If it doesn't happen now then why should it happen when the demographics favour what you want?
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.
If it doesn't happen now then why should it happen when the demographics favour what you want?
On the subject of the Falklands though, it is clear they will remain British, rightly or wrongly, and no one is going to be able to change or force that otherwise. The vote has simply strengthened that.
Argentina are going to have to move on to something else as it is clear the British government won't back down on it.
If a vote happened tommorrow the overwhelming majority of people in the twenty-six would vote yes for unity. That's always been the case.
I would put that 'overwhelming majority' at around the 60% if I was asked to predict. A lot of Irish people are spoilt and selfish and wouldn't have the stomach for the shit that would inevitably hit the fan. Way to many people only think of themselves and the idea of Ireland or a sovereign nation to them is drinking Guinness and watching the ruggers.
The West Bank isn't Palestinian, either. It has never, in its entire history, been owned by the Palestinians. The Israelis took control of the WB before Palestine as a country even existed!
And if you want to start arguing about colonialism and use that as an excuse to kick the Israelis off, then all the Arabs can feck off back to Saudi Arabia then rather than sabre-rattling. They're just as much the descendants of colonists.
Just my two Agorot...
The West Bank isn't Palestinian, either. It has never, in its entire history, been owned by the Palestinians. The Israelis took control of the WB before Palestine as a country even existed!
And if you want to start arguing about colonialism and use that as an excuse to kick the Israelis off, then all the Arabs can feck off back to Saudi Arabia then rather than sabre-rattling. They're just as much the descendants of colonists.
Just my two Agorot...
Now, now, you know this logic only applies against us old colonial powers who forced their ways and language on to areas we colonised. Next you'll be telling me that Argentina as we know it was founded by a colonial power who overpowered the indigenous people and forced adoption of their language and culture onto those people. Oh, wait.
The West Bank isn't Palestinian, either. It has never, in its entire history, been owned by the Palestinians. The Israelis took control of the WB before Palestine as a country even existed!
And if you want to start arguing about colonialism and use that as an excuse to kick the Israelis off, then all the Arabs can feck off back to Saudi Arabia then rather than sabre-rattling. They're just as much the descendants of colonists.
Just my two Agorot...
I've always considered both of these arguments preposterous.
Firstly, I would consider 'ownership' of a piece of land to really just mean living on it. The Palestinians didn't own the West Bank or the rest of Israel/Palestine in terms of UN recognition as a nation state but the Palestinians lived there. They worked there, they farmed there. The fact that there wasn't and isn't a UN recognised Palestinian state seems to have been used as an excuse to treat the millions of Palestinians on these territories as if they're not humans or don't exist. A lot of the countries in the Middle East and Africa didn't really have too much history in their current states either, they were drawn with pretty arbitrary borders.
The difference is of course that the Arabs moved in almost 1400 years ago, in a time when religious nutjobs of all flavours were busy expending huge numbers of men and resources trying to take the 'holy land' and not pillaging and looting your neighbour was seen as the exception, as opposed to today. This was a time, when, correct me if I'm wrong, the Romans had already dispersed the Jews far and wide anyway. Or, putting it another way, talk me through the mechanism of returning all colonialists from 1400 years ago and since to their 'homes' and talk me through the mechanism of doing the same for the past 70 years.
Ultimately, I'm just a little confused why you would even bring this up tbh, in a discussion that has nothing to do with it.
As for the Falklands, rightly or wrongly, they're not going anywhere. The Argentinians can bring to bear no pressure, whether military, financial or diplomatic which would convince us to give them up.
what are you on about? I am saying I don't imagine self determination will be so readily on the governments lips when the demographics do change to favour the nationalist community in NI. It's never going to happen at this present time because the population majority is still pro union. Whats it matter to you anyway?With a slight unionist majority, we DO have it now surely? Or are you asking why we don't want a current unionist majority to have a vote which overrules the wishes of a potential future nationalist majority? Which would be a bloody stupid question.
And I know full well we're costing Britain a fortune, but screw them, the whole mess over here is their fault anyway.
Chill, AS. This thread descended into a game of dodgy analogies and I contributed one myself.
How about the Golan Heights then? Would you recognize it as an Israeli territory based on a referendom there?
The West Bank isn't Palestinian, either. It has never, in its entire history, been owned by the Palestinians. The Israelis took control of the WB before Palestine as a country even existed!
And if you want to start arguing about colonialism and use that as an excuse to kick the Israelis off, then all the Arabs can feck off back to Saudi Arabia then rather than sabre-rattling. They're just as much the descendants of colonists.
Just my two Agorot...
Yeh, one key difference - the people on the Falklands consider themselves British; the people in the West Bank don't consider themselves Israeli. But don't let the facts get away of you shoehorning Israel into a debate.
You'd have been much better off comparing the West Bank to Northern Ireland if you wanted to make a point.
How about Tibet can we throw Tibet into the conversation?
I think we can throw almost every country into the conversation.
There are a billion threads going on about Ireland. Please try and stay on topic as this is about the Falklands.
The West Bank isn't Palestinian, either. It has never, in its entire history, been owned by the Palestinians. The Israelis took control of the WB before Palestine as a country even existed!
And if you want to start arguing about colonialism and use that as an excuse to kick the Israelis off, then all the Arabs can feck off back to Saudi Arabia then rather than sabre-rattling. They're just as much the descendants of colonists.
Just my two Agorot...
All arabs in west asia aren't from saudi arabia
Many outside saudia arabia are "arabs" only linguistly
All arabs in west asia aren't from saudi arabia
Many outside saudia arabia are "arabs" only linguistly
No shit, Sherlock.
Congrats for the first non-YouTube post for 18 months though.
Comparisons between the Falklands and the West Bank might have made sense if the the Falklands are, or ever had been, as full of Argentinians as the West Bank is full of Palestinians.
As it is introducing the West Bank into the thread has merely served to remind us of the rights and wrongs there, well done.
As it is introducing the West Bank into the thread has merely served to remind us of the rights and wrongs there, well done.
Being British and partly Northern Irish it is of some interest to me. Strange jab coming from an Irishman in a Falklands thread, though just what I would expect from you.
I think Jewish presence in the "WB" for thousands of years compared with British colonialsim 1000's of miles from home contribute to the shit analogy.
I'm with you there.
Your analogy would be a lot less shit if you included penguins though.
Get off your fecking high horse, it was a perfectly valid observation and comparison. If you can't debate an issue without resorting to jabs then stfu.
I was under the impression that the residents of the Golan, as with the residents of east Jerusalem, have already been given the chance to join Israel and they rejected it en masse?
The Druze in the Golan Heights are divided on the issue. Don't know the stats if I'm honest, but there are thousands of Jewish residents in the area too.
Many East Jerusalem Arabs accepted Israeli citizenships. Can't beat the associated social benefits.
It may be best in the long term for the Arabs to bring down the system from within like the nationalists/republicans in NI. There are ten million Palestinians around the world who have a right to abode in the disputed area.
The one state solution would put arabs in the majority.
I should have known many would be happy to talk ME. Back to the Falklands, if you don't mind.
It was you who first decided to take it off topic.
No, it wasn't. I'm sure you can spot various analogies to other conflicts/disputes before my first post in the thread. That post was supposed to highlight the futility in making those comparisons.
For someone who doesn't know much about it all, why do Argentina want it so much?
Also, it looks like a proper weird place. Insightful, I know.
Also, it looks like a proper weird place. Insightful, I know.
Aha. Explains everything! Cheers
It's thirty years since the Island was invaded by Argentina. If their interest was just about oil then why did they invade thirty years ago when no prospect of oil reserves had been indicated.
This whole thing is about Argentinean politics and British reactions.
It’s pointless because the UK can't even talk to Argentina about it after the invasion.
It’s potentially dangerous because it riles nationalism in both countries.
It pisses all over a joint history between Argentina and the UK which had been a very constructive one.
It's just a very sad state of affairs.
Given the jumbled history of the Islands it is almost impossible to trump the wishes of the population who have been there for nearly 200 years now. Prior to that the claims and counter claims are so convoluted and uncertain that whatever anyone claims can be counter claimed by someone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands
The islands were originally just a toy collecting exercise on behalf of colonial powers by whoever stumbled across them from time to time and Britain, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and even France had a hand or at least a claim from time to time.
Early on they had minor political importance particularity for the British as it gave them a foothold in the region. Argentina were interested out of national pride with minor fishing rights also an issue in the early years of their nation but they didn't seem to care that much after the British reestablished control over the Islands in the1830's although they did send annual diplomatic complains until the peace treaty that followed the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in the mid 1850's when these claims stopped for 33 years and weren't raised in the Argentine congress until 1941, the first discussion there for 90 years. This is the biggest weakness in any claim Argentina have to the Island. The argument is that they gave sovereignty away when they signed the peace treat and only raised the issue again a long time later when they wanted them back for different reasons.
