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.

 

Argentinians protest arrival of Prince Williams on Malvinas

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by payta
Oh and i would just like to say that to me, the malvinas are just islands, they are not english nor argentinias, they are just islands. its just a piece of land for gods sake.


You are mistaken. The Falklands are British and have been for almost 200 years.

Are you trolling? how come im mistaken? thats just my opinion.


Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by payta
These brits got there first, they have a bigger army, well i guess thats too bad for us.


The British got there before Argentina even existed.

edit on 4-2-2012 by ollncasino because: Removal of an incorrect claim that Spain had relinquished sovereignty.


first off, malvinas were first inhabited by the frenchs, who later on left, and gave the islands to spain.
And i guess you must have read some books on argentinian history to make such a claim. Argentina came to be in 1816, and by then the islands were not british, look it up, the sovereignity of the islands was still in dispute, pretty much until 1830.
Still, there was treaty signed by Rosas, around 1840, that gave soveregnity of malvinas to the British. I think that pretty much settles it.




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by templar knight
It is only a matter of time before the Falklands (Malvinas), Gibralter go the same way as Hong Kong and are peacefully handed over. That just feels common sense thinking.

So maybe we (UK) should be around the negotiating table with Argentina discussing the peaceful handover

And yes I am British and proud - it just seems inevitable.



Why would we ever want to get round a table to hand over something to someone who enver owned it in the first place. What you are wanting to happen is akin to some random dude walking up to you in the street and demanding your phone. You say it's yours and always has been, but he claims it because he likes the look of it.

It is essentially an international mugging attempt. Are you telling me that if someone demanded what was yours without any valid claim, you would just hand it over?

Hong Kong was different, the lease was up.

Gibraltar is ours as a result of a treaty signed with Spain. 98% of the inbaitants want to remain British. If they want to get funny about it, then I am happy to hand it back once they give back their "enclaves" in Morroco, but we know that isn't going to happen because they claim the same thing; the people wish to remain Spanish...

Seems a tad hypocritical for people to picking on the Brits for something A LOT of countries around the World are doing.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


155 million people killed in a year
, thats taking it a bit far given its about 424,000 people a day being slaughtered so there should be holes the size of cities all over india full of dead bodies but lets not put actual logic over a good bashing of the british eh



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Man this thread has made me laugh. England are obviously evil for letting the people of the falklands decide on tueir nationality. Geez. And we obviously killed billions of people in india like the whole population on the world.

But seriously.. ive never seen so much rubbish in my life. William is down there on a tour of duty. Nothing more norhing less.

As to if there were a war' the argy navy has 11 jets, a couple of seakings, some prop aircraft and 5 'euro copter' utility craft (these are used as air ambulances over here) army has 2 light attack choppers, and airforce has 96 jets at its disposal....

Counter that with royal navy assets of 42 merlins, 36 lynx, 66 seakings and 2 eurocopter
British armys 67 ah-64's (ah-1 technically) 72 lynx, + others (recon transport uav's etc)
RAF 136 tornado strike aircraft, 86 eurofighter typhoons, 7 awacs, + numerous helis i think we would have superioriy

Also its pretty obvious william isnt there to cause trouble, else they wohkdnt have put him in a bright yellow sar seaking



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Tis true that he victors of war get to write the history
What a lot of my countrymen are forgetting is that things could easily have gone tits up for our lads,
if my memory serves me correct, we lost 372 brave servicemen,
at least 6 ships,
and more than 16 aircraft....

at least 13 more ships were heavily bombed but the ordinance did not detonate.
Any navy guy will tell you, if a ship is bombed, they are in real trouble,

and by the way,
pissing on dead enemy soldiers is nothing compared with what the Paras did..

There are huge offshore, proven natural gas reserves around the Falkland Islands and my countrymen lost their lives for that. How many politicians or oil compant executives lost sons and daughters in that conflict, not many i would bet.

LKJ put it quite nicely


England is a Bitch,
Aint no escaping it,

PEACE,
RK



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Indeed, things could have done but they didn't. The conflict was testemant to the ingenuity and resourcefulness of our Armed Forces. We hastily assembled a Task Force from obsolete warships and crusie liners, sailed thousands of miles and forcefully evicted the illegal invaders who had home and a numerical air advantage,

Now though, we are far better equipped than in 1982 and NOTHING the Argentines have is even close. They are in a worse state than 1982, whereas we are far better off.

Also, at the time, the thought of any oil was far from anyone's minds, although there was suspicions oil could be found from the 1960's, it was well beyond the technically ability to even explore, let alone financially prohibitive to extract. Maggie sent our boys there to defend British pride and our countrymen. She certainly benefitted at the polls, but it could have easily gone the other way as you rightly say, so it was one hell of a risk she took to protect our interests.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Hong Kong was different, the lease was up.


