PDA

View Full Version : Why does Argentina lay claim to the Falklands?


only_one_maria
Feb 19th, 2010, 04:29 PM
It's back in the news thanks to the oil exploration now going on over there, but I when looking into the history of the Islands I was surprised just how weak Argentina's claim to them is. They were totally uninhabited when discovered by western explorers, before various disputes between the British, Spanish and Aregntines. The British have ruled the Islands since 1830. Argentina still makes claim tot he Islands though and this is even given some international recognition - the CIA website refers to them as both Falklands and Malvinas. This is despite the fact that the Falklanders themselves want to remain under British soverignty. There is very little reason to think this should change and if it were what about the territorial claims of Spain and Chile?

Wannabeknowitall
Feb 19th, 2010, 05:41 PM
I think that the Falklands hold the British last true reign to their powerful empire of the previous centuries regardless of them just "finding it".
The people at power make history by the way and whose to say that there wasn't some kind of claim to the Falklands from people living in now what is called Argentina.

woosey
Feb 19th, 2010, 05:44 PM
because they are right off the dang coast.

Barrie_Dude
Feb 19th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Well, I think they are in or close to Argentinas territorial waters and thus the dispute

Serenita
Feb 19th, 2010, 05:57 PM
because they are right off the dang coast.

exactly;)

propi
Feb 19th, 2010, 05:59 PM
Malvinas argentinas :rocker:
:p

only_one_maria
Feb 19th, 2010, 05:59 PM
A few 100 miles.

LoveFifteen
Feb 19th, 2010, 06:56 PM
because they are right off the dang coast.

I wouldn't say that 450 miles is right off the coast, but yes, they are definitely close to Argentina ... and nothing else.

That being said, there are places like the Canary Islands, which belong to Spain, which are truly right off the coast of other countries, and I don't think there is quite as much controversy.

The dictatorship of Argentina was collapsing and losing support so they tried to rally the country behind a cause; hence, the war against the Falklands.

Nicolás89
Feb 19th, 2010, 07:09 PM
The dictatorship of Argentina was collapsing and losing support so they tried to rally the country behind a cause; hence, the war against the Falklands.

That's the ONLY reason really.

Bezz
Feb 19th, 2010, 07:09 PM
They can claim it all they want, but the stupid decision by a previous argentine government to invade pretty much sealed the deal. They will always belong to the UK now.

Nicolás89
Feb 19th, 2010, 07:23 PM
There is very little reason to think this should change and if it were what about the territorial claims of Spain and Chile?

I don't know what you mean there? There's no territorial claim from Chile in the Fakland Islands

Donny
Feb 19th, 2010, 08:27 PM
Why does Britain?

Talita Kumi
Feb 19th, 2010, 08:42 PM
Why does Argentina lay claim to the Falklands?

your country usurped the islands, and should get out of there

Malvinas=Argentina
Gibraltar=Spain
Kosovo=Serbia

KournikovaFan91
Feb 19th, 2010, 08:45 PM
Why does Britain?

Exactly why are they hanging on to a group of rainy islands near Antartica.

I don't see how they have any strategic or economic importance (except the now possible oil reserves).

dsanders06
Feb 19th, 2010, 08:56 PM
Exactly why are they hanging on to a group of rainy islands near Antartica.

I don't see how they have any strategic or economic importance (except the now possible oil reserves).

Margaret Thatcher defended the Falklands to save her premiership. She was VERY unpopular in the early 80s, and she knew the Falklands War would be a quick and easy victory and increase her popularity at home.

And now, it would be a public-relations disaster for any British PM to "let the Falklands go", because silly conservative Brits over a certain age take pride in "our" win from 30 years ago.

Donny
Feb 19th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Exactly why are they hanging on to a group of rainy islands near Antartica.

I don't see how they have any strategic or economic importance (except the now possible oil reserves).

