Falkland Islands are Argentine signs 'regrettable'

[dubbplatz]

Oh dear, are things so bad in the UK, they need a new bogus war to prevent civil unrest.

The Poms are stuffed paying for the Malvinas.

we had are fill straightening you Aussies out and look what a fine country you are now

[BritManToo]

Oh dear, are things so bad in the UK, they need a new bogus war to prevent civil unrest.

You mean Argentina not uk ..

In times of civil unrest, Britain starts a war with another country, deflects attention from the general dissatisfaction at home.

Quit often initiated by British agents under a false flag.

It's happened throughout history.

Won Maggie an election she shouldn't have won.

Same for Tony Blair.

Edited November 22, 2014 by BritManToo

[monkeycountry]

Didn't the people of the Islands have a referendum or vote on this issue at one point in time?

Sure, but if you put a few thousand Brits on any piece of land in the world and ask them to vote then all land will be British :-) Russia is currently doing something similar.

Anyway, I don't think Argentina can afford even a single warship anytime soon, so the British have little to worry about :-)

Edited November 22, 2014 by monkeycountry

[billd766]

Didn't the people of the Islands have a referendum or vote on this issue at one point in time?

They did. From the BBC report above.

Last year, Falkland islanders took part in a referendum, voting by 1,513 to three to remain a British overseas territory.

No sheep or other animals were harmed during this referendum though 3 were reported as voting to join Argentina.

Edited November 22, 2014 by billd766

[Danielson2702]

Rapier missle defences and Astute class subs are keeping the peace right now.

[Chicog]

Oh dear, are things so bad in the UK, they need a new bogus war to prevent civil unrest.

The problem is that there are no Brits in Britain left to fight. They are all living expat somewhere else.

Looks like they will have to send all the Argentine expats there to fight instead.

The irony here is that in the last Falklands War, Maggie Thatcher and the UK Generals sent in the Welsh Guards (and others), overlooking the historical fact that much of southern Argentina was populated long ago by Welsh people seeking new lands to farm sheep. When Goose Green was finally taken and the Argentinian soldiers taken captive, the British soldiers in talking to their captives discovered they'd been shooting at their own (admittedly distant) relations.

I think for many people, and especially Argentinians, the geography somewhat speaks for itself because Port Stanley is just a wee bit closer to Buenos Aires than London. It's hard to believe that the British government gives a rats ____ about a handful of farmers (1516 people apparently) in the Southern Ocean (Maggie herself, for those who were not around at the time, had far more impact on the 20,000 coal miners she threw out of work back home). The mock sincerity about the wishes of the islanders only thinly veils the financial prospect of rich oil and mineral resources.

Don't forget the fish....

[ginglee]

Oh dear, are things so bad in the UK, they need a new bogus war to prevent civil unrest.

'things' are not bad in the UK, but 'things' are very bad in Argentina....

[Jingthing]

The Argies are right. Consult a map. An Argentinian map that is!

Edited November 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[Trentham]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

[Chicog]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

They want to be British.

End of argument.

[Jingthing]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

They want to be British.

End of argument.

I think the Argues are upset about the world cup. Bless their Italian sounding Spanish hearts.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NanLaew]

... and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

Sorry, you are mistaken. That was the French.

Or maybe you're thinking about the Belgians?

[Alwyn]

Oh dear, are things so bad in the UK, they need a new bogus war to prevent civil unrest.

Really? The only country in Europe that's economy is growing isn't too bad. Could do without all the grief from the people of the religion of peace though

[NanLaew]

Some are drawing analogies with Putin's land grab in Ukraine and the Argentinian claims on the Falklands?

The Falkland's occupants held a peaceful referendum that didn't have any weaponry involved and voted almost unanimously to retain their current status. Some armed rebels in Ukraine sacked certain provincial government offices and killed people before conducting a referendum at the point of a gun where the armed minority voted almost unanimously to re-join Russia.

Can anyone spot the difference?

[Alwyn]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

The Falkland were uninhabited when they were discovered so the argument about indigenous population is ridiculous. A British expedition took possession of the Western Falklands in 1765 a short time after a French took possession of the eastern Islands, although the first recorded landing was by a Brit called Captain John Strong in 1690. They remained unaware of each other for two years. The French ceded to Spanish rights due the treaty of Utrecht - that was the first Spanish involvement. In 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet of 5 ships and 1000 men from Buenos Aries, the Brits surrendered. The British withdrew in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming ownership according to the King.The Spanish governor withdrew in 1807 and the entire colony withdrew in 1811 leaving their own version of the plaque left by the Brits.

