Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 249): That is the ultimate hypocrisy in this thread, simply brilliant. Naturally as you are speaking from the moral high-ground, the Argentine government have apologised for the illegal Falklands invasion then. Oh wait...

True enough. And then 20 years later the UK didn't learn from our mistake... who's in a worse moral dilemma then?   

Quoting Derico (Reply 248): You sir are not being honest.

Excuse me? I'm being completely honest - but then, claiming dishonesty on the part of the other people in the conversation is an easy way to try and discredit them rather than their point.

Its called an ad hominem, and usually has the opposite of the desired effect.

Quoting Derico (Reply 248): Had we refused, we would have faced severe sanctions

Prove it. 12 countries signed the agreement within quick succession of each other, and I can't find any evidence of these severe sanctions you so claim.

Oh, and economic sanctions are not an act of war - they are an act of "we wont do business with you, or anyone who does business with you". Its a choice.

If economic sanctions are an act of war, did Argentina recently declare war on the Falkland Islands then, when they laid economic sanctions on them and other countries because of them? Nah, of course they didn't. Stop being ridiculous.

Quoting Derico (Reply 248): The government of the time had no interest in signing such a disastrous treaty.

But they signed it anyway. Funny that, eh?

Quoting Derico (Reply 248): You have the example of the attempt by the European and North American nations of creating the concept of the "Southern Ocean". Argentina was forced to reject the proposal, out of 28 nations that voted yes.

And what does that have to do with Antarctica and the current discussion? Sod all, thats what.

Quoting Derico (Reply 250): And then 20 years later the UK didn't learn from our mistake... who's in a worse moral dilemma then?

I would say the Argentine government, without a doubt. 30 years later and they still haven't learnt and are still sabre rattling... whilst criticising others for the same thing


Dan  

Quoting moo (Reply 251): But they signed it anyway. Funny that, eh?

Then I'm sure you will all relaxed and accepting if Argentina withdraws from the treaty in the future.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 252): I would say the Argentine government, without a doubt. 30 years later and they still haven't learnt and are still sabre rattling... whilst criticising others for the same thing

Well I guess that is why the UK has been part of war after war after war in recent memory. Obviously, I believe your government to be the most hypocritical, you believe it is Argentina's. That's the way it will have to remain.

Quoting Derico (Reply 235): As I understand, the UK uprooted people from an island in order to build a runway. To this day they have not been returned to their homes.

I have in fact already commented on Diego Garcia in this thread. However we were talking about Antarctica i believe.

Quoting Derico (Reply 241): Aloges, I'm entitled to my opinion (which has been picked up by now multiple posters).

Who, exactly, tried to deny you the right to an opinion? The status of the Falkland Islands as British territory is a fact, now more than ever, but you seem to believe that it is an opinion.

Quoting Derico (Reply 241): Your comments on postcards are irrelevant.

I was actually trying to convey that I had nice things to say about Buenos Aires... you know, just to balance out your complaints about nobody acknowledging that Argentina had ever

Quoting Derico (Reply 227): done ANYTHING positive, in any category or subject

but I guess your view was clouded by the fog of war.

Quoting Derico (Reply 246): Well, but then the UK could simply have said: we will meet with you Mr. Timmerman, but the issue of the Falklands is taboo.

   I bet that your government would have loved that, particularly when

Quoting moo (Reply 247): the entire point of the meeting proposed was to discuss the Falkland Islands situation

Quoting Derico (Reply 44): It would be in the benefit of the Falklands to trade with Argentina, not the other way around. But it's not going to happen there is simply too much damage on both sides of the equation.

Someday, in the future, things will change and the "damage" can be forgotten and forgiven. For now though you are correct.

I would also ague that while yes the immediate benefit would be for the Falklanders, ultimately over time, the benefit would also accrue to Argentina as ties strengthen and trades increases and perhaps then some day things could change. IF the ties are strong enough and the benefit great enough the islanders would very likely vote to become part of Argentina (again not now, only sometime in the future, and I am thinking something like 50 to 100 years).

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 182): I don't think that giving up sovereignty, even 50% of it, can be termed 'losing nothing'. The vote shows the strength of feeling on this.

If they did vote to become part of Argentina they would lose no more sovereignty than they currently have as what they have of it is due to what the UK allows and offers and that could very well change if the situation required it (just wait if any oil revenues in substantial amounts begin to be received).

I understand that Britain allows the islanders "self determination" and that it is possible and perhaps likely that Argentina would not do the same but if the islanders did vote for being part of Argentina then things would have indeed changed greatly and who knows how things will be then?

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): Tell me... How is it that the British government can issue "Argentine identity cards"? (which are not even called that). That story has been proven a hoax and even if it was remotely true, it still does not mean a handover would have ensued, that is utter speculation on your parts.

They didn't, to my knowledge the Argentine government did to facilitate the travel and trade that was occurring.

Quoting Derico (Reply 197): And btw, it would help your cause if you knew the actual population of Argentina, 40 million, not 45.

42,192,494 (July 2012 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html
2012 estimate 41,281,631 or 42,192,500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina

Quoting Derico (Reply 250): True enough. And then 20 years later the UK didn't learn from our mistake... who's in a worse moral dilemma then?

Based on your statement, both are equally bad. Your comments would have no validity and neither would others. But then that would mean that no discussions could occur, between anyone, ever. Because everyone and every country has in its past errors and issues and displacements and "bad things" that have happened.

History is what it is, the past, and you can only move forward. If you base everything on what has happened then nothing will or can ever change (not saying that you don't learn from and remember the past and history and react based on what you know from it, but it cannot be the primary ruling element, just a part of the whole). The real thing is what do you want in the future and what are the ways to achieve those goals? Often that means letting go of the past.

Ultimately I see the Argentinian isolation and boycott of the islands and similar to to what the USA is doing with Cuba (yes I know the circumstances are substantially different). Both do not really do what is desired to resolve the issues at hand and instead keep solutions at bay as nothing is allowed to change and ties are not allowed to be created. It just doesn't "solve" the problem.

Two or three cents from a complete outsider that really isn't affected by the whole situation.

Tugg

Quoting tugger (Reply 256): IF the ties are strong enough and the benefit great enough the islanders would very likely vote to become part of Argentina (again not now, only sometime in the future, and I am thinking something like 50 to 100 years).

I seriously doubt that tbh. Just like i doubt Eire will ever vote to be part of the UK again.

Quoting Derico (Reply 253): Then I'm sure you will all relaxed and accepting if Argentina withdraws from the treaty in the future.

Sure, just as long as you accept that so will Britain withdraw in order to protect its historical claim which predates that of Argentina's.

Or is whats good for the Goose not good for the Gander?

Quoting Derico (Reply 253): Well I guess that is why the UK has been part of war after war after war in recent memory.

Of which one is legally questionable, the others being UN backed actions. Not as bad as you make it out to be.

I did a summary of FACTS in Reply 211 about why the Islanders have a lot to loose and little or nothing to win with Argentina.
Both Camilo and Derico were very "selective", and elected to ignore the facts mentioned in that Reply.

Then Camilo created his own summary, supported by Derico, with a list of subjective feelings and a clear attitude of " we are victims of bullying because no one agrees with our postures".

Honestly, with this differences in attitude, all this discussion is pointless.

Falkland Islands will remain British, and that's all. ---->
Over. ---->
End of Transmission. ---->
No signal........ ( Just static noise ).-

Quoting moo (Reply 258): Of which one is legally questionable, the others being UN backed actions. Not as bad as you make it out to be.

Indeed. And as has already been mentioned, the Iraq war was opposed by the majority of the UK populous.


Dan  

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 210): I say we just cut all diplomatic ties to Argentina, recall the ambassador and let them stew in their own juices.

Well that would be the knee jerk reaction but then you are no better than them. Always offering the Olive branch if they wake up to the facts on the ground and international law is a much wiser choice.

Quoting Derico (Reply 216): Self-determination is something the UK only believes its own citizens are entitled to.

Not at all the British have given that option to many over the years including most recently the Irish in Northern Ireland. Im not saying the British are perfect they have made their mistakes over the colonies over the years. God knows I know as my Father is from a former British colony. But this is 2013 and Argentina is still playing games from ancient times. Why dont they mature as a nation and admit its the democratic right to self determination. All Argentina is doing is harm to itself and its reputation.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 261): Well that would be the knee jerk reaction but then you are no better than them. Always offering the Olive branch if they wake up to the facts on the ground and international law is a much wiser choice.

I would agree with you.

But, basing the facts on International law etc, isn't working. You get the same rhetoric from that botox injecting wannabe leader. A beautiful country that is being turned into a 3rd world cesspool, because it's inhabitants are dumb to realise they are being played like an orchestra to distract them from their own domestic problems by a bunch of hapless politicians.


You can't blame the hapless bunch for trying to divert attention, with inflation estimated at a staggering 25%, although the government "official" says it is only 10.8%. But this is also the country that slams its own economists with fines if their inflation numbers are higher than the "Official" figures.

Now they have introduced price controls, to try and control inflation. Economics 101 will tell you that hardly ever works.

Then they harp on about colonialism, but they should take a closer look to home...

The Argentine annexation of Patagonia an act of colonialism? as was their armed struggle with Chile over the territory?

Argentina needs to look at its own history very carefully before playing the colonial card. If they are successful, the Patagonian natives may well take their own case to the United Nations.

So the point being.

Stop all diplomatic relations, stop providing fuel for FdK, and hopefully the population will wake up and smell the coffee about their own country going down the toilet, instead of some rocks in the South Atlantic.

The Falkland Island government not London initiated the vote for self determination, The United Nations are happy because it was a free and fair election (International observers from 4/5 different countries were present), the Islanders have made their choice, the world should respect that. Hence why I say we should cut all diplomatic relations with Argentina, unless they can come to the table without the same old sabre rattling rhetoric.

Due to current events, I believe that Argentina isn't quite as defamed, shunned, bullied and abused by everyone as some would have us believe...  

[Edited 2013-03-13 12:17:23]

They can take credit for the new Pope.

Quoting aloges (Reply 263): Due to current events, I believe that Argentina isn't quite as defamed, shunned, bullied and abused by everyone as some would have us believe...

Italian parents  

Quoting aloges (Reply 255): Who, exactly, tried to deny you the right to an opinion? The status of the Falkland Islands as British territory is a fact, now more than ever, but you seem to believe that it is an opinion.

I will say this one more time: I never disputed the UK's ownership of the Falklands.

I dispute the "colorful" side swipes that are not based on complete facts, or very wide exaggerations.

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 264): They can take credit for the new Pope.

They got the Pope, now they can forget Falklands.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 267): Quoting luv2fly (Reply 264): They can take credit for the new Pope. They got the Pope, now they can forget Falklands.

I was being sarcastic, I should have put a smiley!

Quoting Derico (Reply 266): I will say this one more time: I never disputed the UK's ownership of the Falklands.

Who said you did? Certainly not me; my point was this:

Quoting aloges (Reply 255): The status of the Falkland Islands as British territory is a fact, now more than ever, but you seem to believe that it is an opinion.

Seems rather accurate:

Quoting Derico (Reply 9): The historical evidence of both sides are more a "he said/she said" issue, although both Argentines and British will vehemently disagree, citing various papers, historical documents, etc. All of which can be denied by the other side as made-up.

You still believe it's "a 'he said/she said' issue" even though the inhabitants have just made it abundantly clear that it isn't one.

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 268): I was being sarcastic, I should have put a smiley!

I wasn't.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 211): 1.-You said the islanders will be benefit making " a great deal" with this ... well let me tell you, if you check the comments sections of the ( serious ) newspapers in Argentina, you will see that at least 50% of the Argentinians think that the Kelpers have absolutely nothing to win from any kind of relation with Argentina.

I'm sure. I'm not suggesting that the Falklands adopt Argentinian law or become part of the Argentinian economy.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 211): 2.- You expect " a peaceful solution to the conflict "

I don't expect it to happen overnight. I understand - and possibly accept - all the points you are making, but, within my experience, a change in a situation changes the perception of it.

The US perception of Cuba will change, at least to some extent, the day Fidel Castro dies. Nothing else needs to change - the government of Cuba may affirm its socialist principles - but the US attitude to that government will change with Castro's death. There will be a change in perception.

It's this change in perception that I think needs to happen here. If the British could find a way to defuse the situation - so that Argentinian politicians would have more difficulty using the Falklands an issue - then we'd be starting to get somewhere.

Why should Britain do this? It's called being good neighbours, and whichever way you slice it, the Falklands and Argentina are neighbours.

mariner

Quoting aloges (Reply 269): ou still believe it's "a 'he said/she said' issue" even though the inhabitants have just made it abundantly clear that it isn't one.

Excuse me, I said the historical "evidence", without accounting for the population, is just that, evidence and not official.

Quoting Derico (Reply 221): There are between 500-1000 Argentines in Antarctica throughout the calendar year.

This is an outright fabrication, the only nation to have more than 500 people at any one time in Antarctica is the US, with a summer time population of approx 1100.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 273): This is an outright fabrication, the only nation to have more than 500 people at any one time in Antarctica is the US, with a summer time population of approx 1100.

I wouldn't expect you to ever agree with me in anything, Kiwirob.

Quoting Derico (Reply 272): Excuse me, I said the historical "evidence", without accounting for the population, is just that, evidence and not official.

What the people of Falklands decide is and will be legal and official. Nobody in Argentina can do anything about that. Falklands are and will always be British and UK will always defend them. Enough said.

[Edited 2013-03-13 13:15:21]

Quoting finnishway (Reply 275): What the people of Falklands decide is and will be legal and official. Nobody in Argentina can do anything about that. Falklands are and will always be British and UK will always defend them. Enough said.

What the people decide to do is legitimate. The history of anything is not necessarily 100% verifiable.

But Argentina never will engage with the Falklands again, it simply has no reason to. You can't do anything about that either.

There is no country in the world that would support a claim of self determination for a transient and non-permanent group of 500 to 1000 people, so comparing their status to that of the Falkland Islands is just patently ridiculous.

Again, show me a permanent Argentinian resident of Antarctica and then we can make comparisons.

The Falkland Islanders are permanent residents, not scientific research team members.

Quoting moo (Reply 277): There is no country in the world that would support

Well we won't know for some time. Look, the bottom line is that the UK and Argentina will never agree on much of anything. The history of my country is full of unwelcome and hostile interventions of the UK, most failed, a couple damaging to us. To this day the UK confronts Argentina on multiple fronts.

Can we just agree that you deserve the right to choose however form of governance you wish, and leave it at that?

Quoting mariner (Reply 206): I am not suggesting they give up sovereignty - share some of it, perhaps, or aspects of it, but not abandon

Here's the rub, once that happens enough Argentines to out vote the islanders in a referendum, which they'd demand. get rapidly shipped in.
Then the islanders would be isolated, excluded and generally pressured to be sent packing.
These are ideas that have emanated from some in Argentina, a reason why joint sovereignty has to be off the table.

As has been mentioned before, on issues beyond the Falklands too, Argentina currently has a government that is just too dishonest to negotiate with, they demand them, then reject when offered.
It's not only the UK that finds them difficult to impossible to work with.
It does not have to be that way, it hasn't been at times, even since the war.

Relations in the 1990's were much better, sure they did not give up their claims to sovereignty, but they were just more pragmatic, did not let the issue distort, damagingly, other areas of policy, basically acted with more maturity.
One result of this was an offer by the UK, accepted by Argentina, to co-operate and share, if exploitable oil reverses were found.
It made some political and a lot of economic/logistical sense.
Guess who tore that agreement up a few years later? The husband of the current Argentine President when he had that position.
To coin a phrase no doubt uttered by many in the UK Government, 'see what we have to deal with?'

