# US won't accept Falklander's rights to self determination



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

For the 'freedom lovers' out there who won't accept others have the right to self determinatuion. They rant about Britain's 'colonialism' but on the hand won't support the Falkland Islands right to be independent. I assume they want the Islands handed over to the Argentinians so they can be an Argentianian colony. what price freedom eh? I hope they will support the Falkland Islanders when they take their guns and head of to fight the invading Argentinians again after all isn't it better to die than be held captive? when the Falkland Islanders go down fighting I do hope right minded Americans are pleased, it's the way to go, no?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c53_1361834995&comments=1


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 5, 2013)

Aye, a sad state of affairs laid open for all to see on the international politics playing field.  We couldn't get any help the last time the Argentinians got belligerent and that was during the Maggie and Ronnie 'love years' - what chance have we got of the American government lending a hand these days with an administration in power that does not care for us?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...britain-in-the-back-again-over-the-falklands/

Canada however gets it and supports the Islanders.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/30...obbying-from-companies-operating-in-argentina


----------



## K-man (Mar 5, 2013)

I can't see what this is all about. It is total BS. The Falkland Islanders have in the past expressed the wish to remain independent under the crown.  End of story.  The Argentinians have no more rights over the Falklands than Australia has over New Zealand. That is none, zero, zip or like. For the US to suggest that they are neutral and that Britain and Argentina need to work it out is crap. The Falklands have been British for nearly 200 years. The Spanish have a greater claim than the Argentinians and the Dutch would have a greater claim to Australia. 

Suck it in Princesses .. 'returning' tha Falklands to Argentina ain't gunna happen anytime soon!     <ends rant>

:asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2013)

I mean no offence but...

Speaking as one from the US...I have no idea what you are talking about...and I pay attention to the news...so, although I do not doubt this is going on and I do believe the Falklander's have the right to say who they want to be in charge in the Falklands.....it is a US government thing... I think.. actually I am not even sure about that.... and apparently not much of a news story here....actually I am actually much more concerned about the statement from the president about Iran and its nuclear weapons program as well as Benjamin Netanyahu most recent statement on the subject


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

No offence taken!

Your new Foreign Secretary has just visited us and has reiterated the American stand on the Falklands, he still wants the UK and the Argentine to 'talk' over it instead of allowing the Falkland Islanders to decide for themselves what they want.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21569993


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 5, 2013)

Pretty much exactly the point, Xue i.e. despite us raising it on here a few times, the people of the ally we have given support to time after time have no idea that anything naughty is happening in the South Atlantic ... again.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

Maybe they'll find oil there... wool just isn't as profitable.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Pretty much exactly the point, Xue i.e. despite us raising it on here a few times, the people of the ally we have given support to time after time have no idea that anything naughty is happening in the South Atlantic ... again.



And am I at fault for this...or is any other average US citizen?

Do you, the people of the ally we have given support to, have any idea that anything naughty is happening in the US or its protectorates?

I am not trying to argumentative here I am just trying to say that we are all pretty much dependent on the news for info and if they do not report it none of us know anything about it. And at times the news we all trust is a real good tool of propaganda.even in the US that guarantees the freedom of the press, although many here will tell me I am wrong, but sadly I am not. Also take into account most news companies today are more big business that news organizations and sponsors are much more important than actual news.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 5, 2013)

I made sure that I referenced the government as being where the 'fault' lies rather than the people, dear fellow.  After all, if you are not told, how can you know?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I made sure that I referenced the government rather than the people, dear fellow. After all, if you are not told, how can you know?



Now wait one cotton picken minute here....don't start using that British code language on me 

Please allow me reiterate...I am not trying to be argumentative and I should also like to add that I am not targeting or aiming at anyone poster here. I am merely trying to discuss, understand and be understood. Sorry if I have upset anyone.

 I shall kindly bow out before things go bad :asian:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

I try to keep up with world events but admit that I missed this one. 

That being said, you can not rely on mainstream media to report anything "newsworthy" and you must seek it out. Luckily, we live in an age where all the information in the world is right at your fingertips!


----------



## billc (Mar 5, 2013)

I do believe that some posters here on martialtalk did mention that this was going to happen because of our President's views of Britain...don't worry though, it will get worse long before 2016 comes along...imagine when kerry goes before the U.N. and denounces Islander and British claims...or tries to get sanctions against Britain...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

> Secretary Kerry: Our position on the Falklands has not changed. The United States recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands, but takes no position on the question of the parties sovereignty claims thereto. And we support cooperation between UK and Argentina on practical matters, and we continue to urge a peaceful resolution of that critical issue. And I think thats exactly what our position has been, thats what it remains, and we look forward to the future.


 
Typical political double-speak. We support the UK but we dont support the UK? 

Interesting how Obama, once the European darling, has fallen from grace. Just who are our friends these days anyway? 

Do we have any left?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

I think America could find themselves increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, the UK has the Commonwealth for support, a good part of the world is looking to China and India as having the 'new' money. Business corporations are finding China 'friendlier' than before.
 We also have the EU, we may squabble and argue with them but with them being on our doorstep and in many ways having more in common with them we could look to them more than we do the US if the US turns it's back on us.
I wouldn't say that Obama was so much Europe's 'darling' more than his predecessor was universally derided here as well as being considered dangerous, *anyone* succeeding Bush would be greeted gladly. I think Americans underestimate how disliked Bush was.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...happen-to-Tony-Blair-says-David-Miliband.html


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...britain-in-the-back-again-over-the-falklands/
> 
> Canada however gets it and supports the Islanders.
> http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/30...obbying-from-companies-operating-in-argentina



To be fair. Isn't Canada a colony of Brittain? 

I don't know our official policy, but I do know being neutral in international affairs is fine line to walk. Latin America has a lot disdain for us for a number of reasons. The US getting involved down there would likely add fuel to the fire.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 5, 2013)

We are an independent nation,  member of the Commonwealth


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> To be fair. Isn't Canada a colony of Brittain?
> 
> I don't know our official policy, but I do know being neutral in international affairs is fine line to walk. Latin America has a lot disdain for us for a number of reasons. The US getting involved down there would likely add fuel to the fire.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Good grief! Canada isn't a colony! We don't actually have any colonies any more.

