Topic: Opposition 'wins Argentina presidency'
Svet !jzYkdX7lIw started this discussion 11 years ago #47,821
Thought I wood make this topic since syntax is lurking...Not a bad day for Argentina. Mauricio Macri kicks out Cristina fernandez de kirchner and her cronies. Macri has said he will move away from Iranian friendship and take a less confrontational approach to the Falklands.
Inb4 pictures of HMS Shefield
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #625,966
Oi Svet you bleedin' cunt, I think this is jolly good news. All of that sabre-rattling over the Falklands was pointless. Assuming he is being sincere, since it seemed like an easy way to win points with the Argentinian public.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,967
Naw - Odd thing about the newbie Prez - He takes the position that He owns the Falklands but is also in need of more better relations with Rape and Pillage UK.
So in a way he is climbing in2 bed with the Rapist cause he feels wallet of Argentina is more important then moral issues currently.
So in a way he is climbing in2 bed with the Rapist cause he feels wallet of Argentina is more important then moral issues currently.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,968
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,969
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 35 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,971
@625,967 (Syntax)
Do you approve of Argentina's previous attempt to seize the island with military force?
Do you approve of Argentina's previous attempt to seize the island with military force?
Svet !jzYkdX7lIw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,973
@625,967 (Syntax)
Anyone whom runs for president has to claim Argentina owns the Falklands in the same way anyone who runs for the US presidency has to say they are a Christain or no one would vote for them. They tell people what they want to hear. However, Macri knows too well Argentina has no hope of gaining the Flaklands and kirchner was acting like a goon using it to distract the population from her bullshit.
For an old man you're not very smart.
Anyone whom runs for president has to claim Argentina owns the Falklands in the same way anyone who runs for the US presidency has to say they are a Christain or no one would vote for them. They tell people what they want to hear. However, Macri knows too well Argentina has no hope of gaining the Flaklands and kirchner was acting like a goon using it to distract the population from her bullshit.
For an old man you're not very smart.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,974
@625,971 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Of course I do. And of the many values in lessons learned about shipbuilding UK learned a bitter lesson re the damage just one French Exocet missile could do.
Everyone should no that Brits were holding tight to Falklands for the potential Billions of worth of the Oil - Now with Oil price so damn low - They may reconsider one day.
After all as you no full well Brits once Raped and Pillaged places like India n Pakistan n wot is now USA and chunks of land they had no business trying to hold on to for dear life.
USA also is holding on to Guam and if they do not let Puerto Rico become a USA State then they best let go of it as well.
Of course I do. And of the many values in lessons learned about shipbuilding UK learned a bitter lesson re the damage just one French Exocet missile could do.
Everyone should no that Brits were holding tight to Falklands for the potential Billions of worth of the Oil - Now with Oil price so damn low - They may reconsider one day.
After all as you no full well Brits once Raped and Pillaged places like India n Pakistan n wot is now USA and chunks of land they had no business trying to hold on to for dear life.
USA also is holding on to Guam and if they do not let Puerto Rico become a USA State then they best let go of it as well.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,975
@previous (Syntax)
But Argentina invaded the Falklands for imperialist reasons. They wanted the land, and didn't actually have much of a claim beyond that. So by your logic, they're no better than the British.
But Argentina invaded the Falklands for imperialist reasons. They wanted the land, and didn't actually have much of a claim beyond that. So by your logic, they're no better than the British.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 17 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,976
@625,973 (Svet !jzYkdX7lIw)Svet aka Rape Culture, the disciple of Jesus the Jew. Its understandable you approve of Brits history of Rape n Pillage of Planet Earth chunks of Land.
Wood you care to photoshop this map so that Falklands is next door to Ireland?
Syntax is wrong again (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,977
@625,974 (Syntax)
> Everyone should no that Brits were holding tight to Falklands for the potential Billions of worth of the Oil - Now with Oil price so damn low - They may reconsider one day.
Incorrect. At the time of the Falklands invation oil quantities around the Falklands were unknown and drilling technology was no where near able to drill. Even today it's touch and go if there is enough oil to bother with. The reason for the invation was the military junta was deeply unpopular and Argentina invading the lands of a world nuclear raised the junta's popularity. The Junta was responable for many deaths of its own native people, a junta you support.
For an old man you're not very smart.
> Everyone should no that Brits were holding tight to Falklands for the potential Billions of worth of the Oil - Now with Oil price so damn low - They may reconsider one day.
Incorrect. At the time of the Falklands invation oil quantities around the Falklands were unknown and drilling technology was no where near able to drill. Even today it's touch and go if there is enough oil to bother with. The reason for the invation was the military junta was deeply unpopular and Argentina invading the lands of a world nuclear raised the junta's popularity. The Junta was responable for many deaths of its own native people, a junta you support.
For an old man you're not very smart.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,979
@625,976 (Syntax)
So you're saying that Argentina deserves the land more because they are closer?
That is not a very good reason to invade somewhere. "We are closer, so it should be ours".
So you're saying that Argentina deserves the land more because they are closer?
That is not a very good reason to invade somewhere. "We are closer, so it should be ours".
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,980
@625,975 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Review this and tell me if its an error
Review this and tell me if its an error
Harold Macmillan had seen the decline of the British Empire due to the burden it was costing us financially. Thatcher thought there was some kind of gold pot 8000 miles away and concluded that there would be long-term benefits in keeping the Falkland Islands under the United Kingdom’s control. Others in her party were not as convinced by this logic, and a distant relative of David Cameron, Ferdinand Mount, wrote a piece in The Spectator that gave some conservative estimates as to what the burden might be on the UK taxpayer. One of the things he pointed out was that the islanders rarely owned their homes, and most were tenants of the Falkland Islands Company. He also noted that only those of working age were likely to stay on the islands, whereas those too old to work, and young people, tended to emigrate, and there was a falling population. -
Syntax is wrong again (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,981
@625,976 (Syntax)
Mileage has nothing to do with land ownership. If that was the case then the US wood not own hawaii, ownership has everything to do with the people who live there. Argentina was once Spanish then the Spanish people who lived there wanted their own independence then got it. The people who live on the Falklands wish to be British. End of subject!
Also, a reminded that you live on twice stolen land. Stolen from Mexico and stolen from the native American Indians,
Mileage has nothing to do with land ownership. If that was the case then the US wood not own hawaii, ownership has everything to do with the people who live there. Argentina was once Spanish then the Spanish people who lived there wanted their own independence then got it. The people who live on the Falklands wish to be British. End of subject!
Also, a reminded that you live on twice stolen land. Stolen from Mexico and stolen from the native American Indians,
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,982
@625,980 (Syntax)
That... Changes nothing. The British already owned the islands, they were entitled to consider its resources.
Why can a neighbouring country invade another country's land if the second country might want resources from said land? Answer me that, if you please.
That... Changes nothing. The British already owned the islands, they were entitled to consider its resources.
Why can a neighbouring country invade another country's land if the second country might want resources from said land? Answer me that, if you please.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #625,983
@625,981 (Syntax is wrong again)Where did I argue that Hawaii ownership by USA is proper?
Yes in fact I do live on land stolen by a war from Mexico. However Local Latino population is taking back ownership without a war.
And most of USA was stolen by Brits and as you no both imports to our land ended up stealing the land from Indians in most improper ways.
> people who live on the Falklands wish to be British.
Of course they do. They were implanted by Brits to hold on to holdings. Brits tried that with India and Pakistan and you may remember how that sure failed in the long run.
And wot the fuck you guys doing holding on to this:
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> The British already owned the islands, they were entitled to consider its resources.
Hummmmmmm wood you still say this about Pakistan n India?
> Why can a neighbouring country invade another country's land if the second country might want resources from said land? Answer me that, if you please.
As you and I agree imperialist reasons...Never good logic to justify anything long term. At some point even the possibility that internal population of Falklands continues to fall of to amounting to almost nothing and oil value is worthless to develop and then UK is probably just not going to be interested in the Island anymore
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #625,986
@previous (Syntax)
> Hummmmmmm wood you still say this about Pakistan n India?
I wouldn't say anything about them, because they aren't relevant.
We get it, m8, Britain was very imperialistic back in the day, but that's just not relevant here. Britain didn't force themselves into the ownership of the isalnds, no native population was being subjugated. Britain was left with ownership after France and Spain had given up their own claims. It's nothing like the situation with Ireland, India, ect.
> At some point even the possibility that internal population of Falklands continues to fall of to amounting to almost nothing and oil value is worthless to develop and then UK is probably just not going to be interested in the Island anymore
Okay. But whatever happens with the islands, they are the UK's to either let go or keep. Not Argentina's to try and seize with aggression or nationalist propaganda.
> Hummmmmmm wood you still say this about Pakistan n India?
I wouldn't say anything about them, because they aren't relevant.
We get it, m8, Britain was very imperialistic back in the day, but that's just not relevant here. Britain didn't force themselves into the ownership of the isalnds, no native population was being subjugated. Britain was left with ownership after France and Spain had given up their own claims. It's nothing like the situation with Ireland, India, ect.
> At some point even the possibility that internal population of Falklands continues to fall of to amounting to almost nothing and oil value is worthless to develop and then UK is probably just not going to be interested in the Island anymore
Okay. But whatever happens with the islands, they are the UK's to either let go or keep. Not Argentina's to try and seize with aggression or nationalist propaganda.
Syntax is wrong again (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #625,987
@625,983 (Syntax)
Britain was the only country to populate the Falklands. Spanish populated Argentina but the people wanted independence so that proves it's the choise of the people. Just because YOU don't like the choise doesn't mean it's wrong. The people of the Falklands have lived there for 100s of years and so they are no longer planted but they are people of that land.
> > The British already owned the islands, they were entitled to consider its resources.
> Hummmmmmm wood you still say this about Pakistan n India?
This is a very different arguement and you know it. The British landed on the Falklands and were met by penguins not natives. Stop being so stupid.
Britain was the only country to populate the Falklands. Spanish populated Argentina but the people wanted independence so that proves it's the choise of the people. Just because YOU don't like the choise doesn't mean it's wrong. The people of the Falklands have lived there for 100s of years and so they are no longer planted but they are people of that land.
> > The British already owned the islands, they were entitled to consider its resources.
> Hummmmmmm wood you still say this about Pakistan n India?
This is a very different arguement and you know it. The British landed on the Falklands and were met by penguins not natives. Stop being so stupid.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #625,989
@625,986 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> We get it, m8, Britain was very imperialistic back in the day, but that's just not relevant here. Britain didn't force themselves into the ownership of the isalnds, no native population was being >subjugated. Britain was left with ownership after France and Spain had given up their own claims.
Not according to this.
Simmering tensions between the UK and Argentina increased during the second half of the century, when Argentine President Juan Perón asserted sovereignty over the archipelago. The sovereignty dispute intensified during the 1960s, shortly after the United Nations passed a resolution on decolonisation which Argentina interpreted as favourable to its position. In 1965, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2065, calling for both states to conduct bilateral negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of the dispute. From 1966 until 1968, the UK confidentially discussed with Argentina the transfer of the Falklands, assuming its judgement would be accepted by the islanders.[55] An agreement on trade ties between the archipelago and the mainland was reached in 1971 and, consequently, Argentina built a temporary airfield at Stanley in 1972. Nonetheless, Falklander dissent, as expressed by their strong lobby in the UK Parliament, and tensions between the UK and Argentina effectively limited sovereignty negotiations until 1977.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065, adopted on December 16, 1965, recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Also recognized that the case of the Falklands is framed in a colonial situation, which should be solved taking into consideration those expressed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), where the goal of eliminating all forms of colonialism was established. The resolution invites the parties to find a peaceful solution to the problem bearing in mind the provisions of 1514.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 14 December 1960, titled "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly during its fifteenth session, that affirmed that the resolution also provided for the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples and passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations.
> We get it, m8, Britain was very imperialistic back in the day, but that's just not relevant here. Britain didn't force themselves into the ownership of the isalnds, no native population was being >subjugated. Britain was left with ownership after France and Spain had given up their own claims.
Not according to this.
