England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

[جوري]

Of 'voting'

still to be explained

I didn't think it merited an explanation? If you bring British squatters to change the demographics the outcome of the vote for falkland to remain British would be obvious.
Falkland Islanders vote to stay British
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/americas/falklands-referendum/index.html
surely you follow the same news the rest of us do?..
As for the rest of that sinister apologetic bit, well one does wonder what British interest was in Hong Kong, Or Egypt, Or India, Or China, or Africa or virgin islands or cyprus or or or falklands? If it is scenic and lovely in jolly old England then keep the ambitions to the local pub?

she's just trying to stir it for a laugh

I think it would be difficult to train British slaves/ POW to exercise better hygiene & be less chatty but on the long run it will be worth it I think many people would enjoy it and I personally think that day is fast upon us

best,

 

[Trumble]

I didn't think it merited an explanation? If you bring British squatters to change the demographics the outcome of the vote for falkland to remain British would be obvious.

I hesitate to threaten the lighthearted tone of this exchange, but have you actually done any research on this subject at all?

The first 'settlements' were French (on East Falkland) and British (West Falkland). The French flogged theirs to the Spanish, who kicked out the Brits in 1770, who left a nice plaque asserting their claim. The Spanish had had enough of the place by 1809, when they all decamped to somewhere warmer and drier, leaving another nice plaque asserting their claim. The only actual Argentine presence (in almost comedic fashion, the Islands had been claimed for Argentina by an American pirate captain forced to shelter there from a storm) was a failed penal colony, the remnants of which were booted off by the British. The Brits started a civilian settlement in 1840 and have been there ever since.

In short, the only Argentines who have ever lived there are a few soldiers and convicts, most if not all of whom I think we can safely assume would far rather have been somewhere else. A Buenos Aires brothel, probably. The only civilian population since the Spanish upped and left voluntarily has been British... so what 'change of demographics' are you talking about?

BTW, the votes are in. Of a total electorate of 1,650, 92% voted. All but 3 voted to remain British. That's 'three'. Even the Argentines aren't claiming the result was rigged, settling for the favourite adjective in such circumstances of 'illegal'. Quite what they think would have changed were the vote 'legal' remains unclear.

 

[جوري]

I watched an entire documentary on the matter a couple if days ago- the Argentines obviously tell a different story and I am not surprised your version of events differs - for obvious reasons I am inclined to believe theirs and after a little British mishap called Israel you can see my dilemma.

It doesn't matter to me otherwise if the Brits elevated it from a certain brothel, anymore than I care that 'Israel' is the only so-called 'true democracy' in the Middle East.
If the Argentines want a brothel they should be so entitled it isn't the issue here.
And yes the votes were going to be 99% in British favor no surprise there it's full of British squatters voting so what are we arguing exactly?!

 

[جوري]

Sorry about the typos I am using my phone- too small to edit or fix but I think you're smarter than your counterpart who often and when lost for an argument fixates on syntax and grammar.

Best,

 

[Trumble]

I watched an entire documentary on the matter a couple if days ago- the Argentines obviously tell a different story and I am not surprised your version of events differs - for obvious reasons I am inclined to believe theirs and after a little British mishap called Israel you can see my dilemma.

As far as I'm aware the extent of the 'different story' is that the penal colony had an associated civilian settlement, a point I'd be happy enough to accept for the sake of argument anyway. Somebody had to do the laundry.

The Argentine claim is one of sovereignty; even they don't suggest anything else. Like many other such claims around the world, it is disputed. The Falklands are no Palestine, nobody was displaced, nobody longs to get their stolen 'land' back, there are no refugees, no oppressed population. There had never been a significant Argentine presence on the Islands until their troops started stomping all over them in 1982. In contrast, there has been a viable, peaceful British civilian presence there for over 170 years. Virtually all those who 'voted' were born there.

What I am arguing about is that your portrayal of the Falkland Islanders as 'squatters' is both bizarre and totally unsupported by the facts even the Argentines do not dispute. The sub-dispute, as it were, between Britain and Argentina in connection with the referendum is not about the result or any manipulation of it, but of whether the view of those who live there as regards to sovereignty matters. Were the place handed over to Argentina tomorrow, the only Argentines you would ever see there would be a few government officials and tourists. A few residents would leave, most wouldn't, and life would go on under a different flag.

Again, this isn't some South Atlantic Palestine, Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore or anywhere else you keep going on about. Some 2,000 lives were lost in 1982 because the Galtieri regime needed some whipped up jingoism to prevent it collapsing, and Thatcher was perfectly happy to oblige with some at her end for much the same reason. That was the real crime, not some alleged colonial injustice . In 2013 both sides know that, and hence that any hot air will remain just that.

 

[Independent]

What I am arguing about is that your portrayal of the Falkland Islanders as 'squatters' is both bizarre and totally unsupported by the facts even the Argentines do not dispute

This is well argued but a waste of breath. She is not interested in any argument at all, no matter how valid. Even if every single fact was round the other way, she would still support Argentina over Britain because she hates the British - anywhere and everywhere.

Even these Falkland Islanders whose only 'crime' was to be born there. Only one thing matters to her - the British race. Might as well wear a yellow star on your sleeve.

 

[جوري]

not some alleged colonial injustice . In 2013 both sides know that.

events don't have to mirror image to be relevant. There doesn't need to be a wall, colonies, alleged entitled ones from Poland, Russia and Sudan (squatters will do- does being a second or third generation squatter change the facts around?) there need not be changing of infrastructure or displacing locals!
It would be stale to repeat the same pattern if for nothing else but variety' sake.
It does indeed come down to sovereignty and there's no reason to doubt the Argentine version of events.
Brits weren't magically brought there by some celestial stork.
I don't need to argue the matter with fervor as you can probably tell it doesn't aggrieve me it's only slightly amusing but given my strong hatred for your govt. and the occasional turds
I am looking forward to any type of event that troubles your govt. and its supporters.
This isn't Afghanistan or Palestine or Iraq etc. for me to lose sleep over. Whether they remain Brits and subjects to her massive royal behind or argentine property and forced to farm and plough and clean toilets or are dumped alive and fed to sharks is all the same in my book I'd certainly prefer the latter though and hope it has a cascading effect.


Best,