It's not the being neutral that's a problem it's the refusing to accept the Falkland Islanders wishes for a referendum for independence that's causing concern here. The Americans have their independence so why so keen to ignore the Falklanders wishes? By ignoring the Islanders America isn't being neutral but accepting the Argentinian's idea that the Islanders should be left out of any discussions which clearly isn't going to happen. The wishes of the Islanders must be paramount, if America can't understand that then many feel America doesn't treasure their own independence enough to want to see others have theirs.


----------



## Carol (Mar 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Maybe they'll find oil there... wool just isn't as profitable.



Hint:  Argentine President Kirchner isn't anxious to reclaim the Falklands because of their sheep.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Typical political double-speak. We support the UK but we dont support the UK?
> 
> Interesting how Obama, once the European darling, has fallen from grace. Just who are our friends these days anyway?
> 
> Do we have any left?



I don't see that as double talk. I see it as as trying to hold a neutral position. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I don't see that as double talk. I see it as as trying to hold a neutral position.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



A neutral position would be welcomed, ignoring the Falkland Islanders is not being neutral.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I think America could find themselves increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, the UK has the Commonwealth for support, a good part of the world is looking to China and India as having the 'new' money. Business corporations are finding China 'friendlier' than before.
> [/URL]


you go ahead and bank on China.  I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america 




Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> We are an independent nation,  member of the Commonwealth



Technically:



> Canada has a parliamentary system within the context of a constitutional monarchy, the monarchy of Canada being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The sovereign is Queen Elizabeth II, who also serves as head of state of 15 other Commonwealth countries and each of Canada's ten provinces. As such, the Queen's representative, the Governor General of Canada (at present David Lloyd Johnston), carries out most of the federal royal duties in Canada
> 
> A *Commonwealth realm* is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms



Anyway... back on topic

This is very interesting... though I said it in jest earlier:



> In 1982, the Falkland Island Company owned 43% of the land on the islands and it had a monopoly on all imports and exports. The primary export was wool and sheepskins. At the time in the early 1980&#8217;s there was talk of oil reserves being found off the coast of the Falklands



http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/background_falkland_islands.htm

Ya know... guess I was right... 

http://www.desireplc.co.uk/pdfs/Desire_2011_CPR_Report.pdf


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> you go ahead and bank on China.  I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, those in the "know" have realized that China's reported GDP is about as real as unicorns and leprechauns. LOL


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> you go ahead and bank on China.  I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say anthing about us relying on China, I said a good part of the world is...Africa for a start. Whatever they are doing in China itself they are pouring money into a lot of other countries.

Canada can decide to be totally independant and have their own head of state anytime they want. They aren't forced to have the Queen as head of state, they chose to.


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm sorry, but if you are expecting US politicians to do anything that doesn't result in more money in their pockets, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Seems to me that US politicians are saying that they think they can get more from the Argentinian government than they can from the Falkland Islanders, so that's what they press for.

  Never forget that US politics these days is ONLY about money and power.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2013)

Other than recalling a thread some time ago, I wasn't aware there was anything current going on about the Faulklands.  Sorry to our Commonwealth friends.

But for a man like Kerry to say what he did, to be kind, is a new Secretary of State trying to be in line with the administration and not cause waves.  To be more honest, when you read



> *SECRETARY KERRY*: Well, let me be very clear about our position with respect to the Falklands, which I believe is clear. First of all, I&#8217;m not going to comment, nor is the President, on a referendum that has yet to take place and hasn&#8217;t taken place.
> 
> Our position on the Falklands has not changed. The United States recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands, but takes no position on the question of the parties&#8217; sovereignty claims thereto. And we support cooperation between UK and Argentina on practical matters, and we continue to urge a peaceful resolution of that critical issue. And I think that&#8217;s exactly what our position has been, that&#8217;s what it remains, and we look forward to the future.



That is classic double-talk and some gibberish liberally thrown in.  He tried, but I don't think it came out right.  What his and President Obama's reasons are I don't know.  President Obama isn't my favorite president anyway.  Truely Kerry didn't say anything really wrong, or that the government can't quickly change and clarify to mean something else.  But there are potential problems in South America.  Chavez is about to kick the bucket from all appearences.  His brother may not be able to hold on to power.  We may not want to antagonize Argentina right now.

But I doubt even Obama is going to disrespect the UK.  He may not fully support something publicly, but behind the scenes, he may have pointed out to the UK government why he is doing what he is doing.  At least I hope so.  And I hope it makes enough sense to the UK government, that they aren't going to raise a lot of sand about it.  But who knows if you don't walk in that rarified atmosphere?

BTW, someone mentioned the US didn't assist the UK before.  As I recall at the time, we did provide a lot of intel that greatly aided the UK forces, especially naval, to conduct their activities.  We didn't send ships but I don't know that the UK really expected or even desired that.  The UK had a beef with Argentina.  If the US had intervened militarily, the US, and maybe then the UK, would have had a beef with all of South America.

Anyway, this US citizen isn't too happy about Kerry's reply or apparent stance on the matter.  Whatever the realities of the regional political arena may be, and whether or not the UK government is upset, I just think it could have been handled better.  And I also understand that the UK has indeed been a friend of the US in most, if not all things in the last century.  I don't think we have done that badly towards the UK either.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief! Canada isn't a colony! We don't actually have any colonies any more.
> 
> It's not the being neutral that's a problem it's the refusing to accept the Falkland Islanders wishes for a referendum for independence that's causing concern here. The Americans have their independence so why so keen to ignore the Falklanders wishes? By ignoring the Islanders America isn't being neutral but accepting the Argentinian's idea that the Islanders should be left out of any discussions which clearly isn't going to happen. The wishes of the Islanders must be paramount, if America can't understand that then many feel America doesn't treasure their own independence enough to want to see others have theirs.


Our independence is different, we fought for ours. Independence is whats best for the people, which in this situation is your business not ours. We fought the Spanish to give Cuba its independence. They turned around and wanted us to leave which we did. (thats the short version) They could have had the same rights as Puerto Rico or Guam but instead they chose Communism. 

Americans in general are not choosing sides. For us its not so black and white.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say anthing about us relying on China, I said a good part of the world is...Africa for a start. Whatever they are doing in China itself they are pouring money into a lot of other countries.
> 
> Canada can decide to be totally independant and have their own head of state anytime they want. They aren't forced to have the Queen as head of state, they chose to.


We are totally independent. When's the last time the Queen interfered with our legislative process. She is our nominal head of state. With no real powers.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

Shold be the US' new national anthem: 




"Cash rules everything around me, CREAM, get tha' money!... dolla-dolla bill y'all!"


