nottslad79

Falklands

Ownership
by deleted 2 years ago (Tue, Mar 26, 2013) in Discussion (SFW)
Who should run the Falklands?

Should the UK remain in charge or should it be handed over to its nearest mainland country Argentina.
Good | Poor | +15 -4 79%
Favorite (0) | Flag | Share: Email | Facebook
x

Select size: Custom: Width: px Height: px

Discussion

Details
Thought-provoking, discussion-inspiring posts
This category is reserved to thought-provoking, discussion-inspiring posts. Do not use it as an 'escape' category where you throw things that don't fit other categories.
Do not post
  • Trivial uploads/question like "Would you do her ?" "Which one would you hit ?"
81 comments | Sorted by top | 81 new comments added since your last visit to this upload ( marked in pink background ). You must be logged in for this feature to work
  • catalin | 2 years ago | +8 -1
    Any more background on this would be nice, this is new to me and probably others. Is there a dispute regarding the islands in question ?
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +3 -1
      This is fairly big in UK at the minute. UK went to war in 81 over the island after Argentina invaded.Argentina are always wanting the islands back and it seems to be starting up again.. My bad thought it would be known about world wide and wanted to know some opinions.
      • sexmeup | 2 years ago | +1
        The UK went to war in 1982.
        • MrSlippery | 2 years ago | +2
          It's been a long time, but I remember following this story back in '82. Spotlight magazine reported, at least six months before war broke out, that oil had been discovered on or around the islands, and their reporter expected a dispute between the UK and Argentina. Sure enough, it happened exactly as Spotlight predicted. I remember having the impression that prior to the oil discovery, the UK might have been on the verge of ceding the islands to Argentina. If this is back in the news again, you can be sure it has something to do with money. Follow the money, and you'll see events through the truest lens.
      • Wagingwetard | 2 years ago | +1 -1
        The US has always taken an interest in it too.. Reagan tried to broker a peace deal back during the conflict.. personally I feel it should be up to the inhabitants..just like their almost unanimous referendum expressed, they don't want to be Argentine.. and I don't blame them.. Cristina kirchner seems to be getting mouthier by the day and the country is broke.. look at that mess they had with their naval training ship getting impounded in Africa..
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      Ill be sure to add more info in future posts.. This was a little rushed.. Sorry.
    • masterbaker | 2 years ago | +1
      Bit of background, apparently oil has been found there. Last time Argentina invaded, the UK had a leader who was known for her "drastic" or unpopular decisions. To be honest if they invade this time i think the coilition government wont do much at all
      • sexmeup | 2 years ago | +2
        What a ridiculous statement to make. If Argentina invades then Britain will go to war.
        • masterbaker | 2 years ago | +1
          That's arguable
          • sexmeup | 2 years ago | +2 -1
            I don't believe that it is. If the UK did not go to war and abandoned it's UK Citizens living on the Falkland Islands then i believe that Spain would jump on the band wagon and try to take Gibraltar back. We have no other choice. I am in my 23rd year of serving queen and country and i will tell you right now Britain would not even consider doing nothing.
    • MrSworld | 2 years ago | +1
      Seriously?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

      There has been a conflict over these for a long time. Recently it's all been brought to a head due to:

      a) Gas and oil reserves off the coast

      b) The Argentine government needing to shift blame from Internal policies failing to International postering.

      The US didn't support the UK at all in the '82 conflict. However it is interesting to note that the US Marines bought the Harrier Jump Jet system after it was shown to be so sucessful during the war. The US has also bought the remainder of our jump jets after the UK government decided to buy the F-35B for our non-exsistant carriers...

