Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 28
25
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by christafinias
 


Of course it would still be taxable, but to the Falkland Government of course. Why do people not understand that they are only an overseas teritory and that they have their own economy, own taxation system and own government. The people of the Falkland Islands would get very rich very quickly.

Now I am not saying the UK would not benafit indirectly. The Falkland Islanders would probably start paying a greater contribution for the protection the UK Armed Forces provides them and also probably many British companies would be involved in the tender process for the contracts off the back of the oil exploration and extraction.

But the UK in any way shape or form obtaining taxation through Oil in the Falklands..... NO.




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
i would rather see bill odie drill a penguin than us set up a platform, then sell is to the USA cheap and buy it back at 'war' prices



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The British Empire originally took control of the Falkland Islands because it is a strategic sea gate. The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Gibraltar are a few others. As the empire crumbled, they lost control of almost all of them.

The Falklands no longer contains strategic value and if Argentina pushed the point, I expect that Britain would relinquish them without a fight. Why?

The original war was not about turf. It was about technology. Thule Island was most likely the focus of the entire war. There was a scientific outpost there that the British utterly destroyed with enough explosive to demolish it many times over. Check it out for yourself.

Consider this, the Argentines almost won the war and if wasn't for Thatcher having a very stern chat with Mitterrand over the supply of exocet missiles, things would have turned out differently.
www.independent.co.uk...

Why take such a huge tactical risk on the world stage for a tiny cluster of islands?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by UnderGetty
 


Wrong it would be political suicide for any PM to just give up our people, that's what it is about people, not an Island it is about the right of British people to determine their future.
edit on 8-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Argentina does not spend enough on their military to realistically win any war against the UK. They spend $5 billion vs the UK $62.7 billion. If current population and economic growth rates stay steady it might be possible for them to one day be powerful enough to take on the UK but not today. The UK GDP is 2.3 trillion at 0.8% growth. The Argentine GDP is 716 billion at 8.9% growth. In terms of population the UK is 63 million at 0.553% growth and Argentina 42 million at 0.997% growth. At some point in the future maybe war would be a winnable option. The demographic changes in the US might also be factors that could favour Argentina in the future, as well as the economic and demographic trends in Europe and the Americas in general (potential allies directly or indirectly for either side). Anyway probably not before 2040 by my calculations.

www.cia.gov...
edit on 8-1-2013 by Strakha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
At the end of the day it's about proximity.

The FI are much closer to Argentina than any other country, so own them by natural right.

The British claim to them is a spurious one based on ancient history and has no validity in the modern context.

The argument that the islanders are an independent people who can determine their nationality and allegiance is the same the British gov have always used to hang on to Northern Ireland.

And it's bollocks.

Immigrate a load of Brits to any area of the planet and obviously they are going to show allegiance to Britain. Duh.

And anyway - hasn't this argument been shot down countless times in Britain already in regard to immigration?

"Us whites are the real British cos we were here first....all these foreigners are imposters and should be booted out."

"No, you're wrong! Stop being racist, we're all the same really, regardless of colour, nationality, religion, or how long we've lived here. Just because you're Celts and have been here for thousands of years doesn't give you a better claim to the country than Africans and Indians who just got off the plane, blah-blah-blah-blah........."
[subtext: Shut up complaining about immigration, we're making millions...]

When it suits them, the British establishment shift the goal posts.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


It is nothing to do about proximity at all. Where does proximity start and end? Does Chilie have a right to claim Argentina because they were there first? I don't think that is logical is it?

