The Falklands and a stand for freedom

Dec 22, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Mail

To some, the crisis over the Falklands may sound like the plot of an Ealing comedy, with no place in the real world of the 21st century.

Comments
1 - 20 of 390 Comments Last updated May 21, 2012
First Prev
of 20
Next Last

“Progressive liberal politic”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 25, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Latin America will become strong against imperialism, only if become common country.
bubble and squeak

Brecon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

the people who live on the Falklands already HAVE freedom, and they are all of British descent.

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

1

The Falkland Islanders experienced Argentina's version of freedon 30 years ago.
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

5

3

3

Before the Argentine invasion in 1982, and the subsequent war, the Islanders didn't have any representation. They were controled by a department at Whitehall.

Since, some sort of elected council has been rushed through (but political parties are banned!) that in principle advises the chief executive still nominated by the British government.

In spite of what is said, democracy doesn't flourish in the Falklands, and the Islanders - in theory British - have no right of abode on mainland, nor do they have representation in Parliament. The Falklands are no better than Hong Kong was.

So, the Argentine are at least correct when they say it's still a British colony: it's run as such.

“Progressive liberal politic”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ronan wrote:
Before the Argentine invasion in 1982, and the subsequent war, the Islanders didn't have any representation. They were controled by a department at Whitehall.
Since, some sort of elected council has been rushed through (but political parties are banned!) that in principle advises the chief executive still nominated by the British government.
In spite of what is said, democracy doesn't flourish in the Falklands, and the Islanders - in theory British - have no right of abode on mainland, nor do they have representation in Parliament. The Falklands are no better than Hong Kong was.
So, the Argentine are at least correct when they say it's still a British colony: it's run as such.
If UK see Falklands as "colony" and not as equal UK-land and equal UK-citizens, then is sure that at the future will loose them.

For the same reason, destroyed the British Empire.

Because all "colonies" was colonies and not equal, and for this reason wanted be independent.
Anonymous

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

1

It is only logical to have joint sovreignty and take it from there.
Giggs

Camberley, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

3

1

1

smoothtimes wrote:
It is only logical to have joint sovreignty and take it from there.
Nope.

The falklands is in international waters and has only ever been populated by brits.

Nobody else should deserve anything since they havent contributed anything.

“The Three Legged Man”

Since: Jul 11

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

1

smoothtimes wrote:
It is only logical to have joint sovreignty and take it from there.
Funny sort of logic you have.

The Falklands are British, they're staying British, and you don't have to like it, Pedro.
Just a thought

Beloit, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 26, 2011
 
Colonialism does have a destructive impact on indigenous culture,Spain in the New World eg.Spain's goals were Religious conversion and trade[gold and silver]Indigenous religious items, sculpture, jewelry were melted down and art destroyed.
Just a thought

Beloit, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The first settlers were the French in 1760 and the British followed a year later,prior to that no human inhabitants.
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Mr Tripod wrote:
<quoted text>
The Falklands are British, they're staying British, and you don't have to like it, Pedro.
Yeah, the Falklands maybe called British, but their inhabitants are second-class British citizen: they aren't even allowed to vote or live in Britain!

As far as I am concerned, Argentina could have the place. This 2 islands have cost the British taxpayers a fortune to defend and protect, and we will never get any benefit from them.

An amicable agreement with Argentina to transfer the sovereignty to them step by step would have been a wise move; instead of what it did cost lives and millions of pounds to defend.

It's funny to consider that Westminster wouldn't move a finger to stop Scotland splitting with the Union, but we go and shed blood for 2 desolate islands far away from here.
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Giggs wrote:
<quoted text>
The falklands is in international waters and has only ever been populated by brits.
.
Why do you think they are called MALVINAS, or Iles Malouines then?

The first settlers were French fishermen from St Malo.
Just a thought

Beloit, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 26, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wikipedia states that the first settlement was French 1764/Berkeley sound/Port Louis.E.Falklands.British claimed Saunders Island,W.Falkland,1765.Settled Port Egmont 1766.

“The Three Legged Man”

Since: Jul 11

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 27, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ronan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the Falklands maybe called British, but their inhabitants are second-class British citizen: they aren't even allowed to vote or live in Britain!
As far as I am concerned, Argentina could have the place. This 2 islands have cost the British taxpayers a fortune to defend and protect, and we will never get any benefit from them.
An amicable agreement with Argentina to transfer the sovereignty to them step by step would have been a wise move; instead of what it did cost lives and millions of pounds to defend.
It's funny to consider that Westminster wouldn't move a finger to stop Scotland splitting with the Union, but we go and shed blood for 2 desolate islands far away from here.
If they're not allowed to vote or live in this country then that's a separate issue that should be addressed on its own.

The fact stands that Falkland Islanders are Brits, the Falkland Islands belong to Britain, and they shouldn't be abandoned to Argentina.

If people aren't important to you, then think of the oil there. Or are profits only a concern to you when they provide an excuse to shit on white Brits?
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 27, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Mr Tripod wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact stands that Falkland Islanders are Brits, the Falkland Islands belong to Britain, and they shouldn't be abandoned to Argentina.
If people aren't important to you, then think of the oil there. Or are profits only a concern to you when they provide an excuse to shit on white Brits?
The Falklands were 'acquired' in a very suspicious way, to say the least, at the time when Spain was relinquishing its sovereignty over Argentina. That the Falklands Islands became British owes more to gunboat diplomacy than to inherent rights.

