PDA

View Full Version : Falklands/Malvinas dispute rumbling on...


Halardfan
Feb 16th, 2012, 11:58 PM
There was a thread on this in the political sub forum...not sure where the best place is for it now...

Anyway the dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas has been warming up in recent months, with the rhetoric being upped on both sides.

Both governments exploit nationalistic feelings at home regarding the issue, knowing it plays well. But all sides have a responsibility not to let this slide into some kind of stupid, wasteful conflict.

South American countries banning Falklands ships from their ports is obviously unhelpful. Prince William going there isn't the best timing, and both sides have been as bad as each other with their traded insults. Sean Penn's snotty contributions don't help either!

Regardless of the merits of the claims to the Islands (for the record I think Argentina's claim is much shakier than you might imagine) I hope both sides can back down.

It's inconceivable that their could be a change of sovereignty anytime soon. It's a persuasive arguement that the Islanders themselves determine their own future. But both sides must make efforts to improve relations with a view to the future.

Talita Kumi
Feb 17th, 2012, 02:46 AM
Malvinas Argentinas :(

Nicolás89
Feb 17th, 2012, 03:00 AM
I don't even know why Cameron brought all this? We wouldn't be discussing this had he kept his mouth shut.

Tripp
Feb 17th, 2012, 04:36 AM
Just keep the damned islands and leave that people alone. This is just a ridiculous attempt by the argentinian government to deprive attention from other important issues going on right now (like both senators and representatives increasing their wages by a 100% just a few days ago, as a product of an inflation the government itself denies by manipulating economic indexes).

And all the fuss about claims being done to the UN? Bitch please, the UN is as fake as Caroline's #1 ranking spot.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 04:58 AM
I don't even know why Cameron brought all this? We wouldn't be discussing this had he kept his mouth shut.

Well the banning of Falklands ships didn't help the cause of peace, but in truth both sides for their own domestic reasons are exploiting the issue. Certainly it helps both leaders to appear strong and robust on this issue.

But it's a dangerous game both are playing, and all sides would do well to back away a little, and consider the grim events that happened in the 80's.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 05:01 AM
Malvinas Argentinas :(

But what happens to the Falklands/Malvinas population who overwhelmingly want to remain attached to Britain? Many have been there for generations and are by far the longest standing residents the Islands have ever had. Surely it is their rights which should supersede Britain's or Argentina's?

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 05:43 AM
But what happens to the Falklands/Malvinas population who overwhelmingly want to remain attached to Britain? Many have been there for generations and are by far the longest standing residents the Islands have ever had. Surely it is their rights which should supersede Britain's or Argentina's?


its 2012 and this world is shit, all it matters its power and resources, so nothing happens to them.

its like if all Mexicans in USA or all Turkish in Germany, that have also been there for generations and continue to grow with high birth rates, wanted to make their voice listened and want to became to go back to being a part to México or become a part of Turkey.

What gave substantial reasons to the Brits to think that the Mavinas territory belongs to them is beyond me, and don´t come with the "we have the habitants interests in mind" BS because pure BS is what it is and we all know it. they want it because they want power and nothing else.

now why are the Argetininians soo passionately into this matter, its also beyond me, (though I can understand a kind of symbolism about it) what do you want in a territory, who´s habitants want nothing to do with you and who´s, afaik, little unexplored resources are of no important use?

having said that fuck colonialism, Malvinas Argentinas!

A Magicman
Feb 17th, 2012, 05:47 AM
its like if all Mexicans in USA or all Turkish in Germany, that have also been there for generations and continue to grow with high birth rates, wanted to make their voice listened and want to became to go back to being a part to México or become a part of Turkey.




Kosovo anyone?

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 05:52 AM
Kosovo anyone?

Kosovo had the help of the world´s greatest powers, Mexicans will be "fighting" the worlds biggest supwerpower one and Turkish agaist Europe´s.

double standars anyone?

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 06:05 AM
its 2012 and this world is shit, all it matters its power and resources, so nothing happens to them.

its like if all Mexicans in USA or all Turkish in Germany, that have also been there for generations and continue to grow with high birth rates, wanted to make their voice listened and want to became to go back to being a part to México or become a part of Turkey.

What gave substantial reasons to the Brits to think that the Mavinas territory belongs to them is beyond me, and don´t come with the "we have the habitants interests in mind" BS because pure BS is what it is and we all know it. they want it because they want power and nothing else.

now why are the Argetininians soo passionately into this matter, its also beyond me, (though I can understand a kind of symbolism about it) what do you want in a territory, who´s habitants want nothing to do with you and who´s, afaik, little unexplored resources are of no important use?

having said that fuck colonialism, Malvinas Argentinas!

All the talk of colonialism is itself a double standard given the colonial history of Argentina itself! Much of Argentina's population is just as European in origin as the Falklanders!

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 06:12 AM
All the talk of colonialism is itself a double standard given the colonial history of Argentina itself! Much of Argentina's population is just as European in origin as the Falklanders!

so they can´t have a say about it because many of them happen to have European origins? did they choose to be a colonized country?
wtf?:confused:

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 06:35 AM
so they can´t have a say about it because many of them happen to have European origins? did they choose to be a colonized country?
wtf?:confused:

The main people who should have a say are the Islanders themselves.

What I'm saying is, some Argentines are saying its all about British colonialism, that the Islanders are mere British implants, and not native to the area. Which I was pointing out you could apply to the Argentine's themselves!

Apoleb
Feb 17th, 2012, 06:40 AM
The main people who should have a say are the Islanders themselves.

What I'm saying is, some Argentines are saying its all about British colonialism, that the Islanders are mere British implants, and not native to the area. Which I was pointing out you could apply to the Argentine's themselves!

This, and especially with Argentina given that the large majority is from European descent.

And I completely agree that it should go back to the Islanders. They are the ones living in the Falklands, and far as I know, there were no episodes of ethnic cleansing or any of that sort.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 06:56 AM
This, and especially with Argentina given that the large majority is from European descent.

And I completely agree that it should go back to the Islanders. They are the ones living in the Falklands, and far as I know, there were no episodes of ethnic cleansing or any of that sort.

Generally I agree, there was certainly no population you could describe as indigenous before the various empires started fighting over it. After that it's a confusing mess, with the Islands being colonised, entirely abandoned, traded, etc...such is the grim way with competitive Empires...

When the dust settled the British had prevailed and thus since their ancestors have remained for generations.

As such, I think their claim has to be the strongest.

azdaja
Feb 17th, 2012, 09:52 AM
i don't think the argument that the islanders themselves should decide is as strong as it looks to some. there were earlier attempts to settle the islands and people were not attached to them much for the most part of their history (not to mention that we're dealing with a very small population which can hardly be self-sufficient and i mean that in a very basic sense). the islands were uninhabited previously, but they were claimed by different states before. you can't just settle an uninhabited territory and years later claim that settlers who live there have the right to decide who can claim that territory. if that were the case much of australia or canada or indeed the falkand islands would be up for grabs. the british empire was not created with interests of local populations or states in mind and this was not different.

the situaion remains complicated in my opinion and needs a compromise solution. the one that would satisfy both the islanders and argentina.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:06 AM
i don't think the argument that the islanders themselves should decide is as strong as it looks to some. there were earlier attempts to settle the islands and people were not attached to them much for the most part of their history (not to mention that we're dealing with a very small population which can hardly be self-sufficient and i mean that in a very basic sense). the islands were uninhabited previously, but they were claimed by different states before. you can't just settle an uninhabited territory and years later claim that settlers who live there have the right to decide who can claim that territory. if that were the case much of australia or canada or indeed the falkand islands would be up for grabs. the british empire was not created with interests of local populations or states in mind and this was not different.

the situaion remains complicated in my opinion and needs a compromise solution. the one that would satisfy both the islanders and argentina.

The Islanders position is harder line than Britains, so a compromise which satisfies both the Argentines and them seems unlikely. The British government was once indifferent to the Falklands, it scaled back it's prescence there, even removed British citizenship from the Islanders...what followed in short order was the invasion of the Islands by the Argentine dictatorship.

That legacy makes it politically untenable for a British government to now compromise on sovereignty. On other issues, defusing tensions, improving co-operation etc, then yes, compromise is possible.

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 05:51 PM
What I'm saying is, some Argentines are saying its all about British colonialism, that the Islanders are mere British implants, and not native to the area. Which I was pointing out you could apply to the Argentine's themselves!

This, and especially with Argentina given that the large majority is from European descent.

And I completely agree that it should go back to the Islanders. They are the ones living in the Falklands, and far as I know, there were no episodes of ethnic cleansing or any of that sort.

so what I´m getting from your comments is that the Argentines can´t complain or claim any rights over the Malvinas given their European origin?? it will be hipocritical if they did? Again, is being of European origin something that they chose?

How many people wouldn´t have right to say this or that about x or y matter because of their origins?

I really don´t agree with this.


it will be OK if Italy decides to claim soveraignity over a huge part of Argentina just because the are a lot of people of italian roots living there.
that is not how it should work.


The main people who should have a say are the Islanders themselves.


I do agree about that, and its the perfect cover up for the Brits to claim the territory, when clearly they have other interest in mind.

Argentina´s power is nothing compare to what Britain´s is internationally, its it clear that the Maldivas ending will benefict no one but the Brits.

the powerful one will end up getting what they want over the weak one, using double standars and other excuses to justify their final goal, I don´t think Britain had any real claim to claim that land as theirs. If we look at this exclusively from the "it should be what the habitants want" view, how many territories in the whole world would have a right to be independent or to choose which side they want to be on?? Would all those territories be aloud to do what they want? of course not.

But were talking about GB, other rules apply to them and their colonialism. BS!

what a wonderful world we live in:hearts:

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 05:57 PM
The Islanders position is harder line than Britains, so a compromise which satisfies both the Argentines and them seems unlikely. The British government was once indifferent to the Falklands, it scaled back it's prescence there, even removed British citizenship from the Islanders...what followed in short order was the invasion of the Islands by the Argentine dictatorship.

That legacy makes it politically untenable for a British government to now compromise on sovereignty. On other issues, defusing tensions, improving co-operation etc, then yes, compromise is possible.

what legacy? the once not caring a botu the Malvinas and removing citizenship legacy?

what if Spain decided to want the Malvinas back?? they would have more historical right over them than the Brits. would they have them? NO.

Like I said, this will be all about who´s more powerful and who´s got the "coolest friends" Britain ovbiously is the big one here and the outcome will benefict no one but them and their agenda, agenda which they are covering with islanders rights, Its not fair but that is how will always be.

Again, I don´t get whay argentinians are so into this or what good will be in this case for them, but their plees will be ignored, the UN is nothing but a favouritist organization that will do whatever their parents want it to do, regardless if its fair or not.

The argentines will have to settle with re-watching La Mano de Dios as any kind of comfort :oh: :o. sad but true :shrug:

Nicolás89
Feb 17th, 2012, 06:07 PM
i don't think the argument that the islanders themselves should decide is as strong as it looks to some. there were earlier attempts to settle the islands and people were not attached to them much for the most part of their history (not to mention that we're dealing with a very small population which can hardly be self-sufficient and i mean that in a very basic sense). the islands were uninhabited previously, but they were claimed by different states before. you can't just settle an uninhabited territory and years later claim that settlers who live there have the right to decide who can claim that territory. if that were the case much of australia or canada or indeed the falkand islands would be up for grabs. the british empire was not created with interests of local populations or states in mind and this was not different.

the situaion remains complicated in my opinion and needs a compromise solution. the one that would satisfy both the islanders and argentina.

Exactly.

antonella
Feb 17th, 2012, 08:08 PM
This pretty much explains what's really behind all this hand-wringing over la isla de ovejas:

http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120216&t=2&i=571778467&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2012-02-16T215158Z_1_BTRE81F1F9L00_RTROPTP_0_FALKLANDS-ENERGY

(Reuters) - Britain will share in a Falkland Islands windfall when oil starts flowing there later this decade and, with taxes and royalties estimated at up to $167 billion (105.7 billion pounds), the potential prize could inflame mounting tensions with Argentina over sovereignty.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/uk-falklands-oil-idUKTRE81F1LA20120216

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 09:16 PM
what legacy? the once not caring a botu the Malvinas and removing citizenship legacy?

what if Spain decided to want the Malvinas back?? they would have more historical right over them than the Brits. would they have them? NO.

Like I said, this will be all about who´s more powerful and who´s got the "coolest friends" Britain ovbiously is the big one here and the outcome will benefict no one but them and their agenda, agenda which they are covering with islanders rights, Its not fair but that is how will always be.

Again, I don´t get whay argentinians are so into this or what good will be in this case for them, but their plees will be ignored, the UN is nothing but a favouritist organization that will do whatever their parents want it to do, regardless if its fair or not.

The argentines will have to settle with re-watching La Mano de Dios as any kind of comfort :oh: :o. sad but true :shrug:

The legacy= the last time we eased back on our prescience there, made moves towards withdrawing support the Argentines invaded. That invasion is what makes its impossible for the British government to now scale back again.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 09:25 PM
This pretty much explains what's really behind all this hand-wringing over la isla de ovejas:

http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120216&t=2&i=571778467&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2012-02-16T215158Z_1_BTRE81F1F9L00_RTROPTP_0_FALKLANDS-ENERGY

(Reuters) - Britain will share in a Falkland Islands windfall when oil starts flowing there later this decade and, with taxes and royalties estimated at up to $167 billion (105.7 billion pounds), the potential prize could inflame mounting tensions with Argentina over sovereignty.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/uk-falklands-oil-idUKTRE81F1LA20120216

An oversimplification of history...again the main reason the Falklands remain under the British wing is because the Islanders want it. On numerous ocassions in the past the British were looking for genuine solutions to the problem, it was pressure from the Islanders which made things difficult. Nevertheless before the war, we were scalling back our holding there. Then Argentina invaded. That changed the whole dynamic. Politically it would be suicide for any British politician to surrender the Falklands without the approval of the Islanders. That is the true heart of the matter.

*JR*
Feb 17th, 2012, 09:31 PM
Gerry, plz send Irish freedom fighters to help the Argentines liberate their islands. :rocker:

dtUH2YSFlVU

Old thread in Pol SF: http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=450103

La Hermosa Cristina can have anything she wants, even moving Wimbledon there. :p

================================================== ========================================

Nicolás89
Feb 17th, 2012, 09:38 PM
An oversimplification of history...again the main reason the Falklands remain under the British wing is because the Islanders want it. On numerous ocassions in the past the British were looking for genuine solutions to the problem, it was pressure from the Islanders which made things difficult. Nevertheless before the war, we were scalling back our holding there. Then Argentina invaded. That changed the whole dynamic. Politically it would be suicide for any British politician to surrender the Falklands without the approval of the Islanders. That is the true heart of the matter.

But most of the islanders are basically British, which makes the whole "the islanders should decide for themselves" not a strong argument IMO.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:06 PM
But most of the islanders are basically British, which makes the whole "the islanders should decide for themselves" not a strong argument IMO.

This is the absolute heart of the matter...you just said that the Falklanders are basically British, even though many islanders have been there for generations, you see their claim to that land being theirs as inauthentic.

Huge problem...the Argentines are mostly European in origin too...so why is their claim over Argentina itself, let alone the Falklands any more authentic than that of the Islanders to their home??

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:15 PM
The legacy= the last time we eased back on our prescience there, made moves towards withdrawing support the Argentines invaded. That invasion is what makes its impossible for the British government to now scale back again.

you´re mentioning exclusively the Argentine invasion, but didn´t Britain invaded the Islands too? don´t choose the part of history that better suits you.

what right GB had to fight Argentina back when they went to claim the Islands the first time?? They weren´t Britain´s they were Spain´s hence they should have gone to Argentina :shrug: but no the Brits decided they were theirs and obviously got away with theirs, given they were the vastly superior one.

Sean.
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:21 PM
Just keep the damned islands and leave that people alone. This is just a ridiculous attempt by the argentinian government to deprive attention from other important issues going on right now (like both senators and representatives increasing their wages by a 100% just a few days ago, as a product of an inflation the government itself denies by manipulating economic indexes).

:yeah:

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:25 PM
An oversimplification of history...again the main reason the Falklands remain under the British wing is because the Islanders want it. On numerous ocassions in the past the British were looking for genuine solutions to the problem, it was pressure from the Islanders which made things difficult. Nevertheless before the war, we were scalling back our holding there. Then Argentina invaded. That changed the whole dynamic. Politically it would be suicide for any British politician to surrender the Falklands without the approval of the Islanders. That is the true heart of the matter.



oh please!!!

there are Argentinians and Chileans there too, so lets just speak about the Argentinians, hipotetically let´s say they live in the part of the Island where they have resources, and the part where the British live have nothing but fishes.

The Brits can have their bunch of peope under their mandate, because yeah right they only care about what they want, and let the part with the bunch of argentines and resouces go to Argentina.

Would it be a fine solution, would the Brits let it happen? NO!!


This is the absolute heart of the matter...you just said that the Falklanders are basically British, even though many islanders have been there for generations, you see their claim to that land being theirs as inauthentic.

Huge problem...the Argentines are mostly European in origin too...so why is their claim over Argentina itself, let alone the Falklands any more authentic than that of the Islanders to their home??

its is not the heart of the matter, is what they want to make the world thing its the heart of the matter but it is not.

and so like I wrote some posts back it will be OK if Italy decides to claim soveraignity over a huge part of Argentina just because the are a lot of people of italian roots living there.
how many cases would there be like this in the world??

Or lets have a GB case, the day when one grop becomes majority, and lives in half of England, that group wants their place stablished, afterall they have lived there for ages and arrived there a long time ago, they will have right to have their will done, regardless if tehere is a legacy to defend or not, right??:rolleyes:

it doesn´t works like that, unless the outcome beneficts the powerful one....double standars ftw :hearts:

the argentines´s opinion on the matter and that colonialism thing, according to my interpretation of your comments about duble standar is somewhat hipocritical given their history, a criteria like this woudn´t apply to the Islanders too?:confused: would it be fair to say if they want to be a part of Britain, their good and saviour goverment that, when speaking of the Maldivas, cares for nothing but their wishes should make all possible moves to send them all there....:shrug: :confused:


you can't just settle an uninhabited territory and years later claim that settlers who live there have the right to decide who can claim that territory. .

Nicolás89
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:34 PM
This is the absolute heart of the matter...you just said that the Falklanders are basically British, even though many islanders have been there for generations, you see their claim to that land being theirs as inauthentic.

Huge problem...the Argentines are mostly European in origin too...so why is their claim over Argentina itself, let alone the Falklands any more authentic than that of the Islanders to their home??

Because Argentines see themselves as such and see Argentina as their land, I bet many Faklanders see themselves as British first.

Halardfan
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:42 PM
you´re mentioning exclusively the Argentine invasion, but didn´t Britain invaded the Islands too? don´t choose the part of history that better suits you.

what right GB had to fight Argentina back when they went to claim the Islands the first time?? They weren´t Britain´s they were Spain´s hence they should have gone to Argentina :shrug: but no the Brits decided they were theirs and obviously got away with theirs, given they were the vastly superior one.

The history of the Islands is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make out. If you look at the timeline then you will see an absolute mess, centuries of claims and counter claims. Not clear at all.

Here is the reality, the Islands will remain allied to Britain as long as the Islanders want to. What should be made by both sides are efforts to reduce tensions, and improve relations. Both sides are to blame for the current situation.

Danči Dementia
Feb 17th, 2012, 10:59 PM
The history of the Islands is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make out. If you look at the timeline then you will see an absolute mess, centuries of claims and counter claims. Not clear at all.

oh I know the Malvinas history more than you imagine I, trust me, funny I was on team that defended the GB side and the Islanders will......anyways more names, more countries, different years my point was to say GB also invaded the Islands once and came back to claim it theirs with no right whatsovever after Spain was done in Argentina, how is that fair? and that they have no right to claim that land as theirs, nor the Islanders have a right to self determination.

Here is the reality, the Islands will remain allied to Britain as long as the Islanders want to. What should be made by both sides are efforts to reduce tensions, and improve relations. Both sides are to blame for the current situation.


Argentina is to blame for being trying to hold on to something that´s basically useless for them, they´re fighting for something with no substancial meaning other than getting rid of any shade of colonialism and gain more pride, which I can understand, but still what is there for them? get over it and move on, you are not going to win. The Brits are to blame for imposing their will even when its not fair and showing the world once again that law and all that international stuff that are supossed to make this worl a better one are nothing but a bunch of tools used by the powerful ones seeking their own benefict.

Sean.
Feb 20th, 2012, 02:05 PM
BREAKING NEWS:

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Argentina, Syria and Iran and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

:oh: