Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Britain sends new warship to Falklands

World Feb. 01, 2012 - 11:06AM JST ( 23 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

23 Comments

0

nandakandamandaFeb. 01, 2012 - 12:19PM JST

About time they started giving the right signals. The population must have been wondering if anyone was listening to them.
-3

Elbuda MexicanoFeb. 01, 2012 - 12:54PM JST

Which population?? I am sure if you ask anybody from LATIN AMERICA,where the Malvinas are located, they would tell you that the UK is wrong and that it is the WRONG signal, but hey this is just politics as usual, maybe Argentina and the UK will both use it to make people forget they are poor.
1

wanderlustFeb. 01, 2012 - 01:19PM JST

Didn't think they had any ships to spare after the latest round of defence cuts. Thought that they were all fighting the war on terror, bringing freedom to the Arabs, or running aground on sandbanks...
-6

jazz350Feb. 01, 2012 - 01:26PM JST

Britain has no right to own or control islands/territory far from her soil, she is still living with a colonial mindset. One only has to look at history and her dismal record in India. Kenya, Malaya, Hong Kong and many more countries around the world which she colonized. Britain must pack up and get the hell out of Malvinas, the sooner the better. Argentina has more rights to Malvinas than Britain.
3

Heda_MadnessFeb. 01, 2012 - 01:35PM JST

Which population??

The population of the Falkland Islands. The people who live there. Who were born there. Who's parents died there etc, etc etc. And as long as the people of the Falklands want to be a British territory then they should be.
-9

kwattFeb. 01, 2012 - 01:58PM JST

Britain seems to make new war with Argentina and invade the whole country. The US and Britain are a kind of same. They love wars. Britain should send a peaceful sailboat to Malvinas instead of warship.
3

nandakandamandaFeb. 01, 2012 - 02:06PM JST

Quote: “The Argentine Republic rejects the British effort to militarize a conflict which the United Nations has said on multiple occasions should be resolved through bilateral negotiations,” a foreign ministry statement said.

The problem is that someone who shall be nameless attacked and occupied the place not too long ago, against the will of the residents. There was a war to re-establish the staus quo.

Again on numerous occasions recently Argentina has been increasingly belligerent in her wording.

Agreed there should be peaceful negotiations, yes, but as the old proverb goes, 'Once bitten, twice shy."
2

RogerrabbittFeb. 01, 2012 - 03:18PM JST

What everyone seems to be missing here is the fact that the UK has just discovered a massive oil field in the Falklands hence the heated crossfire between governments. The 30th anniversary is simple a catalyst for igniting past ownership debate. The UK is trying to downplay the situation, But after serving in the last Falklands war as a marine you can bet your bottom dollar that the UK are going to do there damnedest to hold on to them..watch for news of more warships silently appearing off the falklands.
3

YongYangFeb. 01, 2012 - 03:20PM JST

@Elb: So, right, let's ask the first nation people's what they think of the Spanish and Portuguese who live on their land? They'd mirror your sentiments, for sure. No one lived on the Falklands, no people's dispossessed and the people who live there now want to stay British, their choice... so, they should be forcibly removed or ruled under tyranny?
4

SuperLibFeb. 01, 2012 - 03:37PM JST

If the people want to be British then Argentina should just move on. There's really nothing they can do to change that and at the end of the day there's no way they can administer the islands.
1

MadvertsFeb. 01, 2012 - 04:07PM JST

"There's really nothing they can do to change that and at the end of the day there's no way they can administer the islands."

Does a bruised latin ego ever heal?
0

MadvertsFeb. 01, 2012 - 04:13PM JST

Wanderlust,

Succinctly put. There must be a sizeable amount of oil in that last gasp of the old Empire if we're sending that ship out there. Let's hope it has enough fuel to return.
1

LagunaFeb. 01, 2012 - 04:29PM JST

At least this might bring quite well-deserved attention back to Steve Dahl & Teenage Radiation's masterpiece, "Falklands," which has languished in obscurity since 1982. Oh, 1982!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlPorISb6yI
-5

unreconstructedFeb. 01, 2012 - 04:59PM JST

Does a bruised latin ego ever heal?