The Brits returned in 1833 and formerly establish a colony in 1840.

There a bunch of stuff since then involving Americans with Argentina who tried to assert a claim based on Geography (Falklands is 400 miles from Argentina) but Argentina has never, ever, run or controlled the Falkands physically nor by government (even when the Spanish were there).

Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the Falklands and I suggest you might want to do your own research. To compare The Falklands with India or Australia is nonsensical. You're obviously and anti-British type for whatever reason judging by your last sentence but you started off with your opinions based on a flawed opinion as the Falklands only population before the British and the French was penguins. I'm guessing you're some antipodean pisshead who dislikes/hates everybody not from your own land? Just a guess though.

[sanuk711]

So you think that the ownership and government of sovereign territories should not be decided by the people who live there, but by other people somewhere else? You have a problem understanding democracy, evidently, as well as international law on self-determination.--sprq

Your interpretation of democracy sprq, seems to be viewed though British rose tinted glasses -- did it ever allow the resident peoples of it's different colonies to a vote if you want to stay British without knowing the answer..?? Oh Yes you people that live in India--South Africa etc etc....just have a vote & if you don't want us...then we are off-- Went down well with the Americans also.

Did it ever allow a vote for the peoples of Ireland--or just do its usually trick of allowing a minority in a small British enclave to vote & saying "Well that's democracy".

Or if you want to bring it more up to date--- The very same Prime minister, certainly didn't want to hear anyone suggest a Vote for Hong Kong 2 years after the Falkland war. You have got to pick your fights "sprq", its OK winning an election by having a war against a 3rd world country, but don't lets give the HK people a chance at saying what they want--or we may be in a fight we can't win.

.

"Let only the People of the Falklands decide what should be" -- don't let any of the family's of the 907 kids who died-& will die defending a piece of rock of the coast of Argentina have any say in its destiny. It sounds really great & democratic, but with those rights comes some responsibilities to fight for your own lands, the amount of Falkland land owners who took up arms to help fight against "The Invaders" that would be none then. The amount of Falkland land owners who died in that conflict--- that would also be none then.

(3 women, were killed by British "Friendly" fire.)

.

The Falkland land owners can vote to be what ever they want---Vote to be Latvians for all I care (that country would also have as much claim to that lump of rock as Britain) .....does that also give them a blank chq to say -- we are not going to give up our farms & life style here, but please do send your kids to come & die for us if needed.

[Trentham]

... and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

Sorry, you are mistaken. That was the French.

Or maybe you're thinking about the Belgians?

Read my sentence properly.

[Trentham]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

The Falkland were uninhabited when they were discovered so the argument about indigenous population is ridiculous. A British expedition took possession of the Western Falklands in 1765 a short time after a French took possession of the eastern Islands, although the first recorded landing was by a Brit called Captain John Strong in 1690. They remained unaware of each other for two years. The French ceded to Spanish rights due the treaty of Utrecht - that was the first Spanish involvement. In 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet of 5 ships and 1000 men from Buenos Aries, the Brits surrendered. The British withdrew in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming ownership according to the King.The Spanish governor withdrew in 1807 and the entire colony withdrew in 1811 leaving their own version of the plaque left by the Brits.

The Brits returned in 1833 and formerly establish a colony in 1840.

There a bunch of stuff since then involving Americans with Argentina who tried to assert a claim based on Geography (Falklands is 400 miles from Argentina) but Argentina has never, ever, run or controlled the Falkands physically nor by government (even when the Spanish were there).

Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the Falklands and I suggest you might want to do your own research. To compare The Falklands with India or Australia is nonsensical. You're obviously and anti-British type for whatever reason judging by your last sentence but you started off with your opinions based on a flawed opinion as the Falklands only population before the British and the French was penguins. I'm guessing you're some antipodean pisshead who dislikes/hates everybody not from your own land? Just a guess though.

Located 300 miles from Argentina and over 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falkland Islands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th-century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, after which its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, when seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.

Britain's act of colonialism over its seizure of the islands has been admitted to in private by various British officials over time. For example, John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO's American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain's control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that "our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."