No it wasnt,
China came in early well before the lease was up and said,
"we will have it back now if you please"
Britain rolled over and said "only if you tickle my tummy"

Thank God they did,
Otherwise I may have gone through life without tickling a few chinese womens tummies


PEACE,
RK



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Ok, if we're going to get pedantic and go off topic, lets talk facts...

Hong Kong itself was never subject to the lease, but was succeded in perpetutiy by China in the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking.. The adjacent territory of Lantau Island and the adjacent northern lands were loaned on a 99 year lease, which takes us up to 1997 when we handed over the colony. The reason we handed over the whole territory is that Hong Kong had developed in such a way that it was not feasible to give back the land leased and still be able to have a functioning city, so we agreed to hand over the whole lot as long as there were certain safeguards for the people of the colony.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by foobies
 


you made me smile. I feel the same way. I wish they would focus on something more credible. I mean come on. Is he really a threat or anything like that. He might choke you with his rescue ropes and ladders but that is about it.

Then they bust up their own country.
As if England cares?

He didnt even go to their terretory. He arrived on his nations land.
I dont care if it is really the argies, ooh lala land , ESP´s or the South Africans, the flag flying at the time was his nations flag. Why be so dumb as to buy into the garbage spin story.

With that logic everytime a royal house visits any nation for a formal dinner in military dress, they are invading.

"AHHH I will throw things at your banks!!! AHHH how dare you wear that here! AHHHH RABLE RABLE"

yes, that will show them.

I bet William is refitting his rescue heli with nukes from Iran and Iraq as we speak.
Hell, he might even have a photon torpedo or two.

They better watch out and get motivated, those projectiles wont go flying on their own at them there banks there I tell you what. her herrrr




edit on 4-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by casenately

google who is prince williams for yourself.


You missed the posters sarcasm then.



edit on 4-2-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Hong Kong was different, the lease was up.


So there was a lease?


Originally posted by stumason

Ok, if we're going to get pedantic and go off topic, lets talk facts...

Hong Kong itself was never subject to the lease,


you win

PEACE,
RK



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


God, you're a padantic one aren't you.

Also, quoting out of context to try and retain some sort of credibility? Infantile.

The first quote where I say the lease was up, it was meant as a quick retort to the "we hgave Hong Kong back, why not the Falklands?" as, generaly, that is what happened.

The second one, where you got all pedantic and started splitting hairs, I distinguished between Hong Kong (the part succeeded in perpetuity) and the surrounding territories which were leased from 1898 to 1997. I then went on the elaborate on the handover, which you conveniently leave out of your quote.

I notice you don't actually have anything to add, just more hair splitting.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by starchild10
 


No I was just ticked off about how anal he was being. The spelling, the title, blah blah blah.


notice i still said williamS

It is just lame to be that picky. It has no bearing on the argument.
edit on 4-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by ollncasino
 


benevolent? most malovelent empire ever. Most benevolent of the imperialist empires was USSR but it had its own crimes of mass murders but nothing compared to the british empire.



every country the British Empire went into, they sought to build infrastructure and improve the economy of the nation. Have you never heard the saying "the biritsh empire civilized half of the world". You'd still be fighting over who owned your local swamp if it wasn't for Britain sharing its railway building skills and other fundemental resources.


Funny i think the Irish at the time would have disagreed. The potato famine that was intentionally sparked by the British Government wasn't exactly boat loads of fun you know. But I'm sure disrupting a countries thriving civilization and starving a million people to death is bringing them prosperity.

edit on 4-2-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by ollncasino
 


benevolent? most malovelent empire ever. Most benevolent of the imperialist empires was USSR but it had its own crimes of mass murders but nothing compared to the british empire.



every country the British Empire went into, they sought to build infrastructure and improve the economy of the nation. Have you never heard the saying "the biritsh empire civilized half of the world". You'd still be fighting over who owned your local swamp if it wasn't for Britain sharing its railway building skills and other fundemental resources.


Funny i think the Irish at the time would have disagreed. The potato famine that was intentionally sparked by the British Government wasn't exactly boat loads of fun you know. But I'm sure disrupting a countries thriving civilization and starving a million people to death is bringing them prosperity.

edit on 4-2-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)


If you want to discuss the Irish Potato Famine then you need to get YOUR FACTS correct. This was the cause of the famine:-

en.wikipedia.org...

Not the British government.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


Oh, so now are the British not only responsible for killing every Indian twice and other horrific crimes, we are now also responsible for a European wide potato disease that struck in the mid 1800's? Parts of Scotland suffered a potato famine, as well as largen swathes of Europe, but it's impact was felt keenly in Ireland because the population there used it as a staple food for not only themselves but their livestock.

