|
Actually, as a question, why should Argentina claim all of Spain's American territories? You might as well say that they could claim all of South America, Florida, Texas, California, Nevada and everywhere else by that logic, simply because Spain had them and lost territories by warfare. Also, since you are claiming Spain gave up all territories because Argentina defeated them in a war, by that logic then the Falklands are British because we had a war, and Argentina backed down.
I've read your posts, but you seem to be ignoring the posts by KwarK - the islands are far outside of internationally recognised naval boundaries, placing them outside of Argentinian waters. You also ignore the people living on the islands - as I asked in the OP, does their opinion not matter? Apparently not. So where should they go? Anywhere but the lands they were born on, apparently.
You claim the islands were illegally occupied, then offer some spurious treaty which was ignored at the time, and certainly isn't relevent now. I'm still waiting to see a decent claim to the islands, but Argentina is not offering any, and is instead content to call the UK thieves. As people have noted the islands were occupied by the British long before Argentina was a country - which makes the Argentinian mission illegal in occupying the land before being ousted by the British.
Simply put, however, what happened back then doesn't really matter for the now. History is filled with treaties, some kept in good faith, most rejected or torn up or simply ignored. What matters are the three thousand people who live there NOW, who call themselves and their land British. You can make all of the claims you wish, but unless you have something to legitimate your claims, you will not gain the islands. I notice the British offered to go to the international courts to decide on who should have the islands, and I also notice Argentina refused this offer. Perhaps because they knew they had no real claim?
@the post laughing at the Falklands claiming UK citizenship - try reading up on the issue before posting. Also, try visiting Hong kong, or talking to anyone from there. It's been my experience that most people in that cit wish they had remained part of the UK, but we had a treaty which we honoured to give it back to China, which we did.
|
On June 17 2011 11:51 Al ghouti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:37 KwarK wrote:
(with thanks to wikipedia)
Britain occupied the islands in 1766. In 1774 the settlement was abandoned but a plaque was left claiming the islands for Britain (this was a good 40 years before Argentina existed). Spain then claimed them and although they left in 1806 left a plaque claiming their ownership. So now we have two nations claiming ownership, both before Argentina existed.
In 1820 the first Argentinian ship lands on the islands after several hundred years of European use. In 1832 after just 12 years of Argentine rule the British come back and reassert their claim dating back to 1774.
There is no historical case for Argentina. Some guy was squatting on them for 12 years. That does not make them Argentinian.
However, even if Britain was in the wrong in 1832 for reclaiming the islands that does not make Britain wrong now. The rights of the hypothetical Argentinians who maybe would have lived there had history been different does not outweigh the rights of the British people who live there now. History is full of things that could have been different if things had gone another way but you don't get to pick your hypothetical and then invade places. The people living there are real, they have the right of self determinism and they have exercised it. I really understand your point and as all things.. some ppl will agree.. others will disagree. But you should stop using the phrase... "Before Argentina Exisited"... because.. if that is a point in the argument to claim somehting.. South America should be ruled by Spain and Portugal. I mean.. the tribes who lived before the colonization should claim South America as theirs.. USA should have no claim to their lands. in 1700 1/2 of the current countries did not exist. Personally i dont mind who own the Falklands/Malvinas .. the war in 1982 was a poor attempt to distract people. Unfourtunatly only because the Kelpers wish to remain British is not a good argument.. if it was a good argument.. Spain would cese exisiting and be divided. Not sure how much... but there are several comunitis wanting independece in spain aswell. Its not the same.. but only because they want something it doesnt mean its that way. But i agree that its too late for Argentina to make a claim or whatever for the islands.. as posted above.. its just political show from the President.
If nobody lived in South America when Spain and Portugal showed up then you might have a case. It isnt "some"of the people wanting to remain British, it is everyone too. If the basque/catalunya separatists (I assume this is who you mean) were unanimous im am sure it would be so.
|
United States42956 Posts
It's backwards history. They don't want to just say "Thirty years ago we were ruled by an asshat who invaded your country for his own political reasons and caused the death a lot of brave servicemen who fought him off. Sorry about that, our bad." It's much easier to come up with bullshit hypotheticals now to justify things backwards than to apologise.
|
This entire issue is pretty absurd. Argentina has no real argument for why the islands should be theirs. British people inhabit the island. That is all that matters.
|
I don't know why 200-300 year old treaties are even being considered relevant.
The fact of the matter is, the population is British and speaks English and desires to remain in the U.K. (except for one person as mentioned in the article)
Also, Battleships didn't exist in 1833 to whoever mentioned that.
Also, no one should be worried about Argentina invading the islands should they be granted independence, that would be diplomatic suicide for Argentina. Just because they're granted independence doesn't mean the UK wouldn't still defend them.
|
Apologise for the Hand of God and you can have the island.
Nah, just kidding. Let the people on the Island decide, they have to live there.
|
@Al Ghouti
It's a good point about Spain, there are a lot of people there who want independence. Still, as Aristodemus says it's not unanimous in those areas. In the Falklands, it is.
|
Is TL really arguing about the merits of Imperialism?
|
United States42956 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Is TL really arguing about the merits of Imperialism?
I'm arguing rather passionately for self determination.
|
Argentina never had any undisputed claim to the islands, they belong to the United Kingdom. If Argentinians don't like it they can continue banging their heads against the wall, that is their right, but London will never give them up while the people want to remain subjects of the Queen.
Is TL really arguing about the merits of Imperialism?
Worked out pretty well for Canada and Australia and India. The Frenchies (in Quebec) as usual got the best out of it.
|
On June 17 2011 12:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Is TL really arguing about the merits of Imperialism? I'm arguing rather passionately for self determination.
Ah, but what of the the right of the Argentinians to determine for themselves what lands they wish to arbitrarily appropriate?
|
Hmm. You make a persuasive argument Elegy. I'm convinced!
|
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)
welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.
|
On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote:
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)
welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.
Hush convict 
|
How about just asking the people of the islands to vote on what they want to do
A.) Stay with England
B.) Become part of Argentina
C.) Declare Independence(eh...??)
I'm guessing the Islands serve as strategic purpose to the UK more so than an Economic one?
|
On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote:
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)
welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.
What does that even mean? Did you even read the OP?
On June 17 2011 12:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
How about just asking the people of the islands to vote on what they want to do
A.) Stay with England
B.) Become part of Argentina
C.) Declare Independence(eh...??)
I'm guessing the Islands serve as strategic purpose to the UK more so than an Economic one?
Assuming the OP is correct, most of them want (A).
|
On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote:
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)
welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.
mad aussie reporting in
|
United States42956 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
How about just asking the people of the islands to vote on what they want to do
A.) Stay with England
B.) Become part of Argentina
C.) Declare Independence(eh...??)
I'm guessing the Islands serve as strategic purpose to the UK more so than an Economic one?
They did. They chose British. They're actually quite fervently nationalist.
|
On June 17 2011 12:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 12:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
How about just asking the people of the islands to vote on what they want to do
A.) Stay with England
B.) Become part of Argentina
C.) Declare Independence(eh...??)
I'm guessing the Islands serve as strategic purpose to the UK more so than an Economic one? They did. They chose British. They're actually quite fervently nationalist.
Problem solved. Now we can all argue about the Antarctica.
|
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)
welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.
good post serving to highlight that the soviet agitprop complex is alive and well long after the soviet union itself went the way of the dodo
welcome to 2011, it's not 1968, hell even che went out of style except among useful idiots back in '65 when moscow told castro to shut him up
Problem solved. Now we can all argue about the Antarctica.
(obvy it all belongs to the EMPEROR penguins.
those flightless imperialist scum)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
