Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Ok, this is just a bit of posturing from the Bloc at the moment, but knowing we now have a zero percent capacity for projecting air power at sea, will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
Or will we just station another attack boat down there, i suspect 2 nuclear attack boats with associated weaponry would be enough to severely mess up any invasion fleet?
[url= http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/ServiceCommunity/OverseasPosting/BFSAI/BritishForcesSouthAtlanticIslandsbfsai.htm ]MOD[/url] I could see an increase in forces on exercise their.
No chance. We have around over 1000 troops stationed down there.
i suspect [b]1[/b] nuclear attack boat with associated weaponry would be enough to severely mess up any invasion fleet?
FTFY
i suspect 1 nuclear attack boat with associated weaponry would be enough to severely mess up any invasion fleet?
Bloody good job they don't have any modern weaponry, isn't it?
will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
yes they are after the catchily named UK Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. but they are just having a laugh with us and ensuring we have another decade of Tory rule ---- they know how to play us those clever dudes from so far away.
Like Gibraltar not ours but we wont give it back
If anything did happen again, I'm not sure we could rely on the support from the USA as Obama now refers to the Falklands as the Malvinas. I think he's saying something without saying it.
La malvinas son argentinas
Argentina have no legitimate claim to the Falklands.
If anyone does aside from the UK, its Spain.
Regardless of posturing, It'll never be Argentinian, certainly not in our lifetimes anyway.
(iirc) Spain has a claim to the falklands, Argentina doesn't - since Argentina is no longer part of Spain.
(the falklands were British before Argentina existed as a country)
will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
They really don't need to. They only need to be sufficiently belligerent and threatening for long enough, and Britain would not be able to maintain the costs associated with a permanent task force in the South Atlantic. Hostile acts short of full invasion, indefinitely, would do it. Argentina isn't going anywhere, and the costs to them would be minimal, the costs to Britain would be horrendous.
Part of the reason that it was over so quickly last time was that the invasion had been a last ditch attempt by a discredited military government to save itself from collapse - it was seen as a highly popular move. It failed, the junta collapsed very quickly afterwards and the whole issue was temporarily shelved in Argentina. Whatever Argentina are up to now, they will be playing a long game - you can be sure of that.
I'm with Lord West on this one... send a submarine down there to pop its periscope up and remind them that they'd lose again if they try anything.
What claim except relative geographic proximity does Argentina have to them?
Bring on the development of British anti ship ballistic missiles!
Are the bloody french going to sell them exocets and mirage jets again?
They only need to be sufficiently belligerent and threatening for long enough, and Britain would not be able to maintain the costs associated with a permanent task force in the South Atlantic. Hostile acts short of full invasion, indefinitely, would do it
Assuming that we don't find oil there.
If we can deliver them there, British forces would make mincemeat of the Argentinians even with significantly less numbers. We've been engaged in proper war fighting for a good few years now which no training exercise can get close to replicating. They are very well aware that we'd not use the nuclear capability (quite rightly)
Are the bloody french going to sell them exocets and mirage jets again?
War isn't much fun when the other side has an air force - is it ?
jon1973 - Member
If anything did happen again, I'm not sure we could rely on the support from the USA as Obama now refers to the Falklands as the Malvinas...
I'm sure we can rely on our allies in the EU to help out...
Surely all's even since that cocky short fella nudged the ball with his arm way back when...
British forces would make mincemeat of the Argentinians even with significantly less numbers.
I can't see a problem then. Carry on.
Obama now refers to the Falklands as the Malvinas
Amazing how you can go off people isn't it?
What claim except relative geographic proximity does Argentina have to them?
about the same as any other spanish-speaking south american country?
fwiw, i don't think that Britain has a moral right to the territory, but 200 or so years ago we were arguing with the spanish over them. They don't seem to care much anymore, so i guess they're 'ours'...
(and now that we know there's oil down there, it just seems silly to give them away)
Is it part of the EU, strictly speaking? I know some European overseas territories are.
Ummm, What about the small issue of what the islanders want? (to remain with the UK) Or is self determination an irrelevance?
It is an anachronism of our military imperialism. The fact we did it a long time ago is no reason to assume it is just.