Simmering tensions between the UK and Argentina increased during the second half of the century, when Argentine President Juan Perón asserted sovereignty over the archipelago. The sovereignty dispute intensified during the 1960s, shortly after the United Nations passed a resolution on decolonisation which Argentina interpreted as favourable to its position. In 1965, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2065, calling for both states to conduct bilateral negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement of the dispute. From 1966 until 1968, the UK confidentially discussed with Argentina the transfer of the Falklands, assuming its judgement would be accepted by the islanders.[55] An agreement on trade ties between the archipelago and the mainland was reached in 1971 and, consequently, Argentina built a temporary airfield at Stanley in 1972. Nonetheless, Falklander dissent, as expressed by their strong lobby in the UK Parliament, and tensions between the UK and Argentina effectively limited sovereignty negotiations until 1977.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065, adopted on December 16, 1965, recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Also recognized that the case of the Falklands is framed in a colonial situation, which should be solved taking into consideration those expressed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), where the goal of eliminating all forms of colonialism was established. The resolution invites the parties to find a peaceful solution to the problem bearing in mind the provisions of 1514.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 14 December 1960, titled "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly during its fifteenth session, that affirmed that the resolution also provided for the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples and passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations.
Syntax is wrong again (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #625,992
@previous (Syntax)
Just political jerrymandering. The solid fact remains that the Falklands are British because the UK were the first people to populate the land and its people today wish to remain British
Just political jerrymandering. The solid fact remains that the Falklands are British because the UK were the first people to populate the land and its people today wish to remain British
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #625,999
@previous (Syntax is wrong again)
Actually, France was the first to establish a settlement within the islands, having done so in 1764. Not that it mattered in the long run, since they later gave up their claim and withdrew.
@625,989 (Syntax)
All you've said here is that the UN may have implied that they felt that Britain was being colonial (which, as has already been explained, is wrong). They don't even outright say "the islands belong to Argentina, Britain needs to leave".
Hell, your own source even has a discreet consideration of passing the islands over being stalled by actual Falkland residents rejecting it! You say you're against imperialism, but the (effective) natives of the islands not wanting Argentinian rule doesn't matter to you?
Actually, France was the first to establish a settlement within the islands, having done so in 1764. Not that it mattered in the long run, since they later gave up their claim and withdrew.
@625,989 (Syntax)
All you've said here is that the UN may have implied that they felt that Britain was being colonial (which, as has already been explained, is wrong). They don't even outright say "the islands belong to Argentina, Britain needs to leave".
Hell, your own source even has a discreet consideration of passing the islands over being stalled by actual Falkland residents rejecting it! You say you're against imperialism, but the (effective) natives of the islands not wanting Argentinian rule doesn't matter to you?
Syntax is wrong again (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #626,002
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #626,006
@previous (Syntax is wrong again)Wikipedia simply refers to it as a "settlement".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Louis,_Falkland_Islands
But, as I said, moot point in overall scheme of things.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,009
@625,999 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> the (effective) natives of the islands not wanting Argentinian rule doesn't matter to you?
Remember when Brits exported prisoners to Australia to populate the place and steal the land from Aborigines - Later to steal the kids and use as sex slaves.
So take Falklands which was populated by Brits to lay claim and later claim the same Brit decedents want the place to remain Brit
Wot really bothers me is
@625,980 (Syntax)
Internally Brits high mucky mucks agreed holding on to Falklands really made nonsense - but when it comes to war it often ends up as nonsense. Brits were not about to end up redfaced and lose a war to Argentina so no matter at wot cost they dived in and held on to it - Not that holding on makes any real sense Other then valued oil which at that time was real value and now not so much
> the (effective) natives of the islands not wanting Argentinian rule doesn't matter to you?
Remember when Brits exported prisoners to Australia to populate the place and steal the land from Aborigines - Later to steal the kids and use as sex slaves.
So take Falklands which was populated by Brits to lay claim and later claim the same Brit decedents want the place to remain Brit
Wot really bothers me is
@625,980 (Syntax)
Internally Brits high mucky mucks agreed holding on to Falklands really made nonsense - but when it comes to war it often ends up as nonsense. Brits were not about to end up redfaced and lose a war to Argentina so no matter at wot cost they dived in and held on to it - Not that holding on makes any real sense Other then valued oil which at that time was real value and now not so much
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,010
@previous (Syntax)
Retaking the Falklands made a lot of sence. British land was taken and British subjects are captured by argies. It was our duty to free our people.
Retaking the Falklands made a lot of sence. British land was taken and British subjects are captured by argies. It was our duty to free our people.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,012
@626,009 (Syntax)
Dude- Australia isn't the same either. No native population. Britain was not displacing anybody when they settled in.
> Brits were not about to end up redfaced and lose a war to Argentina so no matter at wot cost they dived in and held on to it
Uh, yes. If a country tries to invade another country's land, they can generally expect to meet resistance. Strangely, no country would approve of having its land suddenly seized by force.
Are you saying that the right thing for the UK to do was to just passively accept an armed invasion against some of its own citizens?
Dude- Australia isn't the same either. No native population. Britain was not displacing anybody when they settled in.
> Brits were not about to end up redfaced and lose a war to Argentina so no matter at wot cost they dived in and held on to it
Uh, yes. If a country tries to invade another country's land, they can generally expect to meet resistance. Strangely, no country would approve of having its land suddenly seized by force.
Are you saying that the right thing for the UK to do was to just passively accept an armed invasion against some of its own citizens?
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,013
@626,010 (A)
> It was our duty to free our people
LoL
Looking up cost
For the UK, the war cost 255 men, six ships (ten others suffered varying degrees of battle damage), 34 aircraft and £2.778 billion
> (2,932 inhabitants
> Falkland Islands census shows fewer than a third of people identify as British
> Population survey reveals disputed islands' population has not grown since 2006 – and some residents are getting worried
So 967 residents who identify as Brits and review of costs of that war and population continue to fall -
> It was our duty to free our people.
> Retaking the Falklands made a lot of sence
Actually in the USA we wood say it lost a lot of cents
Bully bully cheers
You will ask for source
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/13/falkland-islands-census-british-identity
> It was our duty to free our people
LoL
Looking up cost
For the UK, the war cost 255 men, six ships (ten others suffered varying degrees of battle damage), 34 aircraft and £2.778 billion
> (2,932 inhabitants
> Falkland Islands census shows fewer than a third of people identify as British
> Population survey reveals disputed islands' population has not grown since 2006 – and some residents are getting worried
So 967 residents who identify as Brits and review of costs of that war and population continue to fall -
> It was our duty to free our people.
> Retaking the Falklands made a lot of sence
Actually in the USA we wood say it lost a lot of cents
Bully bully cheers
You will ask for source
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/13/falkland-islands-census-british-identity
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,015
@previous (Syntax)
The US invaded Iraq with no legitimate cause which cost $2 trillion and how much did the vietnam war cost? A war the US lost I might add. Looks like the UK gets better value protecting their people than the US does.
The US invaded Iraq with no legitimate cause which cost $2 trillion and how much did the vietnam war cost? A war the US lost I might add. Looks like the UK gets better value protecting their people than the US does.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,024
> The position is, and will remain, that the islands should belong to Buenos Aires – despite the wishes of the inhabitants.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/11947020/mauricio-macri-argentina-britain-falklands.html
Now that's what I call colonialism 2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/11947020/mauricio-macri-argentina-britain-falklands.html
Now that's what I call colonialism 2015
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,027
@626,013 (Syntax)
Now you saying that a country shouldn't defend its citizens if it isn't financially worth it? That citizens should just be abandoned to foreign aggreassion if defending them is "too expensive"? Is that seriously what you are saying?
> >Falkland Islands census shows fewer than a third of people identify as British
> >Population survey reveals disputed islands' population has not grown since 2006 – and some residents are getting worried
Meanwhile, a recent survey showed that the vast majority of Islanders wanted to stay under British governance.
If their opinion matters, as you imply with your citation of that census, then the survey I cited should settle the matter.
Now you saying that a country shouldn't defend its citizens if it isn't financially worth it? That citizens should just be abandoned to foreign aggreassion if defending them is "too expensive"? Is that seriously what you are saying?
> >Falkland Islands census shows fewer than a third of people identify as British
> >Population survey reveals disputed islands' population has not grown since 2006 – and some residents are getting worried
Meanwhile, a recent survey showed that the vast majority of Islanders wanted to stay under British governance.
If their opinion matters, as you imply with your citation of that census, then the survey I cited should settle the matter.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,037
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)I know one country who can't be questioned about whether it will defend it's interests or not..
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,038
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,086
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,099
Crocodil