      At least the US Marines recognise a decent bit of UK engineering!
  • Troyd | 2 years ago | +7
    I was a british soldier that was sent out to the Falklands in 1982 on the Norland. The people who live on that Island think of themselves as British. I lost friends on that island and have since last a lot more to PTSD. People should be able to choose what country they want claim as their own. Before oil was discovered down there the main export was lamb and sheep's wool. If asked to I would again go down and fight for the islands to remain under the british Flag.
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      The islanders voted to remain under the British flag. 97% is a good indicator that they want to remain British.
      • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
        The Palestinians and the Tibetans want autonomy, too, but nobody seems to be listening.
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +1 -1
          China isn't well known for listening to people within their borders. If I remember correctly, they're slaughtering the Uyghurs as well.
          Ill be honest, I'm not too informed on the Palestinian voice and wants. Ill have to take some time tonight and research. From what I've seen about HAMAS a d their actions, it's hard for me to have sympathy for Palestine.
          • marcellus | 2 years ago | +1 -1
            Take some time tonight and research, first!
            • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
              Lol. Research what?
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +5
    well in the early 1800 (think 1833 ?) the British invaded Malvinas and hence called it Falklands - the Argentines were defeated (kicked out ) and refused to return to settle back into their homes . they have been fighting this claim ever since .
    more and more shiploads from UK and Europe brought many people to come settle these islands . Now recently after going through wars and stuff - against the UN resolution papers (and all logic ) they are forced into a referendum ( joke)

    If no Argentinean was ever allowed back onto these islands (except through the war ) - UK has it's "colony" filled with which people ? most (if not all -British)
    so how can a colony of settlers vote on self determination of a "stolen" land ?
    the first people would lived there have been banished for 100s of years

    this joke of a " referendum" is soo wrong on so many grounds
    even as late as 1983 - UN resolution made it clear that this could not happen (should not )
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      if i fill a soccer club up of all my friends (kicking out all those that were there ) and then vote who should own this soccer club - woow surprise - they all voted me the owner :-) was a free and fair vote :-)
      or is this just a joke ?
      • spoogington | 2 years ago | +1
        Do just a quick google, wiki or anything you want really Britain was there first, they were forced out in Early 1770 by the Spanish (1400 soldiers and 5 ships). This nearly caused war between Britain and Spain but was averted when the colony was re-established by Captain John Stott with the ships HMS Juno, HMS Hound and HMS Florida (a mail ship which had already been at the founding of the original settlement). However with the growing economic pressures stemming from the upcoming American War of Independence, the British government decided that it should withdraw its presence from many overseas settlements in 1774.[5] On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Royal Naval Lieutenant Clayton formally left Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.[6] For the next four years, British sealers used Egmont as a base for their activities in the South Atlantic. This ended in 1780 when they were forced to leave by Spanish authorities who then ordered
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +2
          Well, if we go by the standards of who was where first, I guess the native Americans were in the US & Canada first before the French, the Spaniards and the English. plus, if we follow your logic, the Papal Bull of the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 assigned the islands to Spain. So, what were the English doing there in the early 1770s? I am not saying I support the Papal Bull, but I am just highlighting that you can also do a bit of googling, too... On another note, if we are talking about who got where first, maybe the English should take a hike and find another country since they arrived last on the British Isles and wrestled the land from others that were there first, right?
          • spoogington | 2 years ago | +2
            What about Canada? There were natives there too. The referendum wasn't a question of Argentina or Britain, it was Britain or independent. The Papal Bull of the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 was between Spain and Portugal, not Britain. Plus, there is no evidence of the islands discovery before that treaty was signed.
            The last statement makes no sense, wrestled from whom? wrestled at all? they were not English before England. I don't think there are many countries with the same indigenous population as there was at the beginning, keep going back and we are all colonists.
            • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
              I did mention Canada along with the US in my post. The Papal Bull predated the English in that region, and the treaty covered a geographic area, not individual islands, meaning that te lack of evidence inregards to the discovery of the island at that time is not relevant. The point I am trying to make isn't about the Papal Bull or who got where first. I think it is about time the UK focused on its domestic problems, learn to live with what it has got, which is more than enough in my opinion, and stopped making bogus claims on the other side of the world because oil is discovered there. As I said, half the shit the world is trying to deal with today in geopolitical issues, is related in one way or another to British foreign policies of the past 100 years. The days of the Empire are over, Things change and it is about time the Brits acknowledge that.
              • spoogington | 2 years ago | +1
                sorry, I had to skim your comment at first was heading out the door. I do agree Britain should focus on domestic problems (I'm only here for a while and sometimes I wish I could just leave now) but too much has happened to just give the islands away. But the dispute has resurfaced solely to divert the Argentinian population's attention to a corrupt and bankrupt government desperately clinging to power. The dispute is from long before oil was discovered. Bit of a sweeping statement there about Britain being related to half the geopolitical issues of today. Just the same as when some say "most countries would be nothing if it weren't for the British empire". I disagree about the claim being "bogus" but we will have to agree to disagree. Argentina has nothing to do with papal, hence why it has never been brought up in the debate, too many factors make it irrelevant now, not that me debating this here has any effect to the world.
          • TheObamessiah | 2 years ago | +1
            And give the Island back to some sheep-shagging Welshmen and a few crazed Highlanders!?
        • spoogington | 2 years ago | +1
          ...that the British colony to be destroyed. Then more to and fro until Britain came back to settle with the plaque intact (proving British claim). So all of this happened before Buenos Aires gained Independence (1816) and before Argentina existed as an independent country. There is more more to it on both sides but the best argument Argentina can come up with is proximity which doesn't mean anything to anyone (Alaska to Canada being one simple example of the irrelevancy of proximity to mainland on territory)
          • spoogington | 2 years ago | +1
            But hey, the alternative is Argentina throwing the population of the Falklands out and implanting their own, because they really hate colonialism.... :P
            • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
              spongebob - there is no logical reason for a joke on a Referendum
              if you do a quick google - you may find what you find - do a bit more of research and you will find what i found - Dutch were the first to find these islands - Spanish , French and Brits followed
              • spoogington | 2 years ago | +1
                FG.
                It is generally accepted that the Portuguese discovered it -> French settled on east Falklands -> Unaware of the French, British settled west Falklands -> The French left after the Spanish complained about the French being in what they considered to be their territory.
                Really not saying this to offend you but; are you thinking of the right islands?

                Footnote.
                The Argentinians claim to have been given the Falklands as territory when they became independent of Spain, however Spain already "gave" it to Uruguay. Lets say, for sake of argument, that the Falklands were Spain's to give, they already "gave" it to Uruguay. I can't give you a plate lasagne after giving it to someone else.
                P.s the joke was with the hypocritical Argentine government (Hates colonialism yet wants to eject the population of the islands who wont submit to Argentine rule and implant their own populous) not the referendum, that was done to the full extent of the law.
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +3
    So, the Palestinians aren't allowed to have a choice when it comes to whom they want to be governed by, but the Falklanders are... A bit of a double standard. Also, did the British respect the requests made by the peoples of their past colonies for self-autonomy? If I recall correctly, it was thanks to Gandhi that India gained its independence. Neither the US, Canada or Australia are any longer ruled by the UK. Why should a vestige of British Imperialism, such as the Falklands, be a an excption? I know these are not the same things, but for a country like the UK, which has a very long history of oppressing the so-called rights of other peoples in the recent past by colonization & interfering in internal affairs of other countries, I think it is ironic that we are talking about Britain's right to rule the Falklands. Half the shit the world is having to deal with today in geopolitical issues is caused by British foreign policies of the past 100 years or so.
    • sexmeup | 2 years ago | +2
      Gandhi, what ever happened to him ? He made one good movie then .... nothing.
    • TheObamessiah | 2 years ago | +2
      Excellent point about the Palestinian double standard. Unfortunately, I don't know what, if anything, can be done to solve that situation.

      Technically the head of state of both Canada and Australia is still the British monarch. Both Australia and Canada, as well as many other former colonies, were willingly given autonomy when it was demanded. India and the US seem to be exceptions to that trend.
      • deleted | 2 years ago | +4 -2
        Well, the English learned a valuable lesson when the Americans shoved the boot up their asses and sent them back. The only reason why Canada and Australia had rather "smooth" transitions to sovereignity was because of the bitter taste left in the mouth of the Royalty after the Americans gained their independence. The English cave in or back out not when it is the right to do: they cave in when they have no choice.
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
          best comment so far today
        • TheObamessiah | 2 years ago | +1
          Indeed. I didn't speculate why the British smoothly transfered autonomy to nations, I only stated that they did transfer control smoothly more often than not.
          • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
            I know. I was just trying to antagonize the UK patriots with certain keywords to stir shit...
            • TheObamessiah | 2 years ago | +1
              Hehe. I'm an Anglophile through and through but I know when to acknowledge their faults.
        • MrSworld | 2 years ago | +1
          Pity you came 'late' to the last two world wars. I'd like you to tell me when the UK caved in?

          You ignored the Nazis until Japan came knocking on your door. Lucky you had the aircraft carriers out to sea at the time, the battleships didn't fair well did they?
          • deleted | 2 years ago | +2
            Yeah, we were smart. We let the dumbasses that started the war fight one another first, and came at the end to save the day... In regards to your question as to when the UK caved in, I guess you don't recall Gandhi sticking his foot up your ass in Zen style and liberating India... Or the way the Americans slapped you around and sent your imperialistic asses back to the other side of the Atlantic....
      • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
        many British colonies fought wars for freedom - then some won and some lost - but most of Africa is "free" today
        well free from the UK
        • sexmeup | 2 years ago | +2
          Yes, and look at them now. Africa is positively booming.
    • 1libertine | 2 years ago | +1
      Lets go even further back and just blame the Romans.
      • 1libertine | 2 years ago | +1
        No even better we all stole everything from the dinosaurs!
    • CaptainFlyscratch | 2 years ago | +2 -1
      no, they should keep it...fight a war for it, then send all their Muslims to live on it :)
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      So the world is in the shit because of Britain.. Dont talk like a prize prick..
      • deleted | 2 years ago | +1 -1
        History is very clear about what your royal family and their cherished & chartered trade companies did, and be the prize prick, if you like, by pretending that such things didn't happen... British foreign policy is ultimately based on stirring shit, and that has been the case for over a century now. Don't get all pissy just because some people don't buy into your bogus claims on Falklands.
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
          You fool.. I did not make any claims. I asked for opinions from people about it. Lets just say you seem to hate the Brittish and the royal family and leave it at that.. Have a good one.
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
          Had to smile. CANADA !! Classic !!
          • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
            What happened, genius? Couldn't you figure out how to fit two sentences into one post? Classic!!
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +2
    Fuck it let the UK keep it.
  • Oyxter | 2 years ago | +2
    Next thing you'll hear is that the Spamish want Puerto Rico back...
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
    What is the process for the final decision, and what will be the pros and cons of the decision.
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      I reckon this will either rumble on for years to come or Argentina invade the islands again. Pros and cons depend on which side of the fence you are standing ??
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      simply worded - offshore fishing and oil/gas reserves is making all of this rather interesting.
      my personal opinion is one sided so i will withhold it
      • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
        Dont withhold your opinion. But i dont think oil gas and fishing is the point in this issue.
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
    I understand what you have said but its about today now 2013 . Not what happened nearly 200 years ago.. We should all learn to move on.. On this subject i think sleeping dogs should be left to lie..
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
    If they get their land back the UN should let the natives have enormous tracts of America back. Meaning it's not going to happen.
  • sexmeup | 2 years ago | +1
    Not sure about Reagan brokering a peace deal. He wanted to remain neutral. That being said he did offer Margret Thatcher a Nimitz class aircraft carrier with 79 planes and all munitions included. All the UK needed to do was man it.
    • MrSworld | 2 years ago | +1
      Really? I'm not so sure that a American nuclear carrier (5000 crew) and 90 types of aircraft (F-14's, EA-6B's, E2-C's, etc) would of been able to of been manned by a UK crew within two months, with no training.

