• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Falklands

Baleforce said:
They want to be British because they mostly are British, which is an argument for both sides.
Click to expand...

Only 25% were born in Britain. 40% were born on the islands. 35% were born elsewhere.
The last vote had 99.8% wanting to remain British.

Whatever you think about the British government it's much more stable and has a better rule of law than Argentina.
 
Lilbaz said:
Only 25% were born in Britain. 40% were born on the islands. 35% were born elsewhere.
The last vote had 99.8% wanting to remain British.

Whatever you think about the British government it's much more stable and has a better rule of law than Argentina.
Click to expand...

Many of them their routes go back to the Scottish farmers that first moved there.
 
Regardless of what each country thinks....the power is held (and should be) by the inhabitants of the islands given the amount of time that's passed since there was any other historical change of rule/ownership.

And I believe there is no indigenous people with a primary right to claim it's their land.

So any method to 'shift' these people or change who rules over them, beyond they themselves democratically deciding...is a no no.
 
Lilbaz said:
Only 25% were born in Britain. 40% were born on the islands. 35% were born elsewhere.
The last vote had 99.8% wanting to remain British.

Whatever you think about the British government it's much more stable and has a better rule of law than Argentina.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that we did put people there, those people have had children, all perfectly reasonable.

Populating an area, then standing behind a vote by that population has some caveats.
 
Baleforce said:
Yes, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that we did put people there, those people have had children, all perfectly reasonable.

Populating an area, then standing behind a vote by that population has some caveats.
Click to expand...
There is very few areas that weren't at one stage uninhabited by man, first people to successfully settle there become the indigenous.
 
revlis said:
Just another dingdong measuring contest. Why does the average person give a brick about this or any island in dispute? The same to be said of Japan and Korea. Jingoism at its worst.
Click to expand...
Because a Military Junta invaded in the 80s and were thrown out by force. The population of the islands have had their say. The Argies govts since use the Falklands as a way to hide problems back home from the electorate, who as weve seen lap it up.
No suprise that the likes of @MartyFunkhouser thinks the Argies have a better claim.
 
Scoopage said:
Because a Military Junta invaded in the 80s and were thrown out by force. The population of the islands have had their say. The Argies govts since use the Falklands as a way to hide problems back home from the electorate, who as weve seen lap it up.
No suprise that the likes of @MartyFunkhouser thinks the Argies have a better claim.
Click to expand...

As I say, after the Revolution when Spain gave it up I think they had a much better claim than we did. That came WELL before the invasion in the 1980s. I have conceded that now its a much more complex situation and the status quo likely better, so maybe read the posts..........
 
Scoopage said:
Because a Military Junta invaded in the 80s and were thrown out by force. The population of the islands have had their say. The Argies govts since use the Falklands as a way to hide problems back home from the electorate, who as weve seen lap it up.
No suprise that the likes of @MartyFunkhouser thinks the Argies have a better claim.
Click to expand...

I've no opinion on the actual dispute. I just don't understand how it affects people day-to-day, and why it becomes part of your (not you specifically) identity to join the 'battle'. I say that for both sides; I think it's so embarrassingly small time to win a World Cup semi final and immediately raise a banner about it?? IMO it's the kind of thing that keeps humans forever stuck in conflict with each other.
 
revlis said:
I've no opinion on the actual dispute. I just don't understand how it affects people day-to-day, and why it becomes part of your identity to join the 'battle'. I say that for both sides; I think it's so embarrassingly small time to win a World Cup semi final and immediately raise a banner about it?? IMO it's the kind of thing that keeps humanity forever stuck in conflict with each other.
Click to expand...

I agree to a large extent, but I also think for people to do that it must be so culturally engrained in their life for them to even consider it.

My overall point isn't some kind of traitorous act against the UK, I just can see why on the opposite side Argentinians have the feeling they have about the war that they were massively impacted by regardless of wrongs and rights.
 
revlis said:
I've no opinion on the actual dispute. I just don't understand how it affects people day-to-day, and why it becomes part of your (not you specifically) identity to join the 'battle'. I say that for both sides; I think it's so embarrassingly small time to win a World Cup semi final and immediately raise a banner about it?? IMO it's the kind of thing that keeps humans forever stuck in conflict with each other.
Click to expand...

At least we got anyway without Norway having their banner about reclaiming Orkney and Shetland. They've apparently never lived down that game of cards where their king went all in and that lost them those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back