My view on the Falklands

The Falklands.

A few ideas and thoughts on this topic: All comments welcome.

The Falklands are historically Britain’s by right of annexation, occupation and conquest. This is how the world’s resources have been divided up for millennia, and increasingly so from now on as key resources start to run out. The Falklands should belong to the UK, but is it just a simple a matter of handing it over to Argentina?

Firstly, there is one question that must be asked, Are the majority of the inhabitants of the Falklands Argentinean? If so, then we Brits are in the wrong. But if the majority of the Falklanders are Brits, what then? Are they to be railroaded into changing nationality? I sincerely doubt it.

Now, the people of the Falkland Islands have a right to decide, too. And they do ultimately do not want to be Argentinean.

One person from Stanley, writes “We are no longer a British colony but a self-governing overseas territory with full rights of self-determination. We have chosen to remain British citizens.”

He follows with, “We have no desire to be colonised by Argentina, which refuses to recognise our Government or our right to determine our own future, but simply wants to seize our homeland, where we have lived for nearly 180 years. We will not be bullied into submission.”

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7039764.ece

The islands are three hundred miles from Argentina. They have no more of a claim to them than any other nation. Again,iIf the islanders wanted independence then that would be a reasonable and justifiable claim, but as it is they want to stay part of the UK. On top of which, the last time I checked, the usual 'territorial waters' extension of sovereignty goes no further than 200 miles. I also just checked my atlas, and posters above are correct, the Falkland Islands are more than 300 miles away from the Patagonian coast.

So any statement that those islands are 'surrounded by Argentinean waters' is false.
Furthermore, the history is clear that Argentina never had an active claim upon or settlement on that island group.

Though here is a simple idea to settle it. It is all about people after all.
Hold a referendum. It can be done one of two ways:

1. The population of the Falkland Islands only can vote, or

2. As well as the local population, the 60 million people in the UK and the 40 million people in Argentina also get to vote.

The underlying problem of any claim by Argentina is that the local population of the Falkland Islands wants nothing to do with them. They have no common culture or language with people on the mainland and recent relations have, to say the least, been a little fraught. And to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Argentina slips back into military dictatorship in my lifetime… but that is just my personal opinion.

If self-determination is irrelevant compared to historical demographic changes, then nobody of Spanish or African descent in "Latin" America would have the right to vote, and indeed should be removed under a process of de-colonisation. If that is the case then the US should return Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to Mexico. New York back to the Dutch.

If we are going to start on the question of sovereignty, I have a question to the Latin Americans who vote unanimously in support to Argentina’s claim to the Falklands - Where exactly do you think the Argentines originate from? Should Argentina not give the land back to the native people of that county? I mean, surely the majority of them are foreign colonialist from Italy and Spain? I mean, it is evident surely that the majority of them are foreign colonialist from Italy and Spain, isn’t it? If we are going to quibble about what happened 200 years ago, then let's have a discussion about the Spanish conquistadores' atrocities 500 years ago, and hand the land back to the descendants of the Aztecs and the Incas.

All in all, they are no more native to Argentina than the Falklanders are to the Falklands. What exactly in your mind gives these mostly Spanish colonists more rights than these mostly British colonists? Argentina should be grateful that Mrs Thatcher won the Falkland war as it helped get rid of a Fascist government in Argentina. Argentina has about as much right to the Falklands as it does to Greenland, Iceland, Lapland or Poundland.

And to all the super left wing idiots, who believe Britain should be forever apologizing for its past, claiming we are behaving like a 19th-century colonial power, and that we wouldn't care about what the Falkland Islanders think. Well, you are wrong, we do care. However, the Argentinean government doesn't care what the Islanders think. It just wants to expand its territory at the expense of the islands’ natives. Who's imperial now?

A message from me to everyone else reading this: Never mind colonialism, imperialism or anything else. You can't just go around being bullied by military dictatorships of histrionic Argentine women scared of losing an election. I personally don't really care if the Falklands were once Spanish or French. They are now British because the islanders want it that way, the people who live there are British and have been for ever such a long time. That is it. We must tell Argentina we are not listening to their threats or their silly arguments no matter how many dictators of unstable South American countries say they support them. If they want to come and get whet they think they are due, then they are welcome to try. They were ejected pretty quickly from defensive positions last time, let's see how they get on at assaulting properly defended positions this time. However I also think that we should make it clear that if they try, we are then unwilling to let them possess a floating navy ever again.

If 1 country or 32 countries have a problem with that it is of no consequence. It is not their land, it is none of their business. And ss for what Hugo Chavez, that beacon of democracy who fawns over the Iranian dictatorship, thinks - it's a joy to see him raging and ranting.

Oh, and by the way, I’d watch out Malta. You are rather close to Italy, watch out - here comes Berlusconi…

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

Aaron's late night readings... UK and France - Brief Romance?

Having been recently listening to some of UK Radio 4’s old and interesting broadcasts, I listened to a very informative piece echoed in an article I read in the news a few years ago, detailing how close Britain and France (post-war) were in becoming a Union, essentially bringing France in as part of the commonwealth.

Formerly secret documents unearthed from the National Archives have shown Britain and France considered a "union" in the 1950s.

On 10 September 1956 French Prime Minister Guy Mollet arrived in London for talks with his British counterpart, Anthony Eden.

These were troubled times for Mollet's France. Egypt's President Gamel Abdel Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal and, as if that was not enough, he was also busy funding separatists in French Algeria, fuelling a bloody mutiny that was costing the country's colonial masters dear.

Monsieur Mollet was ready to fight back and he was determined to get Britain's help to do it.

Formerly secret documents held in Britain's National Archives in London, which have lain virtually unnoticed since being released two decades ago, reveal the extraordinary proposal Mollet was about to make.

The following is an extract from a British government cabinet paper of the day. It reads:

"When the French Prime Minister, Monsieur Mollet was recently in London he raised with the prime minister the possibility of a union between the United Kingdom and France."

Mollet was desperate to hit back at Nasser. He was also an Anglophile who admired Britain both for its help in two world wars and its blossoming welfare state.
There was another reason, too, that the French prime minister proposed this radical plan.

Tension was growing at this time along the border between Israel and Jordan. France was an ally of Israel and Britain of Jordan. If events got out of control there, French and British soldiers could soon be fighting each other.
With the Suez issue on the boil Mollet could not let such a disaster happen.
Secret document

So, when Eden turned down his request for a union between France and Britain the French prime minister came up with another proposal.


This time, while Eden was on a visit to Paris, he requested that France be allowed to join the British Commonwealth.

A secret document from 28 September 1956 records the surprisingly enthusiastic way the British premier responded to the proposal when he discussed it with his Cabinet Secretary, Sir Norman Brook.

It says: "Sir Norman Brook asked to see me this morning and told me he had come up from the country consequent on a telephone conversation from the prime minister who is in Wiltshire.

"The PM told him on the telephone that he thought in the light of his talks with the French:

• "That we should give immediate consideration to France joining the Commonwealth
• "That Monsieur Mollet had not thought there need be difficulty over France accepting the headship of her Majesty
• "That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis"

Seeing these words for the first time, Henri Soutou, professor of contemporary history at Paris's Sorbonne University almost fell off his chair.

Stammering repeatedly he said: "Really I am stuttering because this idea is so preposterous. The idea of joining the Commonwealth and accepting the headship of Her Majesty would not have gone down well. If this had been suggested more recently Mollet might have found himself in court."

Nationalist MP Jacques Myard was similarly stunned on being shown the papers, saying: "I tell you the truth, when I read that I am quite astonished. I had a good opinion of Mr Mollet before. I think I am going to revise that opinion.

"I am just amazed at reading this because since the days I was learning history as a student I have never heard of this. It is not in the textbooks."

It seems that the French prime minister decided to quietly forget about his strange proposals.

No record of them seems to exist in the French archives and it is clear that he told few other ministers of the day about them.

This might well be because after Britain decided to pull out of Suez, the battle against President Nasser was lost and all talk of union died too.
Instead, when the EEC was born the following year, France teamed up with Germany while Britain watched on. The rest, it seems, is history.



Credit to the beeb and Radio 4.

Porn uploaded onto Youtube.

In response to the people who have uploaded porn onto youtube, yes they have successfully shown how easy it is to upload this material. It's also easy to hit people with a car, but that doesn't mean you do it. The anonymity of the internet helps cowards.

Though parents who complain about this also have some degree of responsibility in this matter and are also partly to blame.

I have one thing to say to these parents - So, if kids can't find porn on YouTube, where else could they find it? Oh, that's right - on one of a thousand other tube-like sites that specifically cater to those who like the adult entertainment. And most of these websites only require you to check a box confirming that you are of legal viewing age (a claim that they're not going to cross-check anyway).

If you're concerned about the purity of your kids, take away their computers.