Post-Panamax ships- that is, ships too large to traffic the Panama canal, like US Navy aircraft carriers, for example- have to travel around the tip of South America to reach the Western US and the Pacific. From a strategic POV, it makes sense to hold territory there.

Of course, that doesn't give them the moral right to do so.

KournikovaFan91
Feb 19th, 2010, 09:02 PM
Ohh yeah, I forgot about those massive ships. :angel:

BUBI
Feb 19th, 2010, 09:20 PM
Argentina should take it by force. UK is now too weak to do anything.

Halardfan
Feb 19th, 2010, 09:48 PM
Logically the islands should indeed be under Argentian control. I believe that if the Argentines hadn't invaded the islands there is every chance the would by now have been at least joint soverignty.

The Argentine dictator has a lot to answer for, the ultimate success of the Falklands war saved the Thatcher government and condemned us to years more of Tory rule.

As has been said, it's politcally impossible now for a British Prime minister to give up the Falklands, the press would rip him or her to shreds.

Halardfan
Feb 19th, 2010, 09:49 PM
Argentina should take it by force. UK is now too weak to do anything.

Bollocks.

Tripp
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:04 PM
Argentina should take it by force. UK is now too weak to do anything.

Big LOL. You definitely don't know the state of Argentina's army then. And even if the country held half-decent militar equipment, war would still never be the answer.

I believe it's mostly a matter of pride. This country doesn't really need extra territory. We have enough as it is, the Patagonia being pretty much deserted -despite being such a beautiful, breath-taking place with so many natural resources you can't even count them-. Argentina's militar government took over the Islands as a last attempt to regain a consensus they had lost a long, long time before the first soldier set a foot on the Falklands' ground.

Most argentinian politicians still make the claims over the Falklands because I believe they feel obligated to do so. Just like no english Prime Minister would get away with just giving the territory, no argentinian president would remain popular if he/she just acknowledged what all of us know: that the Falklands aren't, never were, and probably never will be part of Argentina.

I had a big fight with a Geography teacher back when I was in high school, because I told her that the Falklands are not a part of Argentina, my point being backed by nothing more than facts. She stated that since the islands are on Argentina's continental platform, they simply belonged to us. Well, they don't. I don't see any falklander wanting to be a part of our country and I'm just fine with it.

It's stupid to harm both countries' diplomatic relationships just because of a war a violent dictatorship started.

Bezz
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:14 PM
Argentina should take it by force. UK is now too weak to do anything.

LOL, Britain will always be able to defend itself and its territories.;)

KournikovaFan91
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:39 PM
"Defending territories", I didn't know this was the 19th Century.

WowWow
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:45 PM
That war was a virtual sex between Thatcher and Regan.
It happened in the last decade of the Cold War and they needed to exercise their power so the world can see it. Also she needed a back up for the election.
Argentina's claim of the islands was a perfect excuse.
She was drooling over it in "The Downing Street Years".

Bezz
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:52 PM
"Defending territories", I didn't know this was the 19th Century.

The falkland islands are classified as an overseas territory. As are other places like Gibraltar. ;)

KournikovaFan91
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:55 PM
Yes but the whole idea of territories is a little old fashioned.

Although other countries have territories like France and Netherlands they have merged some of their territories with the actual country in question, Guyana, Guadeloupe etc. and the dissolution of the Netherlands Antillies.

Bezz
Feb 19th, 2010, 10:58 PM
Yes but the whole idea of territories is a little old fashioned.


Not really, what else are you goin to call them? They are not independant countries.

Donny
Feb 19th, 2010, 11:06 PM
Not really, what else are you goin to call them? They are not independant countries.

Why not just make them part of the UK?

KournikovaFan91
Feb 19th, 2010, 11:17 PM
That was my point, like Martinique, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, Reunion, and Guiana. They are part of the French State, why can't the UK territories be the same, like the Channel Islands aren't even part of the UK. Some British territories get away with crap, like all the tax stuff in Isle of Man, Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands.

Bezz
Feb 19th, 2010, 11:19 PM
Why not just make them part of the UK?

I dunno, maybe they dont want to full be members or the way it is now works fine, so why change it.

KournikovaFan91
Feb 19th, 2010, 11:47 PM
Yeah because they get away with anything they want. The whole tax thing in the Cayman Islands could be stopped easily if they just became part of the UK.

Bezz
Feb 19th, 2010, 11:52 PM
There are lots of tax havens in the world, its how these places make money. If the UK were to threaten that they would just declare independance.

KournikovaFan91
Feb 20th, 2010, 12:03 AM
Ok let them go on their own who cares in the UK if you own the Caymans, the world needs to crack down on tax havens.

wta_zuperfann
Feb 20th, 2010, 12:32 AM
I've always said that I love the British people. But why the hell would anyone even try to defend the British government's claims to the Malvinas?

Apoleb
Feb 20th, 2010, 01:13 AM
The "logical" argument that it's close to the Argentinian coast doesn't make sense to me. By that logic, Alaska should be Russian or Canadian;or Hawaii whatever.

Let the people on the islands decide. And they want to be part of the UK, so that's it.

KournikovaFan91
Feb 20th, 2010, 01:16 AM
Alaska is actually part of the USA, this is just a territory which doesn't give it anywhere near the same status as Alaska or Hawaii.

Apoleb
Feb 20th, 2010, 01:19 AM
Alaska is actually part of the USA, this is just a territory which doesn't give it anywhere near the same status as Alaska or Hawaii.

So if the Falklands become part of the UK, you think the Argentinian claim becomes obsolete? That doesn't seem a sensible criterion.

I can't see anything more appropriate than letting the people living there decide in this case. Since they overwhelmingly want to be part of the UK, then I think that's how it should be.

KournikovaFan91
Feb 20th, 2010, 01:22 AM
Yes it would make a difference, they would become part of the EU etc. not some waffly 19th century imperialist "territory". Also it would mean if Argentina did invade they would actually be invading the UK, not a territory.

Its like Puerto Rico, I wish that would either become a state or just independance.

Bartoli's Boy
Feb 20th, 2010, 01:31 AM
I've always said that I love the British people. But why the hell would anyone even try to defend the British government's claims to the Malvinas?

It has something to do with the three thousand British citizens living there. The Falklands are just a barren group of islands that had no indigenous population before the original European settlers arrived. It's a different situation completely when compared to former UK overseas territories, or those of other European powers, where existing civilisations were forcibly annexed into a larger empire.

There isn't the same case for getting out, because unlike say... India when it was a British colony, there isn't a large, subdued population who want their independence. Rather the opposite, in that there is only a small population of British citizens who wish to remain British. It's difficult for me to understand why the Islands should be transferred to Argentina in those circumstances, besides their proximity to Argentina when compared to the UK. And international borders would be very different for the entire world, if you could ignore historical reasons and be given land just because it's close to your country.

Also, somebody said earlier that Mrs Thatcher fought the Falklands War as an election stunt, because she knew that it would be easy to win. We'll never know whether that was the case, but I highly doubt it myself, and I'm no conservative or Thatcher lover (quite the opposite.) It was a very difficult war to fight for logistical reasons, which is why the Argentines felt emboldened enough to invade in the first place. The UK had cut back on the Royal Navy to such a degree that it barely had the capacity to send a task force halfway around the world to fight a war without the Americans. Ships had to be brought out of moth balling and the sale of an aircraft carrier to Australia had to be cancelled just in order to have enough ships to conduct the operation. The RAF also had to lend Harriers to the Royal Navy, because they didn't have enough aircraft available to fly from the carriers that they barely had. Vulcan bombers had to be refitted to serve in a conventional bombing role when they were designed as strategic nuclear aircraft.