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief! Canada isn't a colony! We don't actually have any colonies any more.
> 
> It's not the being neutral that's a problem it's the refusing to accept the Falkland Islanders wishes for a referendum for independence that's causing concern here. The Americans have their independence so why so keen to ignore the Falklanders wishes? By ignoring the Islanders America isn't being neutral but accepting the Argentinian's idea that the Islanders should be left out of any discussions which clearly isn't going to happen. The wishes of the Islanders must be paramount, if America can't understand that then many feel America doesn't treasure their own independence enough to want to see others have theirs.


Your commonwealth is voluntary but it is still much larger than our small number of 9 territories. 
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfs...=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000

versus your 123 commonwealths.
http://www.cdncovers.com/BC.html

You have your hands in many affairs but we get bitched at for sticking our noses all over the world. Then we get bitched at when we dont.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 5, 2013)

So why do the islanders or the UK need the US permission anyway.  Why do you care what we say?  You can take the args with no problem without our help of it came to war so what's the problem.  You cry we get to involved in thing then when we don't you cry were not helping.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Your commonwealth is voluntary but it is still much larger than our small number of 9 territories.
> http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfs...=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000
> 
> versus your 123 commonwealths.
> ...



You honestly think all those countries are ours? Really you need to look them us, it's The Commonwealth not the British Commonwealth, many of member countries don't have the Queen as head of state such as Pakistan. Some countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda have never had anything to do with the UK.

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/the_commonwealth/



the thing with the Falklands is that you aren't being neutral you are sticking your nose in with your support for Argentina.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...slaps-britain-in-the-face-over-the-falklands/

"Hillary Clinton&#8217;s statements at this press conference are highly significant, *as they demonstrate a clear shift in US policy from **neutrality (last week&#8217;s *position) *towards siding with the Argentine position *of pressing for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations.
The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain"

Why do we care? because if it comes to war and America takes Argentina's side, arms them and supports them what do you think will happen?


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 5, 2013)

What do I think will happen?  If you go to war with arg.  Wewill stay nnatural in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What do I think will happen? If you go to war with arg. Wewill stay *nnatura*l in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.



I'm not sure I want to see you au natural........

Sell us arms you mean and to the Argentinians?


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure I want to see you au natural........


But I'm pretty


> Sell us arms you mean and to the Argentinians?


No that would be to obvious.  We will pay one of their buddy's to buy Chinese arms for them.  Back door style.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What do I think will happen?  If you go to war with arg.  Wewill stay nnatural in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.


Argintina isn't our enemy.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Argintina isn't our enemy.




No one said they were.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

Yeah... I know... I'm genuine **** sometimes. But, it makes me laugh.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> No one said they were.


Post #34 "but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy." 

Which implied Argentina was the enemy.  

But that was not your post.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Post #34 "but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy."
> 
> Which implied Argentina was the enemy.
> 
> But that was not your post.



I read it as meaning America would supply us and *our *enemy not America's.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 5, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Argintina isn't our enemy.



If they go to war with the UK they are our enemy in my book.  No other country has stood by the US more then the UK.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I read it as meaning America would supply us and *our *enemy not America's.



Yes that's how I ment it but see my above post in my opinion a war with the UK they should become the US enemy as well but that won't happen


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> No offence taken!
> 
> Your new Foreign Secretary has just visited us and has reiterated the American stand on the Falklands, he still wants the UK and the Argentine to 'talk' over it instead of allowing the Falkland Islanders to decide for themselves what they want.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21569993


Please don't judge us based on that ***, that he lost in 2004 ought to tell you what the majority think of him.
We just don't have a dog in this fight. Given how many fights we have dogs in, and how much sh t we take for everydamnthing we do, give us a break will you?


----------



## Carol (Mar 5, 2013)

The UK repeatedly stood with us and our troops when they didn't have a dog in the fight.   Not the time to give the cold shoulder to our closest ally, IMO. 

The Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Kerry to get him out of his lifelong seat.  They got what they wanted, unfortunately the price is him as our Secretary of State for the next 4 years.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

Republicans voted for Kerry because elected republicans lack the testicular fortitude to actually fight.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 6, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, a sad state of affairs laid open for all to see on the international politics playing field.  We couldn't get any help the last time the Argentinians got belligerent and that was during the Maggie and Ronnie 'love years' - what chance have we got of the American government lending a hand these days with an administration in power that does not care for us?



I wouldn't say it's a case of not caring--I'd say it's a case of seeing things very differently in this case. It's the sentiment of the Monroe Doctrine, in part--the U.K. is doing it _here_, where we had to break free from them. It just feels different. But it also comes off as simple colonialism.


----------



## Carol (Mar 6, 2013)

But the UK isn't doing it _here_.  Nowhere close.  Its well over 10,000 kilometers between NYC and the Faulklands -- roughly double the distance between NYC and London.


----------



## K-man (Mar 6, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I wouldn't say it's a case of not caring--I'd say it's a case of seeing things very differently in this case. It's the sentiment of the Monroe Doctrine, in part--the U.K. is doing it _here_, where we had to break free from them. It just feels different. But it also comes off as simple colonialism.


Not sure that this is totally accurate. I was not familiar with this doctrine so went searching.

From Wiki ...



> The Monroe Doctrine was a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. *The Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.* The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved independence from the Spanish Empire (except Cuba and Puerto Rico) and the Portuguese Empire. The United States, *working in agreement with Britain,* wanted to guarantee no European power would move in.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine



It seems Britain actually provided naval support for this policy.

Where the problem seems to originate ....



> 1790: Nootka Convention. Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas. Whether or not the islands were included is disputed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands



So what was the Nootka Convention?



> The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. *The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention



There it is, clear as mud.     :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Please don't judge us based on that ***, that he lost in 2004 ought to tell you what the majority think of him.
> We just don't have a dog in this fight. Given how many fights we have dogs in, and how much sh t we take for everydamnthing we do, give us a break will you?



The trouble is you do seem to have a dog in the fight, it's Argentina. Neutral is fine and it's understandable. It's not support for the UK we'd like it's acceptance that the Falkland Islanders have the right to decide their own future just as you did. If you put the chances of Argentina sharing oil and resources with you if they get the Falklands before the rights of the people who actually live in the Islands, it would be not only tremendously unfair it would be a travesty. It's the rights of the Islanders that we want your Foreign Secretary to respect, not the UK but the Islanders.