The strategic importance they has seems to have almost disappeared once the Panama Canal opened and Britain seemed quite happy to drift towards giving them away although the unwillingness of the residents to become Argentinian and Argentina's unwillingness to really negotiate in the 60's and 70's (they really just wanted a total instant handback) slowed things down I think this would have happened eventually until Argentina misread British reserve and Britain misread or ignored the diplomatic signals leading up to the invasion and war which was now motivated almost purely by the military Junta's desire to distract from how crap things were at home.
Now oil and gas rights complicate things even further with Argentina now wanting all of the oil revenue instead of the 1/3 share they negotiated in the 90's and even before the oil/gas issue there is no way that Britain are going to give the Island's away after the war. It just isn't going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands
The islands were originally just a toy collecting exercise on behalf of colonial powers by whoever stumbled across them from time to time and Britain, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and even France had a hand or at least a claim from time to time.
Early on they had minor political importance particularity for the British as it gave them a foothold in the region. Argentina were interested out of national pride with minor fishing rights also an issue in the early years of their nation but they didn't seem to care that much after the British reestablished control over the Islands in the1830's although they did send annual diplomatic complains until the peace treaty that followed the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in the mid 1850's when these claims stopped for 33 years and weren't raised in the Argentine congress until 1941, the first discussion there for 90 years. This is the biggest weakness in any claim Argentina have to the Island. The argument is that they gave sovereignty away when they signed the peace treat and only raised the issue again a long time later when they wanted them back for different reasons.
The strategic importance they has seems to have almost disappeared once the Panama Canal opened and Britain seemed quite happy to drift towards giving them away although the unwillingness of the residents to become Argentinian and Argentina's unwillingness to really negotiate in the 60's and 70's (they really just wanted a total instant handback) slowed things down I think this would have happened eventually until Argentina misread British reserve and Britain misread or ignored the diplomatic signals leading up to the invasion and war which was now motivated almost purely by the military Junta's desire to distract from how crap things were at home.
Now oil and gas rights complicate things even further with Argentina now wanting all of the oil revenue instead of the 1/3 share they negotiated in the 90's and even before the oil/gas issue there is no way that Britain are going to give the Island's away after the war. It just isn't going to happen.
But...but she asked the Pope!
Maybe she doesn't know that the British, well Henry VIII, told the Pope to do one and made their own church?
Maybe she doesn't know that the British, well Henry VIII, told the Pope to do one and made their own church?
I read somewhere once that the Falkland Islanders feel more like a nation rather than simply British, as their origins, ethnic mix, language and culture isn't merely that of a small English village dropped in the Southern Oceans. They apparently feel quite close to Chile and Uruguay (I think it was) but want zero to do with Argentina who they viewed as nothing more than aggressive enemies even before the invasion that led to the war. I'm guessing that this view was strengthened by the invasion.
and maybe you don't know it was Henry VIII
The Caf chopped off one of my "I"s like he did his exwives heads.
But why? Why would the war change the British stance if they were ever willing to negotiate the future of the territory?
[Humming Land of Hope and Glory]
The Government that gave them back to Argentina would lose the next election. Even before it meant giving $150 billion of oil revenue away. Plus it might be said that we were not giving a shit about people who felt British prior to the war.
The Government that gave them back to Argentina would lose the next election. Even before it meant giving $150 billion of oil revenue away. Plus it might be said that we were not giving a shit about people who felt British prior to the war.
That is some argument. *trying to avoid inevitable analogies*
So basically the UK will never give away the islands because you are militarily stronger than the Argies. Surely, potential casulties of another war are a stronger argument than victims of the previous round, held 30 years ago.
Every sensible person would argue, having a quick look at the map, that the UK have no business holding that shithole. You're basically there because you can, plus the political incentive of avoiding nationalistic shit-stirring.
So basically the UK will never give away the islands because you are militarily stronger than the Argies. Surely, potential casulties of another war are a stronger argument than victims of the previous round, held 30 years ago.
Every sensible person would argue, having a quick look at the map, that the UK have no business holding that shithole. You're basically there because you can, plus the political incentive of avoiding nationalistic shit-stirring.