Obama neutral on Maldives or should that be Malvinas??

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

Reread the charter. It says and attack in Europe or North America. The Asian part of Turkey does not meet that criteria. Or do you want to move Asia into being a part of Europe?

Actually, all of Turkey (which bordered the Soviet Union) is included.

ARTICLE 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

The Falklands is way south of the Tropic of Cancer.

[Dibble201Bty]

Originally Posted by lirelou

Dibble, I've probably seen the British Army up much closer and personal than you have, and hold them in high respect. But I've also served with Argie officers and seen their training up close. The real point here is that presumptions are the mother of all foul-ups, and you presumed wrongly. I'm not an off-shore Irishman, My second language is Spanish, which I speak, read, and write as well as English, and I'm as American as Juan Gough is Argentine. This thread is not about which Army is better. It is about the Malvinas and the likelihood that they will remain British over the long term.

Of course you have!....Of course you are not!....Of course it isn't !....Of course it is!

Paul

[Bass_Man86]

Originally Posted by lirelou

It is about the Malvinas and the likelihood that they will remain British over the long term.

With respect Brother, they islands are called Falklands. Argentina never had a legitimate claim on those islands. The islands were originally settled by the French and although they were claimed by the United Provinces of the River Plate (there was no Argentina back then) what little Spanish presence was on the islands was removed by the US Navy; as few as a dozen men (no women) according to some sources so there was no actual settlement if you will. The bottom line is that Argentina is shamelessly playing victim when it is anything but. The islanders are British citizens and wish to remain so and considering Argentina's inability to get its own act together they can hardly be blamed.

About 70 per cent of the population is of British descent, primarily as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands.[121] A few Islanders are of French, Gibraltarian and Scandinavian descent,[120] the latter stemming from Norwegian whalers operating in the region. There is also a small minority of South American, mainly Chilean origin, and in more recent times many people from Saint Helena have also come to work and live in the Islands.[122] There are a few Argentine residents, including Maria Strange, wife of the author and historian Ian Strange.[123] The native-born inhabitants call themselves "Islanders"; the term "Kelpers", from the kelp (seaweed) which grows profusely around the islands, is no longer used in the Islands. People from the United Kingdom who have obtained Falkland Island status are known locally as 'belongers'. From 1 January 1983, as provided in the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, the islanders have been full British citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

[GMan88]

Originally Posted by ChrisF1987

Actually the people of Hong Kong were never consulted as to what THEY wanted. Screw the treaty, the people of Hong Kong should have been allowed to choose between British rule, Chinese rule, or independence from both.

Why should they have been allowed to choose? If there's a valid reason to do so, why not during the term of the lease, and not when it was about to run out?

[GMan88]

Originally Posted by Scupio

Agreed - I was allways embarrassed that the "Colony" never enjoyed complete democracy and the ill advised, last minute efforts by Governor Patton were a joke.

Indeed. "Democracy" or such aspects of it as were planned to be implemented late into the term of the lease cast serious doubts as to the sincerity of such actions.

[Bass_Man86]

Originally Posted by GMan88

Why should they have been allowed to choose? If there's a valid reason to do so, why not during the term of the lease, and not when it was about to run out?

Forgive me for chiming in GMan. There are huge differences between HK and the Falklands. Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, there was never a native population on the Falklands unlike HK. Seventy percent of the population of the Falklands originates from the British Isles while in HK the population is clearly predominantly Chinese. The Falklands are not nor have ever been leased property, they are disputed property; that is a crucial difference. Lastly, as I have previously stated, Argentina's claims to the islands are tenuous at best, therefore comparisons between the Falklands and Hong Kong fall well short of the mark.

[DARKPLACE]

Any one seen the tv ad there's been all the fuss about? Am I the only one that thought it was hysterical that the argentinians thought it was appropriate to film one of their athletes running away from wireless ridge? It was like 1982 all over again.

[Skoblin]

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

Fix'd.

Dest, if a member objects to you altering their post and requests that you return it to its original state - do so.

[Sergio]

Originally Posted by DARKPLACE

Any one seen the tv ad there's been all the fuss about? Am I the only one that thought it was hysterical that the argentinians thought it was appropriate to film one of their athletes running away from wireless ridge? It was like 1982 all over again.

I am not one of those who gets too worked up about the whole Falklands thing - some seem to get wound up if an Argentinian even makes a statement. Right now it is politicians using it to distract from domestic woes. However, the thing that annoyed me about the ad was the use of the war memorial. That was disrespectful and should not have been done.

The Argentinian Olympic Committee has distanced itself from the ad - so that is a positive at least.

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sergio

However, the thing that annoyed me about the ad was the use of the war memorial. That was disrespectful and should not have been done.

Concur - you do not do stretches on anyone's war memorial.

[Listy]

Originally Posted by lirelou

I assume you are aware that the first Argentine commando action in the Falklands / Malvinas was led ashore by an Argentine captain named Juan Gough, whose native English accent was learned at home.

Would that be the action to murder a number of Royal marines in their beds?

Originally Posted by Sergio

The Argentinian Olympic Committee has distanced itself from the ad - so that is a positive at least.

The Advertising company has also denounced the advert.

[ITALICA ONE]

This is an issue that will never truley be resoved. everyone has an opinion regarding the islands. From reading past threads the argument for England is about 90%. I however believe in the argument of the remaining 10%. Please no hate mail.

http://www.greatmilitarybattles.com/...d_islands.html

[lirelou]

Listy, you're telling me that all the Royal Marines should, by rights, have been in bed? I believe they are far more professional than that.

[Listy]

Originally Posted by lirelou

Listy, you're telling me that all the Royal Marines should, by rights, have been in bed? I believe they are far more professional than that.

No, I think that was the plan, slightly scuppered by the fact they where awake and ready.

[Selous]

If anything the stakes have been raised; the potential for those fossil fuel resources off the Falklands have increased the interest in both parties. I wonder if anyone had an inkling they were there in '82, at all. It all boils down to Thucydides' trinity; Fear, Honour and Interest, and that potential resource is a whole lot of interest, any government in Westminster worth it's salt* is going to look after that.
Who would you sooner have controlling a potentially handy island in the South Atlantic? A tried and tested Western, first world, NATO, English speaking, politically & ideologically similar ally or a schizophrenic banana republic?

*Fairly thin on the ground since 1865.