|
On March 12 2013 16:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:41 Aerisky wrote:
Man, this thread is definitely reminiscent of a certain similar conflict. I guess for all the civilization we have today, we're still just not willing to give up land. Very strong sentiments of ownership when it comes to territory, and I suppose that's to be expected. I have no opinion on the Falkland Islands specifically, but it will be somewhat interesting to see how this plays out (or whether it does at all for the decades to come). On the contrary, had the vote gone in favour of the Argentinians then land would have been given up. That is the British position on the matter.
Do you think that UK government (or any other, really) would just get rid of the place with this amount of natural resources? I sincerely doubt that, no matter what official position is as of now.
|
On March 12 2013 17:56 kornetka wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:45 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2013 16:41 Aerisky wrote:
Man, this thread is definitely reminiscent of a certain similar conflict. I guess for all the civilization we have today, we're still just not willing to give up land. Very strong sentiments of ownership when it comes to territory, and I suppose that's to be expected. I have no opinion on the Falkland Islands specifically, but it will be somewhat interesting to see how this plays out (or whether it does at all for the decades to come). On the contrary, had the vote gone in favour of the Argentinians then land would have been given up. That is the British position on the matter. Do you think that UK government (or any other, really) would just get rid of the place with this amount of natural resources? I sincerely doubt that, no matter what official position is as of now.
We released a quarter of the globe into independent states why not these islands if they wanted to?
|
Well i have been reading a little bit, it may be wrong since its wikipedia, but based upon this links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#USS_Lexington_raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet
And reading all of the posts, i guess either people like Kwark didn't care enough to read, or are just plain arrogant to do so. "being disappointed" that someone in the world is not saying the same that you are? quite a statement...
Well, allow me to disappoint you further, i hope that instead of taking such hit to your opinion of people, maybe you can rejoice in another person perspective.
I think its pretty clear for me why the referendum and what the population wants, and its importance is discussed.
I say discussed, in opposition to "just think about them first of all" which seams to be the position of several people.
If the population that is actually there is the result of a process where as far as i read
1 - it may have been some natives but none where found when the French first arrived
2 - France builds a small port/settlement
3- Britain arrives small port/settlement
3 - Spain after and agreement keeps the port buying it from France to avoid Britain to own the place
4 - Britain appears again but they are rushed with a bigger force from Spain that is sent from buenos aires
5 - England threatens war if they pull that shit again and said the island is theirs
6 - England stops giving a shit because they are at war with one of their colonies (USA) and they go away
7 - time goes by its used by British and American ships but no administration is there
8 - this German guy Vernet ask permission to build a settlement in the former Spanish port and goes with their approval
9 - once there he is appointed governor by the United Provinces of River Plate and raises the flag from them and says you cant even fish here its mine
10 - he attacks some boats that were fishing there
11 - USA didn't recognise the sovereignty of the United Provinces of River Plate and didn't like this stealing boats stuff so they almost destroyed the place and gets Vernet to go away
12 - The United Provinces of River Plate dissolves and Argentina starts saying hi to the world.
13 - England sees this shit about vernet and USA saying "don't fuck with our seal fishing boats" and this Argentina stuff and decides to establish a military base there because after all, its a great place to have a base strategy wise.
14 - They arrive and kicked the Argentinian guys there because they had a much bigger force.\
15 - Argentina protested for a while eventually Rosas cut it off
16 - England wants to send a guy to see if there is potential for the place long term, Argentina flips out, even fire at the royal boat England had to send
17 - Argentina invades --- War --- Argentina loses
18 - Argentina still claims stuff
So this place 460km from Argentina to sum up was.
From no one
France
England
Spain - by force
Argentia/United bla bla River Plate - Vernet
England - by force
Argentina bitches for a while
War
England
First it was discovered, a nice port.
Then it was seals and fishing and a good strategy port
Then it was a good place to have a military base
Then this British researcher says that for them to be able to particularly explode the natural resources of the water surrounding they need a political settlement
War - England wins
Its a little more complex, I'm not even starting with all of the Argentinian history side or the different conflicts during that time between both countries.
But during all of the time England had it, they didn't give a shit about claims and they populate the place.
Now after all this time and a war won, of course the people there don't want to side with Argentina.
First, they are -mostly- people from England.
Second, probably they would be ostracised if they were to become Argentinian.
Third England is a much higher economically super power and good to have as an ally than Argentina
But the issue is if they have a say. Just because they have lived there after England finally has it after a period of colonization, it is a question at hand if its correct to take only into account their will.
Its pretty convenient, England populates the country, ignores all claims well known that Argentina couldn't do shit about it, which it was proven during the war.
And now they say "hey! our position is, we want what the people of that island wants!"
Pretty bad / innocent to believe.
They like their base, its a pollitcal loss to give it up, they like their resources, more now that there could be oil.
The exclusive economic zone as far as i know (i may be worng) is 200 nautical miles that's almost 400km (*1.8 something)
I read some comment saying it was like extremely far away or something.
Or that it was always from Britain, Argentina never had any people living there.
