UK Falklands military exercises 'provoke' Argentina

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The reason why the late pm Mrs. M.Thatcher, gave permission for Financial advisors to enter the UK - late 70s early 80s - and how such created the gradual shot-up shop - of many Large Industries, Manufacturing plants, Local small business, etc.etc.etc. They were advised to ship out to Thaiwen, Beijing, Thailand, India etc. ICI moved to Russia, our pharmeceutical researchers now being bought to be closed down, When all this kicked into action the Falklands stunt was a handy diverter, Remember when China and Russia were small Communist lands ????? Who do you think poured so much heavy and new finances into such to produce what you see today ??? Average people see what happens now and argue over such. Brilliant MPs and Financiers etc. look 10 years ahead, today is nothing to them.

My old friends fought in the Falklands by the way............




posted on May, 1 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: steaming

Again - Erm, ok...

I don't think anyone would deny the Falklands was a handy diversion for the Government of the time. Not sure what relevance the rest has to the thread though, although it is certainly interesting none the less.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Thank Uou and for now farewell, sorry for upsetting the Falklands present debate, but its you and our precious Grandchildren that keeps me ticking, will open the door much wider at a later date. Till then just keep searching and see what the furture looks like, bye



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: steaming

It's all good


Take care



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Davian



And yet you ABSOLUTELY express one-sided and anti-Argentinian opinion at every turn.


Nothing I've posted could be described as 'anti-Argentinian'.
I have nothing but sympathy for the ordinary, everyday Argentinian people who again are being manipulated and exploited by their corrupt government that has completely failed them.
Their economy is in ruins so yet again politicians exploit their romantic and nationalistic nature in an effort to deflect away from their domestic failings.
The similarities to 1982 are striking, the only major difference is that Argentina is in a worse state militarily than it was then.

If Kirchner had the best interests of the Argentinian people at heart she would have went ahead with the agreement proposed by the UK giving Argentina shared and equal rights to the mineral wealth of the region.
That would have been a massive boost to the Argentinian economy, would have provided long term job security in a highly paid industry for many Argentinians and would have led to greatly improved relations between the islanders / UK and Argentina.
The UK was neither legally nor morally obliged to make any offer at all, but they did - why do YOU think Kirchner reneged on the deal?
One things for certain it wasn't out of consideration for the best interests of the Argentinian people.



You keep pointing out anti-Argentinian sentiment...


Where?
Expressing the opinion that Argentina has no legal or moral right to claim The Falkland Islands isn't 'anti-Argentinian' sentiment.
I'm not advocating any action against Argentina and its people.
I'm not criticising Argentina as a whole or its people.
Please explain to me how I'm in any way 'anti-Argentinian'.



AT LEAST I'M PROVIDING SOURCES.


I think I've covered that - are you really that ignorant and unaware of current events and related issues to the topic you are attempting to discuss?



And once again, point out where I said ONCE that I am anti-British.


Your whole tone displays a general anti-British viewpoint.
Your insistence on labelling the UK's policy on The Falklands as 'colonialism' suggests an anti-British mindset.
Your insistence on portraying anything and everything, regardless of relevance to the topic under discussion, in an anti-British light is pretty evident throughout the thread.
Perhaps I've misread you, but nothing you've posted so far would suggest I have.



I've never said this, you're just grasping at straws and continuing to inflate your ad hominem logical fallacy that is just absolutely gaping in your argument.


I've never once had a go at you personally, just your argument, your point of view and your apparent overall approach - nothing personal at all.
I tend to assume, I know I shouldn't assume anything, that people can differentiate between a difference of opinion and personal attacks.



The SAME could be said about YOU. Still not done calling the kettle black eh? YOU are unwilling to even consider any alternative perspective or opinion and YOU seem to completely dismiss anything that either disproves or questions your stated opinion. YES?


I've considered your opinion - but I still disagree with it.
Pretty straight forward.

You don't think that this is the first time I've had this discussion on ATS do you?



