MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
A football match would absolutely be the best way to decide ownership of Falklandia.
Except that we'd be screwed; at least we do the warmongering thing fairly effectively...
When one of my mates was stationed in the Falklands, he was so bored they used to entertain themselves by racing penguins across minefields, and betting on them.
Perhaps we could settle it like that. Start with 20 each, then see who runs out first. It'd be a better idea than football. We'd be in with a chance
Bit cruel on the penguins, mind. Use the soldiers, it's what they're for.
Not really on topic I know but I've always been fascinated by Argentina. It's the first World Cup I can remember and it seemed so exciting and exotic
I was eleven during the Falklands war and lived in Helensburgh which is close to the Faslane submarine base in Scotland. Most of the kids I was at school with had Dads in the Navy some of whom went to the Falklands (HMS Conqueror). We were on a primary seven school trip in North Wales when the HMS Coventry was sunk and all the boys seemed to understand the magnitude of what it meant.
Anyway, In 2004 I crossed the border into Argentina from Bolivia at a little desert outpost way up in the north (Vilazon- close to Sala de Uyuni). The border crossing was marked only by a small woooden porta-cabin and we got there on dirt roads in a minibus/taxi. You went in one side of the hut(Bolivia) and came out the other side(Argentina). Inside the cabin it was really bare. There were a couple of soldiers, a table and a big map of South America on the wall. There were about seven other people waiting in line to have their passports checked and stamped. When it was my turn the official saw my uk passport pointed to the Falkland Islands on the big map and says to me "Hey! Las Malvinas' to which I reply pointing to my hand Hey!'the hand of god''Maradona' the bloke laughs and stamps my passport and I go on my way.
I found Argentina a beautiful country and the people I met were very friendly and helpful and the steaks and wine were bloody good too!
What did the US lend us last time?
Satellite time
it was more of a gift I would have thought
It's all about prospecting for oil this time. I predict that it will get nasty.
More interesting that what the Americans lent us last time was the little favour the Russians did for us....!
...And the arms dealers who disappeared....
Tell us more.....
What did the US lend us last time?
AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles, which gave the Sea Harriers a massive edge over the Argentine air force.
I remember hearing that Ronnie Reagan was quite keen to supply forces to assist the UK in getting the Falklands back too, but Margaret Thatcher wanted to demonstrate that the UK could fight its own wars. I don't know how true that is, though.
There are several reports, notably from Max Hastings IIRC, that the Argentinians held off a few movements because they had heard a sub in the area.
We had no subs anywhere near.
Then, over the Ferrero Rocher at an ambassador's reception in the US, a senior Russian naval officer tipped the nod to the UK ambassador that it had been theirs.
On phone now, so can't track down the source written for that.
We were on a primary seven school trip in North Wales when the HMS Coventry was sunk and all the boys seemed to understand the magnitude of what it meant.
I was at my GF's at the time and had an even clearer understanding of what it meant; my step-brother was on board at the time.
AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles,
Most of which didn't turn up until it was too late
when the good old US of A give up Hawaii, Texas etc then he might have a case...
I remember hearing that Ronnie Reagan was quite keen to supply forces to assist the UK in getting the Falklands back too, but Margaret Thatcher wanted to demonstrate that the UK could fight its own wars. I don't know how true that is, though.
everything I've read is that getting US assistance was like pulling teeth
for example: the US forces guy who gave our special forces the Stingers was heavily punished IIRC
French helped out quite a bit as it happens. I'm trying to find a source for all of the skullduggery which went one around the fringes of the war. No luck so far but MI6 led the argies a merry dance over the procurement of exocets.
Hopefully the Argentinians have secured another battleship by now or the lads in the RN will be very disappointed...
An article I saw recently gave the impression that the Argentine navy fleet is mostly rusty cast offs from other nations and that the naval forces of their neighbouring countries don't have much better to work with either. I suspect the greatest danger is that the RN would be disappointed by how one sided a battle would be if things got serious.
sobriety - MemberIs HK really a parallel though? We leased that from China as a settlement for an opium war, and returned it when we were supposed to, as far as I can tell there was no such lease for the Falklands.
Hong Kong was never leased from China. The claim that it was is a myth created by the right-wing press to justify Thatcher handing over Kowloon and Hong Kong over to China when the 99 year lease on the New Territories expired.
Britain had as much legal right to Honk Kong as it has to Gibraltar - both territories were ceded in perpetuity to Britain.
The real reason Hong Kong was given to China is that on the other side of the border there was a Chinese army over 2 million strong. The residents of Hong Kong were denied self determination and even full British nationality. They were also denied democracy, until just before Hong Kong was due to be handed over to China, when the British government suddenly decided that after 150 years of no democracy that perhaps democracy in Hong Kong was a good idea after all.
And of course Britain had an obligation under the UN charter to decolonise its remaining colonies. Although because of the size of its population I suspect the UN would possibly have accepted HK as a self-governing independent state.
The wishes of over 6 million British Subjects in HK were brushed under the carpet, whilst the wishes of less than 3000 British Subjects in the FI became paramount. So no, no parallel between HK and the FI.
law of the jungle then. Not exactly a surprise and I'm quite comfortable with that.
Fortunately, the Argentinians don't have an army of 2 million so it's tough tits for them.
There is also LOADS of evidence of HK being Chinese as early as 214BC. Again, Argentina falls woefully short here too.
So, where china had a legitimate claim to ownership and the means to take it at will, Argentina have neither.
He should stick to snorting coke, wife beating, acting (badly) and being a fully paid up member of F.A.G
law of the jungle then.
That's what I like to hear.
None of this "legitimate right" bollox.
Fact of life Ernie 😀
Besides, Argentina have no legitimate right.
Diego Garcia residents don't seem to get their wishes respected even with the UK courts telling the government to do so.
everything I've read is that getting US assistance was like pulling teethfor example: the US forces guy who gave our special forces the Stingers was heavily punished IIRC
They did top up the NATO arsenal - which we were [of course] entitled to dip into for toys 😀
Hong Kong was never leased from China.
You appear to have missed out the word "Island" in that sentence, ernie. It would certainly have been an interesting administrative exercise to split Kowloon into the bit owned by the UK and the bit owned by China but leased, leaving HK Island and Kowloon peninsula without an airport in their territory. Oh, and about 4 million of those 6 million British citizens you refer to lived in the leased bit.
Though I appreciate how that such facts spoil your argument.
Of course, the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the Treaty of Beijing (1860) were all due to the right wing press protecting Thatcher....
FFS.
aracer - MemberHong Kong was never leased from China.
You appear to have missed out the word "Island" in that sentence, ernie. It would certainly have been an interesting administrative exercise to split Kowloon into the bit owned by the UK and the bit owned by China but leased, leaving HK Island and Kowloon peninsula without an airport in their territory. Oh, and about 4 million of those 6 million British citizens you refer to lived in the leased bit.
Though I appreciate how that such facts spoil your argument.
Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-PostCaptainFlashheart - Member
Of course, the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the Treaty of Beijing (1860) were all due to the right wing press protecting Thatcher....
FFS.
Here we go, the Tory voters who can't handle it one of their cherished myths is exposed for what it is - a myth. Hong Kong was never leased from China.
You appear to have missed out the word "Island" in that sentence, ernie.
No, I meant Hong Kong. I leave it to you to get all anal concerning the precise boundaries of the territory.
To OP,
Naahhh ... whatever you give to the South Americans they will simply squander them as they are very corrupted ... hmmm ...
Just stand the ground with nuclear armed submarine will do.
Nuke them if possible to help them reduce their population so they can feed themselves more effectively instead of trying to claim as bully victim.
🙄
Thought this was about the Falkland islands?
Believe the yanks lent us some jet fuel as well. Not really a big deal until you find out hiw much and the fact it allowed us to put the runway out of action in the islands as well as prove we had the ability to hit Argentina with a variety of conventional or nuclear weapons. Focuses the mind that does.
No, I meant Hong Kong. I leave it to you to get all anal concerning the precise boundaries of the territory.
Apologies for getting all pedantic on you again when you distort the facts, ernie. I appreciate how difficult it is for you distinguishing between [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong ]Hong Kong[/url] (area 1,104 km2, population 7.03 million, the majority of which was leased from China) and [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Island ]Hong Kong Island[/url] (area 80.5 km2, population 1,289,500). Clearly such distinctions are unimportant to you - I mean it's not like there's much difference between the two is there?
Apologies for getting all pedantic on you again when you distort the facts, ernie.
Says the man who comes out with this : [i]"and about 4 million of those 6 million British citizens you refer to lived in the leased bit"[/i]
Whether they lived in the leased New Territories or in Honk Kong ceded in perpetuity to Britain makes no difference at all, they were still, as I said, 6 million British citizens who denied full British nationality, in complete contrast to the 3000 Falkland Islanders.
Don't matter if it was leased or not - the agreement was not with the current government of china - the rump Chinese government that we had made the agreement with is Taiwan is it not?
Even then no obligation to give it back or no more so that other places
The contrasting ways we dealt with Diego Garcia, Honk Kong and the Falklands shows the massive hypocrisy at the heart of this
I disagree. They are all very different propositions and bear little relevance on each other. Their details are unique so there's no point comparing except to try and desperately justify an agenda on the FI where there is no justification.
the agreement was not with the current government of china - the rump Chinese government that we had made the agreement with is Taiwan is it not?
That would be in the same way that any claim on the FI from a Buenos Aires government was not from the current government of Argentina? 😆
so they were all islands and on none of them except the FI did we give the people a say in what happened.
As this counters the point re self determination i can see why you dont want to consider them ...calling others desperate though is a bit desperate.
Selecting facts to support your agenda is massively desperate.
They are all very different propositions and bear little relevance on each other. Their details are unique so there's no point comparing except to try and desperately justify an agenda on the FI where there is no justification.
That's not how British governments present their case. On the contrary, they do the complete opposite - they very much use generalisations and what they claim are accepted principles. I have never heard British governments argue that there is anything unique about the Falklands case.
So it is perfectly justified to expect them to apply their 'accepted principles' universally.
Give over you lot. Like it or lump it, they are going to stay British for the forseeable.
🙂
what about ignoring facts then?
and only a fool would chose to not select facts that support their view
So why don't the Chaggosians ( the inhabitents of Diego Garcia ) get to go home then?
wrecker - MemberSelecting facts to support your agenda is massively desperate
Which is exactly what you are doing.
NO YOU ARE!!!
ay right so we are at playground levels of debate
Excellent
v8ninety - MemberGive over you lot. Like it or lump it, they are going to stay British for the forseeable.
How far can you see ? 'Til the end of the century ? 'Til 2050 maybe ?
They are certainly going to remain British for the next 10 or 20 years.
But they won't remain British forever - there's no doubt about that.
TandemJeremy - MemberSo why don't the Chaggosians ( the inhabitents of Diego Garcia ) get to go home then?
😆
But they won't remain British forever - there's no doubt about that
Oh they will. At least until the oil has gone.
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI, (indeed, TJ specifically told us that in his opinion the islands should be Argentinian) they now hedge their bets, choosing instead to argue over inconsistency in how the UK has dealt with other cases.
Whatever happened regards the Chagos and Hong kong is irrelevant, its in the past, and two wrongs don't make a right - either you support the right to self determination (for all) or you don't, which is it?
maybe we should just drill a bore hole down to the oil reserves and drop in the most radioactive waste we have and bubble through some radioactive gasses for good measure and then see if they still want the Falklands.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberI fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI, (indeed, TJ specifically told us that in his opinion the islands should be Argentinian)
Perhaps you should not distort what people say
I believe the islands belong to argentina and they have the only satisfactory claim, however I do also give credence to the right self determination of the islanders.
A stance I have held consistently.
Distort? What Have I Distorted TJ?
La malvinas son argentinas
I believe the islands belong to argentina and they have the only satisfactory claim, however I do also give credence to the right self determination of the islanders.
Surely this is pretty much self contradictory? 'Credence' to the right of the Islanders, vs geographical coincidence or disputed historical evidence. What you are actually saying is 'its complicated' isn't it? 😀
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI
I haven't stated my position concerning whether Argentina has a valid claim to the FI.
Are you not categorising me as a leftie ?
How dare you.
Bit cruel on the penguins, mind. Use the soldiers, it's what they're for.
Really? Despite the fact that some squaddies like a good fight, the army generally don't like wasting people's lives. I'd invite the lot over from Arrse to have fun with this thread but I can't be arsed and they're tired of Falklands threads.
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI, (indeed, [b]TJ specifically told us that in his opinion the islands should be Argentinian[/b])
TJ responds
I believe the islands belong to argentina
Distort? What Have I Distorted TJ?La malvinas son argentinas
At a guess the bit where you said his view had moved from argentina having a valid claim - Clearly it has not he still believes this hence why he accused you of distortion.
even for you this could be hard to defend
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI
Whereas I would categorise myself as a 'leftie', yet believe that the Falklands are British and should remain British... (might be something to do with where my Mother grew up)
Well george galloway has made himself look like a prize cock on the 10 o'clock show on channel 4 talking about this issue. Suggesting the fauklanders should be moved to north yorkshire and given a million pounds each to keep them happy. Hmm maybe they actually want to live there and be british. Hmm he almost sounds as rational as tj
you said his [b]view[/b] had moved from argentina having a valid claim
Nope, I said his [b]argument[/b] had moved from that to talking about the fact that the Chagos and FI were being treated differently
Which is [i]exactly[/i] what he's done
Maybe you should actually read what I said Junky, instead of distorting it, I didn't mention anyone changing their [i]views[/i] only changing their [i]argument[/i]
I would categorise myself as a 'leftie'
I think Z-11 uses the term leftie only when it suits him. He conveniently forgets that when "Old" Labour where in government, which I'm sure he would categorise as leftie, Argentina did not dare to invade the Falklands. They waited until Z-11's beloved Thatcher was PM, and they were convinced she wasn't bothered about the FI. Her Foreign Secretary was forced to resign over the cock up.
I believe the islands belong to argentina and they have the only satisfactory claim, however I do also give credence to the right self determination of the islanders.A stance I have held consistently
IIRC you stated that the islanders could self determine as long as it wasn't to self determine as British. You expanded on that to state that Britain was the main island and that any of the other islands were not part of Britain.
all here if you need to refresh to be consistent 😉
Whereas I would categorise myself as a 'leftie', yet believe that the Falklands are British and should remain British... (might be something to do with where my Mother grew up)
the same could be said of others posting contrary views on here 😉
No biganddaft did I did not. 🙄
I did point out an inconsistency in the way others were using the word "britain"
But, erm, you're wrong Ernie
Argentine forces [b]did[/b] invade, they landed on Southern Thule in '76 and the "Old Labour" government failed to remove them, rejecting the use of military force
Fully documented in Hansard
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1978/may/10/thule-island-and-the-argentine
Note these pertinent words from 1978...
Is it not very dangerous to leave that sort of situation hanging in the air for 18 months or longer, and [u]would it not really encourage the Argentine Government to try something more ambitious, and even more dangerous?[/u]
As for arguing that the Falkland Islanders want to remain British well of course they do - they're British, but there is no free movement to the Falkland Island, anyone who is Argentine isn't allowed to live there. Not exactly surprising then is it ? Besides, there's no problem with them remaining British. However if it is important for them to live under British sovereignty then the obvious answer is that they should live in the British Isles, not 8,000 miles away from them ffs.
Ernie agreeing with Gorgeous George 😉
christ that is desperate Zulu it is there for all to see who is distorting [ ok to be fair it is just a barrel scrappingly poor argument in an attempt to safe face]
you clearly say his view which is not his argument it is what he thinks.
FWIW and if it helps I am happy to concede that you often dont mean what you say and often say what you dont mean.
Christ it really is the playground on this thread
who posted this?
FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter.
go on, who posted this?
own up 😉
TandemJeremy - Member
No biganddaft did I did not.
cough! 😉
, Argentina did not dare to invade the Falklands.
Argentine forces did invade, they landed on Southern Thule in '76
Southern Thule is a collection of the three southernmost islands in the South Sandwich Islands: Bellingshausen, Cook, and Thule (Morrell)
at least make it a challenge dude
is south thule part of the Falklands then?
In what sense is he wrong?
i bet you now claim you never said that even though you say ernie is wrong - he is not they did not invade the FI
they landed on Southern Thule in '76
😀 So what did Maggie do when she became PM ? Take Southern Thule back ? No ! She withdrew the little protection that the Falklanders had ! Smart move eh ?
BTW why the winky big and daft ?
And since I wrote that some time ago, I think we can safely say that it's Gorgeous George who agrees with me - not the other way round.
which at that time was part of the Falkland Islands Dependency Junky...
Again, from Hansard
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true, as reported in the Observer on Sunday, 7th May, that 40 Argentinians are occupying Thule Island[b] in the Falkland Dependencies[/b], and if so, what action they propose to take.
So, you're Wrong...
Biganddaft. what point are you trying to make?
Both things are possible. I think that is a decent solution however I doubt the islanders would accept that.
It is not a simplistic thing that you try to make it out to be and its perfectly possible to accept the islanders have a say but they chose something I think is wrong.
I simply did not say what yo claim I did - even out of context the quote does not say it.
🙄
big_n_daft - Memberwho posted this?
Apart from trawling through other people's history big and daft, have you actually got a point you want to make about the Falklands ? Or is that too challenging for you ?
And since I wrote that some time ago, I think we can safely say that it's Gorgeous George who agrees with me - not the other way round.
i'm sure he would appreciate the nuance 😉
Ricky Gervais hit the nail on the head.... Its like fending off an irritating dwarf
so they were dependencies of the FI rather than part of the FI. Is that like say the FI are dependencies of the UK but not part of them ...is it that sort of thing 🙄
Oh we could do this pin dance for days but it is late
i'm sure he would appreciate the nuance 😉
And I'd like to appreciate what the hell you're on about.
So apparently Gorgeous George has today said something that is vaguely simular to something which I said some time ago, and ? Why is that significant ? Am I supposed to be upset or something ? Do you even know why you mentioned it ?
Stop winking at me and explain yourself please.
Biganddaft. what point are you trying to make?
you selectively misrepresent your views, in this case that you believe that the islanders should not be able to self determine as British
you denied this
I substantiated my statement
ernie_lynch
Apart from trawling through other people's history big and daft, have you actually got a point you want to make about the Falklands ? Or is that too challenging for you ?
trawl through my history and you will find my substantive view
it's the same now,
I don't feel the need to deny my position when someone quotes what I've said back at me
I believe the islands belong to argentina and they have the only satisfactory claim
Don't you mean they belong to the Buenos Aires government of 1776? I'm struggling to see what claim any later administration there has on them.
I forgot
😉
just for ernie
Bigandaft.
why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent what I say so badly?
I simply did not say what yo claim nor does the quote even out of context say that.
FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter.
is not the same as
in this case that you believe that the islanders should not be able to self determine as British
When I have clearly said I believe in the islanders right to self determination