The Falklands should be
British
77.5% (155)
77.5% (155)
Argentine
3.5% (7)
3.5% (7)
Independent
7.5% (15)
7.5% (15)
part of the US
2.5% (5)
2.5% (5)
owned by Notch
5.5% (11)
5.5% (11)
other (post and explain!)
2.5% (5)
2.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Falklands

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Argentina's claim is a very large stretch considering the current islanders want to remain British, they've tried to take it by force in the past and they've never had control over it ever. Sure the Spanish held it for a short period around 200 years ago so under strict succession rules they could have a claim but we held the U.S. around the same time and you don't see us trying to claim the Americans back.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Oirish_Martin:

No, my point was that shit kicking off over the Falklands - regardless of whether or not the British gov't are in the "right" (i.e the Falklanders want to be British) - is frequently used as a distraction from shitty gov't performance by British gov'ts too.

That's what this is, to some degree, as was the original Falklands War, though I suspect few people are buying it anymore.

Whether it was a political boost to Thatcher or not is immaterial

Not at all. It just means that we can't accuse the Argentinians of one thing while ignoring that it has applied just as much in the past to Britain.

(why to the British dislike all their awesome PMs?)

Because we don't think many of them were particularly awesome.

Argentina invaded what was and is sovereign British territory. I would hope that any British government would step in to protect their own territory. From Britain's point of you the Falklands War was a just and defensive war. If this were the late 1800s we may even call it a "splendid little war" but its not so I wont call it that...still gonna think it though ^_^ (references).

Again, I'm not saying that they were necessarily wrong to go to war - but the matter nonetheless still gets used a shield to deflect attention from problems on the home front - as Argentina does. There were a lot of problems for Thatcher at that point that somehow became less important once the jingoism was stirred.

Yes you can, the key phrase being "in the past". What is happening right now is more relevant. Besides that was a good ways of in the past.

"Because we don't think many of them were particularly awesome."

If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

As for the war deflecting problems, well sure yeah all fresh news does that, especially war. What is your point?

Seekster:
Yes you can, the key phrase being "in the past". What is happening right now is more relevant. Besides that was a good ways of in the past.

Urgh, and I evidently forgot to reprise my point that it's been used as a distraction since then as well. It's less effective, but still nonetheless used.

If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Wartime PM doesn't necessarily mean a good peacetime PM. He was the right guy for that job at least.

As for the war deflecting problems, well sure yeah all fresh news does that, especially war. What is your point?

I dunno. What's your point with Argentina doing the exact same thing?

JoJo:
Argentina's claim is a very large stretch considering the current islanders want to remain British, they've tried to take it by force in the past and they've never had control over it ever. Sure the Spanish held it for a short period around 200 years ago so under strict succession rules they could have a claim but we held the U.S. around the same time and you don't see us trying to claim the Americans back.

You really should. We were assholes about the entire thing and I think the UK needs to reign us in. Have you seen the shit we've gotten into without you Brits?

Seekster:

If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Because Churchill's immense personal popularity could not outweigh the considerable disaffection the public felt for his party.

The country had just been through the mass unemployment of the Great Depression, then vacillation on Germany (nearly all under Tory stewardship), and finally a war that had left vast amounts of housing as rubble and the economy turned on its head. The public - especially returning servicemen - wanted a new and bright future with homes, jobs, health, and a social safety net if something Great Depressionish went wrong.

Labour offered them their vision of the future. The Tories offered them the past. No contest.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:
Yes you can, the key phrase being "in the past". What is happening right now is more relevant. Besides that was a good ways of in the past.

Urgh, and I evidently forgot to reprise my point that it's been used as a distraction since then as well. It's less effective, but still nonetheless used.

If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Wartime PM doesn't necessarily mean a good peacetime PM. He was the right guy for that job at least.

As for the war deflecting problems, well sure yeah all fresh news does that, especially war. What is your point?

I dunno. What's your point with Argentina doing the exact same thing?

You replaced him with freakin Clement Attlee, thats like replacing Abraham Lincoln with Jimmy Carter.

You know what, I forgot where we started with that.

Agema:

Seekster:

If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Because Churchill's immense personal popularity could not outweigh the considerable disaffection the public felt for his party.