And NO, you do not have greater credibility here, because unlike you, I'VE PROVIDED SOURCES.


I'm sure I've covered this point before.



How many times must we do this dance of idiocy?


My thoughts exactly.

I would appreciate though some direct answers from you rather than bleating on about providing sources to established facts that anyone with even a basic understanding of this subject should be aware of, accusing people of being a 'shill' just because they have a different opinion than you or accusing those who counter anything you post of conducting personal or ad hominem attacks on you.

I can understand and respect alternative viewpoints than mine - I just question your motivations behind them in this instance and wonder if your opinion isn't grounded in your desire to be seen as anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, anti-whatever.

In the meantime here's a video and a song for you to enjoy and contemplate.....it should at least gives us all a slight bit of hope for the future.




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Danbones

Dan, we've done this a million times - when will you learn?

Crown Land doesn't belong to the Queen. In the UK, it is land owned by the Crown Estate, which is actually owned buy the Treasury. The Monarchy transferred ownership of the Crown Estate at the end of the 18th Century to the Government.

In other Countries, such as Canada, it is Federally owned land - in other words, land that belongs to the State. For example, if Canada should become a Republic, that land will not still be "owned" by the Queen. It is only called Crown Land because the Queen is the Head of State and therefore representative of Canada in person.

>sigh< How many times must we do this dance of idiocy?

you missed the stat on who is the biggest land owner in the world I suppose?

Within Canada, Crown Land is a designated area belonging to the Queen in Right of Canada,[5][6] the equivalent of an entailed estate that passes with the monarchy and cannot be alienated from it; thus, per constitutional convention, these lands cannot be unilaterally sold by the monarch, instead passing on to the next king or queen unless the sovereign is advised otherwise by the ministers of the Crown. Though the Canadian monarch owns all Crown Land in the country,
en.wikipedia.org...

stopping the idiocy?
dunno
thats up to you


he ownership factor is 1. The Queen is the sole legal owner of all the land of Canada. The private “holdership” factor, based on freehold tenure of housing is 67%. For all other land it is less than 9.7%, with over 90% of Canadian land remaining as Crown leasehold, administered for the Crown by various agencies and departments of the government of Canada
GNI in 2005 was $28,390 and Canada ranked 21 in the World Bank list
In the Economist Quality of Life survey Canada scored 7.59 and was ranked 21 out of 111 countries.
About 79% of the Canadian population is urban and there is no basic poverty in Canada.
There are 75.9 acres per person in Canada.

How Canada is owned
All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’.
www.whoownstheworld.com...

there is no crown land in southern ontario because the crown gave it all away in the last couple centuries
we came we saw we gave it all away....
now the indians that lived their before are all dead or outvoted
we have new indians mostly...imported

so this whole democracy justifiction is kinda shakey for that..but turn around is fair play...
sharia law might take britian over soon...
edit on Sunam5b20145America/Chicago24 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Danbones

I see. So now you're making baseless claims about sharia law taking over in this country as well. Not going to happen any time soon, if at all. And it's 'Britain', not 'britian'.
I also note that you've skated over the posts about the referendums. Interesting.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Danbones

Yup sorry Dan me old chum Muslims only are about 4% of the UK populave and most are British Muslims who enjoy our way of life so never will Sharia law come in the UK.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Im certain i could find enough threads around here where Im not the one wining about sharia law
cause i don't care...its no different then christians law...or any other special interest group

the point you both may have skipped is

that when an crown gives away land then has a vote amoungst the people they just gave the land too...
like the population in the falklands..who holds title to thier land, and collects taxes ?
well the results will be predictable to some..so what I am saying is
the democratic excuse is rigged from the start
and thats an observation you can't really argue with because that trick was played over and over around the world
and is an obvious scam
south ontario, and africa are good examples...even NATO and the IMF in the modern WEST ukraine is a modern form of this

so lets fucus on sharia law instead, if that would be easier on everyone
edit on Sunpm5b20145America/Chicago57 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


hey BM, hows things?
edit on Sunpm5b20145America/Chicago20 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on Sunpm5b20145America/Chicago14 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Danbones

