The Falklands or las Malvinas? - Page 22

On June 17 2012 03:32 r.Evo wrote:
I feel kind of stupid after reading some pages in this thread.

For me the issue was resolved after seeing that "It's not in the territorial waters of Argentina" and "The inhabitants want to be British". It doesn't seem like rocket science.

On June 17 2012 03:46 Ramong wrote:

I agree with you, but the Argentinians obviously don't.

They care so much they went to war, so not taking this seriously would be stupid.

On June 17 2012 04:04 MeriaDoKk wrote:
Complicated issue, in my heart I wish the island would be Argentinian, and I also think that we should support them (our country and the rest of Latin America) though that won't happen, we are too busy fighting each other too.

On June 17 2011 09:56 Beorning wrote:
If I remember correctly, a large supply of oil was recently found under and around the islands. That answers whether Britain will ever give them up peacefully. Perhaps another war is the wings? Hopefully not, but I have no idea how strong Argentina's military is these days.

On June 17 2012 04:26 zezamer wrote:
Britain will never give up Falklands:
oil and people there feel that they are british

Falklands is also really close to Antarctica, so would it let Britain have a part of it if the land is shared one day ???

On June 17 2012 04:31 Zaros wrote:


Britain already owns a fair chunk of Antarctica but more is always good :D

On June 17 2012 04:35 Ramong wrote:

No one owns the Antarctica
The British have claims, like France, Norway etc. but no one actually owns parts of Antarctica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

On June 17 2012 04:35 Ramong wrote:

No one owns the Antarctica
The British have claims, like France, Norway etc. but no one actually owns parts of Antarctica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

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.



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 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.
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.

On June 16 2012 10:20 Kasu wrote:

No and no again.

They justified our (UK) involvement with the "greater good" excuse but nobody believes that. Look at all the other civilised countries that didn't get involved - are you really suggesting that every one of them is somehow deficient in humanity? No, they just didn't want America's friendship badly enough to go to war for it.

Also helping one another in case of invasion is (well, perhaps less than in the past) one of the primary reasons to even have an alliance. Strength in numbers.

Of course, the USA doesn't need shit from the UK so they will always be more reluctant to jump in on our side, whereas strong diplomatic ties with the world's top superpower is something we don't want to lose, therefore we come running when the US calls.

On June 17 2011 10:40 KwarK wrote:
Argentina didn't even exist until 1811, British use of the islands predates that by centuries. The islands are a long way outside Argentinian national waters, being the closest landmass to the islands means nothing if they are populated and they don't wish to be governed by you. France has more claim to Britain than Argentina does the the Falklands. They're populated entirely (well, except this one guy) by Brits whose parents were Brits (and so forth back for two centuries) and have full citizen rights.
Every argument for the Falklands belonging to Argentina can be reversed with just as much validity for Argentina belonging to Britain (by virtue of the Falklands) because it is simply an argument of proximity; history, nationality, self determination, culture and international law are all on the side of Britain. The only reason this is an issue at all is for internal Argentinian political reasons.


Does that look Argentinian to anyone?