Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58
How it can be considered that a country that, without warning or provocation, invaded British territory in an act of aggression can be considered to have the "moral high ground" is just laughable, as are your attempts to divert attention away from the topic under discussion. Historically the consensus is that Britain had every right to defend herself against the aggressors, and there is no country on this planet that would not have done the same.
The Iraqi War was entered into with subterfuge, lies and deceit. The wishes of the Iraqi people themselves were so far removed from the equation as to be meaningless and, irrespective of the tyrannical regime in power it was not our business or responsibility to interfere in the politics of a foreign country without any legitimate justification.
|
Given that the islands history is somewhat chequered, there is a view we took them from the Spanish overseers(who were based at Buenos Aires), so they maintain the argument that they were reclaiming their terrority although it was occupied by British Squatters.
Historically the consensus worldwide is we shouldnt have retook them but settled the dispute diplomatically which is what we drafted 502 for. The idea we were defending ourselves is laughable, that sort of theologising died out with the Empire.
Mind you along with the Falklands islands the British also fought for the South Sandwich islands and South Georgia, why, there is no native or permanent population?
And it wasnt about self defence it was about the rights of the islanders to self determination there is a hell of a big difference.