An article on the BBC today quoted the Argentinian President as saying the British Prime Minister was stupid, and his comments were an 'expression of mediocrity'. She went on to describe the UK as a 'crude colonial power in decline'. Why? All because of a small group of islands in the South Atlantic, and specifically because the British refuse to debate on their governance.
Argentine leader says UK 'arrogant' over Falklands President Fernandez met UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon this week
The president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has called Britain "arrogant" for refusing to negotiate on the Falklands.
She was speaking a day after UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the issue of sovereignty was non-negotiable.
President Fernandez called his refusal to hold talks on the sovereignty of the Falklands, or Malvinas, arrogant and bordering on stupidity.
Britain defeated an Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982.
The Falklands are at the centre of a territorial dispute dating back to the 19th Century.
Argentina has repeatedly requested talks on the islands' future sovereignty.
Mr Cameron said "as long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory - full stop, end of story."
'Crude colonial power'
President Fernandez described his comments as an "expression of mediocrity, and almost of stupidity".
She said the British "continue to be a crude colonial power in decline".
Earlier this week a British man became the first Falkland islander to choose Argentine citizenship.
James Peck was handed his national identity card by President Fernandez, during a ceremony to mark the 29th anniversary of the end of the Falklands War.
Mr Peck's father fought for the British during the conflict.
The Falklands have been a part of British territory continuously since 1833. The islanders all speak English and have British citizenship - except one man, James Peck, who recently became the first man to choose Argentinian citizenship. Argentina offers citizenship to every person on the islands, although until now it has been rejected by everyone. Argentina has claimed the islands for years now, and invaded the islands in 1982, resulting in a conflict with the UK, over 900 deaths and a withdrawal. Since then Argentina has pursued a diplomatic course, hoping to have the UK withdraw its claims to the islands and give them back.
The feelings on this issue run deep, and I feel like they colour relations between our two countries. I suspect our football rivalry is so strong because of this issue - recently the Argentine representative at FIFA said he would vote for an English bid to host the World Cup when we give back the islands. I have a New Zealand friend who was assaulted in Argentina because he was speaking English - the man thought he was English himself. His friends later explained that he was drunk and had lost a brother in the Falklands war, and when they found he wasn't English they apologised to my friend and bought him a round of drinks. It seems to be a big issue in Argentina.
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. For me, this last one is the most important, although they are all strong reasons why we should keep the islands. If the islanders don't want to become Argentinian, why should the islands become Argentinian? Surely the people there have the right to choose their own nationality, and they have done. Why force them to change nationalities?
As far as I can tell, Argentinian claims are based on the idea that Spain once owned the islands, like most of the rest of South America. When Argentina won independence in 1811, the argument goes, the islands should have also become Argentinian. Britain stole the islands when they settled it in 1833. They also say Argentinian settlers were removed when the British came. Have to say I don't know too much about the Falklands' early history, so I can't say how close to the truth this is. However, it kind of ignores the glaring reality of today - there are people on the islands today, and they want to be British.
There is also the argument that the islands are close to Argentina, so they should be Argentinian. This seems a bit weak to me. The Islands are 290 miles off the coast, well beyond any kind of maritime limits for sovereign waters. And Argentina isn't the only country nearby - maybe they could be Chilean? And do we really want to solve any kind of territorial dispute by proximity?
I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think on this issue, especially people from Argentina, because I've never been and I've never spoken to anyone from Argentina. What I've written is obviously biased, as any view on such a contentious issue would be - I'm British, of course I would want them to remain British. But I am honestly trying to see things from the other point of view, and most things written from an Argentine perspective centre on us being thieves and leaving it at that. Why should the islands be Argentinian now? And what should happen to the islanders if it did become Argentinian, keeping in mind that all except one has rejected Argentinian citizenship?
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.
The UK has submitted a request to start drilling ater finding some oil and gas reserves, but I don't think anyone quite knows how large or extensive they are. It's just going to make things more tense, but I doubt Argentina will resort to military means again - they seem committed to peacful negotiations, and I think their constitution confirms that.
It is common practice in South American president/leaders to appeal to foreigner affairs and nationalism in an attemp to take the look away from the inner shit in the country. Sadly Argentina's political an economical system is specially corrupted, and so are most of their politicians.
Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
On June 17 2011 10:07 Elegy wrote: Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
On June 17 2011 10:07 Elegy wrote: Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
When it's the entire population of a place that was never part of Argentina then it kinda is...also that's kinda funny since your own country is part of Britain's imperial legacy.
I thought this issue was settled back in 1982, do they want to start Falklands War 2?
After doing some reading it turns out that France and Britain were the first countries to colonise the islands, although they did so on opposite ends of the island chain at the same time without knowing of each other's colonies. The French left in 1776 by an agreement with the Spanish and then the British left in 1776 as a result of economic pressure caused by the American Revolution and the Spanish left in 1811 for the same reason but due to the Napoleonic Wars. Between 1811 and 1833 the island was mostly used by British and American seal hunters until the British returned in 1833 to reclaim the islands.
its more of the, "Argentina is invading us, as opposed to Argentina is freeing us". one of those gets the military backing of a country, the other doesn't.
Hi, i am Argentinian and i always disliked this issue but ill give my opinion anyways.
As far as i know.. before Britain had controll over the islands there was an Argentinan base (poorly mantained and unable to do anything against no one).. so British invaded (remember they also tried to invade Buenos Aires twice and failed to do so) the islands and at that moment there was nothing Argentina could do to avoid the ocupation. We didnt even had controll over all the South of the country and ATM we also had a civil war.. Buenos aires vs Provinces Coallition that it was basicaly all the other provinces we had.
In 82' we were under a dictarorship and they needed to distract the "country" and our "President" decided to invade Malvinas... some ppl say he was drunk when he decided.. but the idea of the invasion was that the British didnt defend them... but as British also had some problems with public opinion.. it was also a good distraction and they "defended" their lands.
After that war (In which Chile helped resupply British planes, Brasil denied use of their Air space) Argentina as the lossing side had to basicaly discontinue all their military.
So, another war is no option for argentina. I dont know who has more rights.. i really dont know... on the other hand.. its just shamefull the person we have as president.. She speaks as if she knew all and had power.. and she is kind'a bipolar.. so dont mind so much what she says.
Right know what argentian is claiming is a UN resolution of descolonization by which in theory Britain should aboandon Falklands (But i dont know if it is classified as a colony or British territory)
It seems it will be an everlasting problem.
As for your friend who was assualted.. it depends on the group of ppl he encounters.. i personaly dont have problems with no one.. but there are also persons that reject all foregins.
On the subject of my friend - yeah it entirely depends on the people involved, I'm not trying to say Argentina is dangerous in any way I just wanted to show that feelings seem to run deep on the issue. Like I said the guy apologised later and they had drinks together, so it wasn't a big deal - my friend is pretty scary and fair play to the guy who tried to start something with him. Personally no matter how drunk I am I'm not starting a fight with a 250lb maori.
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
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.
Ethnic groups 61.3% Falkland Islander 29.0% British 2.6% Spaniard 0.6% Japanese 6.5% Chilean & Other
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
The military presence on the islands was beefed up significantly after the last war, we don't need an aircraft carrier as there are air bases there already.
Even with all the defence cuts the UK still has a military that's top 3 in the world, in the unlikely event that a war does start I doubt things will go well for Argentina.
On June 17 2011 10:40 KwarK wrote: Argentina didn't even exist until 1811.
And the USA did not exist until 1776 yet we claim all sorts of islands, some halfway around the world. Dates or longevity are not nearly as relevant as immediate history and relative strength of arms. As other posters have stated, the Falklands War was started to drum up national support for a military dictatorship that disastrously backfired. And the fact that the people on the islands want to remain British seeing as all of them were either born British or remain British citizens is very powerful.
In many ways the islands mirror the case of the Rock of Gibraltar. Again, Spain would really like to claim the island but its people consistently vote in referendums to remain a part of Great Britain. In that case, instead of a blanket offer of citizenship, Spain has tried the opposite tactic of limiting electrical, telephone, and other connections with the mainland in the hopes of convincing the people that their conditions would be improved as part of Spain. But like the Falklands, the islanders seem to love being British.
As a Chilean, I have a relevant perspective on this issue. First of all, the Falklands should definitely not be Chilean- we already have Isla de Pascua under our administration and we're horribly negligent with the place ^^;
Argentina has always been one of the big dogs in Latin America, together with Brazil. Between 1976 and 1983, there was a military government in Argentina (Chile also had a military government in that period, between 1973 and 1989); it was very belligerent. Argentina wasn't only after the Falklands- it first tried to wrest control over three Chilean islands: Picton, Lennox and Nueva. Because of Argentina's demands over the islands, Chile and Argentina decided to settle the issue of sovereignty over those three islands via the Beagle Channel Arbitration process, which ruled in favor of Chile in 1977. But Argentina wasn't satisfied; they were on the verge of declaring war on Chile in 1979, but decided to ask the Pope to be the final arbiter on the conflict, to which Chile agreed. John Paul II decided 100% in favor of Chile, which avoided what was almost war with our bigger, stronger neighbor.
Then, in 1982, Argentina's military government went on to bully another country- Britain, over the Falklands this time. Everyone in Chile was rooting for Britain- Argentina at that point was a warmongering country, and you could only imagine who was next on their hit list if they had been victorious vs. Britain.
As it happens, Argentina lost the war, and returned to Democracy. Wars are sad affairs, and I can see why they'd still hold a grudge vs. Britain. It's been almost 3 decades now, and as to whether the Falklands should be handed over to Argentina, I agree with the OP: If the citizens want to remain as British, then British they should be.
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 .
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.
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.
On June 17 2011 10:53 Carras wrote: Spain populated the territory
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.
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 been me then they'd be me and therefore I'd have a valid claim. Do you not see how weak that argument is?
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.
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.
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 10:53 Carras wrote: Spain populated the territory
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 11:09 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.
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..
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.
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.
On June 17 2011 11:20 Luckbox wrote: That's some tenuous logic
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.
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?
On June 17 2011 11:28 Carras wrote: 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..
It's been a while since my last history classes, but are you sure England signed a treaty splitting the Americas between Spain and Portugal, while getting nothing in return? Just because two countries "said it first" doesn't mean it actually works like that, or worked like that. Plenty of countries were colonized by Holland or France, for example, and noone is saying French Guiana should go back to Spain because they signed a treaty. This kind of disputes are never that simple.
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 repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts.
On June 17 2011 11:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 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?
You may be confusing them with the US Gerald R Ford class, which was changed in 2009 to a five year per carrier plan, to save on costs and more closely match the scheduled decommissioning of the Nimitz class carriers(the newest of which, the USS George H. W. Bush was commissioned in 2009, so they are in no danger of imminent obsolescence).
Brithish empire got other parts of the world.. dont remember exactly how it went.. Africa split between france and britain, the territory wich now is USA was split between spain and britain (france too i think) India was colnized by britain also, etc dont know exactly
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.
Brithish empire got other parts of the world.. dont remember exactly how it went.. Africa split between france and britain, the territory wich now is USA was split between spain and britain (france too i think) India was colnized by britain also, etc dont know exactly
Now you are wrong, unless you mean another treaty. The one that split the Americas was made solely by Portugal and Spain, because they were the super powers of that time. It was ignored by the rest of Europe because they were not part of it.
It was ignored by other European nations, and with the decline of Spanish and Portuguese power, the home countries were unable to hold many of their claims, much less expand them into poorly explored areas. Thus, with sufficient backing, it became possible for any European state to colonize open territories, or those weakly held by Lisbon or Madrid.
As a proof that this is the treaty you are talking about:
The Treaty of Tordesillas has been invoked by Argentina in the 20th century as part of its claim to the Falkland Islands.[34]
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
On June 17 2011 11:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 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?
It was speculated that might be done but it wasn't.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
They had no right to occupy unoccupied islands, right...
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places. Britain defeated Argentina in the Falklands War and you don't see us claiming the Argentinian mainland. Have the decency to treat us as respectfully as we treat you.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Spain's "right" is from a treaty where two countries basically said half of the planet belong to each of them without talking to anyone else. It's not really a very strong claim, if they didn't occupy it.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
"Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
"Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
I think you are done here, because you stopped making any sense.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
"Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
I am not personally accountable for the British Empire. That was actually some other British people a few years back. But if you're agreed imperialism is wrong and that places should belong to the people who were born there and whose fathers were born there and so forth then we're agreed, they are British. Argentina is the imperialist aggressor here.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
"Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
I believe he means claiming without acting. Unless you actually settle on the open space, you have no right to claim. I'm not even sure why I'm still trying...
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.
On June 17 2011 11:20 Luckbox wrote: That's some tenuous logic
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?
I was making a broad generalization for colonial claims in general in which a majority of times previously occupied lands were re-claimed by European powers without regards to their original inhabitants. If you read my quick edit afterwards, you would see I have no issues with the British claim on the Falklands as those people wish to continue to be British.
Well given that all the people there enjoy their british citizenship then it should stay british as the people request, it seems fair to me. Also since Argentina tried to invade and failed and now are trying to take it seems unreasonable. FURTHERMORE! That guy who got argentinian citizenship is just an attentionwhore...
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 11:37 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.
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.
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.
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 12:23 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.
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.
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.
Britain didn't even exist in the 16th Century...
And yeah, as InvalidID said, the UK wasn't a true superpower until the 19th Century at which point it was the largest and most powerful ever known and your very own country owes its existence to it.
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.
I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement.
I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment.
While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France.
The Falklands are British territory and will be so long as the inhabitants want to be British. Should they choose via referendum to become independent or a part of Argentina, so be it. Until that day (should it ever happen), they should remain a British territory.
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.
I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement.
I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment.
While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France.
I dont think the claim is due to anti-British sentiment.. i mean.. there is a large portion of descendants of Brits also in Argentina.. As you stated.. There was a claim.. there was a war.. England won.. England set the rules as in all wars... Victors choose the rules.. its just that the current political machine of argentina will never accept it. I understand that people died and its sad.. but if you loose a war.. its the price to pay.
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?
It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa. So, in other words, not counting the audacity of having anyone believe that Wikipedia is an actual valid resource for a historical debate, Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology (again, borrowing Žižek's use of this concept), regarding anybody who tries to counter-argue it merely someone who is "not very well informed." In conclusion, if very well informed historians from both sides have not been able to reach a decisive conclusion regarding this piece of land (other than nobody knows who set foot on it first), I highly doubt we'll find the answer here at the hands of forum-goers. It is a highly amusing debate nonetheless.
If the Argentinian government turns round and says the invasion was a mistake then people are gonna go "you mean all those soldiers died for nothing? FUCK YOU!". It doesn't matter that they already know that the military junta were dicks and that they're the ones who sent soldiers on that mistake, it'll still be the current government they view as spitting on their memory.
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.
I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement.
I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment.
While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France.
Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
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?
The labour government made a deal with BAA systems to put them on hold so that they wouldn't be paying for the building of them, lengthening the time it's going to take to build them, thereby increasing the total cost by a fair margin. It's like ordering an XBOX out of a catalogue and paying for it over 72 months, it will be cheaper in the short-term, but by the end you will have paid considerably more than what you first agreed on. I believe this still holds true with the current coalition.
Hand over the thirteen colonies USA, we have a flag and everything.
On June 17 2011 12:47 Aristodemus wrote: Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire.
The general definition of a superpower, includes the ability to direct force on a global scale. The whole debate is really a matter of semantics, but by the traditional definition of the word it would be when Britain gained a global empire.
On June 17 2011 12:47 Aristodemus wrote: Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire.
The general definition of a superpower, includes the ability to direct force on a global scale. The whole debate is really a matter of semantics, but by the traditional definition of the word it would be when Britain gained a global empire.
So... US isnt a superpower today as they have no empire? My definition is when you have a force that is extremely unlikely to be defeated.
On June 17 2011 12:47 Aristodemus wrote: Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire.
The general definition of a superpower, includes the ability to direct force on a global scale. The whole debate is really a matter of semantics, but by the traditional definition of the word it would be when Britain gained a global empire.
So... US isnt a superpower today as they have no empire? My definition is when you have a force that is extremely unlikely to be defeated.
We do still have an empire, consisting of a bunch of islands in the pacific: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/EEZ-USA.png . But more relevantly, we have the ability to project force on any point of the globe through a large blue water navy with carrier strike groups. Current US military doctrine is to remain capable of an overwhelming conventional military strike on any given point on the globe, at any given time, within 24 hours of its order.
Edit: Yes I agree, as I said before it is a silly debate of semantics.
It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa. So, in other words, not counting the audacity of having anyone believe that Wikipedia is an actual valid resource for a historical debate, Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology (again, borrowing Žižek's use of this concept), regarding anybody who tries to counter-argue it merely someone who is "not very well informed." In conclusion, if very well informed historians from both sides have not been able to reach a decisive conclusion regarding this piece of land (other than nobody knows who set foot on it first), I highly doubt we'll find the answer here at the hands of forum-goers. It is a highly amusing debate nonetheless.
In conclusion, you spent three paragraphs talking down to everyone and ending up looking not very smart.
Žižek is another simplistic reactionary. You tangentially connect his agitprop (and that's all it is, academic agitprop) to the topic as part of another dose of Marxist nonsense containing arbitrary and simplistic (like so much of Marxism) class divisions (the "North" and "South"), more Marxist babble about double standards (also, as if complaining about some fantastical double standard in the scientific community between white scientists and non-whites has anything to do with anything other than your tortuous ideology where everything is somehow connected and relevant) and we will finish off with the veritable classic "You are actually so deeply brainwashed that it is impossible for you to understand how wrong you are. It isn't your fault, but I am highly amused by it." Hint: the old-school term, "mystification," is a hell of a lot cooler. Probably more effective because it doesn't sound so nakedly hostile too.
What highly amuses me is Marxists who think that their concepts and criticisms of current events are anything more than exercises in trying to save the dream of Karl from the nightmares of Josef and Mao, and a heavy, heavy dose of sour grapes for losing the Cold War.
Everyone posting in this thread is disregarding a fundamental factor that fully explains the developments of today........
THERE IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN ARGENTINA IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS.
The political climate here is complex to say the least for anyone not versed in Argentine politics, but the bottom line is given the current government's leftist and populist characteristics, she (Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) had to do this to show power given that showing weakness atm would be a huge problem for her. The unions are cornering her to get a place in the party lists for the election, while the death of her husband (who was the real dude in power) added a lot of instability to her grip on the peronist party (majority).
Honestly, we have much bigger problems to worry about than the falkland islands. and BTW Argentina does not have a "real" standing army ffs, the current government took the trouble of disarming them to appease their leftist partisans who still hold grudges because of the dictatorship even though they were terrorists themselves (during the "Dirty War"), disgusting. Fuck the Falklands.
On June 17 2011 09:13 Sanctimonius wrote:I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think on this issue, especially people from Argentina, because I've never been and I've never spoken to anyone from Argentina. What I've written is obviously biased, as any view on such a contentious issue would be - I'm British, of course I would want them to remain British. But I am honestly trying to see things from the other point of view, and most things written from an Argentine perspective centre on us being thieves and leaving it at that. Why should the islands be Argentinian now? And what should happen to the islanders if it did become Argentinian, keeping in mind that all except one has rejected Argentinian citizenship?
First off, we have presidential elections this year. That's the reason behind the recent complain.
I don't care about who own the islands or who holds the rights on them. There have been countless times in history where some guys walked over others to claim a place. Heck, I'm living in a place that was originally inhabited by indians (not the correct word, but my english is limited) that probably killed another indians to get it and so go on, until spaniards came. If we wanted a diplomatic end to this, our glorious military dictatorial regimen supported by USA blowed up that chance long time ago. And if we talk about a war ... well, sending unprepared youngsters to war is a very useful talent toi have. And we are sensible about this issue because is more recent, therefore you can easily relate. (e.g. my dad was """"recruited"""" by the militaries)
Now what piss me off are british negating their imperialistic behavior, people claiming the isles have zero value, politicians from both sides giving a fuck about the people who died fighting their stupid war and particularly in this thread: wikipedia quotes. Really.
On June 17 2011 13:11 ChicoLopez wrote: Well, at least Obama wants the two parties to talk about it. That's out president; praise our allies, support their enemies.
Lets resume the issue, the people who live there want to remain British. Now get back to some real fucking issues? I mean what the fuck does Argentina expect to do, invade again and start handing out Argentine passports to everyone? Must be fucking crazy.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
On June 17 2011 09:13 Sanctimonius wrote:I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think on this issue, especially people from Argentina, because I've never been and I've never spoken to anyone from Argentina. What I've written is obviously biased, as any view on such a contentious issue would be - I'm British, of course I would want them to remain British. But I am honestly trying to see things from the other point of view, and most things written from an Argentine perspective centre on us being thieves and leaving it at that. Why should the islands be Argentinian now? And what should happen to the islanders if it did become Argentinian, keeping in mind that all except one has rejected Argentinian citizenship?
First off, we have presidential elections this year. That's the reason behind the recent complain.
I don't care about who own the islands or who holds the rights on them. There have been countless times in history where some guys walked over others to claim a place. Heck, I'm living in a place that was originally inhabited by indians (not the correct word, but my english is limited) that probably killed another indians to get it and so go on, until spaniards came. If we wanted a diplomatic end to this, our glorious military dictatorial regimen supported by USA blowed up that chance long time ago. And if we talk about a war ... well, sending unprepared youngsters to war is a very useful talent toi have. And we are sensible about this issue because is more recent, therefore you can easily relate. (e.g. my dad was """"recruited"""" by the militaries)
Now what piss me off are british negating their imperialistic behavior, people claiming the isles have zero value, politicians from both sides giving a fuck about the people who died fighting their stupid war and particularly in this thread: wikipedia quotes. Really.
As a minor aside, love it when people from other countries, who have studied English as a second language, apologise for their poor English then write things using more complex English than we usually use in England or the US :D
It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa. So, in other words, not counting the audacity of having anyone believe that Wikipedia is an actual valid resource for a historical debate, Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology (again, borrowing Žižek's use of this concept), regarding anybody who tries to counter-argue it merely someone who is "not very well informed." In conclusion, if very well informed historians from both sides have not been able to reach a decisive conclusion regarding this piece of land (other than nobody knows who set foot on it first), I highly doubt we'll find the answer here at the hands of forum-goers. It is a highly amusing debate nonetheless.
In conclusion, you spent three paragraphs talking down to everyone and ending up looking not very smart.
Žižek is another simplistic reactionary. You tangentially connect his agitprop (and that's all it is, academic agitprop) to the topic as part of another dose of Marxist nonsense containing arbitrary and simplistic (like so much of Marxism) class divisions (the "North" and "South"), more Marxist babble about double standards (also, as if complaining about some fantastical double standard in the scientific community between white scientists and non-whites has anything to do with anything other than your tortuous ideology where everything is somehow connected and relevant) and we will finish off with "You are actually so deeply brainwashed that it is impossible for you to understand how wrong you are. It isn't your fault, but I am highly amused by it."
What highly amuses me is Marxists who think that their concepts are anything more than exercises in trying to save the dream of Karl from the nightmares of Josef and Mao, and a heavy, heavy dose of sour grapes for losing the Cold War.
Hah, your perspective on Žižek is highly amusing as well, and completely shows the point I was trying to convey, although on a whole different level. I never said neither debater here is brainwashed, but I've had experience dealing with people thinking you're a marxist because you've read Žižek, Althusser and Marcuse, other accusing you of post-modernist spewer of crap 'cause you also read Lyotard, Baudrillard, Lipovetsky and Bayard, others calling you outdated because you still read Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Benjamin and so on and so forth. So please, do read, and I mean as in reading words as I wrote them. Key words: "Cultural beliefs". Those, you know, in social sciences, have a whooooole different signification to "brainwashed." But hey, I like how you twist my words, so please, keep amusing me (via pm of course, this thread is not the place for this)
Also, props for trying to sound smart but really coming off as yet another person who's too shortsighted and biased against certain authors to just go and brand them with certain theories. Next time try to actually go and read Žižek's books. I know, the whole eastern Europe thing frightens you a little bit, but I can assure you, he's far more than just a "simplistic Marxist dualistic reduction of the world". I specially suggest his "Defense of intolerance". But if you just wrote three paragraphs sounding like a Tea Party member who thinks marxism is the root of all evil, then I guess it won't do any good.
But just for clarification, I do not think any of the debaters are brainwashed, stupid or something like that. It's simply that you won't get anywhere because just like Kwark can argue that Richard Hawkins set foot on this Island in around 1590, so can the argentines argue that this corsair wasn't the first but rather Alonso de Camargo in around 1540, who called the island Incógnita and continue for the rest of their lives and they probably won't find and amicable solution as to who is the rightful owner of the island, considering all the XVIII century stuff that is quite mysterious to all historians (as to what truly went on and its importance afterwards).But just a quick note, on the 1833 english raid, there WERE argentinians there, it wasn't a peaceful re-occupation of the island. That bit, both parties have, at least in the history department, agreed on.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
May I ask why? I never said you were brainwashed and if it came off like that I apologize.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
May I ask why? I never said you were brainwashed and if it came off like that I apologize.
Never doubting beliefs because of an ideology is tantamount to being brainwashed. One of the reasons I enjoy interacting with other people on the internet is because of the opportunity to discover challenges to my beliefs. However I believe 90% of what you said is generic post modernist bullshit which poses no answers and simply evades questions by denying everything.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this.
How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited?
I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this.
How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited?
I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force.
How does "the white man" conquering a place 300 years ago make self-determination flawed?
Honestly, if you don't believe in self-determination you sound like the imperialists of old you criticize so much.
A group of people come to a consensus as to which political entity they want to be a part of with their own freedom of choice and that has no moral basis? Why do you believe their choice counts for nothing?
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this.
How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited?
I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force.
I am entirely confident that if there was a group of residents who wished to be independent or even become part of Argentina then the UK would put it to a vote and go with the results. The island is not held by force, it is held by the resolve of the people who live there.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this.
How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited?
I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force.
Even if there was a complete absence of all other factors, the simple fact that the entirety of the people living on the islands wish to become a part of a particular political entity is rightful claim enough.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I think England should sue Germany for the Saxon population migration.
Also, Italy and Spain and the Balkans have a real beef with the Slavs who have a real beef with the Mongols.
Your argument is contradictory and misplaced sour grapes; people move and it usually ends up in war between them and the people already living where they move to. People are brutal to each other, one side loses and they get the shitty end of the stick.
The only time in the history of the world a population migration has been held up as inherently wrong and based on the evil nature of the people moving is when some whites left Europe for the Americans and Australia. That speaks something to the validity of your argument about "justification for ethnic cleansing."
Hah, your perspective on Žižek is highly amusing as well, and completely shows the point I was trying to convey, although on a whole different level
Have you ever met anyone who has not amused you?
I never said neither debater here is brainwashed, but I've had experience dealing with people thinking you're a marxist because you've read Žižek, Althusser and Marcuse, other accusing you of post-modernist spewer of crap 'cause you also read Lyotard, Baudrillard, Lipovetsky and Bayard, others calling you outdated because you still read Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Benjamin and so on and so forth. So please, do read, and I mean as in reading words as I wrote them. Key words: "Cultural beliefs". Those, you know, in social sciences, have a whooooole different signification to "brainwashed." But hey, I like how you twist my words, so please, keep amusing me (via pm of course, this thread is not the place for this)
But what you are saying is very relevant to this argument.
I'm pretty sure appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so I don't think I need to name a dozen philosophers and historians and general academics I've read because that obviously means I am right and you are wrong and it is amusing that you would disagree.
"Cultural beliefs" in the way you mean it is a way to declare victory without having to actually win. You're splitting hairs when you say you don't mean "brainwashing."
Also, props for trying to sound smart but really coming off as yet another person who's too shortsighted and biased against certain authors to just go and brand them with certain theories. Next time try to actually go and read Žižek's books. I know, the whole eastern Europe thing frightens you a little bit, but I can assure you, he's far more than just a "simplistic Marxist dualistic reduction of the world". I specially suggest his "Defense of intolerance". But if you just wrote three paragraphs sounding like a Tea Party member who thinks marxism is the root of all evil, then I guess it won't do any good.
How do you know I haven't? Because I think he's shallow? Well I'm sorry I don't agree with you, this must mean I am ignorant and shortsighted and biased.
I didn't say dualistic, I said arbitrary division. If I did say dualistic anywhere it was a typo.
No the Eastern European thing doesn't frighten me at all, the same tired old ideas presented as cutting-edge thinking does though.
And then the zinger, the Tea Party! The ultimate charge of being stupid! Speaks for itself really.
Marxism is the root of all evil? It is the root of plenty of evils, not all of them though.
What it is is an ignorant philosophy that spawns a lot of terrible thinking.