I reckon its owner just recalls the great Maradona, and the Hand of God, and how the Argies so thoroughly humiliated Engerland in 86.

North of the equator though the who kerfuffle is useful to leftists like Obama who still like to and find it useful to strike the 'anti-colonial' pose - - which is why the US State Dept., since 09, has been instructed to refer to the islands in question as the Malvinas.

When it comes to vote-buying, every lil' bit counts !
1

KingBasilFeb. 01, 2012 - 06:59PM JST

jazz350Feb. 01, 2012 - 01:26PM JST

Britain has no right to own or control islands/territory far from her soil, she is still living with a colonial mindset.

Strange that you disparage the colonial mindset when you speak the language of colonialism so well!

Britain must pack up and get the hell out of Malvinas, the sooner the better. Argentina has more rights to Malvinas than Britain.

There you go. You speak of rights to land, like Hitler complaining that the Sudetenland is like a spear in Germany's side, therefore, it should be Germany's. The people who live there and have always lived there do not figure in to the language of colonialism. There are not words. So you do not speak of those people, or what they want.

You speak of ugly British history too. And it is ugly. But you don't bother to talk about the Conquest of the Desert do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquestofthe_Desert
2

WilliBFeb. 01, 2012 - 07:04PM JST

Jauzz350:

" Britain has no right to own or control islands/territory far from her soil, she is still living with a colonial mindset. "

The Falklands are not a colony. The native population is British, not a colonial subjects. Wrong tree to bark up.
0

HategoboFeb. 01, 2012 - 11:50PM JST

Tut Tut , a lot of Anglophobic underskirts showing today.
2

BurakuminDesFeb. 02, 2012 - 01:42AM JST

The 3000-odd people who live in the Falklands are overwhelmingly British citizens (more Japanese live there than Argentines - check Wiki.) They clearly wish to be administered by the British. The islands are a British Territory - end of story. The Argies can spit their political dummies and throw their rattles as much as they want but they know they were owned by the Brits in 1982 and are smart enough people to never challenge them again.
1

gelendestrasseFeb. 02, 2012 - 02:34AM JST

Why is it that every time the Argentines get their economy in a twist they start complaining about the British in the Faulklands? It's amusing how people like to play the nationalism card to deflect criticism. The US bashes China, China bashes Japan, NK bashes anything that moves. It's really quite pathetic.

The Faulkland islanders deserve a right of self determination. They've chosed to go with Britain. That's about all that counts.
1

YuriOtaniFeb. 02, 2012 - 05:04AM JST

The people of the Falklands want to be part of the Commonwealth. Theses islands were never under the control of Argentina except for a short time in 82. The UK should send a Trident sub to patrol off of Argentina.
0

SwissToniFeb. 02, 2012 - 11:07PM JST

"What everyone seems to be missing here is the fact that the UK has just discovered a massive oil field in the Falklands"

Thatshould read another massive oil field. This is of course the pertinent point, and always was. Sadly for argentinia they unilaterally pulled out of an agreement with Britain to jointly explore and develop the oil industry in the area.
0

Pruitt Igoe 72Feb. 03, 2012 - 12:39PM JST

It's in the Western Hemishere. So that means neither side would make a move without asking Pres. Obama first. 2009 Nobel Peace Prize people, remember?
2

YongYangFeb. 03, 2012 - 02:18PM JST

@Jazz: That is terrible logic for so many reasons. Proximity can’t be a significant factor in claims, especially when sovereignty was established by one country when the other didn’t even exist. You talk about historical injustices, but which ones? And why create a bigger injustice by punishing 3000 people for the blanket term ‘Imperialism’ in 2012? Surely that’s not civilised? Pandering to Argentinian nationalism at the expense of the right of self-determination is regressive and justifiable only on the same terms as the Imperialism you profess to dislike.