The country had just been through the mass unemployment of the Great Depression, then vacillation on Germany (nearly all under Tory stewardship), and finally a war that had left vast amounts of housing as rubble and the economy turned on its head. The public - especially returning servicemen - wanted a new and bright future with homes, jobs, health, and a social safety net if something Great Depressionish went wrong.

Labour offered them their vision of the future. The Tories offered them the past. No contest.

Well ok that at least makes some kind of sense, still Clement Attlee?

There really isn't a debate to be had here. The Falklanders are peaceful democrats with well over 100 years historical occupancy (incidentally, longer than Argentina has existed at all) who choose British rule.

Any action by the Argentines would be an aggressive act of imperialist war against a nuclear power. Smart move...? Plus, the South American countries who have been voicing support for the Argentines would be nowhere to be seen when Argentina asks for support. They would face immediate boycott by first world countries, wrecking their economies. The desires of a crazy woman in the south comes a long, long second to self-interest.

The Argentine president should concentrate on sorting her own country out.

Edit: and Sean Penn should shut the hell up. What on earth does this celebrity nobody think he is doing, inflaming a major international powderkeg? What a fool.

Seekster:

Agema:

Seekster:

If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Because Churchill's immense personal popularity could not outweigh the considerable disaffection the public felt for his party.

The country had just been through the mass unemployment of the Great Depression, then vacillation on Germany (nearly all under Tory stewardship), and finally a war that had left vast amounts of housing as rubble and the economy turned on its head. The public - especially returning servicemen - wanted a new and bright future with homes, jobs, health, and a social safety net if something Great Depressionish went wrong.

Labour offered them their vision of the future. The Tories offered them the past. No contest.

Well ok that at least makes some kind of sense, still Clement Attlee?

He was hardly that negatively rated. Given the above, and some of the other carryon he and his party were going with during that election, I'm not that surprised they lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#After_World_War_II

Then again, I don't exactly think Carter was as terrible as people make out either.

Bebus:
Edit: and Sean Penn should shut the hell up. What on earth does this celebrity nobody think he is doing, inflaming a major international powderkeg? What a fool.

Can he actually inflame it? I find it difficult to think he'd have that much clout, then again, it could stoke jingoism.

But yup, total fool. He really might want to, I don't know, check with the fucking Falklanders first about who they want to affiliate with.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Agema:

Because Churchill's immense personal popularity could not outweigh the considerable disaffection the public felt for his party.

The country had just been through the mass unemployment of the Great Depression, then vacillation on Germany (nearly all under Tory stewardship), and finally a war that had left vast amounts of housing as rubble and the economy turned on its head. The public - especially returning servicemen - wanted a new and bright future with homes, jobs, health, and a social safety net if something Great Depressionish went wrong.

Labour offered them their vision of the future. The Tories offered them the past. No contest.

Well ok that at least makes some kind of sense, still Clement Attlee?

He was hardly that negatively rated. Given the above, and some of the other carryon he and his party were going with during that election, I'm not that surprised they lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#After_World_War_II

Then again, I don't exactly think Carter was as terrible as people make out either.

Carter wasnt a bad guy, the man just had no business being President.

Seekster:

Carter wasnt a bad guy, the man just had no business being President.

Hardly a unique criticism of POTUS candidates - or position holders.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Carter wasnt a bad guy, the man just had no business being President.

Hardly a unique criticism of POTUS candidates - or position holders.

True but rarely is it more appropriate than it was with Carter.

Volf99:
Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Not true at all. Hong Kong was annexed from the Chinese by the British, the majority of the population are Chinese and wanted to be a part of China. The situations in Hong Kong and the Falklands are not even remotely comparable.

Since we are virtually all in agreement, time for a bit of fun.

Eddie Izzard on the Falkland Islands:

"Oh we need the Falkland Islands, for strategic sheep purposes."

Hazy992:

Volf99:
Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Not true at all. Hong Kong was annexed from the Chinese by the British, the majority of the population are Chinese and wanted to be a part of China. The situations in Hong Kong and the Falklands are not even remotely comparable.

But the Falklands has an oppressed population of PENGUINS!

Obviously the island needs to be returned to the control of Antarctica.

Not G. Ivingname:

Hazy992:

Volf99:
Argentina or independent. The English have no more of a right to be there than they did in Hong Kong.

