More Argie Bargie
Discussion
PRTVR said:
Your view is that the FI should belong to Argentina due to the location of their coast, even though it is 300 miles away, but you are happy for Spain to have an island off the African coast, Gibraltar was given to the UK ,you think we should just give it back because the Spanish kick up a fuss, if somebody sold you a car then came back saying he wanted you to give it back,what would you say?
I believe Argentina has a valid claim over the islands. I also believe the value in retaining them versus the trouble it causes by doing so is disproportionately low. I feel exactly the same way about Gibralter.We are not under threat from marauders out of the Mediterranean or in desperate need of some islands off the coast of South America. Neither provide anything of intrinsic value to our quality of life yet do create poor relations with other nations (who I might add share a common language and influence other nations with similar histories and outlooks).
We have ceded many other territories of far greater significance since the days of empire.
You have to wonder, why not these?
10 Pence Short said:
Jokes aside, I don't see what benefit it is to us, to cling onto some tiny islands thousands of miles away, at the risk of international relations and fisty cuffs. Is it worth the aggravation?
.
To clarify - you don't see any benefit in defending a Sovereign asset, where the populace hold British passports, they've held a referendum where the overwhelming majority wished to remain British and 255 British soldiers died to protect their countrymen before..
No benefit at all in the eyes of the rest of the British people and the eyes of the world?
Asterix said:
To clarify - you don't see any benefit in defending a Sovereign asset, where the populace hold British passports, they've held a referendum where the overwhelming majority wished to remain British and 255 British soldiers died to protect their countrymen before.
No benefit at all in the eyes of the rest of the British people and the eyes of the world?
No. I don't believe partaking in a war several thousand miles away, with all the human, financial and world influence costs that it would bring with it, is worth it to protect the interests of 3000 people living on the Islands.No benefit at all in the eyes of the rest of the British people and the eyes of the world?
If the islands transferred, these people would not suddenly be terminated or interned.
10 Pence Short said:
Asterix said:
To clarify - you don't see any benefit in defending a Sovereign asset, where the populace hold British passports, they've held a referendum where the overwhelming majority wished to remain British and 255 British soldiers died to protect their countrymen before.
No benefit at all in the eyes of the rest of the British people and the eyes of the world?
No. I don't believe partaking in a war several thousand miles away, with all the human, financial and world influence costs that it would bring with it, is worth it to protect the interests of 3000 people living on the Islands.No benefit at all in the eyes of the rest of the British people and the eyes of the world?
If the islands transferred, these people would not suddenly be terminated or put in interned.
Personaly, I think anywhere on the planet and 1 person is enough if they are British and on British land - I'd like to think that my government would protect me if they'd promised to do so.
im said:
Grumfutock said:
So on what grounds are your expert opinions based? What is your background to not only offer such opinions but to instantly dismiss everyone else's as irrelevent nonsense?
No seriously please explain!
1. My 'background' is merely A levels in (amongst others) History and The British Constitution. But I've also lived through most of these conflicts and have a very healthy interest in them.No seriously please explain!
2. I don't dismiss 'everyone else's' opinion as irrelevent nonsense - Just those few individuals who think that Northern Ireland was a military victory for the British.
3. Now, other than the fact that you've served in the army...as have many a
holes it has to be said...what special insight do YOU have?You have no 1st hand experience or knowledge of these events yet you dismiss everyone who disagree's with you, and they are many.
And to cap it all there is the final comment. But I will allow others to flame you for that. I refuse to discuss this with you anymore as you have the debating skills of a 5 year old. Although credit were it is due, you can change you argument and dodge questions like an expert politician but then again most of them are full of wind as well.
Asterix said:
How far away is too far and how many people is enough?
Personaly, I think anywhere on the planet and 1 person is enough if they are British and on British land - I'd like to think that my government would protect me if they'd promised to do so.
It's a matter of degree and fact on each occasion.Personaly, I think anywhere on the planet and 1 person is enough if they are British and on British land - I'd like to think that my government would protect me if they'd promised to do so.
Hint: we're allowed to agree on the same facts yet disagree on what we think is the best course of action regards them, without falling out!
im said:
Can you imagine us again loading men and armaments into a taskforce at Portsmouth (or wherever) knowing full well that the whole lot could be sunk by their superior navy before it had even passed the bay of biscay?
Then I would largely agree with you, I can't realistically see a prospect of the UK choosing a war with either Russia or China. However, we retain an independant nuclear capability and FWIW I dont' think either Russia or China would seek a conflict with us either. Additionally, we are a part of NATO and the UN, and should we be called upon by either of those alliances, then I would expect that the UK would do it's part. Say for example as a security force inserted into Ukraine to allow full and free elections to take place...
The bottom line with the Falklands and with Gibraltar is that they are British Overseas Territories that fall under the jurisdiction of the UK. As such they comprise some of the remains of the former British Empire that have voted to remain British territories.
This right to self-determination is enshrined in International Law.
The Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002; similarly the Falklanders rejected Argentine claims of sovereignty in the referendum of 2013. In both cases there was an overwhelming desire by the people to remain British Overseas Territory citizens.
Given the above, the claims by Argentina or Spain are irrelevant. The UK has a duty to protect its citizens and this includes both the Falklanders and the Gibraltarians until such time as they wish to secede from the UK.
