well you would know you have an avatar whose forefathers were slaves so who was your master? Back to topic Falklands belong to argentine and brit govt should give them back without killing anyone
David Cameron: Britain Will Never Surrender The Falkland Islands
- Thread starter chanikya
- Start date
well you would know you have an avatar whose forefathers were slaves so who was your master? Back to topic Falklands belong to argentine and brit govt should give them back without killing anyone
888jamie888
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 0
But why do they belong to Argentina? No one has given a definitive reason yet.
I hate living in a society and world dominated by the hypocracy of the west. I am fed up of lies. Their so called democracies are all an illusion. I mean you are in the states look at the disproportionate effect AIPAC. and you cannot get away from it anywhere. I look forward to the day this corrupt system is overthrown
Back to topic brits are holding on to falklands for the resources at the south pole that might be available to them
888jamie888
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 0
Because the majority of people still want British control, besides that is off topic.
The problem is the United Kingdom still believe they are "great" and "Brittania rule the waves". I actually am embarrassed for their mindset and see the historical issues and screw ups round the world what they have done in the last 100 years.
You hit the nail on the head - they have had to leave Honk Kong, India, USA etc - time to realize stop trying to be something you are not - negotiate a deal where you hand the Malvinas to the rightful owners. Do a soft deal with them that doesnt leave you humiliated.
Jamie if you dont know why the islands are historically belonging to Argentina stop being lazy and go and look on wikipedia mate - stop embarassing yourself by continiously asking why they dont belong to the UK and find out what we all know. Bring yourself up to speed and come back with some quality in your posts as you come across as super dim mate.
the two competing claims:
Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas in Spanish)[1] is disputed between Argentina and the United Kingdom.
The British claim to de jure sovereignty dates from 1690, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost constantly since 1833. Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833. The dispute escalated in 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands, precipitating the Falklands War.
Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War. Argentina argues that the islanders do not have the right to self-determination, arguing that they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833.[2] The United Nations have called on both countries to begin dialogue over the sovereignty claim.[3]
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
You keep going off topic your losing the arguments and try to bring race into this, Yet the people of the Island don't want to be apart of Argentina , Unless you support India having all of Kashmir but the kashmiri's don't want to be apart of India .
---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------
If you hate living in the UK Go back to Pakistan then.
888jamie888
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 0
I know the Argentine claim. No one has seemed to talk about it though. I wouldn't mind debating the different claims from each party. But people just spout 'Brits are imperial scum' etc.
Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one
Nearly 40 years ago, in November 1968, I travelled to the Falklands with a group of diplomats in what was Britain's first and last attempt to get shot of the islands. Lord Chalfont, then a minister at the Foreign Office, was the leader of this expedition. He had the unenviable task of trying to persuade the 2,000 islanders that the British empire might not last for ever - and that they should start to entertain the notion they might be better off being friendly to their near-neighbour, Argentina, which had long claimed the islands. This was the moment when Britain was abandoning its "east of Suez" policy for financial reasons, and thinking of ways of winding up its residual empire. We had already forcibly deported the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1967 without much hostile publicity, and settled them in Mauritius and the Seychelles, handing over their islands to the Americans to build a gigantic air base. The Falklands were next on the list. Maybe the islanders could be paid to set up sheep farms in New Zealand.
Over 10 days, we visited just about every farm and homestead in the two principal islands. We were greeted everywhere - and we could see the slogans and the union flag from the air before we landed - with the same messages: "Chalfont Go Home" and sometimes "We Want To Stay British". The islanders were adamant. They wanted nothing to do with Argentina, and Chalfont left them with a promise that nothing would happen without their agreement. Fourteen years later, in 1982, Britain and Argentina were at war over the islands, and nearly a thousand people lost their lives. Today we are invited to recall the 25th anniversary of that event, and the Argentinian government has reminded us of its claim, pulling out of the 1995 agreement about joint oil exploration that had been fondly embraced by the Foreign Office as an alternative to discussing anything as conflictive as sovereignty.
People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.