If Israel do a jewish plantation to Plaestine [ we kicked the argies out in 1832/3 [i forget which] will it be ok in 100 years time? 200 years?
A colonial remnent. compare the fate of Diego Garcia where we refuse to allow an entire peoples back to the islands they lived on because we allowed the USA to build an military base on them. the people were forcibly removed in the 60s and despite court orders that they be allowed to return to their lands they remain banned from the land they lived on for generations
No oil of course and they are brown people
The Falklands are recognised as colonies by the Unites Nations.
UN resolution of December 1965 :
[i]Resolution 2065 (XX) The Assembly considered the issue General.Habiendo the Malvinas (Falkland Islands), Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and in particular the conclusions and recom ¬ mendations approved by the same regarding the Terri ¬ tory, whereas its resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14 1960, was inspired by the cherished aim of putting an end to colonialism everywhere and in all its forms, one of which fits the case of the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands).
Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas); [/i]
More recently, UN General Assembly June 2011 :
[url= http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gacol3225.doc.htm ]Special Committee on Decolonization Adopts Draft on Falkland Islands (Malvinas)[/url]
What about the small issue of what the islanders want?
Because the UN recognises the Falklands as colonies, it is only concerned with their "interests", [u]not the wishes of the population[/u].
v8ninety - MemberUmmm, What about the small issue of what the islanders want?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia ]Diego Garcia[/url]? The wishes of the islanders are paramount?
from ernies link
Imploring the Special Committee not to adopt the resolution as presented, Roger Edwards, an elected official of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, and one of several petitioners to take the floor on the issue, pointed out that the text had been drafted without a reference to the wishes of the Falkland people and their fundamental right to self-determination. “Falkland Islanders do not wish to see a change from British sovereign status,” he declared. The Islands had never formed part of Argentina; they were self-sufficient, self-governing and enjoyed a high standard of living. “Please respect our people’s wishes and our right to self-determination,” he said.On the other side of the issue, petitioner María Angélica Vernet, Director of the National Historical Museum of the Buenos Aires Old Town Hall and May Revolution, traced her roots to the Malvinas Islands, where Argentine citizens had been stripped of their property and expelled by the United Kingdom in 1833. The population on the islands today was not a people in the legal sense of the term, as they were British either by birth or by origin. “The usurpation of the Malvinas Islands in 1833 was the usurpation of a territory that, both in fact and in law, belonged to Argentina,” she insisted.
Weighing in as an observer, Héctor Marcos Timerman, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, reiterated his Government’s “unrenounceable” rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces. In accordance with the United Nations mandate, he said, Argentina had included in its Constitution the commitment to take into account their interests and respect their lifestyle.
Further, while Argentina had always advocated the right to free determination of peoples, the United Nations, on the question of the Malvinas Islands, had determined that such a principle did not apply, he said, since the inhabitants of the South Atlantic Islands had not been subjugated to a colonial power. He extended a formal invitation to the British Government to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the sovereignty dispute and end an “incomprehensible” colonial situation that was unacceptable in the twenty-first century.
will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
No.
He extended a formal invitation to the British Government to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the sovereignty dispute
I'm going to extend a formal invitation to Junkyard to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the ownership dispute over the contents of his wallet.
konabunny - what about Diego Garcia? whats the difference?
I'm going to extend a formal invitation to Junkyard to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the ownership dispute over the contents of his wallet.
And you think there is a comparison ? 🙄
The UK is a member of the UN, and a Security Council member at that, it has clear obligations which come with being a UN member. If the UN exists at all then it is to deal with issues concerning territorial disputes - it is its bread and butter. And one of the principle reasons why it was formed in the wake of World War 2.
Ignoring the UN should not be an option for Britain, but it does. Time for sanctions against Britain maybe? And as we know military action should never be ruled out - always keep that option on the table. Says, Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama, etc.
Regardless of any claim to the Falklands Islands, I cannot see any possible claim from the Argentinians on South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, which have never been under Spanish control.
Like Gibraltar not ours but we wont give it back
A minor problem of the population not wanting to change, as with the Falklands.