The current inhabitants of the Falkland Islands have been there for a couple of hundred years and before that the Islands were uninhabited. That means the only people who have any real right to say who the Islands belongs to is its residents. When they have their referendum on this question later on this year, the world should take the outcome of that referendum and accept it as it is and that should be the end of the silly little debate. It really is as simple as that.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


That is rubbish, Alaska is closer to Russia than to mainland USA so should the states give them to russia? that is just one example of many.
What is bollocks about a people wanting to determine their own future?
Oh and immigration? not all of us Brits disagree with it you know, GREAT Briton is great because of the influx of different cultures coming here for over a thousand years.
I welcome anyone who wants to help themselves and live and work in our country.
edit on 8-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


That is rubbish, Alaska is closer to Russia than to mainland USA so should the states give them to russia? that is just one example of many.
What is bollocks about a people wanting to determine their own future?
Oh and immigration? not all of us Brits disagree with it you know, GREAT Briton is great because of the influx of different cultures coming here for over a thousand years.
I welcome anyone who wants to help themselves and live and work in our country.
edit on 8-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


Not only is it closer to Russia, it also used to be Russian territory with Russian inhabitants.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


That is rubbish, Alaska is closer to Russia than to mainland USA so should the states give them to russia? that is just one example of many.


The US bought Alaska from Russia, you dingbat.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


That is rubbish, Alaska is closer to Russia than to mainland USA so should the states give them to russia? that is just one example of many.


The US bought Alaska from Russia, you dingbat.







Correct it did, but what about the Residents that were living in Alaska already, was it really Russia's right to sell it to the USA in the first place considering the views of the population of the land. I doubt it was. Much like it isn't the UK's right to hand the Falklands over to Argentina.

Only the people of the Island can decide their own destiny.
edit on 8-1-2013 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Name calling nice

But thanks for telling me that but my point still stands, The US has territories around the world miles from the USA mainland so do many other countries like the french etc.
So your argument is invalid.
Argentina did not even exist when we had people living and working on those islands so how can they say they own them?
edit on 8-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


It is nothing to do about proximity at all. Where does proximity start and end?


It's all about proximity, what are you talking about?

It's a territorial dispute - the bit adjacent to me is mine and that bit near you is yours.

Same reason the Spanish want Gibraltar back, and the Channel Islands will be ceded back to France. They are just the last vestiges of the old empire that haven't been dealt with yet.



The current inhabitants of the Falkland Islands have been there for a couple of hundred years and before that the Islands were uninhabited. That means the only people who have any real right to say who the Islands belongs to is its residents.


So, for example, if the population of the Isle of Wight suddenly decided they were French and wanted to be governed by the French government.....that would be ok, would it?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Ok so what about American Samoa? closest to New Zealand So by your logic If the Kiwis asked for American Samoa you will go against the people living there and hand it to them.....



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
So, for example, if the population of the Isle of Wight suddenly decided they were French and wanted to be governed by the French government.....that would be ok, would it?


Absolutely. Look up the UN Charter on the Right to self determination, a policy the UK activly encourages. The exact same reason the UK is giving the Scottish the right to vote on a referendum about independance from the UK.

I'm glad you are starting to get it now.
edit on 8-1-2013 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-1-2013 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Exactly to which the islanders want to stay british for britian and keep it that way.
Here is a list of some places and notice how the people are proud to to be british it's
what the people want that counts let the ring bearers decide.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Ok so what about American Samoa? closest to New Zealand So by your logic If the Kiwis asked for American Samoa you will go against the people living there and hand it to them.....


American Samoa is nowhere near New Zealand, it's about a thousand miles away.

Do you have a map? lol



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Great vid Denver



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Ok so what about American Samoa? closest to New Zealand So by your logic If the Kiwis asked for American Samoa you will go against the people living there and hand it to them.....


American Samoa is nowhere near New Zealand, it's about a thousand miles away.

Do you have a map? lol


Oh so there is a number now is there? Who decides that number? What is that number exactly? How many miles?

The island is still part of the same shelf though isn't it?

Anyway I have knocked your question about the Channel Islands out of the park, so what tripe have you got to serve us up now for your claim on the Falkland Islands?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


No where near the US mainland either and yes I do have a map and ok the Island chain is part of Samoa Islands so why don't the US give them to the Samoans?
See your logic is flawed just admit it.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join