PDA

View Full Version : Gibraltar


Miserlou
14th May 2003, 02:13
Gibraltar

It appears that Tony Blair has been putting into practice the phrase 'Losing friends and alienate people'.

In the light of how the Spanish came on board the US/UK band wagon at the last minute does the panel take this as a sign that Gibraltar has now been effectively sold?

Paterbrat
14th May 2003, 02:30
If so, extremely quietly.

Miserlou
14th May 2003, 06:38
To be more direct. Does the panel trust him not to sell Gib to the Spanish?

solotk
14th May 2003, 07:47
Of course he has

If he can take us to war in the face of strong opposition, then cedeing a valuable territory and naval base to Spain won't even have him breaking a sweat.

Do you think Aznar came on board because of Tony's winning smile?

Well done Bluppet, you're giving away Gibraltar and we've been shafted for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. I wonder what else you can lose us. let me guess, American PFI takes over foundation hospitals?

HZ123
14th May 2003, 16:21
Gosh what terrible things to say. Maybe looking at the state of our construction industry, the lack of Iraq contracts can only be good for the Iraqis.

Surely the base issue has less relevance now as I do recall the locals kicked up a stink over our nuclear sub last year.

Despite our connections I am sure it will be ceded (is that the write word) in the not so distant future or perhaps the EEC will permit it a vote/self rule, I doubt it.

MMEMatty
14th May 2003, 20:12
The people of Gibraltar hve voted almost unanimously (around 98% was the figure i heard) to stay as a colony of Britain, ruled from London. It seems Mr. Blair no longer needs public opinion to rule, else he would have sorted out the hospitals, transport system and police long ago.

What we have is a politician who does not give a monkies about what the public think, as long as his place in History is assured.

Matty

Chaffers
14th May 2003, 21:28
More likely that Spain is slightly more worried about the France / Germany axis than they are letting on and wanted to get rid of Hussein in the process.

If you're assuming some under the table diplomacy has gone on then I very, very much doubt it.

To cede Gibraltar to the Spanish would be one of the most stupid decisions ever to be made by a British PM. Its a shame we're British else we'd really kick up a stink about things like Gibraltar and Zimbabwe.... :rolleyes:

Wee Weasley Welshman
14th May 2003, 21:57
Oh come on chaps. We will never ever give up Gib even if the 99% referendum was reversed!

We *need* a secure sat downlink station at that kind of latitude for the spy sat network.

Plus. Gib gives the UK complete control over the Med should it wish to take such. The implications of which are enormous strategically.

The whole thing is just a bit of spin. The issue makes it look like we have to engage with our continental cousins over important issues but that we can get our own way or walk away.

In fact we should be demanding that Gib be let into the EU and then the Spanish policemen who like to cause 2 hour traffic jams would have to go away and stop harassing our citizens for no good reason.

WWW

Chaffers
14th May 2003, 23:32
Whilst one would like to assume that strategic imperatives are given their proper place I'm not convinced that they do / will. Indeed if 15 half spanish voters in Huddersfield could be bought by selling out the Gibraltans then I wouldn't be too surprised if that is what would happen.

Send Clowns
15th May 2003, 00:48
WWW

Gibraltar is in the EU. The actions of the Spanish police and customs officials are against EU law. The FCO is so wet and pro-foreigner that the government refuses to challenge increasing Spanish harrassment of the Rock.

However, a friend of mine got them back. His navigation was not all it was up to, and took his Royal Marine force up the beaches of Spain thinking he was invading Gibraltar for an excercise ... :ooh:

Chaffers
15th May 2003, 01:14
I do hope that noone has taken the piss out of him for that. :)

Might have been really embarrassing if it had appeared on the news. ;)

Send Clowns
15th May 2003, 01:32
Oh, it did Chaffers. All over the national press, the Sun had a field day. I didn't know it was Fritz until I met him a while later, but I remembered it well.

West Coast
15th May 2003, 04:57
Yeah, heaven forbid the thought of shared sovereignty with a fellow member of the EU, NATO and an ally in Iraq. No mention should be made that GB was once part of Spain until Utrecht was forced on them.

Wee Weasley Welshman
16th May 2003, 00:45
Well the USA is a fellow member of NATO and was an ally of ours in Iraq. Its only had a declaration of sovereignty since 1776 (Gibraltar 1713) not to mention that most of North America used to belong to the British Empire.

How'd you fancy us demanding shared sovereignty of Manhattan?

Regardless of the democratic will of 99% of the residents of Manhattan?

How d'ya like them apples West Coast?

WWW

West Coast
16th May 2003, 01:56
If Manhatten was physically attached to the UK I might say yes.
Anyway, we already kicked your ass for that choice piece of property.

Chaffers
17th May 2003, 11:28
You also were instrumental in helping us take back those deeply attached islands off the Argentinain coastline. Choose yer battles dude. :)

West Coast
17th May 2003, 20:43
Had to chuckle
Any other time you limeys downplay the role the US played in the Malvinas, little willy syndrome I guess. Star billing when the situation requires however.

Paterbrat
19th May 2003, 17:44
Well West Coast since you obviously drag yours along the pavement I guess you don't have that problem. Most of us on Pprune like to stir a bit now and then, we all cast our flies, I see however you seem to visit principaly for that. As a chap who has observed the 'ebb and flow' why don't you take your compatriot Warthog's advice and let the tide take you out for a bit.

Send Clowns I can't help feeling your oppo will have that particular albatros hanging round his neck for a while; after all Gibralta is on the Corps crest as one of it's principal battle honours. His map reading instructor back at ITC Lympstone must have had a heart attack.:ouch:

Training Risky
19th May 2003, 20:58
Alrighty then West Coast.

How about Alaska? That scenic state is attatched to Canada by land, and is closer to Russia than CONUS!:p (continental US)

Which would you prefer, the maple leaf or imperial eagle flying over Juneau?:p

Because by your rationale, the USA should cede Alaska to one of the above!

PS: Ref the Corps' motto, 'Per Mare, Per Terram..... Perhaps lost'?

Miserlou
20th May 2003, 05:20
Although this is an open forum, this topic was, quite obviously I think, directed towards British voters.

How strange then that an American should but in and lower the tone.

Is it in the constitution or just current US policy to stick your nose in to other countries affairs and make yourself as unpopular as possible?

Hilico
20th May 2003, 05:32
Watch out, West, Manhattan is a darn sight closer than the Falklands, and look what we did there.

West Coast
20th May 2003, 17:09
Remeber Hilco, the Malvinas were re-captured because of US aid to your lot, instrumental I believe the word was. I believe we went head to head once, need a reminder? You guys did get to burn DC though in the sequel.

miserlou
Care to take a look at the volume of posts by Brits about issues that are internal to the US? If the US is fair game, then so is the UK or any other nation to PPRUNE members. A double standard exists on PPRUNE, seems like many Brits want their politics off limits to US posters. They however have no problem passing judgement on all things American. Disagree with me all you want, but don't question my right to post.