The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of dramatic colonial expansion. Captain John Onslow of HMS Clio had instructions "to exercise the rights of sovereignty" over the islands, and he ordered the Argentinian commander to haul down his flag and withdraw his forces. Settlers from Argentina were replaced by those from Britain and elsewhere, notably Gibraltar. Britain and Argentina have disagreed ever since about the rights and wrongs of British occupation, and for much of the time the British authorities have been aware of the relative weakness of their case.
An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document of 1940 entitled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-back". Though its title survives, the document itself has been embargoed until 2015, although it may well exist in another archive. It was presumably an offer thrown out to the pro-German government of Argentina at the time, to keep them onside at a difficult moment in the war, though perhaps it was a draft or a jeu d'esprit dreamt up in the office.
The record suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations. Recently released documents recall that James Callaghan, when foreign secretary in the 1970s, noted that "we must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement". The secretary of the cabinet pointed out that "there are many ways in which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the islands ... and we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the islands as a long-term commitment. The alternative of standing firm and taking the consequences is accordingly not practicable."
Of course, some people argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all comers, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Some believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates their original claim. Britain, above all, owes some debt to the heirs to the settlers who were originally sent there, a debt recognised in the Foreign Office mantra that, in all dealings with Argentina about the islands' future, the wishes of the islanders will be "paramount". Yet no such debt was recognised in the case of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, perhaps because Britain inherited them from the French rather than planting the settlers themselves.
Ironically, the Falkland islanders are the outcome of a 19th-century scheme of settlement not very different from the experience of Argentina in the same century, which brought in settlers from Italy, Germany, England and Wales, and planted them on land from which the native Indians had been cleared and exterminated. The record of the islanders looks rather cleaner by comparison. Yet the Argentinian claim is still a good one, and it will never go away. At some stage, sovereignty and lease-back will have to be on the agenda again, regardless of the wishes of the islanders. Ideally, the Falklands should be included in a wider post-colonial cleanup of ancient territories. This would rid Britain of responsibility for Northern Ireland (almost gone), Gibraltar (under discussion), and for Diego Garcia (de facto given to the Americans), and anywhere else that anyone can still remember.
This post-colonial policy should have been adopted many years ago (and perhaps Harold Wilson's government was groping towards this end in the 1960s when Denis Healey abandoned British commitments east of Suez, and when Chalfont was sent to Port Stanley), and it should at least have been considered when we abandoned Hong Kong in the 1990s. Yet the strength of Blair's imperial revivalism, forever echoed in the popular press, suggests that this prospect is as far away as it was in 1982.
Richard Gott: Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one | Comment is free | The Guardian
Now jamie - go and read and learn - goooood nite
Nearly 40 years ago, in November 1968, I travelled to the Falklands with a group of diplomats in what was Britain's first and last attempt to get shot of the islands. Lord Chalfont, then a minister at the Foreign Office, was the leader of this expedition. He had the unenviable task of trying to persuade the 2,000 islanders that the British empire might not last for ever - and that they should start to entertain the notion they might be better off being friendly to their near-neighbour, Argentina, which had long claimed the islands. This was the moment when Britain was abandoning its "east of Suez" policy for financial reasons, and thinking of ways of winding up its residual empire. We had already forcibly deported the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1967 without much hostile publicity, and settled them in Mauritius and the Seychelles, handing over their islands to the Americans to build a gigantic air base. The Falklands were next on the list. Maybe the islanders could be paid to set up sheep farms in New Zealand.
Over 10 days, we visited just about every farm and homestead in the two principal islands. We were greeted everywhere - and we could see the slogans and the union flag from the air before we landed - with the same messages: "Chalfont Go Home" and sometimes "We Want To Stay British". The islanders were adamant. They wanted nothing to do with Argentina, and Chalfont left them with a promise that nothing would happen without their agreement. Fourteen years later, in 1982, Britain and Argentina were at war over the islands, and nearly a thousand people lost their lives. Today we are invited to recall the 25th anniversary of that event, and the Argentinian government has reminded us of its claim, pulling out of the 1995 agreement about joint oil exploration that had been fondly embraced by the Foreign Office as an alternative to discussing anything as conflictive as sovereignty.
People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.
The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of dramatic colonial expansion. Captain John Onslow of HMS Clio had instructions "to exercise the rights of sovereignty" over the islands, and he ordered the Argentinian commander to haul down his flag and withdraw his forces. Settlers from Argentina were replaced by those from Britain and elsewhere, notably Gibraltar. Britain and Argentina have disagreed ever since about the rights and wrongs of British occupation, and for much of the time the British authorities have been aware of the relative weakness of their case.
An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document of 1940 entitled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-back". Though its title survives, the document itself has been embargoed until 2015, although it may well exist in another archive. It was presumably an offer thrown out to the pro-German government of Argentina at the time, to keep them onside at a difficult moment in the war, though perhaps it was a draft or a jeu d'esprit dreamt up in the office.
The record suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations. Recently released documents recall that James Callaghan, when foreign secretary in the 1970s, noted that "we must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement". The secretary of the cabinet pointed out that "there are many ways in which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the islands ... and we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the islands as a long-term commitment. The alternative of standing firm and taking the consequences is accordingly not practicable."
Of course, some people argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all comers, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Some believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates their original claim. Britain, above all, owes some debt to the heirs to the settlers who were originally sent there, a debt recognised in the Foreign Office mantra that, in all dealings with Argentina about the islands' future, the wishes of the islanders will be "paramount". Yet no such debt was recognised in the case of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, perhaps because Britain inherited them from the French rather than planting the settlers themselves.
Ironically, the Falkland islanders are the outcome of a 19th-century scheme of settlement not very different from the experience of Argentina in the same century, which brought in settlers from Italy, Germany, England and Wales, and planted them on land from which the native Indians had been cleared and exterminated. The record of the islanders looks rather cleaner by comparison. Yet the Argentinian claim is still a good one, and it will never go away. At some stage, sovereignty and lease-back will have to be on the agenda again, regardless of the wishes of the islanders. Ideally, the Falklands should be included in a wider post-colonial cleanup of ancient territories. This would rid Britain of responsibility for Northern Ireland (almost gone), Gibraltar (under discussion), and for Diego Garcia (de facto given to the Americans), and anywhere else that anyone can still remember.
This post-colonial policy should have been adopted many years ago (and perhaps Harold Wilson's government was groping towards this end in the 1960s when Denis Healey abandoned British commitments east of Suez, and when Chalfont was sent to Port Stanley), and it should at least have been considered when we abandoned Hong Kong in the 1990s. Yet the strength of Blair's imperial revivalism, forever echoed in the popular press, suggests that this prospect is as far away as it was in 1982.
Richard Gott: Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one | Comment is free | The Guardian
Now jamie - go and read and learn - goooood nite
NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
Ignore them jamie, the wishes of the people matter not a few trolls on PK defence that hate the UK.
888jamie888
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 0
It is quite funny though.
You have spent most of the day attempting to bring Pakistan into every thread you enter you have succeeded again. Why the hell are you bringing Kashmir and Pakistan into this? Stop trolling. Stop the god damn obsession - its pathetic to bring Pakistan and Kashmir shows us continiously the embarassing attempts you make to derail threads. I ask you for the 3rd time today why do you false flag - are you ashamed of your fatherland?
Back on topic - the Malvinas belong and are the property of Argentina. They will be taken back - its only a matter of time
The irish wanted a vote the maijority voted for independence. But in one part of ireland there was a maijority that wanted to stay with UK so they separated that bit of ireland and kept it with the excuse that a maijority wanted to stay with brits.
Earlier they had deliberatly started a campaign to move protestants from england over to ireland to change the demographics.
Henry VIII's officials were tasked with extending the rule of this brit rule throughout Ireland, in the process negotiating or fighting with irish lords. This took a century to achieve, and the conquest was accompanied by a great deal of bloodshed, as it led to the assimilation and abolition of lordships that had been independent for several hundred years. The conquest was completed during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, after several bloody conflicts. The Desmond Rebellions . these rebellions was put down by means of a forced famine, which killed up to a third of Munster's population
Typical brit antics to hold on to terrotory at all ocsts if possible back to post nothing has changed they are doing the same with Falklands
NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
This is expected from a person losing the arguments no the Islands belong to the UK, Argies tried last time and got a whooping ? Unless the Mighty Pakistan wants to help Argentina ?
Similar threads