      Nice of him too of offered a couple of billion dollars of hardware for free though if that was true.
  • Timothe | 2 years ago | +2 -1
    UK all the way, because it rhymes.
  • TheObamessiah | 2 years ago | +1
    The Falklanders wish to stay British so they should stay British. If they wish to no longer be British then they do not have to remain part of Britain.
  • Oyxter | 2 years ago | +1
    *Spanish
  • vespa150 | 2 years ago | +1
    lol spamish love it
    • Oyxter | 2 years ago | +1
      Could be a good reason for banning an idiot member...
  • NomSequitur | 2 years ago | +1
    The truth sucks, but it just is. Might makes right. Raise an army, occupy the island. It's yours. Call it Nottsladia!
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
    Sell the inhabitants off for slavery and give the others beads and herbs..... Wait that's what happened here... Duh..
  • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
    they should be independent from uk and argentina
  • rfcn45367 | 2 years ago | +1
    The uk should keep the islands unless they want freedom.
  • cigarmann | 2 years ago | +2 -2
    The day of the Empire is over. Geographic location should play in.....plus I don't think the UK has any real interest in the island since whaling and seal hunting is no longer of economic importance.
    • turdusmcflurdus | 2 years ago | +3
      the islanders want to be ruled by the british, it is their choice, not geographical location
      • cigarmann | 2 years ago | +2 -2
        What about Hong Kong? The British handed that colony back over to China without consulting the people
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +2
          No . Hong Kong was handed back because it was on loan. UK kept the promise to hand it back to China.
          • cigarmann | 2 years ago | +2 -2
            Ok, I'll have to stop commenting in this post since my knowledge is very basic on this matter (although it has not stopped me in the past, lol!)
            • deleted | 2 years ago | +2
              Hey CM.. Share your view. I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion from around the world as all i hear and read here is from our POV.
        • turdusmcflurdus | 2 years ago | +1
          %100 of the population of the falklands wants to be a british colony, hong kong was different
    • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
      Is it not also important to take into account what the Falkland people want ? .And yes the british empire is over i agree with you.
      • cigarmann | 2 years ago | +1
        Agreed, I have no idea what the population of the island wants or the ethnic majority.
        • deleted | 2 years ago | +1
          Around 2800 people. Latest vote was to remain British and keep the Queen as head of state. I really hope that another scrap over the islands can be avoided.
          • cigarmann | 2 years ago | +1
            I remember it being a nasty affair and would be a real drain on the UK's economy if they have to steam the fleet there again. Hopefully a peaceful solution is found.
            • WonkyDonkey | 2 years ago | +1 -1
              CM with the greatest respect you are out of your depth on this one.... It's ours and we will fight to keep it... We gave the middle Eastern oil back to the Arabs, but we are playing the long game on the Falkland Islands. When every Luther oil outlet is done there will only be Antartica left and The Falkland Isles will be the ONLY hub to safely collect that oil by tanker... Our little war there cost only a few lives and cost a small amount of money ( no disrespect to the falen) In a way it's a bit like Lybia, but maybe not so... We went in hard and fast with the French, sorted it and pulled the fuck out... There are lucrative deals going on in Lybia right now for their oil rights. I'm rambling now, so I'll leave it there, only to say for a little island nation, that looks to others to fight above its weight) we still have the ear of the "greater countries".
              Shamone.. In the words of MJ!!!!!
              • deleted | 2 years ago | +2
                You gave the middle eastern oil back to the Arabs??? Such entitlement. Are you talking about getting kicked the fuck out of Iran, because Iranians are not Arabs. If you are talking about Egypt, well, they didn't have much oil to begin with. You were never really in control of the Arabian peninsula to claim the oil, and since when did that oil belong to you in the first place? You didn't give anything back. You were forced to cave in and move out of the picture. The vacuum was simply filled in by the US, which became the dominant player in the region. You can keep fighting to keep the Falklands, but it may end up like the Suez canal or India...
In addition to plain text you can also add links to:
- images
- video pages
- anything else
Simply add a link just like this: http://i.imgur.com/fhfnG.gif and we will do the rest. We will transform all links into clickable links and if the link points to an image or a youtube video page we will open that image / video in a clean pop.