BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas

Subject: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:52 AM

Very simple - low flying training facilities, which they don't have in Europe!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 09:11 AM

Having been halfway up a Munro in the West Highlands (and Munros are not exactly high mountains by world standards), looking down on a squadron of RAF jets going up the corrie, I kinda doubt it.

The entire West Highland airspace is off-limits to private flyers because the RAF wants it to themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:35 AM

Because the Falklands are ours - and the people there want to be British too.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:44 AM

So was the US, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, and India...once.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:45 AM

What's oil got to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: alanabit
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:58 AM

Rap, it is the second half of Richard Bridge's sentence which is important. If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight decide to become French, I shall support their right to affiliate to the country of their choice. Argentina did not ask the citizens of the Falklands who they wished to belong to. They put their troops in - which obliged our government to remove them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:36 AM

Crap Bonzo. I live in the highlands of Scotland, and am regularly frightened out of my underwear, by low flying jets. Also, many of them aren't British, as we get about two NATO exercises a year up here.
There's also a low level bombing practice range, in regular use, near Tain, about 20 miles from me.
Please check you facts, as they may not always fit your prejudices

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 02:14 PM

The people of the Falklands wished to remain British. They have. Period!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 05:59 PM

"was the US, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, and India...once."

Surely the important people in this issue are not the politicians (of whatever country) but the islanders themselves? As long as they wish to remain in the said situation why should anyone force them to do otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 06:18 PM

""The people of the Falklands wished to remain British.""

Considering the local population is about a couple of thousand (add to this a couple of thousand British Military), what about the half a million grazing sheep, don't they have a say?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 07:57 PM

Buy all that murdering and blowing up, and shooting and disembowelling - sailors burned alive on their ships and young lives ended.......

The view at the time was that it would never have happened if Thatcher had not discontinued warships patrolling the area - but as she had, we had to fight. terrible bloody business.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Rapparee
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:16 PM

Oh, I believe that if they want to stay British they should be allowed to do so. I just wanted to point out that lots of other places didn't want to. If the people of the Falklands/Malvinas want to change there should be a vote, not an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:26 PM

"The people of the Falklands wished to remain British."

Too true. However, the Argentine argument is, if I understand correctly, that they are interlopers who had no right to be there in the first place. Much the same situation as in Northern Ireland, or indeed any other place that has at different times been occupied by opposing groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 09:56 PM

The history of the Falklands is very confused. The British were there long before there was an Argentina - but they left, leaving a message saying that they'd be back. The Spanish did much the same thing. Later, an American pirate claimed the islands in the name of Argentina (actually the United Provinces of the River Plate)...but didn't tell the Argentinians about it. Still later, the same person...who seemed to be French...was named head of a colony there by both the British and Argentinians. Didn't Gilbert and Sullivan write a play about all that?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:07 PM

Well, that is my information and only yesterday in Buenos Aires did I speak to folks who visited Malvinas residents just a few months ago. You can all argue among yourselves!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 01:55 AM

USA, Ireland (South), South Africa, Rhodesia, India - all removed British rule by their own efforts.

Argentina is seeking to interfere in another place's self-determination - and if it wants to treat those of English stock as interlopers is getting perilously close to proposing ethnic cleansing.

The US and other participants are interfering in Libyan internal affairs too.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: J-boy
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 02:21 AM

"Keep Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert" -Roger Waters

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 02:52 AM

Until the invasion I have to admit I'd never even heard of it or cared about it before and thought it was an island somewhere in the Hebrides or Shetlands or something. I was not taught about the history or background of the place at school so wasn't aware about who owned what anyway. All I could see was that the island was a tad closer to Argentina on the map than to Britain and it seemed to me to be the most bleakest landscapes I'd ever seen and I could never understand why Argentina were so keen to want it anyway. The only good that would have come of it would have been that the island would have had a prettier name.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Allan Conn
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:36 AM

"However, the Argentine argument is, if I understand correctly, that they are interlopers who had no right to be there in the first place"

Surely all people of European descent in the Americas are interlopers - including what I imagine would be most Argentinians?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Allan Conn
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:39 AM

"You can all argue among yourselves!!"

