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

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by gangdumstyle
What a bunch of bullies. England threatening to murder innocent Argentinean people. All they care about is the oil off the islands. England has enough stuff let the Argentinean's eat at least.. Cameron and England make me sick to be human..
This is just so wrong on so many levels....


where do you come from???????????????

are you not from chester UK
edit on 6/1/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)
Not that it matters but yeah... I don't see how that has any bearing on downright lies


England is not threatening anyone BUT if Argentina try to invade, we'll defend ourselves.

Argentina may be poor, does that that give them right to invade the homes of others and to displace them? NO.




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I'm not saying they should move, I am saying that if they are British and in danger then surely they should come back to Britain where it's nice and safe, as I said it would be cheaper and no one would die in a war.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


And yes, If i thought my home was going to be invaded then I would move somewhere safer.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by gangdumstyle
What a bunch of bullies. England threatening to murder innocent Argentinean people. All they care about is the oil off the islands. England has enough stuff let the Argentinean's eat at least.. Cameron and England make me sick to be human..


If you read the article, Cameron was merely stating that the Falkland's would be defended. No one is talking about "murder".

I am not sure what the problem is. The Argentinean President has spent the last couple of years escalating the ranting and raving, including supporting a de facto blockade of the Islands. On this basis, there comes a point when it is expedient to cut to the chase and say “...so what are you going to do about it? Nothing, so stop your blabbering madam. You are becoming an embarrassment. ”

Regards



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingYou
 


BS utter BS you are saying that during the falkland war we murdered women and children? prove it.
We did not attack mainland Argentina we just fought to take back the islands.
People die in armed conflict I don't like it as much as you do but to say women and children were slaughtered in the Falklands is just BS.
I think you do not even know what happened.
Argentina invaded South Georgia led by a military junta (who killed their own people who stood in their way) and we responded and took those islands back.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by splitfamiliar
 


It will not be invaded we have enough stuff to make sure of that.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
If anything the Islands should go back to France, Not Argentina!

The first claim was french, then British and then Spanish with Britain holding the islands for the longest period, in which they protected, improved, and maintained the islands



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by ObservingYou
 


BS utter BS you are saying that during the falkland war we murdered women and children? prove it.
We did not attack mainland Argentina we just fought to take back the islands.
People die in armed conflict I don't like it as much as you do but to say women and children were slaughtered in the Falklands is just BS.
I think you do not even know what happened.
Argentina invaded South Georgia led by a military junta (who killed their own people who stood in their way) and we responded and took those islands back.


LOL - I suppose everything was just fine and dandy, right? What was this? The only clean war that didn't see women, children and teenagers killed? The only war where a rape or beating didn't occur?

I wasn't there, I'm merely telling you what a first hand witness told me.
He has no reason to lie and neither do I.

Your assumpsion at calling "BS" and telling me for a FACT that there was NO alternate motive, goes to show how close minded you are.

How do you know greater politics is not involved? You don't, so your statements are just as false as you suppose mine to be.

Only I know mine are correct.

Anyway, not my job to inform you, let the info wars begin!
edit on 6-1-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-1-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by maryhinge

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by gangdumstyle
What a bunch of bullies. England threatening to murder innocent Argentinean people. All they care about is the oil off the islands. England has enough stuff let the Argentinean's eat at least.. Cameron and England make me sick to be human..
This is just so wrong on so many levels....


where do you come from???????????????

are you not from chester UK
edit on 6/1/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)
Not that it matters but yeah... I don't see how that has any bearing on downright lies


England is not threatening anyone BUT if Argentina try to invade, we'll defend ourselves.

Argentina may be poor, does that that give them right to invade the homes of others and to displace them? NO.

Dear Mister_Bit
as usual i jumped the gun
my response should of been directed at gangdumstyle and not you

i hope you can except this

SORRY fellow brit
also from chester

ch4###
edit on 6/1/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/1/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingYou
 


I know that it has more to do with just protecting our people and has to do with where they are etc, but for you to say we went over and raped women and killed children is just wrong...prove it.
We were the liberators not the invaders, we were welcomed by the Falkland islanders as heroes..(not me of course but my uncle was).
You stated we killed women and children during the conflict like I said prove it.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I have never been a fan of his but I actually let a little "Go On Dave" out the other day when he said we wont just hand the falklands over,

from what I have heard Argentina have always been a bit lax towards this Island and there own country is in a bit of a mess as it is
Let the Islanders decide



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I really fail to understand situations like this.

The Falkland Isles are a little under 8000 miles away from the UK. A little over 300 miles away from Argentina.