Not true at all. Hong Kong was annexed from the Chinese by the British, the majority of the population are Chinese and wanted to be a part of China. The situations in Hong Kong and the Falklands are not even remotely comparable.

But the Falklands has an oppressed population of PENGUINS!

Obviously the island needs to be returned to the control of Antarctica.

D: OH DEAR GOD!!!! I've been so wrong!! For the penguins!!

Seekster:
If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Granted I'm not British, but it could be the fact that he was planning to start World War 3 whilst World War 2 was still going that probably would disqualify him as a "good" Prime Minister. The British wanted peace and Churchil wanted to re-arm Germany and invade the Soviet Union.

as far as i know (so correct me if im wrong) the residents there say they want to be british so let them be british, when however they want to be part of argentina then i say we hand it over

Shaoken:

Seekster:
If you say so. Thatcher I maybe can see why the Britians don't like her but what was all that about Churchill and voting him out?

Granted I'm not British, but it could be the fact that he was planning to start World War 3 whilst World War 2 was still going that probably would disqualify him as a "good" Prime Minister. The British wanted peace and Churchil wanted to re-arm Germany and invade the Soviet Union.

I don't see anything wrong with re-arming genocidal racists and using them to invade the country that just eclipsed them by sheer numbers. Sounds like a great plan.

Falklands should be under American control. It makes so little sense that it MUST be the right answer.

The be all, and end all, of the discussion is really that the people who live there are British and want to remain so.

I hope that if Argentina decides to get their panties in a bunch about it again, and try to invade, we respond with crushing force. Recent activities have made the world forget that you do NOT invade a sovereign nation's land for any reason without crushing and destructive consequences.

Perhaps a little music will tame the wild beast.

As many have said, if they want to remain British then that's the end of it. It's their choice.

Since where all pretty much all agreement that The Falklands want to be British and should remain, I'll suggest something for fun. Argentina can have The Falklands if they admit that Diego Maradona is a cheat and they relinquish any claim they have to the 1986 world cup :P

Also won't someone think of the poor oppressed penguins!

one thing i did find curious about the falklands war was in 1982 when Argentina there was exactly 1 single individual living in the falklands that was an argentine citizen.

The Argentinians argue that the islands are a result of continued British colonialism (loosely true) and they should be handed over to their rightful owners (i.e them). Of course that would mean the forceful removal of people who have lived there for centuries.

Following that logic, every colony should be handed back to the rightful owners and the colonial population returned to their native lands. That pretty much means all of the Americas should be heading back to Europe.

Daverson:

Nickolai77:
Still, your not going to get a lot of debate here OP, everyone on here has virtual unanimous agreement that the self-determination of the Falklands is what counts.

I wouldn't say that, there's plenty to debate - the obvious one being, if push comes to shove, can the UK enforce it's claim? Bear in mind we don't have aircraft carriers or harrier jump-jets anymore, both of which were vital to reclaiming the islands 30 years ago. If the Argentine military were able to successfully occupy the islands (and their proximity makes this very easy, as history has shown us), they'd have little trouble establishing air superiority, given the nearest friendly airfield capable of being used by British aircraft could be as far as Jamaica.

Remember, Argentina isn't a relatively poor nation like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, they have well trained and well equipped armed forces, and the Falklands is right on their doorstep, so logistics won't be a problem for them.

I wasn't aware that the UK had scrapped their carriers. Why on earth would they do that?! They are an important component in the projection of force on the world stage, and they have become a necessity in modern warfare. Without carriers, it is difficult to move aircraft over oceans without first deploying tankers at strategic points.

However, if I remember correctly, the British implemented some rather ingenius (and comical) air-tanker shenanigans in order to get aircraft to the Falkans during the past conflict. I recall something like 14 tankers flying overlapping patterns to fuel Avro Vulcans to bomb Argentine airfields.

Karma168:
The Argentinians argue that the islands are a result of continued British colonialism (loosely true) and they should be handed over to their rightful owners (i.e them). Of course that would mean the forceful removal of people who have lived there for centuries.

Following that logic, every colony should be handed back to the rightful owners and the colonial population returned to their native lands. That pretty much means all of the Americas should be heading back to Europe.

