Falklands

Grinner

Let's give them one island if they publicly cut off Maradona's hand and feed it to some pigs.

mjs020294

They can fuck off. All chances of negotiation went away 30 years ago. The Islanders are 100% committed to being British and that is all that counts.

They made a meal of taking the Island defended by a few marines imagine what would happen now:

Grinner

Like we could assemble a similar task force again.

What a giant waste of money maintaining a base down there. Sort it out through diplomacy.

Sir Matt

Or the UK could invade Argentina, claim Messi as English along with the rest of them. Maybe England could win the World Cup again.

peterstorey

Capello wouldn't pick him over Heskey.

marcosdeto

that will make the invasion of argentina worthless

Grinner

Not true, we'll have your women. It's not like you are doing anything with them, is it?

marcosdeto

nothing at all

untouched

gambit28

If we can keep this going for another 6-8 years we'll have something to test our new planes and carriers on.

marcosdeto

really? in this same forum there are british saying that they recieved no christmas bonus and you are spending money on new planes and carriers?

someone has the priorities wrong

Red_Jamie

Just give them the fucking islands!

TuTuHimm

Come on Marcos stop arguing about the ownership of the island. It makes the brits proud of owning a distant island nowhere near the British islands. It makes them feel like they're still a superpower. Surly you and your people can understand that.

rednev

I wonder if you'd take the same stance if you and your family were Falkland Islanders of British persuasion...which is what the vast majority of the territory is.

Team Brian GB

People were making that argument quite well in the thirties hence our defence spending didn't rise as quickly as it needed to, the same point applies here.

Team Brian GB

Having such a base - RAF Mount Pleasant - down there is the reason why you wouldn't need to send a taskforce again. In 1982 we had to send a taskforce because there were no defences to prevent the islands being overrun and there was no naval or aerial projection of power capability otherwise.

Whereas now we have Mount Pleasant which is both the RAF and Army centres of gravity in the Falklands and down the road you have Mare Harbour home to the Royal Navy - if such a scenario were to rise again in the future Argentina would get nowhere near the islands as our two typhoon squadrons down there would be sent to intercept them.

Our total spending runs to about £300 million a year to protect the Falklands, as opposed to having to find billions to mobilise have the military and send it eight thousand miles in a disconcerting position.

peterstorey

What a waste of money.

Team Brian GB

You often talk about people's rights, why do these people not have the right to be free and sovereign?

Red Dreams

give them independence

shaydun

I don't see what Andy Carroll has to do with this.

peterstorey

Because they're the remnants of a colonial conquest.

peterstorey

I don't think anyone's suggesting Argentina want anything to do with Andy Carroll when they've got Higuain and Aguero.

rednev

I think some people need to appreciate just what is at stake. We're talking about an entire group of people losing its territory.

Handing over the islands to Argentina would achieve nothing except the bolstering of Argentine nationalistic pride. It would mean that an entire group of people would have to face losing their home islands, on which most can trace back ancestry over many generations, as they know them. Assuming Argentina doesn't intend on occupying the territory against the will of a hostile population, the inhabitants would either be forced to flee or remain on the islands as the fabric of their homeland changes from the one they know to a Spanish speaking, Argentinian one, with gradual large-scale immigration of Argentinian citizens.

rednev

That's a matter of history. What should be considered is how people today are affected.

rednev

1. Independence is not an option due to the tiny population of the territory and its isolated location.

2. They don't want independence.

peterstorey

We're talking about 2,000 people who were transplanted into a land over which they had no moral or geographic rights in a colonial undertaking. And it now costs £300M a year to defend this nonsense.

rednev

The 3,000 islanders bear absolutely no responsibility for whatever happened 200 years ago.

You seem to be suggesting that 3,000 people should suffer for what is effectively a matter of principle.

peterstorey

You can't just ignore history and say the wishes of the 2,000 people are paramount.

Team Brian GB

Wales is part of the United Kingdom because it was conquered, England itself was born though wars unifying the heptarchy by force - it is a weak argument.

You are not addressing my point though, you are always concerned about peoples welfare choices and the ability to make free decisions - why can a group of Britons not decide to be British? And with regard to the mainland, what would we be saying if we didn't think the defence of thousands of Britons across the seas was not worth £300 million out of a £600 billion budget?

Whatever happened to the idea that the Government's most important role is to protect its citizens?

WeasteDevil

Britain held those islands before the state of Argentina existed. It's as daft as saying that the Republic of Ireland have a claim over the Isle of Mann. I'm not going into this, Argentina hold lands that should in theory belong to Chile.

rednev

You wouldn't advocate the removal of an entire community in England based on a matter of principle involving a land dispute dating back over 200 years, so why are you doing it where the Falklands are concerned? The most important thing to consider is obviously people.

WeasteDevil

Peter is being Peter and talking a load of claptrap.

peterstorey

They can protect their citizens by repatriating them to the UK and giving them £100K each (a year's saving in defence costs).

Team Brian GB

Then can protect their citizens by defending their homes and their right to determine their futures, the Falklands being vulnerable is little different in legal terms to a town on the Pembrokeshire or Cornish coasts being threatened in such a manner.

mjs020294

There really wouldn't be too much in savings. The ships would still be at sea, the planes would be based elsewhere and the troops training down there would train somewhere like Norway.

peterstorey

Except it's thousands of miles away and has no connexion with the UK at all except by conquest.

Sir Matt

There aren't any people to give the Falklands back to who lost their homes due to "conquest."

Team Brian GB

The world as we see it is the history of conquest, if you listed all G20 countries there would be disputed territory in most of them and also in most of them territory which came into their possession in a dubious manner.

Team Brian GB

It is not as if they can point to descendents of people who lost the Falklands as there was no settlement there prior to British rule of the islands.

peterstorey

Well some of those things should be unwound too, particularly where people were displaced to make room for the incomers.

marcosdeto

it was a very different world then mate, now the superpowers can destroy the world ten times