At what point did we decide it belongs to Us?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 


No worries my friend, no harm done



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Bottom line, if we handed back the islands to Argentina tomorrow, the people there would see little or no tangible change to their way of life. They could even retain their British nationality and fly their little Union flags from their flagpoles. It's not like they'd be forced off or under the heel of jackbooted military occupiers.

As for the oil, is anyone naive enough to really think any large gas or oil profits would benefit the people of the UK in any way? Of course not, it'll go to offshored shell companies and holding companies that will be set up to exploit it, such is the way of lobbying. All they want the British military to do is to safeguard potential corporate profits, whilst waving the flag and puffing out their collective chests and shouting for a bit more pointless faux patriotism.

Bottom line, it aint worth dying for, as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned.


I mean, it's not like it's off our shores now is it. If the government were so intent on protecting the rights of people on the land it "owns", they wouldn't have evicted the people of Diego Garcia, for example, so they could rent it out to the USA!



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by splitfamiliar
 


Do some research, Argentina didn't exist when we landed there and the people made it their home.
I find it Ironic that Kirshna doesn't seem to grasp that her country was founded by conquistadors who slaughtered the people living there and took the land just like what she is saying we did....
edit on 6-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


You seem to be missing my point. Put aside your national pride and look at a map.

It really is that simple.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I saw this the other day shame there are no links to back it up, I may do some research later but please enjoy or dissect