I have always found that logic silly. How far back should we go? Following that logic, most of Europe should then be returned back to Roman control. XD

What's sad is that we could probably go even farther back, but I'll spare the unending list of ruling powers throughout Europe's history.

Oirish_Martin:

They really don't.

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

Empire's not what it used to be, dontcha know.

That's actually a lot more than I expected.

TheDarkEricDraven:

You really should. We were assholes about the entire thing and I think the UK needs to reign us in. Have you seen the shit we've gotten into without you Brits?

While we appreciate the sentiment it's all pretty much swings and roundabouts, you swapped one lot of arseholes for an other (assholes in this case) and I can guarantee you our government does stupid shit too, most Western countries are basically the same. Kind of like a cake, some have chocolate icing, some have vanilla, some have cherries on, some have those little bits of crystallised fruit, some have a cockroach baked inside, others have a dead mouse, some even use that hideous fake cream shit. Some minor differences but they are all cakes, preferable to the deep fried shoes they are serving in some parts of the world.

OT: Whatever the islands' inhabitants want.

tsb247:
I wasn't aware that the UK had scrapped their carriers. Why on earth would they do that?! They are an important component in the projection of force on the world stage, and they have become a necessity in modern warfare. Without carriers, it is difficult to move aircraft over oceans without first deploying tankers at strategic points.

Well other than acting as auxiliaries for the US we don't have so much need for force projection these days. We have some more on order though.

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

Just hope the Argies wait until 2016 (or more likely 2020 if I know British industry, and I do) to invade otherwise we'll have to borrow them off the French.

EDIT: Hang on... HMS Illustrious is still in service and isn't expected to be retired until 2014. Even then it could still be used if needed, they aren't going to scrap it until the replacement is up and running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_%28R06%29

tsb247:

Daverson:

Nickolai77:
Still, your not going to get a lot of debate here OP, everyone on here has virtual unanimous agreement that the self-determination of the Falklands is what counts.

I wouldn't say that, there's plenty to debate - the obvious one being, if push comes to shove, can the UK enforce it's claim? Bear in mind we don't have aircraft carriers or harrier jump-jets anymore, both of which were vital to reclaiming the islands 30 years ago. If the Argentine military were able to successfully occupy the islands (and their proximity makes this very easy, as history has shown us), they'd have little trouble establishing air superiority, given the nearest friendly airfield capable of being used by British aircraft could be as far as Jamaica.

Remember, Argentina isn't a relatively poor nation like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, they have well trained and well equipped armed forces, and the Falklands is right on their doorstep, so logistics won't be a problem for them.

I wasn't aware that the UK had scrapped their carriers. Why on earth would they do that?! They are an important component in the projection of force on the world stage, and they have become a necessity in modern warfare. Without carriers, it is difficult to move aircraft over oceans without first deploying tankers at strategic points.

Because our government's short sighted at best, and assumes we'll have the luxury of using allied carriers and air fields wherever we need to. In place of carriers we're spending over Billions on Trident Missiles.

I'm not saying we don't need a deterrent, but the state our armed forces in right now, getting Trident Missiles is like buying a Solid Gold Ferrari when you live in Cardboard box.

As a rule every major naval power should have at least one good sized carrier. Even that one Thailand has technically counts. For Britain of all nations to be without a carrier...

tsb247:

Karma168:
The Argentinians argue that the islands are a result of continued British colonialism (loosely true) and they should be handed over to their rightful owners (i.e them). Of course that would mean the forceful removal of people who have lived there for centuries.

Following that logic, every colony should be handed back to the rightful owners and the colonial population returned to their native lands. That pretty much means all of the Americas should be heading back to Europe.

I have always found that logic silly. How far back should we go? Following that logic, most of Europe should then be returned back to Roman control. XD

What's sad is that we could probably go even farther back, but I'll spare the unending list of ruling powers throughout Europe's history.

If we went far enough back, we will all have to jam into a single cave in Kenya where he first genetically homo-sapien was born.

That will be FUN. :P

LetalisK:
Falklands should be under American control. It makes so little sense that it MUST be the right answer.

NO, ANTARTICA'S CONTROL!

THE PENGUINS HAVE BEEN LIVING UNDER TYRANY FOR TO LONG! D:<

It makes total sense!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked