OUTRAGE! British imperialists Drilling For Falkland Oil.

Overheal

creeper1 wrote: »

What a great attitude you guys have huh? Let me give you a quick geography lesson. The UK is in the Northern Hemisphere whereas the Malvinas (falklands) are in the Southern Hemisphere. It doesn’t take a genius to know who has a stronger territorial claim. In short the UK DOES NOT DESERVE TO HAVE ONE DROP OF THAT OIL.

Okay genius: does that mean they dont have rights to Oil found in the North Sea because, Technically, it falls in the Eastern Hemisphere?

Small countries must stick up for one another. Whether it be Tibet occupied by China or Northern Ireland occupied by the British we must support one another. It’s not OK for a larger country to invade another one, plant it’s people there and then call it part of it’s territory. By that logic the north of Ireland would indeed be British.

Pardon my Yankee Ignorance young Republican: But isn't Northern Ireland part of the UK and by all extension, quite British?

Consider this (ficticious) scenario for a moment. A huge oil find is discovered in the waters around County Derry. It’s huge! It’s billions of barrels worth and would be enough to allow a tax take for Ireland to pay off all her debts and even have a surplus! Are you going to tell me “well that’s part of UK territory”, “this has nothing to do with the republic of Ireland” and “the people there are British”?

You seem really hung up on this They're British thing, don't you.

I suppose it would depend, were these the Territorial Waters of the UK? I'm sure if you bothered to check, the Terriorial Waters are going to be well-defined under International law. So the question to your hypothesis is simply does it fall in their waters or doesnt it? Is it a split? What ratio is the split?

A more accurate similie would be to find a large Natural Gas deposit off the coasts of Hawaii, only to have it claimed by those filthy US Chinko Pinko Commy Yank Bastards. But oh snap. Hawaii is kind of like a colony, innit. Only it isnt called a colony. Semantics. Did you know that Hawaii already has Universal Healtcare and has done for the last 40 years? Madness. We should overthrow them. If only they didnt have a Spy in the White House.

donkey balls

Winty wrote: »

Hi Creeper 1

Are you OK?
Do you need to sit down and a cup of tea?

Save your "I hate the Brits Crap" for a Celtic supports bar this is "Irish Economy and Budget 2010"

In this area we have intelligent discussion and debate about the issue effecting our country economically not republican rhetoric.

the british tax payer since 1982 has paid for the defence of the falklands(isla malvinas) islands costing millions a year having RAF/Navy people based there.
and more than likely will cost millions a year into the future.
what they might get from drilling for oil might just break
even for the cost of the islands defence.
oh and winty im a celtic supporter please dont tar us all with the same brush:)

ballsymchugh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

because our government was not capable of organizing a quango to explore and drill for resources

and ray burke was the guy to ask in those days!!

Winty

Sorry to Donkey Balls, I was rude and take it back.

Martin 2

The last thing Mother Earth needs is another oil well so I won't be too disappointed if their exploration fails.

sparkling sea

Tis sad to see the anti British sentiment is alive and well with the chip on the shoulder brigade or could I be wrong could the motavation behind this be a discussion of the modernity verus dependency theory - no.

If we want to be outraged about the pillaging of natural resources, we need to look at our own country before we criticise others including Britian and NI.
Don't think a country like the Philippines are happy that we pillage their nurses, despite the fact that they are a very poor country and it was very costly for them to train these nurses.

Jip

sparkling sea wrote: »

Don't think a country like the Philippines are happy that we pillage their nurses, despite the fact that they are a very poor country and it was very costly for them to train these nurses.

Do you realise how many Irish trained nurses go to the UK to work ?

walshb

StudentDad wrote: »

The Falklands consider themselves British and that being the case so are the waters around those islands. Where is the problem?

SD

The Falklands will never ever be British, just like the North of Ireland will never ever be British, just like Taiwan will never be Taiwanese, or "American."

sparkling sea

Jip wrote: »

Do you realise how many Irish trained nurses go to the UK to work ?

You are hardly comparing the two, could you be less unaware

Fr Tod Umptious

All this reminds me of that Wolf Tones song 'Rock On Rockall'

The chorus goes

'Oh rock on Rockall you'll never fall
For Britains greedy hands
Oh you'll meet the same resistance
Like you did in many land'

In places like Irish pubs in America you see young easily influenced types jumping up and down raising fists and singing this chorus with gusto, putting 110% into it

What they are really saying is

'hey Brits, you may have colonized half the world, but there is a piece of rock somewhere above Ireland (I could not pick it on the map) and I think we Irish own it, and there is no way you will get your hands on it'

Jip

sparkling sea wrote: »

You are hardly comparing the two, could you be less unaware

Spell it out for me so.

sparkling sea

creeper1 wrote: »

[FONT=맑은 고딕][FONT=맑은 고딕]Consider this (ficticious) scenario for a moment. A huge oil find is discovered in the waters around County Derry. It’s huge! It’s billions of barrels worth and would be enough to allow a tax take for Ireland to pay off all her debts and even have a surplus! Are you going to tell me “well that’s part of UK territory”, “this has nothing to do with the republic of Ireland” and “the people there are British”?[/FONT]
[FONT=맑은 고딕] [/FONT]
[FONT=맑은 고딕]No didn’t think so. [/FONT]

It has nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland - it would be a matter for the people of NI and by extension Britain - as long as the majority of people of NI want to be part of Britain.

I don't see NI as part of my country the Republic of Ireland, so why would I feel that I would be entitled be the benefits from the resources of another country.
I would not wish NI to part of my country and while I acknowledge that many people do not feel the same as me, the tide is turning. I know many people who feel exactly the same as me and are extremely protective of their country and do no want its make up to be changed in any way. Nor would they feel entitled to claim the resources of NI

sparkling sea

Jip wrote: »

Spell it out for me so.

Try Tovey and Share a Sociology of Contemporary Ireland.

Philippines a 3rd would country until 2006 - 2nd world country now. Its is and has been hugely in need of retaining its natural resources especially its educated people.

Ireland 1st world country ( yes even now we are still at the upper end of the modernization scale) - over supply of educated human resources.

Nurses going to English speaking England - what a culture shock it must be to get on a plane and travel for a whole hour to a completely different society, will it ever be possible to get home.

Yes we were in a similiar position to the Philippines many years ago and alot of our resources went to the UK, America and Austrialia.

Ireland was well aware of the crisis in the Phillippines and despite this and our own history, during and up until the delcine in the boom, the Irish government activitely pillaged the human resources of the Philippines

Jip

Your views are fairly extreme, imo.

sparkling sea

Jip wrote: »

Your views are fairly extreme, imo.

Do you think so, I am assuming you mean with regard to NI, its just my opinion, well no, there are loads of people who feel the same as me - fortunately we don't ram it down peoples throats as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I would always willing support the majority decision but I have been to NI many times and I think the people are completely different, their experiences (unfortunately for them) are completely different to the people the Republic and to be honest I find it almost impossible to understand what they are saying, very Scottish sounding to me.

With regard to pillaging resources, its complete accepted that this is an ongoing practice by 1st world countries, even ones who were subject to the same practices themselves in the past

Jip

sparkling sea wrote: »

and I think the people are completely different, their experiences (unfortunately for them) are completely different to the people the Republic and to be honest I find it almost impossible to understand what they are saying, very Scottish sounding to me.

That's gas, what has someones accent got to do with anything ?

sparkling sea

Jip wrote: »

That's gas, what has someones accent got to do with anything ?

Its just identity and I suppose I don't feel I can identify with the political adversity or the people of Northern Ireland. Although there accent hasn't really much to do with why I see Northern Ireland as a separate country, the reason for that is purely because it is a separate country. I don't understand why a minority of people who are not happy being from the Republic think its OK to pretend they represent the silent majority or that everyone feels the same as they do.

I am proud of my country even if its up the creek at the moment - and I don't need anywhere else to be added to it, to make me feel that it is a complete country. I think it is complete as it is.

Fr Tod Umptious

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its just identity and I suppose I don't feel I can identify with the political adversity or the people of Northern Ireland. Although there accent hasn't really much to do with why I see Northern Ireland as a separate country, the reason for that is purely because it is a separate country. I don't understand why a minority of people who are not happy being from the Republic think its OK to pretend they represent the silent majority or that everyone feels the same as they do.

I am proud of my country even if its up the creek at the moment - and I don't need anywhere else to be added to it, to make me feel that it is a complete country. I think it is complete as it is.

Great post, well said

StudentDad

walshb wrote: »

The Falklands will never ever be British, just like the North of Ireland will never ever be British, just like Taiwan will never be Taiwanese, or "American."

Oh good grief. The people living there consider themselves British!
They want nothing to do with Argentina and they have been living there for centuries. The place is British!

SD

hmmm

StudentDad wrote: »

Oh good grief. The people living there consider themselves British!
They want nothing to do with Argentina and they have been living there for centuries. The place is British!

The OP seems to think that nationality is defined by territorial borders. In that case we'd have a bunch of island nations and one big one called Eurosiafrica.

ChocolateSauce

I know it has been said already, but I'll repeat: Self-determination, a well accepted and wise convention, holds that the people decide their nationality. The Falklands were uninhabited when the British arrived and settled. The people today are white, English speaking descendants of the original settlers who want to remain under the crown.

Argentina has no right to be involved.

Green Gooner

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

You must really be grasping at straws if you are using this as a reason to get outraged about the British. Yes the Falklands are much closer to Argentina but they really are a british place inhabited by British people. It's not like there is a native island population being opressed or anything.

Good post! 100% AGREED

InKonspikuou2

There was an Argentine flag flying on Malvinas in 1833 when the Clio arrived and had the Argentine flag lowered and a union jack raised. No shots were fired but there were 2 British ships and the threat was enough for the Sarandi to leave with Argentine soldiers, prisoners and some settlers. The rest of the settlers that stayed behind were eventually ejected. At this stage there were no British settlers on the island. They laid claim to it based on a first discover basis. Yes it was unihabited when they 'discovered' it but there has been proof of remains from Patagonian Indians and a now extinct breed of wolf. So it was occupied at one time by people from the country which is now Argentina. Wether they sailed there or it goes back further to a landbridge.

The British never even thought they had a strong claim to to the islands and there's even a document where they were going to offer it back to Argentina on a lease back agreement to gain their support during World War 2. Even only back in 1970 foreign secretary Callaghan was talking about leasing them back because they weren't prepared to maintain or defend them.

Who has a right to the islands all boils down to whether or not you agree with taking over territories and calling them your own. Yes a lot of the worlds borders have been shaped that way but in the case of Malvinas i think Argentina has a valid claim to the islands regardless of who occupies them today.

ChocolateSauce

InKonspikuou2 wrote: »

the case of Malvinas i think Argentina has a valid claim to the islands regardless of who occupies them today.

By that logic, Britain has a valid claim to Ireland. Their flag flew before the Irish were a unified nation, and flew for longer than our current flag has flown.

You know, regardless of who occupies Ireland today.

InKonspikuou2

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

By that logic, Britain has a valid claim to Ireland. Their flag flew before the Irish were a unified nation, and flew for longer than our current flag has flown.

You know, regardless of who occupies Ireland today.

There is proof that Indians from Patagonia were on Malvinas prior to British discovery. They withdrew from the islands but left a plaque claiming it as their own. As did the the Spanish when they gained the islands from the French who were the first of the European nations on the islands. The Spanish abandoned the island and it was left idle for years until Argentina moved settlers over and set up a penal colony. Of course Argentina was then called the United provinces of the River Plate. So the basis that the island is British is because they arrived there and stuck a plaque on it claiming it as their own and then when Argentina began using it they wanted it back. So they occupied it, stuck up their flag and brought in settlers. Of course nobody who lives there will claim it as Argentina today because they are all from Europe or direct descendants of British. The Argentines that were there were disposed. Just like on Diego Garcia.

If you can't see that's not the same logic as Ireland you should really read back over the history of the country.

ChocolateSauce

InKonspikuou2 wrote: »

There is proof that Indians from Patagonia were on Malvinas prior to British discovery. They withdrew from the islands but left a plaque claiming it as their own. As did the the Spanish when they gained the islands from the French who were the first of the European nations on the islands. The Spanish abandoned the island and it was left idle for years until Argentina moved settlers over and set up a penal colony. Of course Argentina was then called the United provinces of the River Plate. So the basis that the island is British is because they arrived there and stuck a plaque on it claiming it as their own and then when Argentina began using it they wanted it back. So they occupied it, stuck up their flag and brought in settlers. Of course nobody who lives there will claim it as Argentina today because they are all from Europe or direct descendants of British. The Argentines that were there were disposed. Just like on Diego Garcia.

If you can't see that's not the same logic as Ireland you should really read back over the history of the country.

Even assuming everything you said was true (and I don't, by the way), the islands have been British for close to 200 years. Don't you think that's long enough to say it is permanent? Kaliningrad used to be one of the finest cities in Germany, but now everyone there is Russian. You can't just make a population leave their homes because in the past other people used to live there.

mike65

I think one should recognise a simple Brit-bash thread when one sees it and treat it in an appropriate fashion.

sparkling sea

mike65 wrote: »

I think one should recognise a simple Brit-bash thread when one sees it and treat it in an appropriate fashion.

Too true

InTheTrees

British Imperialists??

I thought it was British Patroleum?

I better call my stockbroker in the morning.

InKonspikuou2

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Even assuming everything you said was true (and I don't, by the way), the islands have been British for close to 200 years. Don't you think that's long enough to say it is permanent? Kaliningrad used to be one of the finest cities in Germany, but now everyone there is Russian. You can't just make a population leave their homes because in the past other people used to live there.

I never said the population has to leave. Just as if the North of Ireland was handed back to Ireland tomorrow i wouldn't expect any population that sees themselves as British to leave. Obviously if there was a handover it would have to be under terms to protect the lives of people who have established a living there.

The British didn't care about the inhabitants of Diego Garcia when they acquired that from the French and gave it to the US to set up military bases. But not before depopulating the area by force of over 2000 locals who had been living there close to 200 years. These double standards seem to exist all over the world and it's strange that only these powerful nations get away with it.

And what i said is true. It is just a short version of what you can read in any history book. The British didn't want to go to war with a joint Spanish and French alliance over the islands so they were happy to not occupy the island then. The Spanish had occupied it and when they left Argentina shouldn't it be assumed the island which is only miles off the coast become part of the newly independent Argentina as it was ruled under the same Spanish colonial rule?