The situation is a political construct playing to the mob. They are using a lull in our expeditionary capability to force a political "solution" against the wishes of the population. If the majority of islanders wanted the change I really couldn't see a British goernment opposing it.
On the other side of the issue, petitioner María Angélica Vernet, Director of the National Historical Museum of the Buenos Aires Old Town Hall and May Revolution, traced her roots to the Malvinas Islands, where Argentine citizens had been stripped of their property and expelled by the United Kingdom in 1833.
in 1833 it's debatable whether Argentina formally existed
using the same logic we "own" lots of France, somehow I don't see it happening
konabunny - what about Diego Garcia? whats the difference?
The difference is that the UK government is listening to one set of residents (because they're white, and politically organised, and appealing to the UK media, and still there) and not listening to another set of residents (because they're funny-looking, and less politically influential, and unappealing to the media, and dispersed). HTH.
I believe we recently replaced the Tornadoes which were stationed there with Typhoons - a move which the Argentinians considered 'warmongering'.
Regardless of colonialism and your views on it, the Falklands' population considers itself to be British. And that should be where it ends.
If the Argentinians want to get sulky, perhaps they should consider giving their own country back to its natives, and bogging off back to Spain. But I suspect there may be a few issues with that...
Its British now and has been a long while. Stuff the Argies.
Where would it stop if the worlds major countries/powers had to "give" back territories , blimey we would have to trace it all back to the dinosaurs. Every country has been formed from conquering/colonising/acquiring/dubious border marking/migration etc. Its the way of the world get over it.
Ask the french to return gaiana.
some ridiculous posturing on here,
they are an anachronistic legacy of empire and will eventually move out of British hands
its painfully obvious that our country is on the wane, in 50 years time we could be a colony of Argentina's 😉
also like to point out that despite a lot of money and effort oil has not been found so far
Do Argentina really want the Island? Or does the President know that it gives a popularity boost in the polls?
On the media yesterday she also looks abit slackjawed with botoxed lips (I thought on medication or drunk?). Abit like her armed forces.
Do Argentina really want the Island? Or does the President know that it gives a popularity boost in the polls?
Something to do with oil and being the next Hugo Chavez, I think...
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2154 [/img]
big_n_daft - MemberThe situation is a political construct playing to the mob. They are using a lull in our expeditionary capability to force a political "solution" against the wishes of the population. If the majority of islanders wanted the change I really couldn't see a British goernment opposing it.
What "mob" are they playing up to - is the UN a mob ? are the other South American countries a mob ? is the Argentine population a mob ? Do you even know what you are talking about about, or did you just throw that in 'cause referring to an opposing viewpoint as a mob is something which you've learnt from Daily Mail headlines ?
And if you think this issue has "suddenly" appeared again it shows just how ill-informed you are and how effective the media is at ignoring it.
The UN has been dealing with the issue since at least 1960, and even immediately after the Falklands War the UN insisted that both sides enter meaningful sovereignty talks. Britain has consistently ignored the UN but the issue has [i]never[/i] gone away, and it never will until it's settled. Wakey wakey - the colonial days are over. There is no point hanging on to remnants of a former empire, it's quite frankly pathetic.
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.
And btw, anyone who believes the British government gives a monkeys what the Falkland Islanders want is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Falkland Islanders were stripped of their full UK citizenship just before the Falklands War. Not something which they asked for, I can assure you, and something which sent a signal to the then Argentine government that Britain was uninterested in them. Full UK citizenship was only restored after the Falklands War and the British government had fully recognised the political mileage that the war had offered them.
And if the British government still persists to lay territorial claims on land 8,00 miles away, then it has far more to do with potential profits then the wishes of any people - the very basis of European colonialism and empire building. British governments are trying to live in the colonial past. Those days are long gone, eventually Britain will loose her South Atlantic colonies - hanging on to them is not a long-term option.
big_n_daft - Member....................
A minor problem of the population not wanting to change, as with the Falklands.
Diego Garcia????
The UN has been dealing with the issue since at least 1960, and even immediately after the Falklands War the UN insisted that both sides enter meaningful sovereignty talks. Britain has consistently ignored the UN but the issue has never gone away, and it never will until it's settled. Wakey wakey - the colonial days are over. There is no point hanging on to remnants of a former empire, it's quite frankly pathetic.
