UK PANIC?!

Skybird · 08-04-11, 12:36 PM

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...?.

08-04-11, 12:36 PM	#11
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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...?. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.