Low flying is such a pain in the arse that it must be quite common to imagine that you are the only ones it is inflicted on. The Scottish Borders is another of a list of places where low flying seems to happen virtually every day. At least it seems like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 05:15 AM

I have roared through Welsh valleys as a passenger in the back of a Herc.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 05:58 AM

I recall 1982 very clearly. If The Tory government of the day hadn't announced they were effectively scrapping the surface fleet the Argentinians almost certainly wouldn't have tried it on and around a thousand British and Argentinian lives would have been spared. There might, indeed, have subsequently been some sort of realistic accommodation with a later, democratic Argentinian government (the military junta in Argentina was on its arse in early 1982 and resorted to a war to try and save its own skin). Invading the islands set the Argentinian case back by at least a generation and probably more.

Let's not forget that in 1982 Argentina was governed by one of the worst military dictatorships in Latin America (which at the time was saying something). For better or worse, the people of the Falklands were British subjects and looked to Britain for their security and protection.

The fact that so many people on the left in Britain at the time were prepared to countenance British people being placed under the rule of such a regime by force always indicated to me that many British 'leftists' hated their own country and its elected government more than they hated fascism. More worryingly, they probably couldn't tell the difference. And believe it or not, there is one.

Of course, it was appalling what happened in Britain afterwards. The fact that the left had backed the wrong side discredited the left in the eyes of the vast majority of people in Britain and led to the Tories dominating British politics for the next 15 years.

If the left had been true to its finer instincts and supported the war wholeheartedly as a struggle against fascist aggression they would, at the conclusion of the war, been able to credibly point the finger at the government for allowing the war to happen by neglecting the country's conventional defences in order to pay for Trident. The Peace Movement at the time, however, didn't want to dirty its hands with arguments about defence policy. All they were interested in was something called 'Peace'.

Fact is that sometimes the people you most despise turn out to be the right person in the right place at the right time. The Thatcher government screwed up by announcing it was cutting the navy but once they were faced with the consequences of their short-sightedness they did the right thing. If the left had supported the fight to free the people of the Falklands from Argentine fascist rule it wouldn't have forfeited the respect of the British electorate and could have credibly argued that without the Tories' policies in goverment (including defence cuts) the war could have been avoided (and indeed had been avoided in 1977 when the Labour government sent naval units to the South Atlantic to deter a similar invasion).

There is a precedent - during World War 2 British people across the political spectrum supported Churchill because he was the right leader for the time. That didn't stop them getting rid of the Tories in 1945.

To get back to the question - Britain didn't fight for the Falklands because they wanted to hold on to the territory. On the contrary, the UK had been trying to find a way to get rid of the islands since the 60s. It fought because it was presented with no choice.

In 1982 there was a lot of talk on the left about 'self-determination' for Irish people, the people of El Salvador, black South Africans and Palestinians. I never understood why British people didn't have the same right.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 06:54 AM

I suspect actual concern for the few isolated people and many sheep is low.

What could be the real reasons for such a military and economic investment?

1) Economic (aka oil)?
2) Strategic, from a location and military perspective
3) National pride and stubborness

( "French Insolence and British Stubbornness."
In his last address to the troops of the Somme the Kaiser adjures them to stand firm against "French insolence and British stubbornness.")
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 07:31 AM

The British government had another set of islands, with more inhabitants than the Falklands - but a few years before the Falklands affair they deported them, killed their livestock and their pets, and transported the islanders far away to a strange country. And they handed their home over to the Americans to be used as an airbase, and more recently as a stopping off point for people being illegally "renditioned" for torture.

And every time they won a court case saying they had the right to go home, the British Government found some way of getting round it - and they are still living and dying in exile.

