New Falklands War Brewing
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
THS, Queen Elizabeth Land is a big sector or Antarctica that has just been so named as part of the Diamond Jubilee. Queen Elizabeth Land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As this is in the disputed land (includes areas claimed by the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina) it is further cause for argument.
You must admit we are experts in that field second probably only to our cousins.
As this is in the disputed land (includes areas claimed by the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina) it is further cause for argument.
You must admit we are experts in that field second probably only to our cousins.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, a war with Brazil, that would be Carnivals at fifty paces! (and I think Brazil would win!).
Last edited by parabellum; 15th Jan 2013 at 20:15.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Queen Elizabeth Land Row precluded the Argentine claims. It's a smelly issue, the rest of the world just doesn't understand this has nothing to do with grabbing/claiming territory.
BBC News - UK to name part of Antarctica Queen Elizabeth Land
Regarding the Falklands, happy to be on the side line.
Regarding the gay bullying Argentina and keeping quiet on the US and Brazil, isn't it just smile up & kick down?
Little sympathy outside the UK. Good luck.
BBC News - UK to name part of Antarctica Queen Elizabeth Land
Regarding the Falklands, happy to be on the side line.
Regarding the gay bullying Argentina and keeping quiet on the US and Brazil, isn't it just smile up & kick down?
Little sympathy outside the UK. Good luck.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you believe in the right of the living to vote for their own destiny.
We didn't give the Chagossians that right either. It's just not something that we normally do.
If Argentina hadn't been so bullheaded in 1982 they probably would have been given a large degree of sovereignty over the Falklands by now. The Foreign Office wanted little to do with the place until the aggression of the '82 invasion by Galtieri. The Falkland islanders may or may not have been granted permission to emigrate to the UK as part of the deal. Probably not.
With Hong Kong only a small number of Hong Kongers were granted that right during/after the handover of that colony to the host nation. Most of the indigenous Hong Kong people were reasonably happy with the status quo and would have been happy to remain a British colony, but the UK government overruled their preferences and did a deal with Beijing which took little account of the feelings of the people of the colony.
Edited to add another case example:
Before we handed over the Palestine to the Israelites, did we canvass Palestinian popular opinion? I don't think so. We simply robbed them of their land and of their independence without regard for Palestinian rights. Their opinions simply didn't matter to London.
Last edited by Low Flier; 15th Jan 2013 at 20:59.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for Keesje's benefit, I thought I'd link back to this post from early in 2012
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7111325
I don't like to quote myself, but its worth reiterating this:
"Something to bear in mind was that the southern part of modern Argentina was never actually part of the Spanish empire. They never got that far, and the Mapuche Indians were able to hold them off until the late 1800's. It was really only when the Welsh settled in Patagonia that the Argentines and Chileans began to show an interest.
In 1860 the various Mapuche tribes got together and declared their own Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia - and appointed a frenchman as their king. The Chileans quickly moved in and deposed him, but since then the Kingdom still exists, though in exile in France. However the Kingdom predates any annexation of territory by Argentina or Chile.It also appears that the UK -at the time -recognised the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia as the valid controlling power"
Essentially Chile - not Argentina - moved into Patagonia to usurp the Indian Kingdom in 1862, while the Argentines made a move into the territory in 1880 as they wanted to grab land, disputing the territory with Chile. However its worth remembering that the majority of the settlers during that initial land grab, into the part of Patagonia closest to the Falklands were - Welsh. Not Spanish. Not Argentine. Welsh. And the land only really became Argentine when those settlers decided in a plebescite to accept Argentine rule in preference to Chilean.
Before 1880 Argentina had no claim, either through de facto rule, or historic precendent from the Spanish Empire, of control over the part of Patagonia closest to the Falklands
Again, its worth reposting a map of the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7111325
I don't like to quote myself, but its worth reiterating this:
"Something to bear in mind was that the southern part of modern Argentina was never actually part of the Spanish empire. They never got that far, and the Mapuche Indians were able to hold them off until the late 1800's. It was really only when the Welsh settled in Patagonia that the Argentines and Chileans began to show an interest.
In 1860 the various Mapuche tribes got together and declared their own Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia - and appointed a frenchman as their king. The Chileans quickly moved in and deposed him, but since then the Kingdom still exists, though in exile in France. However the Kingdom predates any annexation of territory by Argentina or Chile.It also appears that the UK -at the time -recognised the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia as the valid controlling power"
Essentially Chile - not Argentina - moved into Patagonia to usurp the Indian Kingdom in 1862, while the Argentines made a move into the territory in 1880 as they wanted to grab land, disputing the territory with Chile. However its worth remembering that the majority of the settlers during that initial land grab, into the part of Patagonia closest to the Falklands were - Welsh. Not Spanish. Not Argentine. Welsh. And the land only really became Argentine when those settlers decided in a plebescite to accept Argentine rule in preference to Chilean.
Before 1880 Argentina had no claim, either through de facto rule, or historic precendent from the Spanish Empire, of control over the part of Patagonia closest to the Falklands
Again, its worth reposting a map of the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
I wouldn't hold your breath, Mate. He never answers any other difficult questions.
Keesje appears to be an expert angler who has us all responding to his posts!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
"THS, Queen Elizabeth Land is a big sector or Antarctica....."
PN - I'm well aware of that I was merely responding to our Dutch friend's (inaccurate) comment vis a vis 'Queen Elizabeth Island'.
PN - I'm well aware of that I was merely responding to our Dutch friend's (inaccurate) comment vis a vis 'Queen Elizabeth Island'.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
THS, no problem although it may help the cousins. Certainly the preceding post by our cloggy friend referred to Land and not Island hence my clarification.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, a war with Brazil, that would be Carnivals at fifty paces! (and I think Brazil would win!).
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 16th Jan 2013 at 10:28.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alba
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-recognised-as-top-lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-employer
I wouldn't be so sure.
I wouldn't be so sure.
RAF Commander: Men, as officers of the Royal Air Force, you're the very best in the world. However, this mission to Germany will not be an easy one. Four and a half of every five of you will not return. Half of Jenson there can tell you it gets pretty sticky.
Jenson: But I never lost me good spirits, I haven't.
RAF Commander: So let's get up there, be safe, and get back to the big, fat pigs of wives we have waiting at home.
Stewie Griffin: Pardon me, Sir. I'd like to join.
RAF Commander: What are your qualifications?
Stewie Griffin: I have a British accent, I'm possibly homosexual, I never brush my teeth, and my wife is ghastly!
RAF Commander: Bombs away!
Gentleman Aviator
Given the sponsorship of homosexual pride whatnots (and this sort of thing https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...sexual-emplyer ) I wouldn't be so sure!
RSM: Soldier! Do you think you could KILL a man!!
SER: Oooh! I suppose so ......... eventually!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Isn't that the boat that's currently in the hands of a hedge fund somewhere in Africa?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
A triumphant escape from Ghana? Putting it to those colonial powers eh?
I guess its a case of taking whatever little victories you can.....
I guess its a case of taking whatever little victories you can.....