D_Relentless Original
Expert Member
If the UN said it, let's go by that. I know the USA government doesn't usually follow the UN but I wish it would.
Why's that Helgaleena?
Interesting thread btw..
If the UN said it, let's go by that. I know the USA government doesn't usually follow the UN but I wish it would.
Or a whole bunch of Europeans coming to America and been displacing the native Indians and then wanting to run the place!! Grow up!Kinda like the british dumping colonist into Ireland and having the colonies say "we want to be owned by britain" and then "britain is there because they want us to be!"
Here's one for you - The Chinese in San Fransisco suddenly all say that they want San Fransisco to be owned by China...does this mean we give San Fransisco to China? They're the majority assume.
oh yeah...and 3,000 people in the Falklands should definately decide the economic fate of 40 million in Argentina
There is a difference - the Falklands were uninhabited before hand, it is nothing like your crazy San Francisco Metaphor.
Why's that Helgaleena?
Interesting thread btw..
We haven't. That's just what they accuse us of.The only thing I see clearly is that Mr. Cameron should not accuse Argentina of being colonialist because:
1. it is shameless to be said by an Englishman, England being per definition the colonial power of the late couple of centuries
2. if the UK people believed this statement they would show a lack of intelligence and knowledge.
I agree. But I think the way Kirchner has handled this has made it impossible for the UK to go for a solution that would be favourable to Argentina. All it's done is ensure we have no choice but to increase military presence there, which is not something we particularly wanted to do.Unfortunately Argentina has created a national myth out of the Falklands. To Argentina it is a matter of national pride that these islands are somehow "theirs". I think the UK has to ignore the rhetoric and hope for a change of government.
I guess an outcome of the Argentinian sabre rattling is that it will put the Falklands top of the list for a solution.
Grrr! Bugger off. :wink: :biggrin1:France is the closest landmass to GB. And they once occupied it... hmmm
Honestly tho - the sabre-rattling just pisses everyone off, and ensures they make no progress whatsoever. :[
It is beyond sense. Argentina was set to benefit from the possible Falkland oil bonanza. They would have been supplying the Falklands, possibly refining oil, possibly the beneficiary of cheap oil.
Now we're looking at enhanced UK military presence in the Falklands (long term) plus potentially supplying the Falklands from the UK direct (both expensive). We're looking at oil being refined in the Falklands and being transported by ship long distance, quite possibly to North America. If the oil really is there then the costs can all be managed. After a war 30 years ago and the present tensions I don't think the UK is likely to trust Argentina - and the Falklands certainly don't.
David Cameron hasn't been milking this issue in the least.In fact,all he seems to have done is to respond to the inevitable rubbish pushed out by the Argentine president,which he has dealt with in a few sentences.Quite rightly he has abstained from making this an issue, on what is the 30th anniversary of the conflict,a time to remember the dead.It's amazing the lengths politicians on both sides will go to take the public focus off their governments economic failings.
It's amazing the lengths politicians on both sides will go to take the public focus off their governments economic failings.