I don't understand why you are so keen to give the islands to a country that has no meaningful relationship with the population?
any sovereignity negotiations are going to be quite short:
Argies: we think we have the ownership of the islands, the pop should be Argie etc
Brits: the islanders don't want to be Argie
where is the middle ground?
Why can't they go for independance? afterall lots of other new states are being created/ resurected out of history
Do Argentina really want the Island? Or does the President know that it gives a popularity boost in the polls?
I never cease to be amazed how people in Britain can be so ignorant of the answer to that question. I've never heard of an Argentine who didn't think the Falkland Islands are Argentine, it is the only issue which I know of that unites all Argentines whatever their political persuasion - from left to right.
Furthermore the Argentine President does not need a 'poll boost'. A couple of weeks ago she won a landslide victory in an election with possibly the highest vote of any Argentine president ever. Try to keep up with current affairs before commenting 💡
big and daft - if the wishes of the islanders are the only thing that counts why does this not apply to Diego Garcia?
I don't understand why you are so keen to give the islands to a country that has no meaningful relationship with the population?
Me ? You don't understand why [b][i]I[/i][/b] am so keen to give the islands to a country that has no meaningful relationship with the population ?
What am I .... the UN Secretary General ?
TandemJeremy - Member
big and daft - if the wishes of the islanders are the only thing that counts why does this not apply to Diego Garcia?
I don't know enough about it, it sounds like I would support the islanders from the little I do.
FFS dependent territories are not an exception. The US, Australia, NZ, the Netherlands, Norway etc etc all have them. So it's absolutely FA to do with historic colonial blah blah blah; as correctly pointed out those days are long gone.
Anyway, this is all a bit pointless. There is no way on earth the FI are going argie any time soon.
Furthermore the Argentine President does not need a 'poll boost'. A couple of weeks ago she won a landslide victory in an election with possibly the highest vote of any Argentine president ever. Try to keep up with current affairs before commenting
obviously the policy didn't exist before the election 🙄
obviously the policy didn't exist before the election 🙄
It's the policy of [u]every[/u] Argentine political party. There is no 'political mileage' to be had 🙄 🙄 🙄
Furthermore there was never any doubt that Kirchner would win a landslide victory - she didn't need a "boost".
It's the policy of every Argentine political party. There is no 'political mileage' to be had
policy is one thing, actually manoevering and actively doing something another (ask anyone who has read a governments election manefesto)
anyway, I'm up for the independance of the Islands, are you?
Furthermore the Argentine President does not need a 'poll boost'. A couple of weeks ago she won a landslide victory in an election with possibly the highest vote of any Argentine president ever. Try to keep up with current affairs before commenting
From memory the Falklands was one of her key pledges.
From memory the Falklands was one of her key pledges.
So tell me, from your memory, which candidate didn't have the issue of Falklands sovereignty as a key pledge ?
Although I appreciate that your memory isn't that good - you had "forgotten" that the Falklands was an issue that unites all Argentines, hence your question whether they really want them.
Expect to see lots more about this issue over the next few years as the Argentinean economy crumbles in about 18 months time.......
when China's demand for commodities tails off.......... nothing else will take their populations eye off how bad things are than raking over the coals again......
Shrugs
http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A4E83122445F1D/
Funnily, she added basically be careful they'll take what they want/come after you next etc.
Err no luv. Blair's gone now. He was the one that invades countries.
loving tj's selective stance on the right to self determination 😆
some pretty general ignorance throughout the thread regarding empires and their beginings but that's ok, i probably had the same knee jerk reactions before i actually bothered to learn about them. stuff like..........
It is an anachronism of our military imperialism
is just nonsense based on a guilt ridden explanation of how empires form. the british empire was created by a whole range of factors - economics, ecological takeover, religion, science and technology, even luck and accident. the idea that we created an empire solely by some great military invasion force that bludgeoned its way around the world is plain bollocks.
loving tj's selective stance on the right to self determination
Indeed - he won't be laughing when we give Scotland back to France, the western Isles back to Norway, and the Shetlands (with all their lovely oil) back to Denmark 😆
I suppose the Americans should give Texas back to Mexico too TJ?