[Basil B]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

The Falkland were uninhabited when they were discovered so the argument about indigenous population is ridiculous. A British expedition took possession of the Western Falklands in 1765 a short time after a French took possession of the eastern Islands, although the first recorded landing was by a Brit called Captain John Strong in 1690. They remained unaware of each other for two years. The French ceded to Spanish rights due the treaty of Utrecht - that was the first Spanish involvement. In 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet of 5 ships and 1000 men from Buenos Aries, the Brits surrendered. The British withdrew in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming ownership according to the King.The Spanish governor withdrew in 1807 and the entire colony withdrew in 1811 leaving their own version of the plaque left by the Brits.

The Brits returned in 1833 and formerly establish a colony in 1840.

There a bunch of stuff since then involving Americans with Argentina who tried to assert a claim based on Geography (Falklands is 400 miles from Argentina) but Argentina has never, ever, run or controlled the Falkands physically nor by government (even when the Spanish were there).

Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the Falklands and I suggest you might want to do your own research. To compare The Falklands with India or Australia is nonsensical. You're obviously and anti-British type for whatever reason judging by your last sentence but you started off with your opinions based on a flawed opinion as the Falklands only population before the British and the French was penguins. I'm guessing you're some antipodean pisshead who dislikes/hates everybody not from your own land? Just a guess though.

Located 300 miles from Argentina and over 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falkland Islands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th-century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, after which its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, when seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.

Britain's act of colonialism over its seizure of the islands has been admitted to in private by various British officials over time. For example, John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO's American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain's control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that "our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."

Britain colonised the Falklands long before Argentinian became an entity...

seized from whom??? the French and the Spanish...

Any other countries interest has always been territorial waters of the Islands not the islands.

Number of posts from so called Brits (presume not residing in Britain), saying Britain is going down the pan, pleased to say Britain is recovering a lot better than other countries and the future is looking good... and better off without you.

[Chicog]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

The Falkland were uninhabited when they were discovered so the argument about indigenous population is ridiculous. A British expedition took possession of the Western Falklands in 1765 a short time after a French took possession of the eastern Islands, although the first recorded landing was by a Brit called Captain John Strong in 1690. They remained unaware of each other for two years. The French ceded to Spanish rights due the treaty of Utrecht - that was the first Spanish involvement. In 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet of 5 ships and 1000 men from Buenos Aries, the Brits surrendered. The British withdrew in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming ownership according to the King.The Spanish governor withdrew in 1807 and the entire colony withdrew in 1811 leaving their own version of the plaque left by the Brits.

The Brits returned in 1833 and formerly establish a colony in 1840.

There a bunch of stuff since then involving Americans with Argentina who tried to assert a claim based on Geography (Falklands is 400 miles from Argentina) but Argentina has never, ever, run or controlled the Falkands physically nor by government (even when the Spanish were there).

Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the Falklands and I suggest you might want to do your own research. To compare The Falklands with India or Australia is nonsensical. You're obviously and anti-British type for whatever reason judging by your last sentence but you started off with your opinions based on a flawed opinion as the Falklands only population before the British and the French was penguins. I'm guessing you're some antipodean pisshead who dislikes/hates everybody not from your own land? Just a guess though.

Located 300 miles from Argentina and over 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falkland Islands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th-century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, after which its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, when seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.

Britain's act of colonialism over its seizure of the islands has been admitted to in private by various British officials over time. For example, John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO's American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain's control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that "our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."

I'll tell you what, if the French or the Spanish ever ask for it back, we'll discuss it.

[Alwyn]

Keep your hands off the Falklands, Argies!

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

The Falkland were uninhabited when they were discovered so the argument about indigenous population is ridiculous. A British expedition took possession of the Western Falklands in 1765 a short time after a French took possession of the eastern Islands, although the first recorded landing was by a Brit called Captain John Strong in 1690. They remained unaware of each other for two years. The French ceded to Spanish rights due the treaty of Utrecht - that was the first Spanish involvement. In 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet of 5 ships and 1000 men from Buenos Aries, the Brits surrendered. The British withdrew in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming ownership according to the King.The Spanish governor withdrew in 1807 and the entire colony withdrew in 1811 leaving their own version of the plaque left by the Brits.

The Brits returned in 1833 and formerly establish a colony in 1840.

