|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 25, 2004 18:40:23 GMT -3
Who decides? Big powers do... Didnt the US stole part of mexico and “earned” it as part of its territory? With a bloody war as well.... The bigger eats the smaller, law of the jungle....only that we’re not animals supposedly and our homes are not the jungle.....or are they?
The spanish never handed the land to Argentina. I wasnt there, but I bet they had no intentions of losing its colony. But the same way the United States declared independence of the UK, Argentina got its independence from Spain. And the UK doesnt own american territories does it? No, you woulnt dare messing with them because they’re stronger, let’s pick on Argentina that can’t defend itself.....very honourable from the UK....
That is a low blow...What does it have to do with being free? Historical facts are historical facts, we’re free now and we’re proud of that, but we were a colony, nobody denies that, and the FI were part of our territory, both under the spanish government and under our independence
Okay, give me a couple of days, I’m sure what I heard, I’ll find the proofs.
** continues below **
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 25, 2004 18:43:20 GMT -3
Yes, but at this point, I dont think that is very important. From what I can see, having a good or bad relationship with the islanders will not change anything, so for us, it’s exactly the same. As a friendly, democratic nation, Argentina opens its arms to the islanders, but we are NOT going to beg for their friendship, it’s not that important for us...
I dont think so...In fact, I think it showed the world, that, even being weaker, we’re not just claiming the land just for the sake of doing it, we really mean our claim.
The UK was not and is not going to force the FI to be part of Argentina. So dont make our war look as the perfect excuse to make it our fault. The war didnt change anything, except the lives of those who fought there. That is the only tragedy. The families destroyed. Politically, everything stays the same.
Not the world. Many countries supported and still do, our attemps to recover our lands. Of course, not those countries faithful to the big powers of the world.
Yeah right. Because Argentina is soooooo dangerous now. Either you have no idea of what is our army like, or it’s just a good justification to have the british troops around south america.
We are not afraid of those who dont like us. What kind of nation would retreat just because a couple of troops hates it.....
True. A very sad episode indeed, and it was our fault. If I had been in charge, the 1982 war would have never existed. But yet, the claim would continue until I recover what I believe belongs to us.
The macho pride of Videla was swallowed by himself. You know nothing about us if you think we’re like that. Our (funny) rivalry with the UK has more to do with football than with the FI, ask any of my country men. I am not interested in violence or wars, and I believe this can be solved diplomatically. Or I wouldnt be here writing these lines.
*** continues below ***
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Oct 25, 2004 18:47:01 GMT -3
That was the problem. If they were expecting a reward, they were not fighting seriously. The people that crashed the airplanes against the World Trade Center, were decided to die. They didnt expect anything, they were doing that for their believes. From my western point of view, they are sick people....but even that way, if these hijackers didnt believe the things Bin Laden, the Coran or whatever it was taught them, and wanted to be really free, they would have kidnapped Irak’s airplanes and crashed them against Saddam’s house. I bet Irak’s airport security is far weaker than the US... It would had been so easy..
I used Germany as an example, it could have been any other country in the world. I just used Germany because it’s far from us and it’s not related to Argentina in any way. Nothing special with Germany.
To win something, you have to fight for it. And I thought that was exactly what we’re trying to avoid here. At the end, if we recover the FI, we’ll have win, and if we dont, we’ll have lost. But not for a moment Argentina is going to “seduce” the islanders, that would be humiliating and will lead to nowhere. We’re not going to be south america’s favorite soap opera.
Please read “the land not the people” thread
You dont know that. Using the same example of Mexico and the US, did you notice that, when you look at a map, the ex-mexican territories appear as american territories? However, although the FI appear as British territory, you’ll see a little legend saying “claimed by Argentina” Someone in the world doenst recognize them completely as british...
