Falklands

Remove all ads!

The Argies are gettng cross again.

Why do they keep flogging this dead horse? An attempt to generate some nationalist fervour? It'll never work because there's no chance we'll be giving them back.

And what the hell is Obama thinking? Calling for negotiations and using the islands Spanish name? Tit.

I had to laugh at "Crude Colonial Power"

 

Our defence and army has had cuts left, right and centre under the current government. This has hit the navy most, and they've either sold off or decommissioned a load of carriers & ships. We're in no state to have any fight anyone at the moment. However, the islanders themselves overwhelmingly want to remain under British sovereignty, so the Argies will have to take them by force if they want them - I'm sure the rest of the world will love that.

 

I thought this was settled about 30 years ago, no?

 

You'd think so, the Argentines seem obsessed about it. Our position will not change on this, but if the Argies do continue to strongly push, or even invade again then Mr Obama has a lot to answer for. All he needed to do was say 'stfu Argentina, get over it' or even just say nothing at all, and the threat of American intervention would have been enough for Argentina to drop it.

 

Not to be flippant about this, but I don't think this is even on Obama's - or anyelse living in America - radar. I'm a news junkie, and your link is the first I'm hearing of it. Just checked CNN.com, not one story on the whole damn site, although I suppose if I went to the search button I'd find it. But the site does show the top 10 stories of the day in the "world" section, and this story isn't one of them.

Most Americans do not even know where (or what for that matter) the Falklands are. It's just not something that anyone here is getting excited about - including the president.

 

No-one here either, it's not even top 10 in the BBC national news bit. I doubt most people here will be aware of it; the Argies have spouted off this kind of thing before.


It's all a question of self-determination. For as long as the people wish to remain British, it is the British government's responsibility to uphold that right. If we were ever to 'hand-over' the Falklands against the wishes of the islanders themselves it would be an absolute disgrace.

I just don't understand why they continue to go on about it. Unless they ante-up and do something about it, they should shut up. The islands are British, end of.

 

True the royal navy has been hit hard by spending cuts, the decomissioning of Ark Royal being at the top, but the RN still has the power to defend the island if necessary, it would just be a serious pain in the arse.

while ships have and aircraft have been decomissioned they havent been broken-up yet and are reserviceble and all of the ordinance is safely stored in scotland, Ive always said, not to worry about british forces, we have a 'plan B'

 

Not much care-factor that one around here either.

 

Fox reported on it

I'm curious as to how the Brits are responding to this. I was personally ashamed that he would side with Argentina on this issue. My understanding is that the residents of The Falklands are all British citizens and wish to remain so. If they wanted to be under Argentinian rule I don't think the British could do anything to stop them from changing. To call the islands by the Argentinian name IMO was a slap in the face to our best ally.

It really makes me wonder what his strategy is with concerns to our allies. He seems to be not so friendly with our historically best friends (U.K. and Isreal)

 

Of course! It's Obama's fault!!!

 

It's been covered on several of the "right wing" websites for a week or so.
There were links to this on the 10th http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...enezuela-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/,
11th http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vent-Argentina-retaking-Falkland-Islands.html & http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/11/argentina-and-the-falklands-a-background-post/
this on the 12th http://faustasblog.com/?p=26500 .

Most of those that read these sites have been aware of it. The links to the telegraph site were on at least a dozen or so sites.

 

What's that, rg? That's it's Obama's fault? No surprises there. But let's see if we can make this thread about Obama as well. What do you say?

Argentina is a partner with the US in the supposed "War on Terror." Argentina IS an ally of the US. In the 1980's Reagan had the same problem as Obama and had to walk the fence until it became clear that he had to choose. Argentina had been helping the Reagan people with the contra's in Central America during the early 1980s. The Reagan administration was divided over the issue but in the end sided with the UK after holding out. Since the US and England are so close, I suspect that if there is going to be a war we would still side with England. Nevertheless, it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. It was not for Reagan and it is not for Obama, despite your shame of not knowing that Argentina is an important ally of the US.

You can read more in the report to Congress:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34734.pdf

 

Oh no chandos, I wasn't trying to say it was obama's fault. I was just saying that a lot of the sites had reported on the falkland situation last week.
Sorry if I didn't make that clearer

 

Thank you, rg, for adding that. I was looking at your links. Actually, it can be an interesting topic to see how Obama will work through all this.

 

Regardless of Argentinia being an ally of the US the US have no right to interfere with something which has absolutely nothing to do with them, calling for negotiations over the sovereignty is ludicrious;

- it is simple -

Argentina say the island is theirs, the UK have held sovereignty of the Falklands since 1833, far longer then the Argentines ever held the island.
the people of the Falklands consider themselves British, and claim full British citizenship.
The argentines argue that the islanders dont have the right to decide this, as they were not the original inhabitants of the island, and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
However the British infact settled the Island in 1690, far earlier then the spanish who only had claim to the island in 1766, when they bought France out of their settlements, the British were expelled by force in 1770.
So argentinas argument is moot.

there is no negotiating.

 

Well, we did it the last time. So it's nothing new for those who are familiar with history. For you to say that "it has absolutely nothing to do with the US" is not a statement grounded in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War

 

and the treaty obligations clearly define that the US has no grounds to assist either party in the conflict. therefore it is nothing to do with them.

 

I just looked up the wiki site, and according to that, about 30% of the population consider themselves British, about 60% consider themselves "Falkland Islander" and the remaining 10% is a mix of a bunch of different groups. Seeing as how the islands were uninhabited at the time they were discovered, what the heck is a "Falkland Islander"? It makes them sound like they are a native population to the islands, but if the islands were, in fact, uncolonized at the time they were discovered, who are these people?

 

The vast majority of these people risked their lives to stay British, and get insanely angry at any suggestion of the islands falling under Argentinian sovereignty. The place is about as British as anywhere in the British Isles, and the Argies have no real claim to the place whatsoever. Hell, the islands were held by Britain, France, Spain and even the US before there was any Argentinian occupation. They're the imperialists in all this, not the UK.