This current ratcheting up, started entirely by the Argentine government, escalated rapidly by them in the past few years, is perhaps why, all things considered, many in the UK, including some on here, express exasperation. That might in print come over as aggressive.

You won't have seen it, but last year some writer, close to the Argentine government, came over here and did the rounds of the TV studies. He was incredibly rude, arrogant, condescending, peddling falsehoods.
But another guest in one interview, was Simon Weston, a Welsh Guardsman who suffered horrific burns, with permanent tissue damage, including to his face, when the Sir Galahad was bombed.
His recovery was the subject of a documentary, the agony he went through at times was hard to watch.

He bears no grudges towards the Argentines, has been there since the war, his gentle rebuffing of the Argentine guest's points just provoked more rudeness.
In the end, Weston asked him to consider that making nice towards the islanders might be the only way to advance Argentina's case.
It was a rather good representation of the wider diplomatic side to this whole issue.
CFK and co really do act that that.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 209): I really do think that Argentina would be well advised to drop their insistence on gaining the 'Malvinas' and instead restore to the Falklanders the conveniences that they previously enjoyed (and paid Argentina for) - particularly things like education, medical care, and onward air transport. At the moment all those benefits are flowing to Chile, not Argentina.......

To do that would require rational thought and action by the current Argentine government.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): So to summarize this thread, 1. Argentinians are incompetent people 2. Argentinians are extremely dumb for choosing the current government. 3. Argentina is a stupid third-world country that has no future whatsoever. 4. Argentinians are terrorists. 5. Spanish speakers (and specifically Argentinians) should not be allowed to say Las Malvinas, because its offensive against the British. 6. Argentinians are hopeless 7. Argentinians who believe the Falklands should belong to Argentina have absolutely nothing between their ears. 8. Argentinians are usually proud of their country, and that's terribly bad. Only British people are allowed to be proud of their country. 9. The British should teach Argentinians about their country, because Argentinians obviously have no idea about their country. Heck, just attack Buenos Aires, if you are as brave as you think you are. Only in A.net do you read this kind of stuff.

A deliberately distorted post.
Go on, show us where any UK member on the thread has advocated military action?

As for the rest, after plenty of threads, filled with historic details, you seem to put a hugely simplified and exaggerated slant on a lot of very detailed posts.
The current Argentine government stupid? Yes. See above.
The mobs with their insulting placards? They happen to be Argentine. Yes something of a lunatic fringe, everyone has them. Yet nothing comparable done in the UK.

Quoting Derico (Reply 227): Last time I checked all members of the British government during the Iraq war are free men and in fact making money out of their war of aggression violating article 1 of the UN of not using war preemptively. Blair himself is a peace envoy. And his actions led to many war and human rights violations in that country.

Quite right - arrest him, lock him in jail and throw away the key. No arguments here. Now, back to the Falklands issue......

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 228): So to summarize this thread,

You have summarised extremely poorly. Many posters, myself included, have not said these derogatory things about Argentina. You detract from serious debate here by choosing to tar everyone with the same brush.

Quoting Derico (Reply 232): Camilo, that's almost point for point what I have said for years here.

As above, many posters have said nothing derogatory, so there's no need to act as though we're all completely anti-Argentine. I fundamentally disagree about the Falklands, and that's it. Well, Maradona's cheating I also disagree with, because it was wrong, but that doesn't mean that I dislike all Argentines, or Argentina in general.

[Edited 2013-03-13 14:06:20]

Quoting Derico (Reply 274): I wouldn't expect you to ever agree with me in anything, Kiwirob.

If you're going to make statements you should at least be able to back them up. I'm prepared to accept you being correct if you can prove it.

But what has having a base in Antarctica have to do with a claim on the Falklands, I fail to see the point in this tangent. BTW NZ's Antarctic claim is also older than Argentina's.

Quoting GDB (Reply 279): Here's the rub, once that happens enough Argentines to out vote the islanders in a referendum, which they'd demand. get rapidly shipped in.

I didn't suggest Argentinians could vote in a referendum - the people of the UK didn't vote in the most recent one - and why would there even need to be yet another referendum?

Quoting GDB (Reply 279): As has been mentioned before, on issues beyond the Falklands too, Argentina currently has a government that is just too dishonest to negotiate with, they demand them, then reject when offered.

If they reject it, they reject it and the status quo prevails.

It is not weakness to offer an olive branch from a position of strength, it is a sign of that strength. And if nothing, else, it covers Britain's butt with the rest of the world, many of whom take a more ambivalent view of things.

mariner

Why not just send all the 2,841 (according wiki) people living in Falklands to the UK and declare whole place as a nature conservation area under international ownership.

I'm sure you would get all the people in there to move if you gave each of them good amount of pounds, shouldn't require more than a million or two, then whole stupid conflict would be over forever and environmentalists would be happy.

I would much rather see the islands full of penguins than Brits or Argentinians.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 283): Why not just send all the 2,841 (according wiki) people living in Falklands to the UK and declare whole place as a nature conservation area under international ownership.

Why on EARTH would we do that? In the UK, unlike Stalinist USSR, we don't deport our peoples forcibly. What an untterly preposterous suggestion.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 283): Why not just send all the 2,841 (according wiki) people living in Falklands to the UK and declare whole place as a nature conservation area under international ownership.

Why not just ask the Russians to give back Karelia, Salla or Petsamo you'd have about the same chance of that happening as the Brits giving up the Falklands.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 284): we don't deport our peoples forcibly. What an untterly preposterous suggestion.

Tbf we did do that to the Changons.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 286): Tbf we did do that to the Changons.

Yup, and see how it worked out. There's a lesson well learnt, and one to be truly ashamed of - certainly not one to repeat.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 284): Why on EARTH would we do that? In the UK, unlike Stalinist USSR, we don't deport our peoples forcibly. What an untterly preposterous suggestion.

Who said forcibly? If you give each of them a million pounds or so as an exchange I'm pretty damn sure pretty much all of them would be happy and willingly move away. At least personally I would surely take a million or two and live happy life in some tropical warm Caribbean island instead of the icy stuff they get in Falklands.

That money shouldn't be an issue anyway compared to all the money Royal family keeps wasting all the time.

Also while you might not have deported your own citizen forcibly it seems like the UK has a fair share of experience in forcing people who aren't British citizen to move. The amount of people moved seems to be almost as big as the whole population of Falklands, also their island seems to be way nicer place for humans to live in anyway:

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

// Damn seems like I was too slow.

"Why not just ask the Russians to give back Karelia, Salla or Petsamo you'd have about the same chance of that happening as the Brits giving up the Falklands."

Sure, but those areas at least have something useful in them, without all the incompetence of Russian government those could be very developed and productive areas. Falklands on the other hand have little to offer.

[Edited 2013-03-13 14:31:02]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 288): That money shouldn't be an issue anyway compared to all the money Royal family keeps wasting all the time.

As if confirmation were required that your views on this are not to be taken seriously, hey presto - there it is.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 281): But what has having a base in Antarctica have to do with a claim on the Falklands

I would guess roughly about as much as the Iraq war.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 289): As if confirmation were required that your views on this are not to be taken seriously, hey presto - there it is.

Meh, I just dislike all European Royal families on principle, stupid old traditions are not a reason to worship group of people who live like millionaires and haven't done a single day of honest work in their lives. Now of course I know we can argue that through increased tourism etc Royal Family brings a lot of money to the UK, it doesn't make the whole system any less disgusting.

Of course I'm really not serious about giving every Falklander huge amount of money to make them emigrate, but in my opinion this whole conflict about these meaningless islands is nothing but a joke anyway, so why be serious?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 288): Falklands on the other hand have little to offer.

Potentially lots of oil.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 291): Potentially lots of oil.

Hmm got to admit I didn't know that, well maybe that explains this conflict then.

I thought the islands had nothing but sheep and fish to offer, if there's indeed a good amount of oil then that could be something worth all this madness that has happened around these islands.

[Edited 2013-03-13 14:44:55]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 290): so why be serious?

Why be so disrespectful? You might not consider the conflict important to you, but clearly a great many people do - so why label it 'meaningless' when it's clearly anything but that to us and the people who live there? Frankly, I think you grossly underestimate the depth of feeling on the issue. You could also disagree with the principle of a royal family without being rude about them too for that matter.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 292): well maybe that explains this conflict then.

About 0.000001% of it, possibly.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 291): Potentially lots of oil.

That is true and that is all Argentina wants. That is why they don't care what people of Falklands think about this situation.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 293): Why be so disrespectful? You might not consider the conflict important to you, but clearly a great many people do - so why label it 'meaningless' when it's clearly anything but that to us and the people who live there?

Well yeah I guess I could have expressed my opinions with more respectful way, just kinda hard for me to sympathize the people living there when I've never had any patriotic feelings towards my own home country, no idea what being proud about being a citizen of some country would even feel like.

The whole conflict and its both parties just seems so particularly stupid, hundreds of people dead just for sake of a group of islands with less than 3000 people living in them. But like said of course oil might make it more understandable, at least motives of Argentina.

But yeah seriously whatever people of Falkland Islands want to do is the only right path, it's their island and their choice.

[Edited 2013-03-13 15:07:29]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 283): Why not just send all the 2,841 (according wiki) people living in Falklands to the UK and declare whole place as a nature conservation area under international ownership. I'm sure you would get all the people in there to move if you gave each of them good amount of pounds, shouldn't require more than a million or two, then whole stupid conflict would be over forever and environmentalists would be happy. I would much rather see the islands full of penguins than Brits or Argentinians.

It is not that easy. Why not to tell Cuban people to move to South America and let the Americans use the whole Island for military operations?

Those people who live in Falklands wants to live there. It is their home and they want to stay there. Falklands has long and strong relationship with UK and they want to continue that.

It is, again, nice to be on the right side of this situation. British are the winners and will always be.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 290): Meh, I just dislike all European Royal families on principle, stupid old traditions are not a reason to worship group of people who live like millionaires and haven't done a single day of honest work in their lives. Now of course I know we can argue that through increased tourism etc Royal Family brings a lot of money to the UK, it doesn't make the whole system any less disgusting.

it might be a good idea if you bothered, with this vast information resource you are currently using, to may research a kettle about the income of the UK Royal Family, their constitutional role, what pay, what the UK government gets from their land.

Put it this way, the UK government does very well out of it, before any tourists £'s are spent.

Since the UK, or the other Royal Families of those well known despotic and undemocratic nations like Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium and Denmark, cost you nothing, have no bearing on your life, do not affect you at all, I suggest you find something maybe nearer to home and more logical to vent your hatred at.
Maybe start with those millionaires and billionaires who tanked the world economy?
They were not Royals providing a non political figurehead in long established liberal and democratic states.

As for the ideas about the wishes of 9 generations of those who have only ever been the residents of some islands, it's hard to decide if the appropriate response should be amusement or contempt.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 290): Meh, I just dislike all European Royal families on principle, stupid old traditions are not a reason to worship group of people who live like millionaires and haven't done a single day of honest work in their lives.

That just demonstrates how ignorant and wide of the mark you are. Care to explain the current employment of the two most likely heirs to the UK throne (Charles excluded) - I guess serving on active duty in Afghanistan or flying SAR missions in some truly terrible weather to save lives doesn't count as an 'honest day's work' in your view.  

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 293): Why be so disrespectful?

  


Dan  

Quoting pvjin (Reply 295): Well yeah I guess I could have expressed my opinions with more respectful way, just kinda hard for me to sympathize the people living there when I've never had any patriotic feelings towards my own home country, no idea what being proud about being a citizen of some country would even feel like.

Then it may be best not to comment at all.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 295): But yeah seriously whatever people of Falkland Islands want to do is the only right path, it's their island and their choice.