There a bunch of stuff since then involving Americans with Argentina who tried to assert a claim based on Geography (Falklands is 400 miles from Argentina) but Argentina has never, ever, run or controlled the Falkands physically nor by government (even when the Spanish were there).

Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the Falklands and I suggest you might want to do your own research. To compare The Falklands with India or Australia is nonsensical. You're obviously and anti-British type for whatever reason judging by your last sentence but you started off with your opinions based on a flawed opinion as the Falklands only population before the British and the French was penguins. I'm guessing you're some antipodean pisshead who dislikes/hates everybody not from your own land? Just a guess though.

Located 300 miles from Argentina and over 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falkland Islands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th-century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, after which its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, when seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.

Britain's act of colonialism over its seizure of the islands has been admitted to in private by various British officials over time. For example, John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO's American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain's control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that "our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."

Trentham your history is incorrect. Forget America, it's FA to do with them, they're only interest was mineral and somewhere to park ship, they have no historical reason to be involved other than they tried to do a deal with Argentina. Where did you read when Britain returned in 1833 it was siezed by force? Even if it was, so what? The Spanish seized it by force from Britain in 1770!

[NanLaew]

WHY????

The Falklands belong to them. What right has Britain - a pokey little island between the North Sea and the North Atlantic to possess them. Logic tells you the Falklands belong to Argentina - they are in Argentina's local area and 12 thousand miles from Britain. It is ridiculous to think that Britain owns them. They barely own Scotland which is next door and only got that by force and only just hung onto it recently.

They pinched Australia from the Aborigines and had the audacity to claim that they discovered India in 1595 except that the Indians say they knew about it all the time. Britain should retreat to its miserable, cold and wind blown little island and stop trying to hang on to this last bit of its failed colonial empire.

The Falkland were uninhabited when they were discovered so the argument about indigenous population is ridiculous. A British expedition took possession of the Western Falklands in 1765 a short time after a French took possession of the eastern Islands, although the first recorded landing was by a Brit called Captain John Strong in 1690. They remained unaware of each other for two years. The French ceded to Spanish rights due the treaty of Utrecht - that was the first Spanish involvement. In 1770 the Spanish sent a fleet of 5 ships and 1000 men from Buenos Aries, the Brits surrendered. The British withdrew in 1774 leaving a plaque claiming ownership according to the King.The Spanish governor withdrew in 1807 and the entire colony withdrew in 1811 leaving their own version of the plaque left by the Brits.

The Brits returned in 1833 and formerly establish a colony in 1840.

There a bunch of stuff since then involving Americans with Argentina who tried to assert a claim based on Geography (Falklands is 400 miles from Argentina) but Argentina has never, ever, run or controlled the Falkands physically nor by government (even when the Spanish were there).

Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the Falklands and I suggest you might want to do your own research. To compare The Falklands with India or Australia is nonsensical. You're obviously and anti-British type for whatever reason judging by your last sentence but you started off with your opinions based on a flawed opinion as the Falklands only population before the British and the French was penguins. I'm guessing you're some antipodean pisshead who dislikes/hates everybody not from your own land? Just a guess though.

Located 300 miles from Argentina and over 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falkland Islands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th-century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, after which its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, when seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.

Britain's act of colonialism over its seizure of the islands has been admitted to in private by various British officials over time. For example, John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO's American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain's control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that "our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."

Trentham your history is incorrect. Forget America, it's FA to do with them, they're only interest was mineral and somewhere to park ship, they have no historical reason to be involved other than they tried to do a deal with Argentina. Where did you read when Britain returned in 1833 it was siezed by force? Even if it was, so what? The Spanish seized it by force from Britain in 1770!

How can you even consider 'debating' this with some prole that considers the British Empire was a failure?

[Basil B]

I'll tell you what, if the French or the Spanish ever ask for it back, we'll discuss it.

Yes, if the French ask for it back, now that would be interesting, we would want back Normandy, Brittany and the other parts of France rightfully ours...

[Baerboxer]

Just make your own signs:

"Argentina wants to be bitch-slapped, again"

Things change, demographics change, lessons get learned as well as taught, wouldn't be so easy these days if it could be done.

The islands are closer to Argentina than England. So the proposition is that the islands belong to England because there are English living there. Putin should claim the same about eastern Ukraine, Russian population so worth the motherland killing for them.

