It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Falkland Island War

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
OK, again this claim that because most of the inhabitants descend from the British is void. Argentina was in large sections of it's land colonized by the British, it has a staggering amount of British influence (ironic no?). I lived in Argentina for a full year so I can say to you that this argument just doesn't make sense in Latinamerica's most European country. Also, who can tell if

A) The voting was coerced in favour of the British

B) The election was rigged

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Nakash]

The vote we were refering to was a referendum in Gilbralter, in which a total of 60 votes went for joining Spain, and all remaining votes being for British rule.




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   


Britian never colonised South America


On paper, but since Argentina was Britain's top trade partner for decades and decades in South America, many Britons settled there. I in fact went to a British school in Argentina. Most Argentines are descended from Italians though (and Spaniards of course, the ones with Italian ancestors are in the capital Buenos Aires). Do a Wiki seach also for "Antartic France" and the Dutch pirate invasion of Northern Brazil. These colonies in their early days were poorly kept, sometimes sections would be seized by other powers.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash



Britian never colonised South America


On paper, but since Argentina was Britain's top trade partner for decades and decades in South America, many Britons settled there. I in fact went to a British school in Argentina. Most Argentines are descended from Italians though (and Spaniards of course, the ones with Italian ancestors are in the capital Buenos Aires). Do a Wiki seach also for "Antartic France" and the Dutch pirate invasion of Northern Brazil. These colonies in their early days were poorly kept, sometimes sections would be seized by other powers.


Actually, upon further investigation, it would appear we did have some colonies at the Carribean SA coast, but none anywhere else.

From what your saying above though, Nakash, you could summise that muslims are colonising Britain, or that the Polish are.

But it's not colonisation, is it?

It's immigration, which is a completely different thing.

So, in summation, the Argies can take a running jump if they think they have a legitimate claim to the islands. If their claim is valid, then ours is even more so, as we were there first.

End of Story.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Seems to me that Nakash's argument was totally shredded to pieces by factual evidence and good investigative reporting.

It's obvious that Chavez doesnt know his history, much less anything else.

Train



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Not at all. The Falklands were always Argentine territory, in the same way that Hong Kong was always part of China. So what if it has a few people of British descent in in it? That's crap- There are entire towns in Brazil of German only speaking Europeans (yet they are in Brazilian territory). There are entire parts of Argentina where people don't speak spanish. Should they be part of Europe as well? If you spent one day in the Falklands you would see that the place is much more akin to Argentina then to Britain, and a rigged vote doesn't change that.

Train- go back to your bushbot forum.




[edit on 13-2-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   


Not at all. The Falklands were always Argentine territory, in the same way that Hong Kong was always part of China.


Er, no. Technically, the French had the first claim, followed by the British. The Spanish invaded booted out the french. The British clung on and stayed there. How much more simple can I make it? Read my posts and if you still feel the need to argue, then back up your claims.

And China was a different thing completely, as I said earlier, do you not read or something? HK was loaned to the UK by China. There was a treaty which gave it to us for a 99-year lease.

Jeez man, try reading others posts before spewing your rubbish.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I don't know too much about Hugo (Boss) (as in perfume) Chavez But I do know that he brings a stink. Everytime he speaks its about attention seeking. Is his country okay? He should think about putting his country up the economy ladder he has too much time on his hands. He reminds me of that Iranian president with too much talk, like we are convinced or care about their anti-American or anti-western comments. Why can't they shut up for once they might be respected in their region of the world let alone the rest.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Not at all. The Falklands were always Argentine territory, in the same way that Hong Kong was always part of China. So what if it has a few people of British descent in in it? That's crap- There are entire towns in Brazil of German only speaking Europeans (yet they are in Brazilian territory). There are entire parts of Argentina where people don't speak spanish. Should they be part of Europe as well? If you spent one day in the Falklands you would see that the place is much more akin to Argentina then to Britain, and a rigged vote doesn't change that.

Train- go back to your bushbot forum.




[edit on 13-2-2006 by Nakash]


Far from a bushbot pal. I aint in that crew, but seems to me that you still dont accept factual evidence thats been pointed out numorous times. You are assuming that because an island is close to a country, it automatically is soveriegn terrotory of that country. Do you not understand what possession is anyways. Possession belongs to those who TAKE it. It was an UNINHABITED island when it was first discovered. Britain and france discovoered it, therefore they CLAIMED it. It was their terroitory. Then they defended it with miltary force. If argentina wanted it, then they should try to take it.