Right... so you're saying that a democratic referendum held by a people who objected to being invaded by a bunch of jackbooted thugs from a fascist dictatorship that was screwing the Argentinean economy up to the point of insanity is somehow wrong? Or rigged somehow?

edit on 4-5-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
im saying its all about oil not about people

Oil and gas in the Falklands
Treasure islands?
Feb 28th 2014,
ith just 2,563 residents, a multibillion-dollar oil industry would make the Falklands one of the richest communities on earth. The local Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has already crafted its own fiscal policy to collect a 9% royalty on petroleum that is eventually extracted and a 26% corporation tax on future licensees. The FIG is planning to channel revenues into a sovereign-wealth fund, modelled on Norway’s.
All this potential wealth sharpens antagonism between Britain and Argentina

www.economist.com...

all the rest is just peanut butter
to anyone who says any of the landholdings are about the people i say BS
its purely about corporate and personal greed...

payed for with taxes and lives

think any different? fine, while you are being played, lets see some citations please...
oh and whats your price at the pumps ??......sheer idiocy I Bet



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Danbones

Yup sorry Dan me old chum Muslims only are about 4% of the UK populave and most are British Muslims who enjoy our way of life so never will Sharia law come in the UK.


please don't make me go the trouble of finding all he threads authored by Brits wining about the muslim encroachement
I mentioned stricktly in THAT CONTEXT



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Danbones

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Danbones

Yup sorry Dan me old chum Muslims only are about 4% of the UK populave and most are British Muslims who enjoy our way of life so never will Sharia law come in the UK.


please don't make me go the trouble of finding all he threads authored by Brits wining about the muslim encroachement
I mentioned stricktly in THAT CONTEXT


??? But the percentage of muslims in the UK is still just under 5% of the population. Whining threads are one thing but official statistics are something rather weightier. Oh and I see that you've now dismissed the referendums yet again whilst ranting about oil. Where's the oil in Gib? And why on earth would the Falklanders now trust the Argentineans?



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Danbones



im saying its all about oil not about people


Of course its a major consideration as a few of us have previously acknowledged in this thread.
But the same accusation can also be levelled at Argentina yet that tends to get glossed over amidst accusations of UK 'colonialism' and corporate greed.
Argentina are guilty of exactly the same things.

In my opinion the islanders wishes should be the primary consideration - surely in this instance they should at least be the deciding factor?



Oil and gas in the Falklands
Treasure islands?
Feb 28th 2014,
ith just 2,563 residents, a multibillion-dollar oil industry would make the Falklands one of the richest communities on earth. The local Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has already crafted its own fiscal policy to collect a 9% royalty on petroleum that is eventually extracted and a 26% corporation tax on future licensees. The FIG is planning to channel revenues into a sovereign-wealth fund, modelled on Norway’s.


So the Falkland Islanders are trying to ensure that they themselves reap at least some of the benefits of any oil development.
Can't fault them there, can you?



All this potential wealth sharpens antagonism between Britain and Argentina


So now we get to the crux of the matter; Argentina has its eyes on all the wealth for itself and is envious.
The Argentinian economy is in disarray.
Despite being neither legally or morally required to so the UK more than generously offered Argentina a full and equal share to all mineral rights despite these areas being well outside Argentinian territorial waters.



all the rest is just peanut butter
to anyone who says any of the landholdings are about the people i say BS
its purely about corporate and personal greed...


An accusation that is at least as valid when directed towards Argentina as it is with regards to the UK.



payed for with taxes and lives


Right or wrongly such is the way of the world.
The Falkland Islands issue is hardly unique in that respect.

And its worth bearing in mind that it was Argentina who were the aggressors. They invaded the islands and sought to impose their will and rule over people, some of whom have been there for generations, and against their wishes



.....oh and whats your price at the pumps ??......sheer idiocy I Bet
[/quote[

Relevance?





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join