But just for clarification, I do not think any of the debaters are brainwashed, stupid or something like that. It's simply that you won't get anywhere because just like Kwark can argue that Richard Hawkins set foot on this Island in around 1590, so can the argentines argue that this corsair wasn't the first but rather Alonso de Camargo in around 1540, who called the island Incógnita and continue for the rest of their lives and they probably won't find and amicable solution as to who is the rightful owner of the island, considering all the XVIII century stuff that is quite mysterious to all historians (as to what truly went on and its importance afterwards).But just a quick note, on the 1833 english raid, there WERE argentinians there, it wasn't a peaceful re-occupation of the island. That bit, both parties have, at least in the history department, agreed on.
No, that isn't what you said, that you can't get anywhere from a "who was here first" argument as to who "owns" land, you said this:
It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa.
Which is essentially not an explanation of the concept of "cultural beliefs" as you later portray them to be but instead first an extended attack along Marxist lines using blatantly anti-European and anti-white stereotypes as examples, followed by distillation of the academic world to unconscious servitors of the bad system.
As I said, the concept has been around a long time, and it is exactly the same thinking that led socialists to declare again and again that the plutocrats were "mystifying" the proletariat in democracies to vote against their class interest.
Except here you are saying it isn't men doing it, it is the culture itself. That we can't help ourselves, in essence. And that these great men have seen past the veil.
I don't buy it, you can be amused by it all you want, but your way of looking at the world is too simple to be realistic. And what's amusing about you is that you think that it is too complex to be unrealistic.
Also, don't post a reply and say in the middle of it, "we should be talking about this in PM." Then PM it instead of posting it, if you post something in public people should have the opportunity to reply in public, if you think it should be private then initiate that in private and they should reciprocate. That's fair.
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
May I ask why? I never said you were brainwashed and if it came off like that I apologize.
Never doubting beliefs because of an ideology is tantamount to being brainwashed. One of the reasons I enjoy interacting with other people on the internet is because of the opportunity to discover challenges to my beliefs. However I believe 90% of what you said is generic post modernist bullshit which poses no answers and simply evades questions by denying everything.
I see, well in that case, I'll say I wasn't using ideology in that sense but in broader sense where ideology is a set of beliefs translated into cultural practices and a certain discourse that is beyond the individual self, not simple thoughts and concepts that form a theoretical discourse which individual thought can later make use of in a fully conscious way. That being said, let's see, you accuse me of postmodernist spewer of crap who just denies everything while posing no answers, so let's recapitulate some of your answer thus far.
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. 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.
Well, first, please direct me to a non-contested historical source that isn't Wikipedia for fucks sake (and I'm the post-modernist :D) where it states clearly and concisely that the Malvinas/Falklands were OCCUPIED by the british until 1764 when french settlers arrived to the island (War of the Seven years) and one year later bought by the Spanish Empire and made dependent of the governorate of... Buenos Aires, making the english there, well, intruders. And please, don't even bother with John Davids. Now, according to the Treaty of Tordesillas, the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina. I know this might seem a little odd to you, but this treaty has been the diplomatic basis of all foreign affairs in Ibero-america since well, a lot of time and you'd never guessed it, the british empire trampled all over it like any good empire and just told the argentinians to fuck off. But I know, it's not about imperialism, it's all about self-determination
This without mentioning neither the Munster nor the American treaties, both of which recognized Spanish possession of the island in the XVII century.
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.
I never wanted to answer this because it's just so much crap, but who exactly was living there at the moment? Unless you count the inscriptions of the Port Egmont soldiers as "people" living there "long before that Argentine mission. I'll not get into Jewett and the uti possidetis principle because we'll get nowhere if we dwell too much into that (y'know, just like Argentina and England dwelling on this for so long calling each other's conception of the international law system flawed) although it has to be said that England did not protest this at the time, it only came to do so in 1920, hundred years later, but that's alright. History has it that Pablo Aregueti was named governor of the Malvinas/Falklands in 1823 and in 1825 a friendship, navigation and trading treaty was signed by Argentina and England, where the latter not only recognized the former's independence but also makes ZERO claims to the Malvinas/Falklands. Then along comes Vernet and the whole seal affair which leads to the present day. So, no, british were not Occupying the island nor was british personnel there long before "that Argentine mission." The clever thing was that in 1832, Pinedo and the rest of the administrative staff are forced to leave the island at the hands of Goebel and a letter from your majesty where it claimed sovereignty of the island, which is, in british eyes, a more than sufficient case for their right of the island, it has nothing to do with imperialism. It was merely a letter telling the argentines to fuck off, have a nice day, go back to your mainland, we'll be having tiffin' now.
But let's review the whole thing. France comes first, Spain buys off the thing from France. In 1770 England tries to say it is their own but four years later, it is agreed by both kingdoms it is Spanish territory and it continues to be so until 1811 where according to an american historian it passes to be res nullis until 1820 when another american claims it for Argentina and it continues to be like that until 1832 where it is posteriorly declared again res nullis by none other than the british empire and goes into british hands effectively in 1833.
Edit: ^^^^ I said PM me, not derail the thread further -_-
That is a very detailed post with lots of historical details in it. Still doesn't do anything to deal with the situation of today - the islands are populated by people who have been there for nearly two centuries, who speak English and consider themselves British.
Any claim from Argentina has to take them into account, they can't just be ignored. As others have said if the situation changes and the islands vote to join Argentina, then fair enough. But they have chosen time and again to remain British.
On June 17 2011 15:44 Sanctimonius wrote: That is a very detailed post with lots of historical details in it. Still doesn't do anything to deal with the situation of today - the islands are populated by people who have been there for nearly two centuries, who speak English and consider themselves British.
Any claim from Argentina has to take them into account, they can't just be ignored. As others have said if the situation changes and the islands vote to join Argentina, then fair enough. But they have chosen time and again to remain British.
Quick, because I'm answering the guy above me :D
I never argued about the current situation with the current inhabitants as I do agree any decision has to take all these people living there right now into account, but the fight between these two is fought greatly in the field of history. But it does have to do with the diplomatic feud between the two countries as this is pretty much what both countries say it's true and the other says it's false and why one is the "rightful" owner and the other is not. If you will, Argentina, recognizes that for anyone going there right now, it'll be a british colony, but for them it was and has always been argentinian territory, as in, they don't care who the people living there are, the land they live on "is" argentinian. And british argue that well, it's been "theirs" since 1833 and "more" and that people living there are british, not argentinian and that removing them from the land would be a shock too great.
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 repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts.
Of course it does, nearly every country was in other hands at one time or another.
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 repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts.
Of course it does, nearly every country was in other hands at one time or another.
I Agree. Its rather clear that you cannot force entire groups op population that have been in a place for a couple of hunderd years to accept a new nationality.
If you dont agree with this then you should allso claim that every spanish decendant in Argentina should be moved and the natives restored in power. Or perhaps US should give California back to mexico?
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 repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts.
Of course it does, nearly every country was in other hands at one time or another.
I Agree. Its rather clear that you cannot force entire groups op population that have been in a place for a couple of hunderd years to accept a new nationality.
If you dont agree with this then you should allso claim that every spanish decendant in Argentina should be moved and the natives restored in power. Or perhaps US should give California back to mexico?
And that everyone in the US and Canada need to go back to Europe.
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 repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts.
Of course it does, nearly every country was in other hands at one time or another.
I Agree. Its rather clear that you cannot force entire groups op population that have been in a place for a couple of hunderd years to accept a new nationality.
If you dont agree with this then you should allso claim that every spanish decendant in Argentina should be moved and the natives restored in power. Or perhaps US should give California back to mexico?
And that everyone in the US and Canada need to go back to Europe.
Only the pretty ones!
OT: interesting discussion, I'll remain on the sidelines though
While KwarK is arguing brilliantly, I believe the Argentinian poster to be correct. An election is approaching and all of this is just irresponsible saber rattling to appear strong before the Argentinian people. I hope the current PM loses the election, this kind of politicial maneuvering can cause wars.
Whenever poiliticians bring up bullshit like this like the Argentinian President in this case they probably have major national problems that they try to divert from. Falklands are obviously British.
Oh dear there are some proper crimes against Philosophy going on here!
OT: I had a very similar topic of discussion with an Argentinian friend. She explained to me that all her friends and family told her never to tell anyone she was Argentinian while she was in the UK because of the Falklands/las Malvinas. Having known her for nearly a year I had completely forgotten that our two countries were once at war!
I kind of felt that the Falklands/las Malvinas were in a very distant part of the national consciousness (whatever that may be...) and simply didn't matter to us. I felt that people in the UK probably don't really think/talk about them unless the Argentinian President brings it up or England play Argentinia (and then they're more likely to bring up Maradona I'm sure). Whereas in Argentinia I'm sure are a regular topic of discussion.
It was saddening to realise that a conflict where so many people lost their lives or were injured was so distant both conceptually and geographically.
But I agree was vierws expressed earlier in this thread, that this is clearly saber rattling and galvanising support through nationalistic sentiments in lieu of the forthcoming election. From what I hear Argentina isn't the greatest place to live - apparently they have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
On June 17 2011 15:29 Mephiztopheles1 wrote: the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina.
What's the geographic limit of the right of succession? Why is it that the Falklands (islands far, far outside Argentina's territorial waters) should naturally fall to Argentina after the defeat of Spain? At the time of the war of American independence Ireland was an English colony. America successfully defeated England, does that give her the right to claim ownership of the Republic of Ireland today against the wishes of the native inhabitants?
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.
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.
Countries were supposed to lodge their submissions to extend their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles within 10 years of UNCLOS coming into force in the country, or by 13 May 2009 for countries where the convention had come into force before 13 May 1999. As of 1 June 2009, 51 submissions have been lodged with the Commission, of which 8 have been deliberated by the Commission and have had recommendations issued. The 8 are (in the order of date of submission): Russian Federation; Brazil; Australia; Ireland; New Zealand; the joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom; Norway and Mexico.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places. Britain defeated Argentina in the Falklands War and you don't see us claiming the Argentinian mainland. Have the decency to treat us as respectfully as we treat you.
respect..... as in respectfully attack some country OUTSIDE the exclusion zone ? Really easy to be respectfull that way, in a war the other side of the world, with a weak country, with nothing to lose.
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.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote: Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places. Britain defeated Argentina in the Falklands War and you don't see us claiming the Argentinian mainland. Have the decency to treat us as respectfully as we treat you.
respect..... as in respectfully attack some country OUTSIDE the exclusion zone ? Really easy to be respectfull that way, in a war the other side of the world, with a weak country, with nothing to lose.
You were already attacking us, and our submarines could not follow you any further. A decision had to be made, and we made the correct decision. Argentina were the aggressor in this war, do not forget that.
On June 17 2011 15:44 Sanctimonius wrote: That is a very detailed post with lots of historical details in it. Still doesn't do anything to deal with the situation of today - the islands are populated by people who have been there for nearly two centuries, who speak English and consider themselves British.
Any claim from Argentina has to take them into account, they can't just be ignored. As others have said if the situation changes and the islands vote to join Argentina, then fair enough. But they have chosen time and again to remain British.
You can only choose from options presented to you. Who do you think shapes the options for the islanders? WTF, aren't we being a little naive?
I had some friends in college who debated this rather passionately. I personally feel that the island's residents should have their own self-determination, whatever that would be.
That said, here's my favorite thing about the conflict: on the islands, there is a massive British air force base, colloquially known as the "Death Star" on account of it's fucking huge. IMO, the US should control anything which people call a Death Star, otherwise we're not doing the Empire thing very well at all, are we?
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: Oh dear there are some proper crimes against Philosophy going on here!
OT: I had a very similar topic of discussion with an Argentinian friend. She explained to me that all her friends and family told her never to tell anyone she was Argentinian while she was in the UK because of the Falklands/las Malvinas. Having known her for nearly a year I had completely forgotten that our two countries were once at war!
I kind of felt that the Falklands/las Malvinas were in a very distant part of the national consciousness (whatever that may be...) and simply didn't matter to us. I felt that people in the UK probably don't really think/talk about them unless the Argentinian President brings it up or England play Argentinia (and then they're more likely to bring up Maradona I'm sure). Whereas in Argentinia I'm sure are a regular topic of discussion.
It was saddening to realise that a conflict where so many people lost their lives or were injured was so distant both conceptually and geographically.
But I agree was vierws expressed earlier in this thread, that this is clearly saber rattling and galvanising support through nationalistic sentiments in lieu of the forthcoming election. From what I hear Argentina isn't the greatest place to live - apparently they have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
On June 18 2011 00:53 Svetz wrote: @Tossrage Did you create a new account just to get owned by Kwark in one of the most humerous cases of reading the article your quoting so far today!
Also your second comment doesn't even make any sense? Argentina invaded the falklands not the other way around...
Of course, that little dirty detail finds its way to get lose. When in a modern war conflict, there is this thing called "exclusion zone". That is the only space where the war and agression will be displayed.
Being as UK uses de allmighty IMPERIAL unit system, one can understand why they would extend the agression outside these limits. Respect.
On June 18 2011 00:53 Svetz wrote: @Tossrage Did you create a new account just to get owned by Kwark in one of the most humerous cases of reading the article your quoting so far today!
Also your second comment doesn't even make any sense? Argentina invaded the falklands not the other way around...
Of course, that little dirty detail finds its way to get lose. When in a modern war conflict, there is this thing called "exclusion zone". That is the only space where the war and agression will be displayed.
Being as UK uses de allmighty IMPERIAL unit system, one can understand why they would extend the agression outside these limits. Respect.
The Falkland islands are considered British soil, so essentially you invaded Britain. That is an act of war, even though neither country officially declared war. As I pointed out before, the Argentinian fleet went a route that would prevent our submarines following any further and a decision had to be made. I am sorry that so many people died, but it had to be done.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
On June 17 2011 10:09 Glaven wrote: Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
Has to be the post post in the thread, lols. As you're in posting from Canada you should screw britain's imperial legacy too and give it back to the inuits. Pretty sure they won't be rioting over a game of sport anyway. Doesn't sound correct does it?
On June 17 2011 10:07 Elegy wrote: Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
On June 17 2011 10:07 Elegy wrote: Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
i find this funny coming from a canadian, ROFL
As a Metis Canadian, I'm gonna add a ROFL here too.
On June 17 2011 10:09 Glaven wrote: Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
Has to be the post post in the thread, lols. As you're in posting from Canada you should screw britain's imperial legacy too and give it back to the inuits. Pretty sure they won't be rioting over a game of sport anyway. Doesn't sound correct does it?
Vancouver does not equate all of Canada. I doubt you are from NK but if you are that's saying all North Koreans all want to use nukes and love communism.
England existed long before Argentina was a country and those islands should remais british because the people there still want to be british..
It seems to me Argentina just want to take the islands for themselves again after failing in the first war and even after the falkland islanders want to remain british..
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology
Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this.
How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited?
I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force.
How does "the white man" conquering a place 300 years ago make self-determination flawed?
Honestly, if you don't believe in self-determination you sound like the imperialists of old you criticize so much.
A group of people come to a consensus as to which political entity they want to be a part of with their own freedom of choice and that has no moral basis? Why do you believe their choice counts for nothing?
Because I don't believe as such a thing as a "rightful" claim?
Do you think that the confederacy should have been allowed to secede from the US? Do you think that the approximately 37% of Scots who favour independence should be able to kill the rest of the 63% of the population and declare their independence? Do you think that those 37% should be able to secede independently of the other 63%?
When it comes to countries and land, there is no such thing as a "rightful" claim. I live in Australia. I don't see why the Aboriginals have "rightful claim" to the land because their ancestors have lived here long before the Europeans have. I don't see why Caucasians have any "rightful claim" to this land because they've conquered and settled the land. They are people, and I don't see why people should have a claim to the land. It's just as arbitrary as people claiming parts of Antarctica or areas in the sea, both of which have been inhabited by humans.
When it comes to land, a claim is a claim. There is no such thing as a "rightful" claim. Claims in land are made and sustained through military might and diplomatic guile.
If you believe in self determination so strongly, should anyone living in any country be able claim to be a citizen of Sweden because they want to take advantage of the good welfare in that country? Why can't I claim to be a citizen of every country in the world? Self determination is a fiction created to justify atrocities. That is all.
On June 17 2011 10:09 Glaven wrote: Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
Has to be the post post in the thread, lols. As you're in posting from Canada you should screw britain's imperial legacy too and give it back to the inuits. Pretty sure they won't be rioting over a game of sport anyway. Doesn't sound correct does it?
Going to have to concur with it being the best post.
>First claimed by the UK >First inhabited by the UK >All inhabitants but one want to be part British >Has been indisputably British for 200 years, or about 8 generations >Defended in a war against an aggressive nation >>Is Argentinian because one lived there for 12 years and there's a ridiculous imperialistic treaty that had nothing to do with the UK
Whatever, we all have stupid things we believe. Not a big deal to me; Britain has been pretty terrible in many ways when it comes to territory so I hope we get past the issue and don't hold grudges.
On June 17 2011 15:29 Mephiztopheles1 wrote: the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina.
What's the geographic limit of the right of succession? Why is it that the Falklands (islands far, far outside Argentina's territorial waters) should naturally fall to Argentina after the defeat of Spain? At the time of the war of American independence Ireland was an English colony. America successfully defeated England, does that give her the right to claim ownership of the Republic of Ireland today against the wishes of the native inhabitants?
Ok, first off, stop using analogies without any sense of history, it's bad. I will repeat myself, since you obviously did not read what I wrote. The Malvinas/Falklands were under the jurisdiction of the Spanish crown, which, gave command of it to the governorate of Buenos Aires. In this case, the geographic limit you're asking about is the Treaty of Tordesillas. But it's an old piece of papeeeeer!, yeah, and it's also the basis in which all modern South american countries based themselves to establish their borders, with the grace of England, Spain, France, the United States and the dutch (They did this very quickly because they knew that with all these colonies claiming independence early in the nineteenth century they would need economic help rebuilding and building more stuff so what better way than acknowledging their right of succession? And so they did and boom, external debt "began.") It was the only treaty that satisfied most people so it was used. Sure it was ignored by these superpowers in anything they could claim dibs on like modern Guyana and Suriname, but in everything else, including, at the moment, the Malvinas/Falklands they had no interest in, the right of succession was applied. So that's why America didn't claim Ireland, there was no paper saying they could have it, plus, seriously? you hail from the UK yet you're oblivious as to how exactly it is an empire works? Losing one colony =/= losing your whole empire. So in other words, if you're going to use examples of independence, at least have the decency to be informed of the grounds the territorial claims of the independence wars are based on They are two VERY different cases.
Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
On June 17 2011 15:29 Mephiztopheles1 wrote: the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina.
What's the geographic limit of the right of succession? Why is it that the Falklands (islands far, far outside Argentina's territorial waters) should naturally fall to Argentina after the defeat of Spain? At the time of the war of American independence Ireland was an English colony. America successfully defeated England, does that give her the right to claim ownership of the Republic of Ireland today against the wishes of the native inhabitants?
Ok, first off, stop using analogies without any sense of history, it's bad. I will repeat myself, since you obviously did not read what I wrote. The Malvinas/Falklands were under the jurisdiction of the Spanish crown, which, gave command of it to the governorate of Buenos Aires. In this case, the geographic limit you're asking about is the Treaty of Tordesillas. But it's an old piece of papeeeeer!, yeah, and it's also the basis in which all modern South american countries based themselves to establish their borders, with the grace of England, Spain, France, the United States and the dutch (They did this very quickly because they knew that with all these colonies claiming independence early in the nineteenth century they would need economic help rebuilding and building more stuff so what better way than acknowledging their right of succession? And so they did and boom, external debt "began.") It was the only treaty that satisfied most people so it was used. Sure it was ignored by these superpowers in anything they could claim dibs on like modern Guyana and Suriname, but in everything else, including, at the moment, the Malvinas/Falklands they had no interest in, the right of succession was applied. So that's why America didn't claim Ireland, there was no paper saying they could have it, plus, seriously? you hail from the UK yet you're oblivious as to how exactly it is an empire works? Losing one colony =/= losing your whole empire. So in other words, if you're going to use examples of independence, at least have the decency to be informed of the grounds the territorial claims of the independence wars are based on They are two VERY different cases.
On June 18 2011 01:48 shell wrote: Give them back?
England existed long before Argentina was a country and those islands should remais british because the people there still want to be british..
It seems to me Argentina just want to take the islands for themselves again after failing in the first war and even after the falkland islanders want to remain british..
It's stupid and they have no case imo
Geographically they do have a case. Politically the British should keep them as that is what the majority of the islanders want. Economically it's all about the possibility of oil.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
Don't know much about popularity %, because those fluctuate a lot depending on who's measuring them, but Kirchner will probably win the presidential elections in first round, that most polls agree on.
Wouldn't applying the very same argentinian law just disprove the entire claim to the islands? Argentinian law states that continual occupation of a land for at least 20 years, peacefully, and uninterrupted, makes such land theirs.
On June 18 2011 02:42 Hitokiri wrote: Wouldn't applying the very same argentinian law just disprove the entire claim to the islands? Argentinian law states that continual occupation of a land for at least 20 years, peacefully, and uninterrupted, makes such land theirs.
Granted this is civil law, however it still could be applicable.
Granted for civil occupation. All soil is argentinian "under argentinian jurisdiction" (sorry I don't know how to translate this into english) no matter the owner/who's currently occupying it, and all resources below and above ground are argentinian, no matter the owner again.
If I go to my backyard, make a hole in the ground and Skittles start flowing from from the hole, then the argentinian government has a right to claim those Skittles.
It's also not applicable, since for that law to apply, the previous owner of unoccupied land has to show no interest in it (which Argentina has).
There's also a similar law in England iirc, and in many other places, and it's serves other purpose, not deciding country limits.
As an Irish person (our country was under British rule for a good 800 years and northern Ireland is still a part of the UK) I have to say the UK is in the right here. There are plenty of people in northern Ireland who want to be part of the republic but the majority want to stay as part of the U.K, which is fair enough in my opinion.
And if there's anything such as a real claim for land, surely the northern quarter of our own little island has a great claim? But as we're all (thankfully) democratic, it should be down to the residents, not geography. And that's how it should stay.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
Don't know much about popularity %, because those fluctuate a lot depending on who's measuring them, but Kirchner will probably win the presidential elections in first round, that most polls agree on.
Kirchner has already won just because no viable alternative will be able to consolidate in time to pose a real threat come the election, especially when she goes around handing out LCD flatscreens to watch the Copa America (just to people who are on welfare and social programs, L O fucking L).
The posturing is because internal forces (the unions, other party elements) want to gain more power and seats in the official lists. She cannot hold them off if she appears weak, so she has to make some ridiculous statements such as the falklands one to show power.
This is kind of like the arab israeali conflict. Both sides are completely intractable, spewing dogma that is perfectly correct in their eyes but heinously missing the point in the other's. I guess the bottom line is will the international community accept the Argentinian claim to The Falklands, I doubt it. Also, will the Argentinians be able to successfully invade and hold the Falklands. I doubt that too.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
Don't know much about popularity %, because those fluctuate a lot depending on who's measuring them, but Kirchner will probably win the presidential elections in first round, that most polls agree on.
Kirchner has already won just because no viable alternative will be able to consolidate in time to pose a real threat come the election, especially when she goes around handing out LCD flatscreens to watch the Copa America (just to people who are on welfare and social programs, L O fucking L).
The posturing is because internal forces (the unions, other party elements) want to gain more power and seats in the official lists. She cannot hold them off if she appears weak, so she has to make some ridiculous statements such as the falklands one to show power.
Can you remain on topic? If you want to talk about inner Argentinian politics, then open a thread for it.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
I think it has to do with continuing the claim. If you don't show interest and claim by your own means, no one is going to do it for you, so Argentina on one side, continues to claims, this keeps the claim relevant, and Argentina can quote themselves as being the ones trying to use the diplomatic route.
On the other hand, England won't discuss it cause it's not in their interest (same way it's in Argentina's interest to discuss it).
In the end the claim over this servers both parties since it brings nationalism into the table and raises popularity or gives each government another banner to hold and wave, while the crowd waves little national flags.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
Don't know much about popularity %, because those fluctuate a lot depending on who's measuring them, but Kirchner will probably win the presidential elections in first round, that most polls agree on.
Kirchner has already won just because no viable alternative will be able to consolidate in time to pose a real threat come the election, especially when she goes around handing out LCD flatscreens to watch the Copa America (just to people who are on welfare and social programs, L O fucking L).
The posturing is because internal forces (the unions, other party elements) want to gain more power and seats in the official lists. She cannot hold them off if she appears weak, so she has to make some ridiculous statements such as the falklands one to show power.
Can you remain on topic? If you want to talk about inner Argentinian politics, then open a thread for it.
Not enough Argentines here to warrant its own thread. People in the thread want to know why CFK made those inflammatory statements, I am merely providing the appropriate context for it.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
Don't know much about popularity %, because those fluctuate a lot depending on who's measuring them, but Kirchner will probably win the presidential elections in first round, that most polls agree on.
Kirchner has already won just because no viable alternative will be able to consolidate in time to pose a real threat come the election, especially when she goes around handing out LCD flatscreens to watch the Copa America (just to people who are on welfare and social programs, L O fucking L).
The posturing is because internal forces (the unions, other party elements) want to gain more power and seats in the official lists. She cannot hold them off if she appears weak, so she has to make some ridiculous statements such as the falklands one to show power.
Can you remain on topic? If you want to talk about inner Argentinian politics, then open a thread for it.
Not enough Argentines here to warrant its own thread. People in the thread want to know why CFK made those inflammatory statements, I am merely providing the appropriate context for it.
You are not providing context, you are spewing propaganda, the same thing you are accusing me on.
Providing context would be talking about the big scheme of things in our politics, not some LCD financing plan which is but nickles. We get it, you don't like the current ruling political party.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
I think it has to do with continuing the claim. If you don't show interest and claim by your own means, no one is going to do it for you, so Argentina on one side, continues to claims, this keeps the claim relevant, and Argentina can quote themselves as being the ones trying to use the diplomatic route.
On the other hand, England won't discuss it cause it's not in their interest (same way it's in Argentina's interest to discuss it).
In the end the claim over this servers both parties since it brings nationalism into the table and raises popularity or gives each government another banner to hold and wave, while the crowd waves little national flags.
I think Britain doesn't discuss it because we find the matter quite absurd. They're a long way outside Argentinian waters and no Argentinians live there. It's honestly not worth paying the diplomat to show up and say that we're not willing to negotiate it.
I was there in 1982 in the Royal Navy and it's a horrible godforsaken place, however, it's ours, I think Argentina would be extremely silly to try and ever take it again. When you got your arse kicked that hard the first time only true a idiot would send more conscripts to theirs deaths. Unless the French sell them 10 million exocet missiles the chances of victory are extremely slim indeed
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
On June 18 2011 03:19 Drteeth wrote: I was there in 1982 in the Royal Navy and it's a horrible godforsaken place, however, it's ours, I think Argentina would be extremely silly to try and ever take it again. When you got your arse kicked that hard the first time only true a idiot would send more conscripts to theirs deaths. Unless the French sell them 10 million exocet missiles the chances of victory are extremely slim indeed
On June 18 2011 03:19 Drteeth wrote: I was there in 1982 in the Royal Navy and it's a horrible godforsaken place, however, it's ours, I think Argentina would be extremely silly to try and ever take it again. When you got your arse kicked that hard the first time only true a idiot would send more conscripts to theirs deaths. Unless the French sell them 10 million exocet missiles the chances of victory are extremely slim indeed
On June 18 2011 03:19 Drteeth wrote: I was there in 1982 in the Royal Navy and it's a horrible godforsaken place, however, it's ours, I think Argentina would be extremely silly to try and ever take it again. When you got your arse kicked that hard the first time only true a idiot would send more conscripts to theirs deaths. Unless the French sell them 10 million exocet missiles the chances of victory are extremely slim indeed
Actually, the idiot dictator sold 80% of our Exocet missiles before the war started, thank god I might add, because the Brits would have been real pissed if we actually sank their carrier and other biggers vessels in the task force.
I was pretty pissed when I got sunk I must admit. Luckily the dictator in question should have sold the one that hit us as it was a dud and luckily didn't explode. Fortunately our soldiers. sailors and airmen etc were volunteers and not conscripts.
Scary times as a 16 year old fresh out of training.
On June 18 2011 03:28 Drteeth wrote: I was pretty pissed when I got sunk I must admit. Luckily the dictator in question should have sold the one that hit us as it was a dud and luckily didn't explode. Fortunately our soldiers. sailors and airmen etc were volunteers and not conscripts.
I am also thankful for that my friend, because then you wouldn´t be posting here!