Why not? Did we bombed the FI? Or is just that Kirchner didnt smile at Mike Summers? Come on, they are not kids, they are presidents and governors, with thousands of bigger problems besides the FI issue. This statement is absolutely childish from you
Of course not, being neutral would mean that a president wouldnt care about the FI being Argentine, and that would weak a claim we have kept for decades. No president of Argentina would be supported if he/she wouldnt keep on the claim.
Stealing the territories of a weaker country is an agression too, and I havent heard a single apology from the UK either.
Again, I can’t speak for my government, only for myself, but I really, REALLY dont see anything degrading about being friendly. The problem is, that, to the eyes of UK and the FI, BEING FRIENDLY only means to drop our claim, and that is not going to happen. Have you noticed this? It’s always about us dropping the claim in order to “win” their approval....Since we want the land and not the people (I know you’re sick of reading this...but it’s true) Argentina has nothing to lose if the islanders dont like us....
Yeah, because all our population is taking boats and sailing down there to kick their butts tomorrow night. I can see Bolivia, Paraguay and Brazil fearing allmighty Argentina.... (just in case you havent noticed, I was being sarcastic.....)
Best Wishes
Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Oct 28, 2004 8:30:16 GMT -3
Noelia.
I've had the 'your post is too long' thing as well, although its never deleted the post just not posted it. Winters kicking in here and its great!
"According to you, the US kicked our settlement off the FI. So, what was it? A gift from a son to its mother land? That makes even less sense than our point of view. "
No, i wasnt saying that the US kicked out Argentina and presented it as a gift to the UK. What i mean was that it was the US attacking the Argentine settlement and reducing it so much that led to the collapse of the Argentrine post. The UK then came in and expelled the remaining military forces of the failed, brief Argentine settlement attempt under our previous claim
"Our proofs are historical facts as well, but british keep saying historical facts are not important, at least not as important as the islanders’ wishes. Everything seems to be careful prepared for the UK to keep the FI no matter what."
Really? Then where are these 'proofs' and what are they? They are all inferences, beliefs and so on, most of them not even involving Argentina. Nothing concrete, nothing established, no documents. Argentianas sole claim essentially rests on-they were Spanish so they should be ours. Your historical facts show that Argentina came to want the Islands around 1825(?), tried to get them, established a short lived unstable settlement and were then expelled.That is the basic sum total of Argentine experience in the FI. British don't say historical facts are unimportant-they are as they show just how weak the Argentine claim is.Historical facts show the length of British contact with the FI and the very short term contact Argentina had. But are these facts as important as the actual, living inhabitants of the FI?Different question but it has become more important as the world has changed. Have you ever stopped to think why the situation seems skewed to favouring the UK? UK can claim it was at least among first sighting, discovery, landing, settlemet, claiming ownership, never relinquishing ownership, length of peacefull settlement,wishes of the people who live there-an awfull lot of the facts and situation is on the UKs side.
"It’s not hard to understand, it’s just that sometimos you make it a little contradictory. Sometimes we’re not discussing about the islander’s rights, but about the rights of the UK.. If the UK is only protecting its colony, why interfere in the negotiations then. The UK should stay quiet and only protect the FI in case dangerous Argentina attacks again....otherwise, let them speak by themselves, I am open to listen to their opinions."
Its only confusing if you either dont understand the constitutional setup of the UK and associated settlements or willfully misunderstand it. The UK is involved in negotiations (the ones which Argentina fails to initiate openly) becasue without their protection the FI would be even more bullied by Argentina. Do you believe that if the UK pulled out tomorrow then Argentina would not try to annex the territory? The UK speaks for the FI because they have little to say to their neighbour. Its painfully obvioius that the UK becomes involved and has to speak when Argentina tries to dictate to the FI. If Argentina were a friendly neighbour then the UK would be far less involved.
"Argentina is very envolved in the FI history."
Are you? The British have been involved with the Islands since around 1592, establishing a settlement around 1766. Its not until 1820 that Argentina sends someone to the FI. After a short history of turbulent and failed settlement, the Argentina military are expelled from the FI. Thats not a great deal of involvement is it? The Spanish may have been around there more but Argentina is not Spain. Argentina couldnt claim that she discovered America because Spain did and she 'inherits' that, could she?
"In fact, we are one of the little countries of the world (if not the only one) who keeps claiming the territory"
Who are the other nations claiming the FI? I was unaware of that.
"Here, the Malvinas are an important part of our history ..."
I dont believe they are. Personal opinion though based on the length of time Argentina spent on the FI and i respect that you have a different opinion.
"...every new generation of argentines knows perfectly about them, and is taught to defend our rights to recover them..."
Sounds a bit like using schools for propaganda to me. Still, your choice to do that if you wish.
"That is far more than I can say about the british kids, I’d bet new generations have no idea what on earth are the FI, even those whose fathers fought there."
Nice to see you know our School curriculum so well. Or are you just guessing? British kids arent automatically told about the FI becasue we're not obsessed with it. If they do learn about it, they are told that the UK military was sent to defeat the invasion force of a brutal military dictatorship that started an unneccessary and unprovoked war for nationalistic reasons though.
"Again, you’re saying that it is correct going to a country, kicking its people out of the territory and claim it as yours? What was wrong with our attempt in 1982 then? We tried to do exactly what you’re saying it’s correct..."
I'm not saying its correct, im just saying thats how the world-unfortunately-works. After all, thats how Argentina was founded. Hopefully thats how it worked though and that is hopefully dieing out as acceptable policy. And of course, in the FI the claim of ownership wasnt retrospective-the UK had an outstanding claim on the FI.
"So, in order to own a land you MUST set people, cities and ports there?.... Our patagonia was empty for many years during the spanish/italian inmigration but no other country claimed it as its..... I dont see what you mean.."
If its an 'integral' part of a nation then it would be treated as such. The land surrounding your capital city-thats integral. To USA Texas is an integral part of the terrirory. It is territory which is geographically fundamental to the existence of the state. Which is simply not the case re: Argentina and the FI. It wasnt an integral part of the Spanish Empire or of Argentiana-if it was then there would by default have been a large presence on the Islands.
"I dont see what is so difficult to understand. How come having a protectorate miles away from England is acceptable for you but the FI being part of Argentina, and previously part of the big colony Argentina and its islands was (from Spain) is not accepted? Something is making no sense here."
Its acceptable to have a 'protectorate' so far away if: *You have a long history of settlement with that place *The people there need to be protected from somebody *The people there wish you to remain in control
I would have no problem if the FI wanted to be a part of Argentina. If they do then good luck to them. But because of Argentinas attitude (and also in part due to her domestic situation) they do not want to be.So i dont see why they should be forced to be part of Argentina.
I've got to get off now. Work beckons. On a seperate note i would love to know just what Argentine schoolkids are taught about the FI and its history. Can someone get hold of a schholbook and post the relevant sections here?I think it would be very usefull
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Nov 30, 2004 23:35:47 GMT -3
Hello Hutch
I’m very VERY VERY sorry I haven’t replied you before, it was very unpolite from me but I had no chance. A lot of work, and little time to come online, and especially to answer these threads that need to be carefully read and so much research to answer. I’ll try to come more often from now on, and will try to reply this old posting you wrote:
So, why is it correct for the british forces to kick our settlement and not for us to kick yours?
I can tell you that frogs are green, and that’s a fact. But if you come and tell me “no, frogs are red” then one of us is mistaken, and how to know who is? Some countries support Argentina and some others support the UK...But at the end, we all know that frogs ARE green and we all know that the Falkalnds belong to Argentina. You can accept it or deny it, and the more powerful of the two will have the advantage to keep them from the other. Theory and Real Life are two different things.
Well I think it’s not a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of convenience. If it is convenient for both the UK and the FIG to tell Argentina to negotiate with the FI only, then they are an independent territory...If it is convenient that the UK takes part in the negotiations, because it’s stronger, so be it...
Another convenient statement. Chubut was part of the spanish colony at that time, and it’s only 500 km from the Falklands, why didnt the UK claimed that territory too, if you consider that spanish colonies are not Argentina?
I meant to say, that Argentina is one of the countries that has not given up the claim despite the pressure from the masters of the universe. Nobody is claiming the islands except us, they all know they are ours
*** continues in next posting ****
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Nov 30, 2004 23:37:55 GMT -3
No ofense, but you know nothing about us then, if you think the islands are not important for us.
Who sets the difference between school propaganda and teaching to respect and protect your country?
I am not guessing. I have asked lots of people and many of your countrymen (you’re from the UK right??) told me that most children dont know what are the Falklands or where are they located. Only those whose parents or relatives fought there know about them.
Yes, but I’m afraid the UK has a bigger record of this behaviour than Argentina, so it won’t be very convenient for you to base your arguments on this topic.
You just said before that EXACTLY because it was part of Spain, then it wasnt part of Argentina, now you’re saying that they were not part of Spain?? Either way my argument is valid. Argentinean or Spanish the islands were ours when you took them and must be returned.
**** continues in next posting ****
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Nov 30, 2004 23:38:50 GMT -3
Who on Earth set these rules? The UK for sure, that doesnt mean WE have to obbey them? But just to give you the pleasure: 1)Argentina as a spanish colony had a long history of settlement with the FI 2) People there needed to be protected from the british forces trying to kick them, like they did 3) OUR people there wanted to be part of the Argentinean/Spanish colony instead of being kicked out by british forces.
Nobody should be forced to be part of a nation they dont like. I have stated this many times. But if unfortunately the territory they are living in, was stolen from another country, they should at least show some respect to this country and be polite with us, the same way Argentina will politely leave them live there the time they want, speak the language they wish and have the citizenship they decide.
Best Wishes, and sorry for the delay Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 3, 2004 10:12:52 GMT -3
Noelia.
I'm up to my neck in work at the moment so can't fully reply to postings i'm afraid. But quickly:
"...they should at least show some respect to this country and be polite with us..."
As the old phrase goes-'people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones'. That is to say look at Argentinas behaviour in regards to the Islanders. The government doesent even recognize that they exist, mush less that they may have rights.
"Argentina as a spanish colony had a long history of settlement with the FI "
Really? How long was the Argentine settlement of the FI? Less than 1000 days i believe. How long were Spanish settlements established on the FI for? How many years?
"People there needed to be protected from the british forces trying to kick them, like they did "
I've never heard that before and as far as i know there was no harrasement of the Islands by the British at all. Perhaps they were worried that the British-who had claimed the FI long before Argentina even existed-would return for their property. It was of course the USA which attacked the settlement there due to the Argentines actions towards their sealers.
"OUR people there wanted to be part of the Argentinean/Spanish colony instead of being kicked out by british forces"
They wanted this so much that the colony collapsed and was a total failure which included murder? And of course i believe only the military forces were required to leave the FI, not the settlers.
"You just said before that EXACTLY because it was part of Spain, then it wasnt part of Argentina, now you’re saying that they were not part of Spain?? Either way my argument is valid. Argentinean or Spanish the islands were ours when you took them and must be returned."
If the FI were a (n integral) part of the Spainish Empire then they were not a part of Argentina, as Argentina came into being through bloody rebellion and occupied the land it could and nothing more. The FI were not part of these lands.
If they were a part of Argentina then Argentina can not claim ownership through descent from Spain.
Argentine or Spanish they must be returned. To who? Argentina or Spain?
" But if unfortunately the territory they are living in, was stolen from another country..."
Pointless pseudoemotonal argument, which is even more absurd as Argentina can not show prior ownership. Essentially all nations of the Earth were founded on this principle. Repeating this charge means nothing and as the 'stealing' was done with no violence then it was one of the kindest thefts ever. Other nations have 'gotten over' bigger 'thefts' and are not humiliated for ever. They got their pride and stability back. Why is Argentina determined to hang its national pride and psyche on this issue? One which has no real meaning for your own political elite aside from as a means of politicians displaying their patriotic credentials or as a method of distracting the populace from time to time from domestic issues?
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Dec 6, 2004 15:44:29 GMT -3
Hello Hutch Yeah I understand, I am very busy too, it seems it's the season...I run a pub bar and now I'm working on the christmas stuff, I barely have time to breathe. But from time to time I try to come online and participate here, and check emails and chat a little. You posted This is tricky....if Argentina recognized the rights of the islanders as a british self-determinated colony, then you would ask us (with all the right of the world) what on Earth are we claiming!! Argentina doesnt recognize the islanders rights because those rights go against our claim, which is not less important than theirs. According to what history? I have a different one, you can read it here webs.sinectis.com.ar/mcagliani/malvi.htm#JustosIt's in spanish, if you cannot understand it, let me know and I'll try to translate it as soon as I can For a Nation that claims to be so fair and protector of the truth, like the UK, you are washing your hands of it cynically... Ok you didn't do it, who was it? the US? It sounds like some kind of confusing game, they attack, you take possession and it's nobody's fault.... I dont know what you're talking about. But even if it was a failure, that doesnt give you or any other country the right to take possession. You dont want me to talk about Irak, but dont you see it's part of your history to do the same to all weaker countries? You dont like something and go interfere in their history, why dont you stay at home and fix your own problems and leave the rest of the world trying to fix theirs? There was a moment in history when all the modern nations that exist in latinamerica (chile, brasil paraguay etc...) claimed their independence. Even Uruguay, being a small nation found the way to claim its independence. Cuba, being small and poor fights against the imperialism of the US....But there were provinces in ARgentina (and probably in other countries too) that tried to get their independence but had no power to do so, and therefore they stayed as part of the country they were in. The Falklands, british or spanish, were a territory that, like all the rest, had the chance to win their independence. They didnt. We dont have problems with Spain, they are not claiming the islands. Again, countries that want to be independent have to, at least, show they can be independent, that's not the case of the Falklands. Let's no talk about war, but politically, they are constantly looking for the UK's protection too.... that's not a country, it's a protectorate. We dont ask Spain to protect us agains Brasil.. AT this point, it's exactly the same. If you return the islands to Spain, they will give us the islands back. Spain knows they are ours. It's not pointless and we can show prior ownership, the problem is you seem not to recognize our history as true, then again, history is written by the most powerful and that, besides of not being fair, is hypocrite. Now I really have to go. If you need the translation let me know and I'll see what I can do, if I cant translate it all, at least I'll translate the most important paragraphs. Best Wishes Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 7, 2004 7:25:52 GMT -3
Hola Hutch:
You wrote:
" I would have no problem if the FI wanted to be a part of Argentina. If they do then good luck to them. But because of Argentinas attitude (and also in part due to her domestic situation) they do not want to be.So i dont see why they should be forced to be part of Argentina."
That is something to be seen. Suppose the Islanders wanted to become Argentineans; do you really think UK would just let this imense territory with lots of resources go? Do you really think this is not just an excuse? Or maybe, just maybe, UK is going to find another important reason postpone their "wishes"? Think about.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 7, 2004 11:27:43 GMT -3
"Suppose the Islanders wanted to become Argentineans; do you really think UK would just let this imense territory with lots of resources go...?"
Hi Otto, The answer to this must be yes. The UK, under the UN Charter, and national policy regarding British Overseas Territories, must oblige the islanders in any decision they take regarding their own self-determination. We should acknowledge that it is the islanders that presently wish to stay as a British Overseas Territory. The British voting public have no say at all in their internal affairs.