Traing risky
To the best of my knowledge, there is no credible claim by either to Alaska. Perhaps the Russians might wish now they hadn't sold it, but they did. To use your logic, the French have a just claim to the UK because they are only a matter of miles away, just as Alaska is only a matter of miles away from Russia. There is no basis in the claim, but it follows you logic that says location in of itself is the determining factor. The basis for Spain's claim is simply not location but the way Utrecht was forced on them. To further use your logic, Portugal should be very nervious of Spain then as they share a common border.

Peterbrat
Thanks for the kind words, I just throw it over my shoulder for easy transport. Honestly tell me why I should bug out? I post with a touch a satire a four line post that differs from the majority of Brit's on a Brit board. Its been said a true test of a democracy is not how is imposes the will of the majority, but how it protects the rights of the minority. I am the minority, you seem to wish to silience my right to express a viewpoint that is valid but perhaps not popular with the majority.

Training Risky
20th May 2003, 18:30
Er no. My logic does not suggest that France has a claim to the UK. Anymore than the Red Indians (Ooooh, how un-PC of me) have a claim to re-establish the Sioux Nation in the Western states of the USA; chopping CONUS in two.

Talk sense man:rolleyes:

At the time of sale, Alaska was a barren outpost with no real settlement or infrastructure to speak of. How does that compare with the UK: a sovereign state (for the time being:rolleyes: ) with its own history, government, and all the other rights to self-determination...
....JUST LIKE the Gibraltarians, Falkland Islanders. and Northern Irish; the majority of these colonies want to remain British!!

Utrecht is a legal agreement, and Spain should back off and stop trying to pursue a claim that is totally unjust. And Bliar's government should think twice before selling Gibraltarians down the river.

Come to think of it, remember the fuss Spain made when the Moroccans tried to reclaim a rock off their coastline: Frigates and heli-borne marines!!:rolleyes: All to kick off a couple of gendarmes.

And when is Spain going to share sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla? Or France its colonies in Africa and South America?
Bloody continental Europe.:(

Paterbrat
20th May 2003, 18:41
West Coast as an extremely Pro US contibuter I have little objection to your right to pop in your two cents worth, I only balked a bit at your member being popped in along with it complete with the name tataooed along it's side.
WESTCOASTSANDIEGOCALIFORNIAUSA.

West Coast
20th May 2003, 23:22
Training risky
It is only a matter of time before the Catholics of NI out produce and the majority don't want to remain an outpost of the UK but rather a part of the republic. Will be interesting to see what the UK does. I am a reasonably young man, I think I will see it in my life time. The simple way that you posted implied the logic I panned you on. It said location was the determining factor, talk sense man. Do you really want France to share any of their African colonies? More of a liability than an asset.

Peterbrat
The pain of such would be enough to scare me off. Besides I promised my mom never to get a tat

steamchicken
20th May 2003, 23:41
Well....whatever happens, I think we at least would have the use of the base as a Nato facility. Bloody silly anyway. (for example - the Spaniards, or should I say - the Dons! refusing to accept that it's in the EU. If French Guiana and New Caledonia are... And Mail readers getting het up about it.) Hell, let's keep it.

Concerning the Falklands, the AIM 9Ls were useful - but why were the Amphibious Group told (according to Commodore Clapp, their commander) by PJHQ Northwood not to transmit while the US satellites were overhead? Hmmm.....

Training Risky
21st May 2003, 02:24
West Coast: You still have not explained why if we should hand back Gib, you don't support the following:

1. Alaska going to its land-neighbour (Canada)

2. Ceuta and Mellila going to Morocco

3. Red Indians having a sovereign enclave within CONUS.

waiting for your reply.....

WE Branch Fanatic
21st May 2003, 05:37
Steamchicken

Commodore Clapp told not to transmit? I am interested to know what your source is. In 1982 we had to rely on US Department of Defense satellites for SAT COMMS, since we had none of our own. The Skynet system was resurrected after the Falklands....its imprtance had been overlooked by succesive governments.

Allowing us to use the Commsats was one of the numerous ways in which the US helped us. Every long range communication between the task force and London (CINCFLEET, none of this joint HQ stuff back then) was via a DOD satellite.

By the way, did you ever get any response to your letter/e-mail on the Sea Harrier issue? My mate sent it to everyone on your list, yet she never got a single reply.....

West Coast
21st May 2003, 10:08
TR
1. This one seems to puzzle you. Canada has no claim on Alaska. As such why should we return what was never theirs to begin with? US Sec of State William Seward negotiated with the Russian minister to the US. They agreed upon a price of $7.2 million US currency. The deal was completed in 1867. Just where does Canada come into play? I can make this even easier for you if it helps. Canada wasn't even an independant country when the US purchased Alaska. The UK granted Canada independance 1 July, 1867. The US already owned Alaska by that point, having closed the deal March 30th, 1867. Still having problems with that one?

2 The more PC term is American Indian should you prefer to use that. They got the shaft alright, but they recently got my money at an Indian casino. I guess the same could be said of the Celts of early Britain, or the Scots, Welsh or the Irish. Just to name a few of many injustices. As to a homeland within CONUS, loads of reservation now, but they can have Utah as far as I am concerned.

Dinner is ready, so your other point is going to the wayside for now

Training Risky
21st May 2003, 17:22
West Coast. Please try to understand my point about invalid claims...

- Spain's claim to Gib is that 'it lies on our coast'
- If Canada or Russia WANTED to make a claim, they could cite the same logic, ie: 'its closer to us than it is to you'.

I know my assertion that Canada has a claim to Alaska is far-fetched, that's why I mentioned it. Your argument that the purchase in 1867 is (and always has been) a done deal proves my point:

So was Utrecht (a lot earlier).

Lets throw another factor into this equation over sovereignty.
Why should the USA keep a military base in Cuba??
Gitmo is a vital installation and is doing sterling work, I doubt whether Dubya plans to share sovereignty with Castro.

If this is the case, Why do you think we should give back, or even share sovereignty of Gib with Spain?

It is our version of Gitmo.

Add to this the fact that Spain wants to keep its territories in Morocco, while we hand ours back. That stinks of double-standards.

:mad:


After your din dins, I hope you find the time to get back here and explain your contraverted logic.

PS: I don't do PC. Its a scourge of the modern world equal to McCarthyism.

Send Clowns
22nd May 2003, 02:56
West Coast

Having studied the normal history syllabus for young officers at the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, in which the Falklands Conflict is discussed in depth, I understand more of the US administration was in favour of a settlement allowing Argentina to keep her the islands (gains taken by force of arms against international law) than in favour of the British claim. Only the balance of power in the administration allowed a little, mostly covert assistance to be given. The Americans were helpful, but many not with great enthusiasm.

As has been stated here Spain has no more claim over Gibraltar than Canada or Russia over Alaska or Britain over Manhattan. Spain defeated her only argument (weak and not legally valid) by protecting her claim over an island a few yards from the North African coast. The claim is a lot less strong than the British over Gibraltar, as there are no permanent inhabitants favouring Spanish government.

West Coast
22nd May 2003, 04:05
SC
Your analysis of the Malvinas seems plausible to me. The way it found its way into the thread was another Brit poster telling me just how important the US was to the effort to regain them. It was a matter of conveinence to his point and not encumbered by fact.

steamchicken
22nd May 2003, 23:40
WEBF, the source was Clapp's memoir of the campaign. The remark supposedly was made by Cinc Fleet at the conference on Ascension because "the Americans are being awkward."

Training Risky
23rd May 2003, 15:50
If you do agree with Send Clowns, why do you insist on referring to the Falklands Islands as 'Malvinas'

Is it just to annoy, or are you genuinely pro-Argie/ anti-British?

Chaffers
23rd May 2003, 18:24
Hungry things these Trolls..... :)

skeet surfer
23rd May 2003, 19:45
Speaking as somebody (like many here on pprune) who has served there, it's ok by me for the Falklands to be referred to as the 'malvinas'.
Bear in mind that the derivation of that name comes from 'les malouines' - the people from St. Malo who made up the first colony. Therefore, anyone who uses the name completely denies the Argentine claim to have been there first, because the French were........... But don't let them know that......

steamchicken
24th May 2003, 00:18
Indeed - I recall a French newspaper headline "Malouines - toujours une probleme" which means either "The Falklands - always a problem" or "Women from St. Malo - always a problem":D

Wee Weasley Welshman
25th May 2003, 12:56
The claim that NI catholics will outpopulate other groups is incorrect. The latest 10 year census results show that this is not the case.

Anyway. Lets impose some thread discipline and focus on Gib.

The American security and intelligence community would be extremely alarmed and distressed were Britain to hand Gib over to Spain. The UKUSA agreement on intelligence sharing means that in effect Gib is a valuable US asset. If President Bush ever wished to close the straits with immediate effect a simple phone call to Downing Street could do that within the hour.

In this light the American contributors to this thread with a slightly anti-imperial aroma are shooting themselves in the foot of national interest.

WWW

West Coast
25th May 2003, 16:51
Training risky
Is Malvinas incorrect? Or does it just happen to be different from what you accept as correct?

WWW
I don't doubt the importance of GB. You presuppose that Spain in control of GB would mean great changes to the US's intrists. Speaking hypothetically, my belief would be that the US relationship with Spain as owner would bear the same fruits as with the UK.

Wee Weasley Welshman
27th May 2003, 09:42
West Coast. Preumably you are unaware of the interoperablity of UK/US intelligence. The UK paid for chunks of US spy satellites. The NSA and GCHQ operate hand in glove, sharing staff, bases, sources and methods.

UK and US Mil Comms can operate on shared bandwidth, have common security protocols and encryption systems. We share and interoperate BMEW assets and are moving into ABM defence together.

This relationship is like no other the US has with any other nation and it is founded on a treaty signed by Churchill.

Gibraltar is a very high value asset to the UK comms and intel community. Were it to be lost and the Spanish allowed to amble in the loss would be keenly felt by the US who simply do not have the same relationship with the Spanish who do not have anything remotely like the capabilities or interests of the UK.

Regardless of how cordial US Spanish diplomatic relations are.

Same applies to the UK miltary stations in Cyprus and elsewhere around the globe in odd places.

WWW

mad_jock
27th May 2003, 10:14
Apart from the big heap of window frames.

There are some pretty funny smells of flowers under the rock.

And some doors that shall never be opened.

There is ALOT more history in the rock that most of us will never be party to.

I agree with WWW its the only way the MED can be shut by the UK/USA. And that dry dock is the only facility which can deal with the tonnage of the american fleet.

Spain is in the euro and is party to all the euro crap so USA ain't going to be happy handing over such a prime asset to to the French/Germans in a Federal europe.

MJ

Training Risky
27th May 2003, 19:12
People people people..... :rolleyes:

There are some fine arguments here destoying the Spaniards' case. But there is really no need for them.
We all know what we need to know about Gib, and it is a fact that even WestCoast (from the Greatest Democracy In The World (the USA)) cannot deny:

The people of Gib, (under Peter Caruana's leadership) voted 99% AGAINST any change to the status quo!

With this in mind, how can anyone from a democratic nation (UK,USA, etc) claim that the destiny of self-determining Gibraltarians should be ridden over roughshod, by a foreign power?

After all, the Americans didn't like it in 1776 did they.:confused:

Kwasi_Mensa
27th May 2003, 19:55
Democracy made in the US :hmm: this is what one of the main decision makers (Wolfowitz) of the Greatest Democracy in the World is thinking about it during a recent visit to Turkey, where he accused the Turkish military of holding back from forcing the elected government into line: “I think for whatever reason they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue that we would have expected.”

Normally one would see this as a military putsch but he continued: "“I think it’s perfectly appropriate, especially in your system, for the military to say it was in Turkey’s interest to support the United States in that effort.(...) My impression is they didn’t say it with the kind of strength that would have made a difference.”

Now, do the US want a democracy with an elected parliament, or do they want a dictatorship that follows the wishes of the US?

paulc
27th May 2003, 21:40
They already have one - its the UK with Blair as the dictator

Send Clowns
28th May 2003, 05:20
West Coast

Malvinas is incorrect. Falkland Isles is correct.

The islands are British, and have been for a long time. Argentina has no legitimate claim on them at all, and has not had for a very long time. The islanders, when offered a huge amount of money (more than US$1,000,000 each I seem to recall) by the Argentine government to move out turned the offer down with a huge majority in the referendum.

The islands are called The Falklands by the inhabitants and the sovereign power. The locals object to the name Malvinas because they suffered occupation by a fascist state calling the islands by that name. You offend basic human dignity by the implied belittling of their rights by using the name.

West Coast
28th May 2003, 07:21
SC
Respectfully disagree, as do some of your countrymen who have served there.

Send Clowns
28th May 2003, 21:03
No you don't. You disagree in a disrespectful manner. Since you also have put up no reasonable argument for your case, and since you are wrong under every set of rules from "might is right" to UK law (which obtains in the Falklands), international law (such as it is) and UN mandate then I cannot see how your disagreement is in any way relevant. It simply makes you wrong in every important sense, except your own sense of self-importance.

foghorn
30th May 2003, 06:31
Bravo. I couldn't agree more. However I'm probably disqualified from commenting in West Coast's eyes because I'm (cough) British.