I find it somewhat distasteful that people resident in UK, who fall under the protection of HMG, feel it perfectly OK to withdraw that same protection from others merely based upon the distance from mainland UK. If that is indeed your opinion where do you stop? The Falklands, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Anglesey, the Isle of Wight, Cornwall?
Indeed, the situations with the Falklands and with Gibraltar are in many respects similar to the British Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The major difference here, of course, is their proximity to the Mainland (so that's all right then, we'll look after them because they are just next door).
What is also notable, specifically in respect of the Falklands, is that those here who are happy to hand the islands (and their people) over to the Argentines have probably never actually been there; have never actually spoken to a Falklander; are completely unaware of just how badly the Falklanders were treated by the Argentines during the occupation of 1982. If any of you actually had fulfilled any of these criteria I very much doubt you would be quite so glib in your rejection of the Falklanders and their rights.
This right to self-determination is enshrined in International Law.
The Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002; similarly the Falklanders rejected Argentine claims of sovereignty in the referendum of 2013. In both cases there was an overwhelming desire by the people to remain British Overseas Territory citizens.
Given the above, the claims by Argentina or Spain are irrelevant. The UK has a duty to protect its citizens and this includes both the Falklanders and the Gibraltarians until such time as they wish to secede from the UK.
I find it somewhat distasteful that people resident in UK, who fall under the protection of HMG, feel it perfectly OK to withdraw that same protection from others merely based upon the distance from mainland UK. If that is indeed your opinion where do you stop? The Falklands, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Anglesey, the Isle of Wight, Cornwall?
Indeed, the situations with the Falklands and with Gibraltar are in many respects similar to the British Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The major difference here, of course, is their proximity to the Mainland (so that's all right then, we'll look after them because they are just next door).
What is also notable, specifically in respect of the Falklands, is that those here who are happy to hand the islands (and their people) over to the Argentines have probably never actually been there; have never actually spoken to a Falklander; are completely unaware of just how badly the Falklanders were treated by the Argentines during the occupation of 1982. If any of you actually had fulfilled any of these criteria I very much doubt you would be quite so glib in your rejection of the Falklanders and their rights.
10 Pence Short said:
Asterix said:
How far away is too far and how many people is enough?
Personaly, I think anywhere on the planet and 1 person is enough if they are British and on British land - I'd like to think that my government would protect me if they'd promised to do so.
It's a matter of degree and fact on each occasion.Personaly, I think anywhere on the planet and 1 person is enough if they are British and on British land - I'd like to think that my government would protect me if they'd promised to do so.
Hint: we're allowed to agree on the same facts yet disagree on what we think is the best course of action regards them, without falling out!
Just my view is that British is British, maybe an intangible to many, but I'd put myself at risk to defend that - I did, served for six years. Britain may have made some 'interesting' decisions in the past but the modern world would be completely different, and in my view, poorer had we not been the preeminant super power during the last 300 odd years.
Oakey said:
im said:
Would I?
Would I really?
Jeez
What's changed? You already said they have the superior navy, what makes you think we could suddenly win? We've had post after post from likeminded folk saying how militarily ineffective we are. Would I really?
Jeez
BTW, I've never said we are 'militarily ineffective' as that term is relative to whom the opposition are surely.
10 Pence Short said:
I believe Argentina has a valid claim over the islands.
The basis of their claim is what?10 Pence Short said:
We have ceded many other territories of far greater significance since the days of empire.
You have to wonder, why not these?
Hong Kong was a 100 year lease. Singapore wanted independance, likewise Malta, India etc You have to wonder, why not these?
There are plenty of others who wish to remain as they are: St Helena, Acension, Tristan da Cunha, Anguilla, Bermuda, Britsh Virgin Islands, Monserrat, Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia, Turks and Caicos and so on.
im said:
If you can't see the difference between fighting and almost certainly losing your life for this Island versus dieing fighting for a rock on the other side of the world then...
There will always be strong strategic reasons to have territories across the globe. Always have been.And... I don't see the difference, location wise, in defending anywhere that is British.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
What is also notable, specifically in respect of the Falklands, is that those here who are happy to hand the islands (and their people) over to the Argentines have probably never actually been there; have never actually spoken to a Falklander; are completely unaware of just how badly the Falklanders were treated by the Argentines during the occupation of 1982. If any of you actually had fulfilled any of these criteria I very much doubt you would be quite so glib in your rejection of the Falklanders and their rights.
I have every sympathy with anyone who has suffered as a result of pointless conflicts. Or any conflict for that matter. The FIs have a choice to live there or not. However the fact the nearest country to you is hostile should be taken into consideration before deciding to settle there. I'm sure if Eire or somewhere just off the coast of the UK mainland was inhabited by Argentinians we wouldn't exactly extend the welcome mat to them. goldblum said:
I have every sympathy with anyone who has suffered as a result of pointless conflicts. Or any conflict for that matter. The FIs have a choice to live there or not. However the fact the nearest country to you is hostile should be taken into consideration before deciding to settle there. I'm sure if Eire or somewhere just off the coast of the UK mainland was inhabited by Argentinians we wouldn't exactly extend the welcome mat to them.
Wtf are you on about? EIRE is inhabited by the Irish.. we're not trying to lay claim to the rest of Ireland, are we? Are the French hostile to Channel Islanders?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff