2010 Falklands Thread

You have to admit, that’s a damn good question….. 😎

Er – yes. The old girl’s gaga nowadays.

And how would that would differ from the people currently in charge? :diablo:

Yes, of course, that is quite correct – apologies. Expediency. And with a tougher negotiator than Patten, would we have got a better deal? Possibly not……….

No, because the Treaty stipulated that Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997.

Not so. It stipulated that part of Hong Kong should be returned in 1997. Hong Kong island, & Kowloon south of Boundary Street (a significant name), were ceded in perpetuity. But we gave them back anyway.

Look up the Treaty of Nanjing & the Convention of Beijing – the first one, not the second one.

Why do you think we behaved differently in that case? Was it right to do so? Was there any difference in principle, or was it merely expediency?

Change that to ‘we could dust off our Maggie Thatcher’:diablo:

I’ll get me coat

Er – yes. The old girl’s gaga nowadays.

No, because the Treaty stipulated that Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997.

Your question, as Phil says, is leading. I chose expand on my opinion instead of answering your question.

But to answer it anyway; Yes. And why the hell not? If the citizens of Falklands choose to remain British and continue to do so “forever” then why should Britain not defend them forever also? …

So . . . we should have been prepared to fight China over Hong Kong, should we?

….I agree with some of the other contributors, the Islanders should be protected …

This raises an interesting point. Protected – but at what cost, & in what circumstances? We’ve forced British dependents to move before now, for the convenience of the state, we’ve handed British dependents over to other states, & we’ve declined to give the degree of economic support the Falklands got post-1982 to the inhabitants of other remote British islands.

My question to everyone here is this: should we
a) treat the Falklanders the same as the inhabitants of other British dependent territories?
b) treat the inhabitants of other British dependent territories the same as the Falklanders?
or
c) give the Falklanders a special status?
And in each case, what are your reasons for your answer?

Thanks for posting, didn’t realise the third torpedo hit the destroyer! No wonder they didn’t want to stop and PU survivors.

No problem. The Bouchard certainly had luck on her side that day. As the USS Borie she suffered considerable damage over the years.

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-704)

TJ

…Thanks awfully old chap…!

Be my guest. 😀

I shall however be keeping the ‘broom’ line for future use if thats ok GA? 😀

And I’m assuming GA’s response was in a similar vein.

Oh! You know me far too well, Mr Boyle!

I must be growing predictable in my old age. :diablo:

Sense of Humour failures have been known I’ve noticed! 😉

You just never know with some posts here, do you! In case of doubt the smiley does help!;)

To make it perfectly clear…
I was being sarcastic….

I thought it was obvious enough that the :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: was unnecessary.
Just a little tongue in cheek fun pointed at the fanboys, nationalists and most of all…conspiracy theorists.

And I’m assuming GA’s response was in a similar vein.

Ah! I understand – not to worry!;)

sorry JoeyR – I managed to erase part of my thread and now I’ve lost track of it totally ! (I’m at work, and had to lock the screen PDQ)

Sorry, but I don’t follow your thread in relation to the Boyle post……or are there some subtle lines I am failing to read through?:)

J Boyle has quite clearly got the tongue firmly in the cheek. Otherwise simply perverse.

I think he is spot on, being one of the “cousins” he had access to the script use to create the whole conflict, it never happened, it was all a plot by Reagan/Thatcher to keep her in power by making a fake “war” on film :diablo: after the alternative scripts were canned.

as for The Belgrano, big enemy warship (key words here being enemy and war) in the location of UK forces, UK forces had opportunity to engage and they took it. From the non military comfort of my chair, that seems to be all well within the bounds of being reasonable (in so far as a war can be).

The irony is, had the ship gotten through, and launched an attack that effected the fleet at all, (say sank the Hermes and the fleet withdrew)would the apologists now be posting saying that had the UK not lost the war, the Junta would not still be in power and the blood of more of their torture and murder victims is on the UK’s hands? Add that to whatever the fate of the Islanders would have been?

………….made me laugh!