In terms of proximity implies ownership, that is ridiculous. If that were the case the world would be reformed overnight with many countries giving their own islands to other countries simply on they basis they are closer. This isn't a colonial attitude, this is about what is right and wrong. Those islands are British and have been for over 177 years, the people choose to be British by self-determination and so it is they will be offered the same protection as all British people receive. As for Argentina trying to claim ownership by installing their own governor, we never gave up ownership or sovereignty of the Islands so when you guys tried to install your own governor we simply sent a military force to remove you. Nobody was hurt and nobody was evicted other than the governor who had no right to be there in the first place. Also claiming something doesn't equal ownership.
Word. I still struggle to see how Latin America claims to be so different. The governments there have been/are run by the descendants of the imperialists that they continue to bash. Blaming the US ad nauseum falls on deaf ears to me as the white European blood in Argentina runs at least as deep as it does in the US. Speaking Spanish doesn't make people less imperialist. Matter of fact, they are the descendants of what were the most aggressively imperialistic people who got to the Americas.
Argentina is not being hypocritical here. They are not claiming the high ground. They are just claiming sovereignty based on geographical and historical facts. You may agree or disagree with those fact, that is debatable, but it is Britain who is hiding behind altruism in order to continue their colonialist policies of taking resources from the South Atlantic. What do you think? If Argentina would agree to let the Kelpers in the Malvinas remain part of Britain, in exchange for Argentina being given ownership of the fishing rights, oil and other resources of the South Atlantic, would Britain sign the deal? I don't think so, they care first and foremost about the resources, and that is why they keep bribing the Kelpers to stay there.
When Argentina gained independence from Spain the Spanish had the Islands, and Argentina claims they inherited them. That is why they sent the governor and settlers at the time. After losing the American colonies in North America Britain twice invaded Buenos Aires. Then they went to the Malvinas and removed the governor by force and installed their own people. At the same time they -with some help from the US- sent ships to blockade the port of Buenos Aires. The reason was to keep the young nation from developing its own trade, they wanted to keep Argentina enslaved to the British monopoly on trade. You talk like it's about right and wrong, but that is a very simplistic attitude. I am sure that is what they teach you, but the reality is that Britain's hands are very dirty based on their deeds in South America, and that is why Latin Americans don't want them and don't trust them to be in the South Atlantic. This is not about right and wrong. Britain has no right to take resources from the South Atlantic to enrich itself, other than its military might. Stop being hypocritical.
Come on man! We have supported that island for 177 years of which and for the most part we haven't had an idea those sorts of levels of natural reserves exist so to claim we are just there for those reserves now makes your argument look foolish. As for altruism or colonialism, it's neither. We are the legal owners of the land and have always sought to protect our people or are you forgetting all of those other countries we provide economic support too that have no natural resources and are just an economical drain to us. In fact its highly unusual for us to get any in return from our support of countries in the commonwealth or that belong to us in some fashion. Argentina has no rights to the island and never has done.
British hands are dirty but no more so than that of the Argentina government. There was never any proof you inherited these islands other than saying you did so which isn't evidence. Also they weren't removed by force, they were just told to leave since they were not inhabitants of the islands and were making a false claim in a British Island. As for being hypocritical, you need to stop saying that given the country you live in, also your politicians should be fixing the awful poverty rather than complaining about this issue. Although I guess she is trying to raise her profile for the upcoming elections.
I understand where you are coming from ASF, but it is still hypocrisy of the highest order. I get it. The islands are closest to what is now Argentina, and the Argentines don't like having a European power so close. However, if we are going to keep talking about imperialism and colonialism, then we are right back where we started .... which is the fact that Argentina itself is the product of that colonialism and most people there are not natives, but descended from the conquerors and/or a product of high immigration later on from places like Italy and Germany. As one of the whitest European descendant countries in the Americas, it's simply disingenuous for Argentina to keep falling back on the Latin American/imperialist/colonialist card. If the country worried more about rights within their current borders, maybe we wouldn't have this same issue cropping up every time another corrupt politician wanted to score some political points.
They lie as close to the European colonizers ("...X generations of Spanish blood runs thru my veins...") as they can when it suits them, but when the colonizer's wife returns and the colonizer pulls the sheets off them and kicks them to the floor, they become The Oppressed. Rabbits... hounds...
funny stuff! well, not quite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain and which countries exactly would that be? that's simply nonsense.
I'm not going to reply to those insults. When you have something productive to say I will reply to your post.
As far as we should be concerned, the Argies gave up any rights to the economic rights to the Falklands when they invaded. As for bribing the people to stay there,that's obviously a statement of someone with no knowledge of the place, and the people there are not only happy to stay there, they were happy when the only industry was sheep-farming. It's immensely hypocritical of the Argies to suggest that we somehow bribe the islanders to stay there. They want to be there, they have a good quality of life and remain fiercely determined to remain part of Britain. Why would they want to live under the rule of a country that planted ten thousand landmines in their local area? Why if they needed bribing did they help the task force at every opportunity? Why did they engage in sabotage and point out concealed enemy positions, risking their own lives? Self-determination, is pretty much the be-all and end-all, and the Argies so-called share of the economic discoveries can go to pay compensation, for clearing the landmines etc. This latin american sabre rattling will come to nothing. They may back Argentina's claims but they wouldn't dare risk doing so militarily.
Interesting. I'm not affected by what is written, I just choose not to reply. Thick skin already in place ta.
For those who were talking about the original conflict this makes a great read; http://www.hmsbrilliant.com/hmsb.cgi?page=skipper Particularity the section about anti-air missile systems not being ready and the software problems causing the missile systems letting their aircraft get away.
I'm a big stickler for civility here, but seriously, if you want to interact with more than a couple of users, loosen up your standards. While snarky, nothing Visca said was particularly insulting.
Well that is my choice isn't it? It's always a slippy slope when someone posts in that manner and I've retaliated before and all we end up is a full on dumb-ass internet argument so I choose to ignore it.
Then you should feel good, because it is a dead project (which you would know if you read the Military forum).
Oh thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I still think even if the project is terminated it will come to fruition even if under a different guise.
It wasn't canceled because it cost too much, it was canceled because the concept of airborne lasers doesn't work. The laser needs to be 20 times more powerful to be useful, and you can't carry enough laser fuel in a 747 to make it worthwhile.
I expect as the technology advances these things will become more feasible. I have been reading about it on the register but obviously not as close as yourself. Thanks for the information.
Newsflash, the majority of the world is run in the way of the proximity issues. Only the big industrial colonial powers have the issue of having territories far away. Malaysia doesn't have islands in Africa and Costa Rica doesn't have colonies in India. So I don't get the "this is the way the world is run" stuff. In any case is the total oposite. It's totally about colonialism and having the most power because otherwise, there is no need to claim islands that are far away in that place. What right does the british have to be in the Falkland? The Island is far away and the only ownership comes from the military might that England impose. Is the same way they claimed the African colonies over their native inhabitants. There is no thing that ties them but military might in the colonial era. And also just to inform you, I'm not Argentinean but Mexican.