Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum Learn REAL Spanish now!  

Go Back   Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum > The Rastro > Life, the Universe, and Everything Else

Notices

View Poll Results: Is Fidel really dead?
Yes 8 42.11%
No 11 57.89%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 9th August 2006, 11:51 AM   #41
Alan
El Listo ;)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 660
Default

Well, my dad was ready to go fight in the Falklands war and he's not even a soldier. The feeling was pretty strong. But propaganda can make populations believe silly things. I don't know what claim Britain should have to the Malvinas, but the feeling was just that Argentina shouldn't have invaded the way they did. And I still don't think they should have.

But, I would like to say that I don't agree with Britain holding onto the Malvinas, just as I don't agree with America holding onto Guantánamo.

I was really referring to the fact that I have heard that America has missiles trained onto just about every nation on Earth. And, as a Scot, I don't like the fact that American missiles are based in Scotland due to decisions mostly made by England, because they wouldn't be able to reach the rest of Europe otherwise. I know there are a lot of proud Americans on this forum: please believe that I don't intend to insult your country, but I don't like its foreign policy. And Britain's is only slightly better.
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 12:26 PM   #42
Marbella
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
But, I would like to say that I don't agree with Britain holding onto the Malvinas, just as I don't agree with America holding onto Guantánamo.
If the people of the Falklands want to remain British, like those in Gibraltar then what's the problem? We could use the same argument about Ceuta and Melilla, even the Canary Islands. Strategically it's quite useful for us (Britain) to keep the base in the Falklands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
And, as a Scot, I don't like the fact that American missiles are based in Scotland due to decisions mostly made by England
How was this an English decision and not a British one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I know there are a lot of proud Americans on this forum: please believe that I don't intend to insult your country, but I don't like its foreign policy.
It's thanks to American foreign policy, and the relationship that Britain has with America that this tiny island is so powerful and influential. I know whose side I want to be on. The world owes a huge debt to the US and I feel this fact is too quickly forgotten these days.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 12:48 PM   #43
Alan
El Listo ;)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbella
How was this an English decision and not a British one?
I said mostly England. It's sheer numbers. It was a British decision, but Britain is mostly England. Scotland does not like these weapons being here. That is the truth.
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 12:58 PM   #44
Marbella
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I said mostly England. It's sheer numbers. It was a British decision, but Britain is mostly England. Scotland does not like these weapons being here. That is the truth.
Ok, thanks. What is the objection? Is it the danger from these things accidently exploding and/or Scotland being a target if a foreign power wanted to blow up these missiles? Where should they be based, if at all?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 01:05 PM   #45
Alan
El Listo ;)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbella
Ok, thanks. What is the objection? Is it the danger from these things accidently exploding and/or Scotland being a target if a foreign power wanted to blow up these missiles? Where should they be based, if at all?
No It's nothing to do with them being accidentally blown up. I can only speak for myself, but I don't want anything to do with America's foreign policy. Or Britain's for that matter. I feel bad for the things they're doing, with Scotland/Britain's help. So, they shouldn't be here at all in my opinion.
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 01:17 PM   #46
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

I know there are a lot of proud Americans on this forum: please believe that I don't intend to insult your country, but I don't like its foreign policy. And Britain's is only slightly better.[/quote]




Well not all or even the majority of Americans are so hawkish. In fact, most of us disagree with our president's polices, evidenced by the fact that he has had the lowest approval rating in the history of US presidents.

If I had my druthers, we would not be in Guantanamo so you are preaching to the choir there.


The UK had very little presence at las islas Malvinas for a while and then decided to reassert that presence after so many years. Until then it was pretty much Argentina's burden. Well before this, there has been a precedent set that if you ignore your colony for a certain time, it will independently find its own way.
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 01:41 PM   #47
Pepino
Soy La Leche!
 
Pepino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 703
Default

It's a good job we're in the Off-topic area, as we've gone from poor old Fidel's possible gastric problems, to British/Scottish devolution issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I said mostly England. It's sheer numbers. It was a British decision, but Britain is mostly England. Scotland does not like these weapons being here. That is the truth.
It is absolutely true that Britain is mostly England - population wise, but Alan will know that there's a huge anomoly in British/Scottish politics these days that has tipped the balance North of the border on many issues.

Basically...

1. Britain has a national parliament in Westminster (made up of MP's from every corner of Britain) that makes national decisions.

2. Scotland has it's own regional parliament in Edinburgh that contains ONLY Scottish MP's and has complete power over a number of areas (although, admittedly, Foreign policy isn't one of them and therefore still sits in Westminster's bag)

3. When Westminster debates/votes on an issue that ONLY affects England, the Scottish MP's can still vote in it!! But there are NO English MP's in Edinburgh, so we have NO say over votes affecting only Scotland.

This situation is totally unfair and bordering on corrupt. Tony Blair knows that he relies on the Labour dominance in Scotland and the Scottish MP's based in Westminster that this gives him, to help give him the numbers to carry his more controversial votes through. If he was honest enough to recognise the anomoly and exclude Scottish MP's from any English-only votes, then I would be praising him, but this move is unlikely given the Conservative party's tentative improvements lately and the fact that this will mean poor old Tony relies even more on those Scottish MP's in the Westminster parliament.

Whether all this actually gives any REAL benefit to Scotland is debateable. It probably doesn't in practice, as the benefit of having these "extra" MPs is only really used when Blair wants to push through something that's controvsersial on a National level, so they aren't used to get any real special treatment for the people North of the Border who they are supposed to represent.
Pepino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 02:00 PM   #48
Alan
El Listo ;)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 660
Default

Absolutely If it makes you feel any better, I have no interest in having influence over English-only matters. The Scottish National Party don't vote in Westminster unless it has an impact on Scotland. It's Labour who are the winners in this situation. I bet you that as soon as there are different parties in power in Holyrood and Westminster, the West-Lothian question will be solved.

