Green leader Bennett sorry for 'excruciating' interview

[pjclarke]

It was Nationalist jingoism that defeated the Nazis in WW2. Perhaps if your lot had been running the country you would have appeased Hitler in the same way you intend to appease Putin President Putin has to walk away with something - things that we might not necessarily like
Maybe in Hitlers case your lot could have allowed him to open up some concentration camps in the UK to put Jews into "No crime to belong to Islamic State, al-Qaida or IRA, says Green party leader"

You're confusing Nationalism with Patriotism, and an enemy who constituted an existential threat with an invasion of a tiny remote island of disputed sovereignty.


Who are 'my lot'?

[Goatfell]

One thing the green party have got spot on. Defence policy. We only need a UK army to defend our borders. All UK troops should be bought home.

If there's any fighting to be done, I'd prefer it was very, very far away, not in the next village. Particularly if the septics are going to be engaging in "precision bombing".

[SpontaneousOrder]

Falklands. Easy. Relocate the islanders to an equivalent Scottish Island. Give them £1,000,000 each. Would have worked out (a lot) cheaper.

Would you give up your wife for £1000000?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Would you give up your wife for £1000000?

With that being said - it should be down to the people paying for it to decide if they want to own & protect a far away island. I'm not necessarily disagreeing that it shouldn't be something we're willing to pay such a price for - principle aside.

[MicrosoftBob]

That's the problem with the Jingoist Right, they believe that a small island in the opposite hemisphere is worth hundreds of lives and billions of pounds.

Quite Argentina should be given back to Spain, all this fuss over nothing

[d000hg]

So who are "we" exploiting then?

Anyone you can make money from.

[SueEllen]

You're confusing Nationalism with Patriotism, and an enemy who constituted an existential threat with an invasion of a tiny remote island of disputed sovereignty.


Who are 'my lot'?

The Falklands are Islands not one single Island and their sovereignty isn't disputed.

The people of the Falklands claim they are British and celebrate this fact every year.

The UN and lots of other nations allow people who live on a piece of land the right to self-determination.

If the Falkland Islanders decided they wanted to be independent or Argentinian then pressure would be put on Britain to give them what they wanted. It's actually worth talking to someone who has lived on the Islands.

Finally in regards to Jersey and the Shetlands a quick history lesson would make you realise that other countries have had claims to them. In fact any German claim to Jersey would be more recent than Argentinians to the Falklands. :nazi:

[pjclarke]

The Falklands are Islands not one single Island and their sovereignty isn't disputed.

Apologies for the erroneous singular, however the Argentinian claim to sovereignty over the islands dates from 1833, is supported by most Latin American countries and China, and was the subject of a UN resolution as recently as 1988, and is written into the Argentinian constitution as ' a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people'.

An accusation often levelled at The Left and the Greens has been one of naivity, that its fine to have principles, but they are often trumped by real-world economic realities and pragmatism.

The principle here is that the Islanders' right to self-determination, which is fine, part of International Law and which I in general support, however the cost of defending that 'right' in the face of aggression was nearly 1,000 lives (including three islanders killed by friendly fire) and about £1,000 for every household in this country (or over £1 million per Islander). An expensive principle.

A peaceful and negotiated handover, over time, with transition and relocation arrangements, and with the Islanders offered substantial compensation, it seems to me would have been a far more 'pragmatic' and less bloody solution. But it didn't, and won't happen - because of 'principle'.

[DodgyAgent]

Apologies for the erroneous singular, however the Argentinian claim to sovereignty over the islands dates from 1833, is supported by most Latin American countries and China, and was the subject of a UN resolution as recently as 1988, and is written into the Argentinian constitution as ' a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people'.

An accusation often levelled at The Left and the Greens has been one of naivity, that its fine to have principles, but they are often trumped by real-world economic realities and pragmatism.

The principle here is that the Islanders' right to self-determination, which is fine, part of International Law and which I in general support, however the cost of defending that 'right' in the face of aggression was nearly 1,000 lives (including three islanders killed by friendly fire) and about £1,000 for every household in this country (or over £1 million per Islander). An expensive principle.

A peaceful and negotiated handover, over time, with transition and relocation arrangements, and with the Islanders offered substantial compensation, it seems to me would have been a far more 'pragmatic' and less bloody solution. But it didn't, and won't happen - because of 'principle'.

it is interesting that you think people can be "bought" in this way.

Quite right it should not happen. More importantly self sufficient farming and fishing communities that are "patriotic" (one mans patriot is another mans nationalist) towards the UK and likely to be traditionally conservative govt supporters

Had the Falkland Islanders been a bunch of Lentil eating banner waving lesbians "at one" with the planet you can bet any amount of money that the attitude of the left would have been quite different.

I am sure that there are many disputes that can be settled by buying off people, but I for one cannot think of a better way of spending money than protecting our own people from tyranny. The aid budget should cover it nicely.

[DodgyAgent]

Apologies for the erroneous singular, however the Argentinian claim to sovereignty over the islands dates from 1833, is supported by most Latin American countries and China, and was the subject of a UN resolution as recently as 1988, and is written into the Argentinian constitution as ' a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people'.


The principle here is that the Islanders' right to self-determination, which is fine, part of International Law and which I in general support, however the cost of defending that 'right' in the face of aggression was nearly 1,000 lives (including three islanders killed by friendly fire) and about £1,000 for every household in this country (or over £1 million per Islander). An expensive principle.

As was fighting Hitler. So why not just let them have Poland? It would have cost a lot less.