Is that likely though? No, probably not…<br> The islanders are all now British citizens and rely heavily on UK defence assurance and protection of their economy, such as it is. Perhaps when the oil starts coming in (and it will) then you might just see shifts in loyalty. Oil is going to change everything in a massive way.
I feel this is where those interested in the islands and the region must now look
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 13, 2004 2:12:56 GMT -3
Hello John;
Your analysis has some problems. You are stating that “the British voting public have no say at all in their internal affairs”. Also you state that “The islanders are all now British citizens and rely heavily on UK defence assurance and protection of their economy, such as it is.” So the British voting public just pay for the Islanders burden, and that is done just as a gift, due to its commitment to freedom. Nevertheless, once there are revenues involved (oil) this same voting public will have to give up everything because of self-determination.
Your analysis would be perfect after a referendum, if this same voting public would agree with this absurd, which is throwing money through the window by some obscure moral principles. It is like to say:
1. You want to be British subjects, then we support you; 2. You do not want to be British subjects anymore because now you have your precious oil available and you don’t need us to support you. 3. Forget about all the money we invested, this was to preserve your freedom, no need to thank us.
It is hard for me to accept such a benevolent way of accepting the demands of a tiny population. As you may recall a large portion of your voting public was against the war in Iraq and they had no say at all on this subject. The demonstrations gathered much more than the islands population, and their opinion was not respected. Why would your government respect the “wishes” of 2.500 inhabitants, unless they were convenient?
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Dec 13, 2004 6:27:50 GMT -3
Otto,
I have some deep problems with your analysis.
John is quite correct the, British public by law have no say whatsoever in the internal affairs of the Falklands (Nor any UK Overseas Territory). This of course qualified by the caveat that no Overseas Territory is expected to take any actions that will damage the international interests of the United Kingdom. UK resident British Citizens also have no statutory right to emigrate, work, or live in the Falklands without specific permission from the FIG which strictly regulates this aspect of the relationship to preserve the equilibrium of the economy.
Qualifying UK Citizens and Foreigners may apply and achieve Falklands Status (Similar to nationality) subject to the Falklands own legal requirements and indeed they do this. On the other hand the citizens of all British Overseas Territories do have the right to live, work and vote in the UK, which by extrapolation extends to the whole of the EU (This is my own position). This is not reciprocal. The Falklands also is an associate of the EU and can apply for EU monies and grants in certain circumstances (and has indeed received EU money and support).
With regard to Defence costs, the actual infrastructure was long since paid for. The running costs of the present single Fighter Squadron plus the Transport, Refuelling and Helicopter wings stationed at Mount Pleasant and the Guard Ship would not actually disappear as they would not be disbanded but simply re-deployed elsewhere. There remains then the costs of the long supply and transport chain which probably would be saved but is a minimal cost in comparison to the rest when you consider that the deployments to the Falklands on a relatively short rota basis are very profitable to the Armed Forces who can carry out extensive low flying training, live firing exercises and ground force training in challenging terrain with the full support of the local population; which they would not receive in the restricted environment of the United Kingdom. This is very cost effective training that would be sorely missed by the military if they were forced to pull out.
As I have said many times before, self-determination for former Imperial territories is a well established British practice it is not something that has been brought into play simply to annoy Argentina. For small Island States it normally comes in the form of complete self Government in close association with a parent state which provides defence guarantees and acts as intermediary in Foreign affairs. This is well a well established practice with islands associated with New Zealand, Australia and I believe the United States. It is also approved by the UN. It is also the most likely path the Falklands will follow to eventually satisfy the UN de-colonisation aspirations for it.
You have outlined what you see as a domesday scenario because it supports your particular view of the British.
British investors have in recent months subscribed may millions of pounds to private companies for exploration and analysis of the oil industry in the Falkands and also for other mineral exploitation. They will not be deprived of investment simply because the Falklands will move forward in the self government stakes. Indeed they will be assured that their investment is in good hands rather than Argentine hands given Argentina’s recent fiscal record. Though I acknowledge that will probably slowly improve it will take many years for confidence to be fully restored.