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> The trouble is you do seem to have a dog in the fight, it's Argentina. Neutral is fine and it's understandable. It's not support for the UK we'd like it's acceptance that the Falkland Islanders have the right to decide their own future just as you did. If you put the chances of Argentina sharing oil and resources with you if they get the Falklands before the rights of the people who actually live in the Islands, it would be not only tremendously unfair it would be a travesty. It's the rights of the Islanders that we want your Foreign Secretary to respect, not the UK but the Islanders.



  You keep acting as if these are real people you're talking about. These are politicians. If the Argentine government has told them that their companies will get preferential treatment regarding oil drilling and exploration (which seems likely in my opinion, given our government's response) then they'll push for it because it puts money and power in their pockets. Also, as secretary of state, Kerry says what the administration tells him to say. He doesn't get to make his own decisions. Fairness and respect have absolutely nothing to do with politics.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> You keep acting as if these are real people you're talking about. These are politicians. If the Argentine government has told them that their companies will get preferential treatment regarding oil drilling and exploration (which seems likely in my opinion, given our government's response) then they'll push for it because it puts money and power in their pockets. Also, as secretary of state, Kerry says what the administration tells him to say. He doesn't get to make his own decisions. Fairness and respect have absolutely nothing to do with politics.



Maybe, but you the Americans put these politicians in power, they didn't turn up out of the blue and start ruling things.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez, let me put it bluntly.

Of course our government doesn't accept the will of the Falklanders. It doesn't accept OUR will, why would someone elses will matter?
Unless you're a lobbyist, in which case they will be happy to dance to your funding.

The US Government, the best money can buy.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Maybe, but you the Americans put these politicians in power, they didn't turn up out of the blue and start ruling things.



I think  your posts "overall"  don't reflect Americans in a very bright light.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I think your posts "overall" don't reflect Americans in a very bright light.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Not sure how you work that out, Americans are posting some quite nasty stuff about their fellows. You posted up as if the politicians were nothing to do with you so I pointed out, rightly you know, that you elected them, well, you did!

I'm actually surprised and a little appalled by the thoughts of some American posters on their fellow countrymen here, I think you need to be looking at them rather than me, I'm always willing to think the best of people.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Not sure how you work that out, Americans are posting some quite nasty stuff about their fellows. You posted up as if the politicians were nothing to do with you so I pointed out, rightly you know, that you elected them, well, you did!
> 
> I'm actually surprised and a little appalled by the thoughts of some American posters on their fellow countrymen here, I think you need to be looking at them rather than me, I'm always willing to think the best of people.



I'm not trying to be mean. If you think that. Please forgive me.  I wasn't talking only about this thread. I was referring that you talk about us quite often.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I'm not trying to be mean. If you think that. Please forgive me.  I wasn't talking only about this thread. I was referring that you talk about us quite often.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



It's a bit hard not to talk about you considering some of the subjects we cover on here! Nothing I've ever said is as bad as some of things you have said about yourselves. In return I've had some quite shall we say 'interesting' comments about the UK to contend with, one sticks in mind particularly where we were accused of killing premature babies. We've had our gun laws, our health service, our police and our service people ripped to pieces on here. I've been personally attacked so I'm actually quite polite. I'd look to the views of America that are presented by Americans on here, after if a foreigner slags your country off you can shrug it off but when it's citizens do it well, that's serious.


 to contend with, one sticks in mind particularly where we were accused of killing premature babies


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> The trouble is you do seem to have a dog in the fight, it's Argentina. Neutral is fine and it's understandable. It's not support for the UK we'd like it's acceptance that the Falkland Islanders have the right to decide their own future just as you did. If you put the chances of Argentina sharing oil and resources with you if they get the Falklands before the rights of the people who actually live in the Islands, it would be not only tremendously unfair it would be a travesty. It's the rights of the Islanders that we want your Foreign Secretary to respect, not the UK but the Islanders.



How is the US stopping the islanders from being independent?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Not sure how you work that out, Americans are posting some quite nasty stuff about their fellows. You posted up as if the politicians were nothing to do with you so I pointed out, rightly you know, that you elected them, well, you did!
> 
> I'm actually surprised and a little appalled by the thoughts of some American posters on their fellow countrymen here, I think you need to be looking at them rather than me, I'm always willing to think the best of people.



ever hear of or understand the electoral college?

And add to that in the last presidential election only 58% of we the American's voted... and not all of those voted for the same guy

We have an alleged multi-party system...any one can be president.... well that is if you can live up to the rules the Republican and Democrats came up with after Perot&#8230; he scared the hell out of them&#8230;he may be a bit crazy&#8230;but he scared them real good.... so they changed the rules to make it incredibly hard for another party to get close to the white house.

As for all other political offices, it is easier to get into office for another party but the majority are still republicans and democrats. After that the whole thing gets rather complicated and somewhat unbelievable for people who live here and next to impossible for those who don&#8217;t to believe. I work to close to these guys, I&#8217;d love to change that, but I can&#8217;t just yet&#8230;.but suffice to say the reality is&#8230;it is not likely what you have been taught in another country since the reality is that it is not what we who live here have been taught either. There is a post I did a while back about telling people what they voted for&#8230;. You may want to find it and read it&#8230;or you may not care at all&#8230;. 

And that when it comes down to voting you end up voting for the lesser of two evils...or at least you hope you are.

Additionally there is a joke, which is rather true: How do you know when a politician is lying? He's talking.

Beyond that all you need to know is what Plato said....Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber

And now you just starting to understand the American political system

You want to blame all American's for this...go for it...you're wrong.... but you appear to be ok with that so...have at us... one more person blaming us for all the problems in the world won't make much difference...lord knows no one is ever responsible for their own actions or history as long as the USA is around to blame


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How is the US stopping the islanders from being independent?



They aren't...yet but how will they vote in the UN when the Islanders wish for independence is put to the vote?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> They aren't...yet but how will they vote in the UN when the Islanders wish for independence is put to the vote?



Sadly, since most Americans do not know much or care much about the UN..... it is likely they have no idea what-so-ever..as to how Susan Rice will vote...I am guessing she will vote however Washington tells her to vote..... and for the record... she was not elected by the "Americans"


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> ever hear of or understand the electoral college?
> 
> And add to that in the last presidential election only 58% of we the American's voted... and not all of those voted for the same guy
> 
> ...




