|
On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue.
This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits.
|
|
|
The British government will never simply give the Falklands to the Argentinians. No government that did could have any hope of reelection. Some of the most heroic people ever to have given their lives for this country died defending the Falklands. Until the reasons that we went to war in '82 are no longer applicable, the British public will not accept any change in the sovreignty of the Falklands.
Its true that right now Britain is in no position to defend the Falklands until 2019 as we have to way of launching the Fleet Air Arm, but thankfully it seems that Argentina is in no position to contest the islands, and I genuinely believe we would go to war again if they did, Harriers or no Harriers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18453372
President Kirchner is at it again.....
I believe this issue is relevant enough to be brought up again and this existing thread does a good job of preserving past viewpoints .
The consensus of the residents living in the Falklands is that they want to be British. Why can't Argentina accept that at this point they are trying to gain dominion over the land of people who do not want to be part of them.
I suspect that this may be a diversionary tactic but I don't know much about Argentinian politics so that is pure speculation. Remember however this is the same president that advised her people to move their savings from the American Dollar to the much riskier Argentinian peso.
|
Is there any kind of economic interest in these islands? Sounds kind of dumb for Argentina to fight over a small piece of land that has a population that don't want to be Argentinian, and for such a long time.
|
some oil, but its a good theme for them to make people forget about inner problems.
Like americans have their "support the troops" and "war against terror" thing.
|
Noone really cares about the islans, its about oil/votes.
The irony is that the british government is hiding behind the idea that the islanders want to be part of the UK, yet they try to do everything to make sure Scotland cannot leave the UK based on the same principle.
Is there any kind of economic interest in these islands? Sounds kind of dumb for Argentina to fight over a small piece of land that has a population that don't want to be Argentinian, and for such a long time.
Diplomacy does not cost nearly as much as military conflict and I'm sure this is a good boost to the current Argentinian President's poll status. Regarding the economic interest, there was some oil iirc.
|
On June 22 2011 05:55 Popss wrote:
The Falklands War was nothing but a pointless war of pride on both sides.
If the British army tried to occupy Swedish territory, it would not be a pointless war of pride.
We are talking about defending our land.
|
The Argentinian President won't let it go because she's basically a nationalist, and she's doing the typical nationalist thing of abusing a sore topic in order to win popularity points. Same thing the BNP try to do over here with immigration.
Taking an objective view, I do have to agree with the UK Government's official line that the islanders should be able to determine their own fate. Why should Argentina get to rule over them if they don't want that to be the case? Any deal over the Falklands MUST only take place with the full consent of the islanders themselves. The upcoming referendum should clearly demonstrate one way or the other what they feel - that way neither government will be able to use "well we say the islanders want this" anymore. Their will will be made absolutely clear.
Putting objectivity aside for a moment, my personal feelings? The Falklands are British territory, and even if the islanders wanted away we should fight to keep them that way. We have given away far too much of what once comprised our Empire, but we're not a charity case - you can't just come along as ask for another piece of sovereign territory and have it handed over. Just as the US would fight to keep Hawaii, we must fight to keep what is ours if it comes to it. Any government who either gave up the islands or refused to defend them if they were attacked, would lose my vote permanently for demonstrating an unwillingness to protect British territory, and therefore demonstrating themselves as unfit to be in government.
|
Argentina are suffering from severe economic problems. Of course the government would try to divert attention elsewhere and appeal to those who believe that the islands belong to Argentina.
To be honest, if I was one of the islanders, I would be scared to watch the current military forces, which has been around for years, just pack up and leave and let the Argentines come in and basically do what they please. There's an element of the unknown there, and the Argentines aren't helping matters much with their 'bully' tactics.
|
"The British view on this is that since we have the islands now, and have done for nearly 200 years, since we have defended it militarily and since the islanders all want to be British subjects, the islands are ours"
The fact they have had the islands for 200 years and defended them militarily is barely a strong claim.
The same can be said for all former overseas colonys England and other european nations had, and nearly all thoose colonys are now independent. Noone now would think in their right mind that they should not be independend.
For the people on the falklands its a economic choise mostly i think, of course they would vote to remain british.
England has a verry weak claim on the islands imo though argentina barely has a stronger case based on location.
The islands are 500km from argentina and look large enough to be independant.
It would be a bit like america claiming cuba.
Not sure who the first people where who lived there, i have no clue but i would guess people from argentina.
If so that would give Argentina,s claim alot more weight.
Odd this comes up again after 30 years, another war about it seems impossible (though it was a real shock 30 years ago also) maybe argentina will get some economic advantages in exchange for giving up their claim.
Hmm ok nobody lived there initially so i guess the first inhabitants would have been british.
It does make Englands claim a bit stronger.
Still i think it realy is not done in these times to claim territorys more then 5000 miles from your home country based on the simple fact that you conquerd them first.
The people wanting to be english is a good reason but thats not the way to settle such disputes either.
England could simply conquer every "poor" country by letting them vote to become british and receive all benefits of beeing british.
When looking at it from a moral point of vieuw i find englands claim verry weak,though argentinas claim barely stronger.
Imo the islands should be independant, and if they are independant and vote to be british (wich they would it seems) noone in their right mind would deny them that right.
So i do think that the situation should stay as it is but i find englands arguments for this verry weak.
In the end its the strongest nation that makes the law, so i dont think England needs to be particulary woried in this case annyway lol.
|
As long as they want to be British then they should stay that way.
|
United States43964 Posts
On June 15 2012 13:07 fortheGG wrote:Noone really cares about the islans, its about oil/votes. The irony is that the british government is hiding behind the idea that the islanders want to be part of the UK, yet they try to do everything to make sure Scotland cannot leave the UK based on the same principle. Show nested quote +Is there any kind of economic interest in these islands? Sounds kind of dumb for Argentina to fight over a small piece of land that has a population that don't want to be Argentinian, and for such a long time. Diplomacy does not cost nearly as much as military conflict and I'm sure this is a good boost to the current Argentinian President's poll status. Regarding the economic interest, there was some oil iirc.
We had a referendum on Scotland leaving and they voted against it. There is another planned soon. It's one of the more talked about issues in British politics at the moment. What rock are you living under? Like literally no part of what you said was in any way factually true.
|
By right of military might those islands belong to the UK. That claim is the only type of claim that matters (and has ever mattered). Argentina needs to get over it.
“Diplomacy is the velvet glove that cloaks the fist of power.”
― Robin Hobb
|
United States43964 Posts
On June 16 2012 07:25 Rassy wrote:
"The British view on this is that since we have the islands now, and have done for nearly 200 years, since we have defended it militarily and since the islanders all want to be British subjects, the islands are ours"
The fact they have had the islands for 200 years and defended them militarily is barely a strong claim.
The same can be said for all former overseas collonys England and other european nations had, and nearly all thoose collonys are now independent. Noone now would think in their right mind that they should not be independend.
For the people on the falklands its a economic choise mostly i think, of course they would vote to remain british.
England has a verry weak claim on the islands imo though argentina barely has a stronger case based on location.
The islands are 500km from argentina and look large enough to be independant.
It would be a bit like america claiming cuba.
Not sure who the first people where who lived there, i have no clue but i would guess people from argentina.
If so that would give Argentina,s claim alot more weight.
Odd this comes up again after 30 years, another war about it seems impossible (though it was a real shock 30 years ago also) maybe argentina will get some economic advantages in exchange for giving up their claim.
Nobody lived there when we claimed them and Argentina wasn't yet a sovereign nation when the European powers started using them as a stopping point.
|
On June 15 2012 13:07 fortheGG wrote:Noone really cares about the islans, its about oil/votes. The irony is that the british government is hiding behind the idea that the islanders want to be part of the UK, yet they try to do everything to make sure Scotland cannot leave the UK based on the same principle. Show nested quote +Is there any kind of economic interest in these islands? Sounds kind of dumb for Argentina to fight over a small piece of land that has a population that don't want to be Argentinian, and for such a long time. Diplomacy does not cost nearly as much as military conflict and I'm sure this is a good boost to the current Argentinian President's poll status. Regarding the economic interest, there was some oil iirc.
Scotland is a different matter completely. If Scotland leaves it will be VERY bad for the UK and for Scotland. Alex Salmond has repeatedly shown how ignorant he is of what independence would really mean.
As for the Falklands, if it became independent or Argentinian, it wouldn't matter as much to the UK. Whoever controls the Falkland islands controls access to the vast oil (and therefore wealth) that lies beneath the ocean surrounding them. It is also very important from a military perspective.
Argentina really doesnt have the military power to fight us and they know it so they try to get support from other countries.
|
On June 16 2012 07:25 Rassy wrote:
"The British view on this is that since we have the islands now, and have done for nearly 200 years, since we have defended it militarily and since the islanders all want to be British subjects, the islands are ours"
The fact they have had the islands for 200 years and defended them militarily is barely a strong claim.
The same can be said for all former overseas colonys England and other european nations had, and nearly all thoose colonys are now independent. Noone now would think in their right mind that they should not be independend.
For the people on the falklands its a economic choise mostly i think, of course they would vote to remain british.
England has a verry weak claim on the islands imo though argentina barely has a stronger case based on location.
It ain't like with Africa and India where they conquered those nations.
The Falklands didn't have any inhabitants on them. The Spanish found them and then the British took them and colonized them.
Argentina's claim are very weak.
If I lived on those Island I would be scared to think what a militaristic government like Argentina would and could do.
|
argentina should just hire chinese mapmakers to chart their claim over the seabed.
|
On June 16 2012 07:44 Ramong wrote:If I lived on those Island I would be scared to think what a militaristic government like Argentina would and could do.
Are you referring to the current day Argentina?, because if so there's nothing really militaristic about it. They basically stopped spending into their military and have reduced it to a basically useless force.
This is just populism 101, you stir up some nationalism to gather internal support. The leaders in Argentina don't really care or have any expectation about getting the islands, they're just playing politics but some people don't seem to see that.
|
The people are almost all British and are considered even more "British" than the Brits in England in terms of patriotism, England settled the islands first where it was a chunk of uninhabited rock, and Argentina should know better than to try and attack the Falklands now that the islands have an actual military presence, not to mention satellites would render any surprise attacks not much of a surprise. This is just saber rattling by the Argentinians to try and divert attention from actual matters in their country, just like last time they invaded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
