Thought as much, by looking at the replies on both threads I noticed Twins hadn't a clue who they were either so at least I ain't alone. Then I got to thinkin'. I read of a chubby bird in the paper a while back who was slagged by a fashion designer for being overweight. I wonder could that be the same gal?
It was no surprise IMO that the Argentina went in as England wouldn't even discuss the issue long before Thatcher had a golden egg chucked in her lap ... Remember prior to that how she was struggling? Check it out The great story of the Falklands United Maggie with the Public IMO You have repeated that based on the stuff which the public believe is the truth The lives lost on both side could have been avoided IMO those Islands are Argentine
It is undeniable that winning the Falklands conflict secured Thatcher a second term, but are you seriously suggesting that she engineered the whole thing for that purpose? That's so preposterous I'm not sure it should be graced with any form of response other than derision. Of course those lost lives could have been avoided, principally had Galtieri and his corrupt Argentine junta not got carried away with their sabre rattling. Remember this was a regime that was spiriting away political opponents in the dead of night, ne'er to be seen again. The invasion of the Falklands was the act of a madman and his cronies, and the Argentine people quickly recognised this; the defeat gave them the impetus to overthrow the lot of them. The issue tends to sit somewhere back of mind across Argentina until their politicians need a ratings boost, at which point the rhetoric is ramped up a notch or two. Like I tried to articulate earlier, I don't think either nation originally had any more a legitimate claim to sovereignty than t'other, unless you consider the archipelago's much closer proximity to Argentina as reason enough. On the basis that there was no serious attempt to colonise them until Britain's declaration of sovereignty in 1820, upon which Argentina got the hump about it, and that subsequent settlers and their descendants consider themselves British subjects, I'd say Britain's right to govern them is now probably stronger than Argentina's. Please expand on why you believe those islands are Argentine; I'm genuinely interested in understanding the depth of your reasoning, which I'm sure transcends the purely emotional.
You only have to listen to the speeches and the media whip at the time... It fell in her lap and looking back at that she certainly used that I don't believe it was a surprise attack as we are led to believe and yes without doubt I base my view on what the earth does or did our country want with an set if Islands that far from our shores? I also believe that we should try and understand the views of the argentine people even today You description as this country always come up with ... a madman I am sure the loss of life would affect most races badly ... Remember how this country reacted to the deaths? Heroes we were heroes we are still heroes We still believe we are the best fighters the bravest lions etc ... It makes me sick We won the war we killed people we were killed and then we left them to it My solution would have to sell them to the Argentine if they wanted them afterall we cared very little before the conflict by protecting them I say again MT used it for political purposes based on a mis guided set of British principles
Alright Uber I'll give ye a go son. You claim the Argentines use the islands when they want to stoke up a bit of jingoism. That's a fair point but it was that very jingoism that swept Thatcher back into power when previously she had been floundering. There's no shortage of British nationalism when it comes to these forlorn rocks 8,000 miles away as you're demonstrating here right now. I'll admit I'm very much against colonialism and these islands are a colonial relic from a bygone era. However, its not as black and white as just handing them back/over to the Argentines because there are people there who wish to remain British and there's also the small matter of oil exploration. The idea that a Country can hold possession of territory on the other side of the World in perpetuity, which was brought about by conquest in the age of imperialism, is at best misguided. It is, however, an historical anomaly where you have a tiny number of people living on islands off the coastal shelf of South America that declare themselves to be subjects of a Government in Europe and it does make the situation all the more complex. In short, I can see both sides of the argument and I think Oddball raises some valid points but I'm never going to often agree with folk to the right of the political spectrum like yourself Ubes (no offence). Great post earlier by the way when evaluating Crow and Thatcher. Very objective - maximum respect. BTW, this position I hold is in no way anti-British or anything like it. GB is my favourite Country in the World other than my own. It just happens to be my opinion on such matters that's all. (Gets back into bunker and puts tin hat on )
brits used to take all they could Australia and nz were even further away from blighty using todays morals to judge the pasts actions isabsolute bollocks
Very good point, Kiwi. I went to bed last night thinking about your own country. As I understand it - and this will be somewhat simplistic, but many issues are far too complex to try and cover all bases anyway - the Maoris were the first settlers on the islands that now comprise NZ. It was the subsequent settlement in greater numbers by the Europeans that usurped the Maoris. It is I believe the claims of the Maoris (often described incorrectly as the indigenous people of the islands) that receive international sympathy, although nobody ever suggests rule is passed back to them and the Europeans piss off back to Blighty etc. because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't The Falklands' history is one of half-arsed attempts to establish anything of any interest on the islands for around 200 years, but once Britain finally made claim and started to settle, the Argentinians got upset. They're only pissed off and bleating incessantly these days because they know they've dropped an oily bollock.