Good grief. I had one post saying that it wasn't Americans it was their politicians who were to blame. I said well you vote in the politicians...which is true..... and I get this?

All we are asking is that America doesn't side with Argentina over the Falkland Islands wishes. It will matter when it comes up in the UN and there is a vote on their indpendence. Is that much to ask?

We aren't blaming Americans we are asking that they don't turn their backs on a very little country that wants what America has...freedom. Not much to ask is it? You could all lobby whoever you lobby, you could put in on the social media, you could write a letter to the President ( I know he won't see it but if you write enough he'll find out), it might just work, won't know till you try. Just for a small country with inoffensive people who just want to carry on with their way of life. 
Governments will do U Turns in policy if the people make them

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/governments-32-u-turns-in-two-years-853386

We have forced a few more since, there's another big campaign coming up about the spare bedroom tax, watch that will be overturned too.

This was one of the best against old Maggie. She ended up resigning. Give you any ideas about your leader?
http://libcom.org/history/1989-1990-opposition-poll-tax


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief. I had one post saying that it wasn't Americans it was their politicians who were to blame. I said well you vote in the politicians...which is true..... and I get this?
> 
> All we are asking is that America doesn't side with Argentina over the Falkland Islands wishes. It will matter when it comes up in the UN and there is a vote on their indpendence. Is that much to ask?
> 
> ...



And then, as you just said, you also stated that you the Americans put these politicians in power, they didn't turn up out of the blue and start ruling things.

So basically you are giving the impression that it is the politicians fault but since American put them thereAmericans are culpable.

I said our system is likely not what you were taught it was, since it is not what we were taught it was. 

We Americans do not have as much say in what our government does as you think we do.

Great example, protests are allowed outside of a certain state capital but in order to have a legal protest you have to get permission from the city that capital is in. and then the city informs the capital and all the politicians in it are not there on the day of the protest, so they do not hear anything at all. 

Basically, once in office, the average American does not matter to the average politician one bit beyond their vote which they lied to get.

Add to that our news is not as concerned with the news as you may think so not many here know anything about the Falkland islands and many other simply dont care and have to many other things on their mind that they feel are by far more important.

Frankly I hope the Falkland Islands get what they want, but then not all placed get what they want as far as independence goes, and the history of the British Empire can show you that as well as the history of many other countries, including the USA (see the history of the American Indians)


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief. I had one post saying that it wasn't Americans it was their politicians who were to blame. I said well you vote in the politicians...which is true..... and I get this?
> 
> All we are asking is that America doesn't side with Argentina over the Falkland Islands wishes. It will matter when it comes up in the UN and there is a vote on their indpendence. Is that much to ask?
> 
> ...


Why would Americans contact our politicians when 90% of Americans couldn't even tell you where the island is and even less care one way or the other about the island.  Its not a big deal to us.  It is to you but quite frankly I dont care if its independent or a UK colony or the next Arg. State.   The only way we should be involved is if your country goes to war and you ask our help as an ally.  I believe we are obligated to assist your country but I also don't think you would really need help to demolish the Arg military.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Why would Americans contact our politicians when 90% of Americans couldn't even tell you where the island is and even less care one way or the other about the island. Its not a big deal to us. It is to you but quite frankly I dont care if its independent or a UK colony or the next Arg. State. The only way we should be involved is if your country goes to war and you ask our help as an ally. I believe we are obligated to assist your country but I also don't think you would really need help to demolish the Arg military.



You should care because when your troops march into Syria you will want our support, when your troops march into Iran you will want our support, when you have no friends left in the world, we will still be there for you.......


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> It's a bit hard not to talk about you considering some of the subjects we cover on here! Nothing I've ever said is as bad as some of things you have said about yourselves. In return I've had some quite shall we say 'interesting' comments about the UK to contend with, one sticks in mind particularly where we were accused of killing premature babies. We've had our gun laws, our health service, our police and our service people ripped to pieces on here. I've been personally attacked so I'm actually quite polite. I'd look to the views of America that are presented by Americans on here, after if a foreigner slags your country off you can shrug it off but when it's citizens do it well, that's serious.
> 
> 
> to contend with, one sticks in mind particularly where we were accused of killing premature babies



I make it a point to if at possible to point out individuals of a country rather than the country our it's countrymen. Not always possible though. 

With that said, the "majority" of America is either Republican or Democrat, the rest are a smaller percentage of people who either vote independately both ways or are 3rd party. 

So as far as the talk about the UK. Going back to the "majority." Half of them talk out of their ***. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> You should care because when your troops march into Syria you will want our support, when your troops march into Iran you will want our support, when you have no friends left in the world, we will still be there for you.......



That's why I said if you ask we should respond.  But to be pissed that the american people will not stand up for the island is silly its not our fight and like I said most people won't even know where the island is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> You should care because when your troops march into Syria you will want our support, when your troops march into Iran you will want our support, when you have no friends left in the world, we will still be there for you.......



I don't even want our troops in Syria or Iran or anywhere else for that matter. Frankly I'm just fine with fortress USA and let the rest of you figure it out (I would not have used the second-person personal pronoun &#8216;you&#8217; in this but since you seem rather fond of it so I thought I should too). But sadly that will not happen, too much of a global economy&#8230; the only thing I look forward to now is that when China becomes the #1 economic power house and the Euro is the default currency then everyone can complain about China and the EU and leave us out of it.

Maybe then we can focus on the USA and its economy and get back to the strong, fairly self-sufficient economy we once were and let everyone else figure ou what a headache bieng #1 is.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That's why I said if you ask we should respond. But to be pissed that the american people will not stand up for the island is silly its not our fight and like I said most people won't even know where the island is.




Heavens I'm not pissed, I thought we were having a discussion! If I haven't called anyone 'son', sunshine, or my dear boy' and haven't lapsed into French I certainly am not pissed in either sense of the word (we use pissed usually to indicate drunkeness ie as nissed as a pewt) I also thought I was just talking to the posters on here not America! Every time the Falklands issue comes up _as posted by an American _we get slammed with the colony stuff, doesn't matter how many times we say it's not a colony so I thought I'd post up first on your government's stand on the Falklands because it seems unfair that a country that fought for it's independence would deny another country it's.


----------



## Unreal Combat (Mar 6, 2013)

K-man said:


> I can't see what this is all about.



Oil.