It was actually quite impressive for the British operation to be as relatively successful as it turned out to be, considering the state of the armed forces. So if it was a cynical move by Thatcher to garner votes, it was a huge gamble, because it could have gone badly wrong. It would be more sensible to suggest that the decision to fight for the Falklands was also a message to the Soviet Union, although it wasn't directly part of the Cold War.

Donny
Feb 20th, 2010, 02:33 AM
The "logical" argument that it's close to the Argentinian coast doesn't make sense to me. By that logic, Alaska should be Russian or Canadian;or Hawaii whatever.

Let the people on the islands decide. And they want to be part of the UK, so that's it.

Alaska was purchased from Russia.

BUBI
Feb 20th, 2010, 06:06 AM
LOL, Britain will always be able to defend itself and its territories.;)
UK can't do shit without the USA. I would like to see how they would justify another war on other side of the globe? Just let Argentina have what is theirs.

Although Argentina already got their revenge in 1986:

3z-qm-Sb_4s

Halardfan
Feb 20th, 2010, 07:40 AM
UK can't do shit without the USA. I would like to see how they would justify another war on other side of the globe? Just let Argentina have what is theirs.

Although Argentina already got their revenge in 1986:

3z-qm-Sb_4s

One wonderful goal, one bit of infamous cheating. Do you have his volleyball goal from the same game? Regardless doesn't count as revenge on Britain as doubtless half of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland would have wanted Argentina to win!

Your view seems more shaped by lazy anti-Britishness than the merits of the case.

Apoleb
Feb 20th, 2010, 07:43 AM
Alaska was purchased from Russia.

:rolleyes: I know.

Halardfan
Feb 20th, 2010, 07:47 AM
It has something to do with the three thousand British citizens living there. The Falklands are just a barren group of islands that had no indigenous population before the original European settlers arrived. It's a different situation completely when compared to former UK overseas territories, or those of other European powers, where existing civilisations were forcibly annexed into a larger empire.

There isn't the same case for getting out, because unlike say... India when it was a British colony, there isn't a large, subdued population who want their independence. Rather the opposite, in that there is only a small population of British citizens who wish to remain British. It's difficult for me to understand why the Islands should be transferred to Argentina in those circumstances, besides their proximity to Argentina when compared to the UK. And international borders would be very different for the entire world, if you could ignore historical reasons and be given land just because it's close to your country.

Also, somebody said earlier that Mrs Thatcher fought the Falklands War as an election stunt, because she knew that it would be easy to win. We'll never know whether that was the case, but I highly doubt it myself, and I'm no conservative or Thatcher lover (quite the opposite.) It was a very difficult war to fight for logistical reasons, which is why the Argentines felt emboldened enough to invade in the first place. The UK had cut back on the Royal Navy to such a degree that it barely had the capacity to send a task force halfway around the world to fight a war without the Americans. Ships had to be brought out of moth balling and the sale of an aircraft carrier to Australia had to be cancelled just in order to have enough ships to conduct the operation. The RAF also had to lend Harriers to the Royal Navy, because they didn't have enough aircraft available to fly from the carriers that they barely had. Vulcan bombers had to be refitted to serve in a conventional bombing role when they were designed as strategic nuclear aircraft.

It was actually quite impressive for the British operation to be as relatively successful as it turned out to be, considering the state of the armed forces. So if it was a cynical move by Thatcher to garner votes, it was a huge gamble, because it could have gone badly wrong. It would be more sensible to suggest that the decision to fight for the Falklands was also a message to the Soviet Union, although it wasn't directly part of the Cold War.

I don't think she engineered it, simply that she benefited from an opportunity to fundementally change the politcal landscape in Britain. After the victory, the more difficult questions the mistakes along the way, the fact that the mission came close to failure, all faded into insignificance as Thatcher basked in the flag waving glow from the tabloids.

