@Nigee

Obviously I wouldn't force my offspring to do anything. I meant I wouldn't be unhappy or object if they did so. Diplomatic resolutions at the end of conflicts are almost always coloured by the events of that conflict. Do you think the Fourth Coalition would have achieved the same diplomatic gains if they hadn't defeated Napoleon in the field?

I don't agree that the Brits always fight to solve a problem either. It can appear that way because we don't shy away from the fight if we feel it's necessary. Diplomatic solutions are preferable if they actually work. In this case the first reaction is a legal appeal to the EU which is about as far from resolving the problem with force as you can be. If Spain chose to invade Gibraltar then things would be different and force may well be necessary to defend British citizens and territory. Thankfully, there's virtually no chance of that.

^+1

I know they don't really, Northern Ireland being a good example

@Draug, yep, that was my second guess...

Invictus: You obviously don't know what you're talking about in any of those three counts. I'll reply in due course.

In the meantime, do you take back your claim that Spanish presidents "distract their public from economic crises every few decades" with the Gibraltar dispute? It certainly doesn't apply here. There was clear cause to protest after Gibraltar dropped those concrete blocks the other day and ruined the livelihoods of many fishermen.

Ha! I'm pretty spot on on all of them. I really don't know what you have to complain about, apart from the fact that I'm not 100% taking your side. Guess that automatically makes me wrong.

Spanish presidents? Surely you mean prime minister. At any rate, I take back nothing. Spain, despite your claim, is in a valley of economic woe with unimaginably high unemployment, particularly among youths. So a spat over this little spit of land is exactly the thing to take people's minds off that.

And, if those blocker were dropped within 3 miles of Gibraltar's shores then the fishermen were fishing in Gibraltar waters. Regardless of whether that's illegal under the EU agreements covering Gibraltar then the territory was perfectly within its rights to make the artificial reef, and a wild escalation for Spain to impose the extensive border controls it has.

Spain is in pretty bad shape.

"Spain will be stuck with an unemployment rate above 25 per cent for at least five more years, according to a forecast by the International Monetary Fund."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0 91deb8-fb6c-11e2-8650-00144feabdc0.html

I can understand why Spain would want Gibraltar back. But I can also understand why Britain will try to hang on to it for as long as possible.

If Spain gets Gibraltar back, I suppose it would be only fair if Spain returns its Moroccan enclaves to Morocco.

spyman: Neither Ceuta nor Melilla have ever been Moroccan – not even temporarily.

Invictus: Don't worry, when I have more time I'll show you how wrong you are on those three counts. And yes, I meant 'president'. The head of government in Spain is called the President of the Government. No, that is not because of a language barrier; 'primer ministro' has been used in an official capacity since the 17th Century. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll start packing for a Trans-Atlantic flight.

More likely you'll just spout some Spanish propaganda. You don't even seem to acknowledge what a basket case the economy there is. It's really quite sad, but if you were just there on vacation then you easily could have missed it.

I don't know Spanish, but I do know something about the theory of translation and "president" is not what you want to say to get the idea of the Spanish head of government into English. Literal translations are rarely the way to go.

@JECE, Ceuta and Melilla were definitely in the territory held by the Islamic Moroccan Empire in the 11th century, so i'm not sure what you mean. Would you care to clarify?

Anyone notice that in our Modern Diplomacy that Gibraltar has swallowed the entire Spanish Province of Cadiz? Did the powers that be run that past the Spanish embassy?

Just want to throw out there that Gibraltar has been British longer than it has been Spanish...

It's been Carthaginian longer than it's been British

Debatable, but assuming you're correct then by all means Carthage should have it back. We'll just wait for it to make it's claim.

Having just checked, it probably wasn't. We're talking a couple of centuries of Carthaginian rule. Rome has a better claim :P

So we should give the US back to the native Americans? They were here a *lot* longer than the 521 years since Columbus landed here.

