Originally posted by oghamxx
The Falklands were until the late 90's essentially a welfare state. Very expensive real estate! I recall reading that higher education was provided in the UK.

With the potential of oil wealth and no self defense they have no choice but to choose to remain British rather than an independent nation. Not to mention cultural and language differences with Argentina.

Self determination versus international law dating to the early 1800's. A tough call.

How many Brits or those on this thread believe the Palestinians, Kurds, Taliban; etc.should be allowed self determination?

If I were in control in Argentina I might do a Castro style 1980 boatlift emptying all my prisons and asylums and send them one way to the Falklands! LOL

It is not an equal comparison but in 1936 the US forces drove the Brit, there was only one, from Canton Island which was internationally recognized as British. In 1937 ships exchanged shots across the bow over an anchorage issue. The Brits fired the first shot! The island was 'given' back to Britain (1937?) and a new Pan-Am airstrip was built in 1939(?). .

The Palestinians should have self determination and a state.

The Kurdish issue is complicated but if the world was entirely fair they probably should be allowed their own state made up out of Northern Iraq and Southern tip of Turkey (not that its likely anytime soon).

The Taliban aren't a people, they are a political movement created by Pakistan to take power in the country by proxy. The Afghans should have self determination but thats more complicated as most don't really associate themselves with an Afghan national identify. Their affiliation is tribal.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity

Self determination is what the British quote here. And that's fair enough, it's enshrined in the UN charter, that peoples have the absolute right to determine their own fate, without any form of external let or hindrance.

But how far do you take that ?

While the posters on this board favour self determination as the basis of the British claim to the Falklands, the official claim is based on the old Roman law concept of prescription.

In other words, if you possess (control) land for 20 years without interference, then you have claimed good title to it.

In international relations, the UN appears to accept, as a general principle, that if a country has controlled land since the end of WWII, then no other state has a claim to it.

Otherwise, where does it end?

Are the Argentines willing to hand Argentina back to the native tribes and vacate Argentina?

I thought not.

I would like to dispute a few issues here. The Falklands apart from the defence issue is a self-financing territory as it gets its money from fishing licences. When the oil flows, the Falkland Island Government have stated that they will pay the UK for the defence assets, so therefore making them fully financially independent.

The population as its stands at the moment is around 3,000. I would not be surprised to see this rise to 10,000 over the next 10/20 years. A fair size population.

Question: When does a colonys population become the indiginous population? I ask this as not every square inch of this planet had a indiginous population, most areas were migrated too.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I respect any move made by Scotland.

The only real fear is losing 5.5 million people who actively hate the Tory party.

Please reconsider.

Nice :-)

Originally posted by EvanB


Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!

Yep you're right .Nations that were often often

A. Oceans apart and had no contact with each other

B, Were far less technologically advanced.

Deserved to be conquered bv this over whelming logic you provided.

The idiocy in this thread is amusing. Those tribesmen with stone tools should have been able to defeat your guns and diseases like a real man.!!

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by EvanB


Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!

Yep you're right .Nations that were often often

A. Oceans apart and had no contact with each other

B, Were far less technologically advanced.

Deserved to be conquered bv this over whelming logic you provided.

The idiocy in this thread is amusing. Those tribesmen with stone tools should have been able to defeat your guns and diseases like a real man.!!

You dont get out much do you??

Look up the word "sarcasm" and see the light

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by EvanB


Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!

Yep you're right .Nations that were often often

A. Oceans apart and had no contact with each other

B, Were far less technologically advanced.

Deserved to be conquered bv this over whelming logic you provided.

The idiocy in this thread is amusing. Those tribesmen with stone tools should have been able to defeat your guns and diseases like a real man.!!

You dont get out much do you??

Look up the word "sarcasm" and see the light

Or sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet genius.

Particularly when its a discussion full of statements that are nothing short of bizarre .

Who would the US favor, publicly and darkly, the next time?

This article made the news during a visit by the Queen! LOL
And for you deniers these Exocets were not from the 'international market'.

Files detail Noriega CIA connection: [NORTH SPORTS FINAL, C Edition]
Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Chicago, Ill] 16 May 1991: 8.
Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers
Hide highlighting
Abstract (summary)
Translate [unavailable for this document]

Manuel Noriega was "the CIA's man in Panama," controlling a $11 million agency slush fund and even supplying Washington with information on Mikhail Gorbachev, according to defense documents released Wednesday.

Noriega, backed by the CIA, also sent Exocet missiles to Argentina for use against British ships in the Falklands War and funneled hundreds of thousands of CIA dollars to Nicaraguan rebel leaders, his attorneys said.

The statements were included in 107 pages outlining classified information the defense expects to present at the ousted Panamanian leader's drug-smuggling trial. The material was released at the request of news organizations and Noriega's defense attorneys by the Justice Department security office, which is acting as custodian.

Full Text

Translate [unavailable for this document]

Manuel Noriega was "the CIA's man in Panama," controlling a $11 million agency slush fund and even supplying Washington with information on Mikhail Gorbachev, according to defense documents released Wednesday.

Noriega, backed by the CIA, also sent Exocet missiles to Argentina for use against British ships in the Falklands War and funneled hundreds of thousands of CIA dollars to Nicaraguan rebel leaders, his attorneys said.

The statements were included in 107 pages outlining classified information the defense expects to present at the ousted Panamanian leader's drug-smuggling trial. The material was released at the request of news organizations and Noriega's defense attorneys by the Justice Department security office, which is acting as custodian.

The Justice Department deleted key sections of the documents, including details of Noriega's contacts with President Bush.

Many deletions appear to deal directly with Noriega's aid to the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan rebels, known as contras.

The defense says the CIA cultivated Noriega even before he came to power in 1983 because the agency considered his populist boss, the late President Omar Torrijos, a "dangerous leftist."

With Noriega heading Torrijos' intelligence network, the CIA gave him "contingency funds" that, over the years, amounted to $11 million and were not listed on the agency's books, the defense said.

"It was officially justified as support for `institutional cooperation,' but in fact it was a slush fund turned over to the head of the `cooperating' agency to do with as he desired," said the defense.

The CIA and the U.S. Army have acknowledged direct payments to Noriega of about $300,000 during his career.

Some parts of the documents say Noriega faithfully reported to the CIA about Torrijos' meetings with Fidel Castro in Cuba and offered information about more distant communist countries.

In January 1985, Noriega met with Hans Juergen Wischnewski, East Germany's parliament president and foreign affairs chief. The meeting included discussion of personnel changes in the Soviet Union, information that Noriega immediately passed on to the CIA.

"This information was instrumental in U.S. support for then little-known Gorbachev and his people," the defense said.

Another section says that in the Falklands War, despite the official U.S. tilt toward England, the CIA "was concerned that Argentina's forces . . . would be crushed."

"Gen. Noriega shared their concern and arranged for the purchase of Exocet missiles which the Argentinians later used with great effect," the defense said. The Exocets sank several British ships and were Argentina's only effective weapon.

Noriega trial is set for July 22 on charges that he accepted $4.6 million in bribes from Colombia's Medellin drug cartel to turn Panama into a way station for U.S.-bound cocaine shipments.

Copyright Chicago Tribune Co. May 16, 1991
Word count: 439