Barrie_Dude
Feb 20th, 2010, 04:58 PM
your country usurped the islands, and should get out of there

Malvinas=Argentina
Gibraltar=Spain
Kosovo=Serbia:worship::worship::worship::worship:: worship:

BUBI
Feb 20th, 2010, 05:11 PM
One wonderful goal, one bit of infamous cheating. Do you have his volleyball goal from the same game? Regardless doesn't count as revenge on Britain as doubtless half of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland would have wanted Argentina to win!

Your view seems more shaped by lazy anti-Britishness than the merits of the case.
The British Empire wasn't such a bad thing, but it's time to admit that the days as colonial power are over. And have been for a very long time actually. Britain is bankcrupt because of socialism and has enough problems on their own land.

Malvinas belongs to Argentina.

Halardfan
Feb 20th, 2010, 05:23 PM
The British Empire wasn't such a bad thing, but it's time to admit that the days as colonial power are over. And have been for a very long time actually. Britain is bankcrupt because of socialism and has enough problems on their own land.

Malvinas belongs to Argentina.

The economic crash was caused by unrestrained capitalism for one thing.
I have zero attachment to the Falklands, and if Argentina had gone about it the right way they may well have been theirs today. But there is simply no chance of it happening now.

About the Empire, there were some good things, but plenty more bad about it. I think we are a better country today than we were then.

I'm satisfied to leave the imperial ambitions to the US of A! How many countries currently have US bases in? Bases it seems mighty hard to get rid of...ask the people of Okinawa!

BUBI
Feb 20th, 2010, 05:36 PM
I think we are a better country today than we were then.

I strongly disagree. Britain used to be a great country, but today it just pretends to be. Muslims are right about the "decadence of the west", to some extend. It's certainly true about Britain!


I'm satisfied to leave the imperial ambitions to the US of A! How many countries currently have US bases in? Bases it seems mighty hard to get rid of...ask the people of Okinawa!

Japan is more than happy about the defence the USA provides against China, North Korea and Russia!

Halardfan
Feb 20th, 2010, 05:42 PM
I strongly disagree. Britain used to be a great country, but today it just pretends to be. Muslims are right about the "decadence of the west", to some extend. It's certainly true about Britain!




Japan is more than happy about the defence the USA provides against China, North Korea and Russia!

I don't think there is much evidence about Japan being "more than happy". Plenty of people, in Okinawa in particular, would like nothing more than for the Americans to leave.

Whereas the people of the Falklands very much want the British army to remain!

AleOrtu
Feb 21st, 2010, 01:13 AM
Well, I think they are in or close to Argentinas territorial waters and thus the dispute

That is true, the islands are on the continental platform.




The dictatorship of Argentina was collapsing and losing support so they tried to rally the country behind a cause; hence, the war against the Falklands.[/QUOTE]

Argentina was claiming the islands before those Generals started the war.


Margaret Thatcher defended the Falklands to save her premiership. She was VERY unpopular in the early 80s, and she knew the Falklands War would be a quick and easy victory and increase her popularity at home.

And now, it would be a public-relations disaster for any British PM to "let the Falklands go", because silly conservative Brits over a certain age take pride in "our" win from 30 years ago.

As Tripp posted before, the same happens here with the presidents, they "must" claim the islands, to show the soldiers death was not in vain.




Post-Panamax ships- that is, ships too large to traffic the Panama canal, like US Navy aircraft carriers, for example- have to travel around the tip of South America to reach the Western US and the Pacific. From a strategic POV, it makes sense to hold territory there.

Of course, that doesn't give them the moral right to do so.

:confused:
US Navy can ask Argentina the use of the islands (a port for supply, etc) , the same is asking UK now. Or is Britain a state of USA?




Argentina should take it by force. UK is now too weak to do anything.

Argentina´s militar power now is the same than it was in 1982. UK would win with a ship and a plane. :rolleyes:




Logically the islands should indeed be under Argentian control. I believe that if the Argentines hadn't invaded the islands there is every chance the would by now have been at least joint soverignty.

The Argentine dictator has a lot to answer for, the ultimate success of the Falklands war saved the Thatcher government and condemned us to years more of Tory rule.