The Falklands War probably takes the prize for most retarded war ever. The only thing it proved was that our pilots were pretty damn good, other than that it was a silly waste of life.
On our way down there I don't think I talked to anyone who even knew where or what it was. Of course we were all very nervous but we had no real clue of what was to face us. I think only the operations officers or those safely tucked away in Whitehall had really heard of the exocet and the pukaras that fired them. The Argentine pilots were very highly skilled and were quite a handful at times. While the ship was sinking we were actually firing rifles or machine guns at the planes buzzing over us. It was truly a retarded war, like all wars, All it did was make Mrs Thatcher a hero and everyone knows what a C**T she was.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
True... we are humble. And what i say is... you should be even more .
Both wine and women are better in Argentine i have to admint. Both i know out of experience. Both are also cheaper.
It is the land that makes the products good? That just proves all my points.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
True... we are humble. And what i say is... you should be even more .
Both wine and women are better in Argentine i have to admint. Both i know out of experience. Both are also cheaper.
It is the land that makes the products good? That just proves all my points.
It proves nothing, since there is no such thing as "our best farmers". You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And "official" figures regarding undeclared funding held in Uruguayan banks means jackshit, for obvious reasons. But I will not derail this thread further with this petty bickering.
Uruguay denied the British entry into their port which is nice of our fellow brothers across the river, our supposed brothers across the Andes, on the other hand...
No, we are not invading anything, drteeth. We don't have resources to afford a war (we didn't have them back then either) or popular consent to do such a stupid thing.
On June 18 2011 04:22 xxxxxxb wrote: No, we are not invading anything, drteeth. We don't have resources to afford a war (we didn't have them back then either) or popular consent.
That's good, loss of life is always regrettable, no matter what side you fight for. And with all our forces off fighting Americas war on terrorism I don't think we could spare the troops lol Thanks mate
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
True... we are humble. And what i say is... you should be even more .
Both wine and women are better in Argentine i have to admint. Both i know out of experience. Both are also cheaper.
It is the land that makes the products good? That just proves all my points.
It proves nothing, since there is no such thing as "our best farmers". You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And "official" figures regarding undeclared funding held in Uruguayan banks means jackshit, for obvious reasons. But I will not derail this thread further with this petty bickering.
Uruguay denied the British entry into their port which is nice of our fellow brothers across the river, our supposed brothers across the Andes, on the other hand...
If it is the land and not the farmer, then there is no merit in being efficient, competitive, doing things better, etc. And land doesn't get better just by itself, so there is no way anything is going to get better with such idea.
----
Every deposit above 10k must be declared. Uruguay just refuses to give that information to the Argentinian Tax authority. And it is not like people come in boats with money in plastic bags. It usually happens by buying stocks from argentina and selling them from uruguay and from there it is no longer under Argentinian control. From here it usually goes to switzerland.
If i happen to go to the bank with 200k in a bag and ask to make a deposit showing no papers they will call the police
----
And true. We denied the British ships from refueling in our country because even tough we are small, we have our dignity. We remained neutral. I'm happy about that, and i would be ashamed if it had been otherwise. Shame on you chile
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
True... we are humble. And what i say is... you should be even more .
Both wine and women are better in Argentine i have to admint. Both i know out of experience. Both are also cheaper.
It is the land that makes the products good? That just proves all my points.
It proves nothing, since there is no such thing as "our best farmers". You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And "official" figures regarding undeclared funding held in Uruguayan banks means jackshit, for obvious reasons. But I will not derail this thread further with this petty bickering.
Uruguay denied the British entry into their port which is nice of our fellow brothers across the river, our supposed brothers across the Andes, on the other hand...
Every deposit above 10k must be declared. Uruguay just refuses to give that information to the Argentinian Tax authority. And it is not like people come in boats with money in plastic bags.
This statement is incredibly naive.I know many, many people who do exactly that. And there are ways to get around declaring deposits in Uruguay which I am not not entirely familiar with but know their existence for sure. I am sure you see all the shiny new buildings in Punta, does that ring any bells? lol.
Did you guys know that most of the public houses, (pubs) didn't allow British servicemen in after the war? Don't know what it's like now but the locals were the most awful bunch of people I have ever met, you'd think they would have loved us ...
On June 18 2011 04:42 Drteeth wrote: Did you guys know that most of the public houses, (pubs) didn't allow British servicemen in after the war? Don't know what it's like now but the locals were the most awful bunch of people I have ever met, you'd think they would have loved us ...
That is terrible. There were actually some problems with the locals and some Argentine ex-combatants who wanted to go to the war cemetery at the islands and honor their comrades and were denied or something along those lines, so I hear they are not the nicest of people.
On June 18 2011 04:42 Drteeth wrote: Did you guys know that most of the public houses, (pubs) didn't allow British servicemen in after the war? Don't know what it's like now but the locals were the most awful bunch of people I have ever met, you'd think they would have loved us ...
That is terrible. There were actually some problems with the locals and some Argentine ex-combatants who wanted to go to the war cemetery at the islands and honor their comrades and were denied or something along those lines, so I hear they are not the nicest of people.
No they weren't sadly. And to deny people, no matter what side they fought on, the chance to say goodbye to comrades/brothers is truly disgusting.
Argentina has no right to the Islands. At all. Read your history even historically they never had a claim they only want it now because of oil. All of the residents self identify as British, want British rule of law and have more in common with Britons than Argentinians.
Anyone who says Argentina is in the right is an idiot
On June 18 2011 04:57 hicks91 wrote: Argentina has no right to the Islands. At all. Read your history even historically they never had a claim they only want it now because of oil. All of the residents self identify as British, want British rule of law and have more in common with Britons than Argentinians.
Anyone who says Argentina is in the right is an idiot
they may want British rule of law etc etc but they don't want servicemen in their pubs or their island. They can go rot for me. I was there to save them and lost friends and yet I couldn't have a drink in a pub which I helped liberate?? they actually identify as "falkand islanders" until they want something.
On June 18 2011 04:57 hicks91 wrote: Argentina has no right to the Islands. At all. Read your history even historically they never had a claim they only want it now because of oil. All of the residents self identify as British, want British rule of law and have more in common with Britons than Argentinians.
Anyone who says Argentina is in the right is an idiot
they may want British rule of law etc etc but they don't want servicemen in their pubs or their islnad. They can go rot for me.
On June 18 2011 04:57 hicks91 wrote: Argentina has no right to the Islands. At all. Read your history even historically they never had a claim they only want it now because of oil. All of the residents self identify as British, want British rule of law and have more in common with Britons than Argentinians.
Anyone who says Argentina is in the right is an idiot
they may want British rule of law etc etc but they don't want servicemen in their pubs or their islnad. They can go rot for me.
On June 18 2011 04:57 hicks91 wrote: Argentina has no right to the Islands. At all. Read your history even historically they never had a claim they only want it now because of oil. All of the residents self identify as British, want British rule of law and have more in common with Britons than Argentinians.
Anyone who says Argentina is in the right is an idiot
they may want British rule of law etc etc but they don't want servicemen in their pubs or their islnad. They can go rot for me.
I was there in 82 fella and believe me I know. And the day I listen to anything the daily mail says it will be a sad one.
Super respect for serving the country, you have more balls than me but really the evidence seems thin on the ground, if that happened it would be splashed over the front pages
That article was 2006 anyway! the celebration went ahead as planned
You would be sooooooo suprised at what got left out of the papers about the "conflict" Goverments being brought down type of stuff. it's all tied up in the official secrets act classed as above top secret. Let's not forget Mrs Thatcher was in charge during the falklands, if she told me grass was green I would check to see if she was telling the truth.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
True... we are humble. And what i say is... you should be even more .
Both wine and women are better in Argentine i have to admint. Both i know out of experience. Both are also cheaper.
It is the land that makes the products good? That just proves all my points.
It proves nothing, since there is no such thing as "our best farmers". You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And "official" figures regarding undeclared funding held in Uruguayan banks means jackshit, for obvious reasons. But I will not derail this thread further with this petty bickering.
Uruguay denied the British entry into their port which is nice of our fellow brothers across the river, our supposed brothers across the Andes, on the other hand...
Every deposit above 10k must be declared. Uruguay just refuses to give that information to the Argentinian Tax authority. And it is not like people come in boats with money in plastic bags.
This statement is incredibly naive.I know many, many people who do exactly that. And there are ways to get around declaring deposits in Uruguay which I am not not entirely familiar with but know their existence for sure. I am sure you see all the shiny new buildings in Punta, does that ring any bells? lol.
Yes, that stuff surely happens. Some illegal stuff is very hard to detect. But it is not much different in this country than anywhere else. The thing is, the Argentinian government tries to expropiate or tax argentinian money. Argentinians do anything possible to take the money outside. They could take it anywhere once then can. Uruguay is just next door so it is very confortable. And once the money is in uruguay, it is free to do anything, buy bonds, stocks, currency exchange, etc. Argentina has very tight controls on all that. Uruguay has a more capitalist / free market attitude.
I mean, i could send all my money in the bank in Montevideo to a bank in Switzerland by just making a phone call (as in most outside of china, north korea, cuba). In Argentina, Venezuela, or even Brazil to a certain extent, you can't. So that is normal.
Argentina just makes people not want to have their money in argentina, then makes it illegal to take the money away. It such idea doesn't work for them... well... better do something else.
But anyway, we make some profit out of it, but it is not like the whole country runs on it, only a few work on banks. At most, it makes credit a little somewhat cheaper and thus boost the economy.
Regarding shiny buildings in Punta del Este. Yeah, that is really weird, i agree. But i think that is just another "bubble". Fear of the stock market is causing the world to invest in real state in emerging economies. As everything goes back to normal, we'll see what happens.
I hope it crashes soon so i can buy my own appartment in Punta del Este really cheap .
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
True... we are humble. And what i say is... you should be even more .
Both wine and women are better in Argentine i have to admint. Both i know out of experience. Both are also cheaper.
It is the land that makes the products good? That just proves all my points.
It proves nothing, since there is no such thing as "our best farmers". You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And "official" figures regarding undeclared funding held in Uruguayan banks means jackshit, for obvious reasons. But I will not derail this thread further with this petty bickering.
Uruguay denied the British entry into their port which is nice of our fellow brothers across the river, our supposed brothers across the Andes, on the other hand...
Every deposit above 10k must be declared. Uruguay just refuses to give that information to the Argentinian Tax authority. And it is not like people come in boats with money in plastic bags.
This statement is incredibly naive.I know many, many people who do exactly that. And there are ways to get around declaring deposits in Uruguay which I am not not entirely familiar with but know their existence for sure. I am sure you see all the shiny new buildings in Punta, does that ring any bells? lol.
Yes, that stuff surely happens. Some illegal stuff is very hard to detect. But it is not much different in this country than anywhere else. The thing is, the Argentinian government tries to expropiate or tax argentinian money. Argentinians do anything possible to take the money outside. They could take it anywhere once then can. Uruguay is just next door so it is very confortable. And once the money is in uruguay, it is free to do anything, buy bonds, stocks, currency exchange, etc. Argentina has very tight controls on all that. Uruguay has a more capitalist / free market attitude.
I mean, i could send all my money in the bank in Montevideo to a bank in Switzerland by just making a phone call (as in most outside of china, north korea, cuba). In Argentina, Venezuela, or even Brazil to a certain extent, you can't. So that is normal.
Argentina just makes people not want to have their money in argentina, then makes it illegal to take the money away. It such idea doesn't work for them... well... better do something else.
But anyway, we make some profit out of it, but it is not like the whole country runs on it, only a few work on banks. At most, it makes credit a little somewhat cheaper and thus boost the economy.
Regarding shiny buildings in Punta del Este. Yeah, that is really weird, i agree. But i think that is just another "bubble". Fear of the stock market is causing the world to invest in real state in emerging economies. As everything goes back to normal, we'll see what happens.
I hope it crashes soon so i can buy my own appartment in Punta del Este really cheap .
You make it sound like the financial system in Uruguay is the norm whereas it is not, as it operates as an offshore financial center.
Most of the new buildings in Punta are money laundering schemes.
Dark green: substantially implemented the standard Light green: committed to the standard, but have not yet substantially implemented it Red: Have not commited to the standard Grey: Jurisdiction not monitored.
Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay.
FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient.
Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple.
But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation?
They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business.
How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism.
The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt.
And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it.
In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
On June 18 2011 06:02 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay.
FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient.
Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple.
But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation?
They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business.
How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism.
The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt.
And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it.
Competition man. Its good.
Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region.
For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them.
I did not say uruguay is corrupt, I say Uruguay enables corruption through its lax financial system, which it does, even if uruguay itsrlf is not corrupt. You need to do this as you have no real industry or production to generate capital. Money laundering is good evidently,
On June 18 2011 06:02 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay.
FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient.
Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple.
But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation?
They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business.
How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism.
The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt.
And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it.
Competition man. Its good.
Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region.
For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them.
Well. I see your point. It's complex. I don't understand completely how that works within the same country. So the fairness of existence of delaware is a US domestic problem. I mean... your government, right?.
But about countries... I mean....
Country A may choose to give their citizens a lot of welfare, health, education, whatever by collecting a lot of tax for that purpose (even though it may end up paying for a war, or whatever else).
Country B may choose not to do so, expecting to attract more investors and thus improving the life of its citizens as a consecuence of high employment, etc.
Then what? B citizens are not enjoying citizen A's welfare programs. It's just a different trade off.
On June 18 2011 06:02 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay.
FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient.
Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple.
But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation?
They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business.
How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism.
The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt.
And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it.
Competition man. Its good.
Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region.
For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them.
Well. I see your point. It's complex. I don't understand completely how that works within the same country. So the fairness of existence of delaware is a US domestic problem. I mean... your government, right?.
But about countries... I mean....
Country A may choose to give their citizens a lot of welfare, health, education, whatever by collecting a lot of tax for that purpose (even though it may end up paying for a war, or whatever else).
Country B may choose not to do so, expecting to attract more investors and thus improving the life of its citizens as a consecuence of high employment, etc.
Then what? B citizens are not enjoying citizen A's welfare programs. It's just a different trade off.
The problem he is talking about is when citizens from Country A are able to send their money to Country B while still living in County A. They will enjoy the benefits from a higher tax collection, while paying the small amount of taxes from Country B.
So, yes, Country B citizens are not enjoying Country A's welfare program, but Country A citizens are enjoying both Country A welfare and Country B's low tax rates.
Wheter this is what's happening between Argentina and Uruguay, I have no idea.
On June 18 2011 06:32 Ganjamaster wrote: I did not say uruguay is corrupt, I say Uruguay enables corruption through its lax financial system, which it does, even if uruguay itsrlf is not corrupt. You need to do this as you have no real industry or production to generate capital. Money laundering is good evidently,
We don't have much industry because as i said, we have no scale, and provided Brazil and Argentina block our exports.....
But i think you don't give us enough credit. Even though on average Argentinian land is more fertile, ours is very good. So we mainly live on either that or services. Like me, i produce software .
You are very naive if you think we do better than you just because we accept argentinian money into our banks. Our unemployment is under 6% now, and we have less poverty than Argentina. And not all of us work in banks or financial institutions. Actually, that is only a small percetage.
And during the financial crysis, we even went on growing unlike argentina. Mainly because the world didn't stop eating hamburguers. And mainly, because the Chinese can now pay for hamburguers.
And again... If we are doing better... That is just because you are sucking very much. Cause i know we suck and are doing better with much worse conditions.
Argentina has no argument for this claim other than "it's closer to us, than to the UK!"
The people living there are not argentineans, they don't want to be a part of Argentina and the UK has exercised de facto sovereignty there for hundreds of years.
And then the autoritarian dictatorship tried to take them hoping it would boost nationalism and keep them in power, they failed, that should have been the end of the story.
I think we should turn The Falklands in a the largest theme part ever devised, funded by any oil found and the floods of tourists that would no doubt come.
Then give the Argentines free, once yearly passes, to attend the theme park as a gesture of good will, but theme parks being fun and all we would hold onto ownership of it.
And would call the obligatory house of horrors "Buenos Scaires"
On June 18 2011 06:02 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay.
FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient.
Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple.
But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation?
They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business.
How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism.
The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt.
And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it.
Competition man. Its good.
Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region.
For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them.
Well. I see your point. It's complex. I don't understand completely how that works within the same country. So the fairness of existence of delaware is a US domestic problem. I mean... your government, right?.
But about countries... I mean....
Country A may choose to give their citizens a lot of welfare, health, education, whatever by collecting a lot of tax for that purpose (even though it may end up paying for a war, or whatever else).
Country B may choose not to do so, expecting to attract more investors and thus improving the life of its citizens as a consecuence of high employment, etc.
Then what? B citizens are not enjoying citizen A's welfare programs. It's just a different trade off.
The problem he is talking about is when citizens from Country A are able to send their money to Country B while still living in County A. They will enjoy the benefits from a higher tax collection, while paying the small amount of taxes from Country B.
So, yes, Country B citizens are not enjoying Country A's welfare program, but Country A citizens are enjoying both Country A welfare and Country B's low tax rates.
Wheter this is what's happening between Argentina and Uruguay, I have no idea.
Ok but then... Where and when was the money made? At that exact time you tax it fair and square acording to the law at that time and place. What remains is (or should be in a free country!) of free disposal. So you do whatever you want with it, right?
You spend it. You set it on fire. You give it away. You put it in the bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and thus pay tax on such interests if aplicable).
Or you may send it to another country and put it in a bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and pay tax if aplicable).
Some country may not want you to do the last one. Some country might even make it a crime. But they can't (i mean, they shouldn't, but unfortunately...) force another country to tax them for them!
The problem argentina has is that there is plenty of corruption. And tax evasion is rampant. And lots of the evaded taxes ends up in Uruguay. Then Argentina wants to know how much money each argentinian has in accounts in uruguay at any moment, so that when there is any increment they can go after such argentinian to make him justify such money increase. And if he can't, fine, jail, whatever.
So... It's Argentinian government's fault if they are unable to detect and punish corruption and tax evasion in their own country.
Bank accounts in Uruguay are secret to the owner. UNLESS ordered by a judge. That means that if there is reasonable evidence that a crime has been commited, a judge can request bank accounts to be investigated. And yes, they must have registered, confirmed names associated. They are not anonymous. That happens for example, in divorce trials.
On June 18 2011 04:22 xxxxxxb wrote: No, we are not invading anything, drteeth. We don't have resources to afford a war (we didn't have them back then either) or popular consent.
That's good, loss of life is always regrettable, no matter what side you fight for. And with all our forces off fighting Americas war on terrorism I don't think we could spare the troops lol Thanks mate
Anyone even thinking about a war is delusional. Malvinas are like the thunder mark in harry potter and war is Voldemort.
You name him and hurts people. Just the idea of a war would face great opposition from the people. I think it's safe to tell that if a president spoke about going to war he would be taken out of office pretty quick.
Besides that, our army is facing budget cuts continuously.
The only good thing to come from that that coup d'état and that war is that a large part of our population learned a lesson. Sadly there are some that didn't.
Did you ever set foot there? Or were you retired after the Sheffield sunk?
I just read your last post, you were def there :p
How was it there, besides windy and cold. What's is it like? Rocky? anything beside some houses?
In reference the the first few pages, I honestly can't take any form of debate seriously from someone who can't even form whole sentences and tries to finish arguments with garbage like "and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here".
Back on topic however, I'm British so I may be biased but, the Islands voted lopsidedly to remain British recently - no matter how much huff and fuss anyone makes this should allow them to remain British. Argentina invading or attempting to politically leverage them away is a breach of the islanders human rights, also I question the leadership of someone who is so blatantly dismissive of the islanders wishes and describes a country she is trying to negotiate with "arrogant and bordering on stupidity"
Last time didn't go so well, these islands are British by legitimate claims before Argentina was even around, the islanders identify as British, Britain has a strong military presence in the area... I don't see the Falklands miraculously converting to Argentinian any time soon
Conclusion nationalism bullcrap. Who in Argentina will be better off with the Islands under their governments control? No one. So stop caring. Especially if the local population doesn't want to be governed by you.
I lived in Gibraltar for 2 years where the Spanish are still claiming it after 250 years, even though no one in Gibraltar likes Spaniards and no one wants to be governed by Spain. It is absolutely ridiculous and fueled by nationalistic pride. There is no logical argument Argentina can make to get the Falkland islands under their control and they will also never get it. I don't get how this got to the 11th page after Kwark wrote it down so clearly.
On June 18 2011 06:02 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay.
FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient.
Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple.
But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation?
They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business.
How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism.
The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt.
And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it.
Competition man. Its good.
Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region.
For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them.
Well. I see your point. It's complex. I don't understand completely how that works within the same country. So the fairness of existence of delaware is a US domestic problem. I mean... your government, right?.
But about countries... I mean....
Country A may choose to give their citizens a lot of welfare, health, education, whatever by collecting a lot of tax for that purpose (even though it may end up paying for a war, or whatever else).
Country B may choose not to do so, expecting to attract more investors and thus improving the life of its citizens as a consecuence of high employment, etc.
Then what? B citizens are not enjoying citizen A's welfare programs. It's just a different trade off.
The problem he is talking about is when citizens from Country A are able to send their money to Country B while still living in County A. They will enjoy the benefits from a higher tax collection, while paying the small amount of taxes from Country B.
So, yes, Country B citizens are not enjoying Country A's welfare program, but Country A citizens are enjoying both Country A welfare and Country B's low tax rates.
Wheter this is what's happening between Argentina and Uruguay, I have no idea.
Ok but then... Where and when was the money made? At that exact time you tax it fair and square acording to the law at that time and place. What remains is (or should be in a free country!) of free disposal. So you do whatever you want with it, right?
You spend it. You set it on fire. You give it away. You put it in the bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and thus pay tax on such interests if aplicable).
Or you may send it to another country and put it in a bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and pay tax if aplicable).
Some country may not want you to do the last one. Some country might even make it a crime. But they can't (i mean, they shouldn't, but unfortunately...) force another country to tax them for them!
The problem argentina has is that there is plenty of corruption. And tax evasion is rampant. And lots of the evaded taxes ends up in Uruguay. Then Argentina wants to know how much money each argentinian has in accounts in uruguay at any moment, so that when there is any increment they can go after such argentinian to make him justify such money increase. And if he can't, fine, jail, whatever.
So... It's Argentinian government's fault if they are unable to detect and punish corruption and tax evasion in their own country.
Bank accounts in Uruguay are secret to the owner. UNLESS ordered by a judge. That means that if there is reasonable evidence that a crime has been commited, a judge can request bank accounts to be investigated. And yes, they must have registered, confirmed names associated. They are not anonymous. That happens for example, in divorce trials.
Just wanted to add that if I was Argentinian, not involved in any unlawful activity or money laundering, I would still keep money under my pillow untill I had enough to put it in in a foreigner bank, which would be Uruguay in this case.
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
On June 18 2011 04:22 xxxxxxb wrote: No, we are not invading anything, drteeth. We don't have resources to afford a war (we didn't have them back then either) or popular consent.
That's good, loss of life is always regrettable, no matter what side you fight for. And with all our forces off fighting Americas war on terrorism I don't think we could spare the troops lol Thanks mate
Anyone even thinking about a war is delusional. Malvinas are like the thunder mark in harry potter and war is Voldemort.
You name him and hurts people. Just the idea of a war would face great opposition from the people. I think it's safe to tell that if a president spoke about going to war he would be taken out of office pretty quick.
Besides that, our army is facing budget cuts continuously.
The only good thing to come from that that coup d'état and that war is that a large part of our population learned a lesson. Sadly there are some that didn't.
Did you ever set foot there? Or were you retired after the Sheffield sunk?
I just read your last post, you were def there :p
How was it there, besides windy and cold. What's is it like? Rocky? anything beside some houses?
Very very wet, very very windy, full of sheep, thousands of them. After the Sheffield was sunk I was moved ship to HMS Hermes, where I stayed for a further 2 years until 1984. Yes I set foot on the Islands themselves, picture somewhere bleak and green with lots of sheep. That about covers it.
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing?
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing?
It would hurt the people who are citizens of the rich countries now. Trust me, the US at least has enough problems of its own without being involved in three wars simultaneously.
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing?
It would hurt the people who are citizens of the rich countries now. Trust me, the US at least has enough problems of its own without being involved in three wars simultaneously.
Having islands all over the world though means you need less aircraft carriers ^^
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing?
It would hurt the people who are citizens of the rich countries now. Trust me, the US at least has enough problems of its own without being involved in three wars simultaneously.
Having islands all over the world though means you need less aircraft carriers ^^
I would think it would be vice verse as one would need a way to defend said islands.
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing?
It would hurt the people who are citizens of the rich countries now. Trust me, the US at least has enough problems of its own without being involved in three wars simultaneously.
Having islands all over the world though means you need less aircraft carriers ^^
I would think it would be vice verse as one would need a way to defend said islands.
That's why you build airbases on them and keep planes there, saves hauling them half way across the world. Either that or lease them out to the Americans so they can make bases on them, makes us money and guarantees the defence of the area.
Land-based air on islands can't come close to the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft, one reason why the US has so many carriers is that our allies don't have any to spare to send anywhere outside the Atlantic or Mediterranean, if Japan or Australia had a carrier or three we could depend more on air bases and less on carrier battle groups.
So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness".
Yes, when the people of that "third world country" want to be governed by one of the rich countries. The Falklands were never a country and aren't third world, but your argument is irrelevant. The people want to be subjects of the Queen.
On June 17 2011 10:47 Xivsa wrote:In many ways the islands mirror the case of the Rock of Gibraltar. Again, Spain would really like to claim the island (sic) but its people consistently vote in referendums to remain a part of Great Britain.
Spain is a gigantic hypocrite. I don't see them offering to give Ceuta to Morocco
The falklands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory. They tried to take them back once, we gave them a taste of our military (arg-british loses were 3-1) Recently there was a debate about the issue, in which hilary clinton said she supported an agreement. (Arg were looking for an agreement, not GB). The reply was, "if the Argentinians want the Falklands, they have to take them by force, if they try and take them by force, they will meet the same end as last time" What needs to be learnt here is that we will NEVER give up the Falklands. Ever. And Miss Clinton needs to keep her terribly inept politician nose out of UK business.
Is the Falklands consider sovereign UK soil? Wouldn't an attack by Argentina invoke NATO and the wrath of the United States? It seemed like the UK fought alone in the last war (other countries did provide support).
Even if successful whether through war or diplomacy, does Argentina want/have the resources to deal with a population that overwhelming don't want them?
On June 19 2011 10:26 stork4ever wrote: Is the Falklands consider sovereign UK soil? Wouldn't an attack by Argentina invoke NATO and the wrath of the United States? It seemed like the UK fought alone in the last war (other countries did provide support).
US tried to fuck us over because they were supporting Argentinian military junta vs commies and they didn't want to ignorant Americans to view it as endorsing British imperialism. Then Maggie explained how it was to Reagan and he signed on.
On June 19 2011 10:26 stork4ever wrote: Is the Falklands consider sovereign UK soil? Wouldn't an attack by Argentina invoke NATO and the wrath of the United States? It seemed like the UK fought alone in the last war (other countries did provide support).
Even if successful whether through war or diplomacy, does Argentina want/have the resources to deal with a population that overwhelming don't want them?
If i understand the question, your asking if Arg had the power to hold the island if the islanders rebelled alone. Yes. They had an air force and navy, the natives had basically no military power without the UK. Back to the origional question: Technically the UK were alone in defending the Falkland Islands because of the political issues at the time. However, the UN passed Resolution 502, which required the withdraw of Arg troops (arg were the aggressors) from the falklands. This was supported by most major UN nations, including the US, France, The British commonwealth, and the European Economic Community, which at the time was important.
Its true that Argentina has had several horrible economic problems in the past and may face another in the future. That said the "falkland islands" are an esoteric remanent of colonel times.
On June 19 2011 10:58 Polygamy wrote: Its true that Argentina has had several horrible economic problems in the past and may face another in the future. That said the "falkland islands" are an esoteric remanent of colonel times.
Every country in the new world is a remnant of colonial times...
Sanctimonius : (I know it's a little long, but I not only wrote details about the claims of Argentina, I also wrote other issues that are very important to understand our point of view).by the way, Thanks for ask!
Why Argentines make an endless fuss about Las Malvinas/Falklands?
The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. It's what every international law that you can read says.
They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain.
Anyone who "really" studies the history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong. On Treaty of Utrecht Great Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty and this led to 40 years of Spanish occupation of the islands, which was reasserted in 1823 by Buenos Aires after its independence from Spain.
Ten years later the islands were seized by force by Britain, and settlers sent out in a act of imperial aggression.
