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.

 

Britain says 'no military escalation' in Falklands

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa

Originally posted by Knights
It is part of a standard tour of duty.

Prince William is doing his part. The Falklands proves invaluable training.

They are UK residents (many of which have been interviewed recently stressing their desire to remain part of the UK). A military presence should hopefully deter a repeat of 1982.

Simple as.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Knights because: (no reason given)


If they want to be UK residents so bad, they can catch the next boat to England. The UK or any other country has no business establishing a territory thousands of miles away. That is colonization at its worst. Imperialism is the cancer of the world.



If you are a citizen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand ,USA, South America, etc you are a "Product" of colonialism, and therfore a hypocrite. If you are not from a former British, Spanish, French Dutch etc colony then i appologise for calling you a hypocrite. So where are you from?




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I'm British and I believe we should give it back to Argentina. We stole it from them. Our empire has ended, and we need to end our imperialism as well.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesmart

Originally posted by UnaChispa
reply to post by davesmart
 



Let me check my facts real quick....

The UK planted a flag on a piece of the Western Hemisphere a few hundred years ago, making it British territory. Is that how you understand it?


hi sir
i do have a little bit more understanding than that
but it still comes down to 1 thing
the people of the falklands want to stay part of the british isles
sorry if i was rude


No need to apologize. Thank you, though.

Yes, I have heard that the islanders want be part of the UK, but this is a burden to the Americas. It is almost like having a thorn in your side.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa
I'm sure Her Majesty wouldn't want a piece of Greenland being controlled by the Argentine government. It is too close to home and makes the mainland uncomfortable. The Golden rule must apply to everybody.


With the greatest respect, that is a silly statement. Denmark may take offense if Argentina staked a claim to Greenland.

The Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina and South Georgia (also claimed) are 1,500 miles distant. Hardly within spitting distance of either party.

Regards



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS
I'm British and I believe we should give it back to Argentina. We stole it from them. Our empire has ended, and we need to end our imperialism as well.


You need to do some work on history. The British claim to the Islands pre-dates Argentina. How can you steal something from someone who was not there?

Regards



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by UnaChispa
 


Is it? If that's actually true, then uprooting a few thousand people and upto 300-year-old families so two continents (you did say 'Americas' plural) can sleep better at night is what's needed? And no one in 'the Americas' fussed about Belize, Guyana, or *everything north of Mexico* - just the Falklands?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by UnaChispa

Originally posted by Knights
It is part of a standard tour of duty.

Prince William is doing his part. The Falklands proves invaluable training.

They are UK residents (many of which have been interviewed recently stressing their desire to remain part of the UK). A military presence should hopefully deter a repeat of 1982.

Simple as.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Knights because: (no reason given)


If they want to be UK residents so bad, they can catch the next boat to England. The UK or any other country has no business establishing a territory thousands of miles away. That is colonization at its worst. Imperialism is the cancer of the world.



If you are a citizen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand ,USA, South America, etc you are a "Product" of colonialism, and therfore a hypocrite. If you are not from a former British, Spanish, French Dutch etc colony then i appologise for calling you a hypocrite. So where are you from?


I live in California. My ancestors have always lived here, which would make me Indigenous. My skin, hair and eyes are brown. I've been put in the "Mexican-American" category. I hate feeling like a second class citizen on my own land.
Apology accepted.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kolya
 


I appreciate the answer. It would seem that you are in fact correct about the overwhelming support the islanders profess for remaining subjects of the crown.

It does bear remembering however that in the mid 1800's most of the Argentine population were 'kicked out' according to some accounts by the British authorities. I'm not at all sure that the characterization is accurate.

I find it hard to understand why the Argentine government is so hell bent on maintaining this tension. It was on after the election of one of the 'standard issue' populist politicians that Argentina embarked on the invasion of the islands - a clear act of war.

However, for reasons that elude me, the United nations still regards this situation as an example of "colonialism" (en.wikipedia.org...). But I'm fairly certain the inclusion presents no risk to the UK.

At any rate, I suppose there must be strategic reasons why this island seems so important to both... because frankly, when it comes to governance, the projection of power, and the theater of international diplomacy... 4,000 people would be sacrificed in an instant, were the gain sufficient to those who we - mistakenly or not - accept as our "leaders."



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolya
reply to post by UnaChispa
 


Is it? If that's actually true, then uprooting a few thousand people and upto 300-year-old families so two continents (you did say 'Americas' plural) can sleep better at night is what's needed? And no one in 'the Americas' fussed about Belize, Guyana, or *everything north of Mexico* - just the Falklands?


There has been a fuss. You are just too far away to hear it.

I don't WANT the people uprooted from Malvinas. I just want to expel the British government from the Western Hemisphere.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by UnaChispa
 

Well how would you like it if one day Mexico demanded we (the US) return California to them? I bet you wouldent be so thrilled either. Afterall we stole California from Mexico you know ...

You rant and rave against imperialism but then support it in the next breath. The Argentine claim is also imperialism.
edit on 8-2-2012 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
As a person who is marginally familiar with the history of the area I have a question to ask regarding the Falkands (or "Islas Malvinas" as the locals seem to say.)

In all the interviews and other material which is broadcast in Europe, are there ever any that show residents of the islands that don't want to be subjects of the Queen?