I'm talking about the Chagossians, the inhabitants of Diego Garcia. Of course, unlike the Falkland Islanders they are brown-skinned, which makes all the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:24 AM

Fair point, McGrath. Worth bearing in mind, however, that it was a Labour government that threw the Chagossians off the islands in the 70s and another Labour government that denied them the right to return more recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:33 AM

Actually it was a bipartisan crime. The depopulation began under Harold Wilson, and was completed under Ted Heath.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:37 AM

There is no dentist in Las Malvinas, so for dental treatment they fly to (all the way to )Santiago in Chile. There is no air or sea link with Argentina. Everything bar the military (now 2,000 strong) is run by the control freaking Falkland Islands Company. It is one of the bleakest places on earth. Some beaches are still closed off due to plastic mines laid by the Argentines - who have no idea where they are!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:39 AM

thereare massive testing grounds in the canadian paries used by the british americans and other nato members. they annoy the natives and the cariboo but the british don't need the falkland for military exercises.

they do combine with the south georgias and hebrides to give the uk a claim to a huge sea bed area if sea bed mining ever takes off. there has been oil search there as well but so far nothing of commercial value has beed found.

the uk and the usa screwed the chagossians. the google earth satilite photos of them are reported to be fakes. aparently diego garcia is virtually surrounded by older american aircraft carriers for extra landing space, and with untold numbers of secret prisoners. a sial bost driven off course by the tsunami was detasined on its way there by the us navy to prevent them seeing diego garcia.

i'm a bit surprised they didn't try to keep socotra island. its much larger and nearer the middle east and had only fifty thousand inhabitants when they decolonilaized.

some collonial legacy islands do have no other better claim. the faslkland are among those. the french have many imcluding st pierre and miquelon off new foundland. they were pronanly uninhabited and the french got legal recognition for them i return for them giving up their fishing rights to establish seasonal camps on the west coast of new foundland, which were agreed by treaty in 1763.

some late colonial actions are terrible. chagossians being victims but there were a hundred and fifty thopusand kenyans tortured, mutilated(usually male genital mutilation) raped and illegally detained in the fities. some are presently sueing. there were also "free fire " zones where any government person could a nd often did shoot any black on sight. they collected hands to get a bounty. i saw one letter od admission from one of the soldiers who had been in the second world war greif stricken that he ahd become a nazi.empires are ugly and the attempt to hang on to as much as possible can be very ugly for the colonized. the uk commited war crimes and crimes aginst humanity all over the empire.

i note david cameron is acting very un torty by admitting the uk was the cause of the kashmiri problem by their handling of partition and he said ultimately the uk was responsible for many festering problems in the world. an amazing admission but perhapds the beginning of sanity. the old guard fascist military types are getting obselete and may have little influence now

none the less they ought to get the hell out of diego garcia , and put the falklands to referendum occasionally--i doubt argentina would ever get a majority but it would give democratic authority.

oddly displaced acadiens from the british ethnic cleansing in nova scotia were settled for a while in the falklands out of their temporary haven in st malo france. they didn't stay . they found the climate too daunting but that's thought to be where the name thre malvinas comes from. the acadien grande derangement was genocidally comducted by the british military. they uprooted people arbitrarily and worse the british put a head price on the nova scotia natives. the natives helped the french and were very upset that the fortress of halifax was plunked down in their territory. so from 1740is to 1800 the british colonila authoriteis paid a bounty for every native scalp brought in. sometimes they got cynical about the scapls not being native so they requested hands or ears to see the skin color. anyone with a rosy view of the empire is a supporter of genocide and crimes against humanituy

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:18 AM

As Ollaimh notes, this book documents some of the historic horrors inflicted against the Canadian First Nations by the British.

Bad acts by compassionate people

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Musket
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:57 AM

I suppose we "want" it because we have it.

If I lived there, I would be grateful that our armed forces ensured foreign powers could not take it by force. I would feel humbled that my fellow countrymen died to ensure my freedom, and that soldiers from a corrupt junta sadly died too living the dream of a frightened dictator.

Lessons to be learned of course. Thatcher's finest hour will never be the distasteful sinking of The Belgrano, and her jingoism leading into the next election leaves many, including many Tories, with a bitter taste in their mouths.

