Yeah Canada is full of uneconomic oil that will be a gold mine before too long.
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.
I think patethic is a bit strong for the idea that lands grabbed during empire building are not really yours. It's quite a valid opinion in my book.
Just because you were a bit stronger than the Portuguese in the 16th Century means that an Island off the Argentinian Coast is British is much more tenuous IMO
Sssh it's the only bit of the Empire that's so fecking shit that no one big and nasty really wants it.
I think Ireland should make a play for it; it would at least give Enda something to do. He looks a bit lost.
It's even wetter than the auld sod.
give them Independence.
They independently and unanimously agreed to remain British.
i'd be willing to give up the falklands for messi.
fair deal.
fair deal.
You don't think its shameful that two apparently civilised countries went to war over a tiny piece of land causing fatal casualties equalling half of the Island's population?
Why would that have caused shame? Because we couldn't go around jingoistically beating our chests about the empire and our victory over the Argentinians?
The population of the falklands have said they want to stay under Britain so both sides should respect that. But its pathetic that we go to war over such stupid things in the first place.
We're not there for the oil, that has just happened to be a lucky coincidence. The people were given the choice and the choice they made was to remain British. We are there because of it's strategic importance of allowing us to monitor traffic and is a Naval base of the South Atlantic. The question is, why do the Argentineans want the Falklands?
Britain do respect that, so thats why we acted when they was invaded. I don't see any shame in Britain defending it and I think any other nation would have done the same.
The oil was a coincidence but 'the people' are 70% descended from the British occupation over the years. This was the same in Northern Ireland, you populated areas as you conquer them, thus making the issue even more complicated than looting and pillaging. Calling the planted population 'the people' without qualification is misleading.
As for why the Argies want the Islands, same reason ye do; that and the reason the British wouldn't like the Isle of Wight to be in 'foreign' hands.
Do we have to go back to the argument of how the Celts got into Ireland? The majority of Argentinians are of European decent in any case, they also got there through imperial conquest on the part of the Spanish. Does geographical closeness give states rights now to lay claim to rock? Why doesn't Argentina demand bits of Chilie if that's the case? Oh, wait, it seems they already have a bit of it, so why not go the whole hog?
So once you have the bigger army, nowt else matters? And Israel, you see no issues there? And the gulf war, what was that all about, all the Iraqis were doing was a small annex?
Eh? The Argentinians had vastly more military power in terms of numbers than the British did bobbing up and down on a few boats in the middle of nowhere. Trouble being that most were conscripts. Their air power was dangerous as well, the French equipped them well. They made serious tactical mistakes though - a single Vulcan bomber shit them up because they thought that it might try to have a go at Buenos Aires on another run. Attacking mainland Argentina was never on the British agenda.
Israel is a false creation in very different times that lead to the problems we now see with Palestine. No Argentinians were forced off those rocks as hardly any lived on them.
The Gulf war? Oil and a fear that things might go off on one. That was one sovereign state attacking another for no reason in a post UN created world in any case.
Britain didn't want them for much of the 20th Century, but you can't just allow other countries to invade land inhabited by British citizens and not take action. The war was unfortunate but what else could they do?
Your point about the term "people" is irrelevant in this case. There was no indignous population until European settlers arrived, unlike Argentina.
I don't think the Brits should be in the Falklands at all. Thatcher and Carrington fecked up big style to encourage the Argentine to invade. They then had to go to war to underline the rule of international law and not let tinpot right wing dictators do what they want.
It's not irrelevant, by your logic if one populates any unpopulated area you can claim it as your own? Which you can't.
Errrm, many countries were fannying around with those Islands before Argentina existed.
So what the hell are you talking about? Every time the British left it without any population, someone else came along and fannied around on it, only for the British to take it back due to its strategic importance of controlling shipping between the South Atlantic and South Pacific.
Errrm, many countries were fannying around with those Islands before Argentina existed.
So what the hell are you talking about? Every time the British left it without any population, someone else came along and fannied around on it, only for the British to take it back due to its strategic importance of controlling shipping between the South Atlantic and South Pacific.
I'm talking about the fact that claims above that it was unpoplated and thus makes annexing it ok. Is any unpopulated island in British waters is fair game for say, the Chinese?
At last, Ireland wasn't a sovereign state when the Celts landed.
It wasn't when the Romans came and decided it was worthless, or when the Normans came and got giddy with giving out land to all and sundry little generals that licked the salty balls of the Duke of Normandy.
Which excuses the actions then, but we've moved on hopefully.
Not anymore you can't, but that's how countries were made.
Fact is, you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise the sovereignty of every territory on Earth would be disputed still. By your logic Argentinians have no right to the land they were born on because their ancestors stole it from the indiginous people (although that term is a bit of a misnomer too because their land must have been acquired at some point as well.)
Not in this day and age, no, because all that has been in the main sorted out. At the time Britain first bothered with these Islands, they didn't belong to Argentina, because Argentina didn't exist. All of the colonial powers at the time knew fair well that anything was up for grabs.
Who does the moon belong to?
Not in this day and age no, but you'll still defend previous mistakes with the army is the only point of any 'dissenters' in this thread.
What am I defending, I'm saying that Argentina have no rights to the islands, because Argentina didn't exist, and in any case was a product of colonialism itself. In this day and age, people have the right to self determination. Those islands belong to the people that have lived on them for almost 200 years, not to anybody else, and those people have the right to choose how they are governed. If they wish to remain a British protectorate (it's not a Crown protectorate and not part of the UK), that is their prerogative, and I find it strange that you don't or are unwilling to accept that through nothing more than an argument of pure geography.
If the people want to remain British then they should be allowed to do so. The fact that Argentina wants to grab some more land is irrelevant.
What next? The USA should be allowed to invade Cuba because it's nearby?
What next? The USA should be allowed to invade Cuba because it's nearby?
Of course they should, I'm not saying any different. I only entered the conversation because of the usual absolute-speak which declared any hint of the issue being less than clear as pathetic.
It's a bit more complex than going somewere with no organised government and putting settlers down and it being an ethical fait accompli.
It's a bit more complex than going somewere with no organised government and putting settlers down and it being an ethical fait accompli.
Your own habit of talking around the subject meant you weren't explicit until now. Find where I have argued agaisnt this. I was arguing against points other posters made and you decided to talk about the Celts.
Also there are islands around both our countries that are ours by argument of pure geography.
Because there is such a thing as self determination, moses.
We can't correct all of the wrongs of colonialism but we can at least learn from the past and not make the same mistakes by allowing countries to govern land against the inhabitants' wishes.
It's not really though is it, they're no more settlers than Americans. They live there, it's their island and incidentally they want to remain under British control.
I think that you confuse political boundaries drawn on a map and local proximity with actuall geography. Ireland is part of the same archipelago as Great Britain is, that's why it's geographically called "The British isles", which belongs to which?
And where the majority doesn't suit this you stick in a border and split the territory? You are for handing the six counties back, lock & stock?
Don't talk to me about post colonial repsonsibility and lessons learned. Britain and the other colonial powers is in part built on the wealth of colony and is in no small part to blame for the state of the less developed post colonial countries.
I don't know what your first sentence means. On the second, yes, I know. And they will. Just like the Unionists in the North, but that doesn't make it just or proper. The theory is not sound. It is at best the best case scenario. Colonalism was immoral and in theory should be reversed.
No I'm not, I'm just not as narrow in my focus as you, I don't forget the idea of nation state just because the current focus is geography. There are islands we both claim despite them not being populated or even visited.
That's going to mean a shit load of people coming back to Europe from North America, South America, Africa and Australia then.