The Argentine Claim
Legal Rights:
- Both Spain and Argentina did the actual occupation of the islands, the principle that the UK and major European countries then recognized as essential title for the acquisition of territorial sovereignty.
- The British occupation of Port Egmont (1765-1774) is considered negative by his attributes:
Unlawful, as a violation of existing treaties; Underground, to remain hidden until its discovery by the Spanish; Late, because it happened after the French occupation; Answered, because Spain resisted and reserved their rights; Partly, because it reduced to Port Egmont, while Spain had Puerto Soledad; Brief, because it only lasted eight years; Precarious, abandoned in 1774;
- Spain when return Port Egmont in 1771 did so as an act of reparation and made explicit reservation of his rights.
- Argentina after independence, inherited Spain's rights under the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, so exercised eminent domain since 1810.
- Spain Recognizing the independence of Argentina, effective possession of the islands on November 6, 1820, the United Kingdom did not make any protest. Nor did the December 15, 1823 when he recognized the United Provinces, or when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825. His first protest took place only on November 19, 1831.
- The United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelling the population and not allowing their return, thus violating the territorial integrity and national Argentina unity. Which is contrary to Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states in its sixth paragraph that any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the unit national and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
- Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774 and renounced its sovereignty by signing a treaty. While Argentina has always claimed sovereignty and has never renounced it.
- The invasion of 1833 was illegal by the law of nations and violated Article 4 of the First Convention of Nootka signed on October 28, 1790.
- Also violated treaties signed by Great Britain to recognize their rights to Spain in South America and the exclusive right to sail in the South Atlantic: American Treaty of 1670 and the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 with subsequent treaties ratified.
- The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of colonial expansion. What is evidenced by his two attempts of invasion to Buenos Aires (1806-1807) and the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in 1845.
Geographical Rights:
- Geographical continuity: the Falkland Islands are a short distance from the Argentine mainland (about 480 km), emerging with geological continuity of the continental shelf of Argentina.(1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf).
Jurisdictional Waters:
- The Republic of Argentina, based on international maritime law, claims sovereignty over the seas adjacent to the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and Shag Rocks, Black and Clerke.
- The Argentina exercised its sovereignty in the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands from the 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles without Great Britain claimed those waters until 1982.
About Inhabitants:
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
- Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.
- The Argentine Nation ratifies in his National Constitution his legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life for its inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.
About the claim:
Although the restitution of the Falkland Islands is the base of the Argentine claim. Argentina openly expresses its intention to recover the Falkland Islands by diplomatic means and not by using force. Argentina call to enforce the UN resolution 2065 and to start negotiations to find a diplomatic solution. Not being for Argentina a mandatory condition the withdrawal of Britain from the islands.
Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away.
Some argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Others believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates Argentine original claim.
But Argentina's defeat in the war of 1982 neither change his rights of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands nor the basis of his claim. By law, military conquest does not establish legal title.
The Falklands were seized for Britain during an era of colonial expansion, that is an undeniable fact.
To understand the Falklands War, it is also necessary to understand who was Lopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, leader of Argentina's military junta and his intimate relationship with Washington. It is also necessary to understand how the Falklands War is directly related to the economic and political situation in the UK in times of Margaret Thatcher and her deliberate attempts to not stop the war.
Argentina was a dictatorship then. Britain had no problem relating to it, or sell weapons to Argentina until 1982. Nor had trouble befriending another dictatorship like Chile. Nor did anything against the repeated alarms sent for months by the inhabitants of the islands and Chilean intelligence about Argentine military movements near the islands. Britain had detailed documentation of the Argentine intention to invade Falklands, including the date at which this would happen. Thatcher administration did nothing to stop the war an also sabotaged any negotiation that would include a ceasefire as an option.
The reasons are well known.
Margaret Thatcher, an ardent advocate of the liberal model promoted by the International Trade Organization, was particularly interested in a war in the south Atlantic to distract attention from the disastrous consequences of his privatization and economic model.
How far negotiations between Argentina's military junta with Washington and the visit of the Argentine Military Junta leader Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri to the United States in 1981 relate to the war, it is impossible to know.
Until the sinking of the battleship General Belgrano outside the waters imposed by Britain around the islands, the Argentine military were convinced that there would be no war with Britain and the United States would remain neutral. This explains many decisions that urged by imminence of the battle would be disastrous for Argentina in combat, but of course this not justify the Argentine desicion of invade the islands.
From that time until today there are many questions we asked ourselves as Argentines. We look to our recent past and try to correct our mistakes.
Maybe It's time to British begin to do the same, to ask:
Why 2,500 colonists, 8,000 miles away from London, in their fishing and farming British way of life enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy?
Why you spend £69m to maintain a military presence on the Falklands Islands with an incredible display of weapons and and almost as many troops (1,200), as there were islanders at the time of the invasion to face a country that has shown no sign of rearming since 1982?
Why the insistence on showing the inhabitants of the islands as a threatened and defenseless population, when in fact they are probably the most and well fortified inhabitants of the entire planet? (You and I are much more in danger when we go grocery shopping).
Because they are British who have the right to be British? It's absurd! Of course they has the right be British, that's just rhetoric. No one denies their right to be British, or to maintain their lifestyle, or live on the islands.
The problem lies elsewhere, they do not want to lose their privileges and the money they receive from the crown. I like the Islanders, but they are nice rogues who have learned to live from the British crown. They know you're not going to live there and of course they prevent the Argentines do.
How realistic are the chances of finding oil in Falklands waters?
It sounds more like a artificial financial market bubble in times when Europe faces major problems and where the British fleet is being dismantled as before 1982. People in the Navy of course put their outcry arguing they need to defend the Falkland Islands because the evil Argentina is always ready to take them by force.
But, none of this is really true today, the British and the Argentines could collaborate and find a definitive solution in many forms, including the Islanders could receive a good profit in taxes and continue to live there. But it's easier to convince British public opinion that war is always present. I think it reminds them of when they were a great empire that dominated the seas and the world was an open buffet.
That war took nine weeks, £3bn spent, 1,000 deaths (almost the same number of Falklands inhabitants at that time), many veterans from both sides have committed suicide and was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I have no doubts about the sovereign rights of Argentina, is what the law says. But I can't deny reality. Finding a solution is the right thing.
My opinion as Argentine is that it is time for both, Britain and Argentina, to Grow Up!
Greetings!
I hope, although this does not change your position, can at least help you understand what's the point of view of the Argentineans.
On June 21 2011 05:51 chgh wrote: Sanctimonius : (I know it's a little long, but I not only wrote details about the claims of Argentina, I also wrote other issues that are very important to understand our point of view).by the way, Thanks for ask!
Why Argentines make an endless fuss about Las Malvinas/Falklands?
The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. It's what every international law that you can read says.
They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain.
Anyone who "really" studies the history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong. On Treaty of Utrecht Great Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty and this led to 40 years of Spanish occupation of the islands, which was reasserted in 1823 by Buenos Aires after its independence from Spain.
Ten years later the islands were seized by force by Britain, and settlers sent out in a act of imperial aggression.
The Argentine Claim
Legal Rights:
- Both Spain and Argentina did the actual occupation of the islands, the principle that the UK and major European countries then recognized as essential title for the acquisition of territorial sovereignty.
- The British occupation of Port Egmont (1765-1774) is considered negative by his attributes:
Unlawful, as a violation of existing treaties; Underground, to remain hidden until its discovery by the Spanish; Late, because it happened after the French occupation; Answered, because Spain resisted and reserved their rights; Partly, because it reduced to Port Egmont, while Spain had Puerto Soledad; Brief, because it only lasted eight years; Precarious, abandoned in 1774;
- Spain when return Port Egmont in 1771 did so as an act of reparation and made explicit reservation of his rights.
- Argentina after independence, inherited Spain's rights under the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, so exercised eminent domain since 1810.
- Spain Recognizing the independence of Argentina, effective possession of the islands on November 6, 1820, the United Kingdom did not make any protest. Nor did the December 15, 1823 when he recognized the United Provinces, or when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825. His first protest took place only on November 19, 1831.
- The United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelling the population and not allowing their return, thus violating the territorial integrity and national Argentina unity. Which is contrary to Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states in its sixth paragraph that any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the unit national and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
- Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774 and renounced its sovereignty by signing a treaty. While Argentina has always claimed sovereignty and has never renounced it.
- The invasion of 1833 was illegal by the law of nations and violated Article 4 of the First Convention of Nootka signed on October 28, 1790.
- Also violated treaties signed by Great Britain to recognize their rights to Spain in South America and the exclusive right to sail in the South Atlantic: American Treaty of 1670 and the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 with subsequent treaties ratified.
- The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of colonial expansion. What is evidenced by his two attempts of invasion to Buenos Aires (1806-1807) and the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in 1845.
Geographical Rights:
- Geographical continuity: the Falkland Islands are a short distance from the Argentine mainland (about 480 km), emerging with geological continuity of the continental shelf of Argentina.(1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf).
Jurisdictional Waters:
- The Republic of Argentina, based on international maritime law, claims sovereignty over the seas adjacent to the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and Shag Rocks, Black and Clerke.
- The Argentina exercised its sovereignty in the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands from the 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles without Great Britain claimed those waters until 1982.
About Inhabitants:
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
- Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.
- The Argentine Nation ratifies in his National Constitution his legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life for its inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.
About the claim:
Although the restitution of the Falkland Islands is the base of the Argentine claim. Argentina openly expresses its intention to recover the Falkland Islands by diplomatic means and not by using force. Argentina call to enforce the UN resolution 2065 and to start negotiations to find a diplomatic solution. Not being for Argentina a mandatory condition the withdrawal of Britain from the islands.
Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away.
Some argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Others believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates Argentine original claim.
But Argentina's defeat in the war of 1982 neither change his rights of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands nor the basis of his claim. By law, military conquest does not establish legal title.
The Falklands were seized for Britain during an era of colonial expansion, that is an undeniable fact.
To understand the Falklands War, it is also necessary to understand who was Lopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, leader of Argentina's military junta and his intimate relationship with Washington. It is also necessary to understand how the Falklands War is directly related to the economic and political situation in the UK in times of Margaret Thatcher and her deliberate attempts to not stop the war.
Argentina was a dictatorship then. Britain had no problem relating to it, or sell weapons to Argentina until 1982. Nor had trouble befriending another dictatorship like Chile. Nor did anything against the repeated alarms sent for months by the inhabitants of the islands and Chilean intelligence about Argentine military movements near the islands. Britain had detailed documentation of the Argentine intention to invade Falklands, including the date at which this would happen. Thatcher administration did nothing to stop the war an also sabotaged any negotiation that would include a ceasefire as an option.
The reasons are well known.
Margaret Thatcher, an ardent advocate of the liberal model promoted by the International Trade Organization, was particularly interested in a war in the south Atlantic to distract attention from the disastrous consequences of his privatization and economic model.
How far negotiations between Argentina's military junta with Washington and the visit of the Argentine Military Junta leader Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri to the United States in 1981 relate to the war, it is impossible to know.
Until the sinking of the battleship General Belgrano outside the waters imposed by Britain around the islands, the Argentine military were convinced that there would be no war with Britain and the United States would remain neutral. This explains many decisions that urged by imminence of the battle would be disastrous for Argentina in combat, but of course this not justify the Argentine desicion of invade the islands.
From that time until today there are many questions we asked ourselves as Argentines. We look to our recent past and try to correct our mistakes.
Maybe It's time to British begin to do the same, to ask:
Why 2,500 colonists, 8,000 miles away from London, in their fishing and farming British way of life enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy?
Why you spend £69m to maintain a military presence on the Falklands Islands with an incredible display of weapons and and almost as many troops (1,200), as there were islanders at the time of the invasion to face a country that has shown no sign of rearming since 1982?
Why the insistence on showing the inhabitants of the islands as a threatened and defenseless population, when in fact they are probably the most and well fortified inhabitants of the entire planet? (You and I are much more in danger when we go grocery shopping).
Because they are British who have the right to be British? It's absurd! Of course they has the right be British, that's just rhetoric. No one denies their right to be British, or to maintain their lifestyle, or live on the islands.
The problem lies elsewhere, they do not want to lose their privileges and the money they receive from the crown. I like the Islanders, but they are nice rogues who have learned to live from the British crown. They know you're not going to live there and of course they prevent the Argentines do.
How realistic are the chances of finding oil in Falklands waters?
It sounds more like a artificial financial market bubble in times when Europe faces major problems and where the British fleet is being dismantled as before 1982. People in the Navy of course put their outcry arguing they need to defend the Falkland Islands because the evil Argentina is always ready to take them by force.
But, none of this is really true today, the British and the Argentines could collaborate and find a definitive solution in many forms, including the Islanders could receive a good profit in taxes and continue to live there. But it's easier to convince British public opinion that war is always present. I think it reminds them of when they were a great empire that dominated the seas and the world was an open buffet.
That war took nine weeks, £3bn spent, 1,000 deaths (almost the same number of Falklands inhabitants at that time), many veterans from both sides have committed suicide and was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I have no doubts about the sovereign rights of Argentina, is what the law says. But I can't deny reality. Finding a solution is the right thing.
My opinion as Argentine is that it is time for both, Britain and Argentina, to Grow Up!
Greetings!
I hope, although this does not change your position, can at least help you understand what's the point of view of the Argentineans.
Juan
Great post. This pretty sums up everything from an Argentine point of view.
The Falklands' issue has been a dispute that has been done under the table and in secret, away from everyone's sight. The reasons of keeping and defending the islands are far away from the issue of Falkand islanders being British citizens or any civil aspect concerning these people.
The 1982 War went through as both governing powers in some way or another benefitted from it. Both sides wanted to force the media into foreign or outer aspects. The argentine dictatorship was in a critical situation and it was crumbling. The economy was dead and it was clear that they couldn't hold anymore. The only way they could regain power was through military victory. The above post explained with very certain detail why Margaret Thatcher went on with the war too.
I'd love if any of you british people actually went to the island and realize how behind the island is, in politcal and economical aspects. There is almost no modern military facilities and most of the island is still a minefield and they still don't have a road network (under construction). Most of the Kelpers are farmers or fishers. If you actually stayed a month in the island you would wonder why the fuck is England doing so much to maintain such an expensive island. The oil reserves aren't big and they have been looking there forever.
Agreed, a very good post, and goes a long way to explaining the historical claims Argentina have to the islands. I do want to point out, however, that placing the claim in the Argentine constitution doesn't really make those claims any stronger Still, it does seem that the Argentine claims from history are stronger than the British claims, at least from a legal standpoint. But that still completely ignores the intervening two hundred years. Would you deny the right for Israel to exist simply because it was stolen from the Palestinians by the Allies? To do so would ignore generations of people who have been born and raised in that country.
I also feel like you contradict yourself a little in the post. You mention that the islands should be Argentine, and the islanders and their nationality would be protected, but how is that so if they were brought under the control of Argentina? Would they still be British citizens living on Argentinian soil, raising children, dying there? Would the kelpers be simply removed from their homes, and sent to British soil, if we gave the islands to Argentina? I don't like any argument that simply dismisses the claims and rights of the islanders, no matter how well made. Ignoring their situation because you say they are not aboriginal (what does that term even mean? Go back far enough and another race was earlier, should all people from Argentina leave and give the land back to the Amerindians?) is ignoring the fact of the matter - these people have lived and died on those islands for centuries. They are a part of that land as it is a part of them.
I have to say also that I discount the economic arguments. What country would ignore the defence of its citizens simply based on cost? Surely no matter where in the world British citizens are they should be able to rely on their government to defend their rights and property, as should any citizen of any country.
I don't really see how treaties and laws that were routinely broken during times of colonial land grabbing by multiple nations 200 years ago are worth anything compared to 200 years of undisturbed residency.
We have an island on the coast in Canada that belongs to the french but we really don't care because they have claimed it for so long, we have good relations with the uk as well and it helps tourism.
In 1992, a maritime boundary dispute with Canada over the delineation of the Exclusive Economic Zone belonging to France was settled by an arbitration court that was set up by Canada and France to resolve the dispute. In the decision, France kept the 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) territorial sea surrounding the islands and was given an additional 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) contiguous zone as well as a 10.5-nautical-mile (19.4 km; 12.1 mi) wide corridor stretching 188 nautical miles (348.2 km; 216.3 mi) south. The total area in the award was 18% of what France had requested. The boundary dispute had been a flash point for Franco-Canadian relations.
settle is friendly in court? Or does Argentina want the whole island?
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
Terribly wrong. Horrible horrible damage to the truth.
I don't really see how treaties and laws that were routinely broken during times of colonial land grabbing by multiple nations 200 years ago are worth anything compared to 200 years of undisturbed residency.
They don't, he just believes they do. By his logic Spain never had a claim to the Falklands so by extension Argentina never did either. Going further, since Spain never had a valid claim on Argentina itself, all citizens of Argentina with Spanish blood in them are not really citizens, they are colonial remnants with no right of self-determination. Only those who are true-blue descendants of the indigenous inhabitants have any real claim to the land, they were there first and Spain stole their land from them and brought colonists to replace them, whose descendants today make up most of the population of Argentina.
Collective and generational punishment is illegal, you can't say someone has no right to self-determination because their ancestors were allegedly illegal colonists. There is a period in time to challenge it: during the initial occupation and for a period of time afterwards. Israel just started making settlements in the West Bank forty years ago, they can't claim have a population there that is disconnected from the initial colonization and is indigenous to the land. After 200 years it's a different story. You could go back to the start of time throwing people off the land they live on because X years ago their ancestors took it from someone else or something.
On June 21 2011 05:51 chgh wrote: Sanctimonius : (I know it's a little long, but I not only wrote details about the claims of Argentina, I also wrote other issues that are very important to understand our point of view).by the way, Thanks for ask!
Why Argentines make an endless fuss about Las Malvinas/Falklands?
The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. It's what every international law that you can read says.
They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain.
Anyone who "really" studies the history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong. On Treaty of Utrecht Great Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty and this led to 40 years of Spanish occupation of the islands, which was reasserted in 1823 by Buenos Aires after its independence from Spain.
Ten years later the islands were seized by force by Britain, and settlers sent out in a act of imperial aggression.
The Argentine Claim
Legal Rights:
- Both Spain and Argentina did the actual occupation of the islands, the principle that the UK and major European countries then recognized as essential title for the acquisition of territorial sovereignty.
- The British occupation of Port Egmont (1765-1774) is considered negative by his attributes:
Unlawful, as a violation of existing treaties; Underground, to remain hidden until its discovery by the Spanish; Late, because it happened after the French occupation; Answered, because Spain resisted and reserved their rights; Partly, because it reduced to Port Egmont, while Spain had Puerto Soledad; Brief, because it only lasted eight years; Precarious, abandoned in 1774;
- Spain when return Port Egmont in 1771 did so as an act of reparation and made explicit reservation of his rights.
- Argentina after independence, inherited Spain's rights under the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, so exercised eminent domain since 1810.
- Spain Recognizing the independence of Argentina, effective possession of the islands on November 6, 1820, the United Kingdom did not make any protest. Nor did the December 15, 1823 when he recognized the United Provinces, or when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825. His first protest took place only on November 19, 1831.
- The United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelling the population and not allowing their return, thus violating the territorial integrity and national Argentina unity. Which is contrary to Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states in its sixth paragraph that any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the unit national and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
- Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774 and renounced its sovereignty by signing a treaty. While Argentina has always claimed sovereignty and has never renounced it.
- The invasion of 1833 was illegal by the law of nations and violated Article 4 of the First Convention of Nootka signed on October 28, 1790.
- Also violated treaties signed by Great Britain to recognize their rights to Spain in South America and the exclusive right to sail in the South Atlantic: American Treaty of 1670 and the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 with subsequent treaties ratified.
- The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of colonial expansion. What is evidenced by his two attempts of invasion to Buenos Aires (1806-1807) and the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in 1845.
Geographical Rights:
- Geographical continuity: the Falkland Islands are a short distance from the Argentine mainland (about 480 km), emerging with geological continuity of the continental shelf of Argentina.(1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf).
Jurisdictional Waters:
- The Republic of Argentina, based on international maritime law, claims sovereignty over the seas adjacent to the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and Shag Rocks, Black and Clerke.
- The Argentina exercised its sovereignty in the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands from the 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles without Great Britain claimed those waters until 1982.
About Inhabitants:
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
- Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.
- The Argentine Nation ratifies in his National Constitution his legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life for its inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.
About the claim:
Although the restitution of the Falkland Islands is the base of the Argentine claim. Argentina openly expresses its intention to recover the Falkland Islands by diplomatic means and not by using force. Argentina call to enforce the UN resolution 2065 and to start negotiations to find a diplomatic solution. Not being for Argentina a mandatory condition the withdrawal of Britain from the islands.
Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away.
Some argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Others believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates Argentine original claim.
But Argentina's defeat in the war of 1982 neither change his rights of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands nor the basis of his claim. By law, military conquest does not establish legal title.
The Falklands were seized for Britain during an era of colonial expansion, that is an undeniable fact.
To understand the Falklands War, it is also necessary to understand who was Lopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, leader of Argentina's military junta and his intimate relationship with Washington. It is also necessary to understand how the Falklands War is directly related to the economic and political situation in the UK in times of Margaret Thatcher and her deliberate attempts to not stop the war.
Argentina was a dictatorship then. Britain had no problem relating to it, or sell weapons to Argentina until 1982. Nor had trouble befriending another dictatorship like Chile. Nor did anything against the repeated alarms sent for months by the inhabitants of the islands and Chilean intelligence about Argentine military movements near the islands. Britain had detailed documentation of the Argentine intention to invade Falklands, including the date at which this would happen. Thatcher administration did nothing to stop the war an also sabotaged any negotiation that would include a ceasefire as an option.
The reasons are well known.
Margaret Thatcher, an ardent advocate of the liberal model promoted by the International Trade Organization, was particularly interested in a war in the south Atlantic to distract attention from the disastrous consequences of his privatization and economic model.
How far negotiations between Argentina's military junta with Washington and the visit of the Argentine Military Junta leader Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri to the United States in 1981 relate to the war, it is impossible to know.
Until the sinking of the battleship General Belgrano outside the waters imposed by Britain around the islands, the Argentine military were convinced that there would be no war with Britain and the United States would remain neutral. This explains many decisions that urged by imminence of the battle would be disastrous for Argentina in combat, but of course this not justify the Argentine desicion of invade the islands.
From that time until today there are many questions we asked ourselves as Argentines. We look to our recent past and try to correct our mistakes.
Maybe It's time to British begin to do the same, to ask:
Why 2,500 colonists, 8,000 miles away from London, in their fishing and farming British way of life enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy?
Why you spend £69m to maintain a military presence on the Falklands Islands with an incredible display of weapons and and almost as many troops (1,200), as there were islanders at the time of the invasion to face a country that has shown no sign of rearming since 1982?
Why the insistence on showing the inhabitants of the islands as a threatened and defenseless population, when in fact they are probably the most and well fortified inhabitants of the entire planet? (You and I are much more in danger when we go grocery shopping).
Because they are British who have the right to be British? It's absurd! Of course they has the right be British, that's just rhetoric. No one denies their right to be British, or to maintain their lifestyle, or live on the islands.
The problem lies elsewhere, they do not want to lose their privileges and the money they receive from the crown. I like the Islanders, but they are nice rogues who have learned to live from the British crown. They know you're not going to live there and of course they prevent the Argentines do.
How realistic are the chances of finding oil in Falklands waters?
It sounds more like a artificial financial market bubble in times when Europe faces major problems and where the British fleet is being dismantled as before 1982. People in the Navy of course put their outcry arguing they need to defend the Falkland Islands because the evil Argentina is always ready to take them by force.
But, none of this is really true today, the British and the Argentines could collaborate and find a definitive solution in many forms, including the Islanders could receive a good profit in taxes and continue to live there. But it's easier to convince British public opinion that war is always present. I think it reminds them of when they were a great empire that dominated the seas and the world was an open buffet.
That war took nine weeks, £3bn spent, 1,000 deaths (almost the same number of Falklands inhabitants at that time), many veterans from both sides have committed suicide and was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I have no doubts about the sovereign rights of Argentina, is what the law says. But I can't deny reality. Finding a solution is the right thing.
My opinion as Argentine is that it is time for both, Britain and Argentina, to Grow Up!
Greetings!
I hope, although this does not change your position, can at least help you understand what's the point of view of the Argentineans.
Juan
Sorry if i missed it by i didnt see any mention of the fact that the vast majority of Falkland Islanders supported the british claim to the islands and did not want to become Argentinian. Its besides the point really given the feelings most of our higher ups on the issue. Quote from one a few years back when the issue last flared up: "If Argentina wants the Falklands back, they will have to fight for them. If they fight for them, the results will be 10 times as disastrous as the last time they tried"
Interestingly I was reading an article the other day about how the UK wanted to get rid of the falklands in the 70's like they did several other left over colonies but they couldn't because the residents were so against it. Damn people wanting to be british!
I think another aspect of this is that Argentina was the one who got hostile. They were the aggressors and the British as a people can't be blamed for having some resentment for that. It probably makes us more determined to hold on to the islands and rebuke Argentina than ever before.
On June 21 2011 10:42 sc4k wrote: I think another aspect of this is that Argentina was the one who got hostile. They were the aggressors and the British as a people can't be blamed for having some resentment for that. It probably makes us more determined to hold on to the islands and rebuke Argentina than ever before.
Argentina was never hostile. As I explained in my post, the war was declared for benefits of both sides. Prime Minister Thatcher could have easily stopped it but as I detailed before, both wanted press media focused on a war instead of local issues such as stomping civil rights (Argentina's dictatorship) or failed privatization plan (England).
In every legal aspect (international treaties and such) the Falklands belong to Argentina. Ethically, they belong to the original owners (Aborigines). Sadly, the islands just belong to England because of military/economical/political strength ever since the modern era.
Also, the Falklands are quite a shithole at this moment. Going there is like travelling back in time (no road network, minefields everywhere, desolated towns).
Argentina doesn't really give a fuck about the islands and that's why never the issue never gets into dirty situations. The claim that UK has over the islands is completely incomprehensible for Argentine people. The resources are lackluster, the population is really low, and strategically it serves no purpose (it used to be a huge strategical point back in the imperialism but not anymore).
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
Oh! But do we know our beloved neighbors!
- You manipulate your inflation measurements to suit whatever you want. - You can't even pay your foreign debt. We now a days hear about Greece may have to default Well, Argentina has been in default for quite a while now... - Your bonds are worth nothing because no one trusts you will ever pay. - You stole your coutrymen's retirement funds to try to even your spending deficit.
Central bank reserves by themselves mean nothing. You can't touch them without spiraling either inflation or the exchange rate out of the scale, shooting yourself in the foot.
You can cheat on your accounting for a while, but it will blow up in your faces as it always did and as it is about to happen in Spain, Greece, et al.
And you achieve all that even though in terms of natural resources you should be within the top 5 richest countries in the world.
Yet always so cocky i'm not sure if it is painful or funny. No wonder the rest of the south american countries smile to each others in irony when the spoiled single child calls for special attention.
Economic crisis? What crisis? Your government congratulates itself on having survived when all the rest plummeted. Newsflash!!! All your neighbors did and are doing much much better. Mostly not because of doing things right (in many cases just the opposite) but because of not doing them as wrong as you did/are doing.
And the reason we are doing pretty good right now is that our economies depend on commodities. And in times of crisis, people stop buying appartments, then cars, then computers, then ipods......... but they'll keep on buying food.
So this post-modern banana republic pride is ridiculous. Same story during the world wars. Uruguay was recalled by many as "the Switzerland of America" during those times. My ancestors believed the phrase literally and came here from europe to find a better life and they certainly did.
Then the first world stopped buying us dry canned meat at the price of gold. We then didn't want to wake up to reallity and kept the spending without getting any better at doing anything (we are so great!). We went bankrupt, social living standards plummeted. Social unrest. And the conditions were met for whatever right or left wing totalitarian to take control.
We all had our own flavor of dictator. But even our dictators facepalmed when you invaded the Malvinas.
We, Uruguayans have almost the same ethnicity as Argentinians (a little more spanish and less italian blood), and have very similar flavor of spanish, so we are usually mistaken for Argentinians.
As tourists, we learn to be outspoken about our nationality to avoid confusion and so we are treated with less distrust.
You are so quick to point out our flaws and yet your economy depends a great deal on us. Many of the things you consume are made by us, you watch our media and you benefit from out tourism. Your whole economy is based on the black, illegal money of argentines deposited in your unscrupulous banks and deregulated financial system, so if I were you I would shut up and pour yourself another mate because if we took all that money out you would have to swim across the river to clean toilets.