West Coast
30th May 2003, 15:01
Ok, on a visceral level now.

The Malvinas(which is just as correct as Falklands) was interjected by a Brit poster. I agreed with your at the time reasoned analysis of the US role.
Your right, I didn't put up a "reasonable argument" about the UK's actions. I had no bone to pick. Find in the thread where I made a point of tying the Malvinas to the issue of GB. Where is it? I await your response. Other than the semantics of what to call the islands and what role the US played, it is adjunct to the thread. You are the one now bringing it to the fore ground.

Perhaps because to some degree we share a common language and ancestery you think I am going out of my way to call the islands the Malvinas. Not true, I come from the Americas, not from Europe. I speak reasonable Spanish. Latin influence is all around Southern California, indeed its about a hop skip and a jump to Mexico from my house. It is natural for me to refer to it as the Malvinas. If it helps, I still on occasion refer to Zimbabwe as Rhodesia. Should China change the name of the UK's former colony from Hong Kong to something else, will you call it by its new name? Who is right? Both are correct. Move on.

Why is it you attack me on a personal level for something you don't agree with? I didn't question your manner up until now. I didn't lob insults your way asking about your degree of importance. You would never think of talking to me or anyone else like that in discussion face to face, why in cyber space?

In my short time here at PPRUNE I have noticed a double standard applies to US posters. The US is fair game. From Washington to Hollywood, its weapons free. Should anyone question the Brits, the fangs come out and it goes personal.

Send Clowns
30th May 2003, 17:40
You admit then, West Coast that you are Anglophone? Here you are writing in English. Well then Malvinas is not correct, that is the term in Argentine Spanish. It is no more correct in the context than me calling New York "New Amsterdam". That would be no problem, innoffensive, except imagine if I did so after the Netherlands had taken New York by force of arms, establishing totalitarian rule over the city, calling it New Amsterdam, and then killing American soldiers in their process of reclaiming the territory. That would be offensive.

The only logical reason for calling the Falkland Isles the "Malvinas" in an English text is to imply sympathy with the false Argentine claim over the territory.

foghorn
30th May 2003, 18:00
In my short time here at PPRUNE I have noticed a double standard applies to US posters. The US is fair game. From Washington to Hollywood, its weapons free. Should anyone question the Brits, the fangs come out and it goes personal.

However viewed from the other side, as it were, it does seem that you personally feel that you are on a crusade to put Brits right with your own personal and very subjective version of world history, West Coast. This is my opinion, not a personal attack.

You may be convinced of the righteousness of your mission, or you may just be trolling. Whatever is your motive, you forward in a confrontational manner rather controversial views to which many take umbrage, which sometimes seem to be designed simply to cause offence (see threads passim).

I therefore find it amusing that you suddenly come over all sensitive when things get heated. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Training Risky
30th May 2003, 18:34
I should think that those with any sense would agree that the issue of the Falklands is indeed relevant to the question of sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Both are territories of the UK, populated by British Overseas Citizens/Dependents.
Both populations both reject any other country's claim to them.
Both territories belong to the UK under legal international agreements.
And both are important garrisons/airfields.

I find it absolutely astounding that any citizen of the USA would dispute the right of self-determination, (and therefore the right to decide sovereignty); a right that Falklanders/Gibraltarians must have.

Stating that Southern California is steeped in Spanish lore and language does not excuse a US citizen from supporting a fascist government like Galtieri's..... since that is what the name 'Malvinas' means on this forum.

Send Clowns
30th May 2003, 18:55
Oh, and while we're at it, since the English are fair game to Hollywood, even using wildly inaccurate history, I think Hollywood is fair game to the English. I, however, like to think I have some honour, so use what is to the best of my knowledge the truth or justified opinion.

Wee Weasley Welshman
30th May 2003, 19:19
I noted with arch satisfaction that in The Matrix Reloaded a central villan was French. Until recently he would of course been an Alan Rickman style Brit.

Anyway. Gibraltar is British, it is staying British and it will never be Spanish. So Ya Boo to Johnny Spaniard I say.

WWW

West Coast
30th May 2003, 23:04
SC
You make some leaps of logic. I say I come from a background that is steeped in Latin influence. You read I am an anglophile. To follow that means by the virtue of being British you are biased against Americans. It follows your logic tract. Does every time a Brit refers to the US as the "colonies" or Yanks , Septics, gumps or other demeaning terms make them biased. A thread from the past showed you refering to Zimbabwe as Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. therefore you must be biased against them. I don't believe it, but it mirrors your argument.

Training risky
Tell me this, how is calling the islands the Malvinas supporting a facist like Galtieri's? Democracy returned to Argentina in 1983, am I still supporting the facists every time I call it the Malvinas?
In current terms there may be no difference between the Malvinas and GB. The difference lies in the acquisition. GB was invaded by Brit naval forces in 1704 and was taken by force from the Spanish. The Malvinas were first occupied(not in the military sense) by your kin in the late 1600s. The first sighting of the islands is in dispute, the settlement of them is not. Argentina's claims to the islands date back to the 1820s, long after your flag was planted. Its easy to see no difference where the modern day Spanish claims come from unless you juxapose it against a bit of history.
I can not make this any clearer, I believe the UK's claim to the Malvinas to be legit. Sorry you can't deal with the name I associate with it, that's a problem for you to work through.

No foghorn, I am not on a one man crusade. I have an opinion. The purpose of the current affairs forum is to discuss. I am not sensitive to the criticism sent my way, more curious than anything else. Curious as to personal attacks because you dislike my opinion on GB. Personal attacks because of the name I call the islands. I agree, if you cant take the heat, out you go. It is however not I that is boiling over. I have tried to stay on task while SC and others turn this into a mud slinging match.

Training Risky
1st Jun 2003, 03:46
You're right, this is not a mud-slinging contest. It is a place for discussion and I try to stick to the idea of attacking the post, not the poster..... it is hard sometimes:rolleyes:

Refusing to call the islands 'The Falklands' is your way of sympathising and agreeing with the Galtieri government's illegal occupation of the territory. And also means you support the current, and any future govt's claim.

The fact that they had an election the next year, doesn't mean they have given up their quest to snatch it back somehow.

The fact that it is probably impossible for the UK to ever mount another maritime task force like the one we saw in 1982, means that the danger of a second attempt in the near future, should not be ruled out.


You say there may be no difference between the Falklands and Gib. Then you say you believe the UK's claim to the former to be legit.

I just do NOT understand your reasoning. How can you believe that the British citizens of Gibraltar should have a foreign govt appointed over them, when they had a referendum result rejecting the notion outright.:confused:

Gib is British, and will always remain so. Just like you probably believe the USA has the right to keep Alaska, Hawaii and Gitmo Bay in Cuba....

.....now I mention it, you haven't explained your position on Gitmo yet.:O

If the USA can keep a sovereign base on a foreign island, why can't we?:confused:

West Coast
1st Jun 2003, 17:09
The hubbub over what I choose to call the islands is becoming a bit of a bore and is wasting all of our time. It seems from your side of the divide that if I lived 20 miles south in Mexico that the Malvinas would be appropriate. However as I am a caucasian the logic follows that I must use anglo saxon terms. Nevermind that Argentina is over 90% white.

The residents of GB would have surprised us all if the had wanted to return to Spains rule. The outcome of the referendum had to be known prior to the vote. The question is not what the locals want, its the rightful owner of the rock. Your argument amounts to the idea that possession is 9/10ths of the law. You possess, therefore its right. This denies the manner in which it was acquired. I am in agreement, GB will remain under the crown rule. So no chest thumping is required, this is an excercise in differing opinion.
Spain, a sovereign state was invaded by your nation and had GB taken. Are we in agreement that happened, or do you have a different view? I can understands Spains claim that if it was illegal then, the actions remains illegal today With a few hundred years to work with I could talk Frenchman into liking cheap California wine, just as a few hundreds years of British culture has turned the locals in GB into loyal servents. The difference between us is that you believe the desires of the occupants drives the issue while I believe the manner of acquisition is what should determine the outcome.
Answer this in as objective a manner as you can. You say Argentina may in the future invade the Malvinas with a realization that they may suceed. For purposes of my argument say they do. As you proffer, the UK cannot or chooses not to mount another invasion. Over the passing decades British influence in the lives of the islanders lessens, they become acclimated and accustomed to Argentinian culture. In two hundred years does the UK still have a moral claim to the islands as they were taken by force? If a referendum was put forth, how do you think they might vote. Honor system, be objective sans emotion.

Paterbrat
1st Jun 2003, 18:04
Gibraltar's strategic position has meant that it has been disputed over and taken by many peoples. The Romans Phonecians Visigoths, Moors Spanish and Britis have all fought over it and possessed it at various stages in history. It has been known historicaly as they key to Spain and gateway to the Meditteranean.

The 1713 treaty with Spain granted Britain the right for ever without exception or impediment, a treaty that was ignored in the attacks of 1727 and 1779 the last seige lasting four years. It was considered one of the Royal Marines most outstanding Battle honours.

It is a NATO ' choke' point and in maritime terms remains strategicaly important. It is an important Naval asset, and in global stratagy probably retains at least some usefullness though it's dockyard facilities have been considerably downgraded.

Britain still has a Navy, though through repeated defence cuts and Government policy this has been reduced to a shadow of it's former self, and a force that struggles with fiscal restraint. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are still an island nation that to a great degree depends on maritime supply and defending those supply lines cannot be undertaken solely with land and airforces.

slim_slag
1st Jun 2003, 18:59
west coast

From Washington to Hollywood, its weapons free. Should anyone question the Brits, the fangs come out and it goes personal.

Yep, Americans are very tolerant of verbal criticism of the US by foreigners. The Brits are pretty intolerant. I think it boils down to the fact that freedom of speech is drummed into Yanks at a very early stage. The Brits don't have a first amendment.

The difference between us is that you believe the desires of the occupants drives the issue while I believe the manner of acquisition is what should determine the outcome.

So you are one of the few Yanks I know who doesn't believe in democracies. Self determination is something you don't believe in. When are you going to give the US back to the Indians??

foghorn
1st Jun 2003, 19:35
Curious as to personal attacks because you dislike my opinion on GB.

Probably a slip of the fingers, but I havent made a personal attack on you here, West Coast. I offered my opinion, and quite clearly labelled it as such. If you can find any instance of me attacking you in this thread, you're welcome to point it out.

cheers!
foggy.

West Coast
2nd Jun 2003, 02:06
Foghorn
That was not directed your way, apoligies if it seemed that way.

Slim slag, Peterbrat
Chicken/egg issue.
What came first, British naval forces that siezed GB from a sovereign or the treaty that guaranteed British rule of said?
The treaty is nebulous, once British troops took the rock by force, they guaranteed Brit rule.
As to the American indian issue raised, many have made credible arguments of the validity of their claim. Scholars on the other side of the debate say no. No because the indians largely rejected the concept of land ownership and were a transient in nature.
I don't have the answer, but I do recognize the possibility the indians might have some moral high ground in their claim Are you prepared to do the same for GB?

slim_slag
2nd Jun 2003, 04:46
West Coast,

And I thought it was a simple black and white type issue in your eyes. Now you are involving all sorts of complexity in your desire to keep your incredibly wealthy land you stole from the original inhabitants. The white man ignored plenty of treaties if it suited them and if the land was valuable enough. The Indian might have started off believing they belonged to the land, but white man soon taught them the land belonged to them.

If nobody is alive who can remember the original colonisation, the simple answer is to ask the people who live there now. Self determination is enshrined in the UN charter. Sounds like you don't believe in taking much note of what the people think.

Paterbrat
2nd Jun 2003, 06:34
All the fault of the Romans realy, innit. Showing us what can be done with a decently disciplined body of men.

West Coast
2nd Jun 2003, 08:30
The issue of GB can never be a simple black and white issue. That oversimplifies the complex nature of hundreds of years of history and politics. Shades of grey do exist. Your point about the fate of the American Indian is taken. A point of order however. The vast majority of Indians believed that no one owned, or could own land, however your inference is understood. Yes, they got the shaft. I see parallels to it in British history. I guess we learned it from our ancestors.
As to your reference to the UN charter, kindly please state where you found that. I would like to read the language of the source document you allude to. I briefly reviewed all 21 chapters and 111 articles that make up the founding charter and found nothing to support that. It is a number of years old and I imagine there are a few addendums by now.

slim_slag
2nd Jun 2003, 17:34
West Coast,

As to your reference to the UN charter, kindly please state where you found that. I would like to read the language of the source document you allude to. I briefly reviewed all 21 chapters and 111 articles that make up the founding charter and found nothing to support that.

Chapter 1, Article 1, Part 2

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

It's one of the first things in there. Pretty damned important stuff!

I'm not sure who wants the GB, I don't know of any territorial claims, though I am sure the French might make one just to be annoying. The last time the UK was taken by force was close to 1000 years ago, I really don't think anybody can say it belongs to anybody except the current inhabitants. Maybe if enough economic migrants get asylum the Brits will want the UK back :)

Send Clowns
2nd Jun 2003, 19:10
West Coast

Not only do I cede that the decendents of the original inhabitants should decide how the Rock is governed, I insist upon it. Since the majority of the Gibraltarians are descended from the Spanish stock of those on Gibraltar when British rule was agreed (we never cleared the peninsular) the current inhabitants should be asked, by your logic. They have been, by their first minister. The vote was the highest outside Ba'athist Iraq in favour of the current rule.

If you knew a little more about the history of the issues you discuss you might not feel so foolish.

P.S. I said you are Anglophone. Your first language, and from what I gather your only fluent language, is English. The name of the islands in English is the Falklands, therefore if you use the Argentine Spanish name you make a political point against democracy and the rule of law.

Chaffers
2nd Jun 2003, 20:10
I can't help feeling that you are being a little contrary here West Coast. Yes GB was taken by force however that was the political norm of the day. Hundreds of years later the only memory of that age is the treaties signed, which are still valid today.

If the people of Gibraltar have allowed the manner of their acceptance into the British Empire to fade from their collective memory then I see no reason whatsoever why, as Brits, we should be expected to remember or be accountable for it.

slim_slag
2nd Jun 2003, 20:26
West Coast,

Sorry, I thought you mean Great Britain when you said GB, not Gibraltar. My body is on Monday morning, brain still in Sunday afternoon.

Training Risky
2nd Jun 2003, 21:41
Look West Coast, stop avoiding my question about Guantanamo Bay. I and the lads on this thread would love to hear your reasoning on this one:

If the UK can't keep a military base on Spain's land, under a treaty that was agreed nearly 300 years ago, how can the USA get away with doing it in Cuba, (seeing that Cuba can hardly be described as an ally, can it?)

Looking forward to your reply...

IFTB
2nd Jun 2003, 22:53
What a thread, West Coast versus offcoast Europe.
Reading the postings one of the things I noticed that on "the island" not many people know where they actually are or are arguing about.

- England, UK, Great Britian, or the best one of all: "Brits will want the UK back"

- Can anyone of the posters actually remeber the subject?

West Coast's burden of thinking that the Brits are attacking the US can be shared with the French. We all get a turn. As long as it is not Britain. Heaven forbid.

For his written english, he seems to be expressing himself in easy to understand english in case the Brits have problems. Well done.

Tricky Woo is right in the other forum:
Thank you, thank you, thank you, moderators for this excellent forum.
It increased the standard of JB!

Paterbrat
3rd Jun 2003, 00:20
I would say IFTB that the central issue of the thread has been preserved and yes I would agree that West Coast is presenting a stout defence in excellent English, somewhat better than yours. You are as vague and wandering as the rest of us and if I get the drift of the heavy irony I would simply ask why you are here and not with your idol next door. If you can 'remeber' how to get back. Oh, and your contribution on Gibraltar was...???

IFTB
3rd Jun 2003, 00:30
None, to answer the last question, my dear friend.
For the language mistakes I can only apologise, and is probably born out off being raised in two, non English languages.
However, I have spoken English long enough for that not being an excuse.
Rest to say that I am impressed by West Coasts control of foresaid language.


I remain sincerely yours,

IFTB

slim_slag
3rd Jun 2003, 01:04
IFTB,

If you had actually read the thread you would see I apologised to west coast for my brain fart Brits will want the UK back post. So go and do a bit more study, and let us know what you think :)

So where are you from? I bet we can find some abusive colonialism in your history, and a total disregard by the current population of what happened. Where do you think I am from?

West coast is indeed doing a great job of telling the Brits how to do things in black and white terms. When equivalent US colonialism is presented, he gets all wishy washy, or just ignores the question. He does it in a nice way though, so no harm done.

West Coast
3rd Jun 2003, 06:00
SC
You paint with a narrow brush when you infer that native tongue is the determining factor of ones composition. That ignores the role that culture plays in the outcome. We are not as homogeneous as you would like to believe. Even within the context out our semi-common language there are differences in spelling, pronunciation, diction and syntax. A person is shaped by what is around him, not what is acceptable continents away in the UK. I don't know what else to tell you, I am tiring of defending what I as an individual call the islands. From some 6000 miles away you indicate great prescience as to how my culture and upbringing left me short. I don't know if it was the Latin influences of my teachers, the largely Spanish speaking composition of the schools I attended or something else that shaped me, but I refuse your inference that I am somehow biased twords the Argie POV. Indeed, I have said the UK was just in its actions. I learned the islands by the name Malvinas and will continue to call them that. I have explained myself to the extent possible. You view me with a jaundiced eye, no amount of reason or explanation will overcome that. As such I see no further use in trying to.

West Coast
3rd Jun 2003, 16:24
Slim slag
Understood, no worries

TR
I have not been ignoring you.

I imagine your question is an attempt to connect the dots and find some common thread with GB. Both have water all around and are outposts connected to foreign countries. After that, it is going to take some spin and creative wordsmithing to advance any parallels. Gitmo is leased from a sovereign nation. That Cuba is no longer friendly to the US does not affect the legality of the lease. Now whether it does so out of altruism, respect for the rule of law or some other motivating factor I will leave for you to figure out. Gitmo is not the only outpost leased from a foreign country, indeed the US leases DG from the UK on a long term basis. The usefulness of Gitmo has a normal ebb and flow. A number of years ago, 1989 I think the government considered giving it back to Cuba. During one of the periodic boatlifts to Florida Castro emptied his prisons and send them to the US. The US was going to send them to Gitmo and then give Gitmo back to Cuba. Didn't happen but it was considered at high levels. As currently playing as a club med to the baddies of Afghanistan, that will eventually end and the question mark of its future will return. You asked my opinion, I think its time to give it back to Cuba.
Time has lessened claims of ownership to the point that the UK is recognized as owning GB lock stock and barrell. Now look, I am pragmatic in my daily routine and approach to life. I recognize that GB will never be returned to Spain and that in the eyes of the world its belongs to the UK.
That in no way lessens the history of of the violent manner in which GB was annexed. The difference between Gitmo and GB is the difference between an astute business deal and an act of war.

Here and in another thread you have tied the UKs expansion to that of the United States, specifically to the theory of mainifest destiny. Again the pragmatic side recognizes that the US will remain in its current form and that I have benefitted at the loss of the American Indian. This in no way lessens the then illegal actions of my country, nor yours to GB.

Paterbrat
3rd Jun 2003, 16:57
WC, carry your argument to it's conclusion and what you are stating is that human history is illegal. To look back into our past is to see that the human animal has been in constant flux and conflict since we appeared on the planet surface, one might almost say that that is our destiny.

I certainly acknowledge that boundries appear to be more static now between countries now but there still appears to be enough conflict about. Besides if we are to take any pointers from history, civilzations rise and fall with an acommpanying expansion and contraction. indeed certain civilsations even dissapeared over short periods of time, generaly for some catastrophic event. The Mayans, very advanced for their time seemed to wither away for no apparent reason that has been determined with any certainty

Treaties have been with man since the earlies times, and treaties were broken, and to the present time it has taken might to enforce 'right'. It seems that it's right as long as it can be ensured to be right at least until now that is.

Send Clowns
4th Jun 2003, 00:51
West Coast

I was not denying that you call the Islands the Malvinas, but pointing out that you were wrong to state that the name is just as correct as the Falklands. Since you are anglophone, and the name in US as well as British English is the Falklands, anything else is less correct.

I further pointed out that since you know the correct word and use the incorrect which has political tones it could be assumed that you are agreeing with those political implications. They are antidemocratic and have been used to excuse a violent invasion.

West Coast
4th Jun 2003, 06:44
Less correct or more correct. Kinda pregnant and kinda not pregnant. sort of right and really right.

I now know the PC way to a Brit (at least one)to refer to the islands, doesn't work with my neighbor though who is of Latin ancestory. Being PC is going to be tough. Your crusade is not quite complete, a number of your countrymen agree that Malvinas is acceptable.
I guess I better start flying right and spell Brasil with a z now instead of a s because its less correct otherwise despite my having learned it with a s. I also learned to spell tire with an I and not y. We are both anglophone as you call it. Therefore your logic would lead us to believe that one of us is more correct and the other less correct. I suspect unless a boatload of Yanks shows up, most posters will vote I am the one less correct, bar any hanging chad's that is. For that matter we call the same thing by different names, let alone spelling. First time I visited Ireland as a child I was a bit bewildred to find out the natives friendly as they were had no idea what a toilet was. When one is asking about a toilet, its for a reason. I also found out that a boot wasn't something to wear, but the back of our rental car. I still am not for sure if the bonnet is the the hood or not. If you came to my hometown of San Diego for a visit, would you be more or less correct to leave your culturally adopted terms at home and use our culturally adopted terms? Both anglophones speaking a different language.
I was a little surprised to find out as a school boy that there was another way to spell the same word in an equally correct manner. A different culture in a different land, a different way of doing things. You will stand in a long but distinguished line of people to damn my culture, one you have shown you have little knowledge of and no appreciation for

I had told myself I would not answer anymore questions along these lines, but your post struck me as awfully funny. Varying shades of correctness and all that. Honestly, unless you post something as humorous I am done.

solotk
4th Jun 2003, 07:27
Someone ought to tell these damn foreigners what the proper name of these Islands are. This is unacceptable :)

http://www.guiadelmundo.com/paises/falkland_islands/mapa.html

http://www.eurosur.org/guiadelmundo/paises/argentina/malvinas/historia.htm

http://interhotel.com/falkland_islands/es/

http://www.tutiempo.net/tutiempo.php?pais=FK

http://www.tabaquismo.freehosting.net/malvinas/MALVINASFALKLANDS.htm

So, the correct way to name these Islands, depends on exactly which map you look at, and whether Spanish is your first language. In other words, you can really call them "The Falklands" if you're British , and Las Islas Malvinas if you're Spanish, or not British.

:p

Paterbrat
4th Jun 2003, 07:39
Would seem to be an equable solution.

West Coast
4th Jun 2003, 08:36
Agreed

Hmmmm. 15 character thing strikes again.

OneWorld22
5th Jun 2003, 04:06
West Coast,

How are things is Saint James by the way? I love that part of the US or seeing the Golden Gate bridge up in Saint Francis.

I hope Saint Anthony beat New Jersey in the NBA finals!

Every spanish place name in the US should be scrapped immediately and replaced with good sensible Queens English names. San Diego should be renamed Woolwich!

West Coast
5th Jun 2003, 13:23
Woolwich.....well.....hell, I guess so. Grows on you after awhile.
Who knows, it might even scare a few locals away and I will be able to move to La jolla cove. After its renamed of course.
To answer your question, its a lovely day, about 80, err 25 C, doh gonna take awhile.


No mas tequilla para mi. Warm beer for me please.

KC-10 Driver
18th Jun 2003, 21:45
By the way, I was in Gibraltar recently. From atop the Rock, outside the entrance to the Siege Tunnels, I watched a BA A320 land on Rwy 09. It was quite a nice site.

I very much enjoyed my three day holiday there, and it only took me about 20 minutes in the queue to cross the border!

It was refreshing to be back in an anglophone zone after more than a month in Spain.

Just thought I'd mention it since the topic is Gibraltar. I have nothing controversial to add.

I never made it to Hong Kong before it was handed back. I'm glad I made it to Gibraltar before my countryman's views are possibly realized (which I doubt will happen in my life time).

Engaging, lively thread.

Pontious
30th Jun 2003, 08:04
KC-10 Driver

Thanks for those kind words,in a world of prevelant"Brit Bashing" it's reassuring to see that someone from outside values what we have left,and I am glad you enjoyed it. Did you have a chance to see the Apes?
Don't worry. The Rock will stay with its current owners as long as its current inhabitants want to stay part of the family. I've often visited Gib' and have some fond memories myself. It has its own magical and mystical beauty.I used to get the same feeling driving from Brunswick to Boston in the fall watching the leaves change colour.

BlueEagle
30th Jun 2003, 10:38
Read in a paper over the weekend that Blair has abandoned talks with Spain on Gibraltar as they are, "poles apart".

West Coast
30th Jun 2003, 14:31
Explain to me why is it "Brit bashing"?

You guys need to get some thicker skin.

Pontious
1st Jul 2003, 02:40
Wets Coats

Did I actually state that you were "Brit Bashing"?

You,guy,need to get some thicker skin

West Coast
1st Jul 2003, 06:59
When one resorts to rearranging screen names, what follows is usually bound for the gutter.

I asked why it was bashing to question Brit policy on GIB.
My question was void of any personal reference to whom was doing the percieved bashing, I don't feel I was. I see you participating in other threads this day that question American motives. I don't see that as bashing but as debate. I have broad shoulders, I encourage your input. By the same token, accept mine.

HugMonster
1st Jul 2003, 17:27
West Coast, should we now have a discussion on US policy over Hawaii?

West Coast
2nd Jul 2003, 02:49
Hawaii has nothing to do with GIB. Stay on task or start another thread. Perhaps I will start one about Ireland.

Pontious
2nd Jul 2003, 04:15
West Coast

My sincerest apologies. I was confusing you with Wino who spelt my name wrong on the Gibraltar thread. I implore you to start a "Northern Ireland" thread and you are absolutely correct when you say that you cannot mention Gib in the same thread as Hawaii.
That's because in the recent referendum on whether or not to join "Espana"( I know how much you like your latin terms) the Gibraltarians voted overwhelmimgly to remain tied to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(we'll call that the UK so you don't get confused with GB and Gib) so a big thumbs up for democracy there then wouldn't you agree?

The various movements in the drive towards Hawaiian Independance are talking of pooling their resources, in the wake of U.S foreign policy and that Non-U.S. tourist trade to Hawaii has plummeted, in a conserted effort to start to distance themselves from the U.S. So if there comes a day when the Hawaiians say we want a referendum on whether to stay part of the U.S. or not, would Capitol Hill allow it? Could they legally forbid it?And would they accept an unfavourable result?

Hang on a minute! I've got an idea!Hey Fellow Brit's, The Hawaiian Flag has the Union Jack within it! So we must be related in someway! Let's start some fund raising activities so that we can help our Oppressed Pacific Brothers in the Struggle for a free and Independant Hawaii!! We can raise money so that they can drive out the Oppressing Forces!! We'll ask... erm,...who was it now?... Err!... Those nice people from New England... err... NORAID for advice on how they started!!
So ,yes, let's start a Hawaii debate!

Oh and West Coast, I am led to believe that the Spanish(Sorry Espanol) for Gibraltar,you'll be absolutely mortified to accept is..... Gibraltar.

foghorn
2nd Jul 2003, 05:09
Maybe we should start referring to Hawaii as 'The Sandwich Islands'?

After all being British its a more relevant moniker to us. Despite the fact that most of the world won't know what the **** we're talking about and it's clearly mentioned just to troll... :}

West Coast
2nd Jul 2003, 05:15
The new topic button is a little to the left of the reply one. Have at it.

Yes I do prefer Spanish when its appropriate to the culture I was raised in. Very charming of you to induldge me, there may be hope for some of you guys yet.

If Hawaii wanted to cede from the union, then I for one would not stand in the way. The main reason is I am cognizent of the history of Hawaii as one can be as I lived there for a number of years. I am aware of the parallel you are trying to work in. Your using the logic that was employed without success about halfway through the thread. Just because the US did it to to Hawaii doesn't mean it was right, ergo what you did to GIB wasn't legal either. This thread is about GIB, therefore the scope should be limited to pretty much that.

Pontious
2nd Jul 2003, 05:41
So West Coast

I ascertain and therefore deduce from your various threads and contributions that you are vehemently opposed to the Foreign Policy of The UK to various locations in ages past,particularly ones were there has been a Spanish-claim. Am I correct?

So I take it that you are vehemently opposed to the actions of ANY large Colonial-like power that agressively enters peace-loving countries to enforce their will on nation upon nation of unsuspecting residents and nationals,or do you just single out the Brits for special treatment?

West Coast
2nd Jul 2003, 07:34
Pontious
I am pragmatic in my beliefs outside of PPRUNE. The union jack is there for the duration, I accept that. What I post here is in the name of lively debate and an exchange of ideas with posters that have opinions outside of what beer tastes better. I don't think I have agreed with Kwasi Mensa on a single issue, however his little slogan beneath his name says it all. Something to the effect of exercising your brain or else. Don't take what I put here as a personal attack on you or your country. So no I dont have a woodie for the UK's policies. I also am not biased twords Spanish or Latin views as you intimate. I don't know if you participated in the thread when it was A list material. If not, take a read of the entire thread and you will find where I stand. Otherwise this is simply rehashing what has been posted.

Training Risky
2nd Jul 2003, 07:34
How about Cuba? Was the USA justified in imposing a blockade on a sovereign state like it did in 1962?
After all, all they did was accept some military aid from the USSR:}

How about Grenada? Was the intervention after their 1983 coup justiified?

How about Panama? Was declaring the canal a 'US zone' a justified thing to do?


It looks to me like alot of Americans pick and choose which acts of aggression against Spanish-speaking nations they support (or don't support).

Pontious
2nd Jul 2003, 07:46
Well West Coast

Taking your advice I have read the thread in its entirity. In addition I have taken the liberty to read most of your contributions to a plethora of threads on a whole range of topics and I stand by my observations concerning your attitudes and opinions on certain subjects.

West Coast
2nd Jul 2003, 13:30
Pontious
Glad you know where I stand on the issues.

TR
Hell, I dunno. I have to get some sleep, early show time tomorrow at work.
Readers digest version:

A. Yes

B. Leaning twords it. My wifes doctor was a student there. She said they were in immenent danger. She was there, I wasn't. Presume you were not also?

C. Jury still out, leaning against it. Could use the popular arguement out there on Iraq used by anti war posters: Yeah, better off but it wasn't the right thing to do.

D. No, oh wait that was Northern Ireland, or was it the Suez. Sorry that was for you to fill in.

I don't for the life of me understand why you continue the path you do TR. I have no problems saying my government was wrong in certain areas of domestic and foreign policy. I am not so entrenched as to lose my objectivity. I see right and wrong. Just as what the US did to the American indians was wrong, what the UK did to Spain to acquire GIB was equally as wrong.

Leaving on a four day trip, enjoy my absence.

MarkD
2nd Jul 2003, 18:51
Ironically, Norn Iron has fewer citizens wanting to stay in UK as prop of total, less strategic significance but has full UK rights and Members of Parliament.

Gib should look for full integration with UK, with full citizenship rights and a Member of Parliament so that the Chief Minister doesn't have to rely on the Press to keep things in the news.

However, what economic implications that might have (duty free status?) I don't know. But if they want to be British they should live like Britons.

Training Risky
2nd Jul 2003, 21:40
West Coast,

You may believe that we acquired Gib illegally. That is your right.

But what about now, today, this moment in time... not 300 years ago.

The people there now want to remain British. Shouldn't their wishes take priority? They are the ones who actually live there.
Bliar does not! It should be left to the people to decide.

Have a good trip.

Send Clowns
3rd Jul 2003, 07:55
Yes, West Coast, when your nation invaded a sovereign British protectorate, the people they came to rescue were in imminent danger. There were even bullet holes in the building where they were living. To the seaward side, from the invading US forces. Of course the "excuse" for invading was that an airport was being built, and built (horror!) by Cubans. To improve the tourist economy. The Cuban presence was seen by the US administration as a threat to US students, who had not noticed the threat when they arranged a series of baseball games with the uban workers.

Though the US action during the Cuban missile crisis was justified the actions since haven't been. The communist takeover (popular in Cuba) levered a nasty, US-backed fascist regime from power. This was unpopular stateside primarily because your rich compatriots liked to vacation there or had interests in industry there, much of which was exploitative in a way far outside US law, hence the need for offshore operation.

Not only did the USA try everything to destroy the Cuban economy, which promised possibly to be the one viable communist economy (perhaps that was the reason for the trade embargo - a successful communist economy would not be popular in the USA) but they also tried for years to assassinate the president. They then tried disgracefully to extend extra-territorial powers to prevent non-US companies trading with Cuba, threatening to fine companies for actions that were perfectly legal in every sense against the rule of law and against natural justice.

Of course, though not many Americans know anything that is actually true about Northern Ireland, your view that voting to remain in the UK should be ignored squares well with what seems to be your view on the region. Note that the UK withdrew from Suez after pressure from the US. Otherwise the canal would have been held by Britain again. Then the US walks into Panama in an almost identical situation. Hypocrisy?