I only ask because it seems fairly commonplace for governments to tell "the whole truth - as we want it understood" when it comes to these things... few are innocent of the practice.

Now I know that there is pride and other ego-related currency at stake here, so don't take this as an assault on your declarations. It is a legitimate question, because the "British" status of the Islands was only formalized in 1983. Unless most of it's residents (3 or 4,000 I think) are immigrants from Europe, I fail to see how aside from military power, the UK maintains the "hearts and minds" of the residents there.

Is this all about Oil?

edit on 8-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


No. The islands are inhabited by british speaking people of scots, english, welsh descent. There are no natives and no population of 'repressed argentines'.

Theres no hearts and minds to be won. They are british people !

If it was about oil we'd just cut a deal. Britain tried to negotiate a shared oil deal and was told to get lost.

Its about argentina feeling entitled to the land because of where it is.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
For Britain I think it's solely the Islanders; some might say it's about the natural gas and/or oil recently speculated to be offshore but how could we go to war 30 years ago on something we didn't know existed? I think it much more plausible that the government keeps its hand in this issue because there are too many 'British' involved; unlike Hong Kong, there's no 'native' population to hand over to, and also unlike Hong Kong there's little or no encouragement that the 'British' would be allowed to carry on life as normal once the land officially became someone else's concern.

For Argentina, and with no offence intended to ordinary Argentines, I think it's a popular cause to rally around as a distraction: you hit the nail on the head about the Junta using it for its ends and ending up being swept out of power due to it. BUT if that's the case, I can't explain why it's being used now: I don't know of any major domestic turmoil in Argentina at the moment, so unless the incumbent government is just REALLY bad at dealing with basic governance and needs a nationalist cause/war to keep it afloat, I have no idea whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by UnaChispa
 


But they'd have to be uprooted because, as you said, if they want to remain British (which they supposedly do) you'd have them 'go back to England'.

The alternative would be to become Argentine, which brings me to a point I haven't yet voiced aloud: What about a third option? What if, hypothetically, the Falklands were to suddenly declare they wish to self-govern? No British involvement at all, a small English-speaking island nation by all means taking part in 'the Americas' community if it will have them.

....Can you really say it's only about the British, and the above wouldn't kill for good the 'burden' supposedly felt? It would have to be Las Malvinas or nothing, and if I were given the choice of the Islands being ruled by one foreign power or the other, I'll choose the one that the population at least want.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 

Exactly, this is the equivalent of the US claiming Bermuda (ironically also a British Overseas Territory) just because we are right next to it ... see how absurd the Argentine claim is? I mean never mind the fact that there are no Argentines on the Falklands to begin with.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa

I don't WANT the people uprooted from Malvinas.


And the people of the Falklands do not want to be ruled by a colonialist Argentine government - clearly these 2 objectives are not exclusive and are, in fact, achieved at the moment.


I just want to expel the British government from the Western Hemisphere.


You want to expel the British Govt from the UK??

edit on 8-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolya
For Britain I think it's solely the Islanders; some might say it's about the natural gas and/or oil recently speculated to be offshore but how could we go to war 30 years ago on something we didn't know existed? I think it much more plausible that the government keeps its hand in this issue because there are too many 'British' involved; unlike Hong Kong, there's no 'native' population to hand over to, and also unlike Hong Kong there's little or no encouragement that the 'British' would be allowed to carry on life as normal once the land officially became someone else's concern.


And also unlike Hong Kong the islands are not leased with a specific end date to the contract!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by UnaChispa
 

Well how would you like it if one day Mexico demanded we (the US) return California to them? I bet you wouldent be so thrilled either. Afterall we stole California from Mexico you know ...

You rant and rave against imperialism but then support it in the next breath. The Argentine claim is also imperialism.
edit on 8-2-2012 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)


I'd love it! Yes, The US did steal it. They should give it back, but it won't happen.
I don't support imperialism. I ultimately want the Malvinas to be there own nation. Just get that freaking crown out of the Americas.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I can't believe some people are seriously claiming people who have lived and bred on the Falklands, should 'go back home'.

I would like to see the outrage stirred up if this was to be said of any minorities currently residing on our shores, it would be utter bedlam. Yet because we are British we have to feel culpable for things that have happened hundreds of years ago, and when we question it we're warmongering colonists.

Pathetic.

The Falklands are our islands, regardless of what has happened before, we should not be bullied into giving something up that nobody has bothered with for over 300 years.

If this happens, why should Argentina not be broken back up and all their minorities be sent back to Spain and the like? Afterall, their country was made up from several different colonies.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Ahhhh, the good old Opium Wars eh


Yeah, there's a lot of differences between the two, but it was the only de-colonial British event I could bank on everyone knowing about, so I took the chance.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolya
1) Britain only has four nuclear-armed submarines, so for there to be subs plural that means sending at least 50% of its nuclear force to 'Argentina' - would it bother?



It isn't the nuclear ballistic missile armed submarines, but nuclear powered hunter killers. These are known as SSNs and are conventionally armed.

www.armedforces.co.uk...

For example during the 1982 conflict the Royal Navy deployed SSNs which the Argentine Navy had no answer to. The Argentine ship Belgrano was torpedoed by a nuclear powered SSN.
edit on 8-2-2012 by tommyjo because: Additional info added




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join