...is very suspicious. Not to mention how England acquired these islands and what their interest is now (oil, military outpost).
Does the lack of inhabitants, historically, on some of the Channel Islands off California's coast, mean that, Japan, say, or China, could have claimed them?
It's fundamental to a country's security to control its off-shore islands, inhabited or not inhabited. And the Falklands were, indeed, inhabited by Argentinians (though apparently not by pre-European indigenous). The British Navy drove them out.
England has a dubious claim and they have NEVER ASKED the people of the Falklands what their wishes are, as far as I know. All decisions have been made in London, by Crown or Parliament--and by gunboat.
We only hear one side of this from the Corporate Press. It may be that Falklanders have been so controlled and propagandized and are so dependent on England that they feel they don't have a choice. Some may have a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome." Some may be like the "Orangemen" in Northern Island (a heritage as colonizers). Some may genuinely not want to be part of Argentina and South America and look across the length of the Atlantic, to England, for sustenance and culture (as portrayed by the Corporate Press and the corporate-dominated BBC). I don't really know. And we have been so lied to, on so many things, by the Corporate Press, that I DON'T TRUST their portrayals.
That's where I'm at, about this. And I tried to make that clear.
After losing the United States, the British have become more subtle in their colonial designs. Is that what this is--just another form of colonialism? Are there dissenters? Are there arguments against being a British colony? Do Falklanders really have a choice, given England's military domination and on-going expansion of their military in the Falklands? And when and where has that choice been expressed?
You tell me--since you defend England's "right" to the Falklands.
= new reply since forum marked as read