The EU doomsday one sounds even funnier.
the mail thinks we have maradona posters and streets named after galitieri
Falklands
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
the mail thinks we have maradona posters and streets named after galitieri
Only the Daily Mail could turn the Eurozone economic crisis into French military dominance of the continent on the verge of an invasion of the British Isles.
the mail thinks we have maradona posters and streets named after galitieri
The Daily Mail thinks the Labour Party had, and still has, a hotline to Moscow.
I always find it amusing that in their bedtime stories they always have a crisis of confidence that results in Milliband becoming PM and then making him out to be a buffoon.
the mail thinks we have maradona posters and streets named after galitieri
You mean you don't. Wow.
i don't get what you are trying to say
I'm being facetious, not at your expense though.
I'm also surprised that you all don't sing 'don't cry for me argentina' constantly in the streets everyday.
right, and we don't dance tango and there are no gauchos riding horses in buenos aires streets
right, and we don't dance tango and there are no gauchos riding horses in buenos aires streets
No!!! You lie!!!
i dont
women are hot, though, and now, with 35 celsius, ther walk the streets almost naked
Thats to much for my Bowler hat and stiff upper lip to take. War is a given!
It really annoys me we have to round and round in circles here with regard to the defence of the Islands, every six months or so there is a row about how the navy cannot protect them and we have to explain for the umpteenth time the forces are already there and can protect them, and if needs be we could send literally dozens of Tornadoes down in a couple of days and base them from Mount Pleasant or if needs be Ascension with the use of refuelling aircraft.
There is a reason why the Typhoons down there cost £65 million each, Argentinian fighter jets can fire an air-to-air missile from six miles away, a Typhoon has a missile in development that can fire from seventy - we spend more each year buying the missiles than they do on maintaining the planes.
There is a reason why the Typhoons down there cost £65 million each, Argentinian fighter jets can fire an air-to-air missile from six miles away, a Typhoon has a missile in development that can fire from seventy - we spend more each year buying the missiles than they do on maintaining the planes.
I meant, let them govern themselves. But as Argentina and Britain claim the islands, they should jointly foot the bill.
It is all well enough for them to say they want to remain British, but that does not mean Britain needs to pay such huge amounts of money without limit.
If Argentina does not want to put their money where their mouth is, relinquish their claim.
The Falklands economy is pretty strong without oil. They have good fishing, tourism and good wool exports. With the first oil due to be extracted in 2016 the Falklands will be a bit of a cash cow for the UK government.
As a self-governing British Overseas Territory, they do govern themselves, with a small legislative assembly and a head of government. Of course, it still relies on UK state institutions -- from the Foreign Office to the Bank of England -- to function, as it is too small to act as a fully independent territory on its own. Tax revenue is raised internally, which funds all necessary public spending on the islands, with the exception of military defence. So there is no cost involved in running the territory to the UK, other than the cost required to defend it.
As they already govern themselves, I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting. If it's condominium/joint sovereignty between the UK and Argentina, then I'm not sure what the point of that would be. It would save the UK money in defence costs, but it doesn't give Argentina what it wants, which is full sovereignty and control over the islands. Also, it would be a highly unstable arrangement, as joint sovereignty between two countries brings about all sorts of potential constitutional problems. And to stress the point again...the islanders don't want anything other than their islands being British sovereign territory.
if the residents can pay for the privilege of being British, there is no issue about what Argentina says....
Well if British water surround the Falklands there is a very good chance they will be able to pay plus some for many years.
BTW - they are not paying for the privilege of being British, its more like paying to avoid the stigma of being Argentinian.
Bolas, whether you cool young dudes actually dance the tango or are frugging away, the spirit of it still permeates the psyche.
right, and we don't dance tango and there are no gauchos riding horses in buenos aires streets
I agree with you; people are what matter. No people are displaced or put out by the current arrangement, but they would be if the islands changed sovereignty. And for no good reason.
What's Argentina's reason for wanting the islands: 'they're near us and we want to conquer them for the oil' by the looks of it? Talk about imperialism Pete...
That's what we're trying to unpick Michael not endorse.
How many generations do a people have to live somewhere before they become legitimate in your view?
have not kept up with all this..
Is Argentina 'threatening' something again?
..that this has come up again?
if current situation is satisfactory to Britain and the Falklanders, why bother what Argentina says, unless force is being threatened.
Is Argentina 'threatening' something again?
..that this has come up again?
if current situation is satisfactory to Britain and the Falklanders, why bother what Argentina says, unless force is being threatened.
