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

Originally posted by michael1983l

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)

A policy the UK actively encourages.....within reason.

So Cameron and his cronies would stand calmly aside and watch the IOW being taken over by France, would they now?

I somehow think not - regardless what the islanders said.

In any case, to say Northern Ireland has the right to self-determination is just plain wrong.

It's part of the Republic of Ireland that was invaded and colonised by Cromwell in the 17th century.....Britons were deliberately immigrated over there to make it less susceptible to rebellion.

But obviously, it was and is part of the Republic......despite the opinions of the current descendants of its British colonists.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Make a thread to do with Northern Island then, this is about the Falklands please stick to the topic.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

Make a thread to do with Northern Island then, this is about the Falklands please stick to the topic.

It's relevant to the topic and an important example.

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?

Since france shares tourism routes with the uk it wont happen and back in 1293 it was sold to
edward the 1st and france has no claim so it won't happen check your history...

Sold legitimatley for 6 thousand marks and is owned by the crown also the people want to
stay british and are proud to do so..

Originally posted by CJCrawley

Originally posted by michael1983l

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)

A policy the UK actively encourages.....within reason.

So Cameron and his cronies would stand calmly aside and watch the IOW being taken over by France, would they now?

I somehow think not - regardless what the islanders said.

In any case, to say Northern Ireland has the right to self-determination is just plain wrong.

It's part of the Republic of Ireland that was invaded and colonised by Cromwell in the 17th century.....Britons were deliberately immigrated over there to make it less susceptible to rebellion.

But obviously, it was and is part of the Republic......despite the opinions of the current descendants of its British colonists.

I am from Northern Ireland, my family have been living here for longer than the USA has existed or even been 'known' about. My family have been British for as long as there has been such a thing.
Ireland was in part of a UNITED BRITISH ISLES long before Cromwell was born! The 'Free State' didn't exist until 1919 and the Republic until 1949..Cromwell died in 1658.
The 'British' NEVER invaded Ireland, but were invited over, FACT.
Ireland is part of the BRITISH ISLES, geographic fact, so what about proximity?

The concept of Irish republicanism was a FRENCH idea to create a second front during Napoleonic wars.

Their cowardly 1916 rebellion when they sided with the GERMANS was only successful because the opposition were all fighting in trenches of WW1, my ancestors. Otherwise it would of gone the other way and been a massacre at that, see 'Larne gun running'

The fact that the British Isles are divided is a ticking time bomb left to us by foreign intervention, the latest from the Clintons. How they think 'Good Friday Agreement' will work when it walks on the rights of the majority, we already had to accept terrorists in government. I personally had to move out of the village I grew up in because as it was 90% 1 religion, nothing sinister just a small village with a few farming families living there, still I was not allowed planning permission to build a house, only Catholics were allowed to. The same village were I would now be afraid to walk through only 14 years later...that's ethnic cleansing, not on the part of the British.

but, you know what, your not even British, and as much as it pains me to say this, but even British people from outside of Northern Ireland know it is too complicated a situation to discuss and just leave it be. Why do you think your such an expert?

And PLEASE tell me, how is this like the Falklands? or are you giving a green light to for us to reunify the British Isles because of the proximity?

Originally posted by biggilo
The 'British' NEVER invaded Ireland, but were invited over, FACT.

Not to derail here but this is false.

Sure they did. While MacMurrough did indeed invite them in They spread out into territories in Ireland that did not extend such a welcome . Remember Ireland was not ruled in a unitary fashion at the time rather broken up into separate regions ruled by chieftains with conflicting views. so to say Ireland invited them in is a blatant distortion of history.

Originally posted by biggiloTheir cowardly 1916 rebellion when they sided with the GERMANS was only successful because the opposition were all fighting in trenches of WW1, my ancestors. Otherwise it would of gone the other way and been a massacre at that, see 'Larne gun running'

Cowardly? Given the way the people were treated for centuries how is the desire to rid the land of an oppressive people cowardly? Sure it wasn't ideal to say side with the Germans but one isn't always presented with an ideal set of circumstances to operate under and thus must make do with what they can.


Though on a related note i don't see a similarity to the falklands and Northern Ireland seeing how the Falklands was an empty rock unoccupied by any native people including any from Argentina. They are completely different situations.

reply to post by paganini


Maybe a BIT distorted, but not like the old 800 years of English invasion BS that the IRA/Sinn Fein peddle..

And, I know cowardly is harsh, but it is true that if the men who were true heroes in my eyes (from all parts of Ireland not just Ulster) were not in the trenches of WW1 starting down the German machine guns then the rebellion would of been crushed. Given large numbers of my ancestors fought and died (my great granny lost all the males from her family) in this war i think I am entitled to have my view of the rebels as cowards.

But, hey, we agree on this, KEEP NORTHERN IRELAND OUT OF THIS.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Your logic seems flawed, the Falklands are hundreds of miles from Argentina but belong to them by right due to proximity? Yet Britain has no claim on N Ireland which much much closer to the UK than that, ad indeed is all of Ireland. This is the logic of a 5 year old child. Everywhere is "closer" to somewhere!

Originally posted by biggilo

Originally posted by CJCrawley

Originally posted by michael1983l

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)

A policy the UK actively encourages.....within reason.

So Cameron and his cronies would stand calmly aside and watch the IOW being taken over by France, would they now?

I somehow think not - regardless what the islanders said.

In any case, to say Northern Ireland has the right to self-determination is just plain wrong.

It's part of the Republic of Ireland that was invaded and colonised by Cromwell in the 17th century.....Britons were deliberately immigrated over there to make it less susceptible to rebellion.

But obviously, it was and is part of the Republic......despite the opinions of the current descendants of its British colonists.

I am from Northern Ireland, my family have been living here for longer than the USA has existed or even been 'known' about. My family have been British for as long as there has been such a thing.
Ireland was in part of a UNITED BRITISH ISLES long before Cromwell was born! The 'Free State' didn't exist until 1919 and the Republic until 1949..Cromwell died in 1658.
The 'British' NEVER invaded Ireland, but were invited over, FACT.
Ireland is part of the BRITISH ISLES, geographic fact, so what about proximity?

The concept of Irish republicanism was a FRENCH idea to create a second front during Napoleonic wars.

Their cowardly 1916 rebellion when they sided with the GERMANS was only successful because the opposition were all fighting in trenches of WW1, my ancestors. Otherwise it would of gone the other way and been a massacre at that, see 'Larne gun running'

The fact that the British Isles are divided is a ticking time bomb left to us by foreign intervention, the latest from the Clintons. How they think 'Good Friday Agreement' will work when it walks on the rights of the majority, we already had to accept terrorists in government. I personally had to move out of the village I grew up in because as it was 90% 1 religion, nothing sinister just a small village with a few farming families living there, still I was not allowed planning permission to build a house, only Catholics were allowed to. The same village were I would now be afraid to walk through only 14 years later...that's ethnic cleansing, not on the part of the British.

but, you know what, your not even British, and as much as it pains me to say this, but even British people from outside of Northern Ireland know it is too complicated a situation to discuss and just leave it be. Why do you think your such an expert?

And PLEASE tell me, how is this like the Falklands? or are you giving a green light to for us to reunify the British Isles because of the proximity?

Biggilo....

Excellent facts that most of the opinionated 'muppets' on here would never have known......

knowledge conquers ignorance.......... well done

Regards

PDUK

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

Your logic seems flawed, the Falklands are hundreds of miles from Argentina but belong to them by right due to proximity?

They are much, much closer to Argentina than any other country (and a # of a lot closer than Britain).

Check out a map.

Yet Britain has no claim on N Ireland which much much closer to the UK than that, ad indeed is all of Ireland.

Shhh!! Taboo subject.

So they are much closer to Argentina than any other country. And the part about everywhere has to be closer to somewhere? Does that complicate things too much for you?

Lets go back to where you entered the conversation as I had skipped that.

Originally posted by CJCrawley
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.

Name one country that exists through natural right? Every nation is the result of settlement, immigration, warfare and/or arbitrary boundary setting. Argentina itself is a younger entity than the Falklands settlement and is the result of oppression and massacre of indigenous peoples (which never happened on the Falklands), war with its neighbours and political machinations. Why then are you only concerned with the ''natural entitlement' of the Falklands? Maybe the Falklanders should have possession of Argentina itself under the Union Jack because they were there first?

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

Does this also apply to the Argentinian people? Are you saying they should all leave and go back to Spain? Surely they can have no more claim to their own country than the Falklanders do to their islands? Don't you even see the stupidity of your 'proximity' and 'natural right' arse gravy of an argument?

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.

And so you are in favour of the forceful takeover of a foreign people by military means if necessary to get hold of a piece of real estate. Saddam Hussain and Adolf Hitler would agree with you there. Well done. But wait, isn't colonialism a bad thing that belongs in the past? You seem confused.

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

Yeah 'cos 1776 never happened, oops, wrong again buster. Maybe there's more to it and its a little morel complex than you think, eh?

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.

That is an irrelevant strawman argument with nothing to do with the subject. Britain has ALWAYS been built upon immigration since the first Celts moved in to an uninhabited island thousands of years ago. Just because the knuckle draggers cant handle it doesn't make it wrong.

BTW. Alaska is further away from the mainland USA than the Falklands are from Argentina. Yes, the Russians sold Alaska to the USA, so it is possible to to talk about possibilities or otherwise of them being 'returned', even though it would never happen. But Argentina has NEVER possessed the Falklands, so their ambition to own them is a colonialist land grab by any description, and will be resisted.

reply to post by waynos


Cut to the chase.