It's the only reason anyone is even remotely interested in the Falklands.


----------



## K-man (Mar 6, 2013)

Unreal Combat said:


> ( _Originally Posted by K-man         __"I can't see what this is all about."  )_
> 
> Oil.
> 
> It's the only reason anyone is even remotely interested in the Falklands.


i'm sorry, it's my fault. I'm Australian.  

Before you read my posts it is a prerequisite that you read *Tez*'s post on understanding English.    When I write "I can't see what this is all about", you need to look at 'underlying' meaning.        <wink, wink, nudge, nudge. .. know what I mean?>

:asian:


----------



## Unreal Combat (Mar 6, 2013)

It's still true though. 

I've been there several times with the army and believe me there is nothing special there at all (apart from penguins, memorials, and landmine signs). The weather is horrible. It's cold most of the year round, constant snow storms and dramatic weather changes, and there's around 30-40,000 unexploded landmines still on the island. Throw in the constantly moving marshland, if you go off track, you risk having your legs shredded to bits if not worse.  

Argentina don't want it for anything else other than oil, I believe Americas only interest is the oil reserves too. Us having Mount Pleasant RAF base there certainly doesn't help matters either.


----------



## K-man (Mar 6, 2013)

Unreal Combat said:


> It's still true though.
> 
> I've been there several times with the army and believe me there is nothing special there at all (apart from penguins, memorials, and landmine signs). The weather is horrible. It's cold most of the year round, constant snow storms and dramatic weather changes, and there's around 30-40,000 unexploded landmines still on the island. Throw in the constantly moving marshland, if you go off track, you risk having your legs shredded to bits if not worse.
> 
> Argentina don't want it for anything else other than oil, I believe Americas only interest is the oil reserves too. Us having Mount Pleasant RAF base there certainly doesn't help matters either.


You are right about the oil but why is the base there.  The Argies can thank themselves for that.  Last time they invaded there was nothing to stop them and it took a week or more for the UK to respond.  The next time is likely to be much different.    :asian:


----------



## Unreal Combat (Mar 6, 2013)

K-man said:


> You are right about the oil but why is the base there.



Our government would have you believe it's to protect the islanders from invasion. Their real motivation, under the surface, would be to protect the oil reserves. We used to do "exercises" around the island, patrolling in anticipation of an attack. We also used to do alot of proof firing of artillery guns out there aswell. The sort of stuff that's more "show of force" material. The government wouldn't do this for a small handful of islanders in the middle of nowhere if they didn't have some form of investment to protect. Not with the amount of money that goes into defence.

The Argentinians certainly can blame themselves for us militarising the island, but I think there is more to that purpose than a few habitants of the island. The cost outweighs the purpose.


----------



## Steve (Mar 6, 2013)

K-man said:


> <wink, wink, nudge, nudge. .. know what I mean?>
> 
> :asian:


Wink's as good as a nudge to a blind man.  Know what I mean?

As for the rest, I'm with ballen.  America has its own problems.  This one is your problem... until you choose to ask us for specific aid.   If, and when, you ask for aid, we will find out what America's REAL position on the subject is.  I suspect we would help you, given our history of mutual aid upon request.

The rest is just a cheap opportunity to crap on America... an easy target, I guess, and one that Tez never fails to hit should the opportunity arise.


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> You should care because when your troops march into Syria you will want our support, when your troops march into Iran you will want our support, when you have no friends left in the world, we will still be there for you.......



I do appreciate the sentiment, truly I do. However, *you* won't be there for *me*. Your country's military will be there to support my country's military, and they'll all be there against *my* wishes because sending troops to Syria or Iran would be just as stupid as sending troops to Iraq was. A horrible waste of money and lives, with the purpose behind it being an increase in wealth and power for certain politicians. (both yours and ours). 

There was absolutely no sane reason for our being there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Heavens I'm not pissed, I thought we were having a discussion! If I haven't called anyone 'son', sunshine, or my dear boy' and haven't lapsed into French I certainly am not pissed in either sense of the word (we use pissed usually to indicate drunkeness ie as nissed as a pewt) I also thought I was just talking to the posters on here not America! Every time the Falklands issue comes up _as posted by an American _we get slammed with the colony stuff, doesn't matter how many times we say it's not a colony so I thought I'd post up first on your government's stand on the Falklands because it seems unfair that a country that fought for it's independence would deny another country it's.


Pissed might have been the wrong word but you do seem to place a lot of blame on the American Govt when we haven't done anything yet.  Then to say the American people should be writing our govt officials saying support the  Falklands independence when none of us care about them is wishful thinking.  And as to colonies of the UK its none of my business who or how many you have I don't care and I wouldn't attack you for it.  Its your country your money your military who are we to tell you what to do.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 6, 2013)

Hmm ... is this really wise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21684105

And another perspective:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21621691


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Hmm ... is this really wise?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21684105
> 
> ...


Looks like the UK might be going into Syria before the US.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Pissed might have been the wrong word but you do seem to place a lot of blame on the American Govt when we haven't done anything yet. Then to say the American people should be writing our govt officials saying support the Falklands independence when none of us care about them is wishful thinking. And as to colonies of the UK its none of my business who or how many you have I don't care and I wouldn't attack you for it. Its your country your money your military who are we to tell you what to do.



It's not a colony, at least please get that right! It's a self determining country all of it's own, it's no more a colony of ours than America is. My point was in case you missed it the first time is that those who post on here and yes it was aimed at the specific posters who keep saying the UK should get rid of it's colonies, that here's somewhere that wants total independence so where are those posters now who were whining at the UK? why aren't those posters saying, this is good, this is what the world needs instead of well look America is planning to help the Argentinians because they've been promised a big slice of the pie if they do. Why when we get attacked because you think we 'own' the Falklands is that ok but we can't defend the Islanders choices? Oh yes I understand this is an American site and you will take offence at anything you think is remotely a criticism, even when it's not, of America but it's fine to post up endless articles about how bad our gun laws are, how we kill babies and how we are so so violent without guns.  I guess cheaper fuel is worth for you is worth being the Islanders being dragged off their Islands. No it's not aimed at America or Americans but those posters who think we own the Falklands, yeah you know who you are.


PG Smith, the chances are I will be *there* wherever there's the military, so yeah it was a bit more than just rhetoric.


