More Argie Bargie
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
There were 3 treaties but I tried to keep it simple. Basically what happened was we beat China in a war and in reparations across 50 years and 3 treaties we got a number of concessions in China. That resulted in quite a bit of premium land. When the lease of most of the land was up in 1997 we gave it back, even the part that we were given in perpetuity as to garner favour with the modernising Chinese who were still the great untapped international market. But it was all planned out over 15 years and not just "meekly handed over", which is what got me to respond.
I seem to remember that Hong Kong Island itself has almost no fresh water. Without the supply of water from the New Territories (the bit that was leased) it was simply not viable. The Chinese wouldn't have needed to act militarily at all. Turning off the water supply would have caused capitulation in days.That might be what I was thinking of, I originally (see the quote after my post you quoted) mentioned that one wasn't any good without the other in my Heathrow comment but took it out of my edited post that you quote above as I couldn't remember what it was. I see now that 70% of all drinking water is imported mainly from the Dongjiang River in neighbouring Guangdong province, they built numerous small dams built in the valleys of the territory to hold it although new reservoirs were built around the islands.
RichyBoy said:
Why don't we reduce our overseas aid and share the falklands resources on the condition that the revenue will only go to argentinian poor people. We could send 500,000 bureaucrats from the public sector and 500 mp's to administer the thing; we'd actually be better off.
Good start but after "reduce our overseas aid" you sound like a strange half quisling (labour), half (rabid) DM reading idiot.Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 4th January 17:24
MartG said:
There are units in the British armed forces that could have repaired runway damage in a matter of hours.
On the question of colonialism, which Kirchner keeps banging on about, I don't think the name 'Kirchner' originated from any of the 35 groups of indigenous peoples that existed prior to the arrival of the Spanish in 1530. If she's that concerned about colonialism, maybe she should hand the land back to the indigenous tribes and f
k off back to Germany ( where her name originates ) or Spain ?
On the question of colonialism, which Kirchner keeps banging on about, I don't think the name 'Kirchner' originated from any of the 35 groups of indigenous peoples that existed prior to the arrival of the Spanish in 1530. If she's that concerned about colonialism, maybe she should hand the land back to the indigenous tribes and f
k off back to Germany ( where her name originates ) or Spain ?
you may well be onto something there."Fernández was born in Ringuelet, a suburb west of La Plata, Province of Buenos Aires, daughter of Eduardo Fernández (of Spanish heritage) and Ofelia Esther Wilhelm (of German descent)"
"Cristina Elisabet Fernández Wilhelm is the daughter of Eduardo Fernández and Ofelia Esther Wilhelm. Cristina was born on 19 February 1953 in La Plata, capital of the province of Buenos Aires, and was the wife of Néstor Kirchner, President of Argentina from 2004-2007. Cristina was elected to succeed him and was inagurated on 10 December 2007. She was elected to a second term in 2011.
Her mother is the daughter of Carlos Wilhelm, who is reported to be a descendant of Volga German immigrants from the colony of Huck. However, Carlos arrived in Buenos Aires in 1929, and documents record there that he came from Germany. He did not appear to have any connection with the Volga German Wilhelm families of Urdinnarain in Entre Rios Province. If there is evidence of his Volga German ancestry, please notify the CVGS web administrator."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fern%C3%A1nd...
http://cvgs.cu-portland.edu/history/biographies/bi...
"FourWheelDrift said:
I wouldn't worry too much about the Argentinians, we've had the Welsh invading Argentina (Patagonia) for the last 147 years and they've done nothing about it.
That must be embarrassing for them. The Welsh! "
Been there, Welsh flags everywhere. Many places doing high tea with welsh cakes! Argie folk are the most welcoming, finding English speaking kids to speak to us. ( I have crap spanish) Wierdest thing is the Spanish street graffiti signed off with Williams and Evans !
Hard to believe how friendly, when in many places in Patagonia you will find this sign.
Been to many lands, and Argie is by far the most fun, with the best steaks and wine, fantastic looking women, all the blokes love the British and Rugby, and the Falklands are never mentioned. The amount of people that rush to tell you of their English ancestry is crazy !
The Falklands war is viewed as a catastrophe; the English fighting their English descendants.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Argentinians, we've had the Welsh invading Argentina (Patagonia) for the last 147 years and they've done nothing about it.
That must be embarrassing for them. The Welsh! "
Been there, Welsh flags everywhere. Many places doing high tea with welsh cakes! Argie folk are the most welcoming, finding English speaking kids to speak to us. ( I have crap spanish) Wierdest thing is the Spanish street graffiti signed off with Williams and Evans !
Hard to believe how friendly, when in many places in Patagonia you will find this sign.
Been to many lands, and Argie is by far the most fun, with the best steaks and wine, fantastic looking women, all the blokes love the British and Rugby, and the Falklands are never mentioned. The amount of people that rush to tell you of their English ancestry is crazy !
The Falklands war is viewed as a catastrophe; the English fighting their English descendants.
Apache said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
As I have mentioned before, it's worth remembering UK meekly handed Hong Kong over to China (Chris Patten of BBC fame....) yet won't let go of a few crummy islands off the coast of Argentina.
Wonder how Brits would feel if Argentina owned the Isle of Man?
dear godWonder how Brits would feel if Argentina owned the Isle of Man?
What Apache said^^. Guys/gals, you should all know better than to properly respond to OO's deliberately provocative posts, it just stokes the fire. 
FourWheelDrift said:
that lease ended in 1997. We left, contract finished.
Whilst that's the standard excuse people trot out it's hardly indicative of robust Western democratic thinking is it?Let's face facts, Britain didn't give a toss about what the people in HK thought or wanted so long as the Chinese mega-state was kept happy...
where's that 'looooooser' smiley?Ozzie Osmond said:
Whilst that's the standard excuse people trot out it's hardly indicative of robust Western democratic thinking is it?
Let's face facts, Britain didn't give a toss about what the people in HK thought or wanted so long as the Chinese mega-state was kept happy...
I think you need to distinguish a purely legal analysis from a less clearcut politico-moral analysis. Let's face facts, Britain didn't give a toss about what the people in HK thought or wanted so long as the Chinese mega-state was kept happy...
The legal basis for occupying HK was a fixed term lease. It expired and so did our legal entitlement to it. We would not have had a legal leg to stand on had we refused to hand it back.
Contrast that with the legal position here which, while not entirely clear cut, generally seems more favourable to the UK's position. It is at the very least arguable so gives a basis for not just handing them back to the Argies.
Irrespective of whether you think it was the right thing to do morally, handing back HK was inarguably the right thing to do legally.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Contrast that with the legal position here which, while not entirely clear cut, generally seems more favourable to the UK's position. It is at the very least arguable so gives a basis for not just handing them back to the Argies.
I'm not convinced it's a shade of grey anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Securi...
The Security Council said:
"The Security Council..Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
By the rules of the UN Argentina have shot themselves in the foot. As soon as they started a shooting war, they gave up any claim they might have had to the islands. davepoth said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
Contrast that with the legal position here which, while not entirely clear cut, generally seems more favourable to the UK's position. It is at the very least arguable so gives a basis for not just handing them back to the Argies.
I'm not convinced it's a shade of grey anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Securi...
The Security Council said:
"The Security Council..Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
By the rules of the UN Argentina have shot themselves in the foot. As soon as they started a shooting war, they gave up any claim they might have had to the islands. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff