Morocco takes back its rock

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dathi1
Regardless of how the occupants see themselves the Malvinas are much Argentinan as the Aran Islands are Irish.. forget the trophys of war sindrome etc..

Too right........ how would we feel if China had occupation on Cape Clear.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Sand
Rocks, dirt and trees have no nationality. People do.

NO, they don't......... not if they are implanted into a place thru' force of a colonial empire.
Check out Dathi's post again............ Argentina have a more superior moral claim to Malvinas than does a 12,000 mile removed England.

Shinji

Daithi and pro_gnostic; are you honestly trying to say that the people themselves don't have any say in what nation they're governed by?

By your reasoning, Ireland should still be governed from London.

mike65

BTW, the soubriquet "barbaric" might also be conferred upon the Thatcher woman for her treatment of the Hunger Strikers a few short years earlier on this island and her capitalistic emasculation of the mineworkers in particular and the working class in general in her own country.

I think Pro_gnostic_8 is just indulging in some Brit-bashing,
he seems cool with Galtieri as a Meat-Packer resposible for 30,000 dissapeared while all angry about Maggie Thatcher
not caving in to men who killed and maimed.

The working class are better off now than they were in 1978 at the fag end of the Callahan Labour government. Thatcher was vital at the time (1979), another Labour government would have been cutains for Britain.

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Shinji
where the Argentine military government wanted to perform a hostile occupation of a number of islands whose inhabitants considered themselves British and wished to remain so.

Those therefore are British subjects and the government had a duty to protect them from invasion.

The moral entitlement of ownership to Malvinas by Britain is something I will dispute until the day I die........... but, my point is that Thatcher (when Argentina was willing to negotiate the dispute) scuppered a peaceful outcome by deliberately targeting the Belgrano and thereby sending 230 young men to a watery grave. She got her way, and cost a lot of British servicemen's lives (HMS Coventry, e.g.) in the process. Not that any of that cost her a night's sleep, tho'.

dathi1

By your reasoning, Ireland should still be governed from London.

Irish people live in Ireland.
English people live in England.
and Argentinan people live in Argentina and its surrounding islands.

dathi1

forgot to say Palestinians live in Palestine.

mike65

Here's a simple question for the Republicans here -

Do you belive in the concept of the majority having
its views respected? Should Gibratarians or Falklanders
be coerced into a state they wish not to be part of?

Or do the views of ppl on small islands not count for anything?

Mike.

dathi1

ok you try moving to Parsley island off Morocco and declare sovereignty for the island of Mike 65. You will be in the majority and then the Spaniards will remove you. Question answered.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
BTW, the soubriquet "barbaric" might also be conferred upon the Thatcher woman for her treatment of the Hunger Strikers a few short years earlier on this island...

Why, what did she do to them?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Shinji
Daithi and pro_gnostic; are you honestly trying to say that the people themselves don't have any say in what nation they're governed by?

What about the people of Hong Kong? It happened just a coupla years ago that they were handed over en masse to China.
This reply also addresses Mike65's post of 17.56.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Why, what did she do to them?

Howzit goin, Biff,

I mentioned the "barbaric" thing 'cause it was raised in a previous post in relation to the Argentinian Government of 1982. I woz just making a comparative analogy with the Thatcher admin of the same period.
What did she do to them?................. she ignored the valid 5 demands (against all conventions for the acceptable treatment of POW's) so she could demonstrate she was a woman with "balls".

mike65

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

What about the people of Hong Kong? It happened just a coupla years ago that they were handed over en masse to China.
This reply also addresses Mike65's post of 17.56.

Hong Kong was under British governance by dint of a 150 year lease which was always going to expire in 1997. That some did'nt like that fact is by the by, though the UK government could have done more by way of issuing passports of HK citizens...

Mike.

Sand

NO, they don't......... not if they are implanted into a place thru' force of a colonial empire.

News flash, Argentinia is a relatively young country, formed by colonists in South America. As such the Argentinians dont have nationality or the rights to call themselves a nation ( being implanted into a place thru force of a colonial empire). You can even continue that logic to the fact that anybody implanted into Ireland by the force of a colonial empire doesnt have a right to call themselves Irish. Looking at the map it seems Chile has a good case for ownership of the Falklands if geography is all that counts. Of course The Falklanders do not consider themselves Argentinian or Chilean, they consider themselves British and that doesnt change because the middle class and white brigade say otherwise. Assuming the Argentinians actually took control of the Falklands, what would happen to the (british) population? Be forced into national re-education programs? ethnically cleansed?

People have a right to self determination. Flagpoles arent particualry arsed whose flag flies from them, people are.

dathi1

As such the Argentinians dont have nationality or the rights to call themselves a nation

true enough... but at least they dont declare themselves as Spaniards.

Shinji

And if they DID declare themselves as Spaniards en masse, wouldn't that frankly be their business? Who the hell is to tell them they can't?

Same rules apply to the Falklands. They choose to be British, as do the people of Gibraltar. No nation has the right to take that away from them. Whether Thatcher was right to call for the sinking of the Belgrano is beside the point; she WAS right to protect the rights and interests of the British subjects on the Falkland Islands.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by mike65



he seems cool with Galtieri as a Meat-Packer resposible for 30,000 dissapeared

Mike.

I realise the following is in very bad taste, but I have to ask: is the above quote the final, incontrovertible proof that General Galtieri was the original SPAMMER? Seeing as SPAM (the delicious tinned meat) originated in Argentina.
Mod:-- I'll understand absolutely when you delete this post.

mike65

I hope they have a keen sense of black comedy in Argentina!

Mike.

dathi1

They choose to be British, as do the people of Gibraltar.

no one has the right to occupy a foreign country draw a border around themselves and then declare themselves part of another country. I still think the Malvinas are as Argentinean as the Aran Islands are Irish. I will admit however that the Brits put up a good fight to win back the trophy.

mike65

Originally posted by dathi1
no one has the right to occupy a foreign country draw a border around themselves and then declare themselves part of another country. I still think the Malvinas are as Argentinean as the Aran Islands are Irish. I will admit however that the Brits put up a good fight to win back the trophy.

Where does that leave those who live in a territory which is subject to an agreement like Gibraltar is or Hong Kong was? Pretend it does'nt exist and that the views of those in that territory don't matter?

Mike.

dathi1

Hong Kong is Chinese there's no doubt about that. As for Gibraltar well ...is Howth head Irish?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dathi1
I will admit however that the Brits put up a good fight to win back the trophy.

'Twas easy for them to win it with the help of Ronnie Reagans spy satellites and the rest of the world on-side..... WITH THE HONOURABLE EXCEPTION OF ITALY AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

Poor old Argies were reduced to shopping on the black market for a couple of Exocet missiles to continue their brave fight.

They still managed to scupper a few of Her Majesties warships, tho'. They can hold their heads high.
Viva Las Malvinas.

Sand

As for Gibraltar well ...is Howth head Irish?

Im pretty sure Irish people live there. Otherwise our claim to it would be as valid as our claim to northern ireland (oh wait.. ) or Frances claim to the Ibernian peninsula.

mike65

pro_gnostic_8 you're just trolling now...

Mike.

bonkey

What I find interesting is that both Britain and Spain agree that the people of Gibraltar (the colonists, more correctly), who have been there for nigh on 300 years. have absolutely no say in their own future.

What I found slightly amusing was that on the brief bit of CNN I saw last night, the presenter (could have been Lou Dobbs) was at one poiint effectively saying "but you're a colony - surely you should either do what you're told by the British, or you should give back the land to its original owners."

All that sprang to mind was "yes, just like that colony called 'The Americas' did some time back".

The people of Gibraltar are as "native" to their rock as the Unionists in N.I who originally came from England are, or the Americans to the US, or the Aussies / Kiwis to their respective countries. If 300 years is not long enough to establish a valid claim then what is? 350? 400? 500?

Whatever about who should have control of the rock, I find it incredibly oppressive of both governments to refuse to recognise that the "locals" should have any say in the matter.

You'd think the Brits would have realised by now that this is a bad idea, what with all their experience in dealing with colonies and all.

jc