Falklands

Remove all ads!

So the people who identify their nationality as "Falkland Islander" are pretty much British? Why don't they just call themselves British on their Census forms then? Since there was no native population, does this 60% look mostly like people from England, or South America?

EDIT: And according to the wiki site, there's a shade over 3,000 people on the whole damn archipelego. So it does seem like that it's in their best interest to "belong" to some other country.

 

Nothing to do with the US? That's just silly. Why don't you bother to educate yourself about the last dispute? I gave you a link so that you could read the history of the last war, in which the US was invovled with helping the English. In fact, from the link:

Doesn't concern the US? Whatever.

 

And it was nothing to do with the US when they were involved in the last conflict.

 

Sho, do you think that both sides didn't appeal to the US for support? Of course they did, that is phase one in all Interantional Conflicts.

 

This is from the link:

You have the same blindness. As for Obama, maybe he does and maybe he does not. But just because of his public rhetoric, it doesn't mean that in private backdoor diplomatic channels he is saying something different.

 

A LOT more British than some places in the British Isles Barmy . The islanders should be allowed choose who rule them and given that Britain is much richer than Argentina I don't think they'll want to switch allegiance anytime soon. There's a practical angle as well as a political one.

 

Other than size of the country, how is it any different them calling themselves Falkland Islanders instead of British than you calling yourself American instead of British/Irish/Spanish/French/Mexican/etc etc?

Or better yet, I call myself a New Zealander, not a British/Irish/Scottish/Norwegian and I'm only a first generation kiwi. And Wikipedia tells me that Falklands were colonised well before New Zealand.

 

do you give a begger money simply because he asks for it?

This has nothing to do with a 'special relationship' thats just a phrase, it doesnt mean anything, the US does what it wants to do and the UK does the same. The US has a habit of helping others out just so that they can remind them of it in the future, like when someone lends you money and they refer back to that whenever they want something, the only reason the US involved itself in the first conflict on the side of the UK was for political bargaining power, the UK is a more valuable friend, so lets buddy buddy up with them.

 

Sho - You can say that all you want, but still there is some sort of emotional connection between Brits and Americans. It's easy to see, except for some I guess, with the way in which the Brits stood by us in the middle of the Bush/Cheney ME wars, especially Iraq. I think you are projecting your own feelings over reality, which seem to be two different things.

Edit: Btw, I found this from the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

All this had only reminded me of the Bush/Cheney incompetence - and that's putting it politely. As noted by the Times, the cost is "staggering." You may want to revisit the reasons why the UK would want to throw itself into such a foolish and losing venture. What a GD waste....

 

Dont mix up the political machinations of the British government with what the people want

 

That's fairly typical political rhetoric, even for the US -- not that it's wrong for you to say that, not at all.

 

IIRC, treaties or not, most countries tend to do whatever the hell they feel is in their best interest. The US has no treaty obligation to get involved, but no treaty obligation to to stay out of it, either. I would opine that it is in the best interests of the US to maintain a good relationship with the UK, given that most serious conflicts that the US is likely to get involved in are closer to England than to Argentina. That's just common sense 101 to me.

In addition, the US has demonstrated a vested interest in keeping world peace. Anything that disrupts that world peace tends to aggravate them. The Argentinians appear to be the ones threatening the status quo, and therefore they are likely to end up on the bad side of US foreign policy until they simmer down.

They have to know that they don't have a prayer. I mean, Argentina doesn't likely stack up, militarily, to the UK. I hazard that they likely have some internal difficulties that are causing them grief, so they are focussing public opinion on an external matter of international pride.

 

The UK is already very stretched militarily and trying to implement defence cuts. Projecting power to the Falklands as well would be no easy task if Argentina did do anything stupid. Though I'm presuming this is just intended for domestic PR and won't lead to anything.

 

DIIIINGGG, the nails head is struck.

It's wonderful what an external thing can do to hide inadequacies. The only reason Thatcher's reign is even slightly well remembered was due to the Falklands War. It really pulled the country together and made people forget what a mess she was making.

 

...Just like the last time.

Heh, heh. Shakespeare - Henry IV. But I can't remember if it was Part 2, but I believe it was.

 

Oh, Barmy, I disagree on that score. She was not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, but she was dynamic, energetic, and just plain cool all around. I think she'd be remembered even if she hadn't smacked down the Argentinians.

 

She put pretty much half the north of our country out of work, and really kick-started the decline of our manufacturing economy. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

The only good thing she did was to tell the Americans where to go when they came a-knocking for Vietnam.

 

Last time I heard her name mentioned was in line of the billions and billions of dollars she managed to get your country from the rebates from the EU budget. So yeah, nothing but horrible things old Marg did, eh? She must have done something right to remain as PM for over a decade.

 

Barmy, Ive also got to disagree with you, I studied economics in college, she saved the british economy, thats why she's known in the economical world as "the mother of british industry". The recession was already caused before she took power, and caused largely by trade unions who at the time had almost mob like power and had every industry by the balls, she curbed their powers and brought in laws to regulate their activities (for example the steel strike in 1980, where steel workers not only blocked the entrance to the steel mills, but also to other industries which used steel, for example Metal box which makes can tops were also shut down by the strike). She cut inflation by more then half in 3 years of office (inflation was 18% when she took power). The economy was recovering by 1982, inflation stood at 8% and unemployment had peaked at 3million, all caused by the recession which hit the United Kingdom at the turn of 1980s, the economy had been plagued by a string of crises for most of the 1970s and unemployment had gradually increased since the mid 1960s - Thus the economic downturn was not caused by Thatcher.
By 1984 unemployment figures fell by 3.6%, her policies of deficit spending and lowering interest rates worked beautifully, inflation fell to 3.2% , the lowest it had been for 20 years.
You say "the rich got richer" its a common term used by the masses, however, jobs are reliant on the rich, and if their industries do well, they expand and employ more staff and create a bigger product much of which can enter the export market bringing more money into the economy, the rich getting richer is just a symptom of economic growth, industries such as paper and forest products, rubber, airlines, and the auto industry all increased spending and employment by the end of 1983.
In 1987 Thatchers chancellor Nigel Lawson, seeing the exceptional economic recovery, cut taxes and the result was an economic boom which by the end of 1989 saw unemployment fall to 1.6mil.

It is infact James Callaghan and Harold Wilson who collapsed the economy, but of course people can only see the recession during Thatchers reign, not that she infact saved the economy from total failure.

 

We've still got a fairly substantial peace keeping force on the Falklands and according to a few old mates rumour is there might be oil within the offshore regions, if this gets confirmed I expect the tensions will come to a head.

Can't really fault what Thatcher did but when your village becomes a ghost town over night and most of your family are on the bread line it's bloody hard not to be bitter. Though personally I blame old shredded wheat head Scargill just as much.