More Argie Bargie

[rhinochopig]

Oakey said:

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?

Oof - a good argument ruined by the last sentence. The French are hostile to everyone, including each other

[Asterix]

im said:

Grumfutock said:

And to cap it all there is the final comment. But I will allow others to flame you for that.

Gosh...lets see how many do.

I'll give you a clue as you appear to be lacking one...there are aholes in every walk of life - the forces get no exemption.

aholes with guns and stuff - dangerous mix

[Oakey]

rhinochopig said:

Oof - a good argument ruined by the last sentence. The French are hostile to everyone, including each other

Yeah but they're not looking to invade, are they!

Are they?

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

goldblum said:

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 think you will find that the Falklanders have been there for almost 10 generations. It's hardly a case of them deciding settle next to a hostile country.

You say the Falklanders have a choice to live there or not. The point is they have made that choice, the choice of self-determination which is enshrined in International Law and evidenced by the referendum of last year.

goldblum said:

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.

I'm not sure what your argument here is.

However, the fact that, until relatively recently, Eire was anti UK and tacitly supported the conflict in NI, yet we did not invade Eire (a militarily inferior Nation) seems to have eluded you.

[Asterix]

Oakey said:

rhinochopig said:

Oof - a good argument ruined by the last sentence. The French are hostile to everyone, including each other

Yeah but they're not looking to invade, are they!

Are they?

Don't give them any ideas!

But.. ok, let's go there. Say the French ended up in the same complete st state that the Argies are in. There is a possibility, however remote, they might say something stupid - they then might do something stupid because they look daft.

Remember, however much politicians say it doesn't happen, history always repeats itself, usualy with a twist.

Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 15th April 12:26

[DMN]

goldblum said:

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.

Thats rather the wrong statement to make.

The FI's where living on the Islands long before Argentina became hostile to them. Indeed before the Junta decided to spill blood over them, they enjoyed very good relationships with each other.

[rhinochopig]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

goldblum said:

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 think you will find that the Falklanders have been there for almost 10 generations. It's hardly a case of them deciding settle next to a hostile country.

You say the Falklanders have a choice to live there or not. The point is they have made that choice, the choice of self-determination which is enshrined in International Law and evidenced by the referendum of last year.

goldblum said:

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.

I'm not sure what your argument here is.

However, the fact that, until relatively recently, Eire was anti UK and tacitly supported the conflict in NI, yet we did not invade Eire (a militarily inferior Nation) seems to have eluded you.

Invade <-------------> Conduct numerous covert SF operations. One could argue how long that dotted line is

[Grumfutock]

im said:

Grumfutock said:

And to cap it all there is the final comment. But I will allow others to flame you for that.

Gosh...lets see how many do.

I'll give you a clue as you appear to be lacking one...there are aholes in every walk of life - the forces get no exemption.

But that isn't what you typed was it? You never said there are some aholes in the forces now did you? Hmmmm? Did you?

No!!! You wrote "Now, other than the fact that you've served in the army...as have many aholes it has to be said...what special insight do YOU have?"

Maybe I can't read very well, being an ex soldier ahole and all, but I take that to read "many" no "some"!

And yet again you move your own goal posts!!

[loafer123]

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.

Noting your username, how would that "logic" be applied to Israel, for example?

[Sonic]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

...
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?
...

Entirely agree.

The "I'm alright, Jack" attitude is quite astounding.

I swear some would rather just hand-over everything we have to keep others happy and avoid any form of conflict. There comes a point where you have to say enough is enough and stand your ground. I feel that's where we're at with The Falklands.

[im]

Grumfutock said:

But that isn't what you typed was it? You never said there are some aholes in the forces now did you? Hmmmm? Did you?

No!!! You wrote "Now, other than the fact that you've served in the army...as have many aholes it has to be said...what special insight do YOU have?"

Maybe I can't read very well, being an ex soldier ahole and all, but I take that to read "many" no "some"!

And yet again you move your own goal posts!!

And you're back...like I knew you would be...

OK...lets look at what I said...

im said:

Now, other than the fact that you've served in the army...as have many aholes

im said:

...there are aholes in every walk of life - the forces get no exemption.

Nope...I'm not seeing the conflict (geddit) here.

Perhaps you can explain.

[AstonZagato]

Whilst I think im, goldblum and 10PS are utterly wrong in their attitude to the FI, there is one recent example of the UK Govt selling a population down the river for entirely pragmatic reasons.

Hong Kong.

It was sovereign British territory AFAIK but was not a viable entity after the lease on the New Territories expired - not enough land (and crucially not enough water) to sustain the population. The decision was taken to hand it over to China, despite the objections of the local population (I don't recall that they were asked but it was not popular IIRC). It was never going to be taken by force (but would have been indefensible so close to the Chinese mainland). All the Chinese needed to do was turn off the water and wait a couple of months.

As for giving the FI to Argentina: why exactly? What makes their claim legitimate? France has a better claim, IMHO.

[goldblum]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

goldblum said:

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.

I'm not sure what your argument here is.

However, the fact that, until relatively recently, Eire was anti UK and tacitly supported the conflict in NI, yet we did not invade Eire (a militarily inferior Nation) seems to have eluded you.

