The Falklands thread

i think she's lost it to be honest, at one point it sounded like she was blaming the uk for the 82 war !?
 
Strife212 said:
They are just mad, it's literally nonsense.
Click to expand...

I try to understand there point of view but it just makes no sense to me and im glad others agree with me I just thought maybe I was being a colonial warmonger with rose tinted glasses on and missing the logical well structured points of views :p ..... clearly not shes just crazy and trying to hide what a crap place there country is in currently by defecting the view away
 
Colonial tendancies are bad, I can totally understand Argentinas point. It's not as if the entire nation of Argentina owes its existence to colonisation by Europeans, is it?

OH WAIT

In other news: Give the UK back the Republic of Ireland and France. They are close to us, therefore they must be ours.
 
[TW]Fox;21604266 said:
Colonial tendancies are bad, I can totally understand Argentinas point. It's not as if the entire nation of Argentina owes its existence to colonisation by Europeans, is it?

OH WAIT

In other news: Give the UK back the Republic of Ireland and France. They are close to us, therefore they must be ours.
Click to expand...

Can we have Norway? They seem to be some sort of Socialist utopia. Denmark has some pretty impressive social mobility. Don't want the French, let the Germans have them.
 
[TW]Fox;21604266 said:
Colonial tendancies are bad, I can totally understand Argentinas point. It's not as if the entire nation of Argentina owes its existence to colonisation by Europeans, is it?

OH WAIT

In other news: Give the UK back the Republic of Ireland and France. They are close to us, therefore they must be ours.
Click to expand...

Well said you made me laugh out loud with the wife giving me a puzzled look :p
 
I must say though I'm really enjoying all that free oil we got from Iraq. It certainly makes a change from paying $125 on the spot market which translates to 142p a litre petrol.

OH WAIT.
 
have a read of this rather excellent piece: http://www.wildisland.gs/atlantis/gettingitright.pdf

proof if proof were needed that sucessive Argentinian governments have lied and obfuscated the debate around the falklands.

it's extremely comprehensive.

some extracts:

2. The Falkland Islands; the Falklands dispute
The Falkland Islands (called in Spanish “Islas Malvinas”) are a group of islands in the South Atlantic,
some 300 miles (450 kilometres) from the coast of Argentina. There are two main islands, East and West
Falkland, and almost 750 smaller ones. The islands have a total area of 12,713 square kilometres (4,700
square miles) – they are larger in area than Jamaica, Lebanon or Cyprus, and they are as large as the 25
smallest member states of the United Nations added together. Their resident population is about 3,000.
The Islands never had any native inhabitants, and were first settled by France; there was a French
settlement at Port Louis on East Falkland from 1764 to 1767 (section 8, fig. 4 below). The islands were
formally claimed by Britain in 1765, and from 1766 to 1774, with one interruption, there was a British
garrison at Port Egmont on Saunders Island, where ruins still exist (fig. 1). The French settlement was
taken over by Spain in 1767, which maintained a garrison at Port Louis for 44 years until 1811. The
present population of the islands is a unique mixture: some families are descended from shipwrecked
Danish, Norwegian or Swedish seamen; some are descended from settlers from Uruguay, France, Finland
or Gibraltar, but most are of British origin. Many families have lived in the islands for five or six
generations, several for seven generations, and a couple even for eight or nine generations.
Click to expand...

10. Spain abandons the Islands, 1811; David Jewett, 1820
In 1810 a revolt against Spanish colonial power broke out in Buenos Aires; in 1811 the Spanish
garrison was withdrawn from the Falkland Islands to Montevideo (now in Uruguay); the Spanish
Viceroyalty of the River Plate broke up into several independent countries (Argentina, Uruguay,
Paraguay, Bolivia) and by 1826 the whole of South America was independent apart from Cuba and Puerto.........The Argentine 2007 pamphlets say (English p. 2, Spanish p. 5) that neither Britain nor the United
States made any objection to the announcement of Jewett’s “taking possession” of the Falklands, thereby
implying that those countries acquiesced in it. However, the Buenos Aires government made no official
announcement (it did not know anything had happened in the islands), and there were no diplomatic
relations between Britain and Argentina at that time, so there were no channels for any reaction.
In 1832, Louis Vernet (see section 11) included a totally erroneous account of the activities of David
Jewett in a report to Argentine Foreign Minister Vicente de Maza, as part of the defence of his own
activities which had caused a crisis with the Americans (see section 16).1 Vernet claimed that Jewett had
found fifty ships in the Falklands, had ordered them to cease fishing (i.e. killing seals) and had ordered
them to leave. That was entirely untrue. Jewett “vegetated” at Puerto Soledad (Port Louis); he
issued no orders to anyone whatever. Vernet was (perhaps deliberately) confusing Jewett’s actions with
his own actions 12 years later. Vernet’s untrue account has become widely believed and is repeated in
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Utrecht
Twelve treaties were signed at Utrecht in 1713 between various European powers, notably the general
peace treaty often called “the Treaty of Utrecht”. None includes formal British recognition of Spain’s
possession of South America as claimed in the Argentine 2007 pamphlets (English p. 1, Spanish p. 3);
Britain merely promises assistance in returning Spanish possessions in America to their state in the time
of the death of Carlos II of Spain (which had sparked the War of the Spanish Succession). Like the treaty
of 1670, the Treaty of Utrecht refers to territories “possessed” by Spain – neither in 1670 nor in 1713 did
Spain possess the Falklands in any real sense except by the (invalid) “Treaty” of Tordesillas.
The Argentine 2007 pamphlets also claim that the Treaty of Utrecht gave Spain an “exclusive right to
sail in the waters of the South Atlantic.”2 That is completely untrue; the treaty confirmed no such
exclusive right – Britain never accepted any restriction on the freedom of the seas, and retained St Helena
in the South Atlantic throughout the 18th century (and right up to today). Many British ships, particularly
from the East India Company, sailed in the South Atlantic on their way to India and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
N17 said:
We invaded Iraq, Afghanistan...... Blew Libya up (though the libyans thanked us). And now we are wanting yet more oil.
Click to expand...

[TW]Fox;21604569 said:
You think we 'invaded' the Falkland Islands, in 1833, for oil that wasn't even discovered until 1998?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the first part of your post - if you could provide a credible answer to Fox's question I might begin to take you seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom