|
On June 17 2011 10:49 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 10:36 Pengu wrote:Why do Argentina make a big deal of this :S The first war was party due to a failing Argentina dictator wanting a quick popularity boost, look how heroic I am and how great I am making the country by taking some tiny little island with 0 defence and a few sheep. I wonder if these words came about that the British navy no longer have an aircraft carrier and are sharing with the French our traditional enemy  Not that having an aircraft carrier would help we don't have any planes either Falklands 2 might not be so successful  As far as I know you guys do have an aircraft carrier, the HMS Illustrious , and are in the process of building several US style supercarriers, the first of which was recently laid down: HMS Queen Elizabeth .
You sir are correct 
Illustrious gets taken out of service and put on Ebay in 2014 the new queen Elizabeth class ones will be finished in 2020
Don't worry I am just following the trend of the British media when it comes to defence cuts Shame about the harrier was such an iconic plane
Rather off-topic here sorry
|
On June 17 2011 10:53 Carras wrote:Spain populated the territory , Argentina achieved its independence hence taking control of Islas Malvinas, wich is by international law close enough from the coast and is in seas shallow enough to be considered part of argentinian territory, Argentina was invaded twice by britain,they failed twice. but some years later they started populating the Malvinas, at that time Argentina was busy with other wars and civil war, so they couldn take them back. 30 years ago, in Argentina , military with civil and corporate aid , instaured a dictatorship that ended with 30.000 people abducted and ilegally killed by the state. , the country was crumbling a few years later, and to buff nationalism and be able to have a war economy (good to solve economical problems) we started the war to take the islands back, of course we lost, bad tactical decisiotions,not proffesional armies (mostly kids, drafted trained and sent to figth.) crappy equipment,not being supported by any other countries (even being betrayed by neighbours) after that, Britain has populated the islands further , so people can now say the titpical excuse "people living there are and want to be british , you have no claim" wich makes no sense. Show nested quote +Ethnic groups 61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other well, OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT GONNA BE ANY ARGENTINIANS THERE.. brithis have invaded the islands for almost 200 years now!.. argentians are only allowed in the islands on occasions like memorials for soldiers and special filming crews for documentaries.
As the old saying goes, possession is 90% of ownership. In international affairs, it usually comes down to a mixture of possession and military backing. Argentina has neither over the UK. 200 years is a long time. Heck, France has an island in an identical situation off the coast of Canada. Just because something is close does not make it yours: countries have neighboring countries.
|
I feel like the culture/language of the population and length of time the UK has owned these islands is all there is to it.
I really hope no one actually diplomatically supports Argentina getting these islands.
|
If one was to go back 200 years and fix all the territorial injustices it would never end. I mean, even Israel has existed long enough so that no world power would deny its right to exist, even though its creation was grossly unfair on the native population. So I just feel the Argentine claim is weak.
The islanders want to be British. If any significant number wanted to be Argentine or independent, the UK should strongly consider it. Of course independence would mean immediate invasion by Argentina.
If Argentina invaded I think we'd find we don't have the military capacity to defend it and also be deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
|
after defeating spain , there was an argentian mission that populated the islands ,in 1833 british invaded, and the argentinians there left becouse they were in no situation to hold the islands against a battle ship.
the islands are clos to argentina (480km , maybe its 300 miles) wich is close enough by international law standars, it is also geographically in continuity with the argentinian continental platform (wich is also imporrtant by international law) ,
Holding sth in an ilegal way for 200 years doesnt make it yours.
|
On June 17 2011 10:57 KwarK wrote:If defeating Spain to get independence gives you control over whatever Spain owns at the time then go after Spain itself. It's also outside your territorial waters and like the Falklands, has no wish to be Argentinian and never belonged to Argentina. There is at least an argument for some cultural similarity there. No Argentinians ever colonised the islands. They were unpopulated until Europeans got there and of the Europeans they fell under British control. They are outside Argentinian territorial waters. This is absurd. Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 10:53 Carras wrote:Ethnic groups 61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other well, OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT GONNA BE ANY ARGENTINIANS THERE.. brithis have invaded the islands for almost 200 years now!.. argentians are only allowed in the islands on occasions like memorials for soldiers and special filming crews for documentaries. I claim Argentina. Of course the majority of people there aren't me, it's been Argentinian for almost 200 years now. But if it hadn't been Argentinian and they had all be me then they'd be me and therefore I'd have a valid claim. Do you not see how weak that argument is?
In this post i do not intend to say if we have or not claim.. just to correct your argument.
It didnt give us control over whatever spain owns. It gave us control over the Viceroy of el rio de la plata. In which Malvinas/Falklands were included. After it got diveded in Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay & Uruguay.
As someone stated before.. it was also why there was a territorial claim with Chile.. the southern part of chile and north also belonged to the Viceroy... the north was disputed between Bolivia and Chile.
|
United States43991 Posts
On June 17 2011 11:09 Carras wrote:
after defeating spain , there was an argentian mission that populated the islands ,in 1833 british invaded, and the argentinians there left becouse they were in no situation to hold the islands against a battle ship.
the islands are clos to argentina (480km , maybe its 300 miles) wich is close enough by international law standars, it is also geographically in continuity with the argentinian continental platform (wich is also imporrtant by international law) ,
Holding sth ilegaly for 200 years doesnt make it yours.
Brits were on the island long before that Argentine mission. They were on the island long before Argentina existed. When they found the island nobody lived there.
Territorial waters are 12 miles. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
|
These islands are British lands, owned since before Argentina was even a country. They can talk all they want, if they attack again then we wouldnt just defend them as last time. Argentina would be attacked in return. This wont happen, and neither will Britain hand over control. These comments are insulting after all the people that died defending the British people in 1982. The oil found in the region is irrelevant to the British public I assure you.
|
haha as IF the islanders wouldnt choose British citizenship. Same exact reason why the Hong Kong Chinese all of a sudden became British in 1997...
|
I'd just like to add my support to Kwark's arguments. Him being a history guy means he is probably most qualified to argue this point. All I can effectively do is stand at the shore and wave my fist menacingly in the direction of Argentina. Bloody Argies...
|
On June 17 2011 11:08 Soleron wrote:
If one was to go back 200 years and fix all the territorial injustices it would never end. I mean, even Israel has existed long enough so that no world power would deny its right to exist, even though its creation was grossly unfair on the native population. So I just feel the Argentine claim is weak.
The islanders want to be British. If any significant number wanted to be Argentine or independent, the UK should strongly consider it. Of course independence would mean immediate invasion by Argentina.
If Argentina invaded I think we'd find we don't have the military capacity to defend it and also be deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
If Argentina invaded, the US would be bound under NATO to help Britian, should they so request it, and almost assuredly would do so with little to no pressure. The main reason the US didn't get involved in the first war, was that Britain did not want help.
While the original Falklands island war provided a model for asymmetric naval warfare with cruise missiles, results in the Gulf war and 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated the effectiveness of tactical missile defense systems against such threats. I highly doubt Argentina would ever be silly enough to trigger a regional war with NATO over a small chain of islands, this is mostly about political posturing.
|
On June 17 2011 11:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:09 Carras wrote:
after defeating spain , there was an argentian mission that populated the islands ,in 1833 british invaded, and the argentinians there left becouse they were in no situation to hold the islands against a battle ship.
the islands are clos to argentina (480km , maybe its 300 miles) wich is close enough by international law standars, it is also geographically in continuity with the argentinian continental platform (wich is also imporrtant by international law) ,
Holding sth ilegaly for 200 years doesnt make it yours. Brits were on the island long before that Argentine mission. They were on the island long before Argentina existed. When they found the island nobody lived there. Territorial waters are 12 miles. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
thats true , the islands had been visited by indians before all that, and had been "discovered" by many spanish explorers before.. britain occupied the islands first BUT BREAKING TREATIES, that said wich sectors of the world each power owned.. according to those treaties it was spanish.. argentina frees from spain , hence , takes all spanish possesions in the area , including the islands , then its its the story we already know..
|
That's some tenuous logic
|
United States43991 Posts
On June 17 2011 11:18 Carras wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:12 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2011 11:09 Carras wrote:
after defeating spain , there was an argentian mission that populated the islands ,in 1833 british invaded, and the argentinians there left becouse they were in no situation to hold the islands against a battle ship.
the islands are clos to argentina (480km , maybe its 300 miles) wich is close enough by international law standars, it is also geographically in continuity with the argentinian continental platform (wich is also imporrtant by international law) ,
Holding sth ilegaly for 200 years doesnt make it yours. Brits were on the island long before that Argentine mission. They were on the island long before Argentina existed. When they found the island nobody lived there. Territorial waters are 12 miles. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters thats true , the islands had been visited by indians before all that, and had been "discovered" by many spanish explorers before.. britain occupied the islands first BUT BREAKING TREATIES, that said wich sectors of the world each power owned.. according to those treaties it was spanish.. argentina frees from spain , hence , takes all spanish possesions in the area , including the islands , then its its the story we already know..
Possessions in the area defined how? They've over 20 times outside your territorial waters. You don't get to claim everything Spain once had just because you defeated them. Brits were living there. Argentinians were not.
Even then the argument is entirely based on what might have been. You can't say the islands should belong to the Argentinians who would live there if it had been Argentinian for the last 200 years because those people don't exist. They were never born. Instead British people were born, grew up, fell in love and had children there for two hundred years.
|
On June 17 2011 11:20 Luckbox wrote:
That's some tenuous logic
That statement describes pretty much every colonial claim as well.
Edit - On that note I don't really see to large an issue here. These people wish to be British and they are. Now if the tables were turned and these people wanted to be Argentinian I might have issue with Britain's claim, but the don't want that, so I have no issue.
|
United States43991 Posts
On June 17 2011 11:25 BloodNinja wrote:That statement describes pretty much every colonial claim as well.
The people living there are British and whenever anyone asks them what they want they say they want to be British. In what way is that tenuous? What better justification for a claim could there possibly be?
|
you keep avoiding the fact that both british settlements where ilegal.. the first one was against signed treaties amongst the imperial powers.
second one was when they islands where already truly argentinan , populated and all, just not able to defend themselves..
|
This is no different from the 13 year old that makes a lot of fuss on Xbox Live, gets his ass handed to him and proceeds to curse you to exaustion. If I was argentine would be more concerned with their government acting like this instead of a blind nationalist claim about some island in the middle of nowhere.
To show how much of a military threat Argentina is, back in the Falklands War they had a fully functioning aircraft carrier. Now they mantain a Navy air wing that practices on passing US carriers in hopes they get to acquire another.
|
On June 17 2011 10:53 Carras wrote:Spain populated the territory , Argentina achieved its independence hence taking control of Islas Malvinas, wich is by international law close enough from the coast and is in seas shallow enough to be considered part of argentinian territory, Argentina was invaded twice by britain,they failed twice. but some years later they started populating the Malvinas, at that time Argentina was busy with other wars and civil war, so they couldn take them back. 30 years ago, in Argentina , military with civil and corporate aid , instaured a dictatorship that ended with 30.000 people abducted and ilegally killed by the state. , the country was crumbling a few years later, and to buff nationalism and be able to have a war economy (good to solve economical problems) we started the war to take the islands back, of course we lost, bad tactical decisiotions,not proffesional armies (mostly kids, drafted trained and sent to figth.) crappy equipment,not being supported by any other countries (even being betrayed by neighbours) after that, Britain has populated the islands further , so people can now say the titpical excuse "people living there are and want to be british , you have no claim" wich makes no sense. Show nested quote +Ethnic groups 61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other well, OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT GONNA BE ANY ARGENTINIANS THERE.. brithis have invaded the islands for almost 200 years now!.. argentians are only allowed in the islands on occasions like memorials for soldiers and special filming crews for documentaries.
What ?!?
So you go directly against the opinion of people actually living on the islands because the water between Argentina and The Falklands is not deep enough ?
And just because there is a historical explanation for the fact that the people on the falklands identify themselves as British, does not mean the opinion is not valid.
|
I thought the building of the two carriers was put on hold and the updating/modernizing of the other was put on hold due to the economic austerity measures?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
