Falklands/Malvinas latest, help from God sought.

Hong Kong was only on 'Lease' to Britain, the contract stated when & on what terms that 'Lease' would end.

No it wasn't, I suggest you check the terms of the leases and which territories they covered.
You will no doubt note that the walled city in the new territories was never leased to Britain and that Hong Kong island itself and the land south of the new territories were not under lease from China.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Add to that fact that islanders recently voted on this issue. In referendum whether to keep current overseas territory status 99.80% voted 'Yes' (1513 votes) while 0.20% voted 'No' (3 - three - votes).

But those three votes were the Holy Trinity!



.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Diopos

But those three votes were the Holy Trinity!



.

I don't think that God's eligible to vote, though. He isn't a citizen of any country!

Damn beuracracy!

I don't think that God's eligible to vote, though. He isn't a citizen of any country!

Since she is omnipresent she is a citizen of all countries.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Holy war over the Malvinas, eh?

Deus vult!

(Note: I am joking)

No you're not!


HunterICX

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it wasn't, I suggest you check the terms of the leases and which territories they covered.
You will no doubt note that the walled city in the new territories was never leased to Britain and that Hong Kong island itself and the land south of the new territories were not under lease from China.

Besides that, you also have the fact that the citizens of Hong Kong never stood up as one body & stated publicly that they wished to remain a British dependancy, something that the Falklands have been doing for decades.

Another point (& it's a big one) Hong Kong wasn't first settled by the British, unlike the Falklands.

Besides that

You mean besides your very basic error?

you also have the fact that the citizens of Hong Kong never stood up as one body & stated publicly that they wished to remain a British dependancy

You mean that the British governement never allowed a referendum don't you.

something that the Falklands have been doing for decades.

Are these the decades including the British government stripping them of their passport rights without heeding their objections or are these a different Falklands you are on about?

Another point (& it's a big one) Hong Kong wasn't first settled by the British, unlike the Falklands.

You should know full well that first settlement happens to be a matter of dispute.

[August]

Originally Posted by Twin Screws

Another point (& it's a big one) Hong Kong wasn't first settled by the British, unlike the Falklands.

Exactly. Can't argue that the British weren't there long before the Argentinians.

Exactly. Can't argue that the British weren't there long before the Argentinians.

Incorrect, the French were there first, they ceded their claim to the Spanish and the Spanish ceded their claim to Argentina.
That means that the Argentinian claim predates the British claim as it is a territorial legacy issue.

[HundertzehnGustav]

It is the land of god.
and God is with the british.
because....
errrr...
gotta go. Phone's ringing.


That woman is Nuts.
The Pope is Nuts.

This thread is pointless.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That means that the Argentinian claim predates the British claim as it is a territorial legacy issue.

It's a natural resource and voter gathering (on both sides) issue.

[Synthfg]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Incorrect, the French were there first, they ceded their claim to the Spanish and the Spanish ceded their claim to Argentina.
That means that the Argentinian claim predates the British claim as it is a territorial legacy issue.

Nice little video which covers the history

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Since she is omnipresent she is a citizen of all countries.

That doesn't explain why at a Christening the other week the vicar said that it could only be done in a church 'to be in front of god'.

Oh, the hypocracy of religions.

And this is the first thread I've created where somebody has said it's pointless. Although some may have thought it.

Nice little video which covers the history

Are you trying to prove that the Heritage foundation are brainless muppets?

That doesn't explain why at a Christening the other week the vicar said that it could only be done in a church 'to be in front of god'.

Oh, the hypocracy of religions.

Herr Berbunch, you could have got them to do an open air christening in Galway, just dip the baby in the river jordan.
Might be a bit cold yet though.

Originally Posted by Synthfg

Apart from Prey, what on earth does she think he can do

Well, Im not into religion nor do I care about any pope but back in the 60's during the cuban missile crisis? Guess who negotiated with the US and Russia. Pope John Paul II.

In many documentations about this topic it was mentioned that his negotiations have been what saved us some "bright moments".

I can't say how accurate those reports are though.

I (want to) believe it, so the church finally did something good... But that's just me.