Theres no such thing as THEIR territory, why cant you understand this concept. The land belonging to a country is ONLY theirs until they fail to defend it.

Train



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I know that area well (I lived in Argentina, though never went to the actual falklands), and it is not British, the vote was also rigged. Let's just leave it at that.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
If you spent one day in the Falklands you would see that the place is much more akin to Argentina then to Britain, and a rigged vote doesn't change that.


Ah so you've been to the Falklands ........?


Originally posted by Nakash
I know that area well (I lived in Argentina, though never went to the actual falklands),


How would you know this for a fact if you have never been there yourself?
by your very own logic Train could tell you, If you spent one day in the falklands you would see that the place is much more akin to Britain than to Argentina.

My own opinion,

The Falkland Islands are with out a doubt British , simply because they are inhabited currently by British citizens as of January 1st 1983 Falkland Island residents were granted full British citizenship rather than the limited British nationality act of 1981 which regarded the people on the island as British Dependent Territories citizens (not that this would make much differance, just slightly harder to come and live in the UK) Geograhic location or past history has no bearing on this, this is fact, legislation passed by parliament(since superceeded by an act in 2002 giving the same rights to every British Dependent Territories citizen)

Should Argentina wish to try and take the islands again by force it would be atacking British citizens and I am sure would prove to be a futile and costly exercise on there part.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by tommyc


The comments by Chavez are only in response to the mud slinging comments by Blair. Chavez is only throwing some mud back.


It's like Chavez saying "stop throwing dog turds over the fence into my garden else I'll throw some horse # back".

To begin with, Chavez started the mud throwing, not Blair.


This is also happening with Iran. The US & Israel is having a sustained propaganda campaign against Iran, and in return Iran is saying the holocaust was exaggerated etc.


The rhetoric concerning Iran derives from two sources; the fact of their nuclear weapons ambitions and the idiotic statements of their new President. The statements by most of the world, not just the U.S. and Israel are slowly being shown to be true and not simply propoganda.


The answer is easy, the US & UK should stop being so highly critical of these (oil producing) smaller countries and keep their noses out. Instead we should be reaching out a hand to these countries who pose no threat to us at all rather than acting as a bully. The world would then be a safer place.


I suggest you read up on your history. The U.S. & U.K. have more than met these small "oil producing countries" halfway.


However, the bottom line is that it's all about oil and the petrodollar. Iran and Venezuela have been doing deals that are not in dollars and they are both members of OPEC. If OPEC were to move away from dollars then it's 'goodbye' to the US dominance of the world.


OPEC moving into a "market basket" of curriencies rather than just the U.S. dollar would admittitedly hurt the value of the U.S. dollar--as of this particular time. However, the U.S. dominance of world trade would hardly be affected at all. Futhermore, once the initial devaluation of the dollar took place you would begin to see U.S. owned companies building more new infrastructure in the U.S. than now and that would seriously hurt many foreign countries. The bottom line shakeout (which would take about 7-10 years) would see a strengthened U.S. dollar and a stronger, not a weaker U.S.


The sooner the US weans itself of the dependence of oil imports the better, but with a US administration controlled by oil and military men then there will little chance for peace.


Concur with the first part of this statement, not the later. The current administration is no more controlled by oil and military men than any of the last dozen or so.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
I know that area well (I lived in Argentina, though never went to the actual falklands), and it is not British, the vote was also rigged. Let's just leave it at that.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Nakash]

What is this vote you keep speaking of?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
LOLOLOL I really hope the CIA reads this thread....

Honestly some of you haven't caught the trend yet?

CHavez is a bigger fear monger than fox news. he is the living embodiment of mccarthyism and the cold war rolled into one. He screams the redcoats are coming over and over when in reality no one gives a rip about his third rate little domain. If we give it a year of ignoring his overinflated hyper paranoid ego his little house of cards will tumble. This guy is the embodiment of the napoleon complex, let him stew and think anyone cares about argentine beef and oil for a year while no one tries to kill him or invade him.

It will end his presidency faster than a 5th column assasin any day... this guy is an idiot trying to lead the mob in a direction it's already headed. His statements are nothing other than pop culture inspired we are being oppressed rhetoric. It's truly one of those times when you ignore a whack job and let his movement die beneath him and laugh at his stupid antics.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join