I was using Eire as an example and thought people might grasp that. Imagine if the Isle of Wight was settled by the Portuguese 400 odd years ago. D'you think they'd still be there now? And if they were d'you think we'd be happy about it? Of course not - which is the underlying gripe of the Argentines is quite reasonable. D'you really think it's worth losing lives over such a stupid ideal? Of course not. Right to self determination - a convenient little agreement set up by a group of countries with no unilateral jurisdiction over any others. Incidentally the larger countries i.e. the US and Russia got to war quite happily in direct defiance of UN edicts. Once again it's alright for some countries to behave that way, but not others. Incidentally the Malvinas dispute would actually be with Spain if it hadn't ceded its South American land. Then how ridiculous would that be - Spain vs UK on the other side of the world. People would shake their heads in wonder at the stupidity of it all.

[Rovinghawk]

10 Pence Short said:

I believe Argentina has a valid claim over the islands..................... I feel exactly the same way about Gibralter.

May I ask the basis for this valid claim, other than the fact that they happen to be nearby?

As for Spain/Gibraltar, when they give back Ceuta their argument might be strengthened- until then it appears to be pure double standards. Even my Spanish friends admit this.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 15th April 13:31

[Lurking Lawyer]

im said:

but my point remains...our posture over the Falklands is entirely conditional on who the enemy are...luckily it's a poor nation in South America.

I don't mean to be rude but surely that's just a statement of the bleeding obvious? There's not much we could do about it faced with an invasion by a military equal - or even someone who simply has more and better kit than the Argentines - irrespective of whether the political will was there to do so.

FWIW, my view is that as long as the 1982 conflict remains in living memory, nothing very much is going to change in HMG's approach - it would currently be electorally very risky to be seen to hang the Falkland Islanders out to dry when there are still people around who fought there and who lost husbands/sons/fathers.

Fast forward twenty or thirty years to a point where the Falklands conflict is something that people were aware took place decades ago but don't have any strong feelings and that may very well change - there may not be the political will to put men and materiel in harm's way over a few hundred square miles of bleak rocks on the other side of the world, even assuming we still have the capability to do so.

Things change over time. Let's face it, if the Argies hadn't invaded in 1982, there's every chance (judging from some of the declassified papers from the 70s) that they have got what they wanted peacefully and that HMG, given its ambivalence about the islands' future, was gearing up for a move towards a possible dialogue about shared sovereignty.

Oil is the wild card though, of course.....

Edited by Lurking Lawyer on Tuesday 15th April 13:38

[DMN]

goldblum said:

Imagine if the Isle of Wight was settled by the Portuguese 400 odd years ago. D'you think they'd still be there now? And if they were d'you think we'd be happy about it?

The Isle of Wight is another poor example. You're comparing Apples with Chickens.

The Falklands where settled before Argentina exhisted. Where as England/Britian did during your hypothetical exmaple.

Spain didn't even control the nearest part of South America to the Falklands at this time. Again going back to your example, its the same as saying the Scotish have a claim on the Isle of Wight. To meet the same conditions as the Argentians do over the Falklands, the Scots would have to rampage southwards some 280 years after the Portuguese moved in (or 120 years ago from the present day). Killing or selling into slavery everyone they met (google Conquest of the desert) and forcing the native tribes of England away (Patagonia in the real life example).

[Jinx]

goldblum said:

I was using Eire as an example and thought people might grasp that. Imagine if the Isle of Wight was settled by the Portuguese 400 odd years ago. D'you think they'd still be there now? And if they were d'you think we'd be happy about it? Of course not - which is the underlying gripe of the Argentines is quite reasonable. D'you really think it's worth losing lives over such a stupid ideal? Of course not. Right to self determination - a convenient little agreement set up by a group of countries with no unilateral jurisdiction over any others. Incidentally the larger countries i.e. the US and Russia got to war quite happily in direct defiance of UN edicts. Once again it's alright for some countries to behave that way, but not others. Incidentally the Malvinas dispute would actually be with Spain if it hadn't ceded its South American land. Then how ridiculous would that be - Spain vs UK on the other side of the world. People would shake their heads in wonder at the stupidity of it all.

What are your feelings on Ceuta and Melilla?

[goldblum]

I'm afraid I've never heard of them.

[Jinx]

goldblum said:

I'm afraid I've never heard of them.

Spanish enclaves in Morocco - it was your Portugal and Isle of Wight scenario (though 500 years in this case) that brought them to mind.

[10 Pence Short]

Rovinghawk said:

May I ask the basis for this valid claim, other than the fact that they happen to be nearby?

My understanding is that we abandoned the islands in the 1700s, leaving no more than a plaque behind. The Spanish then did similar.

I believe in the early 1800s the Argentinians settled there until the British turned up again mob handed nearly 50 years after we had left, demanding ownership. Owing to the fact that they were outgunned (and their Navy was primarily British mercenaries), the Argentinians were forced to concede.

The impression I get is that the British were but one of a number of nations who came and went from the Falklands. The French had early control but willingly gave it to the Spanish. The Spanish left of their own volition, as did the British. It seems only when the Argentinians had made a proper effort at colonisation did the British then return and take it from them.

Considering no nation was colonising the islands at the time the Argentinians arrived, and its proximity to their own lands, I'd accept a claim from them over the islands. We took it from them under duress, as far as I can see.