@IntoTheWow So economic/social policies (trade restrictions, social programmes) are not relevant policies to be discussed? We can continue this elsehwere, I agree we have derailed too much.
Well...
Nope.
That is what your government tells you. Argentinians account for 30% of the money in Uruguayan banks. It would only hurt us if they took it all away in one sweep. That is exactly what happened in 2002 when we had to refinance our debt and you defaulted.
And the main reason Argentinians put their money in here is because Argentina has a long history of manipulating their economy, switching rules on the fly, expropiating, and just being too corrupt. Which is just bad for business. And you know what? We are doing particularily good right now because your government sucks so much that your best farmers are MOVING to our lands because even though your land is much more fertile, they make more money in our shitty lands and much worse exchange rate, boosting our exports.
Actually... Why don't you pay us a visit and see how much you can buy here with Argentinian pesos. You might be surprised. (I go to buenos aires once in a while to buy cheap stuff ).
In any case. Both Argentina and Brazil have always fucked with us. Our country is very small, we have no scale productivity, no oil, no gas (though now it seems there is some study that says we might), and Brazil and Argentina are both huge both in human and natural resources, and both have very high trade restrictions for our products. And they even prohibit us from doing commerce treaties with other countries else we would be more severely punished with tariffs, etc.
Long story short. We are the small bullyed kid in the neighbourhood. Yet here we are. And there you are.
HAhaha "our best farmers". It is the LAND which makes our products good, not the farmers. If it were because of technical proficiency we would have been overtaken by EU/USA long ago in terms of farming.
You are bullied because Uruguayans tend to act butthurt (like you) in every thread were Argentina is discussed. The real deal is nobody cares about Uruguay, live with it.
Yeah, here I am, I go once a year to Uruguay to fornicate with your women and drink your wine, and thats about it.
User was warned for this post
And thats why we friggin mock you argentinians to the guts
As long as the people of these Islands want to stay british, there's no point discussing it. From my point of view, engaging french forces to help the UK on this makes more sense that most of the conflict we are in presently.
And we have the same problem with the claim of Mayotte by the Comorres. Basically one of the islands of this archipel decided to stay french when we offered the independance, and now the independant country is claiming that island while it's inhabitants want to stay french... To me that's just governments trying to use nationalism to manipulate their people.
On June 21 2011 16:28 goFLiP wrote: ... In every legal aspect (international treaties and such) the Falklands belong to Argentina. Ethically, they belong to the original owners (Aborigines).
The islands were uninhabited when the europeans arrived ...
How many "Argentinians" live on the islands? None (or roughly that number)
The answer is simple: Its the Falklands and the Argentinians are just idiots who probably try to deviate their home population from problems inside the country by creating a "problem outside". It is one of the oldest tricks in the book of tactics for politicians. "If you have trouble at home, create an outrage about something outside your country which causes the country to unite behind you." Usually these things are followed by a war ...
Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil, the difference is we got out ships and kicked their asses outa there, the Argentinians couldnt, I dont disagree that its argentinian territory, but its pretty obvious that the English wont really concede specially after that dictatorship attacked them out of nowhere.
What the fuck? All I see here is that Argentina is trying to nullify the Falklanders' right to self-determination and therefore are wrong. That's all there is to the story, I can't believe people are even arguing about it.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
On June 21 2011 16:28 goFLiP wrote: Also, the Falklands are quite a shithole at this moment. Going there is like travelling back in time (no road network, minefields everywhere, desolated towns).
lol they do have a road network
also they removed the minefields around port stanley (the only place the argintinians could actually hold long enough to mine) and no there are no desolate towns.
The reason i know this was because my mate got stationed at mount plesant and he told me all about the islands
tbh i dont think you've ever been to islands to know that and you probably just listen to your national media.
Finally Falklands has large oil supplies so it does actually hold huge commercial value but due to the fact that the argy's invaded and failed makes it more of a point that it belongs to the british
Sanctimonius, There is something very important. Great Britain has said so many times that Argentina only wants to take the Falklands and expel it´s population that sometimes it´s difficult for the British people really understand what Argentina is really saying.
We don’t ask Great Britain to give us Tha Falklands/Malvinas. We call for a diplomatic solution that includes our rights. This can take many forms, from leasing, shared sovereignty, mutual cooperation; there are so many possible solutions.
Argentina doesn´t deny the presence of Britain for many years (also where there is no law that ratifies this gives any legal title, plus that the Falklands are considered as a colony by the United Nations listed as a territory to be decolonized (resolution 2065)).
But please, please forget all the legal mess, because it´s very distracting and many people in forums tend to put what they wish law says and not what the law actually says.
Argentina claims to Britain to comply with the UN resolution, and to find together a definitive solution to the issue. That is what Argentina ratified every and every year.
Of course the Islanders get rights!!!. I'm not dismissing the claim of the Islanders; I'm saying they exaggerate for economical reasons.
Once again, Argentina claims: A solution to the issue that takes into account the rights of all parts. Isn't an Argentine request as only condition the Britain withdraws from the islands or expel of the British population.
Everyone in Argentina knows that the British people have lived there for a long time. Although they´re extremely anti-Argentines. We have no problem with them, so for the majority of us they can live there if they want it and be British if they want it. This is why we put it explicitly in our National Constitution.
I will clarify a point that is important:
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
It's not necessary what I think, is what the Argentine claim says.
It's also important to clarify that the principle of self-determination of peoples could only be applied if the population was native to the islands and not a population introduced to replace other population with settlers (like in 1833).
Britain can't argue islanders are a native population, it's in the history. Before 1833, Argentine people lives there and was expelled by force. By the way, both at that time (Argentines and British) was settlers so neither Argentines nor British can argue they are native of the islands.
The point on this is: the islanders have the right to claim for the principle of self-determination if they want to be independent. If they claim to be Falklanders. They can't self-determine they are British. Great Britain is who determines that.
Can I determine that I'm British too? Can people in Manchester determine that they´re Argentines and Manchester is part of Argentina? No, they can't.
They can claim the principle of self-determination if they want to be independent of Britain. People in Buenos Aires can claim the principle of self-determination if they want independence from Argentina.
Or Scottish colony on Patagonia can claim their village as part of Scotland? They live from long time ago there! Fuck, beware of Chinatowns!!!!
It is easy to see that you don't understand nothing about the the principle of self-determination or when apply, but they sound very touching, right?.
The other is a manipulation of the principle of self-determination. A political shortcut, a bluff!!!
I will clarify the economic issue:
Britain Forces aren't defending anything. Argentina has no intention to attack the islands. This isn't something we just said. Argentina has not been rearm since 1982 and explicitly reaffirmed at the UN that we abandon any attempt to recover the islands by force.
The British defense budget of the islands is just a distraction and due to Britain domestic politics reasons. Argentina is not the reason.
I will highlight the most important Argentine point of view and our claim:
The claim is based on historical background, legal and geographic that gives Argentina the right to claim the islands. But, Argentina’s claim is without ignoring the current situation of the islands. So the claim is based on his background but focuses on the ratification of the UN Resolution 2065. Restart negotiations and find a definitive solution for all parts through diplomatic channels. There are many possible solutions.
Anything else is what the British government says that Argentina is saying and not what the Argentina is saying. See my point?
Svetz: Because it´s what law says. If Britain chooses to do things outside the international laws, they can just admit it and stop accusing Argentina. They do it because they can do it! And that’s all! You cannot expect to break the law and say that is a legal act.
They do that in 1910/20, 60s, 70s, also in 1982. Try Falklands on the guardian site and you have a lot of info in English. Just a note: Until 1983 Great Britain denied British citizenship to the islanders.
DeepElemBlues: I think you're confusing things. Self-determination applies if you want independence.
Please try to not overlook the fact that Argentina doesn’t necessarily want to stay with the islands unilaterally. Since 1960 we have been saying that. Repeatedly (Even when the Kelpers weren't British).
Please! Try to hear what we have to say.
sc4k: You say that because you're Brit. How would you feel if you has been stolen? It's like Gibraltar, just to f*** with Spain.
Know What? This happens to us to respect the law for 149 years and claim. You are interested in protecting the supposed rights of 2,500 people who aren’t threatened by anyone and you don’t care until 1983, but you give a damn about the rights of 40,000,000 Argentines.
Whatever we do, they will be always an excuse. You don’t care even if 85% of UN member countries say the Falklands belong to Argentina. You talk about rights, self-determination, but on the other side, you don’t respect a simple UN resolution even when you’re permanent member of the Security Council.
You broke the law before and you´re broking the law now. What happens is you don’t care. You really give a s*** about what the Argentines have to say, whether true or not!
Ask yourself amongst yourselves. No matter what we have to say.
Sorry for my bad mood at the end. And sorry for my bad grammar too. Bye Pals!
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 in an ilegal way for 200 years doesnt make it yours.
So what they find oil there and suddenly your people are all fired up and want it again for nationalistic reasons? Seems kinda short sighted to me.
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 in an ilegal way for 200 years doesnt make it yours.
So what they find oil there and suddenly your people are all fired up and want it again for nationalistic reasons? Seems kinda short sighted to me.
Oil is a bluff!!! Great Britain produces nothing and need a bluff to distract her people and make markets grow!!! Great Britain is sinking, everyone sees it! Britain has already begun the process of giving the Falklands.
That is just ignorant. When we settled on the Islands, no Argentinian had ever set foot on it. Your country didnt even exist. The original settlers left however for security reasons but they left a plaque stating they would return and that this land was British. After this an Argentinian ship wrecked on the Islands and they settled because they tried and failed to leave. However, as previously promised, Britain returned in 1833 and told those people to leave. Since then it has remained solely British, that is almost 200 years. As for your geographical claims, I think you will find it exceeds the distance of such claims so that point is moot. So Legally and Geographically you dont have any claim. In fact the only reason you want it is for economical reasons, something we have at the very bottom of the list of why we defend it. You then have the audacity to claim WE broke the law in the war. You invaded sovereign British soil, that is an act of war and you were lucky we didnt declare war. Granted we sunk your battle ship (less than 2 miles) outside the self-imposed exclusion zone but if you play with fire you will get burned. It was needed to protect our carriers. The reason you dont want to take it by force now is not some ethical stance, it is fear. The consequences of such an action would cripple your country. Now please, just stop, if you really had such a claim through international law you would actually take it up in the international courts instead of just making primary school comments in the media. At the end of the day, even if we were in the wrong back in 1833 (we wasnt) it wouldnt even matter as they were different times operating under different ethics codes. 200 years ago the world was very different, there is no going back.
On June 21 2011 20:45 chgh wrote: Once again, Argentina claims: A solution to the issue that takes into account the rights of all parts. Isn't an Argentine request as only condition the Britain withdraws from the islands or expel of the British population.
Everyone in Argentina knows that the British people have lived there for a long time. Although they´re extremely anti-Argentines. We have no problem with them, so for the majority of us they can live there if they want it and be British if they want it. This is why we put it explicitly in our National Constitution.
So what exactly are "Argentinas rights" in this? The only question is if the island wants to become its own state or not. Since the British have lived there so long the land hasnt any connection whatsoever to Argentina. It is as if Chile or New Zealand or Malaysia were telling the tiny islands in the pacific ocean "You are close to us, we are bigger than you and on the continent, thus allyourlandarebelongtous." It doesnt work that way and Argentina has zero claims to the Falklands.
If you are soo righteous about these islands go and talk to the UN. Anything else is just propaganda to get yourself all riled up for another war.
On June 21 2011 21:17 Aristodemus wrote: That is just ignorant. When we settled on the Islands, no Argentinian had ever set foot on it. Your country didnt even exist. The original settlers left however for security reasons but they left a plaque stating they would return and that this land was British. After this an Argentinian ship wrecked on the Islands and they settled because they tried and failed to leave. However, as previously promised, Britain returned in 1833 and told those people to leave. Since then it has remained solely British, that is almost 200 years. As for your geographical claims, I think you will find it exceeds the distance of such claims so that point is moot. So Legally and Geographically you dont have any claim. In fact the only reason you want it is for economical reasons, something we have at the very bottom of the list of why we defend it. You then have the audacity to claim WE broke the law in the war. You invaded sovereign British soil, that is an act of war and you were lucky we didnt declare war. Granted we sunk your battle ship (less than 2 miles) outside the self-imposed exclusion zone but if you play with fire you will get burned. It was needed to protect our carriers. The reason you dont want to take it by force now is not some ethical stance, it is fear. The consequences of such an action would cripple your country. Now please, just stop, if you really had such a claim through international law you would actually take it up in the international courts instead of just making primary school comments in the media. At the end of the day, even if we were in the wrong back in 1833 (we wasnt) it wouldnt even matter as they were different times operating under different ethics codes. 200 years ago the world was very different, there is no going back.
Read the whole post! or Buy a book of the history of the Falklands at least!
They way I see it the choice should be up to the inhabitance of who governs the country/island.
It seems unfair that an entire population would have to change Government all due to Argentina's "I want" attitude. What would they gain by becoming apart of Argentina?
A better economy? A better way of living? Better human rights? - A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world?
As far as law is concerned, while it may say one thing now. history shows the majority rules and laws are defined by what the people want rather than a polititian or presedente. Also I highly doubt the UN will get involved especially when Britain is one of 5 permanent members of its security council.
On June 21 2011 21:17 Aristodemus wrote: That is just ignorant. When we settled on the Islands, no Argentinian had ever set foot on it. Your country didnt even exist. The original settlers left however for security reasons but they left a plaque stating they would return and that this land was British. After this an Argentinian ship wrecked on the Islands and they settled because they tried and failed to leave. However, as previously promised, Britain returned in 1833 and told those people to leave. Since then it has remained solely British, that is almost 200 years. As for your geographical claims, I think you will find it exceeds the distance of such claims so that point is moot. So Legally and Geographically you dont have any claim. In fact the only reason you want it is for economical reasons, something we have at the very bottom of the list of why we defend it. You then have the audacity to claim WE broke the law in the war. You invaded sovereign British soil, that is an act of war and you were lucky we didnt declare war. Granted we sunk your battle ship (less than 2 miles) outside the self-imposed exclusion zone but if you play with fire you will get burned. It was needed to protect our carriers. The reason you dont want to take it by force now is not some ethical stance, it is fear. The consequences of such an action would cripple your country. Now please, just stop, if you really had such a claim through international law you would actually take it up in the international courts instead of just making primary school comments in the media. At the end of the day, even if we were in the wrong back in 1833 (we wasnt) it wouldnt even matter as they were different times operating under different ethics codes. 200 years ago the world was very different, there is no going back.
Read the whole post! or Buy a book of the history of the Falklands at least!
Well done answering what I wrote, I read your simple post and answered it. Stop bolding your comments too, does it make you feel like what you have to say is actually important?
From what I see Argentina just wants its name on that island on the maps (and if there is oil around, the 200 miles territorial waters) and apparently it's their right for it.
Islands were part of Buenos Aires province in a treaty that was the basis of creation of pretty much the entire South America and to which everyone agreed at the time, and since Buenos Aires went independent that surely included every part of it; that is until the empire came back with a letter saying the queen wanted the islands.
The brits there want to be left alone and live as subjects of the empire (nicer benefits than Argentina I assume, and pride of course).
It seems the solution is pretty simple. Give it back to Argentina, let them lend the land to the UK for 1$ or something until all British citizens leave (if ever).
On June 21 2011 20:45 chgh wrote: Once again, Argentina claims: A solution to the issue that takes into account the rights of all parts. Isn't an Argentine request as only condition the Britain withdraws from the islands or expel of the British population.
Everyone in Argentina knows that the British people have lived there for a long time. Although they´re extremely anti-Argentines. We have no problem with them, so for the majority of us they can live there if they want it and be British if they want it. This is why we put it explicitly in our National Constitution.
So what exactly are "Argentinas rights" in this? The only question is if the island wants to become its own state or not. Since the British have lived there so long the land hasnt any connection whatsoever to Argentina. It is as if Chile or New Zealand or Malaysia were telling the tiny islands in the pacific ocean "You are close to us, we are bigger than you and on the continent, thus allyourlandarebelongtous." It doesnt work that way and Argentina has zero claims to the Falklands.
If you are soo righteous about these islands go and talk to the UN. Anything else is just propaganda to get yourself all riled up for another war.
The Falklands aren't the only case of such "colonialism", nor are the British the only guilty party. What is supposed to happen with places like this is obviously a difficult issue. I have lived in Argentina for a year and know that the people there feel it is a great injustice, that the UK committed quite a few warcrimes during the war and generally hate the English. However, as the OP states, the people on the Falklands themselves are British, most don't even speak Spanish and have no wish to ever be part of Argentina, rather than the UK. The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map.
A very similar situation is Gibraltar, which Spain lays claim to (with a bit more justification than Argentina has for the Falklands, but it is a pretty similar situation). There's Ceuta and Melilla which are Spanish territory, contested by Morocco and Cyprus is of course just a complete and utter mess. I don't think such issues have any clear solution that is "right" and it creates plenty of work for diplomats
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: Argentina for a year and know that the people there feel it is a great injustice, that the UK committed quite a few warcrimes during the war and generally hate the English.
Like sinking a military ship of the country that attacked them? The argentines you refer to are delusional.
In every legal aspect (international treaties and such) the Falklands belong to Argentina.
Wrong. Self-determination is part of international law and I'm pretty damn sure that if you polled the people of the Falklands, they'd want to be part of Britain. The people of the Falklands want to be part of Britain and see themselves as British. Until that changes, Argentina has no argument.
Then again... if you held a referendum in Mali, Haïti or some other destitute country they would probably also vote to be part of a country with a social wellfare plan for all its citizens. Furthermore self-determination is rather tricky after 200 years of breaking an international treaty: yes, NOW the population is British, but the Argentineans argue that 200 years ago England conquered that land and never gave it back, thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies.
As such what the majority of the people want is somewhat irrelevant: just as Morocco encourages Moroccans to move to the Western Sahara and China moves Chinese people into Tibet. Obviously these situations are not entirely the same, but if in 200 years there are no more Saharoui or Tibettans left and the population of both these territories feel entirely Moroccan/Chinese, does that wipe out the injustice done in the 20th century? Now I'd say let bygones be bygones with regards to the Falklands: making people now unhappy because 200 years ago England conquered a piece of useless rock in the middle of the Atlantic seems silly. However simply referring to self-determination as the only solution is overly simplifying the diplomatic situation.
I don't understand why the argentinians are so upset about this.
In their eyes the UK is the evil colonial empire, when in reality they are the descendants of the colonists that wiped out most of the native population in their country (all the while the falkland islands were previously uninhabited). They have a huge country with vast resources that could easily support their small population and would do so if not for misgovernment and corruption, and yet they think these barren islands are the key for their future.
Who cares about treaties from 200 years ago, when they lacked any physical substance in the mean time? They are obsolete once and for all. If the Falkland islands are ever "decolonized" (whatever that means), they should certainly not fall under argentinian jurisdiction, but be independent.
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: Argentina for a year and know that the people there feel it is a great injustice, that the UK committed quite a few warcrimes during the war and generally hate the English.
Like sinking a military ship of the country that attacked them? The argentines you refer to are delusional.
No my friend, if you like we ignore that. Rather like shooting prisoners or cut the ears of 18 year old conscripts taken prisoners.
Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
haha, wow this was really well expressed, absolutely could not have said it better myself. When the guy a few posts up said Argentinians hate the UK and blame us for war crimes...my head was so full of fuck I simply could not think of a way to articulate a response.
On June 21 2011 21:23 MulletMurdoc wrote: A better economy? A better way of living? Better human rights? - A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world?
I agree with your post, just to address the questions though:
No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world)
I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war.
It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war.
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map.
I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though...
Anyway, damn you Spain and your rogue colonies!
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: Argentina for a year and know that the people there feel it is a great injustice, that the UK committed quite a few warcrimes during the war and generally hate the English.
Like sinking a military ship of the country that attacked them? The argentines you refer to are delusional.
No my friend, if you like we ignore that. Rather like shooting prisoners or cut the ears of 18 year old conscripts taken prisoners.
Okay I know there were cases of people who had just surrendered being shot (on the field of battle, not actual prisoners yet) but that was because some Argentine units were "surrendering" then when the British came up to them a bunch of hidden guys would emerge and start shooting at them.
As for cutting off an ear, I have to call bullshit on that.
I do know though that the Argentine soldiers were told that the British would do all kinds of horrible things to them if they were captured, in the end though the vast majority realized this was ridiculous and were actually happy to surrender and end it all.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
If the islands are 'legally' Argentinian as I keep reading them post as a fact, then how come they refused the 3 times the UK offered to settle the dispute in the international court of justice?
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
On June 21 2011 21:23 MulletMurdoc wrote: A better economy? A better way of living? Better human rights? - A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world?
I agree with your post, just to address the questions though:
No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world)
I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war.
It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war.
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map.
I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though...
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 21:23 MulletMurdoc wrote: A better economy? A better way of living? Better human rights? - A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world?
I agree with your post, just to address the questions though:
No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world)
I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war.
It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war.
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map.
I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though...
Anyway, damn you Spain and your rogue colonies!
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 22:34 Svetz wrote: If the islands are 'legally' Argentinian as I keep reading them post as a fact, then how come they refused the 3 times the UK offered to settle the dispute in the international court of justice?
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
haha, wow this was really well expressed, absolutely could not have said it better myself. When the guy a few posts up said Argentinians hate the UK and blame us for war crimes...my head was so full of fuck I simply could not think of a way to articulate a response.
I'm not Argentinean and consider myself fairly impartial in the matter. I don't know enough about the war to give you facts about whether or not the UK reacted proportionally.
However, I do know that the feelings in Argentina about the Falklands (and the English) there are pretty strong and yes, the English do get blamed for warcrimes (real or imagined). No, the Falklands really mean absolutely nothing to anybody. They are a group of barren rocks in the middle of the Atlantic and probably can't even support enough sheep to hold their (meagre) population. However, Argentineans are a very proud people and they feel the Falklands belong to them: that is why the invasion in 1982 was popular and an excellent way of distracting the populations from the horrible atrocities committed in internal politics. It was unfortunate for them that the British government also needed a distraction from their failed internal economical politics and war was the result. A lot of Argentineans view the war as injust and neo-colonialism as they feel the invasion was justified. As such they feel that the sinking of the Belgrano battleship was an unprovoked act of violence. I need to reiterate that I do not agree and am reporting on what I was told during my time in Argentina. Personally I think that invading the Falklands was an act of war and the sinking of a warship was a part of that war. Regardless, however, it is quite obvious that the Falkland war didn't help resolve the conflict over the islands one bit: both countries have since been more convinced than ever that that useless pile of rocks in the middle of the Atlantic belongs to them.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
On June 21 2011 22:34 Svetz wrote: If the islands are 'legally' Argentinian as I keep reading them post as a fact, then how come they refused the 3 times the UK offered to settle the dispute in the international court of justice?
Because they feel the International Court of Justice is not impartial (and to be fair, it probably isn't as most judges and advocates come from NATO countries).
@chgh You know, I'm reading up on the Belgrano. Now, I know Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all, but it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that Britain and Argentina were at war after Argentina, for whatever reason, attacked British territory. The exclusion zone was imposed for neutral ships and both sides knew that being anywhere near the Falklands was a justification for being attacked, especially if it is judged as being a threat. The British Navy judged it a threat and reacted accordingly. Lives were lost, always a sad thing, but expected in times of war?
I'm seeing your arguments but you are denying the rights of the Falklanders. The Falklands belong to them, if anybody, and they are British by choice. They have always been, since they were there. I cannot claim to know what happened two hundred years ago, but as I said before, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is now, and the heritage these people have. Also, again you dismiss their wishes with this notion of aboriginal - by that argument, as others have said, should those descended from Europeans across Argentina leave and give the country 'back' to the aboriginal Amerindians? This notion of aboriginal is simply not a useful argument. The British settled the islands with a permanent settlement. Argentina, as far as I know, did not. The Falklands have been British for two hundred years, but Argentina would completely ignore the previous two centuries and make it Argentinian, based on 'legal' claims from dubious sources centuries ago, and through geographical claims which aren't recognised by any international definitions. The Falklands lie outside of Argentinian waters - by what right do they claim the islands? I'm also unsure of when the majority of the UN decided the Falklands were Argentinian - can you point me towards that particular decision? And again you mention that this is simply the Argentine claim. I'm sorry but just because Argentina ratifies this claim in a constitution does not make it fact.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
haha, wow this was really well expressed, absolutely could not have said it better myself. When the guy a few posts up said Argentinians hate the UK and blame us for war crimes...my head was so full of fuck I simply could not think of a way to articulate a response.
I'm not Argentinean and consider myself fairly impartial in the matter. I don't know enough about the war to give you facts about whether or not the UK reacted proportionally.
However, I do know that the feelings in Argentina about the Falklands (and the English) there are pretty strong and yes, the English do get blamed for warcrimes (real or imagined). No, the Falklands really mean absolutely nothing to anybody. They are a group of barren rocks in the middle of the Atlantic and probably can't even support enough sheep to hold their (meagre) population. However, Argentineans are a very proud people and they feel the Falklands belong to them: that is why the invasion in 1982 was popular and an excellent way of distracting the populations from the horrible atrocities committed in internal politics. It was unfortunate for them that the British government also needed a distraction from their failed internal economical politics and war was the result. A lot of Argentineans view the war as injust and neo-colonialism as they feel the invasion was justified. As such they feel that the sinking of the Belgrano battleship was an unprovoked act of violence. I need to reiterate that I do not agree and am reporting on what I was told during my time in Argentina. Personally I think that invading the Falklands was an act of war and the sinking of a warship was a part of that war. Regardless, however, it is quite obvious that the Falkland war didn't help resolve the conflict over the islands one bit: both countries have since been more convinced than ever that that useless pile of rocks in the middle of the Atlantic belongs to them.
Have to say the islands are extremely important to those that live there. And whatever was happening in Britain at the time, do you really think there would be a time when Britain would ignore an invasion of British territory?
On June 21 2011 21:23 MulletMurdoc wrote: A better economy? A better way of living? Better human rights? - A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world?
I agree with your post, just to address the questions though:
No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world)
I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war.
It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war.
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map.
I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though...
Anyway, damn you Spain and your rogue colonies!
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
I can't believe I'm even having this argument but okay. Argentina invaded British soil in an unprovoked act of aggression, purely for the purpose of taking land from the indigenous British inhabitants. The ship was a part of attack. If sinking the ship is criminal then how illegal was the invasion itself? This is like a petty street thug coming into the house of a championship boxer to murder them in their sleep, getting their ass handed to them and then claiming assault.
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States"
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
But...we didn't sign that. It's a non-binding UN resolution (so not ours) which we abstained from. Spain too, I note
Does the Falklands really count as a colony anyways? Would Jersey, or Guernsey, or the Isle of Man count as colonies, then?
Well, that's the whole point isn't it? Argentina says the Falklands are an illegitimate act of colonization and thus occupation of their territory. The UK says it was never Argentina's to start with and thus not a colony, but simply the appropriation of a piece of barren land, albeit rather far from home, but geographical distance is deemed irrelevant. With all the mess this has created it's rather hard to say who's right. Furthermore it begs the question whether it even matters (as Falkland inhabitants obviously consider themselves British as does the British empire). However, seeing as there's still diplomatic negotiation going on about it, a war was fought over it not too long ago and there is still quite obviously bad blood between Argentina and the UK because of it, it quite clearly has political significance, even if there is no other reason for trying to resolve the issue.
On June 21 2011 22:48 Sanctimonius wrote: @chgh You know, I'm reading up on the Belgrano. Now, I know Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all, but it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that Britain and Argentina were at war after Argentina, for whatever reason, attacked British territory. The exclusion zone was imposed for neutral ships and both sides knew that being anywhere near the Falklands was a justification for being attacked, especially if it is judged as being a threat. The British Navy judged it a threat and reacted accordingly. Lives were lost, always a sad thing, but expected in times of war?
I'm seeing your arguments but you are denying the rights of the Falklanders. The Falklands belong to them, if anybody, and they are British by choice. They have always been, since they were there. I cannot claim to know what happened two hundred years ago, but as I said before, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is now, and the heritage these people have. Also, again you dismiss their wishes with this notion of aboriginal - by that argument, as others have said, should those descended from Europeans across Argentina leave and give the country 'back' to the aboriginal Amerindians? This notion of aboriginal is simply not a useful argument. The British settled the islands with a permanent settlement. Argentina, as far as I know, did not. The Falklands have been British for two hundred years, but Argentina would completely ignore the previous two centuries and make it Argentinian, based on 'legal' claims from dubious sources centuries ago, and through geographical claims which aren't recognised by any international definitions. The Falklands lie outside of Argentinian waters - by what right do they claim the islands? I'm also unsure of when the majority of the UN decided the Falklands were Argentinian - can you point me towards that particular decision? And again you mention that this is simply the Argentine claim. I'm sorry but just because Argentina ratifies this claim in a constitution does not make it fact.