As has been said, it's politcally impossible now for a British Prime minister to give up the Falklands, the press would rip him or her to shreds.

I have read there were advanced negotiation in these years to make a joint goverment first and perhaps left the islands later. UK had not a strong feeling for the islands then.
Argentina militars ruined everything forever with the war.



My personal feelings are ambivalent. I was teached since kid "Malvinas son Argentinas", and I was 8 years old when the war, I remember those days. A lot of kids who have never seen the sea were sent to die... The treason of Chile... The way the Belgrano ship was sunk outside the war zone...

But, the poeple living in the islands are british citizen. They do not speak spanish they do not watch Arg TV, they do not drink mate... why would they become argentinians?
There was a proposal some years ago: to pay each citizen an ammount of money... in other words to buy their loyalty :lol: very funny!
I mean... if tomorrow the islands change to Argentina, what would the people do? take a plane to London, learn spanish and drink mate? It would be very unfair to them.

Britain INVADED the islands in 1833. That should have been fixed then. Now it´s a bit late.

Donny
Feb 21st, 2010, 01:25 AM
:confused:
US Navy can ask Argentina the use of the islands (a port for supply, etc) , the same is asking UK now. Or is Britain a state of USA?



UK is part of NATO. They are obligated by treaty to side with the US in the event of a conflict. Besides that, they are each other's strongest allies.

Simply put: The US and the UK trust each other. And though you were being sarcastic about Britain being a US state: Britain is extremely reliant on the US government. In fact, their sole nuclear deterrent relies on US satellite systems to work effectively.

Donny
Feb 21st, 2010, 01:27 AM
Margaret Thatcher defended the Falklands to save her premiership. She was VERY unpopular in the early 80s, and she knew the Falklands War would be a quick and easy victory and increase her popularity at home.

And now, it would be a public-relations disaster for any British PM to "let the Falklands go", because silly conservative Brits over a certain age take pride in "our" win from 30 years ago.

The Falklands conflict wasn't easy. If you look at books documenting the war, British logistics were stretched to their absolute limits during the campaign.

It's still impressive though: Britain was perhaps the only nation on Earth (besides the US and France) who could have pulled it off at all.

AleOrtu
Feb 21st, 2010, 01:37 AM
UK is part of NATO. They are obligated by treaty to side with the US in the event of a conflict. Besides that, they are each other's strongest allies.

Simply put: The US and the UK trust each other. And though you were being sarcastic about Britain being a US state: Britain is extremely reliant on the US government. In fact, their sole nuclear deterrent relies on US satellite systems to work effectively.

I didn´t know that.
So, my sarcasm was not so far from reality.

Anyway, this tread was open to know why Argentina claims the Malvinas and it have made all of us to think.
I realized there was never an argentinian living in the islands. I am reading some facts now. Wikipedia has good stuff and other sites too.

It´s impressive how things changed for the people living in the islands after the war.



Off topic: I wonder if UK should join Argentina to control Japan killing the whales in south Atlantic.

antonella
Feb 21st, 2010, 08:34 PM
I didn´t know that.
So, my sarcasm was not so far from reality.

Anyway, this tread was open to know why Argentina claims the Malvinas and it have made all of us to think.
I realized there was never an argentinian living in the islands. I am reading some facts now. Wikipedia has good stuff and other sites too.


This may help, From the article:

'According to Britain's Geological Society, oil fields around the Falklands could produce up to 60 billion barrels of oil, or as much as the North Sea crude reserves which contributed to 25 years of British prosperity.'



http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Argentina--PRINTED-

Nicolás89
Feb 21st, 2010, 10:54 PM
My personal feelings are ambivalent. I was teached since kid "Malvinas son Argentinas", and I was 8 years old when the war, I remember those days. A lot of kids who have never seen the sea were sent to die... The treason of Chile... The way the Belgrano ship was sunk outside the war zone...


:o