

Do you believe the UK is militarising the situation?

Don't you?

Originally Posted by ParkCungHee

Oh good god! You don't want to go starting a war with the English, that never ends well!
You just keep having stupider rebellions, and eventually the English will act even stupider in response.

But we get rid of the effete intellectuals and adance in our secret plan to crown Kan' Sharuminar as kig of Scotland!

[imperialman]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

Don't you?

No, there is nothing to suggest this at all.

[Flying Pig]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

But it's still stupid to incense them by all this manouvering.

The point is that whether they invade the Falklands or not has nothing to do with a genuine casus belli. If they do, it'll be because of 'push' reasons from home, not because of the actual strategic situation. Therefore all we can do is prepare, in case they do invade - we're not actually changing the odds of an invasion by doing so.

Wasn't there some presence in Lybia last year?

Libya is very much not the Middle East, and the nature of the operation was totally different to anything we'd see in Iran - we deliberately didn't put a single boot on the ground.

[imperialman]

I hope this clears the issue up for some people.

The principal arguments put forward by the Argentinians are untrue. The truth of the matter is that:

(1) The 17th and 18th-century treaties between Britain and Spain did not prohibit British possession of the Falklands.

(2) The Argentinians have quoted the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement incorrectly. The agreement as finally signed preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain, not Spain alone. There was no secret promise by Britain to evacuate the Falklands after the restitution of Port Egmont.

(3) The Argentinians have incorrectly described the history of the 1820s in the Falklands. David Jewett did claim the Falklands then for Argentina, but he had not been sent there. He did not attempt to apply fishing regulations, or Argentine laws, or tell any foreign ships to leave. His claim was not announced formally in Argentina or even mentioned in his report. Argentina has also incorrectly described the activities of Pablo Areguati in the Falklands in 1824. Areguati was never given any official rank, nor did he attempt to enforce Argentine law or fishing regulations. It was all he could do to survive himself, and his expedition collapsed after a few weeks. Britain did object promptly when Louis Vernet was given an official title in 1829. The assumption that Argentina did establish itself adequately in the islands in the early 1820s is based, as we have shown, on a profound distortion of history.

(4) Argentina’s claim that the 1825 Treaty of Friendship and Navigation with Britain supports its claim to the Falklands is incorrect. There was no one from Argentina in the Falklands at that time, and the Treaty does not describe Argentine territory at all.

(5) The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is false; the settlement continued, and most of its inhabitants were from Buenos Aires.

(6) Argentina did not inherit a unitary claim to the Falklands from Spain, and its claim is further weakened by the lack of foreign recognition in the 19th century and by Louis Vernet’s preference for British sovereignty.

(7) Argentina dropped its claim to the Falklands by ratifying the Convention of Settlement in 1850. The failure to mention that this ended Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is a gross distortion of history, as are the statements by Argentine historians that the British Foreign Secretary accepted in 1849 that the matter was “pending” or “postponed” – the reverse is true. After 1850 Argentina dropped all protests to Britain over the Falklands, and did not mention the Falklands to Britain for 34 years. The dropping of the Argentine claim was confirmed by Argentine leaders in their Messages to Congress in the 1860s, and the Falklands were not mentioned in any Message to Congress for 91 years until 1941.

(8) The Argentine claim was artificially revived in 1884, by non-diplomatic means – the “Affair of the Map” – but after failing to change Britain’s position Argentina dropped the matter again for several decades.

(9) The Argentinians have never had a valid claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. These islands were only claimed by Argentina after the Second World War, after decades of acquiescence and after acknowledgement of Britain’s sovereignty there.

(10) The Argentine argument that Islanders have no right to self-determination is absurd. They have the same rights as any other immigrant population of the New World.

We conclude that there is no case for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. All these islands are rightfully British.

The Falklands dispute was ended over 150 years ago with Argentina’s agreement I believe.

[GinandTonic]

Argentine Olympic advert riles Falklands

Originally Posted by Auntie

Argentina has riled the Falkland Islands by broadcasting a political advert filmed on the territory without authorisation.

The advert features an Argentine athlete training in the Falklands ahead of the London Olympics in July.

It ends with the slogan: "To compete on English soil, we train on Argentine soil."

Falklands legislator Ian Hansen dismissed it as a piece of "cheap and disrespectful propaganda".

The advert - broadcast in Argentina on Wednesday night - is the latest measure by Argentina to reassert its claim to the British overseas territory it calls the Malvinas.

'No respect'
Produced by the Argentine presidency, it is titled Olympic Games 2012: Homage to the Fallen and the Veterans of the Malvinas.

It shows Argentine hockey captain Fernando Zylberberg running and exercising in the Falklands capital Port Stanley, interspersed with shots of penguins and the windswept South Atlantic.

Mr Hansen said the video had been filmed without permission from the islands' authorities.

He accused Argentina of trying to "politicise the Olympics in service of its territorial ambitions".

"It is deeply sad to see Mr Zylberberg clambering over a war memorial. Sadly this illustrates the disrespect the Argentine authorities have for our home and our people," Mr Hansen said.

"At no stage does the video feature any Falkland Islanders - a clear reflection of Argentina's policy, which is to pretend that the people of the Falkland Islands do not exist."

Classy.