Falkland Islanders vote to remain British

[Corp]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-argentina.html

So only three people voted no to keep ties with British in a 92% voter turnout. This should be the end of it but seems Argentinan government still refuses to see the writing on the wall. Frankly their repeated claims of imperialism is rather ironic since they want to take over the islands against the wishes of the locals.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Corp

[Mr.United_Nations]

It's clear that the President of Argentina does not care about the people, now what is she going to do? say the vote was rigged?

[Space Commander Travis]

The funniest thing is this piece of logic, of the kind usually seem from proponents of the "we never went to the moon" and suchlike conspiracies:

[from the Beeb]:

"Writing in Clarin, a popular daily newspaper in Argentina, former cabinet chief Rodolfo Terragno said the people of the Falkland Islands had "proved Argentina right".

"Great Britain can no longer say the inhabitants of the Falklands are a third party in the Anglo-Argentine conflict. The islanders have confessed they are British," he wrote.

"They cannot decide which of the two countries is right. They would be judge and jury."

So the population should have no say in deciding, because they'd be biased?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Lord Vetinari

[Ever Learning]

YAY!!!!!!

Edited March 12, 2013 by Armchair Educated

[TheLastLazyGun]

This should be the end of it but seems Argentinan government still refuses to see the writing on the wall.

I wouldn't worry about that. Once a few RAF Typhoons and Royal Navy Daring-class destroyers - the world's most powerful air defence destroyers - shoot down a few of their balsa wood planes, they'll start to see sense.

Edited March 12, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Bama13]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-argentina.html

So only three people voted no to keep ties with British in a 92% voter turnout. This should be the end of it but seems Argentinan government still refuses to see the writing on the wall. Frankly their repeated claims of imperialism is rather ironic since they want to take over the islands against the wishes of the locals.

Not real familiar with the history of the Falklands but if you settle your people in an area and force the locals to leave, then claim that the inhabitants want you to rule the place, it seems a bit disingenuous to me. Sounds like what the British did in Northern Ireland, or what the Americans did in the US. But, as I said, I'm not too familiar with their history so perhaps that isn't the case in the Falklands.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Not real familiar with the history of the Falklands but if you settle your people in an area and force the locals to leave, then claim that the inhabitants want you to rule the place, it seems a bit disingenuous to me. Sounds like what the British did in Northern Ireland, or what the Americans did in the US. But, as I said, I'm not too familiar with their history so perhaps that isn't the case in the Falklands.

Enlighten me as to what "locals", apart from a few penguins, were on the islands when the British claimed and settled them?

And, going by your argument, the Argentineans should go back to Spain and give the land back to the Guarani. Because the Spanish (the Argentinians) cannot settle in an area and then force the locals to leave, after all.

Edited March 12, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Space Commander Travis]

Not real familiar with the history of the Falklands but if you settle your people in an area and force the locals to leave, then claim that the inhabitants want you to rule the place, it seems a bit disingenuous to me. Sounds like what the British did in Northern Ireland, or what the Americans did in the US. But, as I said, I'm not too familiar with their history so perhaps that isn't the case in the Falklands.

I don't know if you're referring to the british or the Argentinas, but there was no native population there at all when the first settlers landed. It was discovered (probably) by a British in 1690, and the first settlers were actually from France. Then the Spanish set up a colony but then left again, (they probably didn't like the weather), and a permanent colony was finally established by the British in the 1840s. read the full exciting story of the remarkably complicated history of La Isla Bonita- I mean malvinas here! --> http://en.wikipedia....alkland_Islands

Edited March 12, 2013 by Lord Vetinari

[Bama13]

I admitted that I didn't know a lot about the Falklands, and that what I wrote might not be the case there. Apparently it is not the case there. Thanks for the info.

[.AKUMA.]

I wouldn't worry about that. Once a few RAF Typhoons and Royal Navy Daring-class destroyers - the world's most powerful air defence destroyers - shoot down a few of their balsa wood planes, they'll start to see sense.

Yup the type 45 destroyers are the most advance in the world, argentinas armed forces as a whole suck!

[TheLastLazyGun]

I don't know if you're referring to the british or the Argentinas, but there was no native population there at all when the first settlers landed. It was discovered (probably) by a British in 1690, and the first settlers were actually from France. Then the Spanish set up a colony but then left again, (they probably didn't like the weather), and a permanent colony was finally established by the British in the 1840s. read the full exciting story of the remarkably complicated history of La Isla Bonita- I mean malvinas here! --> http://en.wikipedia....alkland_Islands

You've got your history wrong.

The British first established a colony on the islands in 1765 - BEFORE the Spanish arrived there and before Argentina even existed.

Edited March 12, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Space Commander Travis]

You've got your history wrong.

The British first established a colony on the islands in 1765 - BEFORE the Spanish arrived there and before Argentina even existed.

Well, strictly speaking the French were there first. They say

In 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare en route to Puerto Deseado was driven off course and reached the Falkland Islands instead, landing at Bold Cove. Sailing between the two principal islands, he called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition. The island group takes its English name from this body of water.^[18]

In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.^[19] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.^[20] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.^[21]

^{if we really want to be pendantic.}

Edited March 12, 2013 by Lord Vetinari

[Mr.United_Nations]

see Argentina has no claim

[Yamato]

So Britain retains a paltry scrap of what was once a feast the sun never went down on. Pass me a flag and hand me a Kleenex.

The actual history of the Falklands from the beginning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands#15th_century

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The Argintians are nucking futs.

[Space Commander Travis]

So Britain retains a paltry scrap of what was once a feast the sun never went down on. Pass me a flag and hand me a Kleenex.

The actual history of the Falklands from the beginning:

http://en.wikipedia....ds#15th_century

Oh dear, more Western Imperialism? hand them back to the people they rightly belong to!

Actually, while the Falklands may be something of an anachronism in being a British Dependency, the Commonwealth is, or has to potential to be, a non insignificant global force, do you not think? Or is that just Imperialism too?

[Bonecrusher]

I wouldn't worry about that. Once a few RAF Typhoons and Royal Navy Daring-class destroyers - the world's most powerful air defence destroyers - shoot down a few of their balsa wood planes, they'll start to see sense.

If that's the case what about their infantry?Don't tell they will be armed with big red balls,plastic projectiles and water cannons.Well somebody's got to get some mileage out of all the discarded props from Total Wipeout.They can have Richard Hammond as a general and Amanda Byrom has a public relations officer.

However The Falkland Islanders are entitled to more than squatter's rights.In fact I would say they have 120% citizenship.The Spanish came and if they were passionate about the Falkland Islands they would have stayed.It dosn't really matter if they gave the Falklands a pet name or if they are in close proximity to Argentina.If the original Spanish settlers decided to make more of a go it wouldn't be even a British outpost anyway.However the Falklands War did rubberstamp an other term for Thatcher at Downing Street.But unlike the middle east conflicts there's a valid reason for this.Even though it might give Cameron more credit if they get a green light for a second Falkland War.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Medium Brown

[skookum]

The truth is if the Argentinians don't like it they will have to lump it.

What are they going to do throw stones at the Islands?

They have no capability to do anything by force so it is all a non-story.

Their entire Navy was defeated on the last attempt by a single WW2 torpedo.

Edited March 13, 2013 by skookum

[TheLastLazyGun]

Well, strictly speaking the French were there first. They say

In 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare en route to Puerto Deseado was driven off course and reached the Falkland Islands instead, landing at Bold Cove. Sailing between the two principal islands, he called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition. The island group takes its English name from this body of water.^[18]

In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.^[19] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.^[20] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.^[21]

^{if we really want to be pendantic.}

The French were there first but then they decided to give their part of the islands to the Spanish, who then tried to kick the British off the islands even though the British were there before the Spanish.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Oh dear, more Western Imperialism? hand them back to the people they rightly belong to!

Actually, while the Falklands may be something of an anachronism in being a British Dependency, the Commonwealth is, or has to potential to be, a non insignificant global force, do you not think? Or is that just Imperialism too?

The Commonwealth's economy overtook that of the Eurozone in June 2012. Whilst the EU is predicted to have no growth over the next five years, the Commonwealth's economy is predicted to grow 7.3% annually over the next five years.

Edited March 13, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[TheLastLazyGun]

If that's the case what about their infantry?Don't tell they will be armed with big red balls,plastic projectiles and water cannons.Well somebody's got to get some mileage out of all the discarded props from Total Wipeout.They can have Richard Hammond as a general and Amanda Byrom has a public relations officer.

I wouldn't worry about the Argentinean Army. Even when you take the British Army's cuts into account the Argentinean Army will still be only barely half the size of the British Army. It is ill-equipped with a lot of cheap second-rate and probably second-hand equipment from other countries. The Argentinean defence budget is so lacking in funds that it is almost entirely used to pay the wages of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians the armed forces ministry employs rather than military equipment.

.If the original Spanish settlers decided to make more of a go it wouldn't be even a British outpost anyway.

Why wouldn't it? The British were on the islands BEFORE the Spanish and before Argentina even existed. The Spanish weren't the original settlers.

But unlike the middle east conflicts there's a valid reason for this.Even though it might give Cameron more credit if they get a green light for a second Falkland War.

There will be another Falklands War were the Argentineans ever foolish enough to invade them again.

Edited March 13, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Bonecrusher]

I wouldn't worry about the Argentinean Army. Even when you take the British Army's cuts into account the Argentinean Army will still be only barely half the size of the British Army. It is ill-equipped with a lot of cheap second-rate and probably second-hand equipment from other countries. The Argentinean defence budget is so lacking in funds that it is almost entirely used to pay the wages of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians the armed forces ministry employs rather than military equipment.

There will be another Falklands War were the Argentineans ever foolish enough to invade them again.

I can't help but feel they are sabre- rattling.They must have heard about our cuts and thought easy money.I always thought there was something iffy about why Total Wipeout got canned.I don't think the ratings were that poor.But the American version is still going on.Do you honestly think without the incentive of oil our partners in war are going to intervene.But in your analysis of their battle structure it'll be like a gun against knife fight.Anything to protect the Falkland Islands sovereignty.So this is a war we can definetly win hands down.But if it was us I won't made any rash decisions until that Argentinian flag is firmly planted.You also need to look out for swarthy looking Hispanic guys.And converted oil tankers in the harbour.Because that's what left of their fleet.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Medium Brown

[Corp]

The truth is if the Argentinians don't like it they will have to lump it.

What are they going to do throw stones at the Islands?

They have no capability to do anything by force so it is all a non-story.

Their entire Navy was defeated on the last attempt by a single WW2 torpedo.

Given that their navy is doing a fine job sinking on their own I don't think you'd even need that torpedo.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Given that their navy is doing a fine job sinking on their own I don't think you'd even need that torpedo.

Their navy has about 42 ships. The Royal Navy has 328 powerful ones.

Edited March 13, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[skookum]

Stick three Gurkhas on the islands. That'll get the Argentines running.

That's what they did back back in '82. The Argentines thought the British Gurkhas were cannibals and would eat them, so the Argentines just turned round and ran whenever they faced them. They were terrified of them. It was easy to win the war when you have a few Gurkhas handy.

It was that easy. The Argies had read all about the Gurkhas and their deadly kukri knives in magazines so they just didn't have the balls to face them. Any Argie that did take on the Gurkhas had no balls left. Literally. The gurkhas are armed with their deadly kukri knives, and they don't like their knives going too long without being covered in enemy blood (it's a centuries-old tradition).

We have 4000 Gurkhas in the British Army (one of them beheaded a Taliban and took his head back to base for idenitfication).

The British can beat the Argies hands down. If one Gurkha can defeat many Japanese during WWII when his comrades were lying dead all around, we have no worries. And anyone else who is silly enough to take us on should think twice.

Deadly. British Army Gurkhas and their kukri knives that must be covered in enemy blood during battle.

Only thing is the hated it on the islands. Not really the terrain they train for.

They are amazing people who still consider it a massive honour to serve. There actions are truly heroic, didn't one get a medal for fighting off an entire Taleban squad single handed. When he ran out of ammunition he battered two to death with the tripod from his fixed machine gun post.