The Falklands have been reinvaded!

11 Jun 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

In response to Star's question, what possible claim should we have to those islands?
As geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the seabed surrounding the islands and last September Rockhopper Exploration announced that plans were under way for oil production to commence in 2016, would you like to hazard guess ?

tut tut and tut again HNS, how cynical of you. rolleyes

as a question, when thatcher sent our troops to the falklands in 1982 to protect the islands, was she or any other minister aware of the oil that lay beneath the ocean at the time? i thought the discovery of the minerals that are there was a more recent discovery. Is that correct HNS?
More recently confirmed as extractable Star, though that comment had nothing to do with the 'conflict', but happy to expand on that
lol

anyway cynic ?
Moi ?
innocent

11 Jun 2012

Are these islands "off the coast of" and "owned by" actually occupied or "in close proximatey and claimed by" because Poland has some islands quite close to antartica as does Britain and Chechoslovakia.
in the 1800s Britain was the first nation to site and name the Penquin Islands does that make them ours ? since we do not occupy them I think not.
Occupation of a place must go a long way to deciding the ownership, that fact is even accepted by the Irish Nationals and British Nationals of Northern Ireland who have both stated that the final descision on who controls the North should be based on Majority rule. (Irish Nationals realising that they will one day outnumber their protestant counterparts)
If an Islands ownership is decided purely by it's proximately to the nearest mainland country we are going to have some major problems with Malta and Gibralter and perhaps even some of the most Northern Islands of Scotland.
At the real end of the day we proved to the world that who occupies owns, when Argentina landed on the Falkland Islands and Britain kicked them off, it is easy to claim ownership of an unoccupied island where nobody wants to live but try it anywhere in the world where the island is occupied and see how long you can stay on the island.
Malta and Gibralter are not exaclty on our doorsteps, who of you who say the Falkland Islands are not ours based on distance believe we should give the other distant islands to those who claim them such as Gibralter and Malta to Spain.
Perhaps only Christmas Island is one which we should not claim as this so obviously belongs to Santa smile

11 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Are these islands "off the coast of" and "owned by" actually occupied or "in close proximatey and claimed by" because Poland has some islands quite close to antartica as does Britain and Chechoslovakia.
in the 1800s Britain was the first nation to site and name the Penquin Islands does that make them ours ? since we do not occupy them I think not.
Occupation of a place must go a long way to deciding the ownership, that fact is even accepted by the Irish Nationals and British Nationals of Northern Ireland who have both stated that the final descision on who controls the North should be based on Majority rule. (Irish Nationals realising that they will one day outnumber their protestant counterparts)
If an Islands ownership is decided purely by it's proximately to the nearest mainland country we are going to have some major problems with Malta and Gibralter and perhaps even some of the most Northern Islands of Scotland.
At the real end of the day we proved to the world that who occupies owns, when Argentina landed on the Falkland Islands and Britain kicked them off, it is easy to claim ownership of an unoccupied island where nobody wants to live but try it anywhere in the world where the island is occupied and see how long you can stay on the island.
Malta and Gibralter are not exaclty on our doorsteps, who of you who say the Falkland Islands are not ours based on distance believe we should give the other distant islands to those who claim them such as Gibralter and Malta to Spain.
Perhaps only Christmas Island is one which we should not claim as this so obviously belongs to Santa

The name of the islands is Isla de los Estados. Try reseaching them.
Notwithstanding these islands, The Agentinian part of Tierra Del Fuego is nearer to the Falklands than the Chilean part.
Oh and btw, Malta gained its independence back in the 60's so there won't be anyone laying claim to it.

11 Jun 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
sorry but at the end of the day who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away from the uk ffs?

Quote by MidsCouple24
Perhaps those that lost loved ones there, those that watched friends maimed and injured, those that put thier lives on the line all those years ago and those that were assisted by the islanders during World War II, maybe even the tourists and nature lovers that visit the islands now.

surely then the same could be said for any place that british soldiers fought and died then? and some of them places are a damn sight closer than the falklands are!
Absolutely, I hope that they do "give a shit" about where loved ones fought and died all over the world including the Falkland Islands

Quote by MidsCouple24
You don't give a toss, that's your perogative but some do care and it is not your perogative to dictate wether people should care or not, it is not your perogative to decide if it should be debated in a forum or not, if you are not interested in the islands then ignore this thread, obviously to comment on it you have an opinion on the subject, have the decency to respect other peoples opinions even if they don't match yours

hold on to your hat and sit back down, you will give yourself a hernia with all that jumping up and down. :bounce:
It is not me resorting to swearing and saying that we shouldn't "give a shit" about a topic, I am merely voicing my opinion in a mild format, it is not me saying such things as "for fucks sake" which implies to me that it is you that is jumping up and down smile

i gave MY opion on the matter as you have yours. i think this country has no rightful claim to those islands. i think the loss of life protecting them was a great sadness and those soldiers that lost there lives did so as that is the job THEY chose to do. the blame lies at the foot of thatchers government for sending british soldiers to an outpost of so called british ownership, where they met there deaths.
I for one went there to protect the lives of people who everyone here agrees has the right of British protection, if the islanders choose to leave the falklands then I will not care if Argentine or any other subjects wish to live there but until the islanders do leave to me it is British soil and they will get my protection if I can give it, no soldier I know fought to protect the islands they fought to protect the people who lived there and I find it insulting that people think we did it for land not life.

Quote by MidsCouple24
AT THE END OF THE DAY - and at the going down of the sun and in the morning, some of us care.

bravo. you doing a party political broadcast on behalf of the Falklands or summat dunno

No just on behalf of the fallen that is after all what those words are meant to convey in most minds

Quote by MidsCouple24
What is the basis of your claim that the islands should belong to Argentina, the islands are closer to Chile than they are to Argentina so it cannot be on the grounds of proximaty, no Argentines have chosen to live there for decades, they were never the indiginous population.

At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine you actually aware of the argentinian connection mids at all?
At various times, they all departed peacefully and should the present population leave then whoever occupies them next can own them for all I care as I have said above, but I have to ask then, why do you think that Argentina should own them and not the French or Spannish you speak of ?

Quote by MidsCouple24
They have no better claim to the Islands over Britain than the Australians can claim Australia over the Aboriginies.

i think you actually beleeve that. innocent

And your basis for not believing that is ........ go on why do you think the aborigines have less right to claim australia as thier own than the other australians ? this one I have to hear

11 Jun 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
sorry but at the end of the day who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away from the uk ffs?

I do. I travel there every year. I have friends and family on those islands and as long as I have breath in my body and £££'s in the bank I will continue to return.

Quote by starlightcouple
were are not part of the admirals fleet anymore but in 2012 and the islands should belong now to argentina, end of.

This is a sentiment often repeated, so please don't take it personal that I have chosen to quote you here. it's just easier as i quoted you above too smile

The Islands were first sighted by a European when a Dutchman sailed by. An Englishman was the first European to land on them. A Frenchman was the first to attempt a settlement on the Islands. Spain bought the french colony.
All this happened fifty years before Argentina even existed, and their claim is based on Spanish colonial rule. Yet I've never heard a single Spaniard, Frenchman or Dane claim sovereignty.

11 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Britains fought in France but never considered France to be British Soil.

Agincourt? Crechy? Richard V? Calais? Normandy? Aquitaine? Gascony?
Anyway, the thing in all your posts that I accept is that you say "I believe it is British soil"............there again, I can believe the moon is made of cheese, but it isn't.
Dave_Notts

11 Jun 2012

Picture the scene in a museum somewhere

Quote by Dave__Notts
Agincourt?

Check

Quote by Dave__Notts
Crechy?

Check :duel:

Quote by Dave__Notts
Calais?

Check :duel:

Quote by Dave__Notts
Normandy?

Check :duel:

Quote by Dave__Notts
Aquitaine?

Check :duel:

Quote by Dave__Notts
Gascony?

Check :duel:

Quote by Dave__Notts
Richard V?

:uhoh:

: Erm,

where and when the feck was the Battle of Richard V :?:

11 Jun 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Richard V?

:uhoh:

: Erm,

where and when the feck was the Battle of Richard V :?:
Who said they were battles? He was a soldier who took the crown of France.
Some were battles, others were British/English lands in France.
If you say we are not allowed to go back in history.................where does Britains claim come from?
It is all history. Once it has gone...........it is in the past.
Dave_Notts

12 Jun 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Richard V?

:uhoh:

: Erm,

where and when the feck was the Battle of Richard V :?:

Quote by Dave__Notts
Who said they were battles?

No one, sorry for trying to inject some humour!

Quote by Dave__Notts
He was a soldier who took the crown of France.

My Grandfather took to the throne in France and... oh wait, sorry. I forgot we aren't allowing humour here.

Quote by Dave__Notts
Some were battles, others were British/English lands in France.

And in the time of many kings, Richard I for example England was considered a part of France, not a seperate country. Here as with many forums, selective judgement breaks down the arguement into many petty squabbles.

Quote by Dave__Notts
If you say we are not allowed to go back in history.................where does Britains claim come from?

John Strong was an English mariner. During an expedition from London to South America in 1689–91, commanding HMS Welfare, he discovered the sound between the two main islands in the Falkland Islands. He named it Falkland Sound, the name Falkland was adopted to the entire archipelago.On 27 January 1690, he made the first recorded landing in the Falkland Islands. Plagiarised but the dates are true according to contemporary sources.
And whilst we are on the subject. When?, just when did I say we can't go back in history? Narrow that one point down for me. I Have clearly said to the effect of we cant judge historical standards by those of today, but that is another thing surely.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Britains fought in France but never considered France to be British Soil.

Agincourt? Crechy? Richard V? Calais? Normandy? Aquitaine? Gascony?
Anyway, the thing in all your posts that I accept is that you say "I believe it is British soil"............there again, I can believe the moon is made of cheese, but it isn't.
Dave_Notts
And by what evidence do you say that at any one of these fights Britain then claimed that France was now non-existant and was now British soil, because I understand it when they won such battles they simply believed that we would be able to rule the French people who would remain French living in France on French soil under British rule.

12 Jun 2012

Quoting these medieval wars as evidence that Britain either did or did not consider French soil to be British is a deceptive argument. At the time we probably all spoke either of French, or Anglo Saxon, and didn't think of Britain as a country anyway. On the French 'side' of the channel the same would also be true.
Most of the European countries that exist now didn't get going until the 17th century, these wars were much earlier.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
They have no better claim to the Islands over Britain than the Australians can claim Australia over the Aboriginies.

Quote by I then
i think you actually beleeve that.

Quote by MidsCouple24
And your basis for not believing that is ........ go on why do you think the aborigines have less right to claim australia as thier own than the other australians ? this one I have to hear

Mids have you ever heard of the Native Title Act (NTA)???
or what about the The Mabo judgment ?
complicated land owner issues and if you look into the bowels of this, there is britain at the heart of it. that is where i said about the admirals fleet as of course britain was all powerful once upon a time where it took land. james cook do you know him mids from your history books at all? and how he was in favour of colonisation of Botany Bay (now in Sydney)?
also remember mids that our queen is head of australia as part of the commonwealth. why? if the aborigines lay claim to australia as there own why does our queen still reign there? history is a funny old thing and most of history has been made by peeple with the most power and the most guns, and took what was not theres to take in the first place.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
They have no better claim to the Islands over Britain than the Australians can claim Australia over the Aboriginies.

Quote by I then
i think you actually beleeve that.

Quote by MidsCouple24
And your basis for not believing that is ........ go on why do you think the aborigines have less right to claim australia as thier own than the other australians ? this one I have to hear

Mids have you ever heard of the Native Title Act (NTA)???
or what about the The Mabo judgment ?
complicated land owner issues and if you look into the bowels of this, there is britain at the heart of it. that is where i said about the admirals fleet as of course britain was all powerful once upon a time where it took land. james cook do you know him mids from your history books at all? and how he was in favour of colonisation of Botany Bay (now in Sydney)?
also remember mids that our queen is head of australia as part of the commonwealth. why? if the aborigines lay claim to australia as there own why does our queen still reign there? history is a funny old thing and most of history has been made by peeple with the most power and the most guns, and took what was not theres to take in the first place.
See now where I don't understand peoples stance on the Falklands is just because of this sort of statement, the aboriginies have no right to rule australia or call it thiers or prevent others from occupying the island, cool, so why does Argentina have a right to the Falkland Islands and Britain not ?
People (not necesarily you) can harp back and quote history all they want, but I live in the 21st Century and in my world we occupy the Falkland Islands now and have done for many years, for someone to come and impose thier will, thier rules and thier laws on a place we occupy is something I will stand against, we do it and nations, even Brits object to (Afghanistan, Iraq).
The mind would boggle if we tried to live by all the old laws and rules of war or occupation, or tried to do it as they did then, borders, lands, entire continents have changed hands so many times who can say who owns what, even the rule of "close proximatey would not work, I cannot see the USA giving Alaska to either Canada or Russia since both countries are closer to Alaska than mainland USA what would be said if either Country invaded and took over Alaska ? under rule of proximately we would immediately lose Malta and Gibralter.
Places that were once occupied by one nation and then abandoned, are they still the property of the original settlers or should those that occupy them now decide who they want to rule them ?
Ruling a Country is so obviously different to being in partnership with it as we are with our Commonweath nations.
I cannot see how it is wrong for the total population of an Island to decide for themselves who should have overall rule of them, we aren't even talking about majority rule like we are in NI, 100% of the Islands want to remain British. It certainly doesn't do Britain any harm to have a vested interest in the Islands of the South Atlantic and costs us little more than many of our smaller colonies and Commonwealth Islands.

12 Jun 2012

what a joke.

that is like having a referendum in arsenal's football ground with there supporters, and asking them do they want to stay at the emirates, or moves to spurs ground. loon

what a waste of time and money. seeing as it is taxpayers money spent on keeping the falklands part of britain, maybe the taxpayers in the UK are the ones who should have there say. i would vote to save the money and give the islanders a simple choice, stay or go the the UK if they want. save the uk a few million pounds i reckon at a time when we need all the money we can get our hands on.
and then give up on this mad idea that we have the right to say what happens on an island we "acquired" a few years ago, in 1700 something. funny how britain was once great and now has no teeth and certainly no bite in world or european politics.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
They have no better claim to the Islands over Britain than the Australians can claim Australia over the Aboriginies.

Quote by I then
i think you actually beleeve that.

Quote by MidsCouple24
And your basis for not believing that is ........ go on why do you think the aborigines have less right to claim australia as thier own than the other australians ? this one I have to hear

Mids have you ever heard of the Native Title Act (NTA)???
or what about the The Mabo judgment ?
complicated land owner issues and if you look into the bowels of this, there is britain at the heart of it. that is where i said about the admirals fleet as of course britain was all powerful once upon a time where it took land. james cook do you know him mids from your history books at all? and how he was in favour of colonisation of Botany Bay (now in Sydney)?
also remember mids that our queen is head of australia as part of the commonwealth. why? if the aborigines lay claim to australia as there own why does our queen still reign there? history is a funny old thing and most of history has been made by peeple with the most power and the most guns, and took what was not theres to take in the first place.
See now where I don't understand peoples stance on the Falklands is just because of this sort of statement, the aboriginies have no right to rule australia or call it thiers or prevent others from occupying the island, cool, so why does Argentina have a right to the Falkland Islands and Britain not ?
People (not necesarily you) can harp back and quote history all they want, but I live in the 21st Century and in my world we occupy the Falkland Islands now and have done for many years, for someone to come and impose thier will, thier rules and thier laws on a place we occupy is something I will stand against, we do it and nations, even Brits object to (Afghanistan, Iraq).
The mind would boggle if we tried to live by all the old laws and rules of war or occupation, or tried to do it as they did then, borders, lands, entire continents have changed hands so many times who can say who owns what, even the rule of "close proximatey would not work, I cannot see the USA giving Alaska to either Canada or Russia since both countries are closer to Alaska than mainland USA what would be said if either Country invaded and took over Alaska ? under rule of proximately we would immediately lose Malta and Gibralter.
Places that were once occupied by one nation and then abandoned, are they still the property of the original settlers or should those that occupy them now decide who they want to rule them ?
Ruling a Country is so obviously different to being in partnership with it as we are with our Commonweath nations.
I cannot see how it is wrong for the total population of an Island to decide for themselves who should have overall rule of them, we aren't even talking about majority rule like we are in NI, 100% of the Islands want to remain British. It certainly doesn't do Britain any harm to have a vested interest in the Islands of the South Atlantic and costs us little more than many of our smaller colonies and Commonwealth Islands.

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
i see you failed to answer my question mids. you asked me a question and then i answered it and then you brushed over it,,,,,smart move.
if you want to debate mids at least do it with some conviction. :doh:
i shall ask you again seeing as you are an expert it seems on world affairs.
Mids have you ever heard of the Native Title Act (NTA)???
or what about the The Mabo judgment ?

12 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
The mind would boggle if we tried to live by all the old laws and rules of war or occupation, or tried to do it as they did then, borders, lands, entire continents have changed hands so many times who can say who owns what, even the rule of "close proximatey would not work, I cannot see the USA giving Alaska to either Canada or Russia since both countries are closer to Alaska than mainland USA what would be said if either Country invaded and took over Alaska ? under rule of proximately we would immediately lose Malta and Gibralter.

Mids, et al,
Just for clarify, we 'lost' Malta in 1964 when they gained their independence and became a republic in 1974, indeed joining the United Nations in 1964 as an independent state and also joining the EU in 2004 and unlike the UK joining the Schengen Agreement and 'Euro Zone' as well.
Wheras, as previously pointed out, Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. Of interest it is also part of the European Union, although participating in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.
In respect of Alaska, this was bought from Russia on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million and subsequently became the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by HnS
The mind would boggle if we tried to live by all the old laws and rules of war or occupation, or tried to do it as they did then, borders, lands, entire continents have changed hands so many times who can say who owns what, even the rule of "close proximatey would not work, I cannot see the USA giving Alaska to either Canada or Russia since both countries are closer to Alaska than mainland USA what would be said if either Country invaded and took over Alaska ? under rule of proximately we would immediately lose Malta and Gibralter.

Mids, et al,
Just for clarify, we 'lost' Malta in 1964 when they gained their independence and became a republic in 1974, indeed joining the United Nations in 1964 as an independent state and also joining the EU in 2004 and unlike the UK joining the Schengen Agreement and 'Euro Zone' as well.
Wheras, as previously pointed out, Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. Of interest it is also part of the European Union, although participating in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.
In respect of Alaska, this was bought from Russia on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million and subsequently became the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959.
mids i do not mean to sound discourteous, but where do you actually get your "facts" from? so many times like above your comments are far from factual, in fact a quick Google may well be more useful to you as sometimes you run before you can walk where debating is concerned. :notes: you sometimes can get a bit carried away in the emotion of the thing,,,,breeeeath. wink

12 Jun 2012

I would agree with that, I am probably well behind the times, I cannot remember the last time I watched the news it was many years ago, even longer since I bought a newspaper and I do feel passionately about some subjects, but I do live in the real world and don't set much store by the world of politics, now that may be wrong but it is the way I am, I know many Maltese like thier connection to Britain despite who actually makes thier laws and governs thier republic, Many of the inhabitants of Gibralter feel the same and I seriously doubt that either of the two would be happy if Spain moved in and instigated thier rule over them.
Alaska might have been bought legally but it is a long way from mainland USA and some people in this thread seem to think distance is important, my point was that it isn't, it is about what the people want, we protect the Falklands from invasion by anyone because the population of the Island want us to.
What I have been trying to say all along is that this is our reason for fighting politically and with force to protect the islands and we are right to do so.
My examples are out of date, my facts shaky to say the least but it is the laymans view of the world and sometimes that is more important than the political or legal status, and that happens all the time in life, we see it happening in Syria at the moment, elected governments and those thrust upon people are not invulnerable to the will of the people.
Most British people like to live thier lives by what they percieve to be right and just, protecting people who want to be British is a simple part of that, we went to war for the Afghan people to stop the Taliban ruling them (so we are told) we seemed to think that the Afghans worthy of protecting from something we agreed was not right so why not the Falkland Island inhabitants who saw invasion by Argentina to be wrong.
We have people here saying that they should be ignored and left to fend for themselves or be ruled by someone they dont want to rule them because decades ago someone else lived there

Quote by starlightcouple
The mind would boggle if we tried to live by all the old laws and rules of war or occupation, or tried to do it as they did then, borders, lands, entire continents have changed hands so many times who can say who owns what, even the rule of "close proximatey would not work, I cannot see the USA giving Alaska to either Canada or Russia since both countries are closer to Alaska than mainland USA what would be said if either Country invaded and took over Alaska ? under rule of proximately we would immediately lose Malta and Gibralter.

Mids, et al,
Just for clarify, we 'lost' Malta in 1964 when they gained their independence and became a republic in 1974, indeed joining the United Nations in 1964 as an independent state and also joining the EU in 2004 and unlike the UK joining the Schengen Agreement and 'Euro Zone' as well.
Wheras, as previously pointed out, Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. Of interest it is also part of the European Union, although participating in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.
In respect of Alaska, this was bought from Russia on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million and subsequently became the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959.
mids i do not mean to sound discourteous, but where do you actually get your "facts" from? so many times like above your comments are far from factual, in fact a quick Google may well be more useful to you as sometimes you run before you can walk where debating is concerned. :notes: you sometimes can get a bit carried away in the emotion of the thing,,,,breeeeath. wink

12 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
I would agree with that, I am probably well behind the times, I cannot remember the last time I watched the news it was many years ago, even longer since I bought a newspaper and I do feel passionately about some subjects, but I do live in the real world and don't set much store by the world of politics, now that may be wrong but it is the way I am, I know many Maltese like thier connection to Britain despite who actually makes thier laws and governs thier republic, Many of the inhabitants of Gibralter feel the same and I seriously doubt that either of the two would be happy if Spain moved in and instigated thier rule over them.

Why would Spain move in and instigate their rule over Malta?

Quote by MidsCouple24
Alaska might have been bought legally but it is a long way from mainland USA and some people in this thread seem to think distance is important, my point was that it isn't, it is about what the people want, we protect the Falklands from invasion by anyone because the population of the Island want us to.

From memory, it was you that brought distance into the debate by declaring that Chile was nearer to the Falklands than Argentina.

Quote by MidsCouple24
What I have been trying to say all along is that this is our reason for fighting politically and with force to protect the islands and we are right to do so.
My examples are out of date, my facts shaky to say the least but it is the laymans view of the world and sometimes that is more important than the political or legal status, and that happens all the time in life, we see it happening in Syria at the moment, elected governments and those thrust upon people are not invulnerable to the will of the people.
Most British people like to live thier lives by what they percieve to be right and just, protecting people who want to be British is a simple part of that, we went to war for the Afghan people to stop the Taliban ruling them (so we are told) we seemed to think that the Afghans worthy of protecting from something we agreed was not right so why not the Falkland Island inhabitants who saw invasion by Argentina to be wrong.

Who is this "we". It was the Government that took us into the Afghan War, not the man in the street. You would appear to be contradicting yourself as I doubt the majority on folk support the war

Quote by MidsCouple24
We have people here saying that they should be ignored and left to fend for themselves or be ruled by someone they dont want to rule them because decades ago someone else lived there
Mids, et al,
Just for clarify, we 'lost' Malta in 1964 when they gained their independence and became a republic in 1974, indeed joining the United Nations in 1964 as an independent state and also joining the EU in 2004 and unlike the UK joining the Schengen Agreement and 'Euro Zone' as well.
Wheras, as previously pointed out, Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. Of interest it is also part of the European Union, although participating in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.
In respect of Alaska, this was bought from Russia on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million and subsequently became the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959.

HandS was(were) simply pointing out the erroneous facts in your posts.I had already advised that Malta had gained independence in the 1960s but you choose to repeat
the fact that it was still governed by Great Britain.
Maybe you should start watching the news and or buying newspapers, you might then have a better awareness and understanding of the world.

12 Jun 2012

to be honest mids if i was you i would quit while you are well behind.
debating when you admit to not reading or watching any news, and then debating about world policies is frankly laughable.
you really should do as max has said and start buying newspapers and reading the news, as without the facts you have and do constantly make yourself look a bit of a numpty, and your constant contradictions really do make you look very silly.
you cannot debate when there are facts and evidence on the table and yet you choose to ignore that as silly as you want to look at things in lay mans eyes, that is suicidal debating and is a little bit naive of you. throw them rose tinted glasses in the bin mids,and get a nice new clear pair. :thumbup:

12 Jun 2012

I would not say it was good advice to Mids to advise that reading the newspapers will give a clear, unbiased and correct view of world affairs. Look at the evidence coming out at the Levenson (sp?) enquiry. Likewise, to a less extent perhaps, the TV.
A clever guy, many years ago said to me "believe nothing that you read and only half of what you see".
John

12 Jun 2012

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
I would not say it was good advice to Mids to advise that reading the newspapers will give a clear, unbiased and correct view of world affairs. Look at the evidence coming out at the Levenson (sp?) enquiry. Likewise, to a less extent perhaps, the TV.
A clever guy, many years ago said to me "believe nothing that you read and only half of what you see".
John

well some of what mids has stated wrongly, the real facts can be found on a history web site, as they are facts.
as an after thought, i do not believe a lot that is being said in the levenson enquiry to be honest. only yesterday brown stated the complete opposite to what others have stated and all under oath. so someone is telling lies there eh?

12 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Britains fought in France but never considered France to be British Soil.

Agincourt? Crechy? Richard V? Calais? Normandy? Aquitaine? Gascony?
Anyway, the thing in all your posts that I accept is that you say "I believe it is British soil"............there again, I can believe the moon is made of cheese, but it isn't.
Dave_Notts
And by what evidence do you say that at any one of these fights Britain then claimed that France was now non-existant and was now British soil, because I understand it when they won such battles they simply believed that we would be able to rule the French people who would remain French living in France on French soil under British rule.
Calais?
Evidence - History.
Dave_Notts

12 Jun 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
so someone is telling lies there eh?

It is all in the detail Star. The people who are under oath also state "I believe...." or "I believed......" alot. It is their belief so they are not telling a lie.
Now, have you noticed where a yes or no answer is required they give a long and convuluted answer............so once again scurrying away from the likelihood that a lie could be identified.
Or is that me being sceptical dunno

Dave_Notts

12 Jun 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
so someone is telling lies there eh?

It is all in the detail Star. The people who are under oath also state "I believe...." or "I believed......" alot. It is their belief so they are not telling a lie.
Now, have you noticed where a yes or no answer is required they give a long and convuluted answer............so once again scurrying away from the likelihood that a lie could be identified.
Or is that me being sceptical dunno

Dave_Notts
no mr notts not sceptical at all. most are lies and counter lies. bliar in the box was i am afraid almost enough to make me sick.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
I would not say it was good advice to Mids to advise that reading the newspapers will give a clear, unbiased and correct view of world affairs. Look at the evidence coming out at the Levenson (sp?) enquiry. Likewise, to a less extent perhaps, the TV.
A clever guy, many years ago said to me "believe nothing that you read and only half of what you see".
John

I don't believe I said it would give a clear, unbiased and correct view of world affairs. It may however, help bring his knowledge up to date.

12 Jun 2012

Quote by Max777
I would agree with that, I am probably well behind the times, I cannot remember the last time I watched the news it was many years ago, even longer since I bought a newspaper and I do feel passionately about some subjects, but I do live in the real world and don't set much store by the world of politics, now that may be wrong but it is the way I am, I know many Maltese like thier connection to Britain despite who actually makes thier laws and governs thier republic, Many of the inhabitants of Gibralter feel the same and I seriously doubt that either of the two would be happy if Spain moved in and instigated thier rule over them.

Why would Spain move in and instigate their rule over Malta?
Well I dont know the answer to that but some years ago they said Malta was thiers (and Gibralter) even the Italians disputed that claim as ridiculous but that did not stop them making the claim.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Alaska might have been bought legally but it is a long way from mainland USA and some people in this thread seem to think distance is important, my point was that it isn't, it is about what the people want, we protect the Falklands from invasion by anyone because the population of the Island want us to.

From memory, it was you that brought distance into the debate by declaring that Chile was nearer to the Falklands than Argentina.
Not quite it was a statement asking "who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away" and other references to Argentina having more right to rule the islands based on proximaty

Quote by MidsCouple24
What I have been trying to say all along is that this is our reason for fighting politically and with force to protect the islands and we are right to do so.
My examples are out of date, my facts shaky to say the least but it is the laymans view of the world and sometimes that is more important than the political or legal status, and that happens all the time in life, we see it happening in Syria at the moment, elected governments and those thrust upon people are not invulnerable to the will of the people.
Most British people like to live thier lives by what they percieve to be right and just, protecting people who want to be British is a simple part of that, we went to war for the Afghan people to stop the Taliban ruling them (so we are told) we seemed to think that the Afghans worthy of protecting from something we agreed was not right so why not the Falkland Island inhabitants who saw invasion by Argentina to be wrong.

Who is this "we". It was the Government that took us into the Afghan War, not the man in the street. You would appear to be contradicting yourself as I doubt the majority on folk support the war
WE are the population of the United Kingdom on whose behalf the Government acts, now you may not have voted for them but that is the rule of democracy here in the UK, I too do not believe we should have gone into Afghanistan but I am a British subject and have to accept responsibility for what our Nation does

Quote by MidsCouple24
We have people here saying that they should be ignored and left to fend for themselves or be ruled by someone they dont want to rule them because decades ago someone else lived there
Mids, et al,
Just for clarify, we 'lost' Malta in 1964 when they gained their independence and became a republic in 1974, indeed joining the United Nations in 1964 as an independent state and also joining the EU in 2004 and unlike the UK joining the Schengen Agreement and 'Euro Zone' as well.
Wheras, as previously pointed out, Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. Of interest it is also part of the European Union, although participating in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.
In respect of Alaska, this was bought from Russia on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million and subsequently became the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959.

HandS was(were) simply pointing out the erroneous facts in your posts.I had already advised that Malta had gained independence in the 1960s but you choose to repeat
the fact that it was still governed by Great Britain.
Maybe you should start watching the news and or buying newspapers, you might then have a better awareness and understanding of the world.
Ahh the news and the newspapers know what is right and what is wrong, Wapping the new parliament ? now I do know that the media supported the Falklands war, I read the papers back then so end of discussion, the Islands are ours Murdoch says so smile

You see this is what forums are for, I am guessing that I am not the only one who does not know all the facts I am not the only one who has an opinion on things which may be based on incorrect information and I am not the only one who thinks something is wrong or right in spite of what others believe, it is not good that we can be educated and educate others through the forums, I for one learn so much here, and from people I have more respect for than the media and politicians

13 Jun 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
WE are the population of the United Kingdom on whose behalf the Government acts

If only!

Quote by MidsCouple24
Ahh the news and the newspapers know what is right and what is wrong,

Did anyone say that? You professed your ignorance on various matters and stated that you had not read a newspaper or watched the TV news for years. I merely suggested that maybe you should start doing these things and then you might have a better awareness of world situations. Newspapers may well be biased in either direction, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that fact. We are all able to make our own minds up on the information we assimilate.

Quote by MidsCouple24
You see this is what forums are for, I am guessing that I am not the only one who does not know all the facts I am not the only one who has an opinion on things which may be based on incorrect information

Then don't be surprised if others correct you when you are so obviously wrong.

13 Jun 2012

mids have one of these for future and present use. :thumbup:

13 Jun 2012

Have I ever said people were wrong to correct me when I am wrong ? I only object to people who say that I have to agree with thier opinions, being corrected with facts is a good thing, being told that my views are wrong because they do not match other peoples is wrong, correct me by all means I can learn from that, but it may or may not change my view and that is my perogative, people can lay down all the facts about who discovered something, who previously owned something, who wrote a law on something but I may still believe it to make no difference, as in this case, I don't care about the distant past regarding ownership of the Falkland Islands, I believe that it is decided by the current inhabitants and where they pledge thier alliegance.
Being wrong about certain facts is not good, but trying to impose your will upon people and making outrageous statements is something which many are guilty of here, for example implying that "who gives a shit about the Falklands Islands being British" in some form is just as bad when clearly this very thread has proved that some do care.
Thanks for the shovel, are you sure you can spare it ? perhaps we should combine our errors in what we write and dig a hole together ?
It is easy to pick fault in others, it is easy to admit when you are wrong yet strangely some in here find the latter part very difficult and hence never do it, but then there are some that go through life making themselves feel more superior by highlighting other peoples mistakes whilst never accepting thier own faults, wouldn't you agree Starlight smile

Max I respect what you say and thankyou for your enlightenment, I would be interested though to hear your personal views on some of the topics rather than just facts, facts are good but not always personal views.

Quote by Max777
WE are the population of the United Kingdom on whose behalf the Government acts

If only!

Quote by MidsCouple24
Ahh the news and the newspapers know what is right and what is wrong,

Did anyone say that? You professed your ignorance on various matters and stated that you had not read a newspaper or watched the TV news for years. I merely suggested that maybe you should start doing these things and then you might have a better awareness of world situations. Newspapers may well be biased in either direction, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that fact. We are all able to make our own minds up on the information we assimilate.

Quote by MidsCouple24
You see this is what forums are for, I am guessing that I am not the only one who does not know all the facts I am not the only one who has an opinion on things which may be based on incorrect information

Then don't be surprised if others correct you when you are so obviously wrong.