What's new

David Cameron: Britain Will Never Surrender The Falkland Islands

But what is wrong with us having them?We claimed land which was uninhabited, why should the Argies have rights over us?
Give me a genuine reason why they should have the islands. Do you not see the hypocrisy here? In that they drove out their indigenous of Argentina while we have not done so here?.

After searching some about this issue, I want to withdraw my thesis on "Falkland Islands". I think the word "uninhabited" is very important. Although it is not exactly what you said (Britons were not the first habitants, the other European colonialists were), the Argentinian history over the islands is very disputed. (Portugal, Spain or even France might have more right to claim sovereignty over the islands than Argentina).

So, I am changing my opinion from "Pro-Argentina" to "Undecided"
 
You and I both know that Britons treated Indians as sub-humans. It is very interesting you forgot Jallianwala Bagh massacre in which more that 1000 people (including women and children) were killed by British Indian Army soldiers. It is also very interesting you forgot that before the colonial era India was one of the major economies in the world.

And today Britain is doing her best to brush this under the carpet, no children in Britain is taught about their colonial history in India. The only good thing left from British rule to India is your being able to speak/write English so that we can communicate each other right now.

Different times and different era. I cannot hold grudge on Britain for that. Britain did also treat Blacks like less than dirt. Now do you know how many Blacks are there in UK. Do you want them to revenge their ancestral's fate.
 
Different times and different era. I cannot hold grudge on Britain for that. Britain did also treat Blacks like less than dirt. Now do you know how many Blacks are there in UK. Do you want them to revenge their ancestral's fate.

Does "Britain's treating blacks like less than dirt" make "their treating your Indian ancestors as sub-humans" okay for you? I always thought it was another shame in their dirty history.

However, I have nothing more to say if you are okay with the fact that your ancestors were treated as sub-humans by Britons.. I just wouldn't be..
 
The fact that the indians posters on this forum defend the brits on the falklands after colonial rule of British Raj proves a point tat just because the country isnt your freind doesnt mean its never right.

Holding onto old hate never gets you anywhere either i dont hate the japanese despite what happened.

Britian giving up Argentina is unlikely in near future due to the falklands war.
 
Britain cannot afford to fight Argentina this time in case they have the support of other Latin American countries. America will simply sit out of this like they did last time. They would not want to mess with countries in its back yard.
 
No.Argentina is too weak,they don't dare to do anything .
 
I'd have to disagree with PM DC, the UK (without a lot of help from US "big bro") does not posses tha capacity to take back the Islands if Argentina was to mount a serious attack on them. Especially now the tide very much seems to be turning against the Brits in the region regarding the islands with most S.American nations voicing their positions in favour of Argenitna on this issue.


It is a bit of a joke that in the modern day, despite getting rid of their empire, the UK maintains this island as theirs.
 
But what is wrong with us having them?We claimed land which was uninhabited, why should the Argies have rights over us?
Give me a genuine reason why they should have the islands. Do you not see the hypocrisy here? In that they drove out their indigenous of Argentina while we have not done so here?
You did not claim lands which were uninhabited. You moved in people to a disputed territory. Falkland Islands has been claimed by the Spanish colonies in the South American continent since before the first British settlers.

More importantly, the whole South America thinks UK should give up the Falkland Islands. If the South American nations, especially those with predominantly indigenous blood (Argentina is obviously not one of them), think Argentina is entitled to the Falkland Islands, then in fact you do have a clear case of victims of colonization on one hand and the colonizers on the other hand. British had their share in South American colonialism, obviously. It was not all just Spain.
 
Sorry but why do you think the islands should not be British?

Simple; geography.

But what is wrong with us having them?We claimed land which was uninhabited, why should the Argies have rights over us?
Give me a genuine reason why they should have the islands. Do you not see the hypocrisy here? In that they drove out their indigenous of Argentina while we have not done so here?

---------- Post added at 01:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------


Well, strategically they are very important, access to Antarctica, oil etc.
Too much British blood has been spilt for them to go.


What most of the people here are failing to realize is that the argument behind the Argentinian claim is not demography but geography. And if one would just look at the globe one would realize that the Argentinian claim holds ground.

The geography is in fact, at times, more relevant to territorial claims than demography. You'll find plenty of examples for that in the Indian partition; Junagar, Manawadar, Hydrabad Deccan, Goa, etc. The geographic location of a princely state was the most important factor in deciding its future assimilation. The princely state of Junagar and Manawadar was ultimately given to the now political India despite the fact that its population and its governing raja had declared that they wished to be a part of Pakistan. But seeing that the state was a small piece of land surrounded by Indian territory on all four sides with no obvious geographic connection to the state of Pakistan it was rightly assimilated into the Indian state.

The issue of how and when the Brits got to settle on that Island is again a debate worth looking at.

Ps: There are still many parts of Pakistan and India which are completely uninhabited. Others in Africa which are inhabited by a majority population of decedents of the then Britishers who came there. But that can hardly constitute any claim of right over those regions by the British.

They are not wrong at all,thanks to the British we have roads,modern education,modern military structure,parliamentary system.There is a lot we have to thank them for.

Hardly so. These are all indirect and inadvertent trickles which reached us.
The roads were built for there own necessity of transportation, the education was a little more than indoctrination and the military structure was purely set up for their own benefit. I would request further explanation with regards to your point about the parliamentary system.


"I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." Lord Macaulay


Does "Britain's treating blacks like less than dirt" make "their treating your Indian ancestors as sub-humans" okay for you? I always thought it was another shame in their dirty history.

However, I have nothing more to say if you are okay with the fact that your ancestors were treated as sub-humans by Britons.. I just wouldn't be..

You must read up on the distribution of territorial, infrastructural and monitory assets during the Indian partition to understand this partiality. Many books by Indian authors on it.


To our dear neighbors, go read up on how and why you took Goa from the Portuguese.
 
I remember it has said the samething about Hong Kong. :)

David Cameron: Britain Will Never Surrender Sovereignty Of The Falkland Islands -- The Telegraph

David Cameron today pledged Britain would never surrender sovereignty of the Falklands against the wishes of the islanders.

In his Christmas message to the islands, the Prime Minister said he could not accept challenges by Argentina to their right to self-determination.

He condemned what he described as ''unjustified and counterproductive'' efforts by the government in Buenos Aires to disrupt shipping links to the islands.

His intervention comes after Argentina led a group of South American nations in banning ships flying the Falklands flag from docking at their ports.

War News Updates: David Cameron: Britain Will Never Surrender The Falkland Islands
 
What most of the people here are failing to realize is that the argument behind the Argentinian claim is not demography but geography.

The geography is in fact, at times, more relevant to territorial claims than demography. You'll find plenty of examples for that in the Indian partition; Junagar, Manawadar, Hydrabad Deccan, Goa, etc.

To our dear neighbors, go read up on how and why you took Goa from the Portuguese.

It's amazing how the position of Argentina is what matters. I read up Falkland Islands and about 60% are local Islanders. If they don't want to be a part of Argentina then shouldn't they be left as they are right now!!

As for your argument of these Indian regions all the people in these princely states of Goa, Hyderabad and Junagadh wanted India to take it over and free them of their rulers.
 
Back
Top Bottom