Or that England was there even before Argentina existed.
Theres a little more to it if you read, and a place that far away from England? populated during that time? thats not another poduct of their colonization process?
the Empire where the sun never sets? Come on..... now its all about the poor people of the falkland / malvinas islands.
I don't really care about who own the islands really, but please, this "we care about the people" stuff is pretty hilarious,
England cares because it was a good asset to have.
Its like saying Cristina cares because she wants true justice in this world.
Saying things like " On the contrary, had the vote gone in favour of the Argentinians then land would have been given up. That is the British position on the matter."
makes me pretty disapointed.
ps: sorry for any grammar mistakes.
|
@Striferawr
This might all be true... But the people living there want to be british and Argentinia has no strong claim on it either way so, "just deal with it?".
And what would you like the British to say? "Fuck the people, ressources rawr!" just to be perfectly "honest"? It's not that easy, it's for sure not "only" the people there but just disregarding this part of the issue is just as, if not more, wrong.
Also the distance argument. I guess culture plays big role into this, in Europe ~500km is pretty far, therefore this does not even sound like a real argument to me... 500km... 1000km... Who cares.
Btw: Where would you stand on this issue if the Falklands would be an independant nation? Would it still "belong" to argentinia?
|
Argentina is a sparsely populated country with vast natural resources, I am convinced it could be flourishing if not for misgovernment and corruption. But Argentinian problems will hardly be solved by adding a few barren islands, oil or no oil.
Let's face it, the Argentinian case for the islands is very weak and Argentinians still brooding over this should really focus on more important matters...
From a European perspective this dispute is absurd. 200 years ago Germany didn't even exist as a nation, if countries claimed territory they held that long ago regardless of the current situation then Europe would be in constant turmoil.
There is no territory on Earth that was not "stolen" at some point, in fact the British settlers can make a better claim than most in this case.
|
|
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Regardless of who has the truer claim, it's obvious that the UK won't give the islands up without a fight (a literal one at that). So unless Argentina wants to start another war, one that they would most likely lose, they should really move on and turn their attention to stuff they can actually change. Then again, this issue is a very nice tool for the Argentinian politicians to distract their people with, so I don't expect the attitude or the rhetoric to change. It's a shame so many are blinded by nationalistic bravado to see what's what.
|
Germany2548 Posts
So this Vernet guy was German? Then it obviously should belong to Germany!
Also, the Argentinian government is funny. Seems they just want to use this issue to distract from their internal (economic) problems.
|
Northern Ireland25533 Posts
On March 12 2013 19:23 Monsen wrote:
So this Vernet guy was German? Then it obviously should belong to Germany!
Also, the Argentinian government is funny. Seems they just want to use this issue to distract from their internal (economic) problems.
Sad thing, at least to a degree is that it appears to be working from what I've read
|
On March 12 2013 15:39 Rezudox wrote:I refer you to my first post in this thread.
How about Alaska and Hawaii? whats your view on those places being states of america?
How about tibet?
Also after Argentina recently just deciding to claim 10 billion+ worth of foreign oil companies investments into oil producing infrastructure in their country reclaiming/nationalising rigs refineries and many other assets built by foreign companies in order to share these profits with Argentina, its clear to see what the menopause can do for leadership, rofl you have few allies outside of south america now
|
@Striferawr
Nice link and summary. No territorial dispute is 100 vs 0. Since human beings started in Africa, and snatched every inch of the land on earth, no territorial claim is perfect. However, world's country system today requires clear border lines, hence, dispute everywhere.
It used to be really simple. Whoever had superior military power could just invade weaker ones and rule their lands. This lasted for the entirety of human history up until very recently. Then, we, or at least developed countries, decided that invading another country to gain land is an evil thing to do. For example, US, Australia etc. exists because white guys colonized the land of Native Americans/Australians, but what would these countries do when they see a country that does this today? They condemn the aggressor, although they did the same thing a few hundred years ago!! Very unfair, sure, but that's how the world works today. It sucks to be the one who used to be weak, but we have to deal with it until somehow some day expanding by waging a war becomes a norm again. I doubt such a day would come in the near future, though.
That said, I don't know if this is the case for this Falkland / Malvinas. While British claim might not be perfect, Argentinian claim looks much weaker. According ot the link, following Argentina's claim, UK agreed to take the dispute over to the International Court of Justice 3 times(1947,48,55), but it was Argentina that declined. I wouldn't say ICJ was the perfect organization nor Argentina had equal international influence as UK. However, UK was at least man enough to take the challenge and potentially lose the islands if lost the case. Usually, it's the current holder of the disputed territory side that declines the offer to go to ICJ in fear of losing it, but this case was complete opposite. UK might be more influencial at ICJ, but how else would 2 countries solve an territorial dispute if direct negotiation doesn't work? The answer used to be military force, but not in the 21st century we live in. Maybe Argentina needs to grow excellent judges and diplomats and let their voices heard at the international stage rather than trying to take it by force. I would call UK a coward if they don't accept the challenge again just because oil was discovered, but Argentina is unwilling to go to ICJ anyways it seems.
