Question: should Britain give up the Falklands immediately?


( Back )

Answer #1:

Please give me one sensible reason why?

Then a debate can start from there.

Answer #2:

The people of the Falklands and South Georgia indicated in 1982 they wished to continue to benefit from British protection. This has not changed, and the UN recognises that the territory is British.

Answer #3:

Well, since I don't reside in the Falklands and I'm not British,,,,I really don't care. I have more important issues to worry about.

Answer #4:

No.

Answer #5:

Yep.

Answer #6:

The population of the Falklands Islands do not seem to want to be a part of Argentina, but would rather be British than Argentinian. Hardly surprising that they might be disinclined to show favour to a country that invaded and occupied them not so long ago! The population of the Falkland islands are as entitled to Democracy and Self Determination as anyone else.

If half of the population of New Zealand wanted to be Australian, they would be able make their own individual choices, but I don't see any comparison with the Falklands, as there is no majority at all in favour of becoming Argentinian.

Answer #7:

The Falkland Islanders don't want to be independent. That's the part missing from your rant - the desires of the people who actually live there.

Britain has had continuous, exclusive possession of the Falkland Islands since before Argentina existed as a country. The Argentineans tried to take the Falklands by force and had their heads handed back to them. If the residents of those islands want to remain British then it's not for you, for me, or for President Kirchner to dictate otherwise.

Answer #8:

1. There WAS no United States at the time of the Revolutionary War
2. America didn`t beat us alone :-
French blockades helped
Long supply lines helped
The fact we were also fighting France in India and Europe helped.
3. The Falklanders CHOOSE to be British and as said above , the UN recognises our sovereignty over the Islands.
4. Whether any Kiwis wanted to be Australian is immaterial ,there is no parallel with the Falklands simply because New Zealand has never been claimed by Australia and vice versa.
Any Kiwis wanting to BE Aussies can simply emigrate.
5. You can guarantee that IF there is oil under the Falklands that the US will benefit more from it than we ever would since like Russia they don`t like anyone having oil that they don`t profit from.

Answer #9:

lol give up and go away...

you don't know us very well do you?

Answer #10:

Lets see. The islanders are British. They want to remain Brits, this goes back hundreds of years and a Brit territory before Argentina existed. We (brave souls who went last time, not meaning me) went down there and proved that Imperialism is dead as you say, but that was the Argentinians trying it on and us kicking them out.

When are the Argentininians returning the lands they occupy to the indigenous peoples?

Answer #11:

You need to note that the British gave the Falkland islanders the vote to decide what they wanted. They were given the choice of being Argentinian, British or independent. The Argentine only gave them the choice of the gun. So who was being imperialistic? The US did help the Brits out last time with intelligence and some equipment and would do so again so I'd advise you idiots to not make the same mistake again so you don't venture something that would get you handed your a--- and your head in separate pieces. Don't you lot ever learn? We watch some of your football for the thrill of seeing people cheat and foul each other including the referees just for a laugh at you. You are near enough non-entities because of your constant whinging, crying and moaning about something. No one knew the oil was there last time the Brits kicked your backsides and still they did it so you think now there is oil there you might try it again. I'd think twice if I was Argentina as I don't reckon you could do it and the Brits know you can't. Go back to bed and you won't have to surrender in droves again against a smaller force like last time.

Answer #12:

Do I detect just the tiniest hint of bias behind your question ?

Answer #13:

Before even going into the question I'm going to point out some things wrong with your first sentence. Scotland was never and has never been conquered and colonised (with the exception of Oliver Cromwell conquering the lowlands), Scotland chose to join in a union with England because of a shared crown and economic gain, it was never a territory like the British colonies were in North America. Ireland also wasn't a colony but was persecuted by protestants throughout it's time in the UK and was denied a devolved government leading to a revolution and separation of what is now the Republic of Ireland.

Also Britain, has different meanings throughout the ages. Before 1707 it was a geographical term and merely referred to anywhere in Great Britain or Ireland and the islands around it and had no political connotations. From 1707 - 1800 Britain and British was now a political term referred only the inhabitants of the island of Great Britain (Scotland, Wales and England + dependencies and colonies). From 1800 - 1922ish was a political term for Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland + dependencies and colonies. From 1922ish - now refers to the UK. At no point has it been solely been an alternative word for England, except through ignorance.

Finally the Falkland Islanders consider themselves British, Argentina only wants it so it can drill waters for oil since they have basically claimed all of the South Atlantic as their own. Also by your logic the Americans should let Hawaii and Alaska go free, they clearly should not be part of your country no matter what their inhabitants and you say.

Answer #14:

"Britain realized it couldn't do to the United States what it had done to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales?"

Britain = England, Scotland and Wales, thats a geographical term, so your argument is flawed from the start. Don't you mean England? Scotland and Wales have NEVER been "colonies"!!!!

As a Welsh woman I say NO. The Falklands are British. The people on the Falklands are British.

"just because an island wants to be something doesnt mean it has to be"

Haha what a stupid argument! If the PEOPLE on the Falklands wish to be British then that makes them, and the land British. Without those people that Island would be nothing.

Your anti-Brit argument is garbage and your attempt to bring "Wales" into it is bullsh*t. Don't you dare sh*t on the memories of the brave Welsh Guardsmen who fought to liberate the Falklands from the Argentines! We ain't "going" anywhere. The Falklands are British and have always been, long before Argentina even existed. If they attempt to invade again they will get their arses handed to them again. They are NO MATCH for the British (English Scots and Welsh) military.

EDIT: Actually we should not be surprised at this poorly informed rant, given that the state of education in the USA is woefully poor and most Americans would have trouble finding their own rectums with a map, let alone being able to discuss world events with any degree of knowledge and insight. Stick to eating twinkies and watching Oprah, please, and stop embarassing yourself.

Answer #15:

Britain should respect the right of those who live on the Falklands. As should Argentina.

And at the moment, the people of the Falkland Islands do not want Argentina to rule them.

So to answer your question, no. And if anything, Argentina should respect the Falklanders and give up its claims to those islands.

Answer #16:

No ! You're an idiot .

Answer #17:

I wont even bother answering this wȧnk question

Answer #18:

Argentina's president can rant as much as she likes. It looks like they they have failed to learn anything from the last episode. They can talk about an exclusive Zone but they will be unable to enforce it. The British air, sea and land defences are a lot more powerful than when we just had twenty or so Royal Marines stationed there. Just let them try.

Answer #19:

I suspect that there is a bit of inward personal jealosy with this question and some of the rhetoric that is contained in it.
American stocks of quality grade crude oil are dwindling by the hour so much so that they rely on the Saudi Arabians to bolster up their reserves.
America whether it will admit it or not has to rely on foreign agencies to fuel its economy such as Arabs for oil and Chinese for fueling their financial credit ratings.
The Falklands Islands have belonged to Britain for more years than Argentina as a country has existed.To add to that Britain has never relinquished control of it.
When we talk of imperialism.The questioner must not forget the failed military intervention in Vietnam.
When the questioner talks about how many red coats were put in a ditch.Should he also remember how many blue coats were put in a ditch by the Canadians and British at the Battle of Bladensburg fields on August 24th 1814 prior to the British and Canadians burning down the White House.

Answer #20:

I don't think any civilised country would give its citizens up to one where a military junta may take over when they feel like and people disappear 30,000 the last time I believe,or was it some other south american country.

Answer #21:

You can't compare the Falklands with the USA. The people of the USA did not want British rule, the people of the Falklands do.

So basically, what you're saying is that the people of the Falklands should not have a say in who rules them? You're not a fan of democracy and self determination, then? The very things that created your precious USA.

What you're saying is that the Spanish and the Portuguese had every right to found countries in S. America, but the British didn't? That's a bit hypocritical. Britain is not broke, and we are not only interested in the oil. Also, the Falklands are not the only British islands in the area, but I see you have no problem with the South Sandwich Islands, or the South Georgia Islands being under British control...?

PLEASE buy a history book. Scotland Wales and Ireland were not the same as the USA - they were not colonies. Scotland was the one that created the union, by their King taking the English throne. If you insist on talking about things you evidently don't understand, would you mind doing it elsewhere? Or just shutting up?





** Powered by Yahoo Answers