Argentina had indeed a very strong case in international law until it blotted its copybook by invading them.

No, the people living there shouldn't be forgotten, but for the moment, they are unashamedely used by Britain to pursue its claim. Bring enough people to a place you previously invade, to claim it as your own. Sounds very imperialistic to me; not my taste at all.

How long will you believe that you need to control a place to have access to its resources? If oil is found around the Falklands, it will get on the oil market, and oil companies, British and else could help exploit it and market it too. After all, we buy oil and gas from our enemies, and we even help them exploiting it!

So, cooperation in the exploitation of resources is more important than ownership. Why couldn't a Argentino-British consortium exploit energy from the Falklands (if there is any), it works well in other places.

My point is that the present British stance on the Falklands cannot be maintained in the long run, and that a 'face-saving' compromise is better than loosing them in the distant future, when a British government will consider that the price of defending them is exhorbitant.

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 28, 2011
 

Judged:

3

1

1

On the bright side Ronan, the Royal Navy has no aircraft carriers and if it did they and the RAF have no Harriers anyway. There is no long range bomber or strike aircraft anymore, since the Nimrod MRA2 was scrapped just as it was entering service. The ships of the line have been cut back, the army is spread thinly around the world and being cut back as we speak.
Perhaps now is the time for all the South American nations to launch a strike against the islands, overwhelm the four Typhoons based there and give the great British empire a damn good, well deserved thrashing.
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

supersonic boom wrote:
On the bright side Ronan, the Royal Navy has no aircraft carriers and if it did they and the RAF have no Harriers anyway. There is no long range bomber or strike aircraft anymore, since the Nimrod MRA2 was scrapped just as it was entering service. The ships of the line have been cut back, the army is spread thinly around the world and being cut back as we speak.
Perhaps now is the time for all the South American nations to launch a strike against the islands, overwhelm the four Typhoons based there and give the great British empire a damn good, well deserved thrashing.
I will never advocate for Argentina to take possession of the Falkland Islands by force, like Britain did more than a century ago.
Two wrongs don't make one right.

But the British capability to defend its cherished possession in the South Atlantic is increasingly diminishing, and that should be obvious around the negotiation table at the next round of talks.

Argentina has just to sit tightly and wait. Britain will slowly loose interest in these islands, I believe, but the subject is still too vivid in the collective memory to make a decision about them.
Krypteia

Brighton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

supersonic boom wrote:
On the bright side Ronan, the Royal Navy has no aircraft carriers and if it did they and the RAF have no Harriers anyway. There is no long range bomber or strike aircraft anymore, since the Nimrod MRA2 was scrapped just as it was entering service. The ships of the line have been cut back, the army is spread thinly around the world and being cut back as we speak.
Perhaps now is the time for all the South American nations to launch a strike against the islands, overwhelm the four Typhoons based there and give the great British empire a damn good, well deserved thrashing.
lol..They would need to join together as only 28 Royal Marines or so and some islanders held off the invasion last time before the governor told them to surrender...pmsl..
Only one sub is enough to sink troop ships, and to try and parachute in now a fortified island would be plain stupid.,maybe if the Diego's considered giving what is Argentina back to the indians just maybe then,but even then there were no indiginous inhabitants.
Just a thought

Beloit, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 28, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Falkland islands.What do they represent?They are really the only British outpost in the southern hemispere for Britain to keep an eye on the goings on in South America.I suppose by a long stretch they could be viewed as an Atlantic "Guam".Common sense says that due to proxity,they should be returned to Argentina.Perhaps Britain should consider where it's limited military assets would do the most good.This has always been an issue with the British Military.How to use limited military assets effectively.Consider a conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz.My opinion is that Britain should say goodbye to the Age of Empire and give the Falklands to Argentina.
Giggs

Slough, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Dec 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Just a thought wrote:
Falkland islands.What do they represent?They are really the only British outpost in the southern hemispere for Britain to keep an eye on the goings on in South America.I suppose by a long stretch they could be viewed as an Atlantic "Guam".Common sense says that due to proxity,they should be returned to Argentina.Perhaps Britain should consider where it's limited military assets would do the most good.This has always been an issue with the British Military.How to use limited military assets effectively.Consider a conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz.My opinion is that Britain should say goodbye to the Age of Empire and give the Falklands to Argentina.
We have the second largest navy in the world.

They can come and fight for it if they want.

I would sign up straight away.......... without a doubt.

Beats fighting for americas colonial intrests.

Argentina only want it now we have discovered plenty of oil and gas their.

http://www.fogl.com/fogl/en/home

Them f gots can kiss my ass if they think we are giving them anything.

If they fight then we should slaughter every one of them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 20
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Conservatives Discussions

Search the Conservatives Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Den Tandt: Harper's - new' Canadian foreign pol... Jul 21 roll over eh 1
Join in on Aldershot's Nepalese debate (Jun '11) Jul 3 inkas teeth 45
Charlemagne: The accidental president Jul 2 many do this in America 1
British eurosceptic cobbles together mixed EP g... Jun '14 Kantara2009 1
Private bill would increase oversight of Canada... Jun '14 more stories youll love 1
Brown slams currency campaigning Jun '14 Bogiesdey 1
Euroskeptic win in EU polls shakes up UK politics Jun '14 comicgeek97 1
•••
•••