The British were NOT the first settlers on the islands - the FRENCH were.

They call it Isles Malouines (from which the Spanish 'Malvinas'), because the first settlers were from the Breton port of St Malo.

Three nations have competing claims of discovery - Spain, Portugal, and Britain.

The Argentinians were amongst the earliest settlers, but they started to lay claims to the islands in the early 19th century after their independence from Spain; there was a large Spanish settlement there which Argentina then took over.

They reasoned, quite naturally, that, as it was the closest country, Argentina was best placed to administer the islands and provide vital services; which of course is undeniably true.

The French are strangely quiet about it though; come to that, so are the Spanish and Portuguese.

Maybe that is because these people appreciate the absurdity of getting all fired up about a small group of cold islands in the middle of bloody nowhere.

No - best leave all that tub-thumping, lager-lout xenophobia to the dumbass Brits.


"That is an irrelevant strawman argument with nothing to do with the subject. Britain has ALWAYS been built upon immigration since the first Celts moved in to an uninhabited island thousands of years ago. Just because the knuckle draggers cant handle it doesn't make it wrong."

FYI: Britain was not 'uninhabited' when the Celts came.

And if people disagree with you they're 'knuckledraggers', are they?

I see.

reply to post by CJCrawley


No we are getting fired up because the people who have worked and lived there for over 170 years are being threatened again. Fellow Brits who we have defended before and will defend again If we need to.
Under international law they are the rightful people of the Islands, they are free to pick who they want to be with.
Why are you so against freedom of self determination?.
Oh and stop name calling...again, you are new here so I think you should read the T&C.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Oh dear oh dear.

Why bring Ireland into it? And for that matter, why bring Cromwell into it? Do you realise that some of the settlers at Roanoke (pre Jamestown) had come from Ireland (despite being English?). One of the reasons they were chosen was because they used to the hardships of surviving on, basically, nothing (surviving off the land). This is both documented and verified.

Or that the Plantagent Kings also had territories in Ireland? (500 years pre Cromwell).

Not only is it totally off topic but, basically, also totally wrong.

Argentina has only one proper claim on the Falklands and that is proximity. However, is proximity really a valid reason? If so then when is Guantanamo being reclaimed by Cuba? When does Canada get Alaska? You see? It isn't a clear cut argument and as that is the ONLY legitimate claim, perhaps you can explain why self determination is not an option?

reply to post by CJCrawley


True about the island being inhabited, Cheddar Man dated 7150BC was found to share mitochondrial DNA with some school kids still living in the area in the late 20th Century.

It is one in the eye for all the anti-british bigots who like to say we aren't 'natives' etc.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

Why bring Ireland into it?

The OP has requested we don't discuss this subject and I think we should respect that.

Argentina has only one proper claim on the Falklands and that is proximity. However, is proximity really a valid reason? If so then when is Guantanamo being reclaimed by Cuba? When does Canada get Alaska? You see? It isn't a clear cut argument and as that is the ONLY legitimate claim, perhaps you can explain why self determination is not an option?

I appreciate there can be a lack of clarity with proximity, but surely this is very clear cut indeed in regard to the Falklands?

Argentina is, by far, the closest country.

reply to post by CJCrawley


It doesn't matter how close they are, many have explained why so I will not do it again.
The only clear cut thing in this is the people have lived there for .......you know what Iam sick of repeating myself to you so go back and read the blooming thread.

reply to post by CJCrawley


And Canada is, by far, the closest country to Alaska.

Morocco is the closest to the Canary Islands. Free Tenerife from the evil Spanish Imperialists!

Other factors are far more crucial, for example the wishes of the population...........

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

It doesn't matter how close they are, many have explained why so I will not do it again.
The only clear cut thing in this is the people have lived there for .......you know what Iam sick of repeating myself to you so go back and read the blooming thread.

It matters like hell how close they are.....and I am sick of repeating myself.

Sorry pal; we're just not going to agree on this.

I'm well aware of your stance and it comes as absolutely no surprise that most British posters tend to think the same as you.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

And Canada is, by far, the closest country to Alaska.

Russia's pretty close.

I'm not aware of a sovereignty issue with Canada and Alaska - is there one?

Morocco is the closest to the Canary Islands. Free Tenerife from the evil Spanish Imperialists!

Well, if Morocco want to negotiate terms with Spain, I would back their cause.

Other factors are far more crucial, for example the wishes of the population...........

It's funny how much weight the 'wishes of the population' carries when it comes to sovereignty issues.

At no other time do politicians give a flying one about what their people want.

Like when a million people marched in London, protesting the invasion of Iraq - and were casually ignored.

But a couple thousand islanders 8000 miles away want to stay British.....and everyone is to sit up and take notice.

Garbage.

The discovery of the black stuff hasn't exactly helped matters either.