You can't ever legitimise a colonial seizure of islands 8,000 miles away.
true. But in the end what the current population wants must carry a heck of a lot of weight.
The whole of the Americas is a colonial seizure.
Seems like there's going to be a lot of people returning to Europe from the US, Canada, South America and Australia if you get your way.
Yeah, but that's probably irreversible and they've made their own arrangements - they're not British or French any more. The Falklands is still a colonial outpost that should be de-imperialised.
I don't agree with your premise anyway Pete, so I'm not going to argue on your terms.
The whole history of humanity is about the movement of people and their settling on the lands they come across. It has obviously ruined the lives of indigenous peoples (who mostly ruined the lives of the indigenous peoples before them)... but ruining the lives of yet more people now seems to be a solution to something which is no longer a problem (in the case of the Falklands anyway).
The whole history of humanity is about the movement of people and their settling on the lands they come across. It has obviously ruined the lives of indigenous peoples (who mostly ruined the lives of the indigenous peoples before them)... but ruining the lives of yet more people now seems to be a solution to something which is no longer a problem (in the case of the Falklands anyway).
There is no threat of an invasion, but Argentina has been cranking up the political pressure for some time now. This thread was bumped because a South American trading bloc - comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay - made a decision to ban all vessels flying the Falkland flag from using its ports in support of Argentina's claim. Kirchner has promised an 'eternal fight' for the islands, which probably suggests we'll see more of these sanctions over the next few years.
Surely you have to agree that seizing lands 8,000 miles away and populating them with colonial settlers is anything other than bad?
certainly something that should be sorted diplomatically.
simply, if the people want to remain British and they are not a 'burden' on the government, I dont see the problem. Argentina would not want to be slapped down a second time I would think.
of course it is. a lot more examples closer to home for that sort of examples...
but we cannot really go back in time to undo such things.
Well if everyone had that view then no one would have left Africa would they? I think it's the displacing of people that is the bad thing. If there is no one living on a land then I don't think it's necessarily wrong to make that your home, but you shouldn't be colonising places that are already settled, no.
feck off, we're not talking about primitive man trying to scratch a living and deal with expanding population and lack of food - we're talking imperialist landgrab. Not so offensive as grabbing it off people already living there and forcing them to exploit it for the benefit of others, but still reprehensible.
Meh, if no one is there already, then some country or other is going to eventually take ownership of it. It's not that big a deal unless it is clearly in the geographical sphere of one country (such as the Isle of Wight being British).
I don't see how the Falkland islanders are impinging on the Argentinians or deserve to be booted out of their homes.
Well it is pretty much like Argentina pitching up and grabbing a couple of hundred Shetland Islands.
The Shetland Islands is established and recognised British territory, the Falkland Islands not long after the formation of Argentina 300 miles away in an era when that was akin to thousands of miles away was not.
There was never any settled Argentine presence in the islands, our history there before 1833 was stronger than anybody elses, we got in there and we settled - case closed. One of Argentina's big claims is that they were the successor to Spanish territories in Spain and therefore the Falklands deserved to them. That would be akin to the United States on winning their independence deciding to take over Upper Canada because it was British and North American, which of course they did try to do.
There was never any settled Argentine presence in the islands, our history there before 1833 was stronger than anybody elses, we got in there and we settled - case closed. One of Argentina's big claims is that they were the successor to Spanish territories in Spain and therefore the Falklands deserved to them. That would be akin to the United States on winning their independence deciding to take over Upper Canada because it was British and North American, which of course they did try to do.
Talk about throwing stones in glass houses, I am surprised to find out that amongst the nations who support Argentina's claim is... China.
The country that claims sovereignty over Taiwan, over Tibet, over 'South Tibet' in India, over parts of Kashmir, over islands that are part of Japan and islands that are part of Vietnam actually supports Argentina - if we came out in support of Taiwan they would go absolutely mental.
The country that claims sovereignty over Taiwan, over Tibet, over 'South Tibet' in India, over parts of Kashmir, over islands that are part of Japan and islands that are part of Vietnam actually supports Argentina - if we came out in support of Taiwan they would go absolutely mental.
And why is that? Because it's near the British mainland just like Las Malvinas are near Argentina.
No because they have been settled since time immemorial by Scots who became British in 1707, a territory that Scotland and Britain have maintained.
Britain was the first country to maintain a presence in the Falklands, nearly 150 years before Argentina existed - they are in no way similar situations.
No doubt you are one of these people who cling to the absurd notion that sinking the Belgrano was wrong, to think the BBC actually put that to Thatcher.
sinking the belgrano was wrong