You're pushing against an open door with me as far as the respective jingoism of Britain and Argentina is concerned, Travis. I think I acknowledged that in one of my earlier posts. It is disappointing that you would not agree with a certain point just because it is made by somebody on the 'right'. For me, there are only good opinions and bad opinions these days; it just so happens that most of what I disagree fervently with is categorised 'left', but there are appalling policies pursued at both ends of the spectrum. We have discussed in previous threads that, when taken to the extreme, the policies of the 'right' and 'left' are really not that different: totalitarianism, oppression, corruption etc.
It's a fact that whenever an Argentine President is unpopular or their country is in an economic meltdown 'Las Malvinas' suddenly becomes an issue to deflect attention away from domestic troubles. Thatcher simply responded to the 'invasion' as any major power would to an invasion of one of it's 'dependencies'. In reality the Falklands is as bleak and miserable a place as you'll find anywhere. The only real issue is that many generations descended from the original settlers are 'British' and wish to remain so, I wouldn't expect there to be a massive queue of Argentinians eager to move there for anything other than to do work on the possible oil or gas exploration and doubt if they'd settle permanently. The residents obviously have seen how volatile the Argentinians can be and want none of it. It is a problem that is not simple to solve and it is similar in a less obvious way to the Gibraltar situation where every now and then there is sabre-rattling from the Spanish...
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that the Falklands conflict was to Thatcher's later advantage. It would not surprise me that intelligence would have been suggesting an invasion was imminent either; after all, the Argies landed at the remote outpost of South Georgia earlier, didn't they? I'm sure Thatcher would have been acutely aware that taking action could just as easily backfired as succeeded - what was she supposed to do with the whole world watching? It takes little imagination to work out why the Falkland Islands were of strategic interest to Britain, initially providing a landing stage and gateway to the Antarctic...and now all that lovely oil. We cared little about protecting them before the conflict because we were probably naive in thinking Argentina would observe international law. After that conflict - still relatively recent in memory - why the deuce should we contemplate doing a deal with the initial aggressors. You're an incredibly difficult person to argue with as you present your case like a game of 52-card pick-up; chucking a whole lot of disparate and often incoherent passages into the air and letting the reader sift through them for what they mean. Perhaps rune stones is a better analogy? Either way, difficult.
There is a point from Argentina about the Falklands being a left over of 19th century British colonialism, however it amuses me that they base their claim and their country on 18th century Spanish colonialism and see no irony in that. They should give independence to Patagonia and Tierra Del Fuego if they really believed in decolonialsim.