I think you're right about that! Dont know if that really is a war crime. Before angry hahaha I wrote about it. For me it was a deliberate act to dont stop war. The UN had declared a ceasefire remember? I respect the rights of the islanders. Why you think I dont? I believe in a diplomatic solution. Put a fucking flag of Argentina with the British in those islands. Leave the island to the Falklanders! and collaborate together in everything else. Or at least that Britain respected the UN resolution. Or even better: What if Britain simply says Argentines was right, we stole the islands in 1833, but now things are different, we cant leave! Something better than denying it all and accuse us of all!
I just want to point out that that the people living on the falklands havent done any war crimes, it's like if your dad was a pedophile so everyone accuses you of being a pedophile.... it makes no sense.
Stop trying to cloud this stuff up with shit that happened 200 years ago, literally no one is being hurt from the fact that they're living there and being so aggressive about this is just gonna make it 10x worse...
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
I can't believe I'm even having this argument but okay. Argentina invaded British soil in an unprovoked act of aggression, purely for the purpose of taking land from the indigenous British inhabitants. The ship was a part of attack. If sinking the ship is criminal then how illegal was the invasion itself? This is like a petty street thug coming into the house of a championship boxer to murder them in their sleep, getting their ass handed to them and then claiming assault.
Wasn´t a war crime Pal! I wrote before what I think! you committed others in that war. A military junta, a dictatorship is that invaded the Falklands. You support that dictatorship until 1982. How about our rights then Great Great Britain! Where were you? Maybe doing business with the dictators of Latin America? Sorry if one turned against you!
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I probably know more veterans than your I think!
For you is a lie, there´s no war crimes b´cause you can find it on Google???. Well done detective!!!
On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote: Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I think he understood this as "just make allegations by yourself."
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
You have to justify what you're saying with some measure of proof chgh. It's silly to assume the lack of evidence proves it impossible but it's equally silly to say "I know people". I'd like to hear your opinion if you had some measure to back it up with.
Though... I may have missed it but did anyone ever address the claim that this is just political maneuvering by the Argentinean PM? There's a lot of interesting discussion here but is there really an issue?
Lets see the most important points imo. - The British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim. - Population there has been (mostly) UK since 1833 (know when to give up argentina) - The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to the UK. - The inhabitants want to be part of UK
- Argentina has some obscure claim from obscure treaty (Nootka Sound Convention) and that Spain (who never renounced its claim on the island) handed them the island when argentina became independant - Argentina tried to settle the island from 1820-1833 (without much success) In 1833 UK trew them out.
In short, The conflict started when The UK colony discovered a french colony on the island. France sold its claim to Spain. Both spain and Uk clained the island. UK withdrew its colony for economic reasons (but didnt relinquish its clain). in 1811 spain withdrew from the island. It was uninhabited from than till 1826 when argentina asked for british permission to build a settlement on the island. They tried to colonize it in 1826 and again in 1828. They had a small settlement on the island till 1833. The british asked the argentinians to replace their flag for the british one. They did and left the island. They didn't resist since most soldiers/mercenaries on the island where british. Since than it has allways been a britsh island with british people on it.
I'm sorry, but some countries just dont know when to give up. Besides that, their claim is extremely weak and the island is seen as british territory by the UN and thus they reject the argentinian claim.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
I was just pointing out that the British faced Spanish forces and the person I was replying to said that Spain was busy "dealing" with Napoleon when they were in fact allied and it was the British that were fighting Napoleon so understandably that used up the vast majority of the resources. The same thing happened in 1812 when the US invade British North America, they didn't really have much in the way of defence because there was a slightly bigger issue at the time.
Incidentally the Falklands War was exactly the same, the vast majority of the British army and the entire Royal Air Force stayed in Europe because of that whole cold war thing that was going on.
I'm not saying that the conflicts weren't resolved, I'm just saying that Britain didn't agree to give up ALL it's colonies and territories on one day by an act of Parliament which is what you seemed to be implying, Britain was incredibly gracious in giving up its empire, unlike some other countries.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Can you please drop this attitude. Everyone in this thread but you makes an effort to calmy discuss the topic.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Simply because we disagree with you doesn't mean we think we are perfect. Please don't try to paint us as arrogant. The UK has done many things wrong in its history, they are simply not pertinent to this argument.
Well read: Excursion to Hell, by Former Lance Corporal Vincent Bramley. What else I can do in a Forum? F *** always an eye on Argentina. Yes of course it is a political maneuver on Argentina. Like its in Britain. You still believe there are goods and bads? Please Pals! Why I end explaining the Argentina reasons? Nobody else sees that the South Atlantic´s Opera is all a bluff from both sides!
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
On June 21 2011 18:53 D10 wrote: Funny that the british tryed to do exacly the same here in Brazil,
Did we? (Not arguing, actually curious)
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions?
The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize.
Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too. Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
One of the exciting things about being British is travelling the world and discovering all the nasty things your ancestors got up to!
No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:
On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. .
It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions?
The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize.
Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
Unfortunately they haven't got irrelevance. They used to have it and then it became an issue when they got invaded. I feel strongly that they should be British but equally I feel just as strongly about my house being part of Britain. The reason my house is irrelevant and the Falklands are not is because of the Argentinian claim. What Cameron is doing by refusing to negotiate on any terms other than self determination is effectively telling the Argentinians to give up and stop trying which is exactly what is needed. The islands need less time in the papers, less money spent defending them, less debate over the rightful owners and less digging up war wounds.
It will be a difficult topic for as long as people keep talking about it. Denying that there is any claim worth negotiating is the correct way to let people on both sides forget the islands exist.
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I probably know more veterans than your I think!
For you is a lie, there´s no war crimes b´cause you can find it on Google???. Well done detective!!!
Oh come on, you can do better than that and even I found newspapers from "the 90's" online, they only talk about allegations though. Go on and show proof.
"I know veterans" isnt enough, because their tales probably have grown in the 30 years of telling. So where are those "judgements" you claim which exist? The only thing I found was an article at SPIEGEL online, which says that the Argentinian General Leopoldo Galtieri and some of his buddies were convicted of war crimes ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html If both sides have convicted war criminals, who can claim to be better / more ethical than the other?
Wikipedia has only two british people on the list of those convicted for war crimes, it is probably incomplete (no Argentinian people listed, but maybe it only lists those convicted at an international court?), but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_convicted_of_war_crimes I think this article describes it best: There have been some hints of war crimes carried out by British troops against Argentine prisoners but no firm evidence.
Again: Where is your proof? Any "novels" written by people arent really proof of anything. It isnt me who has failed in finding stuff, it is you who failed in providing stuff you claim exists and claims are no evidence. War is cruel (it has to be so countries dont wage war over minor issues) and war veterans are not to be envied, but not everything you see in war automatically constitutes a war crime.
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
And the Argentinians claim to care about them? ROFLMAO ...
On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote: [quote] No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.
Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote: [quote] It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions?
The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize.
Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
Unfortunately they haven't got irrelevance. They used to have it and then it became an issue when they got invaded. I feel strongly that they should be British but equally I feel just as strongly about my house being part of Britain. The reason my house is irrelevant and the Falklands are not is because of the Argentinian claim. What Cameron is doing by refusing to negotiate on any terms other than self determination is effectively telling the Argentinians to give up and stop trying which is exactly what is needed. The islands need less time in the papers, less money spent defending them, less debate over the rightful owners and less digging up war wounds.
It will be a difficult topic for as long as people keep talking about it. Denying that there is any claim worth negotiating is the correct way to let people on both sides forget the islands exist.
Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go with that strategy Pal! You will have more and more critics in Latin America every day!!! US changes his position too. Dont be surprised if start an economic boycott in upcomming years. South America is acting as a block.
From the sounds of it Argentina's overall claim is about as valid as the claims to land on the moon that get sold online.
Frankly the entire debate seems to run in parallel to the recent discourse in this thread - a small whiny voice playing the victim to a benign entity that doesn't see what all the fuss is about. It's really hard to sympathise with any Argentinian claim with the way it's presented here.
And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.
You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?
And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."
Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.
"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States" No.
Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.
Spanish friend. Surely any of us could do a critique of some of our behaviors. The British don`t! They haven´t in their genes! They are Paaarfect!
Feel free to critique, just try to do it without invading us again.
What I'd really like to hear is some Argentinian admitting that the desperation of the military junta was the sole cause of the invasion. From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed. Argentina has no problem condemning pretty much everything else they did but the Falklands seems to be exempted for some reason.
I am Argentine and if you read my first post in this thread I condemn the Falklands War as the idiocy of a drunken fool (Galtieri) and a crime, "Fuck the Falklands" I said if I recall.
Again, FUCK THE FALKLANDS
My apologies. Thank you. I would also like to see the Falklands regain the complete irrelevance that they deserve.
At last! This is it! Its an Opera! Sterile patriotism on both sides. They have complete irrelevance!!! Why both sides make a fuss of that? Why is so difficult find simple solutions?
The three parties are deadlocked! My first post said it was time for both parts to grow! Open your minds a bit. It took me months to study the Argentine claim, there are thousands of pages. Some might dictate that is wrong only because they read a summary in a post? This is what makes me angry! Don't know really about the Argentine claim and some are seeking a point just to criticize.
Apologies for the ironic comments! Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
Unfortunately they haven't got irrelevance. They used to have it and then it became an issue when they got invaded. I feel strongly that they should be British but equally I feel just as strongly about my house being part of Britain. The reason my house is irrelevant and the Falklands are not is because of the Argentinian claim. What Cameron is doing by refusing to negotiate on any terms other than self determination is effectively telling the Argentinians to give up and stop trying which is exactly what is needed. The islands need less time in the papers, less money spent defending them, less debate over the rightful owners and less digging up war wounds.
It will be a difficult topic for as long as people keep talking about it. Denying that there is any claim worth negotiating is the correct way to let people on both sides forget the islands exist.
You will have more and more critics in Latin America every day!!! US changes his position too. Dont be surprised if start an economic boycott in upcomming years. South America is acting as a block.
Well have a look at this thread, almost every non-Argentinian is more sympathetic to our cause than yours. You are the people trying to land grab. We may have a poor colonial history in parts, but we have a by and large good recent history of letting colonies become independent countries if they ask for it.
Bottom line is that even if Argentina's claim were valid enough to warrant Britain losing sovereignty over the Islands, there is no reason for them not to then become an independent country.
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
Please stop making us all look like clowns with your moronic statements. Go back to watching 678 and Tinelli plz, thx.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I probably know more veterans than your I think!
For you is a lie, there´s no war crimes b´cause you can find it on Google???. Well done detective!!!
Oh come on, you can do better than that and even I found newspapers from "the 90's" online, they only talk about allegations though. Go on and show proof.
"I know veterans" isnt enough, because their tales probably have grown in the 30 years of telling. So where are those "judgements" you claim which exist? The only thing I found was an article at SPIEGEL online, which says that the Argentinian General Leopoldo Galtieri and some of his buddies were convicted of war crimes ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html If both sides have convicted war criminals, who can claim to be better / more ethical than the other?
Wikipedia has only two british people on the list of those convicted for war crimes, it is probably incomplete (no Argentinian people listed, but maybe it only lists those convicted at an international court?), but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_convicted_of_war_crimes I think this article describes it best: There have been some hints of war crimes carried out by British troops against Argentine prisoners but no firm evidence.
Again: Where is your proof? Any "novels" written by people arent really proof of anything. It isnt me who has failed in finding stuff, it is you who failed in providing stuff you claim exists and claims are no evidence. War is cruel (it has to be so countries dont wage war over minor issues) and war veterans are not to be envied, but not everything you see in war automatically constitutes a war crime.
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
And the Argentinians claim to care about them? ROFLMAO ...
Why shouldnt the british care for them?
Why are you putting so much emphasis in war crimes? What kind proof do you need in a post, a time machine? Read Green Eyes Boys too. Don´t care?
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
Please stop making us all look like clowns with your moronic statements. Go back to watching 678 and Tinelli plz, thx.
Chupala nabo! Te interesa tanto quedar bien? Y si me vas a insultar hacelo en español al menos!
On June 22 2011 00:52 maJes wrote: From the sounds of it Argentina's overall claim is about as valid as the claims to land on the moon that get sold online.
Frankly the entire debate seems to run in parallel to the recent discourse in this thread - a small whiny voice playing the victim to a benign entity that doesn't see what all the fuss is about. It's really hard to sympathise with any Argentinian claim with the way it's presented here.
Well I retire. The truth you do nt care to understand how others see things. Keep thinking what you want.
On June 22 2011 00:52 maJes wrote: From the sounds of it Argentina's overall claim is about as valid as the claims to land on the moon that get sold online.
Frankly the entire debate seems to run in parallel to the recent discourse in this thread - a small whiny voice playing the victim to a benign entity that doesn't see what all the fuss is about. It's really hard to sympathise with any Argentinian claim with the way it's presented here.
Well I retire. The truth you do nt care to understand how others see things. Keep thinking what you want.
Ganjamaster chupala 2 veces salame!
Falklands for the penguins I say!
Well I retire. The truth you do nt care to understand how others see things. Keep thinking what you want.
Las Maldivas are a egg shell. The only thing which really matters about them is how Argentinian politicians have been using it for nationalist purposes in order to make a diversion about how awful they were, and by British politicians to make brainless British "patriots" happy.
That's like, the perfect case for right wingers. It even made Tatcher reelected which was a worse thing for England than losing two desert Island in the middle of nowhere.
Anyway: here is what it always makes me think about:
Hamlet Good sir, whose powers are these?
Captain They are of Norway, sir.
Hamlet How purposed, sir, I pray you?
Captain Against some part of Poland.
Hamlet Who commands them, sir?
Captain The nephews to old Norway, Fortinbras.
Hamlet Goes it against the main of Poland, sir, Or for some frontier?
Captain Truly to speak, and with no addition, We go to gain a little patch of ground That hath in it no profit but the name. To pay five ducats, five, I would not farm it; Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee.
Hamlet Why, then the Polack never will defend it.
Captain Yes, it is already garrison'd.
Hamlet Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats Will not debate the question of this straw: This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace, That inward breaks, and shows no cause without Why the man dies. I humbly thank you, sir.
I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum.
Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.
Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument.
Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.
Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.
I probably know more veterans than your I think!
For you is a lie, there´s no war crimes b´cause you can find it on Google???. Well done detective!!!
Oh come on, you can do better than that and even I found newspapers from "the 90's" online, they only talk about allegations though. Go on and show proof.
"I know veterans" isnt enough, because their tales probably have grown in the 30 years of telling. So where are those "judgements" you claim which exist? The only thing I found was an article at SPIEGEL online, which says that the Argentinian General Leopoldo Galtieri and some of his buddies were convicted of war crimes ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html If both sides have convicted war criminals, who can claim to be better / more ethical than the other?
Wikipedia has only two british people on the list of those convicted for war crimes, it is probably incomplete (no Argentinian people listed, but maybe it only lists those convicted at an international court?), but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_convicted_of_war_crimes I think this article describes it best: There have been some hints of war crimes carried out by British troops against Argentine prisoners but no firm evidence.
Again: Where is your proof? Any "novels" written by people arent really proof of anything. It isnt me who has failed in finding stuff, it is you who failed in providing stuff you claim exists and claims are no evidence. War is cruel (it has to be so countries dont wage war over minor issues) and war veterans are not to be envied, but not everything you see in war automatically constitutes a war crime.
On June 22 2011 00:33 chgh wrote:
On June 22 2011 00:28 MaK UK wrote:
On June 22 2011 00:15 chgh wrote: Just try not to dump everything in Argentina. Great Britain is part of the problem too.
but i thought this was about Argentina claiming that the island is theirs? i dont get how britain can be part of the problem if all we have done is defend the rights of the people both poltically and in war?
it seems you want us to say that the war was Britains falt?
Do you really believe that Britain is interested in 2500 islanders! To Naif!!!
And the Argentinians claim to care about them? ROFLMAO ...
Why shouldnt the british care for them?
Why are you putting so much emphasis in war crimes? What kind proof do you need in a post, a time machine? Read Green Eyes Boys too. Don´t care?
I didnt start that topic ... YOU did ... but since you dont bring evidence on your own argument or dont even care to try, I have to assume that the British commited NONE and you should consider this as a lost cause of justification for any claim that Argentina has to the islands.
As for Green Eyed Boys I can only say that every comment I read about the book says that the stuff is only allegations, which isnt the same as proof. You might consider that when reading such things or watching reports which claim X to be true. Here are a few comments about the book and they range from "awesome" to "total crap" and quite a few people claim to be from the British army or that regiment and they always seem to have to add some sort of "this detail isnt true" stuff. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/swbooks/Green-Eyed.html
Just a general piece of advice: Try to make it easier for others to understand what you mean by either linking the book or putting a name in quotation marks. Only in the second reading did I understand that you listed a book title.
On June 21 2011 23:40 KwarK wrote: From there we could progress to both British servicemen and Argentinian conscripts being victims of them, just like everyone else the junta killed.
They were. That "war" was a retarded mistake on their part.
But the Malvinas/Falkland issue has always been a sensitive one here, because it involves a LOT of that "antiimperialism" thing, and the deaths of 600 young victims of the Junta, 18y old kids who where doing the obligatory military service and were sent to their deaths (and of course, the british ones).
The truth is, nobody gives a fuck about the islands themselves. If we had them, they would probably just be abandoned and empty like half the patagonia.
Id love to see our president trying to improve the relationship between the 2 countrys, or trying to make comerce treaties for them to use some of our continental installations (so at least we get some profit from all of this) rather than bashing at them everytime she can and further prollonging a lost cause.
But then again the bashing is more appealing on an electoral year than trying to fix their own issues (?)
Pd: That "Falkland" dude who got the argentine Nationalitie did so to live with his family, since the islanders denied to give his argentine wife medical assistance when she was giving birth to their son. That is what they say at least. Pd2: Sry for the bad english (?)
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
Britain took the islands before Argentina existed as a country if my history serves me correctly, Argentina has no constitutional claim to the land, the people who live their want to be British, let them be British.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
Self determination is self determination everywhere. The Falklands islanders have just as much right to it as you do.
In my opinion if the people on the land want to be ruled by the Argentian government so let them, if they want to be ruled by the British let them. Its up for the people who live on the island to decide, as it is those people who the decision would directly affect.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
That's one clever answer dude.
I know, its much better advice than telling Argentina to beg the UN for the Falklands. Is that the strategy you would use? Damn, if I ever have to fight a war, I hope its with the French. In your nations finest moment in terms of military glory you were being lead by a Corsican midget, and lost in the end anyway.
When it comes down to it, if the british are willing to fight to keep the falklands, the argentinians are pretty much boned, no matter how legitimate their claims are. War (and the threat of it) determines the shape of the world moreso than anything else.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
Dear France:
You're welcome.
signed,
Uncle Sam
Not only did several countries and the french resistance fight to free france from germany, but the americans didn't even care about france when it was being taken over in the first place, so don't act all high and mighty because you ended up joining the war only when it concerned your country.
Getting out of topic, people. My thoughts are that if the people of the island want to stay with Britain, then so be it. If the people are happy as they are, then there is no need for that change.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
That's one clever answer dude.
I know, its much better advice than telling Argentina to beg the UN for the Falklands. Is that the strategy you would use? Damn, if I ever have to fight a war, I hope its with the French. In your nations finest moment in terms of military glory you were being lead by a Corsican midget, and lost in the end anyway.
User was warned for this post
This thread is getting a little off topic, I will only make this one post. France has a great military history, by far the greatest enemy England and then Britain has ever known. Take a look at who and what Napoleon had to battle too. Not to mention the fact you wouldnt have won the American war of Independance without their Navy cutting off Cornwallis' supplies. That post is very disrespectful.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
Dear France:
You're welcome.
signed,
Uncle Sam
User was warned for this post
Yeah and Lafayette, and then the Roman Empire, and before that our caveman who...
Why on earth do people keep mentioning France, I am not a representative of my country, for Christ sake. I just happened to be born there.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
That's one clever answer dude.
I know, its much better advice than telling Argentina to beg the UN for the Falklands. Is that the strategy you would use? Damn, if I ever have to fight a war, I hope its with the French. In your nations finest moment in terms of military glory you were being lead by a Corsican midget, and lost in the end anyway.
User was warned for this post
Well, go learn history, Einstein, and maybe we talk about the fact that Napoleon was one of the greatest conqueror of all times or of the fact that revolutionary armies made of unequipped peasants led by unexperimented revolutionary officers defeated a coalition made of all European powers.
And then , when it's done, we'll talk about the fact that without fucking Lafayette, your country would still be a British colony.
And when all of that is done, we will maybe move to the next step and consider the fact that I can't take credit for wars that have happened two centuries ago and that this prick waving about your country which is betterer because it has more F22 plane is what I was pointing at being plain stupid in the first place.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
Dear France:
You're welcome.
signed,
Uncle Sam
User was warned for this post
Yeah and Lafayette, and then the Roman Empire, and before that our caveman who...
Why on earth do people keep mentioning France, I am not a representative of my country, for Christ sake. I just happened to be born there.
Probably because you had literally done just the same thing a couple posts before and acted like he was a representative of America just because he was born there.
Really didn't see the hypocrisy in that post before you made it?
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
Dear France:
You're welcome.
signed,
Uncle Sam
User was warned for this post
Yeah and Lafayette, and then the Roman Empire, and before that our caveman who...
Why on earth do people keep mentioning France, I am not a representative of my country, for Christ sake. I just happened to be born there.
Probably because you had literally done just the same thing a couple posts before and acted like he was a representative of America just because he was born there.
Really didn't see the hypocrisy in that post before you made it?
Yeah right, an American dude coming and saying "the strongest is right" and "war solves stuff, just bomb'em" in today's international context is neutral. My problem is not that US suck or whatever and that therefore it disqualifies what he says (which is what he is doing with me), but that this is a discourse that has been dominant in America's international behavior for decades and which has led to the world becoming a mayhem.
In the one hand, I attack him on a discourse which is typically american, on the other one he answers on who won the most war and therefore is the best nation and therefore is right. There is no "Frenchness" in what I am saying, and I'm not talking in the name of my country.
I seriously don't care about what my country did or did not. I'm not even French in the first place (I'm actually Argentinian) and I don't even live there.
The British dont care about what the Argentinian president says, this place isn't hong kong, what do the people on the Island want? if they are given away by the British (as they see it) what are we doing to them?
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
Dear France:
You're welcome.
signed,
Uncle Sam
User was warned for this post
Yeah and Lafayette, and then the Roman Empire, and before that our caveman who...
Why on earth do people keep mentioning France, I am not a representative of my country, for Christ sake. I just happened to be born there.
Probably because you had literally done just the same thing a couple posts before and acted like he was a representative of America just because he was born there.
Really didn't see the hypocrisy in that post before you made it?
Yeah right, an American dude coming and saying "the strongest is right" and "war solves stuff, just bomb'em" in today's international context is neutral.
I seriously don't care about what my country did or did not. I'm not even French in the first place (I'm actually Argentinian) and I don't even live there.
Point is, you judged his argument based on where he was from (which is irrelevant), not the merits (or lack-there-of) within the argument itself.
People did the same to you in retort and you started to complain about that. Yeah right.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
That's one clever answer dude.
I know, its much better advice than telling Argentina to beg the UN for the Falklands. Is that the strategy you would use? Damn, if I ever have to fight a war, I hope its with the French. In your nations finest moment in terms of military glory you were being lead by a Corsican midget, and lost in the end anyway.
User was warned for this post
This thread is getting a little off topic, I will only make this one post. France has a great military history, by far the greatest enemy England and then Britain has ever known. Take a look at who and what Napoleon had to battle too. Not to mention the fact you wouldnt have won the American war of Independance without their Navy cutting off Cornwallis' supplies. That post is very disrespectful.
I was just screwin around with him, I love France.
On June 22 2011 04:44 CursedRich wrote: The British dont care about what the Argentinian president says, this place isn't hong kong, what do the people on the Island want? if they are given away by the British (as they see it) what are we doing to them?
Pretty much this. If the Falkland Islanders want independence or whatever then that's fine, but if they like being British (and who wouldn't?!), as it would appear, then I certainly don't want some Argentine pushing us around and telling us what to do with land we own and whose inhabitants are willing citizens of our country. We British need to start having a stiff upper lip in these situations.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
That's one clever answer dude.
I know, its much better advice than telling Argentina to beg the UN for the Falklands. Is that the strategy you would use? Damn, if I ever have to fight a war, I hope its with the French. In your nations finest moment in terms of military glory you were being lead by a Corsican midget, and lost in the end anyway.
User was warned for this post
This thread is getting a little off topic, I will only make this one post. France has a great military history, by far the greatest enemy England and then Britain has ever known. Take a look at who and what Napoleon had to battle too. Not to mention the fact you wouldnt have won the American war of Independance without their Navy cutting off Cornwallis' supplies. That post is very disrespectful.
I was just screwin around with him, I love France.
I don't know how he got banned and you didn't, especially when a couple of posts later you openly admit to baiting him into a response.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
Dear France:
You're welcome.
signed,
Uncle Sam
User was warned for this post
Yeah and Lafayette, and then the Roman Empire, and before that our caveman who...
Why on earth do people keep mentioning France, I am not a representative of my country, for Christ sake. I just happened to be born there.
Probably because you had literally done just the same thing a couple posts before and acted like he was a representative of America just because he was born there.
Really didn't see the hypocrisy in that post before you made it?
Yeah right, an American dude coming and saying "the strongest is right" and "war solves stuff, just bomb'em" in today's international context is neutral. My problem is not that US suck or whatever and that therefore it disqualifies what he says (which is what he is doing with me), but that this is a discourse that has been dominant in America's international behavior for decades and which has led to the world becoming a mayhem.
In the one hand, I attack him on a discourse which is typically american, on the other one he answers on who won the most war and therefore is the best nation and therefore is right. There is no "Frenchness" in what I am saying, and I'm not talking in the name of my country.
I seriously don't care about what my country did or did not. I'm not even French in the first place (I'm actually Argentinian) and I don't even live there.
I never said anything like that about war, you just assumed that. I merely said that war settled the matter. Let me put it in terms you can understand. 1000 men, each unique and of value in this world, DIED to settle the issue of which nation the Falklands belong to, and people have the gall to bring up historical matters in order to revive the issue. Britain won, its theirs. End of story.
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
I find it amusing that the french person says this . Pretty sure you needed this military might you speak of so negatively when you were busy being taken over by Germany.
If you don't see the difference between fighting against Nazism and for the freedom of your country and fighting for a nutshell that nobody care about, we are in trouble.
On June 22 2011 01:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On June 22 2011 01:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I find all the historical arguments concerning the legitimate owner of the island to be irrelevant. The U.K. won the war. The spoils go to the winner. That's how this kind of shit has been settled for thousands of years. If Argentina want's the Falklands, they need to declare war again. My advice would be to do it while Labour controls parliament.
Yeah, the dude with a bigger dick and who has more tanks is right.
That has been American motto for the last decades, I don't see why it should change. History has proven that war and big muscles is a great solution to solve problems.
More importantly, how could it possibly change? Sorry if that massive dose of reality made your head explode. I won't blame you if you go cry in a corner, having one's world view completely shattered can be quite a traumatic experience.
That's one clever answer dude.
I know, its much better advice than telling Argentina to beg the UN for the Falklands. Is that the strategy you would use? Damn, if I ever have to fight a war, I hope its with the French. In your nations finest moment in terms of military glory you were being lead by a Corsican midget, and lost in the end anyway.
User was warned for this post
This thread is getting a little off topic, I will only make this one post. France has a great military history, by far the greatest enemy England and then Britain has ever known. Take a look at who and what Napoleon had to battle too. Not to mention the fact you wouldnt have won the American war of Independance without their Navy cutting off Cornwallis' supplies. That post is very disrespectful.
I was just screwin around with him, I love France.
I don't know how he got banned and you didn't, especially when a couple of posts later you openly admit to baiting him into a response.
I did no such thing sir. I was screwing with him because of his naivete, and his initiation of hostilities.
On June 22 2011 04:44 CursedRich wrote: The British dont care about what the Argentinian president says, this place isn't hong kong, what do the people on the Island want? if they are given away by the British (as they see it) what are we doing to them?
Pretty much this. If the Falkland Islanders want independence or whatever then that's fine, but if they like being British (and who wouldn't?!), as it would appear, then I certainly don't want some Argentine pushing us around and telling us what to do with land we own and whose inhabitants are willing citizens of our country. We British need to start having a stiff upper lip in these situations.
As someone who was actually there during the conflict i agree. But .... whichever way you paint it war is never ever the answer. It's a truly horrible experience and one I would never like to repeat. Human beings sometimes disgust me.
As a Brit I thought of it at the time (16 years old then btw) That the UK is an island, if we showed weakness and just let them have the Falklands, any old country might turn up and actually try it with UK home soil. Most of the country thought this at the time. There was a massive show of patriotism and when we arrived home "victorious" we were national heroes. (As it should be with any serviceman or woman coming home regardless of result)
Now national pride seems to be an excuse for war, and that makes me terribly sad.
When the falkland islanders ask to be argentinian MAYBE this should be brought up again. Until then they should have the FREEDOM to belong to which every country they wish to that will accept them.
Argentina is basically trying to steal something it isn't entitled too. Any argentinian who thinks 290kms out from your shoreline is your territory is sadly mistaken. You get 12kms as does EVERY OTHER COUNTRY. Deal with it and move on.
To be completely honest perhaps argentina should become spanish territory again. They had it first before argentina was a country..... maybe they should still have it based on the argentinian arguements I have seen in this thread.
Whenever a country brings up a territorial claim with "It is close to us" being one of their big "keys" I want to respond with, "Canada is close to the U.S. so obviously it should be part of it.
On June 22 2011 07:59 graph1k wrote: Whenever a country brings up a territorial claim with "It is close to us" being one of their big "keys" I want to respond with, "Canada is close to the U.S. so obviously it should be part of it.
Note: I would not wish that on your Canadians ♥
You already tried to conquer us, probably for that very reason...I believe we left a bit of a mark on your White House?
On June 22 2011 07:59 graph1k wrote: Whenever a country brings up a territorial claim with "It is close to us" being one of their big "keys" I want to respond with, "Canada is close to the U.S. so obviously it should be part of it.
Note: I would not wish that on your Canadians ♥
You already tried to conquer us, probably for that very reason...I believe we left a bit of a mark on your White House?
That was because of the Brits capturing American ships, forcing our sailors into slavery, restricting trade, and paying Indians to fuck with us. Silly goose. Also, its interesting you consider yourself British.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Firstly, you're referring to England when you should be referring to the UK. Secondly, "having the island for 200 years" is not the claim, "having the island for 200 years AND defending them for that long AND having the support of the islanders" is the claim. It's an indication that the UK is fully competant to continue as is and has dedicated a lot militarily and economically to sustain the islands for that long of a time. Not to mention that not only do the inslanders want to be British, but we would respect their decision if they decided otherwise.
Also, there's no way another war will break out, unless Fernandez loses it completely:
Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered.
The people of the Falklands want to be part of Britain. That is the end of it. Do you know who cares what Argentina thinks about anything? Nope, me neither.
Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered.
Yes do that.
Why do that? It's not their land.
Whether the oil turned out to be the most valuable thing ever found on earth, or just mud that had fooled the scanners, it's none of Argentina's business. Any profit that comes from the Falklands, WHATEVER the source, is solely Britain's to do with as it pleases.
Also note that I'm no lover of the reliance on the oil industry re: North Sea Oil and Gas, so this isn't a "moar oil for Britain" post. Oil is a quick economic fix that helps nothing in the long term. It's simply a case of Argentina having no right to ask for 50%.
On June 16 2012 07:35 Rye. wrote: 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.
There are a lot of people here who haven't got a clue, sadly, and they think it would be a good idea to leave the U.K. They don't understand the consequences though, and our economy would soon go the same way as Iceland's or Ireland's. I'm hoping 16-18 year olds are not allowed to vote, as most of them seem to think it would be "cool" to be independent. -_-
It would seem the Falkland residents are perfectly happy being British. Good for them.
Oil may be what the current dispute is about - according to some sources, a compromise whereby Britain allows the profits to be split 50-50 is likely to be considered.
Yes do that.
Give us 50% of the GDP of the Republic of Ireland and we'll talk. It's an island, it's near us, clearly we deserve it. After all, it's not like historical rights, self determination or the fact that we attempted illegitimate military land grabs on it should alter that. They want to be British, all that matters.
The Argentinian stance is ridiculous. Kirchner is imitating Thatcher's own tactic in diverting the domestic problems from people's minds to rouse nationalistic support in her favour.
It's also obvious that Falklanders would benefit infinitely more under British rule, than under Argentinian rule.
PS: Since when does the continental shelf determine ownership of a land mass?
TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
from the china thread:
On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote: why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate?
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote: why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate?
What is the point of the U.S. saying anything? Argentina isn't going to do shit and unless they do the U.S. isn't going to needlessly antagonize Argentina for no reason. That's how diplomacy works.
And who does the U.S. want to control the oil, it's closest ally or a country and continent with a long history of playing politics with national resources?
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan. .
The UK did help the USA but I thought they did it for the greater good or humanity rather than for brownie points. This is a diffeent case it is a UK territory. It would be like the USA asking for help if Puerto Rico was being threatened. If you can not defend your own land it will no longer be yours.
Someone before mentioned that the UK has airbases all around the world so there is not a need for aircraft carriers. You still have the logistics to get the planes and the gear there,food,gas,bullets and bombs.
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan. .
The UK did help the USA but I thought they did it for the greater good or humanity rather than for brownie points. This is a diffeent case it is a UK territory. It would be like the USA asking for help if Puerto Rico was being threatened. If you can not defend your own land it will no longer be yours.
Someone before mentioned that the UK has airbases all around the world so there is not a need for aircraft carriers. You still have the logistics to get the planes and the gear there,food,gas,bullets and bombs.
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.
Why are people criticising the USA here? This has nothing to do with the USA. If the UK needed military help then it could ask for it, and it could ask the US as well as the rest of NATO and the commonwealth. The UK does not need military help, the Falklands are well defended this time. Argentina could not take them, let alone hold them.
I agree that we should give the Falklands to Argentina...as long as Buenos Aires gives the Argentinian mainland to Spain. since a few Spanish people may of once lived there. In fact, I am pretty sure a few Spanish people once lived on the Argentinian mainland, so I guess Spain has a better claim to Argentina than Argentina has to the Falklands.
The people living in the Falklands are fiercely consider themselves to be British and have been living there for several generations, so the Argentinians shouldn't really have any claim to the island of the citizens living there would prefer to be British nationals rather than Argentineans.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Yes, you're talking about a nation with a tremendous respect for self determinism and a recent history to prove it. We've been having referendums on these issues for decades and have been acting accordingly.
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
Its all about oil in the end, ownership of the islands allows britain to explore a huge territory around it with exclusive oil rights, and they have been finding tons of oil!
No surprise they want to be british btw, argentineans for all their worth, would only exploit them
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
Complex issue. Unrestricted self determinism is a bad thing. There are a few cults and politically radical groups in the us who would secede given half a chance. For me, it is a combination of factors that lead me to support the Falklands remaining subjects of the uk. Self determinism is part, another part is that they are probably better off that way, short and long term. If Britain was shipping slaves over there and using them to plant sugar, like in the bad old days, things might be different. Third, it's an Island and a special case, culturally and historically linked to the uk more than argentina and doesn't threaten the integrity of argentina with its existence.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think.
We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think.
We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
To be entirely frank, I don't really care about Britain's justifications for their holding the Falklands. In fact, the moment I heard about the entire thing my first though was, "Well, what do the people of the islands want?" And much to my surprise, the people's wishes in terms of their national identification are being fulfilled. That being said, I can understand the notion that Argentina/ the people of Argentina are losing out on resources/geography that may be owed to them. In this case, however, I think it makes to sense to let things be.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think.
We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
Yeah but the people in the Falklands want to stay there so why does it matter for this particular issue?
Also, why are we having this discussion in the 21st Century? Everything that had to be conquered has been conquered and almost every major war fought because of conquering a territory has been fought, plus like everyone says, the Falkland people want to stay British, not Argentinian.
Ms Kirschner should pay more attention to her domestic issues first, she sounds like Venezuela's Chavez. Honestly I don't how some guys made it to presidency of a country
territory claim is always complicated. British set up its colony through brute force and set up governments and schools to soft culture change the locals' point of view.
my personal viewpoint is extremely biased since Hong Kong was given to British after the first opium war. Not to mention how much treasures and relics were taken by the British and now they are still in display in the British museum...
so I do agree with the president's 'crude colonial power in decline' remark
But for this particular issue, they should just settle it over international law more than anything else I feel. The british should be happy that they soft culture invasion has been very successful if it is decided to belong to them
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think.
We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
Yeah but the people in the Falklands want to stay there so why does it matter for this particular issue?
Treating the symptoms doesn't address their cause. Just because things happen to work out well enough here under our currently broken system doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking about this. Basically, although the outcome may be the 'right thing' the reasons are wrong. You don't want to set precedence based on that.
Additionally, there are a lot of relevant issues here, things that are important to discuss in the larger scheme of things. The issue of private landownership, issues of class, etc, etc, etc... Basically, those who currently have a hand in managing the world's resources are not doing a very good job of it. People starving to death in this day and age is absolutely ridiculous. We are squandering our non-renewable, actually scarce resources with neither rhyme nor reason. We cling to ridiculous ideals about 'hard work' and people getting 'what they deserve.' What people deserve is a right to life, to their fair share of this planet's resources, no matter how 'economically productive' they are, no matter what family they were born into, etc, etc, etc...
It's 11:00 pm on a friday night here, I'm absolutely fried; I think I might be rambling and being a bit abstract here, but, basically, what I am saying is that this conflict is about who owns a piece of land. A piece of land is valued, primarily, for its ability to produce resources. Resources are required to sustain life. The current distribution of resources is not sustaining life in a lot of places. If there are people in the world who don't have anything to eat, and the Falkland Islands are producing resources, and those resources are going to people who already do have enough to eat, based on a concept of who 'owns' a piece of land, this is a problem, and we should be looking for the solution.
PR stunt according to my Argentinian gf. From my outside perspective, Kirchner seems quite incompetent. Or good at corruption and making her cronies richer. An example: Argentina was pressured into putting laws in place to hinder money laundering. After months of hassle, it is now possible again to transfer money out of the country, but you are now losing about 20% of the money transferred in the process.
On June 16 2012 12:37 ETisME wrote: territory claim is always complicated. British set up its colony through brute force and set up governments and schools to soft culture change the locals' point of view.
What are you talking about? There is no native population of the Falklands and the population that lives there is almost entirely of British descent. "Brute force" was not needed to take an empty island, and there weren't any locals.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think.
We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
Normally I would agree with you. But in 1982 no one knew that there were many resources around the Falklands.
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts.
from the china thread:
On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote: why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate?
Not implying anything here, I'm just very curious, but what's your nationality/racial background?
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote: And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Yes, absolutely the British government would and should respect the islanders' decision if they no longer wished to remain British. Just what are you saying?
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote: Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders.
Don't even start. We haven't got Joseph Stalin in power over here...
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote: The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
So what system and/or criteria do you suggest in order to settle this issue? The Falklands are too small to be an independant state, and Argentina pretty much lost all respect after invading the islands.
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote: Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
Again, no idea what you're talking about. The islands were never taken by force, and nobody is forcing the islanders to be British.
On June 16 2012 12:37 ETisME wrote: territory claim is always complicated. British set up its colony through brute force and set up governments and schools to soft culture change the locals' point of view.
my personal viewpoint is extremely biased since Hong Kong was given to British after the first opium war. Not to mention how much treasures and relics were taken by the British and now they are still in display in the British museum...
so I do agree with the president's 'crude colonial power in decline' remark
But for this particular issue, they should just settle it over international law more than anything else I feel. The british should be happy that they soft culture invasion has been very successful if it is decided to belong to them
You're implying that the natives were brainwashed or something? Well, for start there were no natives to begin with, so that is not possible, which also means that the islands were never taken by 'brute force' since there was nothing to force out.
You hate the British, fine, but don't just make stuff up.
Additionally, there are a lot of relevant issues here, things that are important to discuss in the larger scheme of things. The issue of private landownership, issues of class, etc, etc, etc... Basically, those who currently have a hand in managing the world's resources are not doing a very good job of it. People starving to death in this day and age is absolutely ridiculous. We are squandering our non-renewable, actually scarce resources with neither rhyme nor reason. We cling to ridiculous ideals about 'hard work' and people getting 'what they deserve.' What people deserve is a right to life, to their fair share of this planet's resources, no matter how 'economically productive' they are, no matter what family they were born into, etc, etc, etc...
How unfortunate that there aren't any Communist countries left but Cuba for you to move to so you can experience the utopia of your wishes in action.
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.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
Actually, the UK really believes in self-determinism. I'm pretty certain that if the Falklands wanted independence, Britain would grant them independence. Case in point: my country was part of the British Empire, and in the 1950s and 60s, there were talks of annexing my country to the UK, and the only thing keeping it from happening was a referendum (which ended up failing, but only because the Catholic Church threatened anyone voting in favour of integration to be expelled from the church). Once integration was off the table, my country started pushing for independence, and this was basically granted within a couple of years. Believe it or not, British colonialism was extremely beneficial to many of its territories, and quite a few of the colonised recognised that.
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 03:32 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.
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 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.
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.
As many have pointed out, it is just Argentinian nationalistic politicians turning a non-issue into an issue to garner popular support. It is not the actual issue of who gets the islands that is important, as I'm sure anyone that is even slightly knowledgeable about the issue would say the Falklands belong to the UK; it is simply a matter of how far Argentina is willing to go to try to get the Falklands.
Argentina is falling apart, its a common tactic to divert attention outside and appeal to nationalism to keep popularity up. Same as Bolivia does blaming their underdevelopment to not having an exit to the sea.
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 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.
Why? Because they are like you? The Falklands have been under British dominion for longer than any other state.
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.
Not as strong as the NATO. If Argentina attacks it will fight the whole NATO.
Argentina have no valid claim. The Falklands were never part of Argentina. The Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly want to be part of Britain rather than part of Argentina. If you believe in democracy at all, then the Falkland Islands should remain part of Britain. Argentina fought a stupid war about this and people on both sides died due to this idiocy.
I like Argentinians but seriously Argentina has been getting along fine throughout it's history without the Falklands.
War was stupid from Argentina, no chance of a repeat theyr just too outmatched to risk it. Some people are annoyed due to losing friends/family in the war etc but most Argentinians have put it behind them.
As someone with a pretty big anti-brit bias, I say the argentinians have no claim whatsoever.
British people that arn't argentinian in language or DNA, who never deposed any natives apart from some wildlife, who want to be british, who's only war ever fought was against the argentinians and who would only stand to lose from joining a country that's far less powerfull or stable then britain.
Only real reasons for Kirchners saber rattling I can see is the "proximity" argument and anti-colonial sentiments, the proximity argument is pretty weak as it's far away from Argentina as well and anti-colonial sentiments are just misguided as the brits never subjugated anyone to build their military base there.
So either Kirchner is retarded or she's just doing it for the politics/oil, and sadly enough for her, that's not enough for a cassus belli, not that her attempts would fare better then last time.
What the Argentine government completely fails to grasp is that it's a matter of self-determination, the Falklands are an independent, self-governing territory, the British government can't legally just give the Falklands to Argentina even if they wanted to.
Argentina should focus on it's on failing economy before it defaults and it's 2001 all over again.
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.
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.
Yeah...I'm from Scotland and I have to ask what the hell you're on about.
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.
They were uninhabited when discovered by an Englishman and they ARE independent. Also, over the last 200 years Argentina has controlled the islands for a total of about 4 months...their first settlement was shut down by the US for piracy, the second occassion they decided to pay a visit was in 1982 and I think we all know how that ended.
On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote: What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan. .
The UK did help the USA but I thought they did it for the greater good or humanity rather than for brownie points. This is a diffeent case it is a UK territory. It would be like the USA asking for help if Puerto Rico was being threatened. If you can not defend your own land it will no longer be yours.
Someone before mentioned that the UK has airbases all around the world so there is not a need for aircraft carriers. You still have the logistics to get the planes and the gear there,food,gas,bullets and bombs.
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.
The British government was already keen on taking out Saddam, the opportunity of the US-led invasion was perfect for them.
The US provided weaponry (sidewinder missiles for example), supplies, satellite imagery and other intelligence to the British in the Falklands war, what makes you think they wouldn't help out if Britain had to fight another war?
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.
Ethnic groups 61.3% Falkland Islander 29.0% British 2.6% Spaniard 0.6% Japanese 6.5% Chilean & Other
Does that look Argentinian to anyone?
Most UK and Argentinians feel very strongly on the issue, as I'm sure you do Kwark, can you explain to us why? I understand the debate about is it ours, but why hasn't the debate just been stopped? I'm actually very confused, I know that GoTunk said that its common practice to look outward in south america cuz the inner politics isn't very good at all with the economic side being specifically corrupt, is that the main reason?
It would be phenomenally stupid at a time of relative unpopularity for David Cameron for Argentinian sabre rattling to end in a limited war which they would lose in record time. The Falklands are the Falklands. Nevermind Las Malvinas. They are the Falkland Islands and everyone over here is well aware of the Argentinian political situation.
As I understand it, most of the Argentines themselves are pretty embarrassed about it all.
Britain cared about the islands before oil exploration was done, so why do people keep talking about oil? Oh wait... because oil is the bogeyman. Number one straw to grasp if you want to disagree and express your knee-jerk antipathy, but don't really have a reason why. Must be oil!
The only "strong feeling" I have about this is that the islanders want to be British. I don't give a shit about the past (although I understand that it can't be ignored by politicians, EDIT: and IMO it supports the British claim to the islands anyway).
If they stop wanting to be British, they're quite welcome to start talking about becoming Argentinian. I don't think that'll happen any time soon, though.
If they want to be British, they should remain so: if Argentina starts another Falklands war it would be utterly stupid, in part because they're basically trying to "kidnap" the islanders and mainly because they can't hope to win.
The entire debate is just so stupid and an obvious political stunt by Argentina's govt.
Although I'm British I don't really care about the Falklands remaining British - but logically it seems that they are British, and that's that? Not in Argentinian waters and inhabited almost entirely by British people.
Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
On June 17 2012 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: Britain cared about the islands before oil exploration was done, so why do people keep talking about oil? Oh wait... because oil is the bogeyman. Number one straw to grasp if you want to disagree and express your knee-jerk antipathy, but don't really have a reason why. Must be oil!
That's a weird line of reasoning. If it wasn't for natural resources this would be a non-issue. It would be something like Gibraltar: a low level nuisance for the countries involved completely ignored by everyone else.
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Although I'm British I don't really care about the Falklands remaining British - but logically it seems that they are British, and that's that? Not in Argentinian waters and inhabited almost entirely by British people.
Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Fair enough, let Ireland have a vote like the Falklands has had. See if they want to be part of England.. -_-
This is going to sound incredibly callous but I've always felt the Falklands has just been a political punching bag for Argentinian politicians. I don't see the significance of the territorial claim at all except as political currency. Pretty good to say to the constituents "Oh yeah, well I took our islands back from them!". Hard to say they were incompetent if they challenged a great nation and won right? ..
Okay, let's take my country for example. Guam is a unincorporated territory. They have continually voiced their intent to be part of the United States, although it is not incorporated like a State is. Now let's say tomorrow they wanted to join Micronesia. Vote, done. They can do what they like. If the Falkland Islands voted to become part of Argentina then I would have no objection.
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Although I'm British I don't really care about the Falklands remaining British - but logically it seems that they are British, and that's that? Not in Argentinian waters and inhabited almost entirely by British people.
Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Fair enough, let Ireland have a vote like the Falklands has had. See if they want to be part of England.. -_-
This is going to sound incredibly callous but I've always felt the Falklands has just been a political punching bag for Argentinian politicians. I don't see the significance of the territorial claim at all except as political currency. Pretty good to say to the constituents "Oh yeah, well I took our islands back from them!". Hard to say they were incompetent if they challenged a great nation and won right? ..
Okay, let's take my country for example. Guam is a unincorporated territory. They have continually voiced their intent to be part of the United States, although it is not incorporated like a State is. Now let's say tomorrow they wanted to join Micronesia. Vote, done. They can do what they like. If the Falkland Islands voted to become part of Argentina then I would have no objection.
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.
Ethnic groups 61.3% Falkland Islander 29.0% British 2.6% Spaniard 0.6% Japanese 6.5% Chilean & Other
Does that look Argentinian to anyone?
Most UK and Argentinians feel very strongly on the issue, as I'm sure you do Kwark, can you explain to us why? I understand the debate about is it ours, but why hasn't the debate just been stopped? I'm actually very confused, I know that GoTunk said that its common practice to look outward in south america cuz the inner politics isn't very good at all with the economic side being specifically corrupt, is that the main reason?
The reason that I (as a brit) feel strongly about it is that 1982 is the most recent occasion of a foreign state invading and trying to occupy British land and British people. As an analogy for a American, I would say that the Falklands could be compared to Hawaii. If a foreign state invaded Hawaii I am sure that American citizens would want their military to defend it.
Why not just ask the people on the island who they want to belong to? I understand it might be British dominated vote because they have owned it for so long but thats simply how it is now. You arn't gonna turn it over to Argentina and then have everyone with British citizenship be forced to apply for Argentina, thats just stupid.
Is it something about the month of June that causes the Falkland issue to come out on TL?
I'm very surprised that the Argentinian president keeps bringing this up. With all the problems a government needs to deal with, this surely can't be priority. It feels like Fernández uses the Falklands like Bush used 911.
On June 17 2012 08:12 Zooper31 wrote: Why not just ask the people on the island who they want to belong to? I understand it might be British dominated vote because they have owned it for so long but thats simply how it is now.
There's a referendum planned for early next year, not that the result will be hard to predict.
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Although I'm British I don't really care about the Falklands remaining British - but logically it seems that they are British, and that's that? Not in Argentinian waters and inhabited almost entirely by British people.
Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Fair enough, let Ireland have a vote like the Falklands has had. See if they want to be part of England.. -_-
This is going to sound incredibly callous but I've always felt the Falklands has just been a political punching bag for Argentinian politicians. I don't see the significance of the territorial claim at all except as political currency. Pretty good to say to the constituents "Oh yeah, well I took our islands back from them!". Hard to say they were incompetent if they challenged a great nation and won right? ..
Okay, let's take my country for example. Guam is a unincorporated territory. They have continually voiced their intent to be part of the United States, although it is not incorporated like a State is. Now let's say tomorrow they wanted to join Micronesia. Vote, done. They can do what they like. If the Falkland Islands voted to become part of Argentina then I would have no objection.
Hmmm it seems pretty confusing that there's an argument here at all. Indeed the UK position is similar to the above. If the people vote to be part of Argentina (or any other nation) then they can be. You have an island that's been British for 200 years, thats never had a real Argentinian presence other than an invasion force in the 80's. It's a self governing population that almost unanimously wants to remain a british territory for protection.
Do some people just not realise this or are people proposing forced ethnic cleansing? British imperialism is long dead but the UK governments not going to just abandon these people.
If Argentina wants it that badly they should be making offers to the people not trying to get the UN to hand it to them... I suspect they'd have to offer a whole lot though given the history.
Yeah, this wasn't the Argentinian president just randomly bringing up the Falklands. Both the UK and Argentina marked the 30th anniversary of the war on Thursday.
The volume is only a dull roar in the UK because they have bigger fish to fry. Between the European Economic Crisis, the Diamond Jubilee, and the Olympics, a minor war over some obscure islands in the south Atlantic is not exactly at the top of the list.
And anyways, President Kirchner needs nationalism because her re-election is on the ropes. Prime Minister David Cameron is almost guaranteed to lose his job already, he's just hoping to not F up too much any more and go down in history as the worst PM since Neville Chamberlain.
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Hey buddy, let sleeping dogs lie! Eight hundred years and all that.
On June 17 2012 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: Britain cared about the islands before oil exploration was done, so why do people keep talking about oil? Oh wait... because oil is the bogeyman. Number one straw to grasp if you want to disagree and express your knee-jerk antipathy, but don't really have a reason why. Must be oil!
That's a weird line of reasoning. If it wasn't for natural resources this would be a non-issue. It would be something like Gibraltar: a low level nuisance for the countries involved completely ignored by everyone else.
Ownership of the islands was not a non-issue or a low-level nuisance to either Argentina or Britain well before people started speculating that there might be oil underneath the sea floor surrounding the islands. Serious discussion about looking for oil there didn't even start until the 1990s and exploration just started taking place a few years ago.
This materialistic deterministic view of international politics leaves much to be desired; it isn't comprehensive and it's importance is exaggerated and it misses the forest for the trees. It's a relic of Marxist theory - one of the few still given credence by anyone - where everything is explained by economic interests and pressures, or they are at least paramount. Oil is not the reason or even a reason Britain won't give them up and it isn't the reason Argentina wants them.
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Although I'm British I don't really care about the Falklands remaining British - but logically it seems that they are British, and that's that? Not in Argentinian waters and inhabited almost entirely by British people.
Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Fair enough, let Ireland have a vote like the Falklands has had. See if they want to be part of England.. -_- This is going to sound incredibly callous but I've always felt the Falklands has just been a political punching bag for Argentinian politicians. I don't see the significance of the territorial claim at all except as political currency. Pretty good to say to the constituents "Oh yeah, well I took our islands back from them!". Hard to say they were incompetent if they challenged a great nation and won right? ..
Okay, let's take my country for example. Guam is a unincorporated territory. They have continually voiced their intent to be part of the United States, although it is not incorporated like a State is. Now let's say tomorrow they wanted to join Micronesia. Vote, done. They can do what they like. If the Falkland Islands voted to become part of Argentina then I would have no objection.
I'm from Argentina and I can confirm that the bolded part is so sadly true. I hope the islands stay under british goverment, their inhabitants seem to be happy that way.
I want to reiterate that I mean no ill will or insult to you LagT_T or any other Argentinian. I was worried my post would come across as ignorant country bashing.
I think there is a referendum happening soon in the Falklands by the government as to whether they wish to remain British or not? I recently heard that.
Me personally I don't care, as far as I'm concerned its whatever the islanders there what to do whether its remain british or turn to Argentinian. I've never met any Argentines to discuss this/people from the Island. I would think it would be slightly sad to give the Island back after having a war over it though. I think it only became a issue when the war happened and people were like but bro we fought a war over it!
But as i said a vote for the islanders would be best in my view
When letting the islanders vote on it, there should be 3 options.
1-british 2-argentinian 3-independant.
It would be kinda funny if the islands where so rich with oil that it would be like a 2nd kuweit and the people would vote independant. Nearly everyone in favor of letting the people vote would suddenly find it a terrible idea.
@below: yes people might fear that but i guess they could be safe. If they realy got lot of oil they can just buy american protection like the gulf states. We have to asume that they wont be invaded, i wanted to give this example just to show people that manny only like the idea of voting, because they expect the vote to be favourable.
If the islands became independent then Argentina would just invade them, and the islanders know it. The UK would probably grant them independence if they voted for it (Scotland has oil too, and they are voting for independence in 2014).
On June 17 2012 20:30 Rassy wrote: When letting the islanders vote on it, there should be 3 options.
1-british 2-argentinian 3-independant.
It would be kinda funny if the islands where so rich with oil that it would be like a 2nd kuweit and the people would vote independant. Nearly everyone in favor of letting the people vote would suddenly find it a terrible idea.
@below: yes people might fear that but i guess they could be safe. If they realy got lot of oil they can just buy american protection like the gulf states. We have to asume that they wont be invaded, i wanted to give this example just to show people that manny only like the idea of voting, because they expect the vote to be favourable.
I think most people predict at least 95% vote in favour of being British but i dunno if that is with an independent option, but still my understanding is the islanders are very grateful for Britain liberating them from Argentina 30 years ago.
On June 17 2012 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: Britain cared about the islands before oil exploration was done, so why do people keep talking about oil? Oh wait... because oil is the bogeyman. Number one straw to grasp if you want to disagree and express your knee-jerk antipathy, but don't really have a reason why. Must be oil!
That's a weird line of reasoning. If it wasn't for natural resources this would be a non-issue. It would be something like Gibraltar: a low level nuisance for the countries involved completely ignored by everyone else.
This materialistic deterministic view of international politics leaves much to be desired; it isn't comprehensive and it's importance is exaggerated and it misses the forest for the trees. It's a relic of Marxist theory - one of the few still given credence by anyone - where everything is explained by economic interests and pressures, or they are at least paramount. Oil is not the reason or even a reason Britain won't give them up and it isn't the reason Argentina wants them.
I don't know exactly what you mean by materialistic deterministic view. The question isn't why Argentina claims the Falklands or the UK won't give it up. It's quite rare for countries to give up territory or claims over significant amount of territory.
But economic factors strongly influence how actively they'll pursue their claims. That's not an ideological position. It's just common sense.
