UK PANIC?!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

Please moderators, would you close this thread before it turns out to be a political flamming?

I'm at a loss to see anything untoward here.....all I see is a healthy debate, people sharing opinions and viewpoints with nobody breaking the forum rules or anyone being attacked or name called on a personal basis (my own personal dislike), nor have there been any bad post reports.

Feel free to report the thread stating on what grounds your objecting and I'm confident a moderator will respond but it won't/can't be me because I'm going to be posting my views here soon.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Go read Debt of Honor, good old Jack puts it in a simple to understand way.

Still the xyz-foreign-community of 3000 people in let'S say Berlin do claim national sovereignity there, but understand that they are in Germany, not let'S say Uganda.

If it were like you say, then it would be making much more sense if people that wish to be British, would not try to live by that practially in South America, but in - guess what? In Britain. The German state is in Germany, the Argeninian state is in Argentina, but the Brish Island are in the Southern arctic?! They could at least have choosen for the closer polar region, the Northern Arctic!

Also, by your logic it seems amazing that India and Austrralia are no longer British colonies. Brits with Briotish passports were living there, and do so until today, or not? And more than just 3000.

I assume for traditionalists it also is a sentimental thing, glory of the good ol' empire and how-sweet-to-die-for-the-Vaterland and all that stuff. Well, I use to talk of cultiural heritage and identity, and lack of that in the EU, myself quite often, don'T I. But just patriotism or even nationalism over a handful of dirt and rock far, far away from one's homeland is not what I am about.

I vaguely remember that some weeks ago there was a report about the first Brit living on the Falklands chosing for Argentinian nationality. But I did not read the essay, just caught the headline.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I was just about to ask this. According to Wikipedia, there's a population of just over 3000 on the islands, with an annual GDP of $75 milion USD. I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that. But if there's resources there, that makes more sense.

Yeah untapped resources that could eventually match some of the largest known to man or even bigger (under the ice shelf) are fundantally what are at stake here Mark.

Originally Posted by August

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

The oil wasn't there 29 years ago, well it obviously was, but not discovered. Just the people. At least these days people know it's whereabouts, in '82 they all went reaching for the world atlas.

Originally Posted by Karle94

There was more to that than just British territory and citizens. This was not the first time that other counties had seized British islands, this was the first time that Great Britain reacted to it. They didn`t want to seem weak in their sphere of influence, just like the US in the Cuban missile crisis back in 62.

In 1982 the Argentinian military were of the firm belief Britain would never amass an armade to travel to the South Atlantic.

In military terms they may have been right but what they forgot to take into account was the political counter.

Maggie was seeking re-election a year or two later and was way back in the opinion polls...this was her big opportunity to regain much needed popularity.

The British people were looking for someone with the stature of a previous Tory leader, Churchill and she knew it, took the gamble and the rest is history.

Strange how she was ditched later as was Churchill before her.

[ABBAFAN]

I like Horses.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by ABBAFAN

I like Horses.

What a coincidence !, i like potatoes too

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Still the xyz-foreign-community of 3000 people in let'S say Berlin do claim national sovereignity there, but understand that they are in Germany, not let'S say Uganda.

If it were like you say, then it would be making much more sense if people that wish to be British, would not try to live by that practially in South America, but in - guess what? In Britain. The German state is in Germany, the Argeninian state is in Argentina, but the Brish Island are in the Southern arctic?! They could at least have choosen for the closer polar region, the Northern Arctic!

The question should not be where the islands are, the passage I quoted shows just that, it is that people of the UK traveled to an uninhabited island (there was another European settlement there but that is beside the point) and made it their home and wanted to remain subjects of the British Crown. It is the will of the people there that is paramount, when one side strips away that will by unjust force of arms that side loses any right to make claims, at least in this day and age they do.

Also, by your logic it seems amazing that India and Austrralia are no longer British colonies. Brits with Briotish passports were living there, and do so until today, or not? And more than just 3000.

Ah but Australia's head of state is still Queen Elisabeth the 2nd, they have a Governor General (the representative of the crown), their warships are "Her Majesty's Australian Ship". The same can be said of Canada and New Zealand. They are part of the Commonwealth and the British Crown does technically have executive power over them.

India on the other hand left the Commonwealth along with most of the 3rd world garbage (Ireland excluded).

I assume for traditionalists it also is a sentimental thing, glory of the good ol' empire and how-sweet-to-die-for-the-Vaterland and all that stuff. Well, I use to talk of cultiural heritage and identity, and lack of that in the EU, myself quite often, don'T I. But just patriotism or even nationalism over a handful of dirt and rock far, far away from one's homeland is not what I am about.

I vaguely remember that some weeks ago there was a report about the first Brit living on the Falklands chosing for Argentinian nationality. But I did not read the essay, just caught the headline.

There is always that one stupid person, just the other day and US citizen was arrested as a member of Al Qaeda. There are those who just want to rebel against the system: Stick it to "The Man" as we say.

[Herr_Pete]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

I'm sorry if I let myself go misunderstood. My question did not regard Malvinas, but actually brazilian and argentinian governmnent's plans to build ssn, cause reading the headlines, seemed UK was in shock mainly because of Malvinas.

Falklands**
Falklands**

I refuse to accept the Malvinas as a name

But your questions clearly points to the falklands when you ask Brits about a possible Argentinian Navy build up. If we never owned the Falklands then we wouldn't care less of a build up but because of the it will always point to that.

India on the other hand left the Commonwealth along with most of the 3rd world garbage (Ireland excluded).