One good news for Argentina is that whatever happened AFTER the dispute had started doesn't affect the ruling according to ICJ precedent. So, even if UK rules for the next 100 years, it doesn't give any extra edge to UK as long as Argentina continues to claim the sovereignty. Keep claiming, then how long a country rules is irrelevant.
On the other hand, one bad news for Argentina is that its protest against British rule of Falkland / Malvinas was either non-existent or weak in early 20th century. It looks controversial, but stopping to protest is seen as giving up the claim after a certain period of time.
As Striferawr said, I don't think this referendum matters. Colonize, send people, descendents vote to stay scheme is bullshit. But Argentina's claim is by no means better in my humble opinion.
|
This debates are usualy stupid and clueless. For me Folklands are Argentina. England colonized so much and claim so much teritories. All this because they have resources (from their midern colonies) to do so with military or on the other way. Their politics are so much cynical and ambidextrous that I dont regard it as serious anymore. They recognized almost all "independent" countries that appeared (except Israel ofc because they created them country in some way), thus forcing UK together without referendum option for Scotland until now.
This is all about money and interest of course (fckng capitalism). Personally I hope Argentina will reclaim Folklands again and stabilize enough to separate from USA and England's terror which is spreaded in South America.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On March 12 2013 20:24 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
This debates are usualy stupid and clueless. For me Folklands are Argentina. England colonized so much and claim so much teritories. All this because they have resources (from their midern colonies) to do so with military or on the other way. Their politics are so much cynical and ambidextrous that I dont regard it as serious anymore. They recognized almost all "independent" countries that appeared (except Israel ofc because they created them country in some way), thus forcing UK together without referendum option for Scotland until now.
This is all about money and interest of course (fckng capitalism). Personally I hope Argentina will reclaim Folklands again and stabilize enough to separate from USA and England's terror which is spreaded in South America.
1: It is called FALKlands, not Folklands.
2: Debates are clueless? It is obviously you who has no fucking clue about what you are saying so it would be better if you just said nothing at all. Just google the history of these Islands, it is not that complicated. This has nothing to do with capitalism, imperialism, military power or South Africa.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
|
You know what the most sad thing is, Argentina might (although very, very slim) have been able to lay a dimplomatic claim to the islands.
But after British lives were lost defending it after the Argentine invasion, there is no way we are giving them up now.
|
South America is not being terrorized by Europe or USA -__-"
This is just some nationalistic movement by the goverment to gain support from its people, but I'm sure the argentinians are smart enough to not fall for that.
As the OP says, the people of Argentina support the decision of the Falkland's say, it's just the AR goverment being a bunch of assholes who like to make the country look bad internationally.
|
I usually tend to disagree with KwarK and his opinions on politics/view of things but gotta say, I think he's been spot on so far in this thread. Still havn't seen a single reasonable argument as to why the Falklands should be Argentinian and if the people living there feel like they belong to the UK then by all means - who are we to judge?
|
On March 12 2013 20:37 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 20:24 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
This debates are usualy stupid and clueless. For me Folklands are Argentina. England colonized so much and claim so much teritories. All this because they have resources (from their midern colonies) to do so with military or on the other way. Their politics are so much cynical and ambidextrous that I dont regard it as serious anymore. They recognized almost all "independent" countries that appeared (except Israel ofc because they created them country in some way), thus forcing UK together without referendum option for Scotland until now.
This is all about money and interest of course (fckng capitalism). Personally I hope Argentina will reclaim Folklands again and stabilize enough to separate from USA and England's terror which is spreaded in South America. 1: It is called FALKlands, not Folklands. 2: Debates are clueless? It is obviously you who has no fucking clue about what you are saying so it would be better if you just said nothing at all. Just google the history of these Islands, it is not that complicated. This has nothing to do with capitalism, imperialism, military power or South Africa.
Yes they are clueless and my opinion about that is formed because I debated many times over Kosovo, who was stolen from us, and many westerners tried to prove me that I'm wrong even tho they hadnt one valid argument that Kosovo should be independent. I feel same way about this. England proclaimed territory with act they published themselves, yes, very strong ground.
Also, sorry for mistake I mixed it with my language 
|
On March 12 2013 20:42 fabiano wrote:
South America is not being terrorized by Europe or USA -__-"
This is just some nationalistic movement by the goverment to gain support from its people, but I'm sure the argentinians are smart enough to not fall for that.
As the OP says, the people of Argentina support the decision of the Falkland's say, it's just the AR goverment being a bunch of assholes who like to make the country look bad internationally.
Not at all, esp not Venezuela nor Cuba. No way, they all live free and in happiness.
|
On March 12 2013 20:50 Calliopee wrote:
I usually tend to disagree with KwarK and his opinions on politics/view of things but gotta say, I think he's been spot on so far in this thread. Still havn't seen a single reasonable argument as to why the Falklands should be Argentinian and if the people living there feel like they belong to the UK then by all means - who are we to judge? I think I made my point why what people living there feel doesn't matter, but still I don't think Argentine has a better ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
