I don't know why we've still got the falklands anyway, there's really no reason for them to be british territory. Hopefully we can soon divest ourselves of these relics of the imperial past and come to peace with our place in the world.

Originally posted by Chris McGee

I don't know why we've still got the falklands anyway, there's really no reason for them to be british territory.

Thanks for the post Chris. You are just like the rest of who are out of the loop. I suspect that if we were in the loop that we would know a very important and probably vitally strategic reason why it remains British Territory and why they were willing to go to war for it.

Hopefully we can soon divest ourselves of these relics of the imperial past and come to peace with our place in the world.

While I admit that it might be simply 'a relic of the Imperial past' I don't suspect it is.

I would imagine that sooner or later we will come upon the real reason, slap ourselves in the forehead and say, "I should have been able to figure that out."

Of course we are probably missing a few key points of information but they will probably come along.

For some reason, secret information seems to be leaking like it never has before.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I don't know why we've still got the falklands anyway, there's really no reason for them to be british territory. Hopefully we can soon divest ourselves of these relics of the imperial past and come to peace with our place in the world.

Because the people who live on the Islands want to remain British simple as that really.

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Well, they're quite welcome to come to Britain.

So you want to evict a whole island that wants to stay British?

Should we give the channel islands to the french too? Or how about any other land that countries want, Perhaps some Scandinavians want the Shetland islands and maybe the Irish want the isle of man.

We should defend those islands as we would our own mainland.

Originally posted by Flyer
So you want to evict a whole island that wants to stay British?

As I said, they'd most probably be allowed to stay. If they want to be British then maybe they should come and live in Britain.

Originally posted by Flyer
Should we give the channel islands to the french too? Or how about any other land that countries want, Perhaps some Scandinavians want the Shetland islands and maybe the Irish want the isle of man.

The difference is we have a legitimate claim to those islands. They are well within 'the British Isles'

Originally posted by FlyerWe should defend those islands as we would our own mainland.

Why?

Originally posted by Chris McGee

I do know that Argentina have a much more valid claim on the islands than we do. The fact that some long dead explorer once planted a British flag there does not mean we have the right to hold the land in perpetuity.

There are borders for international waters and the Falklands are outside of Argentinian territory. They are British.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
They want to be British, what's more British than living in Britain? If they're concerned about their homes than i'm sure whatever government takes charge will allow them to stay there.

The rule that whoever discovered it first doesn't really hold for me. Why should we have rights to an island that is more than an earths diameter from our country?

I do know that Argentina have a much more valid claim on the islands than we do. The fact that some long dead explorer once planted a British flag there does not mean we have the right to hold the land in perpetuity.

The people living their want to remain under British rule, simple as that. The geographical proximity to Argentina has nothing to do with it, if we use that logic Britain should be in charge of France after all it's only 20 miles away. As for nothing been more British than living in Britain, well not all British people want to live on the mainland

They ARE living in Britain, same as the people in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands and American Indian reservations ARE living in the United States.

Calling people who want to be British a "relic" wow, I cant believe I read that

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Chris.

Thanks for the reply, John . The only logical reason I can think of is natural resources. The isalnds don't seem to have any strategic value, doubly so since there are no known military facilities there.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
The difference is we have a legitimate claim to those islands. They are well within 'the British Isles'

How about the channel islands just off france? They are hundreds of miles closer to france than the Falklands to Argentina.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Why?

Because they are British full of Brits.

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Chris.

Thanks for the reply, John . The only logical reason I can think of is natural resources. The isalnds don't seem to have any strategic value, doubly so since there are no known military facilities there.

Actually over 1,000 British service members are stationed there. It is a major UK garrison.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
The difference is we have a legitimate claim to those islands. They are well within 'the British Isles'

Using that logic neither Britain Or Argentina should be in charge of the Islands and they should be independent, however as the population don't want independence so then we are back to them remaining British.

[edit on 2/9/07 by Phil123]

Originally posted by Phil123
The people living their want to remain under British rule, simple as that.

They could do that in Surbiton.

Originally posted by Phil123
The geographical proximity to Argentina has nothing to do with it, if we use that logic Britain should be in charge of France after all it's only 20 miles away. As for nothing been more British than living in Britain, well not all British people want to live on the mainland

It has everything to do with it. Those islands quite clearly are not part of the British Isles so why do we own them?

Originally posted by ChrisF231
They ARE living in Britain, same as the people in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands and American Indian reservations ARE living in the United States.

Calling people who want to be British a "relic" wow, I cant believe I read that

The US doesn't have anything to do with this. We had an empire and for the most part we have returned that which was taken to the rightful owners. All that remains are one or two anomalies left to be dealt with.

Please also note that I did not call anyone a relic nor impugn their wish to be British. The 'relics' are the remaining facets of imperialism.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
It has everything to do with it. Those islands quite clearly are not part of the British Isles so why do we own them?

They are also clearly not part of Argentina as they are 300 miles away, if we used Argentina's logic we would own half of Europe.

Originally posted by Flyer
How about the channel islands just off france? They are hundreds of miles closer to france than the Falklands to Argentina.

That's an impressive feat since the channel is about 100 miles wide. The majority of the channel islands are around 70 miles from Britain, well within our territorial waters.



[edit on 2-9-2007 by Chris McGee]