The British Government actually did try to help, in fits and starts but it being the 18th century, the methods they took didn't work as well as intended and internal politics and corruption in Ireland made things done by Westminster even less effective. For example, the Poor Law made it the landowners responsibility to look after tenants in need, so the local landowners evicted tenants so they weren't responsible for them....



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by paganini
 


Oh, so now are the British not only responsible for killing every Indian twice and other horrific crimes, we are now also responsible for a European wide potato disease that struck in the mid 1800's? Parts of Scotland suffered a potato famine, as well as largen swathes of Europe, but it's impact was felt keenly in Ireland because the population there used it as a staple food for not only themselves but their livestock.

The British Government actually did try to help, in fits and starts but it being the 18th century, the methods they took didn't work as well as intended and internal politics and corruption in Ireland made things done by Westminster even less effective. For example, the Poor Law made it the landowners responsibility to look after tenants in need, so the local landowners evicted tenants so they weren't responsible for them....


First of all stop being so over dramatic No ones saying that. I'm merely scoffing at the notion Britain's empire was largely driven by a benevolent force. Lets face the facts no empire was.


But some of you are clearly not comfortable with this and want to paint history in a revisionist brush to make the countries past look more noble.

"Reports concerning English policy towards genuine charity are hard to ignore. One account had the people of Massachusetts sending a ship of grain to Ireland that English authorities placed in storage claiming that it would disturb trade. Another report has the British government appealing to the Sultan of Turkey to reduce his donation from o10,000 to o1,000 in order not to embarrass Queen Victoria who had only pledged o1,000 to relief."

mises.org...

Yep stealing the peoples crops and then blocking aide to them thats helping.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

What you are wanting to happen is akin to some random dude walking up to you in the street and demanding your phone. You say it's yours and always has been, but he claims it because he likes the look of it.



I think it's much more like Argentina claiming ownership of the Shetlands, Orkney's or Ireland, perhaps. It's nonsense to say that we 'own' a land mass on Argentina's doorstep and completely dismiss that they have a prior claim to the islands.

I guarantee you that an Argentine first set foot on those islands a long, long time before any Brit.

Yes, I'm British too, and I think 'we' should hand Las Malvinas back. What the hell does any British person want with this rock some 8000 miles away? What good has hanging onto it done for us?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0

Originally posted by stumason

What you are wanting to happen is akin to some random dude walking up to you in the street and demanding your phone. You say it's yours and always has been, but he claims it because he likes the look of it.



I think it's much more like Argentina claiming ownership of the Shetlands, Orkney's or Ireland, perhaps. It's nonsense to say that we 'own' a land mass on Argentina's doorstep and completely dismiss that they have a prior claim to the islands.

I guarantee you that an Argentine first set foot on those islands a long, long time before any Brit.

Yes, I'm British too, and I think 'we' should hand Las Malvinas back. What the hell does any British person want with this rock some 8000 miles away? What good has hanging onto it done for us?


I think you are more a Yank than British. Before you prognosticate about Btitain take a look at these land disputes that a fair few other countries beside Britain are involved in:-

en.wikipedia.org...

And yes it includes The USA.

And no.......no Argentine set foot on the Falkland before a Britain.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini
First of all stop being so over dramatic No ones saying that.


Overly dramatic? You did say that!


The potato famine that was intentionally sparked by the British Government


Quite clearly lies and well deserving of me being "over dramatic"...


Originally posted by Pr0t0
I think it's much more like Argentina claiming ownership of the Shetlands, Orkney's or Ireland, perhaps. It's nonsense to say that we 'own' a land mass on Argentina's doorstep and completely dismiss that they have a prior claim to the islands.


It is nothing at all like them claiming that. It would only be the same if the Shetlands, for example, had Argentines living on them and they had done so prior to the UK having been formed, much less actually setting foot on them.

The British people there are the only people to have ever managed to sustain a permanent colony. It's not like we took the islands and kicked out the natives, there were none! Anything else before it was a temporay pirate haven or whaling station, run by various groups from Spain, France, the UK and America.


Originally posted by Pr0t0
I guarantee you that an Argentine first set foot on those islands a long, long time before any Brit.


Oh really, you can guarantee that can you? I'll give you a hint, go look up when Argentina was formed and then go look up a bloke called John Strong. Also, go look up the Nootka conventions the UK signed with Spain about who got what. Again, long before Argentina even existed and they are basing their claims on Spains prior claims, which they gave up.

Now, all that aside, go look up when the UK claimed the islands and when Argentina first did. We asserted our claim in 1774. When did the Argentines first claim them?


Originally posted by Pr0t0
Yes, I'm British too, and I think 'we' should hand Las Malvinas back. What the hell does any British person want with this rock some 8000 miles away? What good has hanging onto it done for us?


The fact that British people live there and want to remain British is enough. Geographic proximity has nothing to do with any claim to these islands. How can we "hand them back" when they never had them in the first place! The very concept is moronic.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join