But at the end of the day, the status quo is that it is ours. Just like Milton Keynes, Gibraltar, Barnsley and Inverness.

if you have to take history into account, we would have to review Danelaw and the Roman occupation.

In the meantime, I am fully aware that Great Britain has a chequered past, and I am also aware that the modus operandi was to enlist the help of a group of locals, usually on ethnic lines, to enforce the Imperialist agenda, which included pushing the Christian values, (see, irony can be useful....)

Perhaps why I don't and won't apologise for the actions of my ancestors, no more than the locals who did well out of it will.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:17 AM

I don't recall anyone (here) suggesting that anyone should apologise for the actions of anyone's ancestors (nomatter where they live). Nor, does anyone seem to be asking for anyone to apologise to any of the "locals" (whomever they may be, or from whereever they may have originated) who "did well out of it". Nor have I seen a request for an apology to any of the "locals" that were (and some whose plight was (and still may be) severly impacted.

Increasing awareness of history (that may now have a distorted perspective) seems to be a common objective.

It would seem odd (and, somewhat empty) to ask anyone to apologise for actions of the past, that would be out of their control?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:20 AM

If someone has asked someone else to apologise, I stand corrected (and, will let them speak for themselves).

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:40 AM

People's awareness of histiry is selective!
They only know the bad bits usually. Ask them for dates and chronologies, and nine times out of ten they couldn't tell you which came first, James the First, or James the Sixth. (Trick question)
It's like the Bible, it's quoted selectively, to back up, or to confound the views of the speaker, or their target for that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 11:21 AM

Just like Milton Keynes, Gibraltar, Barnsley and Inverness. Or Diego Garcia.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Charmion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:49 PM

I wish people would stop interpreting the "grand dérangement" of the Acadiens as "genocide." It was a mass deportation conducted for political and military reasons during the run-up to the Seven Years' War in Nova Scotia, a British colony that occupied about half the territory formerly known as Acadie. It wasn't nice, but it wasn't genocide either. The closest historical equivalent was the 1942 deportation of Japanese Canadians from British Columbia.

Acadia was a French colony until 1713, when it was became British during the series of wars along the Atlantic coast of North America now counted as part of Queen Anne's Wars. It is worth noting that France handed Acadia over with hardly a backward glance.

The Acadiens were not at that time required to swear allegiance to their new overlords, nor were they prevented from maintaining contact with New France and with French outposts in the area, especially Louisbourg. This failure of British colonial administration is best attributed to laissez-faire attitudes arising from lack of manpower.

The Acadiens lived quite comfortably as British subjects in name only until the 1740s, when the worsening security situation across the Atlantic made the colonial government wake up to some stern realities. Military operations dealt with Louisbourg and the other French fortresses in the Atlantic region, but the Acadiens themselves were a threat because they remained a population of ex-enemies in regular contact with the potential enemy next door in New France. Consequently, a decree went out from Halifax that all Acadians who had not taken the oath of allegiance had to do so or lose the right to live in the territory ... and the rest is history.

It made political and military sense in those harsh times, but seems barbaric in today's post-Romantic view.

That Longfellow guy has a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,999
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:19 PM

Well said, Charmion.

Next time ya hear Cajun music, think of your northern neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:58 PM

Not genocide, just ethnic cleansing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: gnu
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:12 PM

Charmion... to an extent. However, let us not forget the "genocide" that actually took place which history books do not tell to any extent. Colonel Monckton mounted a number of campaigns against the French settlers and when the history books say he engaged in "campaigns and raids" to "enforce" the oath of allegiance it sounds rather innocuous. However, burning homes and crops and shooting people is not innocuous. History books are written by the victors.

Was it a calculated strategy to minimize loss of life? It appears so in the history books. Did it work? It appears so. Overall, it seemed like a good idea at the time... perhaps the only idea other than actual out and out genocide. But tell that to an Acadian at Le Brasserie 1755 on Rue Champlain in Dieppe on a Saturday night and dey trow deir coat bot side da road eh! And I don't blame them. There are a shitload more graves caused by Monckton than the history books give him credit for.

Rant over. I am not a history buff so forgive me if I can't support my statements. Just going by what my elders taught me... French AND Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:58 PM

Gnu, there is indeed much history (on the internet, in books and elsewhere) about events around the expulsion of the Acadians. I agree, there was much unecessary suffering and distruction associated. As Daniel Paul indicated in his book on the British and the Native community,the British (or the period) recorded everything.

Some related statements and observatons on the topic:

""Almost from the beginning of their regime in 1713, the British governors of Acadie faced a dilemma. They feared and distrusted the Acadians, but could do nothing but to keep them on the land.

It wasn't their first choice. Indeed, almost from the beginning, the British thought about expelling the Acadians. In a letter sent to Queen Anne announcing the fall of Port Royal, the army commanders Francis Nicholson and Samuel Vetch proposed, "In order to bring the native Indians entirely under your Majesty's subjection as well as to convert them to the protestant (sic) religion it will be necessary to transport all the French from the country save such as shall come over to the Protestant religion."

The big problem was that there were nearly 2,000 Acadians in 1713 and fewer than 500 Anglos at Annapolis Royal. The Acadians knew how to nurture the land - and provide the food the British garrison needed. As much as the British wanted to send the Acadians away, it just wasn't practical.""

""Colonel Richard Phillips (governor of the Acadian peninsula 1717 until 1749) wrote to his superiors in London: "(The Acadians) cannot be let go now at least. Their departure, if they went to...Cape Breton, would render our neighbors too powerful. We need them to erect fortifications and to provision our forts till the English are powerful enough to go on."

The officials in London wrote back: "As to the Acadians of Nova Scotia,...we are apprehensive they will never become good subjects to His Majesty....We are of (the) opinion they ought to be removed as soon as the forces which we have proposed be sent to you shall arrive in your Province. But...you are not to attempt their removal without His Majesty's positive order...(and) will do well in the meantime to continue the same prudent and cautious conduct towards them.""

""In 1746, Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts wrote to officials in England that "the enemy will soon find a way to wrest Acadia from us if we do not remove the most dangerous French inhabitants and replace them with English families.""


Source

So, there was a reason the British sought the cooperation of the Acadians in the eary years. They were excellent farmers, and fed the isolated British troops.

Genocide would most likely be an incorrect term. Ethnic cleaning, for whatever the reason (military, political, financial gain), would be closer. The Canadian WW2 Japanese internment/deportation was similar, in that both caused much suffering,slavery like conditions, relocation,and family breakup mostly for racist type reasons of the time.

Stating only that "It wasn't nice" IMO, "belittles" the displacement, family break up, economic hardship, suffering and high death rate that resulted.

The background of "the oath" is much more complex then presented earlier (see below) It also involved a conflict between Acadians RC religion, and the Anglican church. Acadians were led to believe from the local British representatives(govenor Richard Phillips) that their commitment to neutrality was sufficient until Edward Cornwallis became govenor and disagreed. Governor Charles Lawrence (1754-60), who was extreme in his contempt for Acadians used "the oath" to justify the expulsion to officials in Britain and the deaths of many who did not leave.

""It was Lawrence who conceived and ordered the Removal of the Acadians in 1755. He led the Council1 which governed Nova Scotia to its decision to pass, on July 28, 1755, the following resolution in respect to the French residents of Nova Scotia, the Acadians:

"After mature consideration it was unanimously agreed, that, to prevent as much as possible their attempting to return and molest the settlers that may be set down on their lands, it would be most proper to send them to be distributed amongst the several colonies on the continent, and that a sufficient number of vessels should be hired with all possible expedition for that purpose."" (resettling the land with protestant, English speaking folks, was obviously in the works)


""In the fall of 1726, Major Lawrence Armstrong became the provincial administrator. He, like his predecessors, were determined to force the Acadians to take the oath of allegiance. Once again, the Acadians refused to take it unless it contained a clause that they would not be forced to fight against the French. Armstrong agreed to insert the clause, and did - in the margin of the French translation only. There was no such clause in the English version that was sent to London.

Finally, in November 1739, Governor Phillips himself came to Acadia to get the oath of allegiance that his lieutenants had not been able to wrest from the Acadians. He reported the following September that all Acadians "of all parishes" had taken the oath, receiving "entire submission of all those so long obstinate people." He did it, he said, without "threats or compulsion, nor have I prostituted the King's honor in making a scandalous capitulation in his name."

The oath signed by the Acadians read, "Je Promets et Jure Sincerement en Foi de Chretien que Je serai entierement Fidele, et Obeirai Vraiment Sa Majeste Le Roy George le Second, qui je reconnais pour Le Souverain Seigneur de L'Acadie ou Nouvelle Ecosse. Ainsi Dieu me Soit en Aide." (I promise and swear sincerely as a Christian that I will be entirely faithful, and truly obey His Majesty King George II, who I acknowledge as Supreme Lord of Acadia or Nova Scotia. So help me God.)

But there were some conditions attached to the Acadian oaths that did not appear in the papers that were sent to London, but they wre recorded in sworn affidavit made by two French priests of the area, Fathers Charles de la Goudalie and Noel Alexandre De Noinville, who certified that "His Excellency Richard Phillips...has promised to the inhabitants of (the Minas Basin) and other rivers dependent thereon, that he exempts them from bearing arms and fighting in wars against the French and the Indians, and that the said inhabitants have only accepted allegiance and promised never to take up arms in the event of war against the Kingdom of England and its Government.""

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:38 AM

So now we know why Britain wants 'Las Malvinas'. It's a Cajun-free zone. Seems a bit extreme. If they wanted to see Acadian culture demolished all they had to do was go down Cecil Sharp House.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 07:29 AM

I don't believe any Acadians were expelled to Las Malvinas. They    wanted to protect the sheep from the impact of the French, papists (dat ol' hen know what she's a doin').:)

BTW, there was a positive impact of the involuntary settlement (if you can call it that) of the Acadians in Cajunland. Da grub gat betta.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 08:45 AM

Interesting that Israel supplied arms to Argentina during Las Malvinas war!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 08:47 AM

It would likely be a surprise to see who supplies arms to whom on a broad perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 02:39 PM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Google that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: bubblyrat
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 01:38 PM

Most arms manufacturing and exporting countries will happily jump on the bandwagon when a real -life war breaks out , regardless of any trade or political affiliations , or indeed not , with the participants. Britain's great chums , the French , happily supplied Exocet missiles , and spare parts for the Super Etendard aircraft that launched them , to Argentina , whilst steadfastly refusing to supply Britain with information necessary for the implementation of suitable ECM with which to counteract them , with fatal consequences.
                      As to the original question posed in the thread title ;
          Margaret Thatcher and her husband , Denis , as the major shareholders in the Falkland Islands Company , obviously stood to make a considerable financial loss if the Argentinian invasion had been successful. Her fervent patriotic jingoism was , therefore , somewhat understandable and, in the light of subsequent revelations about the barbaric conduct and disgusting actions of the invading troops , fully justified . In my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 04:15 PM

in the light of subsequent revelations about the barbaric conduct and disgusting actions of the invading troops , fully justified . In my opinion.

Then I HOPE that you have the need to stand in front of a war memorial and shed tears over the loss of a son in battle.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 04:38 PM

Beneath reasons cited for a conflict, dollars is often the real driving force.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Britain wants Las Malvinas
From: gnu
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 05:36 PM

Ed... your post re Acadian history is dramatically insightful with regard to it's concise presentation. I'm fuckin impressed.

As for the Falklands... it was TV for the the Brits and the Argentines. A military exercise and some TV for distraction of the masses. I did like the Brit lasses flashing their tits on TV for the sailors though.

And that piper standing on the hill at dawn... the RSM charging alone with only a pistol and sword... cut down... VC... and 10,000 Argentines lined up and surrendering their guns one by one to a corporal... lance... acting... unpaid... that's TV.

Ahhh, the corporal... an old military joke. But, it was a corporal... just the one corporal in the photo ops.