Snub

by **ionnsaigh** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:13 am

Mr David Cameron turned his back on Argentinian President Fernandez. He refused to accept the United Nations resolution which requests both governments, to negotiate a peaceful settlement, to what is in my opinion, the illegal occupation of Las Malvinas, by the British. British arrogance at it's worst, proud, I think not, embarrassed, most definitely.

by **Mr.Everready** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:02 pm

ionnsaigh wrote:Mr David Cameron turned his back on Argentinian President Fernandez. He refused to accept the United Nations resolution which requests both governments, to negotiate a peaceful settlement, to what is in my opinion, the illegal occupation of Las Malvinas, by the British. British arrogance at it's worst, proud, I think not, embarrassed, most definitely.

Care to explain why it's illegal ? They are 300 odd miles away from Argentina, just because they're the closest country doesn't make them rightful rulers.

by **gizmo** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:43 pm

I beleve the people of the Falkland Islands are holding a referendum next year on the subject. What they say should be taken to account.
David Cameron (Who I have no time for) mentioned to whatsherame, their wishes are paramount and walked away, it has been Britains stance, and rightly so, since Argentina invaded the Islands. Oh and I believe the Agentinians are not known for paying much attention to the UN themselves.

by **giantredwood** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:52 pm

ionnsaigh wrote:Mr David Cameron turned his back on Argentinian President Fernandez. He refused to accept the United Nations resolution which requests both governments, to negotiate a peaceful settlement, to what is in my opinion, the illegal occupation of Las Malvinas, by the British. British arrogance at it's worst, proud, I think not, embarrassed, most definitely.

Why is British occupation of the FALKLAND Islands illegal? Argentina has NEVER owned them. If anything, France or Spain have more claim on them than Argentina as they have had a presence there in the past. The islands were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans. Argentina's only claim to them is due to their proximity.

This is just another of your usual anti-British/anti-US nonsense from an old left wing hippie. A George Galloway lite.

by **ionnsaigh** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:10 pm

Interesting to note that two of the posts mention proximity, albeit in a rather dismissive manner, downplaying it's role as somehow insignificant, in the bigger picture of things. Colonial powers share this rather shallow view, paying little or no attention to the role proximity plays, in determining the difference between margarine and butter. Surely one would question the validity, of a group of Arabs laying claim to an uninhabited island in the Arctic Circle, or for that matter Eskimos planting the flag on a sun drenched palm tree desert island.

Colonialism no matter how one tries to wrap it up, is exactly what is says on the packet. Both France Spain Britain America and Argentina lay claim, in terms of proximity who's claim lies best placed ? Come to think about it, how many of the Islanders can claim French Spanish American or Argentinian decent ? One can safely assume, that at one time or another, all these races had a presence on the islands, the question begs, what's become of them ? Colonialism has a tendency, a vain attempt to eradicate former customs and languages, that went before.

If one takes the premise, of first come first serve, of helping oneself to land that is 8,000 miles away and calling it British, then taken to a logical conclusion, Mount Everest is English, and the Moon American.

giantredwood wrote:This is just another of your usual anti-British/anti-US nonsense from an old left wing hippie. A George Galloway lite.

I think that this is well worth a mention.......... I take offence, George Galloway indeed, I speak for myself, no one on this planet represents, or speaks on my behalf. :roll: