Cameron: Britain would fight another war with Argentina to keep the Falkland Islands

reply to post by boymonkey74


If the Falkland Islands are UK in origin, they do have a right to protect the islands against Argentina. Argentina just can't claim a land that doesn't belong to us. Lets say that New York is wanted by Peru, Peru can't claim it, because New York belongs to US; so US has the right to fight for it.
Now, the question is: does the inhabitants of Falkland Islands want to be with Argentina or UK. However, they are a autonomous government which allied with UK. So UK should keep it. Argentina has no right to claim it.

reply to post by NorthernThird


Nope not a colony anymore they self govern and are free to leave us If they wish to do so.
Yes they have many things in common with us Brits in their lifestyle because they are British and have been there for generations.
Oh and If any other nation tried to invade any of our territories we would defend it as we are allowed to by international law, with the backing of the whole of the EU.
You can bleat all you like but the Falklands will remain British as long as there is a GREAT Briton.

reply to post by starheart


I think it's a little different than your analogy as New York is actualy in the United States, whereas The Falklands are the remains of a long dead empire and really rather close to Argentina which is why I imagine that it should be under there control.

I'm not saying I agree but you can't really say they don't have a point

reply to post by starheart


We will see the results when they have a democratic vote on who they will go for but I would give you odds of a million to one that they vote to be Argentinian.

reply to post by splitfamiliar


Don't you get it? Britain claimed that EMPTY land before Argentina even existed. What the hell are you saying?

reply to post by boymonkey74


Ah right. The fact that over half their civilian population only arrived in the last ten years, that means nothing, right ?

That's not settling a colony, of course not.

And if Argentinians wish to live on the Falkland Islands, no harm in that either is there ? In fact if 5,000 wanted to live there ... and why not ... and if they voted for the Falkland Islands to become part of Argentina, you & the other Brits here would "rejoice, rejoice, rejoice" at that wonderful expression of democracy in action ?

Yeah, right.

reply to post by NorthernThird


The thing is, the Argentinians don't want to live there. It's just a matter of principal and a desperate government.

reply to post by NorthernThird


You seem to forget that we have been living there for over 170 years, doesn't matter what you think TBH It is what the people who live there think.
5000 Argies to come over and live there? how? in which homes will they live in?
Kirshna is a crook and has broken international law by stopping shipping to the island. So who is in the wrong here?
Are you french btw?

If it was China who was contesting ownership, Cameron would be feverishly cutting business deals before telling the islanders that if they were as "British" as they believed, they wouldn't mind making a sacrifice for the greater good and coming back to the motherland, rather than drag Not-So-Great Britain into a war they could never win.

But, it's the Argies and we've already kicked their ass once, and we still owe them for Maradona's cheating us out of a World Cup, so it's a different matter entirely.

reply to post by NorthernThird


It doesn't matter how many people live there and it certainly doesn't matter how recently they arrived. They are British and they will remain to be.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Hypothetically. This scenario has not occured yet and is highly unlikely.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I have forgiven Maradonna because his son in-law scored the winner in the last seconds to win Man City the Prem

reply to post by boymonkey74


Thanks for the comedy relief, it was needed.

Originally posted by NorthernThird
I do. More than half the population landed there in the last ten years.

Rubbish...Most of the 3,000 residents of the islanders (not including the military personnel) trace their ancestry back to the 19th century colonists.

Originally posted by NorthernThird
They've got a governor and a pretty 'tarded representative council, all their governmental systems are implanted from UK. They use their own pound as a currency, although it's pegged 100% to the British currency. It looks like Britain, they talk like Brits.

Henceforth why they're British....doh...

Originally posted by NorthernThird
That means it's a colony, surely ?? And that the Argentine President is actually correct when she says that ?

Once could say the same about Argentina, surely? Their systems of Governance, their people and their language all implanted from Spain.

Originally posted by NorthernThird
And are the Brits prepared to defend their other bits of colonial crapola around the globe ? St Helena ? Turks & Caicos ? Montserrat ? Pitcairn Islands ? Anguilla ?

Yes. In fact, we've just invested £250m into St Helena so they can have a new airport and are also looking into connecting them to a subsea cable for internet access. Damn right we'd defend them.

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Or will Cameron and their little navy only defend places with predominately white faces ?

Your "little navy" is still one of the worlds largest and certainly one of the most capable.

Right so let's summarise. It looks like Britain, it walks like Britain, it talks like Britain ... but it isn't a colony. In fact, it's a self governing little group of islands which simply depends on Britain for all it's money, all it's public services and all it's defence requirements.

So you guys say they're British through and through of course. British but really a different country, one free to do whatever it pleases. You'll defend them because they're British and the islands are as British as, say, the Western Isles. Or Anglesey.

But "in recent polls" many of them describe themselves as Falklanders first and last. The new "third way" LOL How do you account for that. You're imposing your own Britishness on people who describe themselves as Falkland Islanders. What's that about ?

Makes no sense, that, but I'll take you up on it.So. There'll be treaties for all this, is there ? Treaties, you know, written agreements between sovereign nations ? Like a mutual *cough* defence pact, for example, between the Falkland Islands and the UK/NATO/EU ? Something. Anything ?

Oh no wait ... there isn't.

And that's because the Falkland Islands are a colony, just as the Argentinian President says.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Why are you getting so angry with me?

As I have said I understand the situation, I just don't agree with it. Some people you have never met may be manipulated by governments you do not understand because hundreds of years ago some other things happened.

Real people could die because of the game that is being played just as they did the last time. I do not believe it is patriotic to believe the lies about the threat to British subjects and evil Argentinians whilst ignoring the truth behind this and every other war in the past 30 years.

Just my opinion, nothing more nothing less

reply to post by NorthernThird


I describe myself as English then British so do the Falkland islanders.
Oh and if you go back a few pages I produced the evidence to show that if the Argies attack the falklands again the EU will help defend them because they are classed as a British territory and under the Lisbon treaty If any eu member state's territory is attacked they will help us.

Here it is again



Here a good article.

www.thinkdefence.co.uk...

Found it article 42 part 7

www.lisbon-treaty.org... specific-provisions-/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-p olicy/129-article-42.html


7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Oh and once again are you french? or where are you from.

reply to post by NorthernThird


You clearly have zero understanding of what a dependency is. They're not a separate country at all, but a self-governing dependency. That means they deal with their own internal affairs, but foreign affairs and defence are the prerogative of the Uk Government. Just like Puerto Rico is for the US, or Guam, of French Guyana, or St Helena, or Tristan da Cunha or the myriad of other territories around the world held by many different nations.

reply to post by NorthernThird


Oh and at least go back and read the whole thread, all your points have been raised and answered.
Getting bored of repeating myself here.

pennsylvania and new york along with 11 other states used to be british, why don't you guys go claim that back.