El-TJ and Ernesto Chavez-Guavera are welcome to move to South America, I'd help contribute to the air fare..anyone else?
The ironic thing is that the Falklands war never happened the Islands would probably be part of Argentina by now. Stripping the residents of the Islands was the first step. There is no way that any UK government will accede to the transfer of the FI to Argentina, at least not until anyone still alive at the time of the war has passed on. Argentina knows this, hence any comments raised by them is just politics being played.
El-TJ and Ernesto Chavez-Guavera are welcome to move to South America, I'd help contribute to the air fare..anyone else?
They would still have access to the internet there too. If you're paying do you think you could stretch to an extra ticket?
I'm going to extend a formal invitation to Junkyard to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the ownership dispute over the contents of his wallet.
Not the same you would need to be asserting the wallet was yours
A minor problem of the population not wanting to change, as with the Falklands.
Plantation of a pro UK population does not over time make it anything other than conquest...imagine Israel does this to Palestine – would it become OK because the population dropped in want to be Israeli- obviously they would kick the Palestinians out like we did to the Argentineans before respecting a populations wishes
If the majority of islanders wanted the change I really couldn't see a British goernment opposing it.
Did you read the link about why the islanders opinion is irrelevant in terms of international law? Your point is correct but then again we only let Brits live there so we don’t really need to worry on that front do we.
Regardless of colonialism and your views on it, the Falklands' population considers itself to be British. And that should be where it ends
As above why can people not see that it was taken by force and a Uk pop planted there- length of time does not make this right
Do Argentina really want the Island?
Rather like asking if you want to get laid or change your frame fork combo– it s in their constitution and the keep petitioning for its return what do you think Sherlock? 🙄
I don't understand why you are so keen to give the islands to a country that has no meaningful relationship with the population?
We put the population there – it is is an invasion I cannot believe how many posters seem to ignore this fact- perhaps Northern Ireland makes it easy for us to ignore plantations and then suddenly respect their wishes to choose us [ once we have the majority and we ignore the all Ireland vote obviously and partition the country to ensure we respect the wishes of the people – well the people who choose us obviously not the actual population who dont choose us]– which is after all why we put them there.
Plantation of a pro UK population does not over time make it anything other than conquest
Junkyard - I would refer you to my point above regards Mexico - would you assert that they have a legal claim over Texas, New Mexico, California, Nevada and Arizona?
Surely under your interpretation of the law the entire Southern half of the US is merely a conquest, and despite a long history of planation of a "pro US population" it should revert to Mexican sovereignty?
The problem with the Argentinian claim is just as "colonial" as the British one - Their only claim to the Falklands is as a historical remnant of the Spanish colony that preceded their own existence as a nation.
I dont know anything baout mexico or texas so I am unable to comment...Sorry this is STW what was I thinking off ignorance is no bar to posting SORRY 😳
No its nothing like that dont be daft 😉
Will google later and get back to you
Your overall point is correct that to attempt to rewrite borders based on historical boundaries would be doomed to failure/very complicated as we would just argue over what date to use ..FFS we would need to have all the Aussieds back as well [shudders]
perhaps Northern Ireland makes it easy for us to ignore plantations and then suddenly respect their wishes to choose us [ once we have the majority and we ignore the all Ireland vote obviously and partition the country to ensure we respect the wishes of the people – well the people who choose us obviously not the actual population who dont choose us]– which is after all why we put them there.
This is a completely different situation, there is a significant proportion of residents of the territory opposed to British rule. There is no opposition to British rule from the residents of the Falklands Islands. It is a bad example, and should not be part of this discussion. It has its own issues, which are very sepperate.
there is a significant proportion of residents of the territory opposed to British rule.
I believe the words for 75% is a significant majority but yes the Falklands was a much more succesful planataion than Ireland.
Does that now make it right because we removed the argies and wont let them return ?
They are not the same but nor are they nothing like each other.....the fact/point is the UK does not always respect the wishes of the island in deciding "ownership" as a partition clearly shows and we do plant pro UK population to make sure they freely choose us
Does that now make it right because we removed the [s]argies[/s] Spanish and wont let the argies have a peice of land which they have no rightful claim to ?
trailmonkey - Memberloving tj's selective stance on the right to self determination
Selective?
