Falkland Islands

[1duck]

Do you know, whilst some of us get all hot and bothered about what some are saying regards this issue, whatever is decided is the consensus means absolutely nothing, because us the plebs have no say.

Hit it on the head.

 

[t-stoff]

but you can have an opinion and get informed to sustain that.. : )

 

[Signal11th]

Christ mate you talk some shit, Argentina has never had a valid claim, They invaded last time and lost, maybe you and few of your 5th column buddies can go and help out with the next "democratic" election they have in Argentina.

Which bit of argentina being closer to the falklands is shit exactly? saying that you have a valid claim because you stuck a flag in something a couple hundred years ago is hillarious. We should go take back hong kong whilst we are on, damn chinese stealing our colony.

Not really,the dutch sighted them first then the french had the first outpost on the island then followed by the English/British until 1776,Spain didn't enter the field until 1776-1811,So were is the Argentina claim? If anything it's the French who have the better claim closely followed by the British then the Spanish.

1823 it was settled by River Plate (pre Argentina) and then was taken back in 1833 by the Brits again!

I fail to see where if anywhere Argentina has any sort of claim to these islands? We have had British Subjects on these islands for decades longer than any other country way before anybody actually started complaining about it.

Who cares if it's closer? Jersey is closer to France than to England you don;t here them kicking up a fuss, distance is irelevant.

Hong Kong is and was completely different and for some reason always brought up by the Argy lovers although Hong Kong was nothing like the Falklands.

The french sold their claim to the spanish then the brits stole them the islands were abandoned because we lost the finance to keep them due to the war in america and the argentines moved in, then the british sent down a military force about 15 years later and made the argentine citizens leave. Gibraltar is closer to spain, you do hear them kicking up a fuss. Distance is a factor wether you like it or not.

apart from the fact it wasn't Argentina it was River Plate and apart from the point it wasn't Spains to sell in the first place. And also your analogy is like saying the Bretons still have a claim to Britain after the romans left.

 

[t-stoff]

I hope the kallifas dont come in to reclaim their 700 year old presence in the Iberian Peninsula ;x
by the way, investigate the vilage of Olivença if you please, to understand how somethings work.

thought provoking off

cof cof wiki

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

 

[1duck]

apart from the fact it wasn't Argentina it was River Plate and apart from the point it wasn't Spains to sell in the first place. And also your analogy is like saying the Bretons still have a claim to Britain after the romans left, pure nonsense.

It was france's to sell in the first place, did you even read the post? the french settled first. They sold it to the spanish, it was a spanish territory...the british stole it. Simple as that really.

Hardly, it's like saying the russians own russia...but your argument is that the soviet union owned that land so now it should be open season for anyone who wants to take it. Because the soviet union no longer exists. Which really is nonsense.

 

[1duck]

I hope the kallifas dont come in to reclaim their 700 year old presence in the Iberian Peninsula ;x
by the way, investigate the vilage of Olivença if you please, to understand how somethings work.

thought provoking off

cof cof wiki

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

If i was you i'd pray that britain doesn't get any of its land taken off it, because it will be hillarious seeing you try to defend that it is british land once its been taken. What we need is someone like china to take over cumbria, then tell the british that it's their land because they've captured it.

What you mean like how the israels have taken back land which they claim the rights to based on little more than scripture dating back over 2000 years?

 

[Signal11th]

apart from the fact it wasn't Argentina it was River Plate and apart from the point it wasn't Spains to sell in the first place. And also your analogy is like saying the Bretons still have a claim to Britain after the romans left, pure nonsense.

It was france's to sell in the first place, did you even read the post? the french settled first. They sold it to the spanish, it was a spanish territory...the british stole it. Simple as that really.

Hardly, it's like saying the russians own russia...but your argument is that the soviet union owned that land so now it should be open season for anyone who wants to take it. Because the soviet union no longer exists. Which really is nonsense.

Ahh would that be the Spanish payment to a "private" citizen of France who established a settlement from his own pocket? also that payment was to cover the cost of the settlement he had built not to pay for the Islands themselves.
And the Spanish themselves left the island as the British did 30 years earlier but for some reason the Spanish have the right to reconquer and the Brits don't?

 

[1duck]

apart from the fact it wasn't Argentina it was River Plate and apart from the point it wasn't Spains to sell in the first place. And also your analogy is like saying the Bretons still have a claim to Britain after the romans left, pure nonsense.

It was france's to sell in the first place, did you even read the post? the french settled first. They sold it to the spanish, it was a spanish territory...the british stole it. Simple as that really.

Hardly, it's like saying the russians own russia...but your argument is that the soviet union owned that land so now it should be open season for anyone who wants to take it. Because the soviet union no longer exists. Which really is nonsense.

Ahh would that be the Spanish payment to a "private" citizen of France who established a settlement from his own pocket?
And the Spanish themselves left the island as the British did 30 years earlier but for some reason the Spanish have the right to reconquer and the Brits don't?

No that would be the settlement by the french government even if it was financed by a private individual as most settlements were in the period so thats irrelevant, he was told to sell it to the spanish by the french government so it was french to sell.

The spanish wouldn't be conquering because it was theirs in the first place, do you not grasp this simple idea?

 

[t-stoff]

I hope the kallifas dont come in to reclaim their 700 year old presence in the Iberian Peninsula ;x
by the way, investigate the vilage of Olivença if you please, to understand how somethings work.

thought provoking off

cof cof wiki

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

If i was you i'd pray that britain doesn't get any of its land taken off it, because it will be hillarious seeing you try to defend that it is british land once its been taken. What we need is someone like china to take over cumbria, then tell the british that it's their land because they've captured it.

What you mean like how the israels have taken back land which they claim the rights to based on little more than scripture dating back over 2000 years?

they weren't related.

One is a "dispute" about a territory lost by numerous reasons.
Now, the fun part, it isnt claimed by the Portuguese government not even by the population, but we could, just for pride I guess.

The other example was based on the fact that we have roughly 500 years of history after "we" declared this territory as ours, conquered to the Moorish muslims who were here more than 700 year. Which one is legit if claimed?

And I can give you more. Like the decolonization of Cape Verde islands. They had no population when we discovered, so the colonization was with portuguese or affiliated people. Yet, when the dictatorship went down, some groups claimed independence, and it was given. We're not even talking about native population prior to the "discover".

These are only thought provoking, as these subjects don't reflect just whats right or wrong, but historic circumstances, states policy's and interests and with extra complexity given by the advent of UN charter, regulations and international law. Each argument has to be added in relation to what is considered as costum law applied to the current one signed by the states involved.

 

[silverclaws]

I wonder if what is been seen in the UK regarding the Falklands is purely emotive because we also live on an island, or collection of them, that being we were born on the defence and so our thinking is skewed towards defence, that being the repulsion of invaders however they may proceed. I think it is many Briton's are thinking with their hearts, not their head and especially so given the fact that the war fought is in recent memory, so whatever the logic of the situation, emotions are getting in the way.

But of those that say they advocate others fighting for people they don't know just so they can pay taxes to the UK, how are you for fighting causes in your own neighbourhood, get involved do you, or is it talk is cheap, especially when it is someone else you are advocating to do the job.

Don't ask others to do something you yourself would not do, and don't use the 'special training' angle, because anyone can die.