On June 17 2012 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: Britain cared about the islands before oil exploration was done, so why do people keep talking about oil? Oh wait... because oil is the bogeyman. Number one straw to grasp if you want to disagree and express your knee-jerk antipathy, but don't really have a reason why. Must be oil!
That's a weird line of reasoning. If it wasn't for natural resources this would be a non-issue. It would be something like Gibraltar: a low level nuisance for the countries involved completely ignored by everyone else.
This materialistic deterministic view of international politics leaves much to be desired; it isn't comprehensive and it's importance is exaggerated and it misses the forest for the trees. It's a relic of Marxist theory - one of the few still given credence by anyone - where everything is explained by economic interests and pressures, or they are at least paramount. Oil is not the reason or even a reason Britain won't give them up and it isn't the reason Argentina wants them.
I don't know exactly what you mean by materialistic deterministic view. The question isn't why Argentina claims the Falklands or the UK won't give it up. It's quite rare for countries to give up territory or claims over significant amount of territory.
But economic factors strongly influence how actively they'll pursue their claims. That's not an ideological position. It's just common sense.
As as I said before though, the main point is that the Falklands are independent and the British government couldn't legally give them to Argentina if they wanted to.
As for Gibraltar, the Spanish still seem kind of pissed about that, it's why the Spanish queen refused to attend the Diamond Jubilee celebtrations.
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Although I'm British I don't really care about the Falklands remaining British - but logically it seems that they are British, and that's that? Not in Argentinian waters and inhabited almost entirely by British people.
Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Fair enough, let Ireland have a vote like the Falklands has had. See if they want to be part of England.. -_-
Yeah, the vast majority of us in the North wish to remain part of the UK. Even more so when the Euro went kaboooooom xD
There is no discussion about this, everything is simple:
1. Kirchner just wants votes from Argentina public. 2. UK doesn't want to give up a strategic (military) position in South America. 3. The islanders are raised as englishmen, they feel themselves as englishmen and do rather stay with UK.
Did you know that there is a little part of France in South America too? French Guyana is french territory, right above Brazil. Funny thing is, we never ever hear news about them, only once I think I read somewhere about illegal importation/exportation stuff.
It's obviously a political stunt from the argentinian government. Draw attention away from home and rally support by making a common enemy. As for those supporting their claims, the islands were uninhabited when the europeans came over. The british colonised it, and the residents of today want to remain british. So, what exactly is the problem?
I vagely recall reading an interview with some sort of former argentinean minister from the time of the war, in which he said something a long the lines that they were negotiating a way to get the islands from the UK and it was going pretty smoothly. Until the junta decided it was a good idea to declare war.
I'll see if I can find a link, I remember thinking it was very interesting.
On June 18 2012 05:38 fabiano wrote: There is no discussion about this, everything is simple:
1. Kirchner just wants votes from Argentina public. 2. UK doesn't want to give up a strategic (military) position in South America. 3. The islanders are raised as englishmen, they feel themselves as englishmen and do rather stay with UK.
Did you know that there is a little part of France in South America too? French Guyana is french territory, right above Brazil. Funny thing is, we never ever hear news about them, only once I think I read somewhere about illegal importation/exportation stuff.
EU is watching us closely D:
Doesn't France have a space launch site there or something? I remember seeing it on Discovery Channel, they were talking about escape hatches and stuff. And would make sense because it's at the Equator.
Give the islanders what they want. Stay in Britain.
On June 18 2012 05:45 Telcontar wrote: It's obviously a political stunt from the argentinian government. Draw attention away from home and rally support by making a common enemy. As for those supporting their claims, the islands were uninhabited when the europeans came over. The british colonised it, and the residents of today want to remain british. So, what exactly is the problem?
I have the oddest feeling of deja vu... could have sworn I saw this exact thing posted in the thread somewhere
On June 17 2012 06:54 philly5man wrote: Why don't we lay claim to Ireland? Sure it's got a lot of Irish people there but it's pretty nearby so let's give it a(nother) shot.
Hey buddy, let sleeping dogs lie! Eight hundred years and all that.
Alright, alright, I'll give it a rest this time. Wanna team up and get Iceland?
On June 18 2012 05:45 Telcontar wrote: It's obviously a political stunt from the argentinian government. Draw attention away from home and rally support by making a common enemy. As for those supporting their claims, the islands were uninhabited when the europeans came over. The british colonised it, and the residents of today want to remain british. So, what exactly is the problem?
To be honest, 1982 was a political stunt as well... The president is just using this the same way Bush used Terrorists to get re-elected. It probably will work, as I remember reading an interview about this Argentinian academic which said that anyone that disagrees with the whole Las Malvinas cause, it deemed unpatriotic.
What is the Argentinian equivalent to "USA USA USA"?
Note: I'm not American bashing. I lived in the US during Bush's re election and was just very surprised how many other issues got clouded by the Foreign treat stuff. Bush strat. of vote for me and I will keep you safe clearly worked. I just think Argentina used of the foreign treat is very similar
On June 18 2012 05:20 Psychobabas wrote: Stupid war. Should be part of Argentina.
Hilarious how many foreigners are supporting the British in this and then we have a Brit who says it should be part of Argentina! Their propaganda must have gotten to you. What matters is the wishes of the islanders, just as the UK gave independence eventually to all the commonwealth nations that wanted it, there would be no problem giving them independence if they wanted it. If I were a Falklander there is no way I would prefer to be Argentinian over British! The Argies keep accusing the Brits of wanting imperialism and oil, the Brits would be just as fierce defending the Falklands if they were a barren strip of desert, if populated by subjects of the British crown. There is a special unity between the members of the commonwealth and the UK, you have to admit the sentimentality is enjoyable. The commonwealth showed its support and unity with the UK in the 2nd world war, it was a glorious thing to behold.
On June 18 2012 05:20 Psychobabas wrote: Stupid war. Should be part of Argentina.
Hilarious how many foreigners are supporting the British in this and then we have a Brit who says it should be part of Argentina! Their propaganda must have gotten to you. What matters is the wishes of the islanders, just as the UK gave independence eventually to all the commonwealth nations that wanted it, there would be no problem giving them independence if they wanted it. If I were a Falklander there is no way I would prefer to be Argentinian over British! The Argies keep accusing the Brits of wanting imperialism and oil, the Brits would be just as fierce defending the Falklands if they were a barren strip of desert, if populated by subjects of the British crown. There is a special unity between the members of the commonwealth and the UK, you have to admit the sentimentality is enjoyable. The commonwealth showed its support and unity with the UK in the 2nd world war, it was a glorious thing to behold.
Their propaganda must have gotten to you
Just because he has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that he is brainwashed.
Most of the commonwealth wasn't independent during WW2, they had no option!
They didn't give them the freedom because they were feeling nice, only because they knew they eventually would lose them and it would be more beneficial to go out in good terms.
Plus as you live in the country that ran the commonwealth countries before independence its easy not to realise how oppressed people felt being part of a colony. Hence the feeling of unity might not be so mutual as you think it is.
P.S.: I think Falklands should be British but, no offence, you wrote a non-point above.
So it is was a uninhabited piece of rock in no one's territorial waters?
And now you have a population there made almost entirely out of people of British decent, who all support remaining British territory, as opposed to becoming a part of Argentina, who invaded them and tried to force them into living a different life?
And in the past, no one but possibly one single guy has wanted to become a part of Argentina?
So why are people trying to support Argentina oppressing and occupying the islands?
On June 19 2012 00:34 Saryph wrote: So it is was a uninhabited piece of rock in no one's territorial waters?
And now you have a population there made almost entirely out of people of British decent, who all support remaining British territory, as opposed to becoming a part of Argentina, who invaded them and tried to force them into living a different life?
And in the past, no one but possibly one single guy has wanted to become a part of Argentina?
So why are people trying to support Argentina oppressing and occupying the islands?
because of the tiny orange bit in the middle: =P
Obviously my point is more of a comical one rather a factual thing as there are technicalities on the claim
On June 19 2012 00:34 Saryph wrote: So it is was a uninhabited piece of rock in no one's territorial waters?
And now you have a population there made almost entirely out of people of British decent, who all support remaining British territory, as opposed to becoming a part of Argentina, who invaded them and tried to force them into living a different life?
And in the past, no one but possibly one single guy has wanted to become a part of Argentina?
So why are people trying to support Argentina oppressing and occupying the islands?
The most common theory is because of money. There is supposed to be a lot of oil on the islands and the Argentinians would like and I'm sure the British do too.
On June 18 2012 05:20 Psychobabas wrote: Stupid war. Should be part of Argentina.
Hilarious how many foreigners are supporting the British in this and then we have a Brit who says it should be part of Argentina! Their propaganda must have gotten to you. What matters is the wishes of the islanders, just as the UK gave independence eventually to all the commonwealth nations that wanted it, there would be no problem giving them independence if they wanted it. If I were a Falklander there is no way I would prefer to be Argentinian over British! The Argies keep accusing the Brits of wanting imperialism and oil, the Brits would be just as fierce defending the Falklands if they were a barren strip of desert, if populated by subjects of the British crown. There is a special unity between the members of the commonwealth and the UK, you have to admit the sentimentality is enjoyable. The commonwealth showed its support and unity with the UK in the 2nd world war, it was a glorious thing to behold.
Just because he has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that he is brainwashed.
Most of the commonwealth wasn't independent during WW2, they had no option!
They didn't give them the freedom because they were feeling nice, only because they knew they eventually would lose them and it would be more beneficial to go out in good terms.
Plus as you live in the country that ran the commonwealth countries before independence its easy not to realise how oppressed people felt being part of a colony. Hence the feeling of unity might not be so mutual as you think it is.
P.S.: I think Falklands should be British but, no offence, you wrote a non-point above.
You said 'should be part of Argentina' then said you think Falklands should be British? Eh?
On June 18 2012 05:20 Psychobabas wrote: Stupid war. Should be part of Argentina.
Hilarious how many foreigners are supporting the British in this and then we have a Brit who says it should be part of Argentina! Their propaganda must have gotten to you. What matters is the wishes of the islanders, just as the UK gave independence eventually to all the commonwealth nations that wanted it, there would be no problem giving them independence if they wanted it. If I were a Falklander there is no way I would prefer to be Argentinian over British! The Argies keep accusing the Brits of wanting imperialism and oil, the Brits would be just as fierce defending the Falklands if they were a barren strip of desert, if populated by subjects of the British crown. There is a special unity between the members of the commonwealth and the UK, you have to admit the sentimentality is enjoyable. The commonwealth showed its support and unity with the UK in the 2nd world war, it was a glorious thing to behold.
Their propaganda must have gotten to you
Just because he has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that he is brainwashed.
Most of the commonwealth wasn't independent during WW2, they had no option!
They didn't give them the freedom because they were feeling nice, only because they knew they eventually would lose them and it would be more beneficial to go out in good terms.
Plus as you live in the country that ran the commonwealth countries before independence its easy not to realise how oppressed people felt being part of a colony. Hence the feeling of unity might not be so mutual as you think it is.
P.S.: I think Falklands should be British but, no offence, you wrote a non-point above.
You said 'should be part of Argentina' then said you think Falklands should be British? Eh?
Different people mate. =)
On June 18 2012 05:20 Psychobabas wrote: Stupid war. Should be part of Argentina
On June 19 2012 00:03 Scheme wrote: Most of the commonwealth wasn't independent during WW2, they had no option!.
If it was Commonwealth it was independant, that's the point. Commonwealth != British Empire. Ex-Empire sure but not all parted on bad terms. The Austrailian's and Canadians came of their own accord, most of the RAF's top pilots were colonial, there were even Americans who came over and joined when the US was trying to stay out.
On June 19 2012 00:34 Saryph wrote: So why are people trying to support Argentina oppressing and occupying the islands?
Political leverage mostly, South America is on the rise and it makes their leaders happy. As for the American Actors making noise about it, well thats mostly down to being uninformed and a little dim... They hear the political statements about colonisation and assume the the evil redcoats came and enslaved the poor Agentinian locals on the way home from burning the white house etc... too many Mel Gibson films I suspect.
On June 19 2012 00:34 Saryph wrote: So it is was a uninhabited piece of rock in no one's territorial waters?
And now you have a population there made almost entirely out of people of British decent, who all support remaining British territory, as opposed to becoming a part of Argentina, who invaded them and tried to force them into living a different life?
And in the past, no one but possibly one single guy has wanted to become a part of Argentina?
So why are people trying to support Argentina oppressing and occupying the islands?
because of the tiny orange bit in the middle: =P
Obviously my point is more of a comical one rather a factual thing as there are technicalities on the claim
What do the French call the Falklands? Maybe we should discuss this with Hollande. He might feel he has a claim on the Falklands too.
On June 19 2012 00:03 Scheme wrote: Most of the commonwealth wasn't independent during WW2, they had no option!.
If it was Commonwealth it was independant, that's the point. Commonwealth != British Empire. Ex-Empire sure but not all parted on bad terms. The Austrailian's and Canadians came of their own accord, most of the RAF's top pilots were colonial, there were even Americans who came over and joined when the US was trying to stay out.
I know that Commonwealth != British Empire, perhaps the correct thing to say was that most countries that are currently part of the commonwealth were not independent during WW2, and hence had no option. Countries like India as an example, sent 2.5 million people to fight and they were not independent during the time. Canada had 1.1 million people serving during ww2 and Australia a little under a million.
What I was saying is that most countries did part on good terms as the British gave them independence before it came down to an actually confrontation, unlike other European countries.
On June 19 2012 00:34 Saryph wrote: So it is was a uninhabited piece of rock in no one's territorial waters?
And now you have a population there made almost entirely out of people of British decent, who all support remaining British territory, as opposed to becoming a part of Argentina, who invaded them and tried to force them into living a different life?
And in the past, no one but possibly one single guy has wanted to become a part of Argentina?
So why are people trying to support Argentina oppressing and occupying the islands?
because of the tiny orange bit in the middle: =P
Obviously my point is more of a comical one rather a factual thing as there are technicalities on the claim
What do the French call the Falklands? Maybe we should discuss this with Hollande. He might feel he has a claim on the Falklands too.
Les Malouines (from Saint-Malo, as the islands were apparently discovered by people from there). Yeah I agree, we should claim it, if only to piss off Cameron and English people in general <3
On June 21 2011 05:51 chgh wrote: Sanctimonius : (I know it's a little long, but I not only wrote details about the claims of Argentina, I also wrote other issues that are very important to understand our point of view).by the way, Thanks for ask!
Why Argentines make an endless fuss about Las Malvinas/Falklands?
The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. It's what every international law that you can read says.
They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain.
Anyone who "really" studies the history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong. On Treaty of Utrecht Great Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty and this led to 40 years of Spanish occupation of the islands, which was reasserted in 1823 by Buenos Aires after its independence from Spain.
Ten years later the islands were seized by force by Britain, and settlers sent out in a act of imperial aggression.
The Argentine Claim
Legal Rights:
- Both Spain and Argentina did the actual occupation of the islands, the principle that the UK and major European countries then recognized as essential title for the acquisition of territorial sovereignty.
- The British occupation of Port Egmont (1765-1774) is considered negative by his attributes:
Unlawful, as a violation of existing treaties; Underground, to remain hidden until its discovery by the Spanish; Late, because it happened after the French occupation; Answered, because Spain resisted and reserved their rights; Partly, because it reduced to Port Egmont, while Spain had Puerto Soledad; Brief, because it only lasted eight years; Precarious, abandoned in 1774;
- Spain when return Port Egmont in 1771 did so as an act of reparation and made explicit reservation of his rights.
- Argentina after independence, inherited Spain's rights under the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, so exercised eminent domain since 1810.
- Spain Recognizing the independence of Argentina, effective possession of the islands on November 6, 1820, the United Kingdom did not make any protest. Nor did the December 15, 1823 when he recognized the United Provinces, or when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825. His first protest took place only on November 19, 1831.
- The United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelling the population and not allowing their return, thus violating the territorial integrity and national Argentina unity. Which is contrary to Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states in its sixth paragraph that any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the unit national and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
- Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774 and renounced its sovereignty by signing a treaty. While Argentina has always claimed sovereignty and has never renounced it.
- The invasion of 1833 was illegal by the law of nations and violated Article 4 of the First Convention of Nootka signed on October 28, 1790.
- Also violated treaties signed by Great Britain to recognize their rights to Spain in South America and the exclusive right to sail in the South Atlantic: American Treaty of 1670 and the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 with subsequent treaties ratified.
- The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of colonial expansion. What is evidenced by his two attempts of invasion to Buenos Aires (1806-1807) and the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in 1845.
Geographical Rights:
- Geographical continuity: the Falkland Islands are a short distance from the Argentine mainland (about 480 km), emerging with geological continuity of the continental shelf of Argentina.(1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf).
Jurisdictional Waters:
- The Republic of Argentina, based on international maritime law, claims sovereignty over the seas adjacent to the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and Shag Rocks, Black and Clerke.
- The Argentina exercised its sovereignty in the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands from the 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles without Great Britain claimed those waters until 1982.
About Inhabitants:
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
- Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.
- The Argentine Nation ratifies in his National Constitution his legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life for its inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.
About the claim:
Although the restitution of the Falkland Islands is the base of the Argentine claim. Argentina openly expresses its intention to recover the Falkland Islands by diplomatic means and not by using force. Argentina call to enforce the UN resolution 2065 and to start negotiations to find a diplomatic solution. Not being for Argentina a mandatory condition the withdrawal of Britain from the islands.
Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away.
Some argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Others believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates Argentine original claim.
But Argentina's defeat in the war of 1982 neither change his rights of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands nor the basis of his claim. By law, military conquest does not establish legal title.
The Falklands were seized for Britain during an era of colonial expansion, that is an undeniable fact.
To understand the Falklands War, it is also necessary to understand who was Lopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, leader of Argentina's military junta and his intimate relationship with Washington. It is also necessary to understand how the Falklands War is directly related to the economic and political situation in the UK in times of Margaret Thatcher and her deliberate attempts to not stop the war.
Argentina was a dictatorship then. Britain had no problem relating to it, or sell weapons to Argentina until 1982. Nor had trouble befriending another dictatorship like Chile. Nor did anything against the repeated alarms sent for months by the inhabitants of the islands and Chilean intelligence about Argentine military movements near the islands. Britain had detailed documentation of the Argentine intention to invade Falklands, including the date at which this would happen. Thatcher administration did nothing to stop the war an also sabotaged any negotiation that would include a ceasefire as an option.
The reasons are well known.
Margaret Thatcher, an ardent advocate of the liberal model promoted by the International Trade Organization, was particularly interested in a war in the south Atlantic to distract attention from the disastrous consequences of his privatization and economic model.
How far negotiations between Argentina's military junta with Washington and the visit of the Argentine Military Junta leader Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri to the United States in 1981 relate to the war, it is impossible to know.
Until the sinking of the battleship General Belgrano outside the waters imposed by Britain around the islands, the Argentine military were convinced that there would be no war with Britain and the United States would remain neutral. This explains many decisions that urged by imminence of the battle would be disastrous for Argentina in combat, but of course this not justify the Argentine desicion of invade the islands.
From that time until today there are many questions we asked ourselves as Argentines. We look to our recent past and try to correct our mistakes.
Maybe It's time to British begin to do the same, to ask:
Why 2,500 colonists, 8,000 miles away from London, in their fishing and farming British way of life enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy?
Why you spend £69m to maintain a military presence on the Falklands Islands with an incredible display of weapons and and almost as many troops (1,200), as there were islanders at the time of the invasion to face a country that has shown no sign of rearming since 1982?
Why the insistence on showing the inhabitants of the islands as a threatened and defenseless population, when in fact they are probably the most and well fortified inhabitants of the entire planet? (You and I are much more in danger when we go grocery shopping).
Because they are British who have the right to be British? It's absurd! Of course they has the right be British, that's just rhetoric. No one denies their right to be British, or to maintain their lifestyle, or live on the islands.
The problem lies elsewhere, they do not want to lose their privileges and the money they receive from the crown. I like the Islanders, but they are nice rogues who have learned to live from the British crown. They know you're not going to live there and of course they prevent the Argentines do.
How realistic are the chances of finding oil in Falklands waters?
It sounds more like a artificial financial market bubble in times when Europe faces major problems and where the British fleet is being dismantled as before 1982. People in the Navy of course put their outcry arguing they need to defend the Falkland Islands because the evil Argentina is always ready to take them by force.
But, none of this is really true today, the British and the Argentines could collaborate and find a definitive solution in many forms, including the Islanders could receive a good profit in taxes and continue to live there. But it's easier to convince British public opinion that war is always present. I think it reminds them of when they were a great empire that dominated the seas and the world was an open buffet.
That war took nine weeks, £3bn spent, 1,000 deaths (almost the same number of Falklands inhabitants at that time), many veterans from both sides have committed suicide and was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I have no doubts about the sovereign rights of Argentina, is what the law says. But I can't deny reality. Finding a solution is the right thing.
My opinion as Argentine is that it is time for both, Britain and Argentina, to Grow Up!
Greetings!
I hope, although this does not change your position, can at least help you understand what's the point of view of the Argentineans.
Juan
hello juan,i will expain why i believe the falklands are british and the argentinian claim to las malvinas is not legiitamate Here I examine the Argentine case for possession of the Falklands, in the context of international law, and show it to be invalid. Most important to disputes of this kind, is the basic and universal tenet of international law, which states that all disputes are validated or invalidated by the international law and prevailing norms of the time, and not by retroactive application of current laws. It is by this principle that much of the dialogue in this debate has been framed, a schema from which I will not diverge.
.firstly a very brief history of the islands
Before we inspect Argentine claim, it is necessary to appreciate the key events in the history of the Falkland islands, leading up to the contested British take over of the islands in 1833 and beyond. Although it makes for a lengthy and convoluted catalogue of events, here is an abbreviated timeline of the most significant incidents.
1690 - First landing on the islands by British Captain John Strong, named after Viscount Falkland, Treasurer of the Royal Navy
1764 - Louis Antoine de Bougainville takes formal possession of East Falkland by order of Louis XV.
1764 - British prepare an expedition to colonise the islands before word of the French colonisation had reached Europe.
1765 - Commodore John Byron of HMS Dolphin, having seen no signs of habitation, takes formal possession of the islands in the name of King George III and founds Port Egmont off West Falkland.
1766 - More permanent occupation is established by the British at Port Egmont (still unaware of the French settlement).
1767 - French transfer their claim to the islands to the Spanish for £24,000 after Spanish protests. The Spanish protest the presence of a British settlement on the islands.
1770 - A Spanish force arrives at Port Egmont and orders the settlers to leave.
1771 - After sustained British protest and increasing friction between the two nations, the Spanish return Port Egmont to Britain and agree "to restore all things precisely to the state in which they were before 10th June 1770".
1774 - British withdraw from Port Egmont, leaving a plaque behind decreeing the islands the property of King George III.
1810 - Buenos Aires creates its own government.
1811 - Spanish garrison at Port Louis is withdrawn and the islands are left uninhabited.
1820 - Colonel Daniel Jewitt arrives at the Falklands and claims possession of the islands in the name of the government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.
1826 - Government at Buenos Aires hires French Merchant, Luis Vernet, to establish a settlement on the islands.
1828 - Luis Vernet named governor of the islands.
1829 - Government at Buenos Aires decrees it had succeeded to the claims of Spain in 1810.
1831 - After seizure of two US ships by Vernet, US warships destroy Vernet's settlement on the island, deports settlers, and declares the islands free of all government.
1833 - British government reasserts its claim to the islands and dispatches a force which arrives at the island and raises the Union flag on the shore the next day. British maintain peaceful control of the islands until the Falklands war in 1982.
With a clear understanding of the history of the islands in mind, we can now examine the Argentine case.Sovereignty of the Falklands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon its independence (uti possidetis)
This is perhaps the strongest leg of the Argentine case but it is also the one surrounded by most confusion and ambiguity. The argument is based on uti possidetis juris , a principle in international law which states that newly independent states occupy the borders in which the antecedent province resided prior to sovereignty. Argentine apologists therefore claim that, upon Argentina's independence, it naturally assumes control of the Falklands from Spain.
If this is to succeed, one must first show that Britain's possession of the island expired from 1774 to 1810. This is not at all clear, and there are strong arguments to the contrary, including the ineffective control of the islands by the French, Spain's renouncement of its deportation of British settler's and the plaque left behind by British settlers after their departure. In the interest of brevity I will not flesh out this case and urge readers to look into the arguments. More importantly, I am omitting this line of argument because, even if we concede that the islands belonged to Spain in 1810, the Argentine case fails.
The problem for the Argentine case is that, in 1810, there did not exist a generally accepted right for new nation states to come into existence. Spain certainly had not recognised the independence of any of its American territories at this point. The Spanish abandonment of the Falklands in 1811 was merely out of a need to divert resources elsewhere; there was no explicit or implicit intention of handing control over to 'Argentina' (which did not formally declare independence until 1816). In fact, Argentina was not recognised by Spain until 1859, a whole 26 years after the Falklands had come under British control. Spain could not transfer sovereignty to a state it did not recognise.Argentina acquired sovereignty over the islands in 1820 by formal possession
Perhaps then, Argentina acquired sovereignty over the Falklands directly through Jewitt's arrival on the island in 1820. This would contradict the claim that the islands were transferred to Argentina from Spain. Nevertheless, occupation was a legitimate mode for acquiring territory according to the prevailing rules of the time. Given that the period of post-1820 Argentinian occupation of the islands is too short for title by prescription, it must be demonstrated that the islands were res nullius (without an owner) at the time of Argentinian colonisation. In practical terms then, one must not only show that the British had relinquished control of the islands when they withdrew in 1774 - an impossible feat since the plaque, British insistence on their claims, and British reassertion of their claim in 1833 all fly in the face of this hypothesis - but also that Spain had at some point abandoned their possession of the island. There is no evidence for the latter either. In fact, Spain's refusal to recognise independence in the Americas and its attempt to reconquer Rio de la Plata in the 1820s point to the contrary. Therefore, if Spain was the sovereign power in the Falklands in 1811, then it would still have been the sovereign power in 1820 when Argentina formally took over the islands, and in 1833 when Britain regained the islands.
Argentina succeeded its parent state's possession of Falklands by controlling the islands successfully
There is an argument, presented by Goebel's compelling paper on the topic, that has gained some traction. He argues that Argentina succeeded its parent state's possession of the Falklands by successfully controlling the islands upon its independence. The principle presented by Goebel states that, upon the independence of a nation, if there is no explicit treaty delineating the borders of this nation between the new state and its parent state, then its borders are decided by power, such that whatever land the new state is able to successfully take and control belongs to it. Again there are several problems with this, as outlined in Peter Calvert's excellent 1983 paper Sovereignty and the Falklands crisis. Firstly, the application of this principle is an anachronism. It developed as a result of the emergence of independent states in the Americas, near the end of the 19th century, not antecedent to it. Therefore, under the contemporary rules and norms in 1810 and 1820, Spain was the sovereign authority in the Americas. Furthermore, 'Argentina' as we know it today simply did not exist in 1820. Colonel Jewitt acted on behalf of the government of Buenos Aires, which was independent of the United Provinces (comprising modern day Argentina), and did not join the rest of the provinces of 'Argentina' until the late 19th century. Consequently, it is impossible to regard Jewitt's act as a valid incorporation of the Falklands into an Argentina that did not exist.The islands belong to Argentina by virtue of their proximity to the Argentine mainland
This we can dismiss fairly swiftly. For a start, this is not an valid principle in contemporary international law. It also holds no water in the 18th century, since no Spanish settlements existed on the mainland of Patagonia until well into the 19th century. Even had there been, the claim of geographical proximity to the continent would most probably have been rejected by Europe at the time given the distance of the islands from the continent.
Argentine claims to the Falklands do not stand up to scrutiny when judged by the laws, rules and precedents set at the time. The British claim to the islands was reasserted in 1833, and gives stronger evidence, if any more were needed, that there was no act of dereliction by Britain in 1774. A century and a half of peaceful administration of the islands by Britain, subsequent to 1833, only strengthens the British claim to the islands by the accepted principle of prescription of the time. This is then at least one chapter of our colonial past that we need not feel ashamed about.
EPT
I just wanted to show that feelings seem to run deep on the issue. Like I said the guy apologised later and they had drinks together, so it wasn't a big deal - my friend is pretty scary and fair play to the guy who tried to start something with him. Personally no matter how drunk I am I'm not starting a fight with a 250lb maori.
Not that having an aircraft carrier would help we don't have any planes either 
![[image loading]](http://ravenrepublic.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/HMS-SHEFFIELD.7-.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rV2zz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/29/article-1131948-033C79BD000005DC-116_468x613.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/images/american_normandy_cemetery.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Falklands.permanence.png)