I dont know anything baout mexico or texas so I am unable to comment...Sorry this is STW what was I thinking off ignorance is no bar to posting SORRY
you don't remember the Alamo? 😉
Junkyard
You made some good points in your earlier post, and I am interested particularly in how governments [b]use[/b] the Falklands Islands situation. It is a complex and interesting debate, and we should consider why so many countries are siding with Argentina on this issue.
However, your continued insistence on including Northern Ireland in this debate prevents me from contributing further.
It is a complex and interesting debate, and we should consider why so many countries are siding with Argentina on this issue
it's the Mark Twain strategy, "buy land they don't make it anymore"
the south american economies are doing well due to natural resources which everyone wants access to, I imagine there are sweetheart deals being negotiated to ensure support for their land grab
Does that now make it right because we removed the argies and wont let them return
But we didn't - we only expelled 26 soldiers, nine of whom were already under arrest for a murder, and all of whom had been in the islands for less than three months - of a total population of 33 civilian resudents, four civilians left of their own free will, and the remainder, plus 12 "gaucho's" remained. The Gaucho's later commented that they were happy to remain, and were pleased that they had been paid for work done in silver by the British rather than worthless paper money as given by the Argentinians...
33 civilians - That was the sum total of the Argentinian colony in the islands in 1832, and only four left... thats the sum total of Argentina's claim to 3000 people and 4,500 square miles of British Territory
Can this not be settled with a friendly game rather than warmongering.
Choose something we invented so must be good at like Football?
These STW x Falklands threads are always a treat.
TJ, ernie and that other one clearly have such contempt for their own country, I really do wonder how they manage to keep on living.
It's quite sad that their enduring obsession with 'Fatcher' and the 80's means that rather than accepting that they were on the wrong side of history and have never knowingly been right about anything, they'd prefer to wish death on British service personnel and the subjugation of the FI to a country with no legitimate claim on them and no support from the FI population.
Ultimately, none of it matters. The Argentines are in no position to invade, the FI are vastly better defended than before and the 'Bloc' is just South American realpolitik being played out. There is precisely bugger all chance of some pan-South American armada embarking and risking their lives for the sake of Argentina.
The biggest risk to the FI comes from the British Government, especially now that every major party is rammed to the gills with effete careerist bed-wetters.
I think we should all move back to Africa and resurrect the Neanderthals, personally. Clearly that would solve all the issues, or perhaps we should devolve back to apes?
Falklanders consider themselves British. That should be all that matters in this discussion. You can keep your straw men of various other downtrodden 'colonial relics', I believe the thread was about the Falklands.
Choose something we invented so must be good at like Football?
How about cricket?
Why do the Argentinians even want the Falklands? What benefit is it to them?
I am afraid history happens and things move on. Should Russia give the part of Finland that it nicked off them? Should Sweden give its southern counties back to Denmark (The old capital of Denmark is Lund where I live in Sweden) Should Russia really have an enclave in Kaliningrad. There are many exceptions in history things do move on though. Even Gibraltar, the UK has actually have ran it longer than the Spanish now.
1462 Spanish forces took Gibraltar from the Moors 242 years
1704 The British captured it. 308 years
And there are plenty of Moslem extremists that would like to retake Spain for themselves.
Things move on but there is no right or wrong as everywhere has some kind of mis-justice.
ernie_lynch are you an argie? seem very informed
Bravo - love my country. I do dislike the imperial remnents tho.
So - why not the chagosians then? why do they not get the right to self determination?
they'd prefer to wish death on British service personnel
thats a disgraceful slur. Really - even for you thats rich
Bravo - love my country
which country?
Bravo Bravohotel8er
Sock it to 'em
TJ, ernie and that other one clearly have such contempt for their own country
Really? Can you explain this please, it's just that I really don't see that; in fact what I see is quite the opposite.
And as I, as you all know, am always right, that must therefore mean you are in fact [i]wrong[/i].
Sorry, but that's just how it is I'm afraid. You can't argue with Science. 😐