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 Islands to hold referendum on sovereignty

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


It was theorised in the 60's there would be oil, but back then it was deemed technically impossible or uneconomical to extract.

Another reason, the islanders aside, that the UK is keen to hold on to the islands is that it supports our Antarctic claims. The treaty forbidding mineral exploitation of what is guessed as a very rich continent will expire within the next 20 or so years




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


The Falklands should return back to it's former owner Argentinia however if a large majority prefer to stay under British sovereignty then it should be respected, at least for another 50 years to be reviewed again then.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


The Falklands should return back to it's former owner Argentinia



Argentina was never its owner



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


heard where you are from it is worse



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


should send all the people who own property there, and investments, back where they came from.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
People always talk about the islanders self determination, of course if theyre descended from Britain and Britain is the more powerful country they will want to be British. And what about the self determination of the Argentines that lived on the islands before the British invaded? it was definatley not respected by the British.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NightFlyer96
 

I agree, possesion is not 9/10th of the law, stolen property is stolen property and murder charges are in order, and if it was a useless piece of land, then send the investors home, if they don't like the real owners, should have thought about that before they invested there.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightFlyer96
People always talk about the islanders self determination, of course if theyre descended from Britain and Britain is the more powerful country they will want to be British. And what about the self determination of the Argentines that lived on the islands before the British invaded? it was definatley not respected by the British.


Yes it was.

Firstly they were there BY PERMISSION of the British - they had actually asked and been allowed to settle.

Secondly when the British reintroduced active government they encouraged the residents to stay and gave them a free choice whether to do so or not.

Of the 33 settlers 4 chose to leave, the rest chose to stay. They are listed by name in the documents of the time.

I suggest you read a little about the history of the event rather than subscribing to colonialist propaganda.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


Jesus Christ...

Argentina never had possession... What will it take for people to get that through their thick skulls?

And if you want to bleat on about "stealing land", why not start with the German-descended President Kirchner who leads a country who, at the time of the British colonisation of the Islands were busy slaughtering Patagonian Natives to steal their land. At least the UK didn't kill the 30 or so settlers they found on their island when they returned to assert their claim which dates from 1766, some 50 years prior to the formation of Argentina.

Also, Argentina themselves don't base their claim on their one time occupation, but rather Spanish claims. What people fail to realise is Spain gave up these claims to the UK at the Nootka Conventions.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I find this utterly confusing?

Australia has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men in Britains wars, yet in WW2 when the Japanese were invading Australia Britain spat in our faces and sent us NO help.

Yet the Falklands have sacrificed no one for Britain yet when they are under attack the Britains come rushing to their aid???


FU Britain!!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
I find this utterly confusing?

Australia has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men in Britains wars, yet in WW2 when the Japanese were invading Australia Britain spat in our faces and sent us NO help.


Except for Spitfires, Mosquito's, Beaufighters, the garrisons of Hong Kong & Singapore & Malaya, Force Z, (OK - those ones didn't work to well - but they were still there!), the Indian Ocean fleet, the forces in Burma tanks, rifles, anti-tank guns, artillery, replacing the Aussie contingent withdrawn from eth Mid-East??


Yet the Falklands have sacrificed no one for Britain yet when they are under attack the Britains come rushing to their aid???


Battle of het Falklands not ring a bell then? (the 1914 one, not the 1982 one)

Falkland Island defence forces? - 10 of whom were killed in British service??


FU Britain!!!!


Try denying ignorance next time, instead of exhibiting it



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
I find this utterly confusing?

Australia has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men in Britains wars, yet in WW2 when the Japanese were invading Australia Britain spat in our faces and sent us NO help.


Except for Spitfires, Mosquito's, Beaufighters, the garrisons of Hong Kong & Singapore & Malaya, Force Z, (OK - those ones didn't work to well - but they were still there!), the Indian Ocean fleet, the forces in Burma tanks, rifles, anti-tank guns, artillery, replacing the Aussie contingent withdrawn from eth Mid-East??


Yet the Falklands have sacrificed no one for Britain yet when they are under attack the Britains come rushing to their aid???


Battle of het Falklands not ring a bell then? (the 1914 one, not the 1982 one)

Falkland Island defence forces? - 10 of whom were killed in British service??


FU Britain!!!!


Try denying ignorance next time, instead of exhibiting it


Britain abandoned Australia after the Fall of Singapore, they didn't care if we were enslaved or entirely exterminated, they only selfishly cared about themselves.
Us Australians had more men killed in WW1 than America!!!
Britain owed us and when they had the chance to repay the favour they spat in our faces and ran away to Britain...

Oh wow 10 Falklanders were killed? Comparing that to the amount of Australians kiled is an insult.!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


For pity's sake, not this nonsense again.



Australia has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men in Britains wars,


Yes, and the British people are eternally grateful for the friendship shown to them by Australia, New Zealand and Canada and for the sacrifice so many had to pay.



yet in WW2 when the Japanese were invading Australia Britain spat in our faces and sent us NO help.


The UK did not 'spit' in your faces - there was the little matter of The Battle Of Britain and The Blitz.
Britain was under direct attack and had absolutely no resources whatsoever.
The UK was having to buy used and outdated equipment and resources at exorbitant prices from the USA just to survive.



Yet the Falklands have sacrificed no one for Britain yet when they are under attack the Britains come rushing to their aid


The Falkland Islands are a Bitish Overseas Territory and are solely dependant on the UK for it's defence.
The UK itself was not under direct attack at the time of The Falklands War.
Australia is an independant country with it's own Armed Forces and as said previously the UK was under attack and involved in major conflict all over the world at the time.

In the highly unlikely event that Australia was ever faced with imminent invasion from a foreign nation or was threatened in any way then I hope the UK would offer immediate and unconditional support to Australia - let's hope we never find out.

But none of that is the issue here - this is about The Right To Self-Determination - surely something you support, don't you?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


And you bleating on about the supposed UK abandonment of Australia is offensive. We did no such thing, considering we were pretty much under siege in the UK from 1940 until 1944, we still sent what we could to the Far East and had a huge army in SE Asia fighting the Japanese.

It was also pretty much agreed between the US and UK that they would take the lead in the Pacific Theatre and we dealt with the European/African theatres. Australia didn't get "invaded" or "slaughtered" at all.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


More British civilians were killed by German bombing during The Blitz than the total amount of Australians who died during the whole of WWII - but I wouldn't dream of belittling their contribution.

Approximately 0.7% of The Falkland Island population paid the ultimate price - approximately 0.5% of the Australian population did the same.

And they all have our most heart felt respect and gratitude.
edit on 12/6/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital

Britain abandoned Australia after the Fall of Singapore, they didn't care if we were enslaved or entirely exterminated, they only selfishly cared about themselves.


Rubbish - not even close to being true. Not only ignorant but stupid.



Us Australians had more men killed in WW1 than America!!!


You really like to look like a fool, dont' you??

US casualties approx 116,000 dead. Australian casualties approx 61,000 dead - source


Britain owed us and when they had the chance to repay the favour they spat in our faces and ran away to Britain...


Keep digging....


Oh wow 10 Falklanders were killed? Comparing that to the amount of Australians kiled is an insult.!!!


Tell that to the 10 dead people and their families.

The fact is you said that the Falklands had not done anything to help the Brits.

The facts are you were wrong - and you remain wrong.

As well as ignorant.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


For pity's sake, not this nonsense again.



Australia has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men in Britains wars,


Yes, and the British people are eternally grateful for the friendship shown to them by Australia, New Zealand and Canada and for the sacrifice so many had to pay.



yet in WW2 when the Japanese were invading Australia Britain spat in our faces and sent us NO help.


The UK did not 'spit' in your faces - there was the little matter of The Battle Of Britain and The Blitz.
Britain was under direct attack and had absolutely no resources whatsoever.
The UK was having to buy used and outdated equipment and resources at exorbitant prices from the USA just to survive.



Yet the Falklands have sacrificed no one for Britain yet when they are under attack the Britains come rushing to their aid


The Falkland Islands are a Bitish Overseas Territory and are solely dependant on the UK for it's defence.
The UK itself was not under direct attack at the time of The Falklands War.
Australia is an independant country with it's own Armed Forces and as said previously the UK was under attack and involved in major conflict all over the world at the time.

In the highly unlikely event that Australia was ever faced with imminent invasion from a foreign nation or was threatened in any way then I hope the UK would offer immediate and unconditional support to Australia - let's hope we never find out.

But none of that is the issue here - this is about The Right To Self-Determination - surely something you support, don't you?


WRONG!!!

The Battle of Britain was fought in 1940, the Battle for Australia was fought in 1942-43. At this time the battle for Britain had ended over 2 years ago so Britain was not under attack at the time. You sent us no help, we thought you were our allies?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


And you bleating on about the supposed UK abandonment of Australia is offensive. We did no such thing, considering we were pretty much under siege in the UK from 1940 until 1944, we still sent what we could to the Far East and had a huge army in SE Asia fighting the Japanese.

It was also pretty much agreed between the US and UK that they would take the lead in the Pacific Theatre and we dealt with the European/African theatres. Australia didn't get "invaded" or "slaughtered" at all.


The Battle for Britain ended in 1940, Australia was under invasion from 1942-43. You did abandon us after Singapore fell, instead of sending reinforcements you said a big F*CK YOU to Australia and allowed the Japanese to besiege us.
The only reason Australia didn't get invaded was because of something called the Kokoda track.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


More British civilians were killed by German bombing during The Blitz than the total amount of Australians who died during the whole of WWII - but I wouldn't dream of belittling their contribution.

Approximately 0.7% of The Falkland Island population paid the ultimate price - approximately 0.5% of the Australian population did the same.

And they all have our most heart felt respect and gratitude.
edit on 12/6/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



How dare you?
I didn't belittle Britains dead, but you feel its okay to do it to mine?
You used us as your cannon fodder in WW1, you despised our people and treated us like sh*t, yet even those who died for Britain yet you think its okay to belittle them?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonKapital
 


Um, you are actually aware that Britain was fighting from Britain until 1944 and the D Day Invasion are you? This is totally off topic but clearly needs to be pointed out! So how was Britain supposed to send you troops? Ask the Germans for a travel pass?




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join