----------



## K-man (Mar 7, 2013)

Steve said:


> Wink's as good as a nudge to a blind man.  Know what I mean?
> 
> As for the rest, I'm with ballen.  America has its own problems.  *This one is your problem... until you choose to ask us for specific aid.   If, and when, you ask for aid, we will find out what America's REAL position on the subject is.  I suspect we would help you, given our history of mutual aid upon request.*


Steve ... How could you? We both joined in 2008, between us we have put up about 9,000 posts (you many more than me  ). I don't think we have any major differences of opinion. Now you say the Falklands are *MY* problem.  I'll let you in to a secret.  I'll stick up for my Pommy mates against just about anyone, but .... if anyone calls me a f¥{#|% Pom    ......  I'll go berserk!  :tantrum:    You have just produced possibly the worst insult an Aussie could face. To be called a Pom! I'm gob smacked! I really feel I should neg rep you!  In fact, I know it's against forum rules but, I'll just settle for a duel. Pistols at 20 paces at dawn, by the lake. *BE THERE!!  *  :flammad:

:armed:


----------



## arnisador (Mar 7, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> It's not a colony, at least please get that right! It's a self determining country all of it's own



Oh please.




> those posters who think we own the Falklands, yeah you know who you are.



Me, for example. Cloak it how you want--but that's the story here.


----------



## Unreal Combat (Mar 7, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> It's not a colony, at least please get that right! It's a self determining country all of it's own.



Officially, currently, via the EU it is a British Overseas Territory. The original term of which was Crown Colony.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 7, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> It's not a colony, at least please get that right! It's a self determining country all of it's own, it's no more a colony of ours than America is.



I didn't say it was a colony I said I wouldn't care if you had 100 colonies its none of our business.  Your a sovereign nation and are free to do as you please and have or not have as many colonies as you wish in my opinion.


> My point was in case you missed it the first time is that those who post on here and yes it was aimed at the specific posters who keep saying the UK should get rid of it's colonies, that here's somewhere that wants total independence so where are those posters now who were whining at the UK? why aren't those posters saying, this is good, this is what the world needs instead of well look America is planning to help the Argentinians because they've been promised a big slice of the pie if they do.



Who said we should side with Arg? I said we need to butt out unless the UK asks for help. Which you shouldn't need help to fight the Arg army.



> Why when we get attacked because you think we 'own' the Falklands is that ok but we can't defend the Islanders choices?



I have not seen anyone say you can't defend them


> Oh yes I understand this is an American site and you will take offence at anything you think is remotely a criticism, even when it's not, of America but it's fine to post up endless articles about how bad our gun laws are, how we kill babies and how we are so so violent without guns.


All of which has nothing to do with this topic 



> I guess cheaper fuel is worth for you is worth being the Islanders being dragged off their Islands. No it's not aimed at America or Americans but those posters who think we own the Falklands, yeah you know who you are.


Who said you own the Falklands and who cares if you do or don't?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 7, 2013)

Gently, my friends, gently.  

The site exists for discourse and that can sometimes, by it's very nature, get heated; but things flow much better if we keep our cool and debate the matters in question rather than get terse with each other.


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2013)

K-man said:


> Steve ... How could you? We both joined in 2008, between us we have put up about 9,000 posts (you many more than me  ). I don't think we have any major differences of opinion. Now you say the Falklands are *MY* problem.  I'll let you in to a secret.  I'll stick up for my Pommy mates against just about anyone, but .... if anyone calls me a f¥{#|%&#8364; Pom    ......  I'll go berserk!  :tantrum:    You have just produced possibly the worst insult an Aussie could face. To be called a Pom! I'm gob smacked! I really feel I should neg rep you!  In fact, I know it's against forum rules but, I'll just settle for a duel. Pistols at 20 paces at dawn, by the lake. *BE THERE!!  *  :flammad:
> 
> :armed:


Well, then.  This could be fun.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 7, 2013)

How a Falkander sees matters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21695398


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 7, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> How a Falkander sees matters:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21695398


So they are not voting for independence they are voting to stay British.


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> How a Falkander sees matters:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21695398


So, if they consider themselves to be British (as is said many times in the article) ... but they're not a colony... I'm confused. Please help.  

I don't think that people in the Northern Mariana Islands or Puerto Rico consider themselves to be "American."  Nor do I think that citizens of the various territories of the USA, including American Samoa or Guam, consider themselves to be "American."  So, from my American perspective, that the Falklanders would refer to themselves as "British" suggests a much closer bond than is indicated in this thread.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 7, 2013)

It is perhaps a little convoluted a concept to wrap your head around if you haven't grown up in post-imperial Britain viz that a country can be both independent and an Overseas Territory and yet consider themselves British all at the same time.  The distinctions come from a divergence between what a countries people feel and how the legal definitions of the countries status read.  It's a little bit like the fact that I am both English and British simultaneously.

I've lifted this more or less wholesale from Wikipedia but it gels with what I understand the case to be:

The British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 (1983 c. 6) was an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 28 March 1983.  The purpose of the Act was to grant British citizenship to residents of the Falkland Islands, a British Dependent Territory in the South Atlantic.


Under the British Nationality Act 1981, a resident of the Falkland Islands was classed as a British Dependent Territories citizen unless he or she also had a connection with the United Kingdom (UK) itself (such as through having a UK-born parent or grandparent).  British Dependent Territories citizens were restricted in their right to enter and stay in the UK.  The new Act conferred full British citizenship on the residents of the Falkland Islands, giving them similar status to that of citizens in Gibraltar.  The 1983 Act had retrospective effect from 1 January 1983, the date on which the 1981 Act had come into effect.


The 1983 Act was passed mainly in response to the Falklands War, which was fought between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the sovereignty of the islands.  The United Kingdom maintained that it would stand by the principle of self-determination by clearing the way for the Falkland Islanders to decide their own status.  It had been argued that the British Nationality Act 1981 had indicated British reluctance to hold the islands, as the residents were not legally full British citizens.  So, after the war ended in victory for the British, the 1983 Act was passed to clarify the United Kingdom's commitment to the islands.


The Act has been superseded by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which granted full British citizenship to all British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands.

If people are interested enough to do it, here is a link that that Act for your reading pleasure :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/8/contents


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 7, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> It's not a colony, at least please get that right! It's a self determining country all of it's own, it's no more a colony of ours than America is.



That is stretching it. The Fauklands are a UK commonwealth and UK dependant. We are not. 