For the vast majority of the existence of the British presence in the Falklands there has been no need for a large military presence excepting in two world wars. Only in recent years has Argentina seriously revived its claim making a presence necessary. Even in the 1960’s and 70’s it mostly consisted of only a token 24 Royal Marines.
It is worth remembering that in the 19th Century Argentina went for a period 60 years when only one protest was made to the British with the longest singular gap being about 38 years. In my mind this is long enough, given that their actual official and ineffective occupation lasted for such a short period, to say that effectively they abandoned their claim in the 19th Century to all intents and purposes.
I think it is about time they matured and looked to looking after their own country 100% without chasing rainbows like they do to divert their own electorate attention from their internal problems, a habit begun by Peron.
I guess no explanation I can give will allow you to understand the British mentality completely, but I hope you now have a glimmer of insight. It is not really about, money, oil (Where was oil in the past?) we were defended when all we had was sheep! It is about associated British people and their human rights. 2,000 – 3,000 – two million. Twenty million. Where do human rights begin and end? A land is nothing if it has no people, but takes on its own persona when it has, no matter how few.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 13, 2004 7:43:04 GMT -3
Otto, Any analysis regarding the Falklands is always fraught.
Let me say immediately though, the British forces based on the islands need not be there in their present shape and numbers. The reason that they are needs to be seriously debated, together with the FIG posture on Argentina. Massive military cuts are presently being made in the British armed forces and having such a deployment in a ‘no threat’ area is highly contestable. HMG would probably reduced the number tomorrow if they could cut through the political assumption that removal means giving up on the islands – which of course is utter nonsense.
I say again, the British voting public have no say what so ever in what happens in the Falklands. This can only be contested by all party debate in the UK Parliament. This is a rare occurrence. The Falklands simply does not make news here. So you are right – we simply just pay for our armed forces to be tucked away, 8000 miles from home.
Being a British citizen from an overseas territory is indeed a gift that is not reciprocated by the OT’s if one wishes to hop on a plane and make a home else where. They have their own governments, laws and constitution. They have all the cards.
Let’s look at your points:
“1. You want to be British subjects, then we support you;”<br> Yes, this is very true. This is part of the British Overseas Territories Bill.
“2. You do not want to be British subjects anymore because now you have your precious oil available and you don’t need us to support you”<br> Yes, again this might turn out to be true. The economy of the islands and growth of population might further mature the democracy to where they go totally independent from the UK. We can’t stop that process, even if we wanted to.
”3. Forget about all the money we invested, this was to preserve your freedom, no need to thank us”<br> As much as I am a cynic of the islands government, I don’t think any of the islanders will ever forget the sacrifice made on their behalf. They are a tiny population indeed, but I don’t think that will always be the case. Oil will turn the islands into something else!
I agree that a large proportion the British public were against sending troops to Iraq. But, Parliament voted for it by a majority – representing the greater wishes of the population. (Tony Blair didn’t just decide on his own)
Best, John.
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 20, 2004 9:55:23 GMT -3
Hello John:
You wrote:
"I agree that a large proportion the British public were against sending troops to Iraq. But, Parliament voted for it by a majority – representing the greater wishes of the population. (Tony Blair didn’t just decide on his own)"
This sentence is somewhat difficult for me to understand. Are the wishes with those who protest, or are them with Tony Blair's interpretation of these same wishes? Were there any demonstration FOR sending troops? Where did Tony Blair get that he is not deciding on its own, just inside your parliament?
There is a myth about the silent majority, that says that this same majority were not at the streets because they support the government. This is just a wishful thinking; this majority may be supporting the demonstrators or supporting something different, but for sure they are to be taken as FOR the government.
Anyway, the apparent lack of clear support for sending troops tells more that the government acted on its own.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|