Read the history of the Crimea and you will see he's got good claims.

Read the history of the Falklands and you will see Britain has a better claim than Argentina.

The islands are closer to Argentina - so? Chicago is closer to Canada than DC.

[attento]

Didn't the people of the Islands have a referendum or vote on this issue at one point in time?

Yes & wasn't that a fair & balanced out come--- ask just the British land owners on there .... Do you want things to remain as they are.

Yes mate was the surprised answer, in March 2013 by 99.8% (there still looking to hang the 1 guy that voted no).

Much the same vote was recorded in Gibraltar, a lump of rock that is actually join to Spain by a road, --this is part of England also, because just the people on the rock say so.

.

Something akin to asking the republican party only---who should be the next president.....fair & balanced.

the largest nationality group of foreign land owners in Argentina is ......... the British

[Jingthing]

Argentina has a case to make about Las Malvinas but mandating a sign about that on public vehicles is kind of pathetic.

So, Argentina, if you don't mind too much, I may just CRY for you!

Edited November 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[MikeOboe57]

So you think that the ownership and government of sovereign territories should not be decided by the people who live there, but by other people somewhere else? You have a problem understanding democracy, evidently, as well as international law on self-determination.--sprq

Your interpretation of democracy sprq, seems to be viewed though British rose tinted glasses -- did it ever allow the resident peoples of it's different colonies to a vote if you want to stay British without knowing the answer..?? Oh Yes you people that live in India--South Africa etc etc....just have a vote & if you don't want us...then we are off-- Went down well with the Americans also.

Did it ever allow a vote for the peoples of Ireland--or just do its usually trick of allowing a minority in a small British enclave to vote & saying "Well that's democracy".

Or if you want to bring it more up to date--- The very same Prime minister, certainly didn't want to hear anyone suggest a Vote for Hong Kong 2 years after the Falkland war. You have got to pick your fights "sprq", its OK winning an election by having a war against a 3rd world country, but don't lets give the HK people a chance at saying what they want--or we may be in a fight we can't win.

.

"Let only the People of the Falklands decide what should be" -- don't let any of the family's of the 907 kids who died-& will die defending a piece of rock of the coast of Argentina have any say in its destiny. It sounds really great & democratic, but with those rights comes some responsibilities to fight for your own lands, the amount of Falkland land owners who took up arms to help fight against "The Invaders" that would be none then. The amount of Falkland land owners who died in that conflict--- that would also be none then.

(3 women, were killed by British "Friendly" fire.)

.

The Falkland land owners can vote to be what ever they want---Vote to be Latvians for all I care (that country would also have as much claim to that lump of rock as Britain) .....does that also give them a blank chq to say -- we are not going to give up our farms & life style here, but please do send your kids to come & die for us if needed.

You should check the facts. Hongkong was on a 99 year lease from China which had expired. So there was no reason for a referendum.

And I am sure if the inhabitants of the Falklands had unanimously voted to become Argentinians you would have declared this the only relevant opinion, dismissed any objections voiced by the British Government and brushed off any arguments against the handover that might have been brought forward by "the family's [sic!] of the 907 kids [?] who died-& will die defending a piece of rock of [sic!] the coast of Argentina".

Whenever a country´s political and economic situation is going down the gutter, politicians who lack vision and intelligence to address these issues - and who lack the honesty and decency to resign and allow other, better qualified persons to take up their job - resort to a pathetic from of nationalism as a last resort to try and take their people´s minds off their daily worries by promising them either a return to former or a rise to new glory and power.

[I Like Thai]

[Mosha]

Didn't the people of the Islands have a referendum or vote on this issue at one point in time?

Yes & wasn't that a fair & balanced out come--- ask just the British land owners on there .... Do you want things to remain as they are.

Yes mate was the surprised answer, in March 2013 by 99.8% (there still looking to hang the 1 guy that voted no).

Much the same vote was recorded in Gibraltar, a lump of rock that is actually join to Spain by a road, --this is part of England also, because just the people on the rock say so.

.

Something akin to asking the republican party only---who should be the next president.....fair & balanced.

Spain are in no position to talk. eg Ceuta and Melilla.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

A minor error may have been made in an earlier post about Hong Kong. I believe that the New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but that the British had Hong Kong Island in perpetuity.