I don't think the current situation particularly gives more power to Scotland. It does to Labour. And I don't even believe that our Parliament has real power. Scottish Labour does what they are told

But you're right - back to Castro.
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 02:42 PM   #49
Brian
Errant in Valencia
 
Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 1,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepino
Hey guys. Sorry to be dumb, but this tongue in cheek comment got me thinking about whether there's a whole American (or at least non-British) opinion regarding the Falklands that I've never tapped into.

Is there a whole other opinion on the situation that perhaps things aren't as I see them? Educate me please.
To be honest, I haven't thought about the Malvinas conflict in many years, and I for one see it as a strange little chapter that was an aberration in England's history.
Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 02:50 PM   #50
Pepino
Soy La Leche!
 
Pepino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 703
Default

It interests me that everyone even refers to the islands as Las Malvinas. At first I thought this was just to keep the Spanish flavour on the forums, until Brian directly referred to it as "The Malvinas Conflict". If you used this term on 99% of British people, they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about, but mention the Falklands War, and the penny drops instantly.

I think the Falklands was the last major test of Britains military power, and luckily for us, it paid off. If Argentina was to invade again tomorrow, I fear the outcome would be very different.
Pepino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2006, 09:40 PM   #51
richardksa
Jedi Forero
 
richardksa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 1,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepino
I think the Falklands was the last major test of Britains military power, and luckily for us, it paid off. If Argentina was to invade again tomorrow, I fear the outcome would be very different.
Maybe as a test of the British Government's resolve, but I feel the military's position would be quite definate. It's ours, we go and protect it. (If, of course, we could spare the manpower from "peacekeeping" duties elsewhere. We are spread quite thin at the moment.)
richardksa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 04:32 AM   #52
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

I wonder what the occupants of las isals Mavinas have to say about all this.
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 10:07 AM   #53
Pepino
Soy La Leche!
 
Pepino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValenciaSon
I wonder what the occupants of las isals Mavinas have to say about all this.
Everything we seem to hear in the UK is that the occupants are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining British. I don't think Notes in Spanish's international reach has made it to the Falklands yet, but if there are any Foreros out there in Port Stanley hanckering after some Argentinian "Mate" to replace their afternoon "cuppa tea" then please step forward

Last edited by Pepino; 10th August 2006 at 10:17 AM.
Pepino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 10:52 AM   #54
Alan
El Listo ;)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 660
Default

I don't think our media are quite as objective as they used to be. I would take that with a pinch of salt. One only has to compare the reports about Castro from British TV compared to Spanish TV to see what I mean.
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 01:08 PM   #55
richardksa
Jedi Forero
 
richardksa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 1,848
Default

Re the Falklands: Could it be that if they favoured Argentina they fear being overrun by people who don't live far away. Residents of Britain are most unlikely to want to move to such an isolated (from the British point of view) place, so leaving them in peace.
richardksa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 01:14 PM   #56
Pepino
Soy La Leche!
 
Pepino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 703
Default

I think if I lived there, I'd rather be under British administration rather than Argentinian, given that the Argentine ecomony has been through such a rocky period. From a political point of view too, going back a little further, it has plenty of past history of dictators and general political turmoil, so it seems if they're looking for a quiet life, then the status quo gives them the best chance of this. I know things are much more stable now over there, but you still never know what's just around the corner.
Pepino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 02:36 PM   #57
Alan
El Listo ;)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 660
Default

Britain's 'forgotten' invasion of Argentina:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4779479.stm
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 05:57 PM   #58
Edith
Pangolin Forero
 
Edith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Países Bajos
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepino
I think if I lived there, I'd rather be under British administration rather than Argentinian, given that the Argentine ecomony has been through such a rocky period. From a political point of view too, going back a little further, it has plenty of past history of dictators and general political turmoil, so it seems if they're looking for a quiet life, then the status quo gives them the best chance of this. I know things are much more stable now over there, but you still never know what's just around the corner.
Since many - if not most - inhabitants of these islands are English-speaking people, being part of Britain would make more sense anyway. Nevertheless, I considered the Falklands/Malvinas war to be a tragedy. All those lives lost on both sides for a couple of bleak, desolate islands...
Edith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2006, 11:43 PM   #59
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edith
Since many - if not most - inhabitants of these islands are English-speaking people, being part of Britain would make more sense anyway. Nevertheless, I considered the Falklands/Malvinas war to be a tragedy. All those lives lost on both sides for a couple of bleak, desolate islands...


And we still can't find Fidel!
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2006, 09:26 AM   #60
greytop
Hero Forero
 
greytop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pego, Spain
Posts: 3,363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edith
SAll those lives lost on both sides for a couple of bleak, desolate islands...
Ah, being a cynic I suspect the rich fishing and maybe oil or seabed minerals would seem to make any sacrifice worth it for the UK/US governments.
All the TV programmes I've seen about the islands suggest they want to stay part of Britain, but they would, having been that way for many years. It's the same impasse we've reached with Gibraltar and Spain and no solution will ever keep everyone happy in either case. They are slowly reaching some sort of compromise over Gib. so maybe one day can do the same for the Falklands/Malvinas. The best thing Argentina can do is get it's own house in order and make the idea of joining them so attractive the islanders will opt for that!
greytop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks
Learn REAL Spanish now!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.