Forum menu
Thanks but I am still trying to establish if you think it is always right to go with self determination
No - I've never claimed that. Unlike the UN I believe each individual case should be treated on its merits, and in the case of the Falklands it's quite clear that the current situation is preferable for all concerned than trying to manufacture some alternative arrangement exchanging one colonial master for another. Happy now you've got an answer?
The thing is, your [s]strawmen[/s] scenarios are all markedly different enough to the Falklands that none of them are really relevant.
Why? would you answer if I did ?
I'd probably check what I said whenever TJ brought them up and repeat that back at you 😉
JY, are you sure that your concerns (correct word?) about issues such as imperialism etc are not indeed sending you off in the direction of straw men arguments that others accuse you off?
If anything, the UK governments (Labour and Conservative) have been anything other that imperialistic and arguably (see the Franks report) the ambiguity of the position of the UK government was one of many factors that led to the Falklands war. The Argies and th Islanders have been broadly consistent in their wishes over time, but the UK government hasn't. Rather than being imperialistic Labour and Conservative governments proposed and discussed concepts such as the sale and leaseback of the islands. This was despite clear opposition from the islanders at the time (see conclusion 70 of the Franks report - I studied this for my degree many moons ago :wink:).
Actually, I am being unfair on politicians, they were actually consistent in their message that "any negotiated settlement with Argentina had to be acceptable to the islanders". But arguably they diluted this by continuing discussions over sovereignty/the leaseback idea. I would have though that governments intent on maintaining an imperialistic stance (or at Lear the perception of one) would have acted in a very different manner 1965-the outbreak of the war.
Happy now you've got an answer?
Yes thanks
The thing is, your strawmen scenarios are all markedly different enough to the Falklands that none of them are really relevant.
Its irrelevant now as we agree we cannot use it all scenarios. I am not sure it should be paramount in this either but I can accept that view.
THM I know the recent history but it would be hard to argue it not a colony even for you 😉
Yes oddly they would probably have it by now if they had not invaded but this delights me as , for once , i can accurately Blame THATCHER 8)
I thought the oil/gas issue was the massive untapped (and currently protected) reserves under the Antarctic? We want a foot in the door when all the treaties finally get binned and we plunder the last unspoilt continent in a bid to keep the oil flowing.
I think we should just settle it once and for all and invade Argentina. That'll shut em up.
AFAIK the Falkland islanders contribute zero to the UK treasury and get defence from us for free.
If oil or whatever is discovered surely it will belong to the islanders not the UK govt. so they will reap the financial rewards not us.
Then maybe the time to send them a backdated bill for all the defence costs over the last few decades....and if they don'y pay up invade!
Then maybe the time to send them a backdated bill for all the defence costs over the last few decades
Might do better billing all the other places we've been sending troops for the last 200 years first.... 🙄
Might do better billing all the other places we've been sending troops for the last 200 years first..
yep. invade someone so that they see things they way you want them too - then invoice them.
the empire never really ended for some people did it ?
Might do better billing all the other places we've been sending troops for the last 200 years first....POSTED 2 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Not much point,we have already ensured most of them can't pay.
[url= http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html ]A Letter to the Argentine Government[/url]
🙂
So, when are the Americans giving back Texas?
[i]Remember the Alamo![/i]
Actually blaming Thatcher, as enjoyable as many find this, would be largely inaccurate. Much of the early and decisive negotiations about the future of the FI post 1965 were conducted by the Labour government. When the Tories took over it was largely Ridley and ultimately Carrington who drove the negotiations. Leaving aside the argument of where the buck ultimately stops, I wold suggest that Thatcher was responsible for dealing with the aftermath of the invasion rather than the events leading up to it.
The Franks report concluded that the Thatcher government was not to blame which is/was a bit of a cop out as the whole report makes an excellent case study in how not to conduct foreign policy. And for that both parties were to blame IMO.
I wold suggest that Thatcher was responsible for dealing with the aftermath of the invasion rather than the events leading up to it.
That was the point I made. Her decision to go to war meant they would never get them back if we won- that is what i was "blaming" her for not the mess before which had decades of history.
It was her fault they will never get them back so to speak. I never said nor meant it was her fault the invasion took place.
However I would point out in the preceeding period she did out vote carrington re keeping a naval ship there and he honourably [stupidly] fell on his sword when they invaded so she had some of the blame
It would be daftwrong to lay it all at her feet though.