But today you've written to Prime Minister Dishface demanding he enter negotiations to 'return' the islands we call the Falklands and you call Malvinas, 180 years after we cruelly stole them from you with our jackbooted naval officers of totalitarianism­. You were 'forcibly stripped' of these jewels in the South Atlantic and your people were 'expelled'. Only, that's not quite what happened, is it Argentina? Someone obviously needs to remind you, and probably Mr Penn too, of the facts. Allow me to start by saying there are probably things we can all agree on. War is bad, for example, and colonialism - aside from the roads, aqueducts, education, health reforms, economic development, culture, food, integration and innovation - tends to be a bad thing too. We could probably avoid an argument over the fact that the Falkland Islands, in and of themselves, aren't exactly pretty. There are no hanging gardens, no waterfalls, no exotic wildlife. They're a windy bunch of rocks a long way from anywhere, although I grant they're nearer to you than they are to us. Which begs the question about why, exactly, you never bothered to settle them. When they were first discovered by a Dutchman in 1600 there was nothing there but seabirds. No people, no cultural heritage for anyone to trample over. Just a windy bunch of rocks. Ninety years later a British sailor was blown off course and sailed through a bit of water he named Falkland Sound, and 74 years after that the French turned up to form a colony. WAIT! I hear you cry. The French colonised the Falklands? Why yes, and 18th century email being what it was the British turned up two years later and built a settlement on another one of the islands and claimed the whole lot for the Crown, unaware the Frenchies were already in residence. The French sold out to the Spaniards a year after that, who put the colony - containing French people - under control of a governor in Buenos Aires. Three years later the Spanish picked a fight with the Brits, kicked them out and after a peace treaty let us back in. In 1774 the Brits, overstretched by the Americans kicking off, withdrew and left a plaque behind asserting their claim. Thirty two years later the Spaniards departed too, leaving another plaque, and in 1811 the last settlers threw in the towel. We were back to empty, windy rocks known only to whalers and sealing ships, and two memorial plaques. In 1820 an American pirate called David Jewett took shelter there, and finding the place deserted promptly claimed the islands for a union of South American provinces which later became Argentina. You lot didn't realise this for a year, but still didn't settle the islands. Instead a German who pretended to be French called Luis Vernet came along, asked the Argentines and the Brits politely if they minded, and founded a little colony of his own. It took him a few goes, but eventually he established a settlement, you named him governor and gave him the right to kill all the seals. This quite hacked off the Brits, who wanted some seals for themselves, but Vernet placated us by asking for our military protection. It all got a bit hairy in 1831, when Vernet found some American seal ships, arrested their crews and sparked an international incident. The Americans sent a warship, blew up the settlement, and hot-headedly sent the most senior settlers to the mainland for trial for piracy. The Argentines sent a new governor to establish a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny the day he arrived. The Brits, quite reasonably, decided the whole thing was a dog's breakfast. And now we get to the bit you're unhappy about Argentina, the invasion and forced expulsion. The Brits arrived two months after this mutiny, and wrote to the chap in charge of the small Argentine garrison. The letter said: "I have to direct you that I have received directions from His Excellency and Commander-in-Ch­ief of His Britannic Majesty's ships and vessels of war, South America station, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, to exercise the rights of sovereignty over these Islands. It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government." Now, there are many ways people can be oppressed, forced, compelled and abused - just ask Sean Penn - but a polite note is not one of them. The Argentine in charge thought briefly about resisting, but he didn't have many soldiers and besides, most of them were British mercenaries who refused to fight. So on January 3, 1833 you left, Argentina, with wounded pride and your nose in the air. You had never settled the islands. Never established a colony of your own. Never guarded it with a garrison of your own soldiers. They had never, ever, been yours. And now to the matter of that expulsion. The log of an Argentine ship present at the time records the settlers were encouraged to stay, and those that left did so of their own free will and generally because they were fed up with living on some boring, windy rocks. Eleven people left - four Argentines, three 'foreigners', one prisoner, a Brit and two Americans. Twenty-two people remained - 12 Argentinians, four Uruguay Indians, two Brits, two Germans, a Frenchman and a Jamaican. As the imposition of colonial power on an indigenous population goes, that takes some beating. And for the sake of clarity I should point out that a human melting pot like that makes the place about as British as you can be. A few months later HMS Beagle, taking Charles Darwin to the Galapagos for a long think, popped in and found the settlement half-ruined and the residents lawless. There were several murders, some looting, and in 1834 the exasperated British sent Lieutenant Henry Smith to run the place. The islands have been ours ever since, and is now home to almost 3,000 people descended from settlers who came from Britain, France, Scandinavia, Gibraltar, St Helena and Chile. At the same time, you went on to fight wars with most of South America and colonise provinces with indigenous populations by killing or pushing them out. When your government was broke and facing strong opposition in the 1980s, you invaded them to divert attention of the voters with the cost of 907 lives, and it cannot be unrelated to your letter that in a few weeks you face being ejected by the International Monetary Fund for lying over your economic figures. At around the same time, the people who now live on these boring, windy rocks in the middle of nowhere are having a referendum about who they would like to govern them. You will ignore this, because you believe they do not have a right to make up their own minds and have repeatedly refused to talk to the islanders about your claims. So allow me to make a couple of things clear. Firstly, the history of these windy rocks is an utter mess but someone had to take charge, and you weren't up to the job. We did it pretty nicely, considering our record in other places. Secondly, only jackbooted colonial scumbags refuse to listen to the democratic voice of the people who live somewhere, so you really ought to wind your hypocritical warmongering necks in. And thirdly - well done with the wine, and the beef's pretty good, but if you want to negotiate let's start with you taking back your Total Wipeout, because as cultural imperialism goes it's pretty offensive, and you might want to think about handing Patagonia back to its people as well. After that we are quite prepared to let you come and holiday on these windy rocks, where you will be invited to pitch a tent anywhere you like within the 13 square kilometres where you left 19,000 landmines last time you visited. We know they're a long way away. We know there's not much to the rocks, and there might be oil and it might give someone a claim to Antarctica. But we also know something you don't - which is that a well-run, law-abiding and happy bunch of rocks is the best bunch of rocks you can hope to have. You're no more up to that job now than you have ever been. In case our position is still not clear, the above could be summed up as: No. Yours sincerely, Blighty



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by splitfamiliar
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


You seem to be missing my point. Put aside your national pride and look at a map.

It really is that simple.


It's simple as landing on an empty island with no civilian population during a period in history when this was natural.

The island was claimed as British territory and we moved colonists there. They have been living there happily to this very day. They have voted many times to remain part of the Untied Kingdom.

Your argument fails. When the Romans invaded Britain, this country was part of Rome. It has nothing to do with how far away you are lol.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by splitfamiliar
 


Could say that about other places in the world,The French have places around the world, so does the USA.
This is about a people who have lived there for generations and have the right to decide who they want to be with.
If in march they said we want to go with Argentina we have said we would let them but If they say they want to stay with Britain under international law they are allowed to stay with us.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321



This week saw the announcement by Rockhopper Exploration, one of five British oil companies with operations in the Falklands, of continuing success in its exploration and appraisal programme of the Sea Lion discovery. This was the first confirmed oil discovery of the region, and the company now estimates the field to hold 325mmbbls of recoverable oil based on its mid estimate. Could it be that this remote area is starting to realise its much debated potential, estimated by the British Geological Society to hold billions of barrels of oil.
This is what they would go to war for. Not for the people who live on the islands....


We went to war with Argentina long before oil was discovered in the waters around the Falklands. We would go again to war for the SAME reason that has nothing to do with oil.





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join