"Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Dec 31st 2006, 12:08 am
#466
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Infinity and beyond
Posts: 1,324
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Dakota - another great post.
I'm always amused when Americans refer to the Falkland's as "disputed territory" because Britain took it by force nearly 200 hundred years ago.
Using the same logic I assume that you also regard Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, California, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Colorado and Hawaii as "disputed territory" and that if their original owners were to take them back you would oppose intervention by the US military?
I'm always amused when Americans refer to the Falkland's as "disputed territory" because Britain took it by force nearly 200 hundred years ago.
Using the same logic I assume that you also regard Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, California, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Colorado and Hawaii as "disputed territory" and that if their original owners were to take them back you would oppose intervention by the US military?
Dec 31st 2006, 1:19 am
#467
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 97
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
So you see....given this little tidbit from above..."in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention". .......... There is an argument that they rightfully should have been returned to Argentina when the Empire faded away, in my opinion.
(from this thread it's not the closest) breaks international agreements all the time.
Told you so.
Dec 31st 2006, 4:37 am
#468
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Dakota - another great post.
I'm always amused when Americans refer to the Falkland's as "disputed territory" because Britain took it by force nearly 200 hundred years ago.
Using the same logic I assume that you also regard Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, California, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Colorado and Hawaii as "disputed territory" and that if their original owners were to take them back you would oppose intervention by the US military?
I'm always amused when Americans refer to the Falkland's as "disputed territory" because Britain took it by force nearly 200 hundred years ago.
Using the same logic I assume that you also regard Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, California, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Colorado and Hawaii as "disputed territory" and that if their original owners were to take them back you would oppose intervention by the US military?
Britain ceded the Islands to Spain, and then, took them back by force. Slightly different.
Texas seceded from Mexico and later joined the U.S. ...not even a close comparison to your opinion about the falklands.
n 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico, proclaimed a unified constitution for all Mexican territories, including Texas.[9] Anglo American settlers in Texas announced they intended to secede from Mexico rather than be forced to the new Mexican constitution and instead, asked for consideration under the original 1824 Mexican Constitution which allowed: freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the press and also enslavement, which Mexico had abolished under this new constitution. Other policies that irritated the Texans included the forcible disarmament of Texan settlers, and the expulsion of immigrants and legal land owners originally from the United States. The example of the Centralista forces' suppression of dissidents in Zacatecas also inspired fear of the Mexican government.[10]
Republic of Texas.
On March 2, 1836, the Convention of 1836 signed a Declaration of Independence,[11] declaring Texas an independent nation.[12] On April 21, 1836, the Texans won their independence when they defeated the Mexican forces of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was captured and signed the Treaties of Velasco, which gave Texas firm boundaries; Mexico repudiated the treaties, considered Texas a breakaway province, and vowed to reconquer it.
Nevada. .... Derived from the Fatherspoils of a war treaty.... Kino expeditions at the end of the 17th century through north Mexico and south U.S., Nevada passed to Spanish control, belonging to the Viceroyalty of New Spain. In 1821 became part of the First Mexican Empire of Agustin de Iturbide, until 1823, and afterwards of Mexico. As a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 and based on the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty, Nevada became part of the United States.
California...also not similar.....they separated and were claimed by the U.S
In 1846, at the outset of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the California Republic was founded and the Bear Flag was flown, which featured a grizzly bear and a star. The Republic came to a sudden end, however, when Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into San Francisco Bay and claimed California for the United States. Following the treaty ending ending the war, the region was divided between Mexico and the United States; the western part of the U.S. portion, Alta (upper) California, was to become the U.S. state of California.
Utah...again ceded by treaty.....
Mormons first came to the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. At the time, Utah was still Mexican territory. As a consequence of the Mexican-American War, the land became the territory of the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on March 10. In 1850, the Utah Territory was created with the Compromise of 1850, and Fillmore was designated the capital. In 1856, Salt Lake City replaced Fillmore as the territorial capital.
Oklahoma... The History of Oklahoma is a term that in most cases not only refers to the history of the state of Oklahoma, but also to the land that the state now occupies. Most of Oklahoma (all but the Panhandle) was acquired in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, while the Panhandle was not acquired until the U.S. land acquisitions following the Mexican-American War.
South Dakota...again purchased....In 1743, the LaVerendrye brothers buried a plate near the modern capital Pierre (pronounced as "peer") claiming the region for France as part of greater Louisiana. In 1803, the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon
Colorado....The territory that ultimately became Colorado was added to the United States by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase and the 1848 Mexican Cession.
Anyhow, we are not talking the same thing in any way. I still say that the Falklands war was a waste of human life. With all due respect to your opinion. I know we will not agree, but there is nothing wrong with that.But I do enjoy the discussion.
Last edited by dakota44; Dec 31st 2006 at 4:41 am.
Dec 31st 2006, 4:43 am
#469
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,220
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Britain ceded the Islands to Spain, and then, took them back by force. Slightly different.
Texas seceded from Mexico and later joined the U.S. ...not even a close comparison to your opinion about the falklands.
n 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico, proclaimed a unified constitution for all Mexican territories, including Texas.[9] Anglo American settlers in Texas announced they intended to secede from Mexico rather than be forced to the new Mexican constitution and instead, asked for consideration under the original 1824 Mexican Constitution which allowed: freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the press and also enslavement, which Mexico had abolished under this new constitution. Other policies that irritated the Texans included the forcible disarmament of Texan settlers, and the expulsion of immigrants and legal land owners originally from the United States. The example of the Centralista forces' suppression of dissidents in Zacatecas also inspired fear of the Mexican government.[10]
Republic of Texas.
On March 2, 1836, the Convention of 1836 signed a Declaration of Independence,[11] declaring Texas an independent nation.[12] On April 21, 1836, the Texans won their independence when they defeated the Mexican forces of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was captured and signed the Treaties of Velasco, which gave Texas firm boundaries; Mexico repudiated the treaties, considered Texas a breakaway province, and vowed to reconquer it.
Nevada. .... Derived from the Fatherspoils of a war treaty.... Kino expeditions at the end of the 17th century through north Mexico and south U.S., Nevada passed to Spanish control, belonging to the Viceroyalty of New Spain. In 1821 became part of the First Mexican Empire of Agustin de Iturbide, until 1823, and afterwards of Mexico. As a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 and based on the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty, Nevada became part of the United States.
California...also not similar.....they separated and were claimed by the U.S
In 1846, at the outset of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the California Republic was founded and the Bear Flag was flown, which featured a grizzly bear and a star. The Republic came to a sudden end, however, when Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into San Francisco Bay and claimed California for the United States. Following the treaty ending ending the war, the region was divided between Mexico and the United States; the western part of the U.S. portion, Alta (upper) California, was to become the U.S. state of California.
Utah...again ceded by treaty.....
Mormons first came to the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. At the time, Utah was still Mexican territory. As a consequence of the Mexican-American War, the land became the territory of the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on March 10. In 1850, the Utah Territory was created with the Compromise of 1850, and Fillmore was designated the capital. In 1856, Salt Lake City replaced Fillmore as the territorial capital.
Oklahoma... The History of Oklahoma is a term that in most cases not only refers to the history of the state of Oklahoma, but also to the land that the state now occupies. Most of Oklahoma (all but the Panhandle) was acquired in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, while the Panhandle was not acquired until the U.S. land acquisitions following the Mexican-American War.
South Dakota...again purchased....In 1743, the LaVerendrye brothers buried a plate near the modern capital Pierre (pronounced as "peer") claiming the region for France as part of greater Louisiana. In 1803, the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon
Colorado....The territory that ultimately became Colorado was added to the United States by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase and the 1848 Mexican Cession.
Anyhow, we are not talking the same thing in any way. I still say that the Falklands war was a waste of human life. With all due respect to your opinion. I know we will not agree, but there is nothing wrong with that.But I do enjoy the discussion.
Texas seceded from Mexico and later joined the U.S. ...not even a close comparison to your opinion about the falklands.
n 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna, President of Mexico, proclaimed a unified constitution for all Mexican territories, including Texas.[9] Anglo American settlers in Texas announced they intended to secede from Mexico rather than be forced to the new Mexican constitution and instead, asked for consideration under the original 1824 Mexican Constitution which allowed: freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the press and also enslavement, which Mexico had abolished under this new constitution. Other policies that irritated the Texans included the forcible disarmament of Texan settlers, and the expulsion of immigrants and legal land owners originally from the United States. The example of the Centralista forces' suppression of dissidents in Zacatecas also inspired fear of the Mexican government.[10]
Republic of Texas.
On March 2, 1836, the Convention of 1836 signed a Declaration of Independence,[11] declaring Texas an independent nation.[12] On April 21, 1836, the Texans won their independence when they defeated the Mexican forces of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was captured and signed the Treaties of Velasco, which gave Texas firm boundaries; Mexico repudiated the treaties, considered Texas a breakaway province, and vowed to reconquer it.
Nevada. .... Derived from the Fatherspoils of a war treaty.... Kino expeditions at the end of the 17th century through north Mexico and south U.S., Nevada passed to Spanish control, belonging to the Viceroyalty of New Spain. In 1821 became part of the First Mexican Empire of Agustin de Iturbide, until 1823, and afterwards of Mexico. As a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 and based on the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty, Nevada became part of the United States.
California...also not similar.....they separated and were claimed by the U.S
In 1846, at the outset of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the California Republic was founded and the Bear Flag was flown, which featured a grizzly bear and a star. The Republic came to a sudden end, however, when Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into San Francisco Bay and claimed California for the United States. Following the treaty ending ending the war, the region was divided between Mexico and the United States; the western part of the U.S. portion, Alta (upper) California, was to become the U.S. state of California.
Utah...again ceded by treaty.....
Mormons first came to the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. At the time, Utah was still Mexican territory. As a consequence of the Mexican-American War, the land became the territory of the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on March 10. In 1850, the Utah Territory was created with the Compromise of 1850, and Fillmore was designated the capital. In 1856, Salt Lake City replaced Fillmore as the territorial capital.
Oklahoma... The History of Oklahoma is a term that in most cases not only refers to the history of the state of Oklahoma, but also to the land that the state now occupies. Most of Oklahoma (all but the Panhandle) was acquired in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, while the Panhandle was not acquired until the U.S. land acquisitions following the Mexican-American War.
South Dakota...again purchased....In 1743, the LaVerendrye brothers buried a plate near the modern capital Pierre (pronounced as "peer") claiming the region for France as part of greater Louisiana. In 1803, the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon
Colorado....The territory that ultimately became Colorado was added to the United States by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase and the 1848 Mexican Cession.
Anyhow, we are not talking the same thing in any way. I still say that the Falklands war was a waste of human life. With all due respect to your opinion. I know we will not agree, but there is nothing wrong with that.But I do enjoy the discussion.
Dec 31st 2006, 4:45 am
#470
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Dec 31st 2006, 4:49 am
#471
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,220
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
You werent boring me...I agree about having the facts and actually enjoyed reading your posts....I just couldnt resist the opportunity to take the piss.
Dec 31st 2006, 5:47 am
#472
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Dec 31st 2006, 1:17 pm
#473
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 97
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.
Sovereignty over the islands became an issue again in the latter half of the twentieth century. Argentina, which had never renounced its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514, regarding the de-colonization of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.
(we can all copy and paste wikipedia
)As far as I see it, Britain had every right to the islands. The agreement was made when the islands were under Spanish control.
I still say that the Falklands war was a waste of human life.
which have been a true waste of human life 
============================
Happy New Year!
Dec 31st 2006, 1:20 pm
#474
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,102
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Puerto Rico, Guam? 
Dec 31st 2006, 1:31 pm
#475
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,196
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Dec 31st 2006, 2:08 pm
#476
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
If you are trying to convince us that the history of the USA has not involved taking land from its original owners by force then you are simply not going to be taken seriously round here.
Dec 31st 2006, 3:20 pm
#477
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Infinity and beyond
Posts: 1,324
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Much of the US was taken by war or genocide from its original owners in what would be regarded today as a war crime. I post not to criticize the pioneers but to highlight the double standards of then calling the Falklands "disputed territory" because they were also taken by force in the 19th century when the norms of international behavior were very different from those today.
The relevant fact is this:
The Falkland Islanders wish to remain part of the UK and pay taxes to the UK Government. Accordingly, they are as entitled as any other UK citizen to the protection of the UK's armed forces against a foreign invader, regardless of the landscape, climate, or how the islands came to be part of the UK.
The relevant fact is this:
The Falkland Islanders wish to remain part of the UK and pay taxes to the UK Government. Accordingly, they are as entitled as any other UK citizen to the protection of the UK's armed forces against a foreign invader, regardless of the landscape, climate, or how the islands came to be part of the UK.
Dec 31st 2006, 5:14 pm
#478
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Would never think of it. History speaks for itself. But it does not change what I view as the silliness of the Falklands war. Every spec of land in the Americas was taken by force from the original native inhabitants, whether by the Brits, French, Spanish or whomever. It was only later taken by force of war, or by purchase, by the U.S.
So everyone is guilty.
Dec 31st 2006, 5:17 pm
#479
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,102
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
It's hardly silly, all the inhabitants are British. What would happen if Spain invaded Puerto Rico demanding it back?
Dec 31st 2006, 5:30 pm
#480
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 97
Re: "Britain's Special Relationship With US Is Just a Myth"
Exactly.
Maybe you could tell that to your government? I don't know the name of the guy but he was on the news when there was that Live Aid event on about cancelling debt. This idiot yank politician came on saying something like "Europe wants to cancel debt because it feels so guilty about colonisation and wants to be able to repay for it's past. We in the US don't have that same guilt." Yeah, right! Obviously someone who doesn't know much at all about his country's history...or present!!!
Originally Posted by dakota44
So everyone is guilty.