Well what we are talking about here is what we believe is history always going to me two or more ways if looking at it ... We at the same was served up a sugar coated version Anyone today really believe that there was any dialogue between us and the argentine before a surprise invasion? I doubt it ...of course we had to sail from the UK and cobble together a strike force which may support the frantic approach but today we know things aren't what they seem with the reports given to a general public I tend to believe that somewhere along the line dialogue went wrong between us and the mad men who IMO have always had a claim invaded Then after people lost their lives We ignored the international community calls for diplomacy and went all Bulldog Oil shortages or rights weren't considered then and never mentioned ... This was spun as mad men invading our lands Oil companies worldwide could buy the Falklands with loose change and if we ever thought it was of crucial importance then we guarded it with Dads Army We are now today reconsidering a lot because it has become clear that recent wars have been about natural resources and by 2050 there is only enough known oil to supply half the world ... I don't think the Falklands Islands were about that As for the oil under the ice ? What rights do we have to it ? I don't consider myself to be unfair about the death of MT ... Thankfully she was dead but still living and out of power a long time ago Benn gone now too but he lived a good life and in the end IMO was proved completely right on so many issues Crow was spun as evil but did his job very well IMO Comments on here about him holding the country to ransom over the Olympics nearly made me spit my coffee out ... The money used there for a few weeks sport why shouldn't the staff get a slice? Afterall they were just expected to do a job while the biggest rip off of money scams in this country took place . Bob got what his members deserved IMO ... Maybe more like him could get other sectors what they deserve ... Teachers Nurses Police Firemen etc ... The important people of this country not the gamblers of the city
This thread is proof that Bob Crow could start an argument in a Trappist monastery, bless him. Of course I have strong, enlightening and correct views on everything under discussion, but I'm watching a re-run of the Australian Grand Prix on telly, so I won't bore you with them.
Can't disagree with a lot of that mate but there is an argument that the Islanders can either be British and as a result just have the same say over British foreign policy in the South American region as their compatriots, IE not be able to dictate to the rest of the 99.999% of the British population, OR they are Falklanders and want an independent say on what happens to the Islands. What you often hear from them is that they want it both ways. Also, its the territory that's disputed rather than the nationality of the inhabitants. As far as I'm aware, the Argentines have no issue with the residents remaining British citizens. I would take slight issue with you regarding Spanish "sabre-rattling" over Gibraltar though. As Stan said before, Gibraltar may well be a toilet and he didn't understand why the Spanish would want it back. That did in fact give me pause to wonder how such an intelligent man could think in such a way. Reverse the roles for a second and imagine that the Isle of Wight was owned by Spain as a result of some Centuries-old conflict. Even if the Isle of Wight was an absolute toilet, would that be reason enough for the British not to give a toss or would they still see it as a permanent national embarrassment and insult that part of their territory on their doorstep was owned by another Nation? The very same people who view the Spanish as sabre-rattling (uber nationalists like Madrid and one or two others) would be the very ones at the front of the queue, red with rage at the sight of a foreign flag fluttering just off the coast at Portsmouth and clamoring for this affront to the integrity of the UK to be sorted out once and for all. Judging by some of their comments on here, sabre-rattling would be the least of our worries in such a scenario. Make way for World War Three!! Again, at the risk of getting barraged by a load of guys on here, I do think the old colonial mindset is still prevalent among some people, that even in this day and age a Country has the right to own territorial possessions around the World, and that's why I was surprised at Stan being unable to understand why Spain would feel very much aggrieved at part of their Country being owned by someone else. There tends to be a lack of objectivity when it comes to stuff like this at times. I always find, the best way to get to a balanced viewpoint is to walk in the other guys shoes for a while like I did above and then see how you'd feel in such circumstances. (No offence btw Stan )
I agree with you Swords, there are obvious reasons both Spain and Argentina are staking a claim but in both cases the residents, who are independent but 'tied' to Britain prefer the status quo. Their viewpoints are the most important and I would say that even if the roles were reversed...
None taken mate. You may have taken my words too literally - I do understand why they would want it, its just my opinion that its not a great place (thats OPINION Madrid, before you jump down my throat again). All this bitching about territory feels very old fashioned.
That's not what I meant mate and apologies if it came across that way. What I was trying to do was "soften the blow" so to speak, by saying that I generally don't agree with people from the right as a whole as opposed to you in particular. I was trying to make sure that you didn't think there was anything personal in it. I occasionally agree with right-leaning people of course but naturally by me being to the left, more often than not, I am in disagreement with them.
With great respect Swords ........ Why are you back ?? I thought you were boycotting the board due to the tyrant mods we have on here ? I'm really confused bruv 'cos I'm sure you'd never return only due to the fact that you might realise the board might just carry on fine without you and it's really not that important whether you stay or leave. You'd never do that would you Swords ?? I, for one, welcome back our prodigal son (Even if he might be eating a big slice of humble pie)