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> It is perhaps a little convoluted a concept to wrap your head around if you haven't grown up in post-imperial Britain viz that a country can be both independent and an Overseas Territory and yet consider themselves British all at the same time.


Thanks very much for the detailed response, Suk. 

So, in the context of this thread, can you and other members from the UK begin to understand how the average American can be forgiven for not seeing this as an "independence" issue, as we are accused of being in the initial thread? The point of this thread was to somehow chastise America for failing to support the UK position in this situation.  I think that the American position is very reasonable, particularly considering the context that has been brought to light in this thread.  

Tez started the thread as a finger wag toward America, and my belief is that it's more a testament of personal bias than of any actual, objective wrong-doing on the part of the USA (either our politicians OR our citizenry, in this case)


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> That is stretching it. The Fauklands are a UK commonwealth and UK dependant. We are not.


Exactly.  The closest equivalence in the USA would be Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, our only two commonwealth states, with Puerto Rico being much more closely linked than NMI.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 7, 2013)

You are welcome, Steve.

I do think that the position taken by the American governments foreign policy machine is not one that I would have hoped to see but it is one that I expected to see.  

It would be nice for America to lend her influence as the presently pre-eminent First World nation to encourage Argentina to 'behave' before things threaten to come to a military head but, despite all the joint efforts over the decades where we have lent credibility to some rather shaky endeavours, I can understand why she doesn't chose to press things in our favour right now.  As with the Suez Crisis, America PLC has it's own interests to serve and global _real politik_ is a game that takes no prisoners and where debts and favours are soon set to one side in such circumstances.


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> You are welcome, Steve.
> 
> I do think that the position taken by the American governments foreign policy machine is not one that I would have hoped to see but it is one that I expected to see.
> 
> It would be nice for America to lend her influence as the presently pre-eminent First World nation to encourage Argentina to 'behave' before things threaten to come to a military head but, despite all the joint efforts over the decades where we have lent credibility to some rather shaky endeavours, I can understand why she does chose to press things in our favour right now.  As with the Suez Crisis, America PLC has it's own interests to serve and global _real politik_ is a game that takes no prisoners and where debts and favours are soon set to one side in such circumstances.


As has been stated by others in this thread, there is no reason to believe that the US will fail to support our ally should push come to shove.  I think that if it comes down to it, and the UK asks for help, we will help.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 7, 2013)

Quite so and I do think that there would be some annoyed friends here at MT if it came to a military confrontation and America didn't help at least a little (intelligence is a valuable commodity in war and I should have given that more weight in an earlier post).

What I would prefer is a little political pressure now to avoid shooting later but I do understand why the States is walking a 'neutral' line - it's not her fault that Argentina's leadership will possibly take that as a sign they can go further with their sabre rattling.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 7, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Quite so and I do think that there would be some annoyed friends here at MT if it came to a military confrontation and America didn't help at least a little (intelligence is a valuable commodity in war and I should have given that more weight in an earlier post).
> 
> What I would prefer is a little political pressure now to avoid shooting later but I do understand why the States is walking a 'neutral' line - it's not her fault that Argentina's leadership will possibly take that as a sign they can go further with their sabre rattling.



My question is has the UK even asked for our opinion?  Or for the US to try and influence the situation?  I don't know since this does not even make a blip on the news here.


----------



## pgsmith (Mar 7, 2013)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> PG Smith, the chances are I will be *there* wherever there's the military, so yeah it was a bit more than just rhetoric.


Sorry Tez, didn't mean it to be personal. That's one of the reasons that I got out of the military. The uses to which it was being put no longer lined up with what we were being told we were about. It's also part of why the U.S. employs so many mercenaries, because the military would balk at what was asked of it.

  Hope you don't have to end up pulling an Iraq in Syria.


----------



## K-man (Mar 10, 2013)

It's back on the agenda.  This article originated in the New York Times.



> *Falklanders put British tie to the test
> 
> *Land Rovers and aircraft are being readied to carry ballots from eight islands as the Falkland Islanders vote on their status as a self-governing overseas territory of Britain.
> 
> ...


Seems some in the US are paying attention.     :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 10, 2013)

I have just 1 question.

When Argentina attacks again, how will Britain provide air support for the defenders given their reported lack of an air craft carrier?


----------



## Carol (Mar 10, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I have just 1 question.
> 
> When Argentina attacks again, how will Britain provide air support for the defenders given their reported lack of an air craft carrier?



I do not know anything about a lack of an aircraft carrier with the Royal forces.  I do know that UK media has reported that there was a military base built on the Fauklands after the war in the 1980s, stating the lack of a base on the islands resulted a delay of about a week in the British response.  However, the Faulkanders state that now that there is a base, they will be ready for an attack.  This is a quote that has made the Argentine media as well. (I read Latin American news on a regular basis to keep up my Spanish).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 10, 2013)

> _Invincible_ was decommissioned in 2005 and put in reserve in a low state of readiness.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] She was sold to a Turkish scrapyard in February 2011,[SUP][6][/SUP] and left Portsmouth under tow on 24 March 2011.[SUP][7][/SUP] Pursuant to the Strategic Defence and Security Review, 2010, _Ark Royal_ followed, decommissioning on 13 March 2011. This leaves _Illustrious_ as the sole remaining operational ship, serving as a helicopter carrier since 2011.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] After _Invincible_ was decommissioned in 2005, and with the retiring of _Illustrious_  expected in 2014, Royal Navy aircraft carrier usage will cease. It will  only restart with the commissioning of one ship of the  under-construction _Queen Elizabeth_-class.


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


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2013)

Cap'n, for once those in charge have actually thought about this a bit and there is in fact an RAF base on the Falklands now.  It is called Mount Pleasant Airfield and was developed on the old civilian airport that was there previously which was used for operations during the war.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 11, 2013)

*Falklands' referendum fools nobody - it amounts to a rigged ballot*



> Let me take a wild guess at the result of the Falklands referendum -  yes, 100% of the British citizens taking part in this farcical exercise  would like the islands to remain a British overseas territory.
> 
> Maybe some maverick among the 1,672 eligible voters will say no or spoil their ballot paper. But I somehow doubt it.
> 
> ...



*Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory*



> Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum, 1,513 were in favour of  keeping the current status, while just three votes were against.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 14, 2013)

Why not just share the bloody Islands? I mean, who could resist tripping the light fantastic in Buonos Aires; beautiful women, cheap wine and great steak?
Just sayin'!


----------