Ah, but they didn't claim the land. They were fine with you guys taking a few pieces of America since the earth is for everybody, but you guys wanted more... Shame.

That said, it's probably best if you let Native Americans rule the US, after all the proper way to go would have been immigrating to America as guests in their lands, not taking them down because you can't live with some of the nicest folks on earth.

@steephie - I am 1/8th Lakota. "You guys" is a misnomer for some of us.

American Indians are no nicer than any other people. There were human sacrifices at Cahokia, and the peoples of the continent engaged in warfare with each other just like people have done all over the world for all of history. The idea that the New World was full of New Age hippies living in harmony with the Earth and each other is a canard.

I'd like to know what the Spanish claim to Gibraltar is besides "it's close and we want it." As has been said, it's been British longer than it was Spanish post-Reconquista. And the Treaty of Utrecht was a totally proper treaty still in force. Also the people of Gibraltar do not want Spanish rule. It seems pretty clear-cut, apart from the border on the isthmus.

" I am 1/8th Lakota" - I was thinking of going there on holiday, is that North or South?

^possibly the least funny joke of all time.

@Vicious - no way Sid, I've got much worse jokes than that !!

Invictus and orathaic: I'll clarify as soon as I can. And no, I'm not going to spew non-existent "Spanish propaganda".

Sorry Draug, but, then I don't mean those guys, naturally :P I mean, I don't mean me either. My ancestors have gotten children in Holland for at least 700 but probably 1000s of years, so I'm not talking about myself either, as well as most people who are not Americans.

"American Indians are no nicer than any other people."
I disagree. Yes, they took revenge when someone did them harm, but that makes sense in a way. But they didn't destroy nature, they killed animals with respect, and used everything the animals had. They cared for future generations and were not very interested in becoming some empire or something. Life was good already, no need to destroy that. Until the Americans came.

"There were human sacrifices at Cahokia,"

Which is technically just death penalty. Yes, that's unacceptable (for most non-Americans at least. Some American states still have death penalty as I understand it) by our standards, but not in that time. I mean, I bet there was less territory where they did human sacrifices than there is territory where there's death penalty now. I think Native Americans were better in every way except in destroying things and lives, which is why the colonists won.

"The idea that the New World was full of New Age hippies living in harmony with the Earth and each other is a canard."

Most of them tried. Murder was really a sin for many of them. They had honour as well. They were not barbarians, unlike the people who murdered them. Of course there were bad guys. But their system worked for the good guys, and the bad guys were punished. Now the current system on the same continent only works for the bad guys, and some lucky good guys. Tell me that's progression if you dare.

Oh, please. There were plenty of American Indians who were complete bastards. Take off the rose colored glasses.

Example: The Lakota (Sioux) claim the black hills were a holy land to them.

This ignores the fact that they only arrived there around 1750, and drove the previous inhabitants out with extreme violence(and to be fair, the previous inhabitants did the same). Sioux means snake, and its not a self applied term... it was given to them by their enemies.

So the Lakota drove out the Cheyenne, who drove out the Kiowa...

Yeah. The inhabitants of all areas have a tendency to be bastards to other groups. Nobody has any moral superiority in history on that count.

I'll admit that the black hills is one of few exceptions, but I'm talking about the average population and rulers, not about the rare exceptions. How many colonists took ground with some sort of force? Almost all of them. That's why they're colonists. And it doesn't stop there. Someone says something about WMDs that doesn't add up and no one bothers to check because they want Saddam down. Just an example.

Indians had conflicts, yes. But at least they kept it small scale, whereas the colonists couldn't even keep it on continental scale but had to go global.

Wow.

This is the history of the human race for the vast majority of our history:

Group A goes to war with group B because Group B has something group A wants.

Butchery ensues.

American Indians were no different in this regard. Anything else is just blatant whitewash of history.

Give me an example of an entirely peaceful group of people. Go ahead.