Perhaps if Ashtray explained his position of why he thinks `it'd be alright to be Argentine' and `can't see why they would complain' ? personally i think he's very naive or trolling.
What's to explain really? Personally, if it were me, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine. They are not run by the military junta of Galtieri anymore. They seem to have a liberal, forward thinking president. From what I can gather, their economy is in no worse a state than anybody else's in the developed world, they seem to have decent schools, hospitals, transport etc.
Maybe those who find this so radical or unfathomable would enlighten me as to why it would be a bad thing to be Argentine, but this isn't really the issue. Argentina I'm sure, would accept the self-determination of the islanders. They are interested only in the resources, which they see as their's. So, is Cameron hiding behind the nationality issue and do Argentina have a legitimate claim to the Islands' resources?
Perhaps if Ashtray explained his position of why he thinks `it'd be alright to be Argentine' and `can't see why they would complain' ? personally i think he's very naive or trolling.
What's to explain really? Personally, if it were me, I think it'd be alright to be Argentine. They are not run by the military junta of Galtieri anymore. They seem to have a liberal, forward thinking president. From what I can gather, their economy is in no worse a state than anybody else's in the developed world, they seem to have decent schools, hospitals, transport etc.
Maybe those who find this so radical or unfathomable would enlighten me as to why it would be a bad thing to be Argentine, but this isn't really the issue. Argentina I'm sure, would accept the self-determination of the islanders. They are interested only in the resources, which they see as their's. So, is Cameron hiding behind the nationality issue and do Argentina have a legitimate claim to the Islands' resources?
What a strange person you are.
"They" and we're talking about people here, have been British and chosen to stay British long before any resources were located in the vicinity of the Islands.
What gives you the right to decide peoples futures when you know nothing, which from reading your childlike posts you obviously don't, about them or what "they" want.
You've basically countered your own arguement, "they (Argentina) are only interested in the resources".
Who cares what happens to the people who live there? As long as the Argentines only get what they are interested in.
The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. Argentina's claim is based only on the fact Spain claimed the Falklands at the same time as it owned Argentina. The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans and Argentina has never had a settlement there. Don't they see the irony of claiming they are "Las Malvinas"? A Spanish name, not a native South American name.
Really it's down to the islanders themselves to decide whether they want to be British, Argentinian or independent. No one else should be allowed to decide on their behalf.
The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. Argentina's claim is based only on the fact Spain claimed the Falklands at the same time as it owned Argentina. The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans and Argentina has never had a settlement there. Don't they see the irony of claiming they are "Las Malvinas"? A Spanish name, not a native South American name.
Really it's down to the islanders themselves to decide whether they want to be British, Argentinian or independent. No one else should be allowed to decide on their behalf.
The only claim that Argentina has to the Falklands is geographic; they are the nearest country to the islands, about 700 miles between them. On this basis pehaps the United States will wish to cede Alaska to the Canadians and we can hand all connections to the Channel Islands to the French .
The question is always why the Argentinian government wants the Falklands? Previously it was to distract their people from their internal problems, now it is because there may be mineral wealth in the area. In no event do they have a legitimate case.
Self determination from the islanders. Then if they stay British but the troubles continue... Well I'm not sure. I'd rather not see another war. Can't we give them Wigan or Milton Keynes instead?
It wasn't a war, it was a conflict................ ;-)
There was a fantastic cartoon at the time of the Falklands conflict. Basically, a group of people sitting around a table with cards in front of them indicating which country they represented: Argentina, Brazil, UK, etc. There was one guy dressed in native attire and the caption was "He's from the Incas, apparently they want South America back". Broadly, imo, we've now had the islands too long for Argentina's claim to have any merit. Otherwise where would it end? Can we have Calais back from the French now? It was ours from 1347 'til 1558.
And here's the Queen's email to her new subjects in the USA:
THE QUEEN HAS SENT YOU AN EMAIL
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary'). ------------------------ 2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.' ------------------- 3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. ----------------- 4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse. ---------------------- 5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public. ---------------------- 6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour. -------------------- 7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it. ------------------- 8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar. ------------------- 9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion. --------------------- 10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater. --------------------- 11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). --------------------- 12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians first to get some practice. -------------------- 13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad. ----------------- 14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776). --------------- 15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
Served there. Let the inhabitants decide. OP's opinion irrelevant.
Just to clarify; I haven't expressed my opinion about the fate of the Islands, or islanders. I was paraphrasing others. I'm undecided, which is why I thought I'd open the debate.
Yes, you clearly have. You dont paraphrase by starting an opinion with the words, ''Personally, I think....''
Whilst he's right that eventually the Falkland islanders have to reach a practical agreement with Argentina, his historical 'fact' is bordering on bullshit. The treaty of Utrecht did no such thing as to lead to 40 years of occupation. They acquired a settlement from the French. The Treaty of Utrecht, at no point mentions the Falklands. His article like most journalists, is a string of observations that barely hold up to analysis. To compare Hong Kong, that was eventually signed over on a 99 year lease, is utterly worthless as a point of arguement.
Whilst he's right that eventually the Falkland islanders have to reach a practical agreement with Argentina, his historical 'fact' is bordering on bullshit. The treaty of Utrecht did no such thing as to lead to 40 years of occupation. They acquired a settlement from the French. The Treaty of Utrecht, at no point mentions the Falklands. His article like most journalists, is a string of observations that barely hold up to analysis. To compare Hong Kong, that was eventually signed over on a 99 year lease, is utterly worthless as a point of arguement.
Yes, a lot of Simon Jenkins' pieces are like that.
Good to see a debate going on without resorting to personal insults. As others have said, surely it's down to the wishes of the people who live on the Islands. This is the logical and sensible answer but with politics maybe that's asking too much. :-)
Yes, good to have some sensible dialogue on this at last.
For me, the interesting point he makes is about South Georgia. If oil is found there, what defence would the government make without relying on self-determination?
The history one reads seems to differ slightly, but I'm not sure it ultimately matters. It's 200 year old history. As I understand it, we abandoned the islands during the US civil war, at which time Argentina claimed them. In 1833, we re-took them forcibly and colonised them. The dispute has been going on ever since and the more I read, the more I'm convinced it will continue to until long after we are all gone.
I hadn't made my mind up before, but actually I'm leaning toward the retention of the islands, but it has nothing to do with the islanders. Those that think the government's stance has, are sadly misled. Frankly, I find it embarrassing that we're hiding behind the islanders' wishes. We could for example do a deal whereby they retain their citizenship but all the resources are returned to Argentina, but that's not what the government want. That said, what country in the world would hand over newly-tapped oil resources in the interest of settling, what in the grand scheme of things, is a minor irritation at worst? The ownership of the land, is far from black and white from either perspective and for me, that's good enough to retain the resources until the UN and The Hague say otherwise.
Yes, good to have some sensible dialogue on this at last.
For me, the interesting point he makes is about South Georgia. If oil is found there, what defence would the government make without relying on self-determination?
The history one reads seems to differ slightly, but I'm not sure it ultimately matters. It's 200 year old history. As I understand it, we abandoned the islands during the US civil war, at which time Argentina claimed them. In 1833, we re-took them forcibly and colonised them. The dispute has been going on ever since and the more I read, the more I'm convinced it will continue to until long after we are all gone.
I hadn't made my mind up before, but actually I'm leaning toward the retention of the islands, but it has nothing to do with the islanders. Those that think the government's stance has, are sadly misled. Frankly, I find it embarrassing that we're hiding behind the islanders' wishes. We could for example do a deal whereby they retain their citizenship but all the resources are returned to Argentina, but that's not what the government want. That said, what country in the world would hand over newly-tapped oil resources in the interest of settling, what in the grand scheme of things, is a minor irritation at worst? The ownership of the land, is far from black and white from either perspective and for me, that's good enough to retain the resources until the UN and The Hague say otherwise.
Phew. I bet they'll be sleeping a lot easier in Port Stanley tonight when they find out you've made your mind up.
Comments
Maybe those who find this so radical or unfathomable would enlighten me as to why it would be a bad thing to be Argentine, but this isn't really the issue. Argentina I'm sure, would accept the self-determination of the islanders. They are interested only in the resources, which they see as their's. So, is Cameron hiding behind the nationality issue and do Argentina have a legitimate claim to the Islands' resources?
"They" and we're talking about people here, have been British and chosen to stay British long before any resources were located in the vicinity of the Islands.
What gives you the right to decide peoples futures when you know nothing, which from reading your childlike posts you obviously don't,
about them or what "they" want.
You've basically countered your own arguement, "they (Argentina) are only interested in the resources".
Who cares what happens to the people who live there? As long as the Argentines only get what they are interested in.
Really it's down to the islanders themselves to decide whether they want to be British, Argentinian or independent. No one else should be allowed to decide on their behalf.
The question is always why the Argentinian government wants the Falklands? Previously it was to distract their people from their internal problems, now it is because there may be mineral wealth in the area. In no event do they have a legitimate case.
The only solution to all this would be a joint project of collecting these resources..............never gonna happen.
I remember reading this article two years ago by Simon Jenkins. Sums up my views exactly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
Broadly, imo, we've now had the islands too long for Argentina's claim to have any merit. Otherwise where would it end? Can we have Calais back from the French now? It was ours from 1347 'til 1558.
THE QUEEN HAS SENT YOU AN EMAIL
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
------------------------
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'
-------------------
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
-----------------
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
----------------------
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
----------------------
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
--------------------
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
-------------------
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
-------------------
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
---------------------
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
---------------------
11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
---------------------
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians first to get some practice.
--------------------
13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
-----------------
14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
---------------
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
Come on you Chileans, where's your national pride?
Yes, a lot of Simon Jenkins' pieces are like that.
For me, the interesting point he makes is about South Georgia. If oil is found there, what defence would the government make without relying on self-determination?
The history one reads seems to differ slightly, but I'm not sure it ultimately matters. It's 200 year old history. As I understand it, we abandoned the islands during the US civil war, at which time Argentina claimed them. In 1833, we re-took them forcibly and colonised them. The dispute has been going on ever since and the more I read, the more I'm convinced it will continue to until long after we are all gone.
I hadn't made my mind up before, but actually I'm leaning toward the retention of the islands, but it has nothing to do with the islanders. Those that think the government's stance has, are sadly misled. Frankly, I find it embarrassing that we're hiding behind the islanders' wishes. We could for example do a deal whereby they retain their citizenship but all the resources are returned to Argentina, but that's not what the government want. That said, what country in the world would hand over newly-tapped oil resources in the interest of settling, what in the grand scheme of things, is a minor irritation at worst? The ownership of the land, is far from black and white from either perspective and for me, that's good enough to retain the resources until the UN and The Hague say otherwise.