I object, India and all those other 3rd world countries are still in the Commonwealth, Ireland isn't in the Commonwealth but is a piece of third world garbage

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I admit, ignoring any legal bean counting attempt, from a point of reason I have a problem with claiming an small rock on the other side of the planet to be an object of national sovereignity. Whether it be Guam for the US, or Gibraltar or Falkland Islands for Britain, or any similiar geographic absurd constellation - just to leave a stamp-sized piece of land in another, a completely and totally diffent place of the globa, and then make claims about it and link it to national soveriegnity and national home territoies - it makes no sense, it is hilarious, it is absurd. It even does not serve in any understandable diplomatic function, like embassies do.

But possible that such geographic platforms and outposts, like a big warship eternally fixed in its geographical position, serve opportunistic political and economic intentions. But then it is an issue of economic intentions - not national sovereignity per se.

That britain still claims power over the falklands to me makes as much sense as if Madagaskar would make sovereign national claims for the Orkney Islands. The Orkneys of Man lies offshore the British coast, and the Falklands lie offshore South America, not Scotland.

For heaven's sake, let reasonability prevail just this time. It's on the other side of the planet - what else must be explained on this...?.

+1

Unfortunatly there is much more (Pride) involved.

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Still the xyz-foreign-community of 3000 people in let'S say Berlin do claim national sovereignity there, but understand that they are in Germany, not let'S say Uganda.

If it were like you say, then it would be making much more sense if people that wish to be British, would not try to live by that practially in South America, but in - guess what? In Britain. The German state is in Germany, the Argeninian state is in Argentina, but the Brish Island are in the Southern arctic?! They could at least have choosen for the closer polar region, the Northern Arctic!

Also, by your logic it seems amazing that India and Austrralia are no longer British colonies. Brits with Briotish passports were living there, and do so until today, or not? And more than just 3000.

I assume for traditionalists it also is a sentimental thing, glory of the good ol' empire and how-sweet-to-die-for-the-Vaterland and all that stuff. Well, I use to talk of cultiural heritage and identity, and lack of that in the EU, myself quite often, don'T I. But just patriotism or even nationalism over a handful of dirt and rock far, far away from one's homeland is not what I am about.

I vaguely remember that some weeks ago there was a report about the first Brit living on the Falklands chosing for Argentinian nationality. But I did not read the essay, just caught the headline.

People Who Enjoy Waving Flags Don't Deserve To Have One
Banksy

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by Herr_Pete

Falklands**
Falklands**

I refuse to accept the Malvinas as a name

But your questions clearly points to the falklands when you ask Brits about a possible Argentinian Navy build up. If we never owned the Falklands then we wouldn't care less of a build up but because of the it will always point to that.

You may call it whatever you like tho.
I call it Malvinas. Its original name, given by its first settlers, was îles Malouines!

[Oberon]

At the end of the day, like most things in the world, it all boils down to who has the biggest gun. So, for the meanwhile the Falklands will remain the Falklands, Guam will remain Guam, and so on and so forth.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

You may call it whatever you like tho.
I call it Malvinas. Its original name, given by its first settlers, was îles Malouines!

I can accept both îles Malouines as well as Falkland Islands to be islands correct names although I personally prefer Falklands. Reason to this is that Falklands is name given by party with longest presence there. However I don't see why those island should be called Islas Malvinas. I know Spain used that name when they had presence there, but Islas Malvinas was just third name used for it (after french and english names).

Islands were first spotted by Dutch who didn't visit there nor claim them. Then came French and after them Britons - at first without knowing about each other. Then Spain took control of French part of islands. After that islands were some time uninhabited by anyone but claimed by Britain and Spain. Then moved to British control.

After all this I don't see Argentine claim to islands to be strong or valid. Ofcourse this is my opinion (and most likely British too) and others (including Argentinians) are free to disagree.

EDIT: Forgot from list above that Argentine claimed sovereignity to islands from 1812 (their independence) to 1833 (settlers removed by British) on grounds that when they declared independence from Spain sovereignity of Falkland Islands moved to Argentina.
EDIT2: Also forgot to mention that Argentine held de facto control of islands only from December 1832 to January 1833 and during Falklands War in 1982. I also forgot that Dutch (United Provinces) actually held de facto control from August 1829 to December 1831.
EDIT2B - CORRECTION: United Provinces in this context refers to United Provinces of South America not to todays Netherlands. My apologizes for error.
EDIT3: United States de facto sovereignity from December 1831 to January 1832.

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

EDIT: Forgot from list above that Argentine claimed sovereignity to islands from 1812 (their independence) to 1833 (settlers removed by British) on grounds that when they declared independence from Spain sovereignity of Falkland Islands moved to Argentina.

Right.

[jumpy]

So, what's your opinion of these events and responses then, OP?

Evidently, you must have had a reason for it (other than wanting to know what we all think about it for knowledges sake).

At a pinch I'd say you don't think britain has a legitimate claim on the islands, but that's just my speculation on what I've read here.

Depending on what side of the fence you sit on makes all the difference in this case.

Question: (a hypothetical one at that) You have spent time in argentina; do you think that has shaped your posing of this topic with a leaning toward their claim on the islands? And if this is so, could it be said that if you had spent that time in the UK, would you feel duly supportive of the idea it belongs to us?

Arbitrary, I know

The falklands has been a thorny issue here in the past for britishers and argentinians.

As far as the british government is concerned there is nothing to discuss, but that's no how we do